I am a sexual pervert and Hazir thinks that makes me incapable of comprehending history, or anything
Heard it hear first, folks
I am a sexual pervert and Hazir thinks that makes me incapable of comprehending history, or anything
Heard it hear first, folks
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.
er wait WHY isn't leaving your money to your kids a transaction??
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.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)
Last edited by Hazir; 12-12-2010 at 01:48 AM.
Congratulations America
You're sure that belongs in this thread ?We're pretty much either a pimp or a whore, to use current lexicon.
Congratulations America
Was just trying to break the tension. Bad joke about power, sorry.
I am officially sorry I pissed on your idea of European Supremacy
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 nonethelessAnd to think you "guys" ragged on me for posting shit in the serious forum.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
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.
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.
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 12-12-2010 at 06:04 PM.
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?
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.Now I've lost track of who said what.
So in the US we do tax the dead, and don't tax gifts. No clue how the Dutch do it.
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.
Congratulations America
Seriously, you're not making any sense here.
For the third time, it's not about earners it's about assets. How can you keep blurring what's actually a very clear distinction?Yet, you've also complained about taxing the upper 2% income earners, on a scale that's proportionate to what middle income earners pay....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.
The executor can't make up a value for the assets of a liquid, marketable asset like a stock. The date-of-death valuation is held and the estate is forced to sell to raise the cash if needed, even if those gains are all unrealized stock market gains.
The income tax assumes what you said before, that someone making money is doing well for themselves. An asset tax is like a property tax, it just sees a big pile of gold and reaches out for it.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....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.
Why should people be forced to sell their assets before they die? Why should we actively try to prohibit significant long-term capital accumulation? Especially in the US, where we have so many African-Americans who are becoming wealthy for the first time in the history of their families. To discourage that money from staying within their communities seems to be especially...quizzical.
Because they are your kids and it's a single family unit. Taxing exchanges between them is silly.
***
A long but very readable summary of the various ways these kinds of laws don't make sense: http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/econo...ments/ed_m.pdf
We rarely manage to make contact
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.
Your attempt to make this about caring for African Americans is silly.
The question is not why we should encourage or discourage anything at all. What we have is a society that needs money for its upkeep. That is the why of taxation. You have so far not given any logical reason as to why it makes more sense to tax the living than to tax the dead. The dead are not going to suffer because of a 100% estate tax, the living on the other hand will get a significantly bigger part of their income disposable (if not all). The incentive for people to earn more would still be there as it would enable them to have a better life. Once their life is over their assets flow back into the commonwealth (literally) to provide for schools, roads, police, firemen etc etc etc which you don't have to burden the living with then.
You don't need a payroll tax, you don't need an income tax, you don't need a capital gains tax or a whole plethora of other taxes. The IRS pretty much would go out of business altogether. Small government as you like it and a tax-system with no loopholes. Death and taxation, both inevitable, would occur at the same moment and it's due only once.
It's also highly meritocratic, the best performers have the best life. Your own capacities decide if you're going to make it in society, not your daddy's estate. George W. Bush having no headstart over Barry Obama, that sounds pretty fair to me.
Congratulations America
very persuasive!
and dread, er, if those kids are adults then i'm not sure we can speak of family units in the conventional sense. are they treated as dependents eg. in insurance??
Gift Tax. I don't like the idea of gift tax. Why do we need one, is it to close certain loop holes?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?
This is actually pretty unrealistic view of the world. Who you know, and who you are make such a huge difference. Did you ever work at any large business, or a small one even? Did you ever go to a private high school? Did you not notice the rich kids getting off for what they did, or their grades being changed to pass classes? Or in any place you've worked, who gets hired, family of the owner, his friends, do they have to be good? No not really.. can they mess up and not get fired, ya. The same in government, the same in everything.It's also highly meritocratic, the best performers have the best life. Your own capacities decide if you're going to make it in society, not your daddy's estate. George W. Bush having no headstart over Barry Obama, that sounds pretty fair to me.
That said, I do believe that anyone hypothetically could be the next Obama, the next Warren, the next whoever either on a different scale or smaller scale. It's definitely possible to break out of poverty through hard work, and having some talent helps :P. It is MUCH harder than your wealthy counter part, and the job positions are less secure, fewer, and face higher competition for significant work. I agree it's possible for anyone to succeed, but your starting position in life matters a lot.
Last edited by Lebanese Dragon; 12-12-2010 at 06:28 PM.
I addressed why ASSETS are taxed. You just didn't like the answer.
Nothing is "made up". You can find recorded share prices for every market day by CUSIP number, going back decades. The difference between purchase price and DOD value can be used, OR the DOD face value, whichever is less. Generational gifts or inheritance of stocks is so complicated, we need special attorneys and accountants to sort it all out. And you really don't want to be an Executor of an Estate, it's a major pain in the ass.The executor can't make up a value for the assets of a liquid, marketable asset like a stock. The date-of-death valuation is held and the estate is forced to sell to raise the cash if needed, even if those gains are all unrealized stock market gains.
Great, now you're gonna bring in property taxes! Look, we all know our tax code is fubar. Ownership of cars is also taxed, from time of purchase to registration and inspections, year after year. I'm even taxed for living in this township, it's called a Resident tax. Professionals are taxed for their presence in the county, it's called a Business tax. Some things are called Fees instead of taxes.The income tax assumes what you said before, that someone making money is doing well for themselves. An asset tax is like a property tax, it just sees a big pile of gold and reaches out for it.
Fact is, we need to fund public services somehow. You make it sound like taxes have a life of their own, sniffing around for piles of gold or something. Taxes aren't inherently evil, any more than gummints or public services are evil. We could do a better job at the whole scheme, everyone agrees on that.
Again, WTF does being black have to do with anything?Why should people be forced to sell their assets before they die? Why should we actively try to prohibit significant long-term capital accumulation? Especially in the US, where we have so many African-Americans who are becoming wealthy for the first time in the history of their families. To discourage that money from staying within their communities seems to be especially...quizzical.
<And people are "forced" to sell their assets before they die all the time....because we don't have a comprehensive or affordable healthcare system, or an effective retirement / old-age pension system. Refer to Aimy's thread on social welfare.
There are a bunch of other exemptions, too, e.g. charities are completely exempt (ANBI's).
Dread, two things:
- Property/ asset taxes - there is the point that the more you have, the more you stand to gain by government services (police/fire protection is worth more if you have more).
- If you have to spend everything before you die, isn't that a huge stimulus to the economy as well? I thought saving was bad, money needs to be spent
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I didn't really understand what Hazir said. Giving money isn't taxed, but they'll retro-actively audit gifts that drop equity, and levy a tax? huh?
No, the tax burden (and duty to report it, I assume), is on the recipient. But if your money disappears, they're going to check where it went.
At least, I think that is what he meant!
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Yep.
Congratulations America
I would concur it's slightly optimistic, but it sure would level the playing field dramatically. And yes, I know what those privileged circles mean, first hand experience.
Congratulations America
Funny by the way how you didn't understand this after posting about the same problem being addressed in that article from the NYT you posted yourself.I didn't really understand what Hazir said. Giving money isn't taxed, but they'll retro-actively audit gifts that drop equity, and levy a tax? huh?
Congratulations America
Hazir, I meant your description of how the Dutch do it wasn't clear to me. Gift-givers aren't taxed. But if an audit shows the gifts were made only to qualify for state aid, gift-givers are taxed?
The NYT article showed how spousal refusal is being used to protect the healthy spouse, since long term care is so expensive. It said the state will SUE people who do that.....
The tax is formally levied on both. Part of it comes from the employee, as a witholding, and part comes from the company. You can argue, as Lewk did, that the company simply passes it's share of the tax on, I can argue that employees do the same.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Several of you seem to be acting as if I am against taxation whatsoever, which is far from the case. You're also acting as if these kinds of taxes actually raise a lot of revenue, which is also far from the case.
My position is that this tax is immoral, because I think it's immoral to tax assets. And that it's immoral to tax someone's savings that they intend to give to their children. It doesn't matter the amount or the exemptions, I find the concept to be odious.
A few points:
1) For the record I mostly support progressive income taxes. But this tax puts progressivism in the wrong place by taxing savers and threatens to destroy intergenerational capital appreciation. A society that can't look forward to building up assets over time turns the money side of life into a zero-sum game.
2) A reasonable tax code should encourage savings, thrift and helping the next generation through gifts, investments, etc. It shouldn't leave people with the option of blowing out their cash on an obnoxious lifestyle to die broke or seeing their hard-earned money disappear into a government black hole.
3) The idea that the wealth one accumulates over time should be "returned" to society via government confiscation is frankly bonkers. Someone's savings and assets have already been taxed as income when they made it. Taking it away after they die is senseless. The main goal of life isn't to feed government, it's feeding your children and giving them something to build their lives from.
But who will pay for the exquisite lining on those bloody jackboots?
Income, corporate and sales taxes should suffice.
Dread, assets aren't taxed until they're put into some sort of action. Then it becomes a transaction, and most transactions are either taxed, or credited from taxes. You know that.
I understand your "morality" and intent issue, but you're not doing a very good job at justifying either. According to your presentation, the fortunes of the "robber barons" should have been passed onto their legal heirs, tax free? Money makes money, and money buys power, keep the legacies intact? (Never mind that their fortunes were gained by exploiting both the worker and our legislature. Is that old history yet?)
Let's be honest here. Americans who inherit assets have a leg-up on everyone else. Old Money is treated differently from Nouveau Riche. But WHY?
First and second generation workers and savers are being hurt by current monetary and fiscal policy. Being thrifty has turned into retirees using a spousal refusal, just to afford long-term aged care. When the tide goes out, how many people do you really want swimming without trunks?
You getting something of value, whether you earned it or not, is income. Do you deny that?Income, corporate and sales taxes should suffice.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
But you've also balked at income, corporate, and sales taxes. Then you added dividend and asset taxes. Then you added inheritance taxes. If you're not against taxation "whatsoever", and you want social liberalism to pay for itself.....what's your proposal?Income, corporate and sales taxes should suffice.
And our healthcare system shouldn't force couples to enact a "spousal refusal" option, just to afford long-term care. The uber wealthy don't have to worry about this, but everyone else does. Including upper-middle-class. I seem to remember that you were against a Public Option in the healthcare debate. Have you changed your mind or reconsidered the alternatives yet?2) A reasonable tax code should encourage savings, thrift and helping the next generation through gifts, investments, etc. It shouldn't leave people with the option of blowing out their cash on an obnoxious lifestyle to die broke or seeing their hard-earned money disappear into a government black hole.
Last edited by GGT; 12-13-2010 at 03:41 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote