Comments on: $3.5 Million or $5 Million?

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:58:10 +0000

I never said competition was bad. Competition is good. Concentrated power by government decree is bad. Obviously you and I fundamentally disagree.

At the current rate, in a few years a few million dollars will probably not buy a college education or home. I am glad the state of the economy and the estate tax will force ALL of our children will learn the rugged individualism you people claim to support. I’ll continue to seek my liberty to give my children as much money as I want without it being taken from my family.

By: High Tax and Entepreneurship - Common Endeavour

High Tax and Entepreneurship - Common Endeavour — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:30:27 +0000

[...] instead, I’ll repeat a point made by James Kwak, a silicon valley entepreneur and co-founder of Guidewire Software Inc, he’s talking about estate [...]

By: The Estate Tax « Cheap Talk

The Estate Tax « Cheap Talk — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:52:26 +0000

[...] 22, 2009 in Uncategorized | Tags: economics, incentives, vapor mill | by jeff The Baseline Scenario has a nice overview of the political issues around the estate tax. The estate tax, politely [...]

By: Billy Jones

Billy Jones — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 02:09:12 +0000

try generation skipping trust fund. all priciple is tax free. AND i believe this administration is ok with that. BUT i might add that when that money is spent is taxed and interest is taxed. you know i live in florida and the tobacco tax increase just kicked in and next is alcohol. i have no problem with it as i imbibe in both.

By: whatever

whatever — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 00:15:31 +0000

Buy an asset, sell an asset.

You pay taxes on the appreciation.

Buy an asset, die.

Your estate pays taxes on the appreciation.

Why should beneficiaries get a free ride on the appreciation?

By: Billy Jones

Billy Jones — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:28:18 +0000

just want to touch on these tea parties. what do you want america to be akin to somalia? just rediculous and clueless. they’ll be packing so sure to get the pig!

By: AMo

AMo — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 03:03:12 +0000

An alternative is LESS taxation period. Applying taxes arbitrarily to a minority population is in my opinion immoral.

It is simply outstanding that the majority of the posts in favor of the estate tax basically rest on the principle that: “well they are rich anyway so it doesn’t matter” … or … “they don’t deserve that money!” … “Simply spoiled heirs!” … and countless other completely arbitrary and subjective statements.

If we are to be a nation of formal laws we should apply them equally across the board to every citizen. If you are in favor of the “estate” tax then it is only logical that you agree that it should be applied across the board to all.

By: MK

MK — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 15:29:41 +0000

I wholeheartedly agree, but gift horse and mouths etc. However, the small family farm argument at these estate tax levels is a non-argument as I mention above. When the tax was on $650K of assets that’s a completely different anaylsis. As I mention above, farms don’t have to value their estates at the value of the land and equipment, they can value it based on current use, so at $3.5M using an 8% discount value the farmer, assuming he owns the farm completely by himself not joint with a spouse or a child, would have to clear $280,000 of income for the farm to be valued at $3.5M under that analysis. At that level he could afford to hire me.

I’m not saying it’s fair that I get thousands of dollars in fees so the government collcts no revenue, when we could have no Estate Tax and have the same net effect – but my family has to eat too.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 06:42:59 +0000

Actually I’ve always thought that the estate tax was a pretty good deal for the Rich. Think about it–you get to push off a very large part of your tax burden into the far future, leaving you more money to invest in the present, which (thanks to compound interest) ought to make you better off overall. You either 1) get to build up a massive fortune, or 2) don’t get taxed as much.

And as far as reducing the incentive to work–well lets face it being able to inherit a massive fortune tax free would be a pretty solid incentive against ever working at all, wouldn’t it? If Republicans want to decrease someone’s tax burden Paris Hilton should not be at the top of the list…

Basically everyone should remember that the alternative to taxing the dead is taxing living people who actually do work…

By: edward allen

edward allen — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 23:37:16 +0000

You have areas of California where land is selling for $100,000 an acre. So a 40-acre California ranchette would come under this definition. The average farm in the United States is now 400 acres. So you can see that even average farms in areas where land is selling for $20,000 an acre would be affected by this tax. Of course, the way out for farmers is to sell their property to Archer Daniels Midland, ConAgra, or some other conglomerate which holds the medieval equivalent of mortmain over property.

By: liberal

liberal — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:06:44 +0000

“In effect, the principle of the Looter Nation is to take as much wealth as possible but not so much that those with the ability and drive to create wealth will stop working as hard as possible to create more wealth, which can then also be taken.”

Garbage. A large fraction, probably most, of huge sums of wealth are just economic rents sucked out of those who actually make productive contributions to society.

By: liberal

liberal — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:03:19 +0000

Judge wrote, “Why SHOULDN’T someone be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors?? Who are you to steal it from them, to loot their possessions for your selfish and lazy interests?”

A huge fraction of inherited wealth is either land, or stuff bought up with income earned from owning land.

As such, all that wealth is stolen from the fruit of someone’s labor, and it’s eminently just that the government tax it away.

Of course, a better way to do that would be to tax land value heavily.

By: Russ

Russ — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:20:31 +0000

Actually, it is capitalism which both in theory and in practice pits everyone against each other.
(For example, just a moment ago I again had the displeasure of being subjected to one of those fascistic Microsoft commercials with some guy blathering about a “wolfpack” ripping each other to shreds.)

Socialism at least in theory tries to get people to work together as a team, even if the real life results have not always lived up to that ideal.

And of course Marx personally should not be blamed for abuses by his descendants any more than Locke or Smith.

By: Hal

Hal — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:12:00 +0000

Re poor people who think they will get rich: think of all the young shop assistants or clerks at WalMart who think they will be models or movie stars before long. Good sense would be the death of the American Dream.

By: Griffin

Griffin — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:57:31 +0000

Here here!