Death tax punishes responsibility

Surely AC's editors know that there is more kinds of taxes than "Death taxes"?????? The person in the above situation who spent most or all of his money paid sales taxes, most likely tarriffs, capitol gains, real estate taxes, and income taxes, federal and state, of all the employees of the merchant(s) who benifitted from the spending of the deceased. It is a false assumption that if one pays no death tax LESS total tax is paid; and also a false assumption that a "person who leaves his money to his children pay(s) more in taxes than another person with the same lifetime income who spends all his money on himself" Good Grief----Take your blinders off!!

United States is $11 TRILLION in debt with more than $67 TRILLION in unfunded entitlements. Everyday this country sinks deeper into debt by borrowing from foreign countries including from our economic competitors China and India. Americans claim that our society is a meritocracy not an oligarchy made up of aristocrats who inherited wealth. Certainly hard work should be rewarded, but government performs vital functions that must be funded. Taxes have to be raised from somewhere. Barack Obama's plan is to keep the exemption on the "death tax" for individuals whose estates do not exceed $3.5 million and for couples whose combined estates do not exceed $7 million. It is absolutely reasonable for death taxes to apply on estates larger than this. Why shouldn't higher taxes be paid on inherited wealth? Does the Augusta Chronicle editorial staff think that the Paris Hiltons of the world actually earned their millions? Why is she entitled to la dolce vita anymore than Americans born in less fortunate circumstances? So-called death taxes do not take all of the inherited estates of the super rich. It only taxes them at a higher rate. This is entirely appropriate in my plebeian estimation.

So far we have two who think it is better to spend everything, They don't think we should save or leave our children anything without huge taxation. Folks, realize this is exactly the kind of thinking that led to Americans running up personal debts to unheard of levels and voting Democrats into so many offices. Frugal, conservative, hard working people are doomed. How can anyone possibly argue it is better for someone to spend everything? But realize this is not only one or two saying it. It appears to be a majority of the voters these days. I can imagine elderly people frantically going on gambling and spending sprees to blow all their money to keep it from the "people." It will take death to get them to slow down as they run from the Death Tax.

Who wrote "spend everything", Riverman1? Save enough to will your children $3.5 million (or $7 million if you are married). You can also begin to divest your estate BEFORE you die and give EACH child $10,000 tax free EVERY year. Quit trying to put words in other people's mouths. Also profligate spending under George W. Bush DOUBLED the national debt in only 8 years. So-called fiscal "conservatives" where nowhere to be seen when short term profits were easy pickings. Democrat administrations have been better stewards of the national treasury than have Republicans for more than 30 years now.

As usual, Cain supports taxes that will punish the wealthy. Those evil achievers. They must be stopped! If we can't punish them for being successful while they are alive, then we will get them after they die, but punishing their children for having parents who worked hard to have something to leave to their children......after all, the government deserves the fruit of their labor more!

I doubt you will find many defending the spending of Bush, but Obama's plan is spending like the world has never seen before. He claims you can't drill your way out of an energy crisis, but he sure seems to believe you can spend yourself out of an economic crisis.

So Cain.....you ever care to explain why you think you deserve to stay on land that was stolen from the natives?

Cain will never answer you X. He just doesn't have an answer that would be acceptable. I mean, look at the rest of his communist posts.

Cain, the problem is that the logic doesn't fit no matter if the limit is $3.5-7 million. A Death Tax encourages wasteful spending to avoid taxes. But there is something you may be right about. You point out the $10,000 yearly gift and so on and that's what most people will do. Realistically, they will find ways to pass their money on and avoid the taxes, but that doesn't mean the logic in the tax isn't flawed.

But it would be irresponsible of me to just let him off the hook. I enjoy pointing out that he is a hypocritical coward....just in case someone didn't already know.

Just do what most responsible people are doing now, gift it to your children before you die and get around it alltogether!

The primary purpose of the death tax, like the graduated income tax, is to punish the successful so the government can redistribute the money to the unsuccessful. Punish the productive to reward the non productive. The libs sure know how to buy votes.

The annual taxfree gift is $13,000 not $10,000, our problem is spending not taxes. As usual the AC misses the mark just like supporting out 2 Big Spending, Big Government, Pro Amnesty Senators. Why doesn't the Paper get after Johnny the Socialist right now so he will have conservative opposition. All taxes are unfair but throwing away the taxpayer's money is also.

ONLY THE TRUTH, losing an additional 55% to taxes because the children will inherit isn't paying more in taxes? All of the other taxes you listed will still be paid when the inheritance is dispersed. Talk about blinders! (libs love to project)

True enough, Ga. Values. Tax abuse knows no party lines. It's just that death tax is the subject de jour.

If you have that much money, you can pass it in a trust without having to pay estate tax. Most people with that kind of wealth are sophisticated enough to make a living revocable trust. That said, the estate tax is ridiculous.

Taxing someones savings of any amount is just wrong at death. Tax was paid when earned and taxes were paid on the earnings each year. Taxes are also paid in the form of capitol gains if the investment is in stocks when sold and on the income derived yearly from the dividends.

In 2006, the estates of only 1 out of every 200 people who die owe any estate tax whatsoever, because the first $2.0 million of the value of any estate ($4.0 million for a couple) is totally exempt from the tax. (http://www.cbpp.org/5-31-06tax2.htm)

Further, the exemption level is scheduled to rise to $3.5 million ($7 million for a couple) in 2009 under current law. At this level, only 3 of every 1,000 people who die will have an estate large enough to owe any tax.
For full facts about estate tax: http://www.cbpp.org/estatetaxmyths.pdf

Myth 7: The estate tax constitutes "double taxation" because it applies to assets that already have been taxed once as income.

Reality: Large estates are comprised mostly of "unrealized" capital gains that have never been taxed; the estate tax is the only means of taxing this income.

Income taxes on the appreciation of assets, such as real estate or artwork, are only paid when the asset is sold. Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is held until a person dies. These "unrealized" capital gains can make up a significant share of an estate’s total value (http://www.cbpp.org/6-17-05tax.htm), especially among large estates — the ones likely to owe estate tax.

Democratic Senator Robert F. Kennedy once described the estate tax as a tax on widows and orphans.

Why are so many so concerned with a subject that will affect none of them. I really doubt that we have many posters here worth so many millions. BTW the folks on the hill are worried because thats how they got there, it wasn't hard work that did it it was great great grandpa period.

Most taxes as currently collected, punish responsibility. The exceptions are point of sales taxes (sales tax, gas tax, etc.). Stupidly, we're going to borrow more, the pay more out to more nonproductive people, then use our increased indebtedness to justify raising taxes even higher on productive people. Very, very stupid...

teharper, your reasoning is faulty, as usual. "Therefore, the increase in the value of an asset is never subject to income tax if the asset is held until a person dies." Um, it would be subject to income tax / capital gains tax when the owner's heirs sell it and take the profits. Irrespective of HOW the tax system is structured, if that asset's appreciation is somehow taxable, then it will be taxed when that appreciation is realized. And the philosophical / structural point is still valid: at some point, the initial purchase of the asset was made with ALREADY-TAXED dollars. And the inheritance tax does tax that asset again; not only that, but it taxes returns not realized. As we've all seen recently, the house may be "worth" $250k, but you don't receive $250k, you receive the house. Same goes for a business, a piece of artwork, whatever.

NOW FOR THE REAL ISSUE. Read it carefully, folks, this one matters, because what I'm going to prove to you is that Democrats and Republicans are EXACTLY the same on taxation. The only difference is that occasionally, a few republicans tell the truth about taxes, which generally results in them getting kicked out of office. Only the middle class pays taxes. Poor people have no taxable income, rich people pass their taxes along to their customers (the middle class). So, the poor pay only the taxes that are embedded in the cost of their goods and services, and the middle class pay everything else. Here's how you know that this is true: NO POLITICIAN OF EITHER MAJOR PARTY HAS EVER PROPOSED A WEALTH TAX. Think about it. The Kerry family is worth upwards of half a billion dollars. Kerry was all about raising taxes...on INCOME. Well, hell, you can tax his $150K income all you want. The Clintons are worth millions. McCain is worth tens of millions (hundreds?). Now, they'll propose a "one-time" tax on 401(k)s (middle class holdings), but they will never, ever propose even a one-time tax on WEALTH, because their money works for them. They tax people who work for their money. 'Nuff said.

From today's Corner, because somebody had said this week that "all economists on the right and left" agreed that the "stimulus" was necessary: In today's Wall Street Journal, distinguished Harvard economist Robert Barro estimated that the so-called government-spending multiplier for GDP associated with peacetime government purchases would be insignificantly different from zero. While left-wing economist Paul Krugman rants on about opponents to Keynesian stimulus-calling them quacks-a growing list of prominent academic economists oppose the Keynesian approach. In yesterday's Journal, economists Alberto Alesina of Harvard and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago rejected the Keynesian spending approach while suggesting that a capital-gains tax holiday would bring private investors back into the market. Stanford economist John Taylor also opposes the stimulus package. So does University of Chicago's Eugene Fama. So does University of Chicago Nobelist Gary Becker. So does New York University professor Thomas Sargent. And Harvard economist Greg Mankiw, who similarly opposes the Keynesian stimulus, has used his highly popular blogsite as a clearinghouse of opposition.

You can agree or disagree with the economists who don't buy the Keynesian view, but it's not Cricket to misrepresent them as supporting it, when they do not. Hey, look at all those guys who hold chairs at liberal universities...Ivy Leaguers, too...and a Nobel prize-winner...gosh...

GAValues: When did the gift tax reach $13000? IRS says it is $10000 per person ($20000 to a married couple).

Why are so many so concerned with a subject that will affect none of them. I really doubt that we have many posters here worth so many millions. BTW the folks on the hill are worried because thats how they got there, it wasn't hard work that did it it was great great grandpa period.
Posted by disssman on Fri Jan 23, 2009 10:10 AM
-------------------------------------------------- Dissman, it's because the subject is about doing what is right. Your selfish attitude is typical of the left these days.

Dissman, little wealth envy there fellow? Complain to your union.