And BTW, if you father a child before your mom dies, she can leave her entire estate to your child and avoid most inhertance tax. Better get busy.
And BTW, if you father a child before your mom dies, she can leave her entire estate to your child and avoid most inhertance tax. Better get busy.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Hazir proposed 100% tax rate on inheritance.Originally Posted by Being
So? A simple declarative statement? Did that make your dick wither up or something?
You're mixing NY state Estate tax and Property tax laws with Federal. That's why so many New Yawkers become snow birds, and list FL as their primary residence.
But there are ways to keep her home in the family; remove it from her estate, and transfer title to you and/or siblings. If there's still a mortgage you'd have to replace it with a new one, unless you can pay it off in cash. With no mortgage it can be bought for a token amount, but you'll still have to pay transfer tax, title search and recording fees (hidden taxes). Not sure if you can use a Quit Claim Deed in NY state (those are used more often to remove a name from a title, instead of adding one), but worth looking into.
Laws vary by state. In PA, we can't deed property directly to minor children or name them on the title. They've made it hard to die and leave property or assets to minor heirs, without going through probate court in a long drawn out process. I'm convinced it's to keep lawyers and accountants in business.
Sales taxes and income taxes aren't double-taxation. Companies deduct labor costs from their taxes, and people pay sales tax that just gets paid-up in the business taxes of stores. But to avoid this becoming really semantic...
Why does one work except to have a good life and provide a good life for their children? And why is the government a better destination for the millions of an estate than the child of the person who earned the money?
If you own a business someday and have children, and one of them wants to take over the business, why should it be seized from your kids when you die?
Yup, we're looking into that stuff. But it's complicated because of the whole co-op issue (the "apartment" is technically shares in a corporation that runs the building, like mine).You're mixing NY state Estate tax and Property tax laws with Federal. That's why so many New Yawkers become snow birds, and list FL as their primary residence.
But there are ways to keep her home in the family; remove it from her estate, and transfer title to you and/or siblings. If there's still a mortgage you'd have to replace it with a new one, unless you can pay it off in cash. With no mortgage it can be bought for a token amount, but you'll still have to pay transfer tax, title search and recording fees (hidden taxes). Not sure if you can use a Quit Claim Deed in NY state (those are used more often to remove a name from a title, instead of adding one), but worth looking into.
Laws vary by state. In PA, we can't deed property directly to minor children or name them on the title. They've made it hard to die and leave property or assets to minor heirs, without going through probate court in a long drawn out process. I'm convinced it's to keep lawyers and accountants in business.
Doth I spot an appeal to emotion amidst an economics discussion? I thought this was for us pinkos
It's also a slightly chauvinistic and myopic, but I suppose it would have majority support which ought to be enough hey?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Of course there is an emotional aspect to this. But I don't see how wanting to pass all of your belongings to your children is chauvinistic.
Not everyone wants to breed, even?
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
Yes they are. I* as a millionaire pay income tax on my wages, then when I spend my wages I pay sales tax - how is that not "double taxation". If I spend my wages I get taxed, if I don't spend my wages but leave them to someone else in a will I get taxed, what's the difference?
Similarly, when I* as a business owner sell something I incur sales tax. Then when I pay someone for what I sold I incur payroll taxes which comes from my post-tax income, again double-taxation.
* I am neither a millionaire nor a business owner yet.
You get taxed with the "good life" (ie spending) part, why not get taxed for the "children" part? What's the difference?Why does one work except to have a good life and provide a good life for their children? And why is the government a better destination for the millions of an estate than the child of the person who earned the money?
The government is not a better destination but that's an argument against tax in general not this specific tax.
It doesn't get seized, they just have to pay tax. The business should provide an income to pay that tax out of so what's the problem? Besides, businesses are one of the easiest things to bequeath since you can "gift" shares so there's no inheritance on that.If you own a business someday and have children, and one of them wants to take over the business, why should it be seized from your kids when you die?
Point is, if you have to raise the income from somewhere why should those who're working provide all the income? That to me is anti-capitalist.
Wouldn't it be nice if everyone spent as much time considering PEOPLE as assets, as they do money and taxes.....
Why? Because you can do away with most other taxes which are on productive activities. Hoarding money no longer serves any purpose.
Congratulations America
a. you really care more about the taxes you pay after you died than the taxes you pay while alive?
b. not all assets can be moved
c. with the universalist approach the US has US citizens can move their assets as much as they want, they can't escape the IRS (legally)Can be fixed easily by hitting excessive giving to these people with the same tax.
#2. Gifts to heirs (at the maximum before taxes will be taken out) will be made before death.
Which would be tax-evasion with all the risks of such behaviour#3. Gifts over the maximum will be done under the table.So?#4. Legal loop holes will be sought after and found. IE taking out huge life insurance policies (those are not taxed) using trusts, creating "scholarships" that will only go to family. Ect.They will have the right to spend their money as they like as long as they live. Human rights do not apply to death persons. ``
People who earn money have a right to do with it what they will. IF they choose to pass it on to their family that is their right. What you are talking about Hazir is blatant wealth confiscation and income redistribution.
Congratulations America
A 100% tax would be absolutely stupid.
a: More? No. Enough? Yes
b: Maybe not, but most can. Especially for anyone wealthy enough to be leaving anything worth taxing.
c: Garbage - hence why even you needed to clarify it.
No, not easily.Can be fixed easily by hitting excessive giving to these people with the same tax.
As well as making your pointless law absurd.Which would be tax-evasion with all the risks of such behaviour
Again your foolish notion won't work.So?
So? Alive is not the be-all and end-all.They will have the right to spend their money as they like as long as they live.
Not really, abusing the dead is a criminal offence I do believe, as is necrophilia etc - plenty of laws protecting the dead. Plus the point of inheritance is that it's not the dead person receiving it.Human rights do not apply to death persons. ``
Still, you can't kill a dead person and call it murder.
Actually being alive is the be all and end all as far as the law is concerned. The rights of the dead are not protected anywhere. Where they appear to be protected it's merely societies sensitivities that are addressed.
Congratulations America
Problem is that you are defining a tax-earning unit as an individual, while Dread is defining it as a parent and his/her children/descendants.
But Dread is categorically wrong. Besides spouses and corporations, we are all independent entities in law. There is nothing in law to back up Dread's claims and his logic would support the garbage of blacks suing for damages for what happened six generations ago - something I highly doubt Dread would support but should by his logic.
The phrase tax-earning unit proves my point even. If I earn a fortune from working I pay a fortune of income tax, but if I do nothing and my parent/child earns a fortune I'm not paying income tax on their incomes as I'm an independent individual.
Besides generic arguments against taxation I've not seen a single argument yet why death taxes are worse than income taxes.
And it is called a death tax for purely political reasons as shown by Dread's arguments. It is an income tax on the receiver not a tax on the giver. Dread might have more traction with me if he argued that it should be treated as standard income rather than a special income that inccurs a higher tax rate.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Once again, payroll taxes aren't paid by employers and (at least here) we tax profits, not revenues.
People who are sitting on piles of money aren't literally sitting on piles of money. They are keeping it in some kind of vehicle (stocks, bonds, property) that they are paying taxes on.You get taxed with the "good life" (ie spending) part, why not get taxed for the "children" part? What's the difference?
The government is not a better destination but that's an argument against tax in general not this specific tax.
It doesn't get seized, they just have to pay tax. The business should provide an income to pay that tax out of so what's the problem? Besides, businesses are one of the easiest things to bequeath since you can "gift" shares so there's no inheritance on that.
Point is, if you have to raise the income from somewhere why should those who're working provide all the income? That to me is anti-capitalist.
But I don't see how you can reasonably advocate a disincentive on capital accumulation. Estate taxes directly remove people's ability and incentive to leave something substantial to their children if they are lucky and skilled enough to make it to that point. Those children could invest the money (and pay taxes on the dividends and capital gains), they could start their own ventures, they could leave it to charity, they could spend it all.
But this idea that there are just pots of gold out there waiting to be collected is farcical. An estate tax is an asset tax, which is inherently far worse than a tax on activity. That you want to exempt homes means you intuitively get this. What if an estate is a private nature preserve worth millions? The government will compel someone to sell that to developers to pay a lousy tax.
Hearst Castle et al...
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
No payroll taxes paid by the employer? At all? Funny, that seems to contradict my conversation the other day on this subject here.
As for not taxing revenues: Just what are sales taxes then exactly? I distinctly recall paying sales taxes when I was in the states.
An inheritance tax is not an asset tax, it is an income tax. If it was an asset tax, it would be paid more than once. It is paid upon income only, hence it being a form of income tax.People who are sitting on piles of money aren't literally sitting on piles of money. They are keeping it in some kind of vehicle (stocks, bonds, property) that they are paying taxes on.
But I don't see how you can reasonably advocate a disincentive on capital accumulation. Estate taxes directly remove people's ability and incentive to leave something substantial to their children if they are lucky and skilled enough to make it to that point. Those children could invest the money (and pay taxes on the dividends and capital gains), they could start their own ventures, they could leave it to charity, they could spend it all.
But this idea that there are just pots of gold out there waiting to be collected is farcical. An estate tax is an asset tax, which is inherently far worse than a tax on activity. That you want to exempt homes means you intuitively get this. What if an estate is a private nature preserve worth millions? The government will compel someone to sell that to developers to pay a lousy tax.
As for what people could do, disincentives etc. All that is more true for income tax too. So tell me again: Why is taxing unearned income worse than taxing earned income?
It is absolutely an asset tax. This isn't income, it's an asset transfer within a family. We've all gotten things from our parents, right?
Say what? Yes they are.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I meant in the sense that employers are simply paying a tax that employees owe. Though I should have perhaps referred to it as a payroll withholding tax.
Facts get in the way of greed.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Nah its a labor cost which would come out of potential salaries.
Fixed.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Not a couple of million, no. An asset tax you pay all the time you hold that asset, an income tax you pay once only when you get it.
The fact it comes from parents is irrelevant. You've still failed to name a reason we should increase the taxes on earned income to eliminate a tax on unearned income.
Trophy wives can share in the income of rich money-making husbands, (at least when they are alive and married). The wife does not make any money but only spends it. She is not charged a tax on taking money from her husband. In fact, they may even have a joint bank account; say the husband dies and the wife actually put her own money on it: how do you determine how much to tax it? What about interest in the account? How much of that is taxed?
What about divorce? Does the wife have to pay 40% of the settlement in taxes? I'm pretty sure she doesn't; so now, would husbands get divorce papers on their deathbeds, perhaps?
The wife and husband (or wife/wife, or husband/husband) have a certain range of relationships. This range of relationships overlaps with kind a child, grandchild, niece, or nephew might have. If we are going to tax any inheritors, we may as well tax wives/husbands.
This inevitably leads to the conclusion that you are in fact taxing the transfer of wealth from one person to another inside of some sort of social unit that is well-defined as a family by societal standards. You simply cannot fairly do this, because you'd have to basically pry and micromanage every aspect of everyone's lives where money is involved.
It might then just be simpler to tax wealth just like property... is 1.5% a year overkill? (it can't be much higher than the interest rate on money unless you just want to basically gradually redistribute wealth and/or turn the economy into hell)
There's no inheritance tax for spouses, they're legally bound together.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote