Uber rich benefit from special privileged low tax rate.

I admittedly don't know much about tax laws and data regarding inheritances and gifts. Do you have any sources regarding your claim that "For many estates, the vast bulk of the value transferred consists of unrealized capital gains that have never been taxed"?

Regarding your comments that most money transferred has been taxed already - there is indeed a logical difference (contrary to your claim) between a gift and a payment for a product or service. In fact, the tax code explicitly acknowledges this difference when the recipient is a charitable organization. If you don't believe me, check the receipts for your donations some time. You must deduct fair market value of anything (products, services, etc.) you receive in return for your gift, and the receipt for a donation usually indicates that no benefits were given in return for the money.

Are you contending that any transfer of money should be taxed regardless of the reason for the transfer? If so, then I'll ask again if you think that charitable donations and TANF checks should be taxed since money is changing hands (and clearly these dollars were not earned through direct labor). What about loans? What about a child's allowance? If I sell my car on the second hand market, should the government collect sales tax? What should happen when a poor person inherits the family home? If you would prefer that subjective lines be drawn according to specific circumstances then we're no longer arguing about principle but rather about your interpretation of what distributive justice should look like. In that case, you'll need to be a lot more specific than just saying "people shouldn't be rewarded for receiving money they didn't earn through direct labor."

 

Senate Passes Democrats’ Plan to Extend Most Tax Cuts



The U.S. Senate passed a plan backed by President Barack Obama to extend most of the George W. Bush- era tax cuts while letting those for top earners expire at the end of the year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-25/senate-passes-democrats-plan-to-extend-most-tax-cuts.html

 

It varies by estate. Here's a couple reports putting the average at around 35-40%, though the figure goes over 50% for estates over $10m and approaches 70% for estates where the most significant asset is a business.

http://business.illinois.edu/weisbenn/RESEARCH/PAPERS/Brookings_EstateCGTax_2001_422-449.pdf Table 8
http://www.bus.umich.edu/otpr/WP2001-5paper.pdf page 25
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/...on decedent estates percent unrealized gains" Page 34.

[Note these articles all refer to the same survey]

I am aware. My discussion is to what the tax structure should be, not a description of what it is.

My point is that the argument "the money has been taxed already" regarding inheritances is a bit of a red herring, because all money has been essentially taxed before. If "the money has been taxed already" was a reason for not paying a tax, then it could be used to excuse taxes for many who receive money, not just heirs.

No.

Please link to the quote my statement where I said "people shouldn't be rewarded for receiving money they didn't earn through direct labor" so I can see it in context. I don't recall making that statement and it doesn't sound like something I would write. Thank you.

I agree there is a subject aspect to it as there is to most principle, though your argument goes both ways.

Are you contending that no transfer of money should be taxed regardless of the reason for the transfer? People who work? People who earn investment income? What about people who work part time? What about people who are given money for doing a favor? What about people who win money gambling? What about if I work someone but they give me money and just call it a gift? If you would prefer that subjective lines be drawn according to specific circumstances then we're no longer arguing about principle but rather about your interpretation of what distributive justice should look like.

I can argue the subjective aspect of excluding taxes from inheritances or gifts also.

My point is that I can see no particularly strong reason why someone should not have to pay taxes on inheritances, while someone who works would have to pay more. While I can see some argument for some level of exemption for modest gifts, and arguments for some exemptions for some charties, I don't see the jsutification for a absolute bar on taxes on gifts or bequeathments. And I do see an argument against it, mainly the meritocracy point of taxing someone who earns their money more so that someone who was given their money pays none.

 

The Republicans will show their true colors. Although obstructing this bill would mean a tax hike on scores of millions, obstruct it they will, because it doesn't include their benefactors.

 

Poor greedy is okay.

Rich greedy is not okay.

Same old Iriemon liberal logic.

 

I said none of the above. Same old snooop fabrication and straw man.

 

How about letting all tax cuts to expire?

 

How about it? I've been for that since the day they were passed.

 

But you know Obambi wouldn't support such deal would you?

 

Yep. I can see his reasons. The middle class has been hammered by globalization, automation, and policies that have lowered their relative income and wealth. So I can see the perspective that we need to do things that help them out.

But IMO, gettingthe deficit under control is a higher priority. So IMO the whole kit and kaboodle should expire. This was one of the reasons I supported Clinton over Obama.