Ending the estate tax: Walton's - $54 Billion / Koch Bros. - $38 Billion

[Prokofievian]

I don't want a wall

Wow. That was a real headkick....to my joke.

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

LOL literally arguing at "how much they've done for America". Tell me more about what a great thing Walmart was for America bob. After that, tell me what the average middle class farmer thinks of Walmart.

Y'all motherfuckers have no shame, at all.

 

[giusti825]

I think its the other way around. People who have a lot of capital are usually more able and informed in the ways to avoid paying taxes.

In the case of Latin America I don't think tax evasion is the source of the disparity, its rooted in the history. The whole place was a bunch of colonial fiefdoms with most of the population being disenfranchised and land being controlled by a precious few and that's how it was run for centuries. That creates a kind of inertia for the oligarchy that takes a lot of time and effort to overcome and I think polices like the estate tax should be a part of that effort.

In capitalist societies where bribery is legal, the corporatists have lawyers and lobbyists literally write new tax codes and regulations for their subordinate politicians to sign into law and give them kick-backs in the form of further bribes as an incentive.

When the political classs is allowed to accept bribes, the incentive to pay for policy changes becomes irresistable to corporatists. The wealth redistribution they buy from politicians makes them and the politicians much richer at the expense of the poor. Nothing unethical about that, right?

 

[giusti825]

LOL literally arguing at "how much they've done for America". Tell me more about what a great thing Walmart was for America bob. After that, tell me what the average middle class farmer thinks of Walmart.

Y'all motherfuckers have no shame, at all.

Its like they believe shoving their heads up their own asses and pretending plutocracy is good for capitalism makes them sound edgy or smarter.

 

[Rational Poster]

I am not a fan of any "death" or estate tax because all the tax for the money has been paid already.
It is much more important to get into serious taxing income and capital gains in the first place.
Because this just affects a small number of super-rich.

If you would have constantly collected 50% tax from everyone making 1 Million a year or so.
And 90% of people like the Koch's, Zuckerberg or Buffet etc.
Whatever they have left they could give freely to their children or whatever they want.

But it's not taxing money that's already been taxed.

It's taxing a new transfer of wealth from the deceased to their inheritor.

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

Its like they believe shoving their heads up their own asses and pretending plutocracy is good for capitalism makes them sound edgy or smarter.

I don't think you have to look any further than the footprint those two families have left on the last 20 years of this country, to see exactly why this kind of concentration of wealth is dangerously unhealthy for our country. Ask China and Russia how much they love these 2 families....

 

[snakedafunky]

But it's not taxing money that's already been taxed.

It's taxing a new transfer of wealth from the deceased to their inheritor.

Yeah, it's just not really a "transfer" because the deceased didn't willingly transfer the money.
They had no choice because they are dead. They didn't willingly transfer it and therefore agreed to pay the taxes for it.

But I get the point of such a tax. I just think that leaving money for your children or wife should not be taxed.
There should rather be taxes in place to tax it in the first place. Like with the Koch's any sort of capital gain taxes should probably be around 90% or so.
And taxes in place in case you make any money from the inheritance.

 

[giusti825]

We should find a way to fix this other than just straight up robbing them in taxes to make charts look better.

I dont think anyone was proposing taxing them at 100%.

Coming up with complicated tax schemes is how we end up like this. When a politician says tax cuts, its almost always (as in the trump plan) a tiny cut for the middle class while giving the wealthy the ability to buy an extra ferrari every year.

A targeted tax plan would be better. Instead of telling the people a tax cut is for the middle class and giving the rich 20x the cut, they should give the tax cut directly and only to the middle class.

This cant work in in a democracy with legalized bribery.

Fiscal conservatism leads to abject economic collapse.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/6sn82...am-brownback-s-conservative-kansas-experiment

Still one of the best daily show segments ever.

And im not trying to single out republicans, either. The democrats started selling their souls (and votes) in the 90s. I just used to be stupid enough to believe them when they lied about it, which the republicans never really did.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

I dont think anyone was proposing taxing them at 100%.

Coming up with complicated tax schemes is how we end up like this. When a politician says tax cuts, its almost always (as in the trump plan) a tiny cut for the middle class while giving the wealthy the ability to buy an extra ferrari every year.

A targeted tax plan would be better. Instead of telling the people a tax cut is for the middle class and giving the rich 20x the cut, they should give the tax cut directly and only to the middle class.

This cant work in in a democracy with legalized bribery.

Fiscal conservatism leads to abject economic collapse.

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/6sn82...am-brownback-s-conservative-kansas-experiment

Still one of the best daily show segments ever.

Well if you cut everyone's taxes say 2% of course the wealthy are going to have a much bigger savings than the lower or middle class. I'd be down with a tax cut that targeted a specific bracket. Say $20,000 bracket gets a cut because everyone who hits that gets the same cut, but you would still have people complaining that the poor people get shafted.

 

[cincymma79]

In the structure of wealth inequality within a first world economy, your asking for "a number" seems reductive and childish. Especially so, in service of your noble patrician's argument.

Asking for a rate when someone bitching about the rate is childish. You’re done. No more responses.

 

[giusti825]

Well if you cut everyone's taxes say 2% of course the wealthy are going to have a much bigger savings than the lower or middle class. I'd be down with a tax cut that targeted a specific bracket. Say $20,000 bracket gets a cut because everyone who hits that gets the same cut, but you would still have people complaining that the poor people get shafted.

Thats not whats happening. The wealthy are getting higher percentages in tax cuts in exchange for campaign contributions.

The tax burden has completely shifted to the working class since the 50s and 60s. Wages have effectively gone down when inflation is factored in. Jobs no longer offer decent benefits.

This is all despite productivity being the highest its ever been.

Piss poor tax policy purchased by plutocrats is destroying the country. The purchase of our political leaders lead to an extreme redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the extremely wealthy.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

Thats not whats happening. The wealthy are getting higher percentages in tax cuts in exchange for campaign contributions.

The tax burden has completely shifted to the working class since the 50s and 60s. Wages have effectively gone down when inflation is factored in. Jobs no longer offer decent benefits.

This is all despite productivity being the highest its ever been.

Piss poor tax policy purchased by plutocrats is destroying the country. The purchase of our political leaders lead to an extreme redistribution of wealth from the poor and middle class to the extremely wealthy.

I think we need to think up a new tax scheme. Maybe tax road mileage or distribution

 

[hillelslovak87]

Asking for a rate when someone bitching about the rate is childish. You’re done. No more responses.

I'll simplify this for you. A number would change with the economy. I would put the tax rate for the rich at new deal levels, then adjust accordingly.

But then again, I'm just a plebian who can't realize how much the patricians love me!!!!

 

[aitkenmike]

Oh, that is good news. So in your example, were it even correct, the one who inherited said farm could easily pay off that $3.6M over 15 years via 180 small $20,000 monthly installments, right? But that is only if the loan were interest-free, so...

As a portion of the expected annual income on a $20,000,000 asset, that doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

 

[aitkenmike]

Apologies as I misread to you calling their farm an estate as in them living in luxury, as opposed to a taxable estate in your post.

But you're still admitting they have to sell it to keep it, which is my point from the start in post #21. It's outrageous, and I've seen it happen with both farms and other businesses. It's sad, frankly. And it concentrates more wealth in those with the wealth to purchase part or all of their estate from them, often at sub-market prices as they may be over a barrel at that point.

Why do you insist they have to sell it. At a 5% annual return on assets (I don't think that is an unreasonable general assumption), there would be a profit of $1,000,000 before interest. There is plenty of head room to afford the loan.

 

[aitkenmike]

There shouldn't be an estate tax because all that money was taxed when it was earned initially. Why should that money be taxed again when it's given away to a family member?

Over 50% of the value of large estates is from unrealised capital gains - i.e. untaxed income.

 

[44nutman]

Good to know if I ever win the lottery, I wont be taxed.

 

[thechoice2]

Over 50% of the value of large estates is from unrealised capital gains - i.e. untaxed income.

Taxes are based on a cash basis not an evaluation basis, so when those capital gains are sold, then they should be taxed, but if their held, they shouldn't be taxed.

 

[aitkenmike]

Taxes are based on a cash basis not an evaluation basis, so when those capital gains are sold, then they should be taxed, but if their held, they shouldn't be taxed.

That wasn't what I was arguing. I was arguing that the 'they;ve already paid tax on it' argument isn't telling the whole picture.

To your next point though - I don't think it is unreasonable that a taxable event is triggered on the transfer of the estate to the inheritors.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Apply it to everyone then, flat rate of 35 percent across all inherited transfers. It's super easy to tout taxation when you have 0 skin in the game -- and if it's wrong for the rich to focus transfers for the benefit of their own blood line (or people of their choosing -- then apply that to everyone else).

Or, you could just increase state and local income taxes, introduce a VAT and a federal sales tax. That's how other countries balance not having an estate tax.

Or, just tell other people who are capable of wealth generation how their money should be taxed, with no worries on how your income is.