Printable View
If an asset is left to a spouse or a charitable organization, the tax usually does not apply.
That's wikipedia, but no examples...
Anyway, if your thinking is based on the law, then there is nothing to argue... the current federal inheritance tax ("estate tax") rate in the US is 0%, so you would lump the wife/husband in along with everyone else until January 1, 2011.
No, my thinking on that is based upon the institution of marriage. Married couples are united in everything and unless said otherwise what is his becomes hers and vice-versa. There's no inheritance for spouses as its already theirs. Hence upon divorce estates are split 50-50, again in general.
That is not the case for children.
Kids aren't legally bound to their parents? Come on, Rand.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Even just emotionally, most parents would sacrifice themselves or their spouse in a hostage situation for their kids.
No, they're not. You're appealing to emotion their Dreadnaught, if a child hits 18 and leaves the house are they entitled to half of their parents money?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Really? Your answer is that taxes should somehow take into account emotional attachment. Children are not legally bound to their parents once they reach adulthood. If your parent dies with more debt than assets, you are not responsible for the difference. You don't even have to buy them a casket.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I'm not appealing to emotion any more than the institution of marriage is an appeal to emotion. This is a family unit, moving money between members of immediate family is not a taxable exchange between two commercial entities. The law gives tons of rights to immediate family in a variety of areas. Prioritizing a spouse over a child makes no sense, legally or emotionally.
No, you are wrong. Marriage is a legal institution, parental relationships once the child reaches maturity are not. Moving money between immediate family members is taxable. A spouse has a responsibility for their partner a child is not responsible for their parent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Also, your parents have absolutely no obligation to leave you anything when they die. They can give their entire estate to a niece or nephew, to a charity, to a perfect stranger. When the emotions run in the wrong direction, you can be written out of their will.
Wow, still bitching about the estate tax? :confused: It's currently ZERO on estates under $5 million. Only the amount over $5 million is taxed at 35% (maybe 55%, not sure what's proposed now). What's to bitch about there? These are folks in the upper 2-5% on income/asset groups, most likely have Trust Funds for minors or heirs, and those aren't taxed at death. Family farms and some other family business corps are either exempt, or have 'vehicles' to protect them from taxes. What's to bitch about there?
Now, if we want to discuss 'fairness' in death and taxes, and who has balls to change policy......we should spend some time on the SS survivor's benefits. :bored:
If the Dems don't help pass the tax cuts for the rich the exemption for the estate taxe drops back to $1 million and the rate will remain 45% AFAIK. Only reason I'm still on this is because I find it hillarious that Dread believes he has any RIGHT to his parents fortune at all let alone that he wants it tax-free. Sure, his parents can give it to him if they want but they could just as easliy give it to the bum sleeping in their doorsill.
Seems to me, if anyone has a legitimate gripe, it's gay couples who don't have legal marriage status.
The institution of marriage is a means of perpetuating a family line and ensuring that the children are cared for. In a vast majority of cases, whether you look at it globally or historically, it has had little to do with appeals towards emotion, at least between the participants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Children having no responsibility for parents is news to me. And if two parents die in a plane crash and leave a 25 year old daughter, but have no will, I don't suppose the government will take the money for itself, right? No, it will go to the child.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
First of all, it's not accurate to say that this is about an "income/asset group", it's entirely about assets. If someone makes $5 million/year tax 'em, so what. This is about assets. Family farms aren't exempt as far as I'm aware. And if your wealth is simply in stock, you're being forced to realize gains that otherwise don't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
More importantly, that $5 million amount sounds large but it's a politically-driven and arbitrary number. Much like the AMT, over time that number will mean less and less and increasing numbers of people will fall under its umbrella. People who don't consider themselves wealthy.
The only reason people many people support this is because it merely applies to a dollar amount that sounds big. If there weren't that $5 million cap, no one would support this. And that says something about how objectionable most people find the tax, so they kick it up to a target that's politically convenient. Until of course in a few decades when $5 million is no big deal and we'll be clamoring for a raised limit. I don't believe in making a special tax just for a certain asset class or type of person. Taxes should be on things like actual income, activities, services, etc.
Historically, the local nobleman also probably didn't stop by at the funeral to collect 35% of the savings of the deceased serf. :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Because the serf didn't own anything
Fair enough. :)
What? You make a non sequitur and it's "fair enough"? Ugh
Yes, you made a valid point. My particular response to your post wasn't quite as relevant as it seemed. But the point addressed was also sort of a non-sequitur. So...fair enough.
The point is, you are arguing out of an emotional and self-serving (or chauvinistic, we can't know) position, to make federal policy.
I'm not worth $5 million dollars.
But I'm also not arguing out of any more of an emotional position than someone saying, "Well a $5 million+ inheritance feels like 'too much' so it's tax it once again at a very high rate." I'm just saying that particular pro-death-tax stance is based on a rather unpleasant and arbitrary emotion. Because they wouldn't want to pay such a tax themselves, they want some unseen "other" to pay it.
Tax people for their income and their transactions. Giving money to your kids isn't a transaction. If you all think wanting to support your children is some kind of pedestrian feeling, you are either dramatically in the minority or over-intellectualizing the process that brought most of us to life.
How can you over-intellectualize something? What do the processes that brought us here even matter when making sweeping policies of entire nations? You're sounding more and more like a Palin-esque demagogue.
That is not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
However I am still to see a compelling arguement as to why it is better to tax the income and spending of the living rather than the estates of the dead.
What is it with you and serfs
Well, the thing is I happen to know a tiny bit about the legal system that's called feudalism. It causes me to know the difference between a slave and a serf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
A difference I am sure has been waxed and waned over in academia but the point is, the people were owned and tied to their parcel of land. In the context of Dreadnaught and liberal NY politics, the difference is negligible. But go on ahead, I'm sure there's some Euro-centric viewpoint I'm missing here.
I guess there is some merit to your proposed method, but isn't their always time to abuse, it's just pushed back. The only real flaw over ours than what you said is that our politicians know who is replacing them the need to "push through" legislation or "stall legislation" depending on the situation is more apparent.Quote:
Those who no longer have a mandate shouldn't abuse the delay in the process.
Children aren't held liable for parents' debt, or the responsibility of taking care of them in old age/illness. And the gummint will try to find any legal heir for an unclaimed estate, whether they're children or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yet, you've also complained about taxing the upper 2% income earners, on a scale that's proportionate to what middle income earners pay. :hmm:Quote:
First of all, it's not accurate to say that this is about an "income/asset group", it's entirely about assets. If someone makes $5 million/year tax 'em, so what.
(I'm almost positive there are exemptions for family farms. Either that, or they can incorporate and be excluded from an individual's estate.)Quote:
This is about assets. Family farms aren't exempt as far as I'm aware. And if your wealth is simply in stock, you're being forced to realize gains that otherwise don't exist.
If it's about assets, for things like stock holdings as well as real estate, there's more than one way to skin a cat --- the Executor is supposed to get a market valuation on date of death (DOD), and another date of purchase (DOP) valuation. IIRC, they can choose the lower valuation for tax payments. Not a bad deal. They can sell estate stocks and pay the capital gains tax, which is still low at 15%, to balance out losses with gains. It's the estate paying its own 'income' taxes. I think you've been looking at this whole thing in a goofy way, no offense.
It's no more arbitrary than the "over $250,000" income bracket is more than $30,000-$50,000 is average income. Retirement planners have said a typical couple retiring today will need X amount in income-producing assets, to not outlive their money before they're 85 years old. X is currently more than $1 million but under the $5 million mark.Quote:
More importantly, that $5 million amount sounds large but it's a politically-driven and arbitrary number. Much like the AMT, over time that number will mean less and less and increasing numbers of people will fall under its umbrella. People who don't consider themselves wealthy.
I believe the middle and lower groups do need special consideration, mostly because they've been hit so hard the last few decades with stagnant wages, high costs of health care and difficulty of saving for retirement. That's the other thing about the $250,000 income bracket --- they can save as much in a year for retirement or college for kids, as the average wage earner makes the whole year. They can have a cushion AND a comfortable life-style. 5% more in taxes won't kill them, but 5% more for the 10% bracket is a 50% increase!Quote:
The only reason people many people support this is because it merely applies to a dollar amount that sounds big. If there weren't that $5 million cap, no one would support this. And that says something about how objectionable most people find the tax, so they kick it up to a target that's politically convenient. Until of course in a few decades when $5 million is no big deal and we'll be clamoring for a raised limit. I don't believe in making a special tax just for a certain asset class or type of person. Taxes should be on things like actual income, activities, services, etc.
Anyway, the point is, Estate tax is more like a tax for that final year of income, as if they'd sold everything in their final days. It's taxable.
Since there isn't any actual serfdom in present day NY I think we can safely assume we weren't talking about anything but the European servitude. Those serves had all sorts of duties and limits on their freedom, but they could NOT be sold as if they were property, also the could own land, houses and other property for themselves. That is not some narrow hardly noticable difference, that is a huge difference. I know in your warped idea of history it's all just the same; but you are dead wrong. And really, you should consider stopping using your idiotic notions of serfdom as examples for anything, because you simply don't know enough about it to even guess when the examples you use are any good. Serfs are slaves just as little as 1 + 1 = 3.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
I am officially sorry I pissed on your idea of European Supremacy :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
My views and all
Must be galling
Can't see how you can stomach my fucking presence
You're a saint
A somewhat rotund, homosexual saint
But a hero nonetheless
I would be quite happy if you wouldn't use the words serf or slave for the next two centuries outside your little sexual fantasies as you know zilch about either of the two. That has got nothing to do with eurocentrism or other shit you're trying here. It's got everything to do with the fact that you just blabber about any type of indenture. You know so little about the phenomenon in your own continent that I have even less hope for your knowledge about indeture in other continents.
We're pretty much either a pimp or a whore, to use current lexicon. :noob:
I am a sexual pervert and Hazir thinks that makes me incapable of comprehending history, or anything
Heard it hear first, folks
er wait WHY isn't leaving your money to your kids a transaction??
Don't know exactly which post you're replying to but leaving money to your children implies you are dead. And as a dead person you no longer can execute any legal actions. The legation doesn't take place untill after you died.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
P.S. he didn't say 'leaving' he said 'giving'. I agree with you that in the case of giving there is indeed a transaction that should be taxable (income tax)
You're sure that belongs in this thread ?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Was just trying to break the tension. Bad joke about power, sorry. :noob:
:haha: And to think you "guys" ragged on me for posting shit in the serious forum. :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Nessus
Now I've lost track of who said what. :( Dead people with assets have an 'estate', usually with a legal Will. Wills need an Executor to 'execute' transactions legally in probate court, treating the Estate as an entity of sorts. It's similar to doing a thorough title search when properties change hands, making sure all legal claims are discharged properly. The estate has to pay debts and liens, and taxes on assets that are like last income. At least that's how I look at it. People can give away money while they're alive, tax-free. There are some limits to that ($15,000/yr/person I think, and the people have to all be different). Lots of elderly do that in their last years, to reduce their estate's net value and estate taxation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
So in the US we do tax the dead, and don't tax gifts. No clue how the Dutch do it.
Can someone give me some insight into the logic of giving someone money as something that is taxable aka why do we have gift taxes. I understand that may open up loop holes in selling items. I gave him 100 dollars, and he gave me the watch. That the primary motivation? Or payroll loop holes.
I don't like laws that are purely designed to increase state or federal budgets, it's so arbritrary at that point.
Do you mean what's the point of a sales tax? I guess it's seeing trade as commerce, or a financial transaction with a behavior that's loosely defined as 'work' or 'service'? Some states don't have a sales tax, or an income tax, ya know. Taxes aren't designed just to increase gov't budgets.....but there are gov't services that need to be funded, with taxes. How else would it be done? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebanese Dragon
Here in Holland we do have an actual estate tax and giving money is not taxed, but recieved money is taxed as income. For money recieved from your parents there are some exemptions that are rather low. The idea behind that the welfare/healthcare system picks up the bill for those who can't afford nursing home costs through a means tested program. They didn't want people with actual means to give away what they own before the bill arrives.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The rule is enforced in a rather draconic way; even significant gifts in the past can be taxed retro-actively if they are found out. A sudden drop in equity of €50,000 would need a very good explanation.