Obamas death tax makes US highest in world

TPD

TPD

the poor dad
The taxes just keep coming -

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...proposes-highest-estate-tax-rate-in-world.htm

Including state inheritance taxes, the rate would average 65% but could go as high as 68%.
Of 38 industrialized countries tracked by Ernst & Young, only Belgium would have a higher death tax, at 80%. But Belgium provides a lower 60% rate to immediate family members.
Click to expand...

Take a daughter who inherits from her deceased father a family home worth $1 million. If she sells the home, and it has risen in value by, say, $500,000 from its original purchase price, the first $250,000 of gain is tax-free.
But the woman would have to pay a 28% tax on the rest of the $250,000 net gain. She would have to write a check to the IRS for about $70,000, whether she is rich or not. This means that many estates with an asset appreciation valuation of $250,000 to $5 million that are not currently subject to tax now could be.
Click to expand...
 
Hijinx

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Call me stupid but everything you inherit has already had the tax paid on it byu the people that left it to you.

Inheritance (death tax) is just legalized theft.
 
T

tommyjo

New Member
The estate tax is not going up.

BTW...since you all and IBD don't seem to understand this point...the Federal govt has no control over State inheritance or estate taxes...

Idiots...the lot of you.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Estate taxation is among the most odious forms of taxation there are. The right of living beings to have their life's efforts inure to the benefit of their progeny, if they so choose and to the extent they so choose, is one of the most fundamental rights that can be conceived. It's essential to, among other things, the notion of property rights. And even bigger picture, speaking extra-societally, the desire of living beings to do for the benefit of their offspring is one of the engines that perpetuates life itself - that allows it to advance, to evolve, even to survive. Indeed, I'd say it's one of the defining characteristics of life - at least, of more advanced life. It's part of what it means to be alive, part of what distinguishes life from inanimation.

Taxing that process, that dynamic, so directly is evil. As much as most forms of taxation meddle with God's plans - with the natural dynamics of the Universe - this form of taxation does so even more profoundly. Enough already. Just as it is my right and God's will that I pass my genes on to my children, and work to provide for them as they grow, and keep them safe until they can do for themselves, and teach them right from wrong and all manner of other things - it is my right to give to them what is mine, whether while I live or as part of the transition that my death represents. Rarely is the government as much an ass as it is when it presumes to stick its hands between me and my children and claim for itself a prize, a substantial piece of my life's net work - sometimes a Lion's share of it, during that transition. A freaking disgrace, we should all be ashamed of being part of a society that behaves that way and presumes that prerogative.

To be clear, I'm not necessarily a fan of leaving all of one's accumulated wealth to one's children - particularly if there's a whole lot of it. I think I nearly agree with Warren Buffett on that front. But it should be my right to leave whatever of mine I want to them.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
Hijinx said:
Call me stupid but everything you inherit has already had the tax paid on it byu the people that left it to you.

Inheritance (death tax) is just legalized theft.
Click to expand...

Indeed, in general, on the first point. Such is the nature of transactional taxation. Money is taxed and then taxed again and then taxed again, the government siphoning off a portion of productivity / prosperity creation all along the way in a never ending cycle. The money we've earned, which has already been taxed, is used to buy things and in the process is taxed again. That spent money represents earnings for others and is thus taxed again. A transaction based tax system is a constant sieve, and ours (as is the case with many of them) isn't a particularly fine one at that.

That said, the point of this proposed policy change is to get at money that supposedly hasn't already been taxed - to allow it to be taxed (as income) before it becomes part of an estate and is then (possibly, depending on the size of the estate and other things) taxed again. We've long had a kind of loophole (though I much dislike that term in many contexts) where some income that would ordinarily get taxed can avoid being taxed. The capital gains that someone has in retained assets get a pass, so to speak, when they die. They haven't sold them so they haven't paid the capital gains that would be due on them, and the beneficiaries of the estate get to claim the market value at the time of death (or 6 months later) as their new cost basis for the assets. So, e.g., if you pay $10,000 for a piece of property and 50 years later when you die it's worth $5 million, and your children get it as part of their inheritance, the capital gains tax on that $4,990,000 (or whatever it is) doesn't get paid as it would otherwise.

Now, of course, that tax break - if we want to call it that - can be quickly lost and then some when it comes to larger estates where the federal estate tax is applied. But instead of paying capital gains tax on the increased asset value and then also paying estate tax on whatever's left, you just pay the estate tax. Either way it's horrible, but it's a little less horrible the way it works now - where part of the money subject to estate taxation hasn't really already been subject to income taxation. President Obama apparently wants us to switch to the even more horrible way of doing things.
 
Tilted

Tilted

..
The President's budget proposal will apparently also suggest that we levy a one-time tax of 14% on money that American companies have made elsewhere in the world (and which they don't bring to the U.S. because we still have this inane policy of threatening to confiscate a large portion of that money if the companies it belongs to decide to bring it here) even if they don't bring that money to America - i.e., don't []patriate it. Again, this is not money that has anything to do with the U.S., it is money that was made in other countries. It's Germany's or South Africa's or Ireland's business, it is their economic activity which they - and they alone - by right can tax. We here in America still cling to this ridiculous arrogant notion that we get to tax whatever goes on in the world, no matter where it goes on. In the alternative, we think it makes sense to tell companies they aren't allowed to bring money here - not repatriate it, that's not what we're talking about as the money was never here to begin with; that's a lie by label meant to confuse people and have them think the companies have done something with this money, e.g. moved it elsewhere in the world to avoid paying proper taxes on it - unless they first pay an entrance tax on it. If you want to bring your money to the U.S. to, e.g. pay dividends (which get taxed by the way) or otherwise return money to shareholders or build stuff to create more economic activity (read: jobs) here, you have to first pay an entrance tax on that money. In other words, we tell businesses not to bring money here - to leave their money in other parts of the world and, eventually, put it to use elsewhere. Not only is it a vulgar policy, it's bat#### crazy bad policy - it hurts the U.S. economy and the American workforce.

Beyond this one-time tax, the President is apparently also proposing a tax of 19% on money made elsewhere in the world going forward - again, even if that money is never brought to the United States. Simply amazing - amazing arrogance and stupidity. Most of the world has given up the notion of extra-territorial taxation, yet we here in America still feel entitled to employ it. By what right does a nation tax things that don't happen in that nation, that happen in other sovereign nations? That, in my assessment, is nearer an act of war than sound policy. We don't get to siphon off a portion of the economic activity that happens throughout the world, we only get to siphon off a portion of that which happens here. If other nations choose not to siphon off as much (within their borders) as we choose to siphon off (within ours), that's to their credit - that's something they're entitled to benefit from (e.g. by attracting more economic activity and creating more prosperity). It does not rightfully open the door for us to step in and say - hey, you didn't siphon off enough so we're gonna siphon off some for ourselves. Tax policy is an area of competition between nations these days, we don't get to mitigate the advantages other nations gain on us by way of more reasonable tax policy by substituting our own bad tax policy in place of it - in effect, force them to have bad tax policy (in effect within their borders) so that our own doesn't hurt us as much from a competitive standpoint.

Anyway, this is disgusting Mr. President. I'm to the point that I sometimes feel a little dirty when I sense a need to defend particular actions of his against unwarranted or mistaken criticism. I suspect this is just red meat for frothing masses, it's meant to score political points with people that have been successfully mislead about the issue (or whom are perhaps so consumed with hate or envy that being punitive toward others feels like an acceptable substitute for acting prudently). I'm fairly certain it - like the elimination of the capital gains step-up basis which was the original subject of this thread - won't pass, though I could see a broader compromise, if there is one, including a version of it with lower rates.


Obama targets foreign profits with tax proposal, Republicans skeptical
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top