Progressive Ideology

[D3 Fan]

If someone pays all of their required taxes throughout the course of their life and has something left over to pass on to their children (or whoever), then why does the Government believe they are entitled to more of that money upon death? i.e., what's the underlying "public policy" reasoning for it? Unjust enrichment of the next generation thereby creating generational disparities that carry on into the future, perhaps?

[NattyBohChamps04]

If someone pays all of their required taxes throughout the course of their life and has something left over to pass on to their children (or whoever), then why does the Government believe they are entitled to more of that money upon death? i.e., what's the underlying "public policy" reasoning for it? Unjust enrichment of the next generation thereby creating generational disparities that carry on into the future, perhaps?

Astounding.

The government is not entitled to any of that money upon someone's death (assuming they owe no back taxes). You can bury it with you if that gets your rocks off, and the government won't get a single red cent.

Now, if you give that money to anyone, whether it's your kids, your friends, a company, a charity, or some homeless guy on the street, that is now income for the person or organization receiving it, and is taxed according to the applicable laws surrounding it. The underlying public policy is simply taxing income. But the government doesn't get a cent of the inheritance for the first $5.4M for individuals or $10.8M for couples couple. Something like 99.9% of all inheritances aren't taxed at all.

So basically it's a handout. Why shouldn't rich kids have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else?

[Farfromgeneva]

Well technically if you buried it with you they’d get it as unclaimed assets eventually. Then it’s even more unaccountable dough for the govt coffers.

[lagerhead]

If someone pays all of their required taxes throughout the course of their life and has something left over to pass on to their children (or whoever), then why does the Government believe they are entitled to more of that money upon death? i.e., what's the underlying "public policy" reasoning for it? Unjust enrichment of the next generation thereby creating generational disparities that carry on into the future, perhaps?

Astounding.

The government is not entitled to any of that money upon someone's death (assuming they owe no back taxes). You can bury it with you if that gets your rocks off, and the government won't get a single red cent.

Now, if you give that money to anyone, whether it's your kids, your friends, a company, a charity, or some homeless guy on the street, that is now income for the person or organization receiving it, and is taxed according to the applicable laws surrounding it. The underlying public policy is simply taxing income. But the government doesn't get a cent of the inheritance for the first $5.4M for individuals or $10.8M for couples couple. Something like 99.9% of all inheritances aren't taxed at all.

So basically it's a handout. Why shouldn't rich kids have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else?

It’s not a handout. The step up rule should be changed, length of holding on to the asset should be considered. Government should only be able to tax the gains on the initial investment. Taxes should be paid upon the inheritance on those gains only.

[MDlaxfan76]

If someone pays all of their required taxes throughout the course of their life and has something left over to pass on to their children (or whoever), then why does the Government believe they are entitled to more of that money upon death? i.e., what's the underlying "public policy" reasoning for it? Unjust enrichment of the next generation thereby creating generational disparities that carry on into the future, perhaps?

Astounding.

The government is not entitled to any of that money upon someone's death (assuming they owe no back taxes). You can bury it with you if that gets your rocks off, and the government won't get a single red cent.

Now, if you give that money to anyone, whether it's your kids, your friends, a company, a charity, or some homeless guy on the street, that is now income for the person or organization receiving it, and is taxed according to the applicable laws surrounding it. The underlying public policy is simply taxing income. But the government doesn't get a cent of the inheritance for the first $5.4M for individuals or $10.8M for couples couple. Something like 99.9% of all inheritances aren't taxed at all.

So basically it's a handout. Why shouldn't rich kids have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else?

And with a few million as a running head start for that bootstrap pulling!

Let me take a crack at the rationale for at least some exclusion of the first dollars of an inheritance: The person earning that income is doing so not motivated solely for themselves but rather, often, for the benefit of others, typically their family. The family as a whole, certainly often the spouse, and even kids, contribute to that earning and the sacrifices and risks taken to achieve the wealth accumulation, whether that be small or large.

Our economic system depends in large part upon those efforts and contributions as the engines of work, creativity and risk taking. We believe people will do more such if they feel they will be able to pass it on to their families, or to the charities they care about. So, we enable at least some such to occur without further taxation.

The question then becomes how much?
Should for instance a small family business or family farm need to be sold or leveraged in order to pass it on to surviving heirs? Really?

So, the argument then becomes where inheritance taxes should kick in...I think the 99+% reflects not the % of all inheritance dollars not taxed, but rather the #'s of people with inheritances, including tiny ones, who don't need to pay an additional tax.

Where I have difficulty coming up with a rationale for not taxing is when the #'s get really big...and yeah, that's a matter of perspective. The closer you are to the threshold, the more it looks like a higher threshold would be just fine!

[lagerhead]

If someone pays all of their required taxes throughout the course of their life and has something left over to pass on to their children (or whoever), then why does the Government believe they are entitled to more of that money upon death? i.e., what's the underlying "public policy" reasoning for it? Unjust enrichment of the next generation thereby creating generational disparities that carry on into the future, perhaps?

Astounding.

The government is not entitled to any of that money upon someone's death (assuming they owe no back taxes). You can bury it with you if that gets your rocks off, and the government won't get a single red cent.

Now, if you give that money to anyone, whether it's your kids, your friends, a company, a charity, or some homeless guy on the street, that is now income for the person or organization receiving it, and is taxed according to the applicable laws surrounding it. The underlying public policy is simply taxing income. But the government doesn't get a cent of the inheritance for the first $5.4M for individuals or $10.8M for couples couple. Something like 99.9% of all inheritances aren't taxed at all.

So basically it's a handout. Why shouldn't rich kids have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else?

And with a few million as a running head start for that bootstrap pulling!

Let me take a crack at the rationale for at least some exclusion of the first dollars of an inheritance: The person earning that income is doing so not motivated solely for themselves but rather, often, for the benefit of others, typically their family. The family as a whole, certainly often the spouse, and even kids, contribute to that earning and the sacrifices and risks taken to achieve the wealth accumulation, whether that be small or large.

Our economic system depends in large part upon those efforts and contributions as the engines of work, creativity and risk taking. We believe people will do more such if they feel they will be able to pass it on to their families, or to the charities they care about. So, we enable at least some such to occur without further taxation.

The question then becomes how much?
Should for instance a small family business or family farm need to be sold or leveraged in order to pass it on to surviving heirs? Really?

So, the argument then becomes where inheritance taxes should kick in...I think the 99+% reflects not the % of all inheritance dollars not taxed, but rather the #'s of people with inheritances, including tiny ones, who don't need to pay an additional tax.

Where I have difficulty coming up with a rationale for not taxing is when the #'s get really big...and yeah, that's a matter of perspective. The closer you are to the threshold, the more it looks like a higher threshold would be just fine!

I don’t like this. A multigenerational family builds a huge business pays individual income taxes, corporates taxes, the owners pay capital gains taxes and you want to go after it again? Capital gains should be managed so they are paid year over year, marked to market. I think the question becomes which assets can be valued year over year fairly. Stocks, bonds, real estate (you pay real estates taxes every year what’s your ratable? Ain’t mkt value I’d bet) easy. Art? The successful business has paid all its taxes yearly. The level of inheritance should not matter.

I live in NJ I’d be all for seeing the SALT allowance eliminated, no fed deductions for state and local taxes.

[NattyBohChamps04]

If someone pays all of their required taxes throughout the course of their life and has something left over to pass on to their children (or whoever), then why does the Government believe they are entitled to more of that money upon death? i.e., what's the underlying "public policy" reasoning for it? Unjust enrichment of the next generation thereby creating generational disparities that carry on into the future, perhaps?

Astounding.

The government is not entitled to any of that money upon someone's death (assuming they owe no back taxes). You can bury it with you if that gets your rocks off, and the government won't get a single red cent.

Now, if you give that money to anyone, whether it's your kids, your friends, a company, a charity, or some homeless guy on the street, that is now income for the person or organization receiving it, and is taxed according to the applicable laws surrounding it. The underlying public policy is simply taxing income. But the government doesn't get a cent of the inheritance for the first $5.4M for individuals or $10.8M for couples couple. Something like 99.9% of all inheritances aren't taxed at all.

So basically it's a handout. Why shouldn't rich kids have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else?

It’s not a handout. The step up rule should be changed, length of holding on to the asset should be considered. Government should only be able to tax the gains on the initial investment. Taxes should be paid upon the inheritance on those gains only.

It's literally a handout. Giving millions of dollars free to some kid that didn't earn it. I'm perfectly fine with the current limits, but it makes more sense if a family is passing down a farm or business than straight cash.

So when you buy a pizza, the pizza company should pay less taxes on that revenue since it was already taxed when you earned it?

At any rate, the government isn't taking people's money when they die. It's just another one of those angry scare tactics the right likes to trot out to whip their base into a frothy mess when 99.9% of them aren't going to see any taxes at all on their inheritances.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Well technically if you buried it with you they’d get it as unclaimed assets eventually. Then it’s even more unaccountable dough for the govt coffers.

Alternative solution:



I guess that's defacement, but if you're on your deathbed...

I suppose the cleanest way would be to transfer it all to Bitcoin and then delete your wallet file. All that money gone with a keystroke.

[D3 Fan]

To everyone except nattyboh, thank you for your responses, very helpful and informative.

Natty, you've been on the board a matter of days and have quite the edge in responding towards me, especially your very first, completely unnecessary post. Unsure what the issue is but I'd appreciate it if you tailed off a bit. I'm here to learn differing perspectives on many fascinating and important topics and to discuss the great game of lacrosse, not be insulted by being called disingenuous, misinformed or make you "astounded" that I dare ask such a simple question about inheritance tax. Not looking to argue but there's no reason to grind an axe on me.

[Peter Brown]

If someone pays all of their required taxes throughout the course of their life and has something left over to pass on to their children (or whoever), then why does the Government believe they are entitled to more of that money upon death? i.e., what's the underlying "public policy" reasoning for it? Unjust enrichment of the next generation thereby creating generational disparities that carry on into the future, perhaps?

Astounding.

The government is not entitled to any of that money upon someone's death (assuming they owe no back taxes). You can bury it with you if that gets your rocks off, and the government won't get a single red cent.

Now, if you give that money to anyone, whether it's your kids, your friends, a company, a charity, or some homeless guy on the street, that is now income for the person or organization receiving it, and is taxed according to the applicable laws surrounding it. The underlying public policy is simply taxing income. But the government doesn't get a cent of the inheritance for the first $5.4M for individuals or $10.8M for couples couple. Something like 99.9% of all inheritances aren't taxed at all.

So basically it's a handout. Why shouldn't rich kids have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else?

It’s not a handout. The step up rule should be changed, length of holding on to the asset should be considered. Government should only be able to tax the gains on the initial investment. Taxes should be paid upon the inheritance on those gains only.

It's literally a handout. Giving millions of dollars free to some kid that didn't earn it. I'm perfectly fine with the current limits, but it makes more sense if a family is passing down a farm or business than straight cash.

So when you buy a pizza, the pizza company should pay less taxes on that revenue since it was already taxed when you earned it?

At any rate, the government isn't taking people's money when they die. It's just another one of those angry scare tactics the right likes to trot out to whip their base into a frothy mess when 99.9% of them aren't going to see any taxes at all on their inheritances.

What in the moronic tarnation does this unrivaled clodheadishness post attempt to convey here? That because most of you haven’t saved your dough but rather spent it on cheap booze and Mary Jane Rottencrotch, you’ll never see the death tax? Or that others who do save, eff them they’re rich tax the living beejesus out of them successful capitalistic ingrates?

Someone help me. My brain is spinning, waiting to attack this mucus cloud philosophy of pro -tax saucing sausage.

Gracias.

[lagerhead]

If someone pays all of their required taxes throughout the course of their life and has something left over to pass on to their children (or whoever), then why does the Government believe they are entitled to more of that money upon death? i.e., what's the underlying "public policy" reasoning for it? Unjust enrichment of the next generation thereby creating generational disparities that carry on into the future, perhaps?

Astounding.

The government is not entitled to any of that money upon someone's death (assuming they owe no back taxes). You can bury it with you if that gets your rocks off, and the government won't get a single red cent.

Now, if you give that money to anyone, whether it's your kids, your friends, a company, a charity, or some homeless guy on the street, that is now income for the person or organization receiving it, and is taxed according to the applicable laws surrounding it. The underlying public policy is simply taxing income. But the government doesn't get a cent of the inheritance for the first $5.4M for individuals or $10.8M for couples couple. Something like 99.9% of all inheritances aren't taxed at all.

So basically it's a handout. Why shouldn't rich kids have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else?

It’s not a handout. The step up rule should be changed, length of holding on to the asset should be considered. Government should only be able to tax the gains on the initial investment. Taxes should be paid upon the inheritance on those gains only.

It's literally a handout. Giving millions of dollars free to some kid that didn't earn it. I'm perfectly fine with the current limits, but it makes more sense if a family is passing down a farm or business than straight cash.

So when you buy a pizza, the pizza company should pay less taxes on that revenue since it was already taxed when you earned it?

At any rate, the government isn't taking people's money when they die. It's just another one of those angry scare tactics the right likes to trot out to whip their base into a frothy mess when 99.9% of them aren't going to see any taxes at all on their inheritances.

Papa john you’ve spent you career building a franchise; you’ve paid corporate taxes, income taxes and capital gains taxes real estate taxes and you want the fed and state to tax the money again?

[Peter Brown]

If someone pays all of their required taxes throughout the course of their life and has something left over to pass on to their children (or whoever), then why does the Government believe they are entitled to more of that money upon death? i.e., what's the underlying "public policy" reasoning for it? Unjust enrichment of the next generation thereby creating generational disparities that carry on into the future, perhaps?

Astounding.

The government is not entitled to any of that money upon someone's death (assuming they owe no back taxes). You can bury it with you if that gets your rocks off, and the government won't get a single red cent.

Now, if you give that money to anyone, whether it's your kids, your friends, a company, a charity, or some homeless guy on the street, that is now income for the person or organization receiving it, and is taxed according to the applicable laws surrounding it. The underlying public policy is simply taxing income. But the government doesn't get a cent of the inheritance for the first $5.4M for individuals or $10.8M for couples couple. Something like 99.9% of all inheritances aren't taxed at all.

So basically it's a handout. Why shouldn't rich kids have to pull themselves up by their bootstraps like everyone else?

Me me me. Let me answer.

It’s safe to assume that most libs haven’t done squat with their lives, thereby never accumulating any wealth to pass on to anyone. Their animus to success (libs they love estate taxes!!!!) is based on a fundamental precept, which is, they actually hate themselves. They wasted their one shot at life. Hence the enormous jealousy and envy at anyone who wakes up every day with a smile and desire to help people (ps: This is also why libs happen to be the least charitable people on the planet).

The death tax is immoral. It is a dividing line of who is moral and not in any society (as is school choice but let’s not digress!).

D3: you’re an earnest dude seeking answers. Don’t look for truth from any liberal, ever,

Thanks for coming to this TED talk.

[Farfromgeneva]

To everyone except nattyboh, thank you for your responses, very helpful and informative.

Natty, you've been on the board a matter of days and have quite the edge in responding towards me, especially your very first, completely unnecessary post. Unsure what the issue is but I'd appreciate it if you tailed off a bit. I'm here to learn differing perspectives on many fascinating and important topics and to discuss the great game of lacrosse, not be insulted by being called disingenuous, misinformed or make you "astounded" that I dare ask such a simple question about inheritance tax. Not looking to argue but there's no reason to grind an axe on me.

You had it originally (w a ?). It’s a transfer, not an asset owned by the children. Certainly not earned by the children. I’m with MD that unless you want to throw out (“the Protestant ethic and spirit of) capitalism then taking some ability to pass wealth down to children will reduce incentives which are what drives our economy. (As well as most behavior in humanity).

My issue is if you believe there’s a threshold, say $5mm, then that’s it. I don’t care if it’s a farm or all the graded mint Mickey mantle rookie cards or NFT art. If you believe the number is the number then don’t come back carving out politically sensitive stuff (as both sides do and it’s gross). There’s nothing sacrosanct about farms and I object to the language of heuristics used to defend hypocrisy. I find statements used like “but we can’t create unintended consequences like losing family farms” or “I’m laying down the marker and I have 13 colleagues (enough to kill any deal) and we have difficult seats” (translated as I care more about my job than principle) or (and here’s the real Bs) “Id this goes through there’s a lot of people responsible for putting safe and healthy food on peoples tables that will be greatly impacted” (create fear because we can’t have safe and healthy food if families have to pay a inheritance tax”.

How about this? Don’t have a decade of ZIRP, but corporate bonds, operation twist (Balance sheet expansion can not allowing the runoff and extending the duration of the book) and treasury throwing bailout dough at businesses like Yellow Roadways because we need union drivers. Then you wouldn’t have ag land values detached from the discounted cash flow of what can be produced. Know how I know? Se bank loan books in many states where they have land bank loans that lean on tillable value which is a bastardization of the concept of “highest and best use” which is a critical part of appraisal valuation. Stuff through rural Pa that’s worth $500-$2500/ac is getting valuations of $3-$7k/ac due to loose money policy.

[lagerhead]

To everyone except nattyboh, thank you for your responses, very helpful and informative.

Natty, you've been on the board a matter of days and have quite the edge in responding towards me, especially your very first, completely unnecessary post. Unsure what the issue is but I'd appreciate it if you tailed off a bit. I'm here to learn differing perspectives on many fascinating and important topics and to discuss the great game of lacrosse, not be insulted by being called disingenuous, misinformed or make you "astounded" that I dare ask such a simple question about inheritance tax. Not looking to argue but there's no reason to grind an axe on me.

You had it originally (w a ?). It’s a transfer, not an asset owned by the children. Certainly not earned by the children. I’m with MD that unless you want to throw out (“the Protestant ethic and spirit of) capitalism then taking some ability to pass wealth down to children will reduce incentives which are what drives our economy. (As well as most behavior in humanity).

My issue is if you believe there’s a threshold, say $5mm, then that’s it. I don’t care if it’s a farm or all the graded mint Mickey mantle rookie cards or NFT art. If you believe the number is the number then don’t come back carving out politically sensitive stuff (as both sides do and it’s gross). There’s nothing sacrosanct about farms and I object to the language of heuristics used to defend hypocrisy. I find statements used like “but we can’t create unintended consequences like losing family farms” or “I’m laying down the marker and I have 13 colleagues (enough to kill any deal) and we have difficult seats” (translated as I care more about my job than principle) or (and here’s the real Bs) “Id this goes through there’s a lot of people responsible for putting safe and healthy food on peoples tables that will be greatly impacted” (create fear because we can’t have safe and healthy food if families have to pay a inheritance tax”.

How about this? Don’t have a decade of ZIRP, but corporate bonds, operation twist (Balance sheet expansion can not allowing the runoff and extending the duration of the book) and treasury throwing bailout dough at businesses like Yellow Roadways because we need union drivers. Then you wouldn’t have ag land values detached from the discounted cash flow of what can be produced. Know how I know? Se bank loan books in many states where they have land bank loans that lean on tillable value which is a bastardization of the concept of “highest and best use” which is a critical part of appraisal valuation. Stuff through rural Pa that’s worth $500-$2500/ac is getting valuations of $3-$7k/ac due to loose money policy.

FFG what about investments in Munis and tax free government vehicles, both local and fed? Tax the interest? Not as attractive then.

[Farfromgeneva]

Double taxation is an entirely different discussion settled more than a 100yrs ago.

Same reason you can deduct some things from state that go into federal.

But to the higher level question I loathe how much governments rig the system to obtain cheaper financing. A bank can carry a direct Us obligation and it’s weighed as 0% of an asset on a banks books. Muni bonds are 20% and 50% (general obligation and revenue bonds). Agency’s debentures are 0-20%. So banks can and at m incentivized you hold their liquidity in government debts and banks need 15-20% of their asset base liquid basically for lack or a better description to avoid having a Jimmy Stewart like run on the banks. I can provide a hundred other regulatory jokes like this. Basel 2 & 3 continue to push institutional investors into govt debt indirectly.

So forget the tax deductibility, ours and the rest of the worlds governments have and continue to create a system that incentives capital flows into their coffers and allows profligate spending with less accountability.

[Farfromgeneva]

I should add that the Fed takes what they giveth as they’ve pushed many operating and permanent obligations onto states over the past two decades.

[lagerhead]

[quote=Farfromgeneva post_id=256784 time=1620353380 user_id=1206

But to the higher level question I loathe how much governments rig the system to obtain cheaper financing.

So forget the tax deductibility, ours and the rest of the worlds governments have and continue to create a system that incentives capital flows into their coffers and allows profligate spending with less accountability.
[/quote]

Yep taxes(revenue) and cheapest financing available they still eff it up. Seems the debit side needs to be addressed.

[NattyBohChamps04]

It's literally a handout. Giving millions of dollars free to some kid that didn't earn it. I'm perfectly fine with the current limits, but it makes more sense if a family is passing down a farm or business than straight cash.

So when you buy a pizza, the pizza company should pay less taxes on that revenue since it was already taxed when you earned it?

At any rate, the government isn't taking people's money when they die. It's just another one of those angry scare tactics the right likes to trot out to whip their base into a frothy mess when 99.9% of them aren't going to see any taxes at all on their inheritances.

What in the moronic tarnation does this unrivaled clodheadishness post attempt to convey here? That because most of you haven’t saved your dough but rather spent it on cheap booze and Mary Jane Rottencrotch, you’ll never see the death tax? Or that others who do save, eff them they’re rich tax the living beejesus out of them successful capitalistic ingrates?

Someone help me. My brain is spinning, waiting to attack this mucus cloud philosophy of pro -tax saucing sausage.

Gracias.

Well of course your brain is spinning. No surprise there.

Not sure how I can get through to you, but there is literally no such thing as a death tax. You do not have to pay any new tax money to the government when you die.


Hope that helps!

[lagerhead]

I should add that the Fed takes what they giveth as they’ve pushed many operating and permanent obligations onto states over the past two decades.

My state can’t survive without SALT, I loathe that.

[NattyBohChamps04]

To everyone except nattyboh, thank you for your responses, very helpful and informative.

Natty, you've been on the board a matter of days and have quite the edge in responding towards me, especially your very first, completely unnecessary post. Unsure what the issue is but I'd appreciate it if you tailed off a bit. I'm here to learn differing perspectives on many fascinating and important topics and to discuss the great game of lacrosse, not be insulted by being called disingenuous, misinformed or make you "astounded" that I dare ask such a simple question about inheritance tax. Not looking to argue but there's no reason to grind an axe on me.

If you're interested in actual learning, don't ask extremely loaded questions looking for a one-sided perspective to confirm your beliefs. There are much better ways to engage differing perspectives. Re-read your questions and look for the clues that you have very pre-formed ideas about the discussions. If they honestly seem neutral to you, then it's even more important to re-read them with an open mind.

If you're not looking to argue, you've come to the wrong place. Has always been that way. Things have shifted greatly since 2016 and especially since 2019. I just got tired of seeing a few posters throw their feces around and ruin a good time.