Labour lunacy

[Joe Guy]

What part of this is confusing you?

What is the benefit of a 100% estate tax?

As I said before, the point is to prevent accumulation of dynastic wealth. It also promotes the circulation of money through the economy rather than its stockpiling by the plutocracy.

I don't see how the the majority of people in this country - people who inherit very little - will see any benefit if they were to lose the right to the little amount that they would be entitled to now.

[rubato]

"...

I don't see how the the majority of people in this country - people who inherit very little - will see any benefit if they were to lose the right to the little amount that they would be entitled to now.

They will be competing in the marketplace at a lesser disadvantage vs people who would inherit millions and who could, by that virtue, always have all of the most desirable goods. A major benefit and one which outweighs the tiny amount of money they would be giving up.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

They will be competing in the marketplace at a lesser disadvantage vs people who would inherit millions and who could, by that virtue, always have all of the most desirable goods. A major benefit and one which outweighs the tiny amount of money they would be giving up.

What about a person living with his parents who can't afford an education and has little work skills vs someone of the same age who has his parents paying each year for his education and giving him part time work at their small family store?

The parents of the guy with nothing die young with $15,000 in their bank account and a house. He ends up on the street with nothing.

The other guy's parents die and he loses his job, has no chance of inheriting the family business and could no longer afford an education.

Is that the kind of lesser disadvantage or equal opportunity that you want to see?

[Lord Jim]

The fact is, dead people don't own property,

You've got to be kidding...

Whole Law Firms are kept in business based on that premise...

[MajGenl.Meade]

But the dead person's estate, if there is a Will, was disposed off when they DID own it, a change of ownership pending only their death. Surely the dead person no longer "owns" the estate; rather it is owned by the legatee at once, deferred only by necessary legal activity designed to benefit the er... legal profession?

[rubato]

But the dead person's estate, if there is a Will, was disposed off when they DID own it, a change of ownership pending only their death. Surely the dead person no longer "owns" the estate; rather it is owned by the legatee at once, deferred only by necessary legal activity designed to benefit the er... legal profession?

Although a trust can be a way of continuing to exert an influence on the use of the estate after death.

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

They will be competing in the marketplace at a lesser disadvantage vs people who would inherit millions and who could, by that virtue, always have all of the most desirable goods. A major benefit and one which outweighs the tiny amount of money they would be giving up.

What about a person living with his parents who can't afford an education and has little work skills vs someone of the same age who has his parents paying each year for his education and giving him part time work at their small family store?

The parents of the guy with nothing die young with $15,000 in their bank account and a house. He ends up on the street with nothing.

The other guy's parents die and he loses his job, has no chance of inheriting the family business and could no longer afford an education.

Is that the kind of lesser disadvantage or equal opportunity that you want to see?

Both can get publicly-subsidized education and if they are minors would receive an equal welfare benefit as orphans; a fact which would sharpen the rich family's understanding of the importance of public education and welfare for orphans and would lead them to understand the value of funding them at public expense. A substantial benefit to us all.


One of the reasons that Mitt Romney and the Republicans call the bottom 50% in income (everyone with a household income of $50,000 or less) 'takers' and don't care how cruelly they treat them is that they believe that they and their children are insulated from the kinds of misfortune which kill poor and middle-class people. That is why the Republican health plan is "Let Them Die".


The understanding that the kinds of mischance which can kill or bankrupt otherwise hard-working and responsible people can equally effect their own children will improve their decision-making as voters and leaders in a democracy and reduce the appeal of self-serving ideologies. A very good thing indeed.

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Surely the dead person no longer "owns" the estate;

Well technically, no.... (barring of course The Zombie Apocalypse)

But "the estate", (especially if there's a considerable amount of money involved) becomes an entity unto itself, which can be the target of all manner of disputes among unhappy (living) relatives and prolonged(and lucrative for the attorneys involved) legal mischief...

[Joe Guy]

Both can get publicly-subsidized education and if they are minors would receive an equal welfare benefit as orphans; a fact which would sharpen the rich family's understanding of the importance of public education and welfare for orphans and would lead them to understand the value of funding them at public expense. A substantial benefit to us all.

So it's better for a young man (my example is meant to be young adults) to inherit nothing at all when his parents die because "public expense" might give him an education?

And an equal welfare benefit as orphans (if he was a minor) would be better than inheriting a house and/or money?

[Lord Jim]

And an "estate" can also be subjected to civil suits...

Let's say you're a surgeon with a substantial "estate" who leaves a set of forceps inside your patient during a routine surgery resulting in an infection which causes that persons death...

And the next day you keel over from a heart attack...(which in this hypothetical, would seem to have certain degree of poetic justice...)

Your estate can still be sued by the grieving relatives of the loved one who expired due to your incompetence, and damages can be recovered from your estate, even though you are, well, dead...

Death may be final, but lawsuits go on forever...

[rubato]

Both can get publicly-subsidized education and if they are minors would receive an equal welfare benefit as orphans; a fact which would sharpen the rich family's understanding of the importance of public education and welfare for orphans and would lead them to understand the value of funding them at public expense. A substantial benefit to us all.

So it's better for a young man (my example is meant to be young adults) to inherit nothing at all when his parents die because "public expense" might give him an education?

And an equal welfare benefit as orphans (if he was a minor) would be better than inheriting a house and/or money?

The benefit is that both begin life with equal resources which is the most simple and direct example of "fair". If a 'fair' society is good then this is good.


The benefit is that the rich understand that the social policies which they support will be of equal value to their own children and thus are more motivated to support a social order which is less brutal and less based on self-serving delusions.


The benefit for those who are successful materially is that there is a greater chance that it is actually due to their own efforts; they didn't begin the race standing next to the finish line and pretend they won.


The benefit for those who are less successful is that they know they didn't begin the race on crutches.


There are some things which will never be equalized for. If you grow up in an educated family you have a head start that no amount of remediation will reduce, for one example. But that also means that whatever education you absorb yourself will accrue to your children as well. The best predictor for success in life is the education level of your parents. Which gives us all something worthwhile to strive for.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

The benefit is that both begin life with equal resources which is the most simple and direct example of "fair". If a 'fair' society is good then this is good.

The benefit is that the rich understand that the social policies which they support will be of equal value to their own children and thus are more motivated to support a social order which is less brutal and less based on self-serving delusions.

If the estate tax were 100% the rich parents would get around it by arranging other ways of giving their estates to their children if that's what they want to do. It won't prevent rich families from continuing to be rich.

[rubato]

If we are changing the tax, inheritance and estate laws then we can change the tax, inheritance and estate laws to make them effective in whatever way we want.


I am not a defeatist, like you. The world has become better, more fair and more just because of people like me. People who believed that improvement was possible. And because people like you were in the end, failures.


yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

If we are changing the tax, inheritance and estate laws then we can change the tax, inheritance and estate laws to make them effective in whatever way we want.

I am only addressing the idea of a 100% estate tax. If you're talking about changing other laws, that would be another subject and discussion.

I am not a defeatist, like you. The world has become better, more fair and more just because of people like me. People who believed that improvement was possible. And because people like you were in the end, failures.

I don't believe that a 100% estate tax would benefit everyone in the way you think it would. You must not understand the meaning of the word defeatist.

In fact, a defeatist could be someone who thinks our current estate tax system is a failure.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Both can get publicly-subsidized education and if they are minors would receive an equal welfare benefit as orphans; a fact which would sharpen the rich family's understanding of the importance of public education and welfare for orphans and would lead them to understand the value of funding them at public expense. A substantial benefit to us all.

So the gov is going to take what they earned (and laready paid taxes on or will pay taxes on when the profits of investments are withdrawn) and distribute it as they see fit?
What does this sound like?
And we all know how that played out?

So, is everyone putting the gov as their beneficiary in their will?

OR
Are we all going to find a loophole around the law just as people do when they figure out their taxes every year?
I am guessing later no matter what is said here.

And why not give up every dollar earned to the gov, after all, the gov will bestow upon us food stamps and housing allowances and enough to barely get by. This way we are all equal and being equal is good, so this would be good.

Anybody sending a check in with all their wealth? Why wait til you are dead? the gov will take care of you.

Since there is not enough money for all to be rich, in order to be fair, we all should be made poor. No matter what you do and how much your job benefits you and society, all the money you make (and have made) should go to the gov and they can come up with some formula to give back $X to everyone. After all, it's equal and fair and being fair is good.

Sounds like a plan.

[Sue U]

I don't see how the the majority of people in this country - people who inherit very little - will see any benefit if they were to lose the right to the little amount that they would be entitled to now.

I am not suggesting that at all. As I said before, I'm okay with an exemption of $1 million, but I think the current exemption of $5.3 million is overly generous. But the fact is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of decedent's estates in this country are under $5.3M, and a very substantial majority are under $1M. So "people who inherit very little" would be totally unaffected in any event. The main objective of my proposal is to break up and prevent inordinately large concentrations of wealth, putting those assets back into circulation and productive use. I am not pretending that this measure will end economic inequality, but it would help ameliorate some of the ill effects of plutocracy.

If the estate tax were 100% the rich parents would get around it by arranging other ways of giving their estates to their children if that's what they want to do. It won't prevent rich families from continuing to be rich.

By that logic, we shouldn't impose taxes at all because some people might find ways to circumvent them (at least until whatever loophole is closed). No system is going to operate perfectly. An estate tax may not "prevent rich families from continuing to be rich," but it will affect how and when that wealth is transferred, to whom and in what amounts. And by the way, the federal gift tax serves a similar function as the etstate tax, but applies to transfers made during life.

[Joe Guy]

I don't see how the the majority of people in this country - people who inherit very little - will see any benefit if they were to lose the right to the little amount that they would be entitled to now.

I am not suggesting that at all. As I said before, I'm okay with an exemption of $1 million, but I think the current exemption of $5.3 million is overly generous......

I guess I misunderstood you when you wrote this -

That would be nice, but I'd settle for a 100% estate tax instead.

If the estate tax were 100% the rich parents would get around it by arranging other ways of giving their estates to their children if that's what they want to do. It won't prevent rich families from continuing to be rich.

By that logic, we shouldn't impose taxes at all because some people might find ways to circumvent them (at least until whatever loophole is closed). No system is going to operate perfectly. An estate tax may not "prevent rich families from continuing to be rich," but it will affect how and when that wealth is transferred, to whom and in what amounts. And by the way, the federal gift tax serves a similar function as the etstate tax, but applies to transfers made during life.

Not true. People already do circumvent taxes now. Logically, the government would respond by imposing a higher tax or close all the loopholes - not eliminate taxes.

[Sue U]

I guess I misunderstood you when you wrote this -

That would be nice, but I'd settle for a 100% estate tax instead.

Did you miss this at the top of Page 2?:

The fact is, dead people don't own property, and once you're dead you won't care or have any say over what happens to it. If you want to give away your fortune during your lifetime (subject to applicable gift tax), I have not so much of a problem with that. I'm even open to a $1 million exemption on the estate side (but not $5.3 million -- that's ridiculose). As to the government's entitlement, who provided you with the physical infrastructure, economic system, legal system, security etc. that enabled you to earn that money in the first place?

(emphasis added.)

If the estate tax were 100% the rich parents would get around it by arranging other ways of giving their estates to their children if that's what they want to do. It won't prevent rich families from continuing to be rich.

By that logic, we shouldn't impose taxes at all because some people might find ways to circumvent them (at least until whatever loophole is closed). No system is going to operate perfectly. An estate tax may not "prevent rich families from continuing to be rich," but it will affect how and when that wealth is transferred, to whom and in what amounts. And by the way, the federal gift tax serves a similar function as the etstate tax, but applies to transfers made during life.

Not true. People already do circumvent taxes now. Logically, the government would respond by imposing a higher tax or close all the loopholes - not eliminate taxes.

Forgive me, it seemed very much like you were saying that because rich parents/families would find ways to get around an estate tax, it shouldn't be done. Are you saying that the appropriate response is a higher tax and closing loopholes? Isn't that what I proposed? What is "not true," and exactly what are you suggesting?

[Joe Guy]

Did you miss this at the top of Page 2?:

The fact is, dead people don't own property, and once you're dead you won't care or have any say over what happens to it. If you want to give away your fortune during your lifetime (subject to applicable gift tax), I have not so much of a problem with that. I'm even open to a $1 million exemption on the estate side (but not $5.3 million -- that's ridiculose). As to the government's entitlement, who provided you with the physical infrastructure, economic system, legal system, security etc. that enabled you to earn that money in the first place?

(emphasis added.)

So, you didn't mean what you wrote about the 100% estate tax. Sorry. I didn't figure that out.

Forgive me, it seemed very much like you were saying that because rich parents/families would find ways to get around an estate tax, it shouldn't be done. Are you saying that the appropriate response is a higher tax and closing loopholes? Isn't that what I proposed? What is "not true," and exactly what are you suggesting?

What I'm suggesting is that a 100% estate tax would not stop rich families from continuing to be rich, which is what rubato said it would do.

I don't think a response is needed. Just leave the estate tax the way it is now or eliminate it.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oooh! Ooooh! I have a question, miss - me, miss, me! (Waves hand)

Is a $5.3 million exemption so "ridiculous" if the estate is being divided between (say) the surviving spouse, three children, the DNC, the family servants and the Pilates instructor?

Even such an apparently benificent sum, divided by 7+, can hardly be said to equal a rich family continuing to be rich. Maybe the exemption should be $5.3million per legatee?