Do you support an inheritance tax?

I support considering inheritence by someone living in a separate household as new income. For example, if you are living on your own and inherit money from ytour uncle, you should be taxed for it. But money that is inherited by the same household, such as a spouse inheriting money should not be taxed at all.

 

Thank you for being respectful that is hard to fine on this side.

But I just personally do not buy in to this philosophical type approach to economics. Even Adam Smith the father of capitalism was against inherited wealth.

"A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

It's great that people accumulate wealth but once you die, the country still has to move on and be competitive. Having generational wealth like that creates plutocracies. And the only reason we can sit here and talk about what is inherent to man and his ability to keep wealth is because we are protected and we can have these conversations. Having weak economic policies make us less secure and the world does not necessarily share in this "freedom" theory that libertarians do. I want a strong economy to continue to keep this country growing and keep it secure.

 

You're welcome,

Adam Smith while being considered the father of Capitalism wasn't the father of this country and its foundational rational. The country was founded on minimalistic government and against its natural inclination to self propagate under the guise of 'helping the citizenry'. Capitalism is a component but not the basis. Freedom to practice life and civic duty unencumbered by an oppressive government is the foundation. Propelling economies is a byproduct of that process. People want to see government collect monies, distribute wealth and provide jobs and only then is there an expectation from the populace to excel which is backwards.
The right to own property and to pass it on to their children is natural while governments seizing that inheritance is not. There should be a respect for the dead man and his wish to benefit his own children across the generations.
In closing, when a man dies and he has wealth. That wealth is put to use by their heirs in some fashion, it isn't buried. Whether invested or spent on Ferraris the money churns the economy in some way. Thus the government and its proponents do not want the heirs to benefit or to decide how the fathers money is spent. No, third party persons want to split up and devour the mans dollar to suit there own purposes.
Exactly what would the government do with the dead mans money? When is it that the government is prudent in their spending and accountability? Surely, in all of earths history there hasn't been a bigger circus act of fiduciary buffoonery than the US government.
Respectfully,

 

This is purely subjective and obviously shows your complete lack of trust in the US government. Unfortunately data, math, accounting, and logic are not entirely on your side.

And heirs buying feraris and what not is fine, but they aren't producing anything.

 

Thank you for your post.

As an aside, how about when an inheritance tax is applied to an heir it comes in the form of employment of those in need of income in lieu of subsidies?(assuming that they can work). In other words, Uncle Sam says you owe $100,000 in inheritance tax. Fine, those in need of work should show up at your house and you pay them to work at your bidding with that $100,000! But you know that that wouldn't work right? Not because of any practical issue but because we don't have the right to demand any performance or accountability from those receiving subsidies(assuming that they can work). The American poor have cell phones with data plans and can buy pizza with welfare cards. And that aint a stereotype.


Respectfully,

 

If I wish to give a family member or friend 'any amount' of MY money, money which I have earned and paid taxes on, then how can the government possibly be involved?

If I have a very sick 'friend' with mounting medical bills and I want to 'give' them $250K, how can this be the government's business to tax my sick friend?

Whether I inherited $25 million from my parents or I earned it, taxes already have been paid on the $25 million in cash. If I wish to 'give' some or all of this cash to my wife and kids, how can the government be involved?

As long as the money I possess is the cash remaining after all applicable taxes have been paid, no matter the amount, this should be MY cash to use as I please. Here's the stupidity; If I give out $20 bills on the street corner every day for a month for a total of $500K, the government does not care...however...if I give the exact same $500K to you or my kids, the government believes it should be taxed yet again.

The real answer to all of this is that government taxes anything that moves...and everything that does not move...

 

The individual did something productive to earn that money. The children did nothing productive other than being born.

 

When you state it this way you sound jealous?

It should not make any difference who a person wishes to give their money...family or friends...energetic or lazy...should make no difference.

Again, as long as applicable taxes have been paid in order to obtain the cash, then double and triple etc. taxation is ridiculous!

 

Jealous of what?

Your argument is a silly philosophical one that has no attachment to the effects on the economy. I deal with the real world.

 

Jealous of 'The children did nothing productive other than being born'. People are born into a zillion different situations...trying to judge them is a waste of time and probably stems from jealousy or envy.

You don't deal with the real world at all? You deal with how you believe the world should be.

My argument is not silly...it is logical. If I own something, free and clear, paid my taxes, no other encumbrances, then it should be my choice what I wish to do with it. If I saved $1 million in cash then I should be able to burn that $1 million in a camp fire if I wish. Or does it make more sense to give that $1 million to kids or friends?

Lastly, regarding your so-called 'real world economy', it makes zero difference if that $1 million resides in my hands or any other person's hands; assuming it is not stuffed into a mattress, that $1 million is in the economy doing something. The root issue is you need to stop worrying about who is the 'one' that is doing something with the money...

 

It's a common topic in economics and has been for centuries. Even Adam Smith talked about the negative effect of inheritance on future generations. You just don't really know much about economics.

Your argument is based on a philosophical belief, mine is based on an economic belief. You wouldn't understand.

 

I don't see the problem with passing the wealth along. If the wealth is passed along to someone who is irresponsible and will just spend the money away frivolously... the economy still gets the money back. If the wealth is passed along to someone who is responsible and knows how to use the money... then what's the problem?

 

No, it is stealing from the families of the dead.

 

Nice logical absurdity

 

This is a thread about inheritance tax...not the effect on future generations. Jealousy and envy are the only two answers why anyone would be concerned about 'other' people's money...

 

If you give your wife a $5,000 dollar diamond ring do you think the government should tax that gift?

 

so i have a business and employees.. when i die you think the business should shut down and the money go to the government..they cant sell the business because it would have no value to anyone...no one in their right mind would pay them any money for it..but i can sell it now for over 1 million easy..and it is so easy to hide money from the fed..

 

If the person who died left the money to said person, then he/she has every right to that money, because the money is not you or the governments, it is the property of the person who earned it, and he/she has every right to do with it what he or she sees fit.

You progressives are nothing more than thieves, criminals

 

I agree. It's at least as bad as the income tax. It's all stupid.. These taxes have acted not only as an economic depressor, but have transferred power from us to the government. The more they can take from us by force of law, the less control we have over them. They don't have to win our support anymore.

 

Stupidity and a lack of education are the only two answers why anyone would not think about future economic impacts.

- - - Updated - - -

No, because I'm alive and earned that money.

 

So let me get this straight. You see something different in giving your Wife the ring before you die vs. after you die. What exactly is that difference? I do not get it.

 

I am not against the idea behind the inheritance tax, but the actual implementation of it is rather stupid.

If a grandfather passes down his savings to his son, and son only lives a few years more, than all that money gets double taxed!! It is ridiculous. Why should I be taxed more if the money I spend was given to me by my father? Does not make sense.

Perhaps any inheritance tax should only apply to inheritance that gets invested again. If I inherit money and choose to spend it all on consumable goods, it should not be taxed.

The inheritance tax can also bankrupt small family farms, by preventing them from being handed down from one generation to another, leading to them being bought out by corporate agricultural companies who hire low wage immigrant workers.

 

You are dead.

 

why should that matter exactly?

 

Objection...that's assuming every wealthy person has "worked hard." Inheritance is income and should be taxed as such. Simple as that.