What's your proposal?

Post #277,075 by Another Scott 12/31/06 6:28:20 PM Reply	What's your proposal? The most vociferious comments about estate taxes that I've seen talk about abolishing it - not starting over. I'd be interested in what you think a fair estate tax proposal would look like. Cheers, Scott. (Who thinks the estate tax should be retained, but it shouldn't kick in until maybe $5M or so. I don't have a strong feeling about the rates.)
Post #277,080 by bepatient 12/31/06 6:48:20 PM Reply	Eliminate it. Its double taxation and I don't like it as such. It is, to me, completely counter to the ideals that founded this country. If, before I die, I want to give everything to my family, it should go there. I will have paid taxes on everything already. And the recipient should, at worst, pay income taxes on it if they are not related to the deceased. As a middle ground, if reform is your thing...then there should be a time period where the debt can be paid that is NOT immediately upon closure of the estate. But, the "new" ideal is to hate the rich people. They have it, you don't..so they should pay for everything. That is now the thing that America does best. Bitch about tax cuts impacting the rich. Well its only the rich paying taxes anymore now, isn't it? AND, you won't hear anyone tell you that Bush's cuts actually made the system more progressive...but they did [link\|http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1941.html\|http://www.taxfounda...ch/show/1941.html] I also think that the entire system is screwed up beyond recovery. Income tax is a joke...considering some 41% of the population pays nothing. [link\|http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html\|http://www.taxfounda...ch/show/1410.html] Corporate tax structure allowing loss carryovers for years and not accounting for windfall is even more disastrous. Excise taxes that are supposed to be "earmarked" are oft diverted. There must be a better, cleaner way to do it. Unfortunately I don't think that the federal government is capable of fixing it. Ever. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #277,082 by Another Scott 12/31/06 7:25:34 PM Reply	Let's just stick with the Estate Tax for now. :-) I thought from your previous post that you were saying you were open to keeping it around, so I was a little surprised. AFAIK, the IRS has many payment plans for people who can't pay their taxes all at once. I would be surprised if a similar system isn't available for Estate Taxes. We've been down this road before, but to recap my position - I think the [link\|http://www.concordcoalition.org/issues/fedbudget/issue-briefs/060607-estate-tax-brief.htm\|Concord Coalition] makes a strong case: Under current law, the estate tax applies to assets of over $2 million at a 46 percent rate. By 2009, the exemption will be increased to $3.5 million and the rate will decline to 45 percent. Then, in 2010 it is scheduled to be completely repealed, only to be brought back in 2011 to its 2001 level of a $1 million exemption and a 55 percent rate. The extent of the estate tax's reach and its limited toll on those who are affected can be seen in the following statistics: * In 2004, less than 1 percent of Americans who died had estates with assets over the current exemption limit. That works out to about 18,800 people out of the average 2.5 million people who die annually. * According to the IRS, the effective tax rate paid by estates in 2003 was only 18.8 percent because of the various exemptions and credits available to estates faced with the tax. * Under the 2009 tax rules, 99.7 percent of estates would be exempt. Repeal proponents argue that individuals are forced to sell small businesses and family farms in order to come up with enough liquid assets to pay the estate tax. Such arguments appear to be overblown upon examining a study by the CBO. The study found that in 1999 and 2000, at most 5 percent of estates that owed tax did not have enough liquid assets to pay it. If today's $2 million exemption were in effect then, the number would have been a total of 366 estates. If the $3.5 million exemption were in effect, it would have been fewer than 200 estates. Furthermore, under a $3.5 million exemption, at most only 94 small businesses would have had to pay the tax. Of those, only 41 would have faced liquidity problems and only 13 farms would have been forced to sell assets to pay the tax. CBO says even these numbers might be high because they do not take into account money held in trusts. We need to pay for the Federal Government. Taxes do that. Throwing out Estate Taxes (or Corporate Taxes, or Excise Taxes, or ...) without replacing them with something that raises equivalent revenue isn't realistic. Cheers, Scott.
Post #277,103 by bepatient 1/1/07 2:41:26 AM Reply	There's a base assumption in your statement that I don't agree with...that is that government spending is somehow at an acceptable level...so that taxes removed must be replaced. 20 billion in easily identified [link\|http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,49837,00.html\|pork]. [link\|http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0104/010904h1.htm\|Procurement practices] that lead to hugely inefficient spending of tax dollars. Also, we argue here often about personal income taxes...when [link\|http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/ns04172003.cfm\|corporations] use different practices to avoid paying taxes that number in the billions. Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}
Post #277,108 by Another Scott 1/1/07 9:27:24 AM Reply	Not really. I just think that if you want to get anywhere in a discussion about taxes, you should restrict the discussion to taxes. In this case I'm more interested in Estate Taxes. :-) One man's pork is another man's needed investment. You're not going to get rid of pork and you're not going to get rid of waste - you can only do better managing it. (Is having 10s of thousands of FEMA trailers rotting in parking lots "pork" or is it "waste" or is it a "necessary precaution in case of another Katrina"?) Yes, there's a lot of waste in the Federal Government. There's also a lot of needed investment that isn't being done. Arguing about that doesn't shed much light on the Estate Tax though. :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #277,125 by drewk 1/1/07 1:32:14 PM Reply	Question But, the "new" ideal is to hate the rich people. They have it, you don't..so they should pay for everything. That is now the thing that America does best. ... I also think that the entire system is screwed up beyond recovery. Income tax is a joke...considering some 41% of the population pays nothing. So thinking that rich people should pay for everything is hating rich people. But the fact that 41% of the population pays nothing indicates the system is broken. Isn't is possible that maybe the rich people should be paying for everything? If the richest 5%[1] are already paying 95% of the taxes, you could raise their rates by 5.26% and completely eliminate taxes on the other 95% of the population. And the people who got money back would be much more likely to immediately spend it, meaning higher velocity of money in the economy. [1] Rectal estimation[2] [2] AKA pulling numbers out of my ass === Kip Hawley is still an idiot. === Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link\|http://DocHope.com\|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats]. [link\|http://DocHope.com\|http://DocHope.com]
Post #277,130 by boxley 1/1/07 2:06:33 PM Reply	problem then is that the rich would feel that they own the government....wait, nevermind thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #277,147 by tuberculosis 1/1/07 6:42:56 PM Reply	The richest guys think we need it. [link\|http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-01-12-gates_x.htm\|http://www.usatoday....01-12-gates_x.htm] Gates, 78, says the wealthy should pay the tax because they owe a special debt. Their riches, he says, would not be possible without a strong society supporting capitalism. "Most of the things that have generated the enormous advances in our economy are things that started on some campus or in some laboratory," Gates said in an exclusive interview last week. "And most of those are because the government financed it." His son agrees with him, as do billionaires Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller Sr. and others. The stakes are enormous, especially for the 1% of U.S. households who control 38% of private wealth, Gates says. Under current law, the estate of someone worth $1 billion would have to cough up as much as $490 million in taxes after he or she dies. Eliminate the tax, and the heirs would gain that much. The tax generates about $30 billion in annual federal revenue, about 1% of all, Gates says. That doesn't sound like much, but it will likely go higher as thousands of Americans who amassed fortunes in recent decades begin to die, putting up for grabs as much as $136.2 trillion in wealth. The effort by Gates, Buffett and others is not as odd as it might seem. Gates' son, with $43 billion, and Buffett, with $36 billion, have said they'll give most of their fortunes to charity, which will reduce estate taxes. The estate tax stems from a 1916 law that taxes the value of property, stocks and other assets valued above certain amounts when someone dies. Unless it is killed, the tax, the dollar values and the tax rates, will reduce gradually until 2010, when the tax will be repealed for one year. Then it reverts to 2001 levels. Most Americans will never pay the tax because their estates are too small, Gates says in Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes (Beacon Press, $25). Only about 2% of estates qualify each year. But it is those estates and their powerful families that concern Gates. Without the tax, he says, their wealth could grow to a point where they could have too much control over the national agenda. --------------- So what does that tell you? [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #277,154 by boxley 1/1/07 8:06:41 PM Reply	you mean they dont control over the national agenda now? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
Post #277,164 by tuberculosis 1/1/07 9:41:28 PM Reply	Apparently not if they're arguing with Bush over it I have a theory that it is the newer and 10-100 million dollar crowd that makes all the noise. Billionaires seem to be for it. I also will argue that amassing that much wealth is a quirk of the system. No person is intrinsically worth that much money. So the system should correct the imbalances - and these people - they owe the system big time. Which, coincidentally, is pretty much the same argument the Responsible Wealth crowd is making. [link\|http://www.blackbagops.net\|Black Bag Operations Log] [link\|http://www.objectiveclips.com\|Artificial Intelligence] [link\|http://www.badpage.info/seaside/html\|Scrutinizer]
Post #277,159 by static 1/1/07 8:45:16 PM Reply	It's a death by a thousand cuts. I think it's pretty obvious most tax laws are made in small details with small context. That's a problem. In those small contexts, a lot of existing tax law makes sense. Enlarge the context and that's where it starts falling down. The bigger problem is that you can't legislate that people follow the spirit of taxation; you can only decree the letter. So you get people who follow it 'because they have to' but come up with ways to pay as little as they can. Thus staying within the letter of the law (mostly) whilst staying far away from the spirit of the law. I reckon it'd be a damn interesting exercise to setup as a theoretical exervise a very simple tax system, but let the taxed allocate their taxes to particular government budgets. I'm sure the results would be very illmuninating. Wade. "Don't give up!" [link\|http://staticsan.livejournal.com/\|blog] · [link\|http://yceran.org/\|website]
Post #277,081 by boxley 12/31/06 6:52:54 PM Reply	no estate taxes beyond counting the goods transfered as income when liquid or capital gains when liquidated. Property transfers to family members are defered capital gains only upon sale of the property. Throwing it all overboard in favor of the fair tax would be better. thanx, bill Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep reach me at [link\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net\|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]

Welcome to IWETHEY!