Inheritance Tax

[PBrunsel]

NO I don't support the Inheritance Tax. Why hasn't this been repealed yet?

I feel it taxes the rich just for being rich. That's wrong.

[Keystone Phil]

NO I don't support the Inheritance Tax. Why hasn't this been repealed yet?

I feel it taxes the rich just for being rich. That's wrong.

Of course it's wrong but the Democrats just don't see that. This tax should have been repealed a long time ago.

[Wakie]

The real cost of the estate tax is that it hurts small business owners.  They have money on paper but realistically don't make enough in cash to pay the estate tax.  So what happens is somebody owns a store or a ranch but brings in under $100k a year, they can't pay the estate tax like that, they have to sell off the family business or go to jail.

This is especially an issue as more and more minority business owners lose their businesses to the estate tax, thus keeping people (in this case, minority former business owners) unduly poor.

This is why I favor the Feingold amendment which would make the first $100 million tax exempt.  If your company has assets in excess of $100 million it really isn't a small business.

[Wakie]

Wasn't that money already taxed when it was income? Why tax it again?

This argument sounds a lot like "wasn't my money already taxed when my employer received it".

[John Dibble]

Wasn't that money already taxed when it was income? Why tax it again?

This argument sounds a lot like "wasn't my money already taxed when my employer received it".

Good point - why are we taxed for working?

[Wakie]

Wasn't that money already taxed when it was income? Why tax it again?

This argument sounds a lot like "wasn't my money already taxed when my employer received it".

Good point - why are we taxed for working?

Because we don't charge tariffs any more and we need to pay for little things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

[opebo]

Wasn't that money already taxed when it was income? Why tax it again?

This argument sounds a lot like "wasn't my money already taxed when my employer received it".

Good point - why are we taxed for working?

Because we don't charge tariffs any more and we need to pay for little things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

And redistribution.

[Wakie]

Wasn't that money already taxed when it was income? Why tax it again?

This argument sounds a lot like "wasn't my money already taxed when my employer received it".

Good point - why are we taxed for working?

Because we don't charge tariffs any more and we need to pay for little things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

And redistribution.

Yeah, I hate government subsidies for businesses too.

[John Dibble]

Wasn't that money already taxed when it was income? Why tax it again?

This argument sounds a lot like "wasn't my money already taxed when my employer received it".

Good point - why are we taxed for working?

Because we don't charge tariffs any more and we need to pay for little things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

Then we should rid ourselves of the income tax and charge a higher sales tax, or better yet cut the pork so we don't need to have an income tax and don't need to have a high sales tax. If I'm not mistaken, we had roads, military, and school before we had the income tax.

[Wakie]

Wasn't that money already taxed when it was income? Why tax it again?

This argument sounds a lot like "wasn't my money already taxed when my employer received it".

Good point - why are we taxed for working?

Because we don't charge tariffs any more and we need to pay for little things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

Then we should rid ourselves of the income tax and charge a higher sales tax, or better yet cut the pork so we don't need to have an income tax and don't need to have a high sales tax. If I'm not mistaken, we had roads, military, and school before we had the income tax.

We did have all of these things before the first income tax was introduced in the 1860s.  Prior to that government expenditures were covered by charging tariffs.

I'd be willing to convert to a sales tax system if we could investigate how said sales tax would impact the poor and underprivileged.  My gut feeling is that the impact would be similar to the "flat tax".  This would mean the poor would have to shoulder an increased burden whereas the wealthy would get a lighter burden (thereby causing a greater seperation of the classes and leading to greater destabilization of our society).

[John Dibble]

Wasn't that money already taxed when it was income? Why tax it again?

This argument sounds a lot like "wasn't my money already taxed when my employer received it".

Good point - why are we taxed for working?

Because we don't charge tariffs any more and we need to pay for little things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

Then we should rid ourselves of the income tax and charge a higher sales tax, or better yet cut the pork so we don't need to have an income tax and don't need to have a high sales tax. If I'm not mistaken, we had roads, military, and school before we had the income tax.

We did have all of these things before the first income tax was introduced in the 1860s.  Prior to that government expenditures were covered by charging tariffs.

I'd be willing to convert to a sales tax system if we could investigate how said sales tax would impact the poor and underprivileged.  My gut feeling is that the impact would be similar to the "flat tax".  This would mean the poor would have to shoulder an increased burden whereas the wealthy would get a lighter burden (thereby causing a greater seperation of the classes and leading to greater destabilization of our society).

Well, as I said, it would be best for everyone if we could just cut government pork and thereby be able to lower taxes at the same time. For instance, you'd be amazed how little a car would cost if it wasn't taxed through the entire process of manufacture and sale.

[??????????]

Wasn't that money already taxed when it was income? Why tax it again?

This argument sounds a lot like "wasn't my money already taxed when my employer received it".

Good point - why are we taxed for working?

Because we don't charge tariffs any more and we need to pay for little things like roads, the military, schools, etc.

Then we should rid ourselves of the income tax and charge a higher sales tax, or better yet cut the pork so we don't need to have an income tax and don't need to have a high sales tax. If I'm not mistaken, we had roads, military, and school before we had the income tax.

We did have all of these things before the first income tax was introduced in the 1860s.  Prior to that government expenditures were covered by charging tariffs.

Which of course you must add was declared unconstitutional in the 1870s.

[TeePee4Prez]

I agree with it but with the Feingold Amendment (which makes the first $100 million exempt).

Same

[cwelsch]

Why don't we just run the feds with a couple lotteries and donation drives?  Imagine Cheney or Edwards on stage running a telethon.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I think inheritances should be taxed just as though they were income of the person inheriting.   Although I would support being allowed to pay the tax over a number of years.  (So if you inherited $100,000 you could pay it as though you got $10,000 a year for 10 years).

[John Dibble]

Didn't we fight a revolution over taxes? So why have we become so damn tax happy?

[John Dibble]

Also, just came up with a reason to oppose this tax that even liberals can agree with - it probably hurts the poor.  If you're poor, and your parents still have a little money saved before they die, wouldn't the inheritanance help your situation? But if it's taxed, you get less - money that could have gone to buy something you needed was taken from you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Also, just came up with a reason to oppose this tax that even liberals can agree with - it probably hurts the poor.  If you're poor, and your parents still have a little money saved before they die, wouldn't the inheritanance help your situation? But if it's taxed, you get less - money that could have gone to buy something you needed was taken from you.

Verry funny.  Given that you need an estate of $1,000,000 before the federal estate tax even kicks in, this is most certainly not a tax that affects the poor however you wish to define that nebulous term.  The estate tax is most certainly a tax on the rich.  Whether that is a good policy or nt is debatable  (I think it is, but with with a much reduced top marginal rate. The rate of the estae tax is way too high and needs to be cut to maximum of 20% and preferably lower.)  However, it is no debateable this is a tax that affects extremely few people and that the manner in which the scaling back of the estate tax was done reeks of gimmickery and put off a painful budgetary decision until after 2009 when Bush will certainly be out of office.

[John Dibble]

Also, just came up with a reason to oppose this tax that even liberals can agree with - it probably hurts the poor.  If you're poor, and your parents still have a little money saved before they die, wouldn't the inheritanance help your situation? But if it's taxed, you get less - money that could have gone to buy something you needed was taken from you.

Verry funny.  Given that you need an estate of $1,000,000 before the federal estate tax even kicks in, this is most certainly not a tax that affects the poor however you wish to define that nebulous term.  The estate tax is most certainly a tax on the rich.  Whether that is a good policy or nt is debatable  (I think it is, but with with a much reduced top marginal rate. The rate of the estae tax is way too high and needs to be cut to maximum of 20% and preferably lower.)  However, it is no debateable this is a tax that affects extremely few people and that the manner in which the scaling back of the estate tax was done reeks of gimmickery and put off a painful budgetary decision until after 2009 when Bush will certainly be out of office.

Forgive my ignorance then.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually the American Revolution was more over the lack of representation in the House of Commons and so on, than the taxes.
It was "No taxation without representation" not "no taxation".

[cwelsch]

That's somewhat true, but it's largely been shown through the record that the Americans deeply resented the taxes no matter where they came from because they were very bad for business.  The fact that the English put them down only stressed the fact that the English had no clue how to run us and that we couldn't stop them.

So it was bipartite.  It was that they were there and that we couldn't stop them.  If the taxes hadn't been there, we cared much less - as with the decades prior to the Seven Years' War and salutary neglect.

When the British didn't do anything much to us, next to nobody even considered secession, and up until 1775 virtually every American was explicitly and intensely loyal to the King but all (incuding the US Tories) hated Parliament.  When we realized that they could do something to us that as both so damaging and, at least to us, completely unnecessary, we got pissed off.  The fact that we could never be able to change it and that parliament refused to allow us an American parliament only cemented the cause.

It was also related to the countless customs and fees placed on us, which is why innumerable British and royal customs agents were tarred and feathered or placed on lampposts for the night or in the most extreme cases (where an American royal customs agent slapped up a kid in the street) they broke into your house.  But most of that was in Boston in the mid-1770s.

There are plenty of other reasons for the revolution (many related to the soldiers in our towns and homes or the customs agents raiding US ships for money) but it was to a large degree the economic control the British sought to establish over us.  Then of course the Intolerable Acts and the blockade of Boston harbor was considered practically a war crime throughout the colonies, even in the South where the Boston Tea Party was considered an illegal, immoral act.

The Parliament wanted a piece of the economic pie after it had countless reports from soldiers of the Seven Years' War that showed that almost all Americans were wealthier than the average Englishman.  Americans didn't want to be forced into the British trade regime and didn't want to pay taxes - especially taxes to raise revenue.

There was a very specific argument used, and it was simple: if you had a tax to pay for some government service, that was okay; if you had a tax simply to raise revenue, that was considered EXTREMELY illiberal (almost ridiculous to anybody but a libertarian, really) and flat-out unacceptable; if you had extra revenue raised from a user fee or a service tax then that was considered okay.  So in actuality, the colonists were very anti-tax in general, and hated having their trade controlled and ships subject to British royal customs agents.

If the British had been doing good or at least neutral things then we wouldn't have cared.  Like building roads would have been fine, the Seven Years' War was almost completely unnecessary but didn't especially hurt the Americans so it was neutral, but restricting trade through taxes was bad.  The fact that it was bad is what excited the Revolution - well that and all the other horrible stuff that followed in the confusion and hysteria as the Parliament tried to hang onto the best colony in the Empire.

It's also important to note that the original justification for the taxes was 1) raise revenue to 2) establish and staff British military bases even though the French were already gone.  This was supposedly done for the protection of the colonists, but realistically it was done to stop them from moving west (countless homes were burned by the British soldiers to stop westward expansion but the homes were actually built faster than they could be burned).  The Americans hated this, because it meant in essence they had to pay for troops they 1) didn't want after 2) the British won a war that Americans didn't give a damn about (the Seven Years' War was an imperial war) and 3) the troops' most obvious use was only against the Americans, the same people paying to house them there.  Obviously this was not accpetable.  And the fact that taxes were for raising revenue, again, was widely considered to be illiberal hence wrong, even by the Tories.  Actually, the main difference between Tories and Whigs/Rebels was whether you supported the King, since virtually all Americans believed that Parliament was destructive of liberty and the taxes and blockade were injustices against Americans.  The Tories just thought it could be resolved, the Whigs didn't, but they were all of more or less the same ideology otherwise (Paine and other classical liberals were almost unanimously read, nearly as widely supported).



Anyway, it was two-part.  If the taxes hadn't been so bad then we wouldn't have cared nearly so much about being represented to make them.  We liked the salutary neglect for decades before all that mess when the british left us alone, and we accepted that we couldn't be represented in Parliament or have our own parliament.  once they did horrible things like the taxes we clamored for repeal or representation.

Revolutionary America, by almost any standard, was very anti-tax.

[Bono]

I oppose the inheritence tax in the current situation. But, if the inheritance tax would make the income tax go away, I would certainly support it.

[John Dibble]

Also consider that if we did have one or three represenetatives in parliament(it would not have been more than three) it would not have made a difference as far as the taxes went - they would not have had enough influence to change anything. Perhaps it would have slowed down the occurence, but I think it was inevitable.

[ATFFL]

Actually the American Revolution was more over the lack of representation in the House of Commons and so on, than the taxes.
It was "No taxation without representation" not "no taxation".

The last thing the Revolutionaries wanted was representation.  The 10 Colonial representatives would be outvoted every time.  That was just a clever slogan to make it look like the cause was not just independence.

[Nym90]

As I stated earlier, I feel that we should eliminate all taxes EXCEPT income tax (property tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, tolls and all other user fees, the only exceptions being user fees for goods or services for which demand would far outstrip supply if the user fee wasn't in place), and fund everything off of that instead. Given some of the opinions that have been presented, I'd expect to have gotten more of a negative reaction than I did.