Republicans want to repeal estate tax entirely

Republicans senators, led by John Thune from South Dakota have introduced a bill to get rid of the estate tax entirely. This comes on the heels of a bill by Bernie Sanders called the 99.8 Percent Act which would include higher estate taxes on the wealthiest 0.02 percent of Americans.

Current Estate Tax kicks in after the first 11.2 million of inherited wealth. Sanders proposal would take effect after 3.5 million.

Several arguments worth exploring here including that estate taxes are in effect taxing income twice. Morris Pearl of the Patriotic Millionaires Organization disputes this saying:
"
Well, it’s simply not true. The thing is, these people, when they inherit this land, this farm, this business, whatever it is, they’ve never paid taxes on earning it. If someone like Sam Walton starts a business from nothing, and then it’s worth $100 billion when he dies and his children inherit it, he’s never paid taxes on that huge increase in wealth. Sure, he paid tax on his salary all those years. But he never paid a penny on all the unrealized capital gains as his company increased in value from nothing to tens and hundreds of billions of dollars. Then when his children inherit it they never pay tax either, because they only pay income tax on the increase in value after he dies. They want to make it so zero tax is ever paid on this huge family dynasty wealth that accumulates in our country. It’s not double taxation. They want to go from single taxation has zero taxation for the billionaires.

Look, the American economy was built in the 1950s and ’60s when we had taxes being paid at 70 and higher percent of people’s wealth when they inherited it. We were doing great back then. We had money, and they used that money to build things like interstate highway systems, and go to the moon, and do all of the things that made America great. Now they claim that we don’t have enough money to pay for things, and it’s because taxes have been lowered so much. There’s no reason why families who have the good fortune to build businesses and things worth billions of dollars need to have their children and grandchildren inherit such wealth that they never have to work and never pay taxes. So yes, I’m a supporter of Senator Sanders’ proposal."

https://therealnews.com/stories/republican-estate-tax-repeal-an-effort-to-avoid-ever-being-taxed

Is the mania to cut taxes for the richest Americans all the while running huge deficits that other generations will have to pay down Making America Great Again?

 

I say first target trust funds.

 

Yes, do away with this tax. To do otherwise is to say that you don't actually own the assets you're passing on. To do otherwise is to say that the government can tax anything as many times as they wish.

The whole thing is just an excuse for the gluttonous government to take more from the people who put in the time and effort to create wealth and property. Government is like a greedy blood sucking parasite.

Besides, it doesn't even make sense for another citizen to support this tax. It's not coming from a place of reason. It's coming from a place of envy. Some people actually believe wealth is immoral, and love it when big brother comes along, turns the wealthy upside down to shake the coins out of them. It's a pathological and irrational hatred of the wealthy.

Stop being a hater. Try minding your own business, the business of your life, maybe you'll have some success, maybe you'll do so well that you'll be able to take care of a generation or two of your own.

 

How much of other peoples money do you think an increase in Estate Tax could generate?

These dog whistles about fairness, etc., when it comes to the value of estates that were taxed to begin with simply underscores the greed and envy that permeates the champions of suggestions like the one Bernie is proposing.

 

Who thinks the money would be better use to the gov't than it would those who inherit it.

 

Something has to be done. As it is now, the Waltons can pass on their businesses without paying a tax because the business is a corporation that shields the owners from personal tax liability. And the children are brought into the business as principals so that they assume control when the owner quits or dies without being an "owner", and so there is no tax even though they become the owners and controllers of multi-billion-dollar businesses. And the business must then grow (3% average compounded growth) and will one day be passed on again without taxation, and on and on.

Meanwhile, mergers are almost never denied. And again, businesses grow.

Estate taxes are supposed to at least prevent obscene generational wealth but the rich have that covered too. Tax attorneys figure out how much inheritance tax will be due upon the death of the owner of the wealth, and then the owner purchases life insurance with the inheritors named as beneficiaries so they will be able to pay the tax and still keep all the wealth.

So to prevent generational wealth, we seem to need a confiscation mechanism. But these problems are not encountered in the case of income taxation. The mistake was in allowing wealth to accumulate in the first place. And it was the reduction of top bracket tax rates from 90% and 70% that was responsible. So now that the wealth is in place, how do we fix it?

 

Have you looked at the state of our infrastructure, national debt, and technology lead?

 

The Estate Tax was the best tax ever invented.

A Tax on Dead Rich People.

Who could object to that?

Especially if it didn't affect the first $5 Million of inheritance.

 

So you think the money would be better spent by our gov't. Thanks for playing.

 

Yes I do. Thanks for comprehending.

 

There is a simple, and fair, way to tax inheritances.

First, tax the income generated by the inherited assets. Second, tax all gains realized upon the sale.

 

You clearly know nothing about incentive, performance, and what motivates people to invent, innovate, create, and work hard. Many do it for their families so they can pass to them a legacy... and people like you would damage all those positive contributes by taking away their incentive.

 

We already have that. The question is how to deal with inherited wealth that grows, all of which is then passed on again, and then grows, etc. but do not generate taxable income. Many asset classes have that characteristic.

 

That response shows the ignorance of the dem party. They hate those with wealth and think they are entitled to it.

 

So Tom Styer and Warren Buffet backs this?

 

I think that the first thing that we should do is get over the idea that we should do something about it.

As far as taxation goes, I think that all of the different categories of in come generation should be consolidated into one rate. Capital gains, dividend income, and earned income should all be taxed at the same rate.

The only thing that I would do, that might set people to screaming, is to set the base value of the inheritance to what it was when purchased. Then, whatever gain is realized, the seller would be liable for all of the tax burden that the owner had escaped doe to his death.

 

Liberals hate huge corporations, right? If a person owns a large business and dies, unless the estate taxes are low, those who inherit it will be forced to sell it just to pay the inheritance tax and more than likely it will be large corporations who buy it. In my mid, this was settled a long time ago when the owner of the NY Yankees, George Steinbrenner, died and the team was left to his kids. If they had to pay, what was it then, 55% in inheritance taxes, those kids would have needed to come up with about $1.3 billion dollars in tax money just to keep what was already in their family.

The inheritance tax is about the most evil, most cruel, most dastardly, most selfish, most democrat, most liberal, most progressive thing to ever exist.

Now think about what the kids of Bezos would have to pay when he dies.

 

That response shows the degeneracy of the repubbie party. They only think of self with no concern for anyone else, or their own possible future needs.

 

You mean get over wealth disparity without regard for its very negative effects?

I could get onboard with that.

But my point was that much of it is not sold. That is the nature of inheritance: no sale is involved. Otherwise, the taxation that you suggest is already in place. Maybe you're referring to those cases in which assets are inherited only to later be sold by the inheritor. I could agree to that, too, but it still does nothing about inherited wealth that is preserved in-and-as the original inherited assets and continues to generate income. In such cases only the income is taxed but any growth continues to be untaxed.

 

Republicans need to pave the way for the new aristocracy of their Neo-feudal future. Everyone who isn’t born with a silver spoon up your ass: prepare to be serfs.

 

are you actually claiming that inherited money had never been taxes? it was taxed when it was earned taxed again when it is invested taxed when it is used to purchase something and if that something is property car boat it is taxed yet again

 

"Taxes"?

No it wasn't. Give me one example of an investment that is taxed when invested.

Only if the asset is sold. Then the gains are taxed. The original investment is not taxed unless that original investment was wrapped in a tax-deferred plan like a qualified IRA or 401-k.

Do you have a property car boat? You may be referring to amphibious craft. But no, such property has never been taxed in any state I've lived in.

Your post is loaded with questionable and even untrue silliness.

 

Honestly, I have no idea what the underlying issue is.

I sure haven't noticed Warren Buffet's or Bill Gates' wealth having any negative effect on me.

 

I think the estate tax does serve an important function because it reduces the trend toward a permanent upper class who gain their wealth and power by birth. I think the estate tax should be zero for all fortunes below 15 million, and have brackets up to 66%.

 

Well that's pretty normal for righties. They don't seem to notice much that doesn't affect them directly, nor care about it.