Reply With Quote
Bad. You've likely already been taxed on money you are saving for your kids. Why the double dip by the fed?
While it seems like a good idea to not only flow money back into the economy but also lessen the aristocratic class... which is a very good thing, as nobody likes a trust fund baby -- it has a nasty side effect that I can't overcome.
That the government will have incentives to kill off people or let them die, basically putting a timer on peoples' lives and not promoting biomedical advancements for longevity (which is the next step in biomedicine) because the government will have an economic motivator for rich people dying. No more Medicare past 75 if you own more than $Xmillion in assets.
Good, bad, or mixed ideas?
Bad. You've likely already been taxed on money you are saving for your kids. Why the double dip by the fed?
That "saving for your kids" part is my problem. Nobody likes stuck up, arrogant adults who were gifted everything and never had to lift a finger and think they're better than everyone else. Everyone hates old rich, except gold diggers.
Every dollar is taxed a load of times. Any time an store owner makes a sale, he pays tax on that money earned. The person who gave the money paid taxes when he earned that same money, etc etc. The notion that "we must always avoid double taxation" doesn't really hold up. Not to mention the sales tax in the middle.
On the other hand, it could be argued that hoarding money for long periods of time stalls the economy and the taxation is paying your dues for doing so.
"Any time an store owner makes a sale, he pays tax on that money earned"
You Lie
Well anything can be argued doesn't mean it's true.
Ya'll know there's a $5 1/2 million exclusion right?
Probably still need it if we're ever going to pay down det debt. Are we still concerned about that now that Republicans control the whole government?
Of course
Yeah which makes it funnier when people argue against it. Same people who hate the "tax cuts on the rich" labels fighting over a tax cut that literally would only affect the rich.
Repugs have already said the $1.5T increase in national debt from their tax cuts doesn't matter, just like head Cheney said 15 years ago.
The less incentive there is to try and pass something on, the less incentive there is to build a business. After 50 most successful business owners are really well enough off that any expansion is for the next generation. Blur the lines between a financial success and a failure after retirementenough and it would likely stifle entrepreneurs
the estate tax touches only very tiny percentage of Americans, and most of them are wealthy enough, if not smart enough, to minimize/avoid/evade estate taxes.
estate tax is a total NON problem for America. And the supposedly adored Founding Fathers were against primogeniture.
Well that's why I mentioned it. Most of the time people arguing against it don't seem to understand they aren't affected by it. At the same time, I would argue that the exclusion is isn't high enough. Not allowing the very rich to just hand over their wealth without any taxes is something I can agree with but we shouldn't prevent not wealthy people from passing on family farms, ranches, small businesses. It's not in the best interest of our country long term.
The estate tax has been high in the past. Is there actual evidence entrepreneurs just said "screw it" and took regular jobs?
That's not what he said
What did he say then?
Read it
I don't know the industry well, admittedly, but if you own a ranch worth 5.5 million how could you be classified as anything but wealthy?
The estate tax is fabricated bull with which the oligarchy inflames you rightwingnutjob assholes, and it works every ing time.
I did. What did he say? Explain it to me if I got it wrong.
If you owned a ranch that generates a net income of $200K/yr and the land purchased by your distant relatives is now valued at 10 million because of development around that property then you have to come up with 2 million in order to keep it in the family. That could be enough to lose the family ranch.
He said...The less incentive there is to try and pass something on, the less incentive there is to build a business. After 50 most successful business owners are really well enough off that any expansion is for the next generation. Blur the lines between a financial success and a failure after retirementenough and it would likely stifle entrepreneurs.
I don't know how to explain english to you.
Yep, so he said entrepreneurs wouldn't build businesses and do something else. I asked if there is any evidence supporting this when the estate tax was high.
I can't understand the implications for you.
If you own 10 million dollars worth of land I'm not really feeling sad for your financial situation. With that much equity and a ranch generating 200k no thanks to you, go get a loan.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
