Estate taxes are a form of double taxation. Taxes were already paid as the wealth was accumulated. Taxing the recipients of the estate for the income it represents to them, however, doesn't bother me one bit.
Profit by death. So American! Wait, since Uncle Sam is a relative, how about a reverse tax that returns the confiscated tax back to the family so they can pay off their mortgages, college loans, etc... and enjoy the better life that their blood relatives, benefactors, etc... worked so hard to provide. Eliminate all the stress inducing game playing and cost incurred by shielding assets before death along with the bureaucracy to oversee the nonsense. Oh wait, some legal eagles created this boondoggle to fuel their own personal livelihoods. Nothing like manufacturing a problem to create an industry of deceit and unfairness.
Kyle, unless we are talking about something different , taxing the recipients is the estate tax. I can't think of any other tax on an estate besides the tax on it's distribution.
John, I get that part and wholeheartedly agree. Kyle said he was against the estate tax but had no problem with recipients of the estate being taxed. That is essentially being for and against the same thing.
An estate large enough to be subject to a Federal estate tax of 40% would be taxed at that rate. The recipients of the proceeds of the estate would not necessarily have sufficient income from the estate and other income to come anywhere near the 40% Federal rate...
For example, if there were distributions to a couple charities, and a handful of children and grandchildren, each would not necessarily get enough to move their tax rate. Some would. Confiscating 2/5 of an estate for government use can only be justified if you believe that all wealth actually belongs to the government and it is actually beneficently allowing the estate to keep 3/5.
Jeff, Your welcome. I thought it was obvious, but I no longer have an E4 to review my memorandums and make sure I was clear.
Howard, something a communist professor taught me in college stayed with me. I don't think she understood the import at the time.
It is apparent that the rise of business schools and journalism schools correspond with the downward spiral of both long term, sustainable family businesses and objective journalism. I blame business schools for teaching a focus on short term profit over longevity of the enterprise and journalism schools of teaching the story over the truth.
In both cases the victims, I mean graduates, of these schools graduate with no experience of actual life: They graduated from High School, went to college and went to work in the business. No experience with life. No experience with the real world. No context into which to place the "eduction" they have received.
If I were king, which I would never want to be, no person could enter journalism, business consultancy or education, until they were 29 years of age and had at least 3 years of experience in some field other than that which they wished to pursue (That was , traditionally, the FBI requirement). Context is not just important, it is essential, to not screwing up a working system. At this stage, Howard, you are the last great hope of journalism. So are the grown-ups entering business schools and teaching.
Good intentions pave the road to hell; experience of life leads to truth. A failure to appreciate the virtue of longevity and tradition in an enterprise leads to long term failure, regardless of the profits garnered in the short term.
Kyle, journalism schools taught the myth of objectivity.
The schools taught that objectivity = truth.
But of course, there's no such thing as objectivity.
This made journalism far less well equipped to deal with complex subjects.
But it served the purpose of newspaper owners because journalists who took on controversial subjects with an honest point of view risked pissing off advertisers and causing the publishers to lose revenue.
So-called objective journalism is safe. It's designed not to offend.
The declines in newspaper readership correspond with, from the 1920s on, the rise of "professional journalists" in newsrooms and the increase in chain ownership of newspapers.
Of course, there were social factors going on at the same time -- the invention of radio, television, color television, the decline in civic engagement, and finally, the Internet. All these factors are weaved together bring newspapers to the state they're in today.
Estate taxes are a form of
Estate taxes are a form of double taxation. Taxes were already paid as the wealth was accumulated. Taxing the recipients of the estate for the income it represents to them, however, doesn't bother me one bit.
Profit by death. So
Profit by death. So American! Wait, since Uncle Sam is a relative, how about a reverse tax that returns the confiscated tax back to the family so they can pay off their mortgages, college loans, etc... and enjoy the better life that their blood relatives, benefactors, etc... worked so hard to provide. Eliminate all the stress inducing game playing and cost incurred by shielding assets before death along with the bureaucracy to oversee the nonsense. Oh wait, some legal eagles created this boondoggle to fuel their own personal livelihoods. Nothing like manufacturing a problem to create an industry of deceit and unfairness.
Kyle, unless we are talking
Kyle, unless we are talking about something different , taxing the recipients is the estate tax. I can't think of any other tax on an estate besides the tax on it's distribution.
All taxes on property
All taxes on property ownership and income should be eliminated.
Jeff, The property was taxed
Jeff,
The property was taxed when bought. Stocks were taxed. Money in a savings account was taxed. Then to pay an estate tax is double taxation.
John, I get that part and
John, I get that part and wholeheartedly agree. Kyle said he was against the estate tax but had no problem with recipients of the estate being taxed. That is essentially being for and against the same thing.
If that means all taxes then
If that means all taxes then yes.
An estate large enough to be
An estate large enough to be subject to a Federal estate tax of 40% would be taxed at that rate. The recipients of the proceeds of the estate would not necessarily have sufficient income from the estate and other income to come anywhere near the 40% Federal rate...
For example, if there were distributions to a couple charities, and a handful of children and grandchildren, each would not necessarily get enough to move their tax rate. Some would. Confiscating 2/5 of an estate for government use can only be justified if you believe that all wealth actually belongs to the government and it is actually beneficently allowing the estate to keep 3/5.
Estate taxes are the most
Estate taxes are the most blatantly "redistribution of wealth" scheme there is.
From my perspective, too, one of the worst things that happened to American newspapers was getting consolidated into large chains.
Most newspapers that were sold by families to chains were sold just so the families could afford to pay the estate tax.
Estate taxes rob people and rob communities.
Well said, but let us not
Well said, but let us not forget large farms, small manufacturing plants, nurseries and even medical practices..
Estate taxes are nothing short the government playing Robin Hood
Kyle, thanks for the
Kyle, thanks for the explanation
But didn't Robin Hood give to
But didn't Robin Hood give to the poor? The government on the other hand is just plain robbing...
Robin Hood Redistributed
Robin Hood Redistributed wealth
The Government Redistributes wealth
Both had to TAKE from in order to GIVE to
Jeff, Your welcome. I
Jeff, Your welcome. I thought it was obvious, but I no longer have an E4 to review my memorandums and make sure I was clear.
Howard, something a communist professor taught me in college stayed with me. I don't think she understood the import at the time.
It is apparent that the rise of business schools and journalism schools correspond with the downward spiral of both long term, sustainable family businesses and objective journalism. I blame business schools for teaching a focus on short term profit over longevity of the enterprise and journalism schools of teaching the story over the truth.
In both cases the victims, I mean graduates, of these schools graduate with no experience of actual life: They graduated from High School, went to college and went to work in the business. No experience with life. No experience with the real world. No context into which to place the "eduction" they have received.
If I were king, which I would never want to be, no person could enter journalism, business consultancy or education, until they were 29 years of age and had at least 3 years of experience in some field other than that which they wished to pursue (That was , traditionally, the FBI requirement). Context is not just important, it is essential, to not screwing up a working system. At this stage, Howard, you are the last great hope of journalism. So are the grown-ups entering business schools and teaching.
Good intentions pave the road to hell; experience of life leads to truth. A failure to appreciate the virtue of longevity and tradition in an enterprise leads to long term failure, regardless of the profits garnered in the short term.
Kyle, journalism schools
Kyle, journalism schools taught the myth of objectivity.
The schools taught that objectivity = truth.
But of course, there's no such thing as objectivity.
This made journalism far less well equipped to deal with complex subjects.
But it served the purpose of newspaper owners because journalists who took on controversial subjects with an honest point of view risked pissing off advertisers and causing the publishers to lose revenue.
So-called objective journalism is safe. It's designed not to offend.
The declines in newspaper readership correspond with, from the 1920s on, the rise of "professional journalists" in newsrooms and the increase in chain ownership of newspapers.
Of course, there were social factors going on at the same time -- the invention of radio, television, color television, the decline in civic engagement, and finally, the Internet. All these factors are weaved together bring newspapers to the state they're in today.