Estate Tax

[The_Worlds_finest]

Besides the thought that "only evil white republicans" get an Inheritance. Name one reason Estate tax is something other than the government suger coating communism...

[angrydude]

prevents an aristocracy? Oh wait...too late.

[The_Worlds_finest]

Why not look up the proposed schedule before you pop your mouth off. They want to tax everybody.

[johnsmith]

I have said many times that this is the dumbest, most fucked up rule that our government has ever come up with.

If for some reason I can somehow manage to outlive my parents and they leave behind enough money that the government can take 50% of it.......that will be close to the end of my life because I will go down in a blaze of glory (young guns style) fighting them off my property.

There is absolutely no good fucking reason the gov't should be allowed to tax this money twice........and the argument that it's not taxed twice because the earner will have passed away is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Fuck the government.

[angrydude]

I know. It doesn't serve any good purpose.

[johnsmith]

I know. It doesn't serve any good purpose.

It certainly doesn't serve a "good" purpose, but it does serve a purpose in general and that is to overtax for worthless gov't spending.

[jack sommerset]

I have said many times that this is the dumbest, most fucked up rule that our government has ever come up with.

If for some reason I can somehow manage to outlive my parents and they leave behind enough money that the government can take 50% of it.......that will be close to the end of my life because I will go down in a blaze of glory (young guns style) fighting them off my property.

There is absolutely no good fucking reason the gov't should be allowed to tax this money twice........and the argument that it's not taxed twice because the earner will have passed away is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Fuck the government.

NICE!!I want to kill a few motherfuckers before I go down as well.

[frodo]

NICE!!I want to kill a few motherfuckers before I go down as well.

you don't hate the US government only, you hate america as a whole.

[Parker2112]

hey, if you want big govt to save us from terrorists, poverty, starvation, epidemics, global temp increas...got to pay the piper...

[jack sommerset]

you don't hate the US government only, you hate america as a whole.

That makes a whole lot of sense. Thanks brah!

[The_Worlds_finest]

hey, if you want big govt to save us from terrorists, poverty, starvation, epidemics, global temp increas...got to pay the piper...

Dont forget obesity, cancer, aids, and jews

[BlairForceDejuan]

It is complete and utter bullshit. People spend their entire lives working and want to pass along what they were able to acquire along the way to THEIR kids, and these gentlemen want to steal it. Why don't you dig up the grave and steal the suit while you are at it.

[ploto]

People with the kind of money who would be in the bracket to pay estate tax ($4M) know how to structure their assets so that they do not fall within estate tax.

[CosmicCowboy]

People with the kind of money who would be in the bracket to pay estate tax ($4M) know how to structure their assets so that they do not fall within estate tax.

False.

You do what you can, but you still have to play by the rules. Sometimes it creates some crazy situations (generation skipping and giving shit to 2 year old kids when the parents only get a relatively small amount, etc.) But you can't avoid it all.

[Geezerballer]

What it really does is cause the business or farm owner to pay life insurance premiums all his life so that when he dies, that money will be available to pay the estate tax so the family doesn't have to sell the farm or business upon his death.

It’s a huge boon to insurance companies.

[xrayzebra]

You can bet you bottom dollar old Teddy (the swimmer)
Kennedy had things rigged where his estate didn't pay
anything. The don't create foundations and other nice
sounding dodges for nothing. Like Buffett and Gates.

[Crookshanks]

You can bet you bottom dollar old Teddy (the swimmer)
Kennedy had things rigged where his estate didn't pay
anything. The don't create foundations and other nice
sounding dodges for nothing. Like Buffett and Gates.

I believe the Estate Tax was zero was Kennedy died - so it didn't affect his heirs.

[Bender]

What it really does is cause the business or farm owner to pay life insurance premiums all his life so that when he dies, that money will be available to pay the estate tax so the family doesn't have to sell the farm or business upon his death.

It’s a huge boon to insurance companies.
would the life insurance proceeds be part of the taxable estate?

[CosmicCowboy]

would the life insurance proceeds be part of the taxable estate?

They aren't. LI proceeds are tax free. What you have to do is estimate the estate value and then carry a life insurance policy for half. The problem is you have to buy/commoit to those policies when they are relatively young and the premiums are astronomical.

[Bender]

I always thought that LI proceeds were not taxable to the beneficiaries, but were taxable to Estates. But I'm no expert.

Also, besides the Fed estate tax, states have their own Estate tax returns.

[RandomGuy]

What it really does is cause the business or farm owner to pay life insurance premiums all his life so that when he dies, that money will be available to pay the estate tax so the family doesn't have to sell the farm or business upon his death.

It’s a huge boon to insurance companies.

Not really.

Fox revives ancient myth that the estate tax kills "a lot of" farms (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090019)


... even before Bush implemented a gradual phase-out of the estate tax by steadily increasing the minimum amount of the estate required for the tax to kick in and decreasing the tax rate until it eliminated out in 2010, not many family farms were adversely affected by the tax.

In 2000, before Bush's cuts, only estates over $1 million were subject to the tax, and as the Citizens for Tax Justice noted, farm estates were able to claim an extra $300,000 exemption on top of that. The amount of the estate over $1,300,000 was taxed at rates of up to 55 percent. Additionally, farms were valued at their "current use," rather than the value the land would get if sold for development. Because of this, and because farm estates are generally smaller than other estates, only 1,659 farm estates owed any taxes at all. Furthermore, the CBO found that only about 8 percent of those estates subject to the tax owed more in taxes than they inherited in "liquid assets."

And that was before the Bush cuts took effect. By 2009, estates owed no taxes at all on the first $3.5 million inherited and paid rates up to 45 percent. The Tax Policy Center (TPC) estimated that due to those changes, only about 80 family farms would owe any estate taxes at all, and half of those would have liability below $1 million.

And the deal President Obama proposed on December 6 promised to be even more generous, allowing for $5 million to be inherited without any tax, and any amount over that minimum would be taxed at 35 percent. So it's fair to assume that even fewer family farms would owe any estate tax at all, let alone need to be sold to pay the tax owed, as Fox & Friends suggested.

In short, even if the Democrats push to increase the tax rate to 45 percent, as Steve Doocy suggested, the myth of the mass selloff of family farms gets even more far-fetched with each passing year.

Further, the Irs website has this bit: (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html#3)


Generally, the fair market value of such interests owned by the decedent are includible in the gross estate at date of death. However, for certain farms operated as a family farm, reductions to these amounts may be available.

In the case of a qualifying Family Farm, IRC 2032A allows a reduction from value of up to $1,000,000.

1) Family farms are valued on a favorable basis "as is" rather than on market rates.

2) They are given larger tax-exemptions

3) They get to reduce even the value they have to report by a further $1,000,000

In short, the Fox "news" talking point is pure bullshit, and provably so.

If you can provide some data to show that this tax really does force "family farms" under, or to be divided up, I would love to see it, because it didn't take much research to find data that contradicts that.

[xrayzebra]

RG:
If you can provide some data to show that this tax really does force "family farms" under, or to be divided up, I would love to see it, because it didn't take much research to find data that contradicts that.

Some years back a family owned quite a large ranch
near Del Rio, Texas. Many in the family were getting
up in years. And as they family died off it put the
remainder of the heirs in some really tight money
situations. And yes, they thought they were going to
have to come up with quite a wad of cash to keep
the ranch. But they were concerned about the very
thing you talk about. Having to sell it off to pay the
death taxes. I can't, and wouldn't, furnish any
information about the ranch of family. But the story
is true.

[RandomGuy]

I’ve finished reading The Snowball, and one of the things that struck me was how Buffett thought about individual destiny, meritocracy, and wealth. For one thing, he is a wealthy person who supports an estate tax for those with very large estates (currently for those greater than $3.5 million). Here’s a glimpse of why:


Wealth is just a bunch of claim checks on the activities of others in the future. You can use that wealth in any way that you want to. You can cash it in or give away. But the idea of passing wealth from generation to generation so that hundreds of your descendants can command the resources of other people simply because they came from the right womb flies in the face of a meritocratic society.

I also connected strongly with a related concept Buffett termed the “Ovarian Lottery”.


I’ve had it so good in this world, you know. The odds were fifty-to-one against me born in the United States in 1930. I won the lottery the day I emerged from the womb by being in the United States instead of in some other country where my chances would have been way different.

Imagine there are two identical twins in the womb, both equally bright and energetic. And the genie says to them, “One of you is going to be born in the United States, and one of you is going to be born in Bangladesh. And if you wind up in Bangladesh, you will pay no taxes. What percentage of your income would you bid to be the one this is born in the United States?” It says something about the fact that society has something to do with your fate and not just your innate qualities. The people who say, “I did it all myself,” and think of themselves as Horatio Alger – believe me, they’d bid more to be in the United States than in Bangladesh. That’s the Ovarian Lottery.

He also made a comment that if born several hundred years earlier, he and Gates probably would have been some other animal’s lunch because they did not see well and could not climb trees well. I’ve had the exact same thought, as my eyesight is really horrible. If was born in the 1700s, I’d probably be considered a cripple.

This led me to a post by a Kiva Fellow working in Uganda. Kiva is the site where you can lend as little as $25 to low-income entrepreneurs.


Any one of these people could be tremendously successful in America (economically speaking). Maybe a CEO of a prominent company, or a hotshot lawyer who wears a two-thousand-dollar suit to work everyday. But they arent. And the only reason for that is because of where they were born.

[...] I won the ovarian lottery. I am a US citizen; got a good education; enjoy great health; and came equipped with a “engineer” gene that allows me to prosper in a manner disproportionate to other people who contribute as much or more to society. I’m in the top 1% of the entire population of the world.

Kiva, to me, is simply a way for those of us who drew the best tickets in the ovarian lottery to help those who drew less fortunate ones.

Something to spread a little humility. You or I may have worked hard, but that’s doesn’t mean we didn’t get a huge head start from winning the Ovarian Lottery. Would you be where you are if you grew up in a country where nobody would even teach you how to read?

http://www.mymoneyblog.com/buffett-wealth-estate-taxes-and-the-ovarian-lottery.html

[RandomGuy]

RG:

Some years back a family owned quite a large ranch
near Del Rio, Texas. Many in the family were getting
up in years. And as they family died off it put the
remainder of the heirs in some really tight money
situations. And yes, they thought they were going to
have to come up with quite a wad of cash to keep
the ranch. But they were concerned about the very
thing you talk about. Having to sell it off to pay the
death taxes. I can't, and wouldn't, furnish any
information about the ranch of family. But the story
is true.

"quite a large ranch" is not a family farm.

I also pointed out that the exceptions have gotten more generous, and one of the proposals of Mr. Obama makes it even more so. "some years back" is not today, and certainly not an argument to shield the ONLY segment of society that has actually seen their income go up in the last 30 years from paying their fair share.

But hey, he's a socialist, so everything he proposes must be wrong. :p:

[RandomGuy]

Why not look up the proposed schedule before you pop your mouth off. They want to tax everybody.

Link?

[RandomGuy]

I have said many times that this is the dumbest, most fucked up rule that our government has ever come up with.

If for some reason I can somehow manage to outlive my parents and they leave behind enough money that the government can take 50% of it.......that will be close to the end of my life because I will go down in a blaze of glory (young guns style) fighting them off my property.

There is absolutely no good fucking reason the gov't should be allowed to tax this money twice........and the argument that it's not taxed twice because the earner will have passed away is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.

Fuck the government.

The government isn't taxing it twice. It was taxed as income over the years to your parent not you.

You recieve those assets and are better off for the transaction. That is income TO YOU.

Consider the journey of a dollar.

You have a dollar, and you use that dollar to buy a sandwich at the local diner. That is income to the diner. It uses that dollar and pays its water bill. That is income to the utility. The utility uses that dollar and pays an employee. That is income to the employee. That employee then spends it at your business, that is income to you.

At each stage this income is taxed, and is not "double taxation".

Your logic, as usual, is flawed. Unless of course each dollar in existance only gets taxed once, and then is tracked as it moves through the economy never to be taxed again. I'm sure that would suit you, but it would hardly fund the government you want.

[TeyshaBlue]

"quite a large ranch" is not a family farm.

I also pointed out that the exceptions have gotten more generous, and one of the proposals of Mr. Obama makes it even more so. "some years back" is not today, and certainly not an argument to shield the ONLY segment of society that has actually seen their income go up in the last 30 years from paying their fair share.

But hey, he's a socialist, so everything he proposes must be wrong. :p:

lol...in West Texas they are. Takes a billion acres to feed one cow.:lol

[xrayzebra]

RG:
But hey, he's a socialist, so everything he proposes must be wrong.

Pretty much.

By the way have you ever read about some of the
"family" farms in fly over country. They ain't 40
acres and a mule. Some of them are thousands of
acres.

[Blake]

There is absolutely no good fucking reason the gov't should be allowed to tax this money twice.

I also hate how a vehicle is taxed every time it changes hands.

[101A]

What it really does is cause the business or farm owner to pay life insurance premiums all his life so that when he dies, that money will be available to pay the estate tax so the family doesn't have to sell the farm or business upon his death.

It’s a huge boon to insurance companies.

This is absolutely correct (Small business owner AND I have a "Group 1" - license to sell life insurance (have never sold a single policy, however).

Gold Star.

[RandomGuy]

So everything Obama proposes is wrong?


RG:

Pretty much.


And the deal President Obama proposed on December 6 promised to be even more generous, allowing for $5 million to be inherited without any tax, and any amount over that minimum would be taxed at 35 percent. So it's fair to assume that even fewer family farms would owe any estate tax at all, let alone need to be sold to pay the tax owed, as Fox & Friends suggested.

So you are against this proposal?

[101A]

Not really.

Fox revives ancient myth that the estate tax kills "a lot of" farms (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201012090019)



Further, the Irs website has this bit: (http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html#3)



1) Family farms are valued on a favorable basis "as is" rather than on market rates.

2) They are given larger tax-exemptions

3) They get to reduce even the value they have to report by a further $1,000,000

In short, the Fox "news" talking point is pure bullshit, and provably so.

If you can provide some data to show that this tax really does force "family farms" under, or to be divided up, I would love to see it, because it didn't take much research to find data that contradicts that.


Can't speak of farms; but the poster also referred to family businesses; on this point he is ABSOLUTELY correct.

My business generates a comfortable living for myself and my brother - but nothing that would make any of your eyes pop out of your heads; however to generate that income; our company does produce a lot of gross revenue - large corporations VALUE that revenue - and could buy my company, fire all my employees; merge our systems into theirs; increasing their revenue far more than they increase their costs; thus making my business worth quite a bit if I were to sell it (We could net over 30 year's income if we sold)

Problem; I like my business, and feel a responsibility to my employees; am proud of it, and don't want to sell it - and would like to have the ability to pass it along.....

An onerous inheritance tax threatens that - and I carry a very large life insurance policy to mitigate against it; just as the original poster surmised.

[RandomGuy]

This is absolutely correct (Small business owner AND I have a "Group 1" - license to sell life insurance (have never sold a single policy, however).

Gold Star.

Current proposed rule, as I understand them, allow for businesses of a net worth of $5M or less to be exempt and family farms of up to $6M net worth to be exempt.

Not exactly a "small" business, IMO. Remember, we are talking about NET worth, not total assets.

[RandomGuy]

Can't speak of farms; but the poster also referred to family businesses; on this point he is ABSOLUTELY correct.

My business generates a comfortable living for myself and my brother - but nothing that would make any of your eyes pop out of your heads; however to generate that income; our company does produce a lot of gross revenue - large corporations VALUE that revenue - and could buy my company, fire all my employees; merge our systems into theirs; increasing their revenue far more than they increase their costs; thus making my business worth quite a bit if I were to sell it (We could net over 30 year's income if we sold)

Problem; I like my business, and feel a responsibility to my employees; am proud of it, and don't want to sell it - and would like to have the ability to pass it along.....

An onerous inheritance tax threatens that - and I carry a very large life insurance policy to mitigate against it; just as the original poster surmised.

I think you should have a tax expert estimate your tax liability in that event.

Your life insurance policy could be an unnecessary expense.

You know your position better than I do, just offering a bit of advice, well meant and freely given.

That said, gotta get going. Will check back later.

[101A]

I think you should have a tax expert estimate your tax liability in that event.

Your life insurance policy could be an unnecessary expense.

You know your position better than I do, just offering a bit of advice, well meant and freely given.

That said, gotta get going. Will check back later.

Currently, until something else is passed - my estate will be taxed at 55% above $1.1 million if I die after January first - if the compromise goes through, I can reduce, but not fully eliminate the policy (although the deal, ultimately, is only for two years - don't think I'm willing to role those dice).

[Wild Cobra]

hey, if you want big govt to save us from terrorists, poverty, starvation, epidemics, global temp increas...got to pay the piper...
Then add to the tax code voluntary taxation, where those who want particular programs pay more.

[Wild Cobra]

The government isn't taxing it twice. It was taxed as income over the years to your parent not you.

You recieve those assets and are better off for the transaction. That is income TO YOU.

If it is income, then why are you taxed capital gains when you sell it?

Tell me that isn't taxed twice. To include the original makes it taxed three times.

[boutons_deux]

"why are you taxed capital gains when you sell it"

because it's capital gains, duh.

[Wild Cobra]

"why are you taxed capital gains when you sell it"

because it's capital gains, duh.
So you admit. It's double taxation.

Good.

[Winehole23]

Senate leaders released an agreement crafted by the White House and Republicans to sustain Bush-era tax rates (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=FDEBGDPI:IND) through 2012, set the estate tax at the lowest rate in 80 years, extend jobless aid and cut payroll taxes by 2 percentage points...

...The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, which estimates the revenue effects of tax legislation, said the provisions would cost the government $801.3 billion in forgone revenue over 10 years. Extending unemployment benefits for 13 months, another feature of the package, would cost $56 billion, the Obama administration has said.



The proposal would extend Bush-era tax cuts for all levels of income. A two-year extension of those rates would cost $407.6 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.



The measure would keep the reduced tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003 on income, capital gains and dividends from expiring on Dec. 31. That would preserve the current 15 percent rate for most dividends and capital gains as well as the 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent income-tax rates.
Test vote is scheduled for Monday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-10/senate-tax-cut-extension-plan-would-add-857-billion-to-debt.html

[Wild Cobra]

Test vote is scheduled for Monday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-10/senate-tax-cut-extension-plan-would-add-857-billion-to-debt.html
Yes, heard that on the radio before i got home 1-1/2 hrs ago.

Test vote... that makes me laugh!

[RandomGuy]

So you admit. It's double taxation.

Good.

:bang

You invest a $100, on which you have already paid income taxes.

After two years, you sell the asset you purchased for $110.

What is the taxable income produced by this transaction?

For someone with the capacity to ferret out trillion to one probabilities when it comes to global climate, this simple math should be a walk in the park.

[Winehole23]

The $1,000 child credit would avoid being cut in half, the abolishment of the so-called marriage penalty would be retained, and tax credits subsidizing adoption, higher education and child care would be extended.



The bill includes provisions from last year’s economic- stimulus law that Democrats favor, including a Treasury grant in lieu of tax credits for solar, wind and renewable energy conversion. The change helps companies that are unprofitable and couldn’t take advantage of the credits.



The bill would extend federal unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless for 13 months, covering all of 2011, and cut workers’ share of Social Security taxes to 4.2 percent. It would temporarily index the alternative-minimum tax, rolling back a $136.7 billion tax increase set to affect an estimated 21 million Americans this year and next.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-10/senate-tax-cut-extension-plan-would-add-857-billion-to-debt.html

[Wild Cobra]

:bang

You invest a $100, on which you have already paid income taxes.

After two years, you sell the asset you purchased for $110.

What is the taxable income produced by this transaction?

For someone with the capacity to ferret out trillion to one probabilities when it comes to global climate, this simple math should be a walk in the park.
$10 is taxable, but shouldn't be. The code unless changed while I wasn't looking does not consider inflation on the $10 you gained. If you only made a $10 gain after 5 years of holding it, you have a loss due to inflation.

In this case, if you get $1 million is assets for $0, pay an approximate 50% in estate taxes, and sell it for $1,000,000, you also pay capital gains on $1 mil. That is unless you can write off the 1/2 mil in taxes.

Why not just pay capital gains taxes when you sell any gained assets?

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-10/senate-tax-cut-extension-plan-would-add-857-billion-to-debt.html
All those tax credits need to go away. If they want to retain an incentive for these items, then make them tax deductible. Not tax credits.

[RandomGuy]

It's double taxation.




:bang

You invest a $100, on which you have already paid income taxes.

After two years, you sell the asset you purchased for $110.

What is the taxable income produced by this transaction?


$10 is taxable, but shouldn't be.

If it were really double taxation, then you would be taxed on the $110, not just the $10 gain.

Where is the double taxation on you? or were you wrong when you said it was double taxation?

[RandomGuy]

$10 is taxable, but shouldn't be. The code unless changed while I wasn't looking does not consider inflation on the $10 you gained. If you only made a $10 gain after 5 years of holding it, you have a loss due to inflation.

In this case, if you get $1 million is assets for $0, pay an approximate 50% in estate taxes, and sell it for $1,000,000, you also pay capital gains on $1 mil. That is unless you can write off the 1/2 mil in taxes.

Why not just pay capital gains taxes when you sell any gained assets?

:bang

No. Seriously?

After you have paid the estate taxes, you then have post tax income of $500,000. This becomes the "tax basis" for your investment.

If you then invest it, and sell that investment for $1,000,000, you subtract your basis, $500,000 to get your taxable income of $500,000

An economic gain that currently costs you 15% in taxes.

If you had simply earned that through income, you would pay closer to 35% of that.

In effect, people who work for a living subsidize those who sit on their asses and let their money work for them, such as lazy fucks like Paris Hilton, who is simply the beneficiary of her parent's wealth.

[Wild Cobra]

If it were really double taxation, then you would be taxed on the $110, not just the $10 gain.

Where is the double taxation on you? or were you wrong when you said it was double taxation?
I cannot believe you don't follow.

I don't know how to explain it to you if you fail to understand my point. Yes, it would be double taxation to be taxed on the $110. However, taxes were already paid on the $100. That's why only the $10 is taxed. In the case of inheritance, not only was taxes paid as the person who died gained the wealth, but now we are taxing the gain. Not that this money is taxed, arguable twice already, what is there still a tax when you sell these newly acquired assets as capital gains?

Estate tax + capital gains tax = double taxation. Triple if you count the initial tax in acquiring the wealth by the deceased.

[Wild Cobra]

:bang

No. Seriously?

After you have paid the estate taxes, you then have post tax income of $500,000. This becomes the "tax basis" for your investment.

If you then invest it, and sell that investment for $1,000,000, you subtract your basis, $500,000 to get your taxable income of $500,000

An economic gain that currently costs you 15% in taxes.

If you had simply earned that through income, you would pay closer to 35% of that.

In effect, people who work for a living subsidize those who sit on their asses and let their money work for them, such as lazy fucks like Paris Hilton, who is simply the beneficiary of her parent's wealth.
Crybaby...

It aint fair...

that's a dispicable attitude you display. To think people don't deserve their money.

You liberals are unethical and godless. How can anyone with an attitude like yours be Christian like some liberals claim to be?


You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

– Exodus 20:17 (NIV)


Again, liberals are Godless.

[RandomGuy]

I cannot believe you don't follow.

I don't know how to explain it to you if you fail to understand my point. Yes, it would be double taxation to be taxed on the $110. However, taxes were already paid on the $100. That's why only the $10 is taxed. In the case of inheritance, not only was taxes paid as the person who died gained the wealth, but now we are taxing the gain. Not that this money is taxed, arguable twice already, what is there still a tax when you sell these newly acquired assets as capital gains?

Estate tax + capital gains tax = double taxation. Triple if you count the initial tax in acquiring the wealth by the deceased.

Already addressed.


The government isn't taxing it twice. It was taxed as income over the years to your parent not you.

You recieve those assets and are better off for the transaction. That is income TO YOU.

Consider the journey of a dollar.

You have a dollar, and you use that dollar to buy a sandwich at the local diner. That is income to the diner. It uses that dollar and pays its water bill. That is income to the utility. The utility uses that dollar and pays an employee. That is income to the employee. That employee then spends it at your business, that is income to you.

At each stage this income is taxed, and is not "double taxation".

Your logic, as usual, is flawed. Unless of course each dollar in existance only gets taxed once, and then is tracked as it moves through the economy never to be taxed again. I'm sure that would suit you, but it would hardly fund the government you want.

Using your logic, if a dollar passes through more than one hand in a year, it is "double taxed".

Currently, it is estimated, if memory serves, that any given dollar in circulation passes through 7 hands in a given year, i.e. the "velocity of money".

Do you consider these seven different people as having been "septuple taxed"??

[Wild Cobra]

Already addressed.



Using your logic, if a dollar passes through more than one hand in a year, it is "double taxed".

Currently, it is estimated, if memory serves, that any given dollar in circulation passes through 7 hands in a given year, i.e. the "velocity of money".

Do you consider these seven different people as having been "septuple taxed"??
:idiot

[RandomGuy]

Crybaby...

It aint fair...

that's a dispicable attitude you display. To think people don't deserve their money.

You liberals are unethical and godless. How can anyone with an attitude like yours be Christian like some liberals claim to be?

Again, liberals are Godless.

So Paris Hilton *isn't* a lazy fuck?

[RandomGuy]

I cannot believe you don't follow.

I don't know how to explain it to you if you fail to understand my point. Yes, it would be double taxation to be taxed on the $110. However, taxes were already paid on the $100. That's why only the $10 is taxed. In the case of inheritance, not only was taxes paid as the person who died gained the wealth, but now we are taxing the gain. Not that this money is taxed, arguable twice already, what is there still a tax when you sell these newly acquired assets as capital gains?

Estate tax + capital gains tax = double taxation. Triple if you count the initial tax in acquiring the wealth by the deceased.

There is not a tax when you sell these assets as capital gains. You acquire the post tax value as your basis, to my understanding.

[edit=added the words "full value", as seems to be implied above]
Can you please show me where you have to pay a capital gains tax on the full value of items you sell in an inheritance?

Link?

[CosmicCowboy]

So Paris Hilton *isn't* a lazy fuck?

Paris Hilton is a stupid cunt that can't even do a decent sex tape but she has a more legitimate claim to her parents life savings than the US Government.

[RandomGuy]

Estate tax + capital gains tax = double taxation. Triple if you count the initial tax in acquiring the wealth by the deceased.

Are the inheritor and the deceased seperate people?

Income is done on an individual basis.

For your logic to be applicable, you and your parent must be the same person.

The economic benefits someone else enjoys are not income to you.

[Wild Cobra]

Paris Hilton is a stupid cunt that can't even do a decent sex tape but she has a more legitimate claim to her parents life savings than the US Government.
No doubt.

[RandomGuy]

Paris Hilton is a stupid cunt that can't even do a decent sex tape but she has a more legitimate claim to her parents life savings than the US Government.

I agree, on all counts. :lol

I also think that the only thing she did to deserve that claim is be lucky enough to have rich parents.

As such, that income should be differentiated from income earned at a job, and taxed accordingly.

[Wild Cobra]

As such, that income should be differentiated from income earned at a job, and taxed accordingly.
So in the case of a business being passed from father to son, you are in favor of bankruptcy for the business, and putting people out of work?

[RandomGuy]

So in the case of a business being passed from father to son, you are in favor of bankruptcy for the business, and putting people out of work?

If the business is so poorly run as to not be able to plan effectively, then the business probably wasn't all that great to begin with.

I am not in favor of coddling poor business practices, no.

[Wild Cobra]

If the business is so poorly run as to not be able to plan effectively, then the business probably wasn't all that great to begin with.

I am not in favor of coddling poor business practices, no.
So you wish to force a business owner to bend his ways to the corporatate view. Sell stocks, or something else that effectively takes away the business as wealth?

Wealth is wealth. How can you shield it from the IRS?

[DMX7]

Crybaby...

It aint fair...

that's a dispicable attitude you display. To think people don't deserve their money.

Paris Hilton "deserves" millions of dollars.... ah... why? Because she was born by chance to the right family? So I guess kids growing up in the Horn of Africa "deserve" to not even have shoes on their feet since they didn't hit the parental jackpot.

Think about what you're saying, money is essentially a birthright.

That Exodus quote is bullshit here too, he's not coveting his neighbor's stuff. How do we know the money collected for estate taxes isn't going to our military welfare system? That's the only element of government that operate on a de facto blank check.


And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?

And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.

And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

-Mark 10:17-25 (Jesus on the "Natural" Death Tax)

[Wild Cobra]

RG...

What happens when you apply your velocity of money argument to lower taxes for people to have more money to spend for economic growth?

[RandomGuy]

You have a dollar, and you use that dollar to buy a sandwich at the local diner. That is income to the diner. It uses that dollar and pays its water bill. That is income to the utility. The utility uses that dollar and pays an employee. That is income to the employee. That employee then spends it at your business, that is income to you.

At each stage this income is taxed, and is not "double taxation".

Using your logic, if a dollar passes through more than one hand in a year, it is "double taxed".

Currently, it is estimated, if memory serves, that any given dollar in circulation passes through 7 hands in a given year, i.e. the "velocity of money".

Do you consider these seven different people as having been "septuple taxed"??


:idiot


There is not a tax when you sell these assets as capital gains. You acquire the post tax value as your basis, to my understanding.

Can you please show me where you have to pay a capital gains tax on the full value of items you sell in an inheritance?

Link?

Have I mis-applied your logic? are you the same person as your parent?

Do the economic benefits that other people enjoy constitute income to you?

The smiley doesn't really answer any of my questions.

[Wild Cobra]

Mark 10:17-25
That has to do with the general morality of the rich. Not being rich.

In the case of coveting other people's money... Liberals for some illogical reason believe in giving to the poor, with other people's money. They fuel the "coveting" of other people's wealth. They say everyone deserves health care. However, they are coveting what others have, and have to steal the wealth from others to give it to all.

Fuck you scumbag godless liberals.

Estate taxes are a pretty small portion of the revenues. Why worry about such things when it helps the government far less than it huts those it's imposed upon?

[Wild Cobra]

Have I mis-applied your logic? are you the same person as your parent?

Yes, you have.

I am saying it is double taxation. I'm saying if you try to misapply my logic, it is triple taxation, not double.

[RandomGuy]

Crybaby...

It aint fair...

that's a dispicable attitude you display. To think people don't deserve their money.

You liberals are unethical and godless. How can anyone with an attitude like yours be Christian like some liberals claim to be?



Again, liberals are Godless.

By the way:

Fuck you, you God-damned, hypocritical, sanctimonious, sack of shit.

If you want to get into the Bible-quoting pissing contest,


"There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life." 1 Timothy 6:17-19

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'" Matthew 25:41-45

People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Timothy 6:9-10

"For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26

"Riches and honour are with me; yea, durable riches and righteousness. My fruit is better than gold, yea, than fine gold; and my revenue than choice silver." Proverbs 8:18, 19

"Then [Jesus] said to them, 'Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.'" Luke 12:15

For someone who probably says rather rude things to homeless people who ask him for money, spare me the lecture.

[johnsmith]

Ok randomguy, I'm going to give you a scenario, and you try (without being a condescending prick like you usually are and really have been in this thread), you explain to me why you see it as fair.

My father went to Vietnam right out of High School, he never went to college. Upon returning home he went into construction as a 'helper' (I know this blows the mind of career students like yourself). Over the past 40 years he's been slowly promoted, promoted, promoted until he reached what he considers to be his peak in his profession (he's the COO of a major construction company).

He wasn't a savvy investor, he didn't spend his life being a dickhead to others on the internet, and he never had a formal education. He worked his fucking ass off.

When he passes, he will be worh somewhere in the area of 10 million plus a million dollar home. Why is it fair for the United States Government to tax that 11 million dollars? Furthermore, what do you suppose that money will be used for?

Like I said, try to answer the question without sounding like a fucking cocksucer the way you usually do.

[Wild Cobra]

There is not a tax when you sell these assets as capital gains. You acquire the post tax value as your basis, to my understanding.

[edit=added the words "full value", as seems to be implied above]
Can you please show me where you have to pay a capital gains tax on the full value of items you sell in an inheritance?

Link?
I have not found what you talk about as an exclusion to paying capital gains. Please show me where such a transaction is an exclusion to capital gains.

[RandomGuy]

There is not a tax when you sell these assets as capital gains. You acquire the post tax value as your basis, to my understanding.

Can you please show me where you have to pay a capital gains tax on the full value of items you sell in an inheritance?

link?


Yes, you have.

I am saying it is double taxation. I'm saying if you try to misapply my logic, it is triple taxation, not double.

I am not mis-applying anything.

I think you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Bullshit has been called.

Either you can show me the mechanics of the transaction, and your understanding runs directly counter to what I understand, or you can't.

[DMX7]

That has to do with the general morality of the rich. Not being rich.

The context is absolutely perfect. Jesus is telling the rich to give away their money (to the poor, no less) when they die.


Estate taxes are a pretty small portion of the revenues. Why worry about such things when it helps the government far less than it hurts those it's imposed upon?

Unbelievable... It doesn't hurt them at all.

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree, on all counts. :lol

I also think that the only thing she did to deserve that claim is be lucky enough to have rich parents.

As such, that income should be differentiated from income earned at a job, and taxed accordingly.

Paris Hilton may be a stupid cunt but at least she has to live within a budget. I would rather she get the money than have the government give it to Karzi's brother (who recently was intercepted going to Dubai to bank 52 million in cash and still got to keep it).

[Wild Cobra]

The context is absolutely perfect. Jesus is telling the rich to give away their money (to the poor, no less) when they die.

Yes, and Christians freely give to the church and charities, regularly. That is a far cry different than being compelled to do so by the government.

Understand the meaning of "free will" related to spirituality by chance?

When we are compelled to do something, who can tell if we would be as charitable or not under free will?

Typical liberal thinking. Treat everyone as the lowest common denominator when it suits an agenda.

[RandomGuy]

Ok randomguy, I'm going to give you a scenario, and you try (without being a condescending prick like you usually are and really have been in this thread), you explain to me why you see it as fair.

My father went to Vietnam right out of High School, he never went to college. Upon returning home he went into construction as a 'helper' (I know this blows the mind of career students like yourself). Over the past 40 years he's been slowly promoted, promoted, promoted until he reached what he considers to be his peak in his profession (he's the COO of a major construction company).

He wasn't a savvy investor, he didn't spend his life being a dickhead to others on the internet, and he never had a formal education. He worked his fucking ass off.

When he passes, he will be worh somewhere in the area of 10 million plus a million dollar home. Why is it fair for the United States Government to tax that 11 million dollars? Furthermore, what do you suppose that money will be used for?

Like I said, try to answer the question without sounding like a fucking cocksucer the way you usually do.

Fuck you.

I try not to be condescending until being insulted. I don't always succeed, but I do try.

Shove your question up your ass until you can yourself ask it politely, hypocrite.

[DMX7]

I rather payoff some debt, however small, than see Paris Hilton get to buy a new pink Bentley to match the color she spray painted her dog.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuck you.

I try not to be condescending until being insulted. I don't always succeed, but I do try.

Shove your question up your ass until you can yourself ask it politely, hypocrite.
LOL...

Lets see if we can push more buttons...

have any that make you go supercritical?

[johnsmith]

Fuck you.

I try not to be condescending until being insulted. I don't always succeed, but I do try.

Shove your question up your ass until you can yourself ask it politely, hypocrite.

Really? You hypocritical little bitch.


Your logic, as usual, is flawed. Unless of course each dollar in existance only gets taxed once, and then is tracked as it moves through the economy never to be taxed again. I'm sure that would suit you, but it would hardly fund the government you want.


Fuck you

[DMX7]

Understand the meaning of "free will" related to spirituality by chance?

When we are compelled to do something, who can tell if we would be as charitable or not under free will?


:lmao Oh, you're really reaching now.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao Oh, you're really reaching now.
No, just showing you don't understand what you are quoting.

[RandomGuy]

Really? You hypocritical little bitch.
Fuck you

meh.

As I said, I try not to, but am only human. The worst thing I said to you was that your logic was flawed as usual.

Your response was:


...condescending prick like you usually are...

try to answer the question without sounding like a fucking cocksucer the way you usually do.

The bigger hypocrite is rather plain to anybody who reads the exchange.

...and you can still shove your question up your ass until you can ask it politely.

If you had asked without the profanity, I might have answered it.

As it is, I see no point in giving you the respect you will not afford me.

[101A]

Paris Hilton is a stupid cunt that can't even do a decent sex tape but she has a more legitimate claim to her parents life savings than the US Government.


It ought to be Paris Hilton's parents money to do with as they please - including passing it along to their heirs. That is a MAJOR incentive for building wealth (can't take it with you, after all).

I remember in High School, learning about the estate tax; thought my teacher was funnin us.

[Bender]

There is not a tax when you sell these assets as capital gains. You acquire the post tax value as your basis, to my understanding.

Can you please show me where you have to pay a capital gains tax on the full value of items you sell in an inheritance?
man, this thread is degenerating quickly... :lol

Yes, when a beneficiary inherits assets, his cost basis is the FMV at the time of death of whoever he inherited from. There is a schedule of assets in the Estate tax return showing FMV at date of death, I think. Therefore, he could receive a big "built-in gain" tax free.
IOW, if the dad bought some land for $20,000 40 years ago, but now it is worth $150,000, then the son inherits it, the son's "cost" of the land would be $150,000. $130,000 gain just goes up in smoke.
If the son then sells it for 152,000, it's only a $2,000 taxable gain...

[RandomGuy]

I have not found what you talk about as an exclusion to paying capital gains. Please show me where such a transaction is an exclusion to capital gains.

Do not shift the burden of proof to me. I did not make the claim.


Not that this money is taxed, arguable twice already, what is there still a tax when you sell these newly acquired assets as capital gains?

Just to be sure we are having the same conversation:

Inheirit $1,000,000
tax $500,000
Remaining assets:
$500,000

Sell assets immediately for $500,000, no tax.

That is my understanding.

My understanding of what you are saying:
Inheirit $1,000,000
Tax $500,000

Remaining assets:
$500,000
Sell assets immediately for $500,000, pay capital gains tax on $500,000


Is that what you are saying?

[johnsmith]

meh.

As I said, I try not to, but am only human. The worst thing I said to you was that your logic was flawed as usual.

Your response was:



The bigger hypocrite is rather plain to anybody who reads the exchange.

...and you can still shove your question up your ass until you can ask it politely.

If you had asked without the profanity, I might have answered it.

As it is, I see no point in giving you the respect you will not afford me.

It's funny to me that you pull the condescending passive-aggressive bullshit on a daily basis around here but when someone uses plain old aggression you get butt hurt that your feelers are hurt.

[RandomGuy]

man, this thread is degenerating quickly... :lol

Yes, when a beneficiary inherits assets, his cost basis is the FMV at the time of death of whoever he inherited from. There is a schedule of assets in the Estate tax return showing FMV at date of death, I think. Therefore, he could receive a big "built-in gain" tax free.
IOW, if the dad bought some land for $20,000 40 years ago, but now it is worth $150,000, then the son inherits it, the son's "cost" of the land would be $150,000. $130,000 gain just goes up in smoke.
If the son then sells it for 152,000, it's only a $2,000 taxable gain...

It's been a while since I took individual tax, but that seems to jibe with what I remember.

FWIW, I hate calculating taxes. It is mind numbing. Our tax system is far, far too complex.

I got an "A" in that class, but would gladly sufferhaving a nail driven through my hand rather than take it again.

[RandomGuy]

It's funny to me that you pull the condescending passive-aggressive bullshit on a daily basis around here but when someone uses plain old aggression you get butt hurt that your feelers are hurt.

That actually isn't "passive agressive". Saying someone's logic is usually flawed is straighforwardly aggressive.

Get at least that much right. :toast

[johnsmith]

That actually isn't "passive agressive". Saying someone's logic is usually flawed is straighforwardly aggressive.

Get at least that much right. :toast

You're right, saying that it's funny to me that you use "passive agressive" behavior on here on a daily basis clearly implies I was only talking about that one quote.


Get at least that much right.


Oh, and I don't really care to read your answer to my question since it will be the same as all your other answers, always skewed to the 'left', always condescending, and always an MSNBC talking point.

Peace.

LOL, climate change.

[RandomGuy]

You're right, saying that it's funny to me that you use "passive agressive" behavior on here on a daily basis clearly implies I was only talking about that one quote.

Get at least that much right.

Oh, and I don't really care to read your answer to my question since it will be the same as all your other answers, always skewed to the 'left', always condescending, and always an MSNBC talking point.

Peace.

LOL, climate change.

My answer is that you did about as much to "earn" that money as Paris Hilton did to earn hers.

and you bitch about "entitlements". :rolleyes

Furthermore,
If your father has that much money socked away, and is the COO of a major construction company, then he can damned well afford to buy some decent accounting advice, do some decent estate planning and mitigate the taxes paid.

More than likely he would end up hiring a "professional student" like myself.

Galling isn't it? People like you shit on education, then when it comes time to get down to the nuts and bolts, you are happy to fork over hundreds of dollars per hour for that expertise.

[TDMVPDPOY]

estate taxes is a load of horseshit

why not just allow them to pay the stamp duty from one name to another....

[Winehole23]

stamp duty?

[RandomGuy]

stamp duty?

Probably a reference to the stamp tax imposed by the British as part of their taxation of the American colonies.

Sorry, I don't buy that either.

"Waaaah, I only get $6,000,000 instead of $11,000,000". :cry :cry
Boo-fucking-hoo, life sucks, get a helmet. (snorts)

[johnsmith]

My answer is that you did about as much to "earn" that money as Paris Hilton did to earn hers.

You're right, I didn't earn that money, he did, and it's all his until he gives it to whomever he chooses, which happens to be his children. And since he already earned it, and it's his money since he already payed what the gov't asked him to, then why should they get more?

and you bitch about "entitlements". :rolleyes
Uh oh, more assumptions made by you........link please.


Furthermore,
If your father has that much money socked away, and is the COO of a major construction company, then he can damned well afford to buy some decent accounting advice, do some decent estate planning and mitigate the taxes paid. Already being done, but that doesn't really have to do with what I was asking does it?

More than likely he would end up hiring a "professional student" like myself. Nah, he doesn't like ass holes either.

Galling isn't it? People like you shit on education, then when it comes time to get down to the nuts and bolts, you are happy to fork over hundreds of dollars per hour for that expertise.
I shit on students who think they are professionals. I have a masters degree and this is the first I've ever mentioned it on this website. I also have a decade of "actual" experience in the workforce and from everything I've seen, it trumps all education.

Later bitch

[The_Worlds_finest]

Ok randomguy, I'm going to give you a scenario, and you try (without being a condescending prick like you usually are and really have been in this thread), you explain to me why you see it as fair.

My father went to Vietnam right out of High School, he never went to college. Upon returning home he went into construction as a 'helper' (I know this blows the mind of career students like yourself). Over the past 40 years he's been slowly promoted, promoted, promoted until he reached what he considers to be his peak in his profession (he's the COO of a major construction company).

He wasn't a savvy investor, he didn't spend his life being a dickhead to others on the internet, and he never had a formal education. He worked his fucking ass off.

When he passes, he will be worh somewhere in the area of 10 million plus a million dollar home. Why is it fair for the United States Government to tax that 11 million dollars? Furthermore, what do you suppose that money will be used for?

Like I said, try to answer the question without sounding like a fucking cocksucer the way you usually do.


1) Your father is a badass
2) Who the fuck do these shit fucks in dc think they are by claiming half of what he has earned. Last I check we arent fucking commies.
3) The government wants every person to be a slave. We will never catch a break because we are not suppose too.
4) The dollar is molding more and more from something that the people own, into what the government uses to own the people.


The government wants us to spend every dime we make and take everything we dont.

I am still waiting for someone to state a good reason for this tax other than to fuck us royally(no pun intended)

[jack sommerset]

The balls some of these motherfuckers have. RG, go fuck yourself thinking it's ok to have an estate tax. Serioulsy, FUCK YOU!

[RandomGuy]

I think the rich wing of the Republican party has bullshitted the stupid wing of the Republican party to go along with opposing something that affects a vanishingly small percentage of people.

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/1215-estatetax/9196845-1-eng-US/1215-estatetax_full_600.jpg

"There are two kinds of Republicans, millionaires and suckers".

The whole "family farms" schtick is an obvious ruse to play on people's emotions at the expense of the truth.

The truth is that the estate tax effects almost no one, but the very richest.

:cry:cry "I'm only going to inheirit X-40% MILLIONS rather than X MILLIONS OF DOLLARS". :cry:cry

Seriously?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2010/1215/Resurrect-the-estate-tax-or-lose-250-billion


The compromise tax bill worked out by President Obama and congressional Republicans would reinstate the tax for 2011 and 2012 with a $5 million exemption and a 35 percent tax rate. Though obviously a tax increase compared to what estates pay this year (i.e., nothing), that would be much less onerous for the wealthy than the $1 million exemption and 55 percent top tax rate that will take effect in January if Congress makes no changes. Absent congressional action, about 2 percent of estates would pay the estate tax (see red point on graph); under the compromise agreement, less than a tenth as many would owe anything (blue dot). That 0.2 percent would be the smallest percentage of estates owing tax since at least 1934 (other than 2010, when the one-year hiatus exempted every estate).

Those relatively few estates—just 3,600 by TPC estimate—would pay much less tax: an average of just over 14 percent of the estate’s value compared with about 19 percent if the law isn’t changed.

Sorry, but I have little sympathy for the children of billionaires.

By the by, Paris probably got very little of her family's money. (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/27/local/me-hilton27) Seems grandpa left 97% of his fortune (2 or 3 billion) to his own father's charity, and not the 23 grandkids.

[LnGrrrR]

The government isn't taxing it twice. It was taxed as income over the years to your parent not you.

You recieve those assets and are better off for the transaction. That is income TO YOU.

Consider the journey of a dollar.

You have a dollar, and you use that dollar to buy a sandwich at the local diner. That is income to the diner. It uses that dollar and pays its water bill. That is income to the utility. The utility uses that dollar and pays an employee. That is income to the employee. That employee then spends it at your business, that is income to you.

At each stage this income is taxed, and is not "double taxation".

Your logic, as usual, is flawed. Unless of course each dollar in existance only gets taxed once, and then is tracked as it moves through the economy never to be taxed again. I'm sure that would suit you, but it would hardly fund the government you want.

This may have been touched upon by others, but I figured I'd start a new dialogue with you RG, if I may.

Taxes, in my mind, should be as voluntary as possible, and should serve a specific purpose. The estate tax, to me, is deplorable. If you earn a certain amount in a lifetime, you are taxed on that. Cool beans. Then you decide to hand that off to your offspring, and your offspring is taxed again on that money.

But if it was taxed originally as a source of income, where does the justification for taxing the recipient again? He did not make that income, it was gifted to him. If I gift something to my wife for Christmas, the gov't doesn't make me give 8% of the gift when I hand it over. If I give my child a toy, I don't hand over an extra 8% when I give it to him. (etc etc)

Stepping in and demanding a "fair share" of what a person wishes to give to his parents also strikes me as cold. The passing of a loved one is obviously an intimate affair, and the gov't claiming a percentage of money saved for loved ones leaves me with a bad feeling. (I know this is based on an "ewww" feeling and thereby isn't the strongest argument, but felt I needed to air my biases.)

[LnGrrrR]

I agree, on all counts. :lol

I also think that the only thing she did to deserve that claim is be lucky enough to have rich parents.

As such, that income should be differentiated from income earned at a job, and taxed accordingly.

Why is money earned through your own hard work acceptable, but money passed down from parents who used hard work unacceptable?

[CosmicCowboy]

I think the rich wing of the Republican party has bullshitted the stupid wing of the Republican party to go along with opposing something that affects a vanishingly small percentage of people.

http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/1215-estatetax/9196845-1-eng-US/1215-estatetax_full_600.jpg

"There are two kinds of Republicans, millionaires and suckers".

The whole "family farms" schtick is an obvious ruse to play on people's emotions at the expense of the truth.

The truth is that the estate tax effects almost no one, but the very richest.

:cry:cry "I'm only going to inheirit X-40% MILLIONS rather than X MILLIONS OF DOLLARS". :cry:cry

Seriously?

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-VOX/2010/1215/Resurrect-the-estate-tax-or-lose-250-billion



Sorry, but I have little sympathy for the children of billionaires.

By the by, Paris probably got very little of her family's money. (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/27/local/me-hilton27) Seems grandpa left 97% of his fortune (2 or 3 billion) to his own father's charity, and not the 23 grandkids.

Considering she's making about 10 million a year just to party (in appearance money) she's still doing OK...

[LnGrrrR]

As well, note that parents deliberately deny the utility of that money in order to pass it down to heirs. In effect, this seems to create a strange condition, whereby it would make more fiscal sense for the dying person to go on a shopping spree for their heirs before they died, instead of just passing along money. The person who buys stuff is penalized less than the one who passes down cash, yet both have the same end in mind (benefiting their heirs).

[ploto]

He did not make that income, it was gifted to him. If I gift something to my wife for Christmas, the gov't doesn't make me give 8% of the gift when I hand it over. If I give my child a toy, I don't hand over an extra 8% when I give it to him. (etc etc)

IIRC the law allows an individual to gift $13,000 per year per person without anyone paying any gift tax. If you have 10 heirs- kids, grandkids...- you can give away $130,000 per year or $1.3 M over 10 years without any tax at all.

You can also pay tuition for them without any gift tax on top of all of this.

All of this is simple without even creating trusts, which is what the wealthy do.

The problem is how most people handle the death of the first spouse. Often, the half of the estate that belonged to that spouse goes to the surviving spouse. The issue then arises when that person dies and the entire estate is in one name to be passed down at one time. If you have that much money, let the assets of the first spouse go instead into trust or to heirs other than the spouse. Then, when the second spouse dies, his or her estate is only half and may fall below the taxable limit, whereas the combined estate might not have.

[diego]

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US tax system, but my thoughts are:

1) Isnt it easy to skirt around these regulations? For example, my wife's father passed away recently, he was quite wealthy for local standards (15M USD). he had 6 kids and his wife was alive. before dying, he basically bought houses, businesses, mutual funds, pensions for everyone and thus avoided inheritance taxes. Ok, if he had died unexpectedly there would have been taxes to pay, as it was IIRC the family payed about $800 of inheritance tax.

2) As life expectancy rises, and given that wealthy people have better access to medicine, as well as better access to lawyers and accountants, what happens when those really wealthy people live for 150, 180 years, and have no incentive to pass the wealth on to the next 3-4-5 generations under them? it seems to me the inheritance tax is to encourage old people to spend their money, on themselves or others, rather than sit on it. That doesnt seem like a bad thing to me

[RandomGuy]

This may have been touched upon by others, but I figured I'd start a new dialogue with you RG, if I may.

Taxes, in my mind, should be as voluntary as possible, and should serve a specific purpose. The estate tax, to me, is deplorable. If you earn a certain amount in a lifetime, you are taxed on that. Cool beans. Then you decide to hand that off to your offspring, and your offspring is taxed again on that money.

But if it was taxed originally as a source of income, where does the justification for taxing the recipient again? He did not make that income, it was gifted to him. If I gift something to my wife for Christmas, the gov't doesn't make me give 8% of the gift when I hand it over. If I give my child a toy, I don't hand over an extra 8% when I give it to him. (etc etc)

Stepping in and demanding a "fair share" of what a person wishes to give to his parents also strikes me as cold. The passing of a loved one is obviously an intimate affair, and the gov't claiming a percentage of money saved for loved ones leaves me with a bad feeling. (I know this is based on an "ewww" feeling and thereby isn't the strongest argument, but felt I needed to air my biases.)

This goes back to the entire notion of an income tax, and the notion of "economic gain".

I spelled this out earlier in the thread, but re-visiting it seems relevant.

If I buy a loaf a bread from the baker, she pays income tax on the profit she makes from that bread, and all the other goods he sells. She takes what is left, then decides to buy a new oven. She gives money to an oven manufacturer, who presumedly makes a profit from that sale.

Should then the oven manufacturer not be taxed on its profit, because technically, the bakers profits were already taxed?

Or should then the manufacturer be taxed on its profits, on the theory that its income is seperate from the baker's?

To be honest, there is also an element of "screw the rich" in the estate tax.

I will present some of Teddy Roosevelt's speeches at the time when he was arguing for such a tax:


It is important to this people to grapple with the problems connected with the amassing of enormous fortunes, and the use of those fortunes, both corporate and individual, in business. We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well-won and fortunes ill-won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole, and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law-honesty.

Of course no amount of charity in spending such fortunes in any way compensates for misconduct in making them. As a matter of personal conviction, and without pretending to discuss the details or formulate the system, I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of a progressive tax on all fortunes, beyond a certain amount either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual — a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual; the tax, of course, to be imposed by the National and not the State Government.

Such taxation should, of course, be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.


A heavy progressive tax upon a very large fortune is in no way such a tax upon thrift or industry as a like would be on a small fortune. No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood.

We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands.

Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves. But proposals for legislation such as this herein advocated are directly opposed to this class of socialistic theories.

Our aim is to recognize what Lincoln pointed out: The fact that there are some respects in which men are obviously not equal; but also to insist that there should be an equality of self-respect and of mutual respect, an equality of rights before the law, and at least an approximate equality in the conditions under which each man obtains the chance to show the stuff that is in him when compared to hisfellows.
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm

I don't entirely disagree with that.

I think that at some point we have to ask ourselves, does one human being really *need* to have billions of dollars?

Is the accumulation of vast wealth even moral?

I don't think so. You can't take it with you, and you do your children no favors in giving them something they have usually done little to earn.

If you have the case of a family business, and someone is working within the company, it is just as easy to give them stock options that bypass this anyways. Good business and succession planning can bypass the estate tax and easily pass on a larger family business to ones children. That in and of itself nullifies the "family business" argument.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the US tax system, but my thoughts are:

1) Isnt it easy to skirt around these regulations? For example, my wife's father passed away recently, he was quite wealthy for local standards (15M USD). he had 6 kids and his wife was alive. before dying, he basically bought houses, businesses, mutual funds, pensions for everyone and thus avoided inheritance taxes. Ok, if he had died unexpectedly there would have been taxes to pay, as it was IIRC the family payed about $800 of inheritance tax.

2) As life expectancy rises, and given that wealthy people have better access to medicine, as well as better access to lawyers and accountants, what happens when those really wealthy people live for 150, 180 years, and have no incentive to pass the wealth on to the next 3-4-5 generations under them? it seems to me the inheritance tax is to encourage old people to spend their money, on themselves or others, rather than sit on it. That doesnt seem like a bad thing to me

It is fairly easy if you do some good planning, as I have noted.
Such transactions in the US are generally subject to gift taxes if they are beyond a certain threshold, $13,000 per person per year in 2009.
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108139,00.html

For reference here is a quick FAQ about the estate tax at the US tax authority (Internal Revenue Service or IRS) website:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html

[TeyshaBlue]

This goes back to the entire notion of an income tax, and the notion of "economic gain".

I spelled this out earlier in the thread, but re-visiting it seems relevant.

If I buy a loaf a bread from the baker, she pays income tax on the profit she makes from that bread, and all the other goods he sells. She takes what is left, then decides to buy a new oven. She gives money to an oven manufacturer, who presumedly makes a profit from that sale.

Should then the oven manufacturer not be taxed on its profit, because technically, the bakers profits were already taxed?

Or should then the manufacturer be taxed on its profits, on the theory that its income is seperate from the baker's?

To be honest, there is also an element of "screw the rich" in the estate tax.

I will present some of Teddy Roosevelt's speeches at the time when he was arguing for such a tax:




http://www.tax.org/Museum/1901-1932.htm

I don't entirely disagree with that.

I think that at some point we have to ask ourselves, does one human being really *need* to have billions of dollars?

Is the accumulation of vast wealth even moral?

I don't think so. You can't take it with you, and you do your children no favors in giving them something they have usually done little to earn.

If you have the case of a family business, and someone is working within the company, it is just as easy to give them stock options that bypass this anyways. Good business and succession planning can bypass the estate tax and easily pass on a larger family business to ones children. That in and of itself nullifies the "family business" argument.

It's the very insertion of qualifiers like "need" that grenade the debate from the get-go. "Need" is completely subjective and maybe even inaccurate.
What is today's metric for "Needs Met"? Because once that arbitrary line is crossed, then all dollars accumulated are superfluous as is implied by the term "needs". It's practically a recursive argument at that point.

[RandomGuy]

It's the very insertion of qualifiers like "need" that grenade the debate from the get-go. "Need" is completely subjective and maybe even inaccurate.
What is today's metric for "Needs Met"? Because once that arbitrary line is crossed, then all dollars accumulated are superfluous as is implied by the term "needs". It's practically a recursive argument at that point.

That is actually what a progressive tax rate is based on, as well as the official poverty level.

The economic concept of "marginal income" comes from thinking on this subject, i.e. at what income level is it possible to buy a minimum level of food, shelter, clothes, transportation?

Past this point, any extra income just buys better food, clothes, etc.

This is the point at which income taxes should be applied.

That isn't to say that taxes should be completely 100% confiscatory at that point. That is extremely counterproductive and no one advocates that.

At some point, and we have touched on morality here via bible-quote pissing contests, one has to ask "how much is too much?" and be serious about it.

Most of the taxes pushed by progressives and ultimately passed around the turn of the 1900's were done so purely on the moral basis of some things that the bible says about wealth.

WC et al. may not like that, but I would simply ask anyone to dig up the actual arguments of the day, and tell me that "liberals" of the time were "Godless". Far from it. They were some of the more devout from what I have read.

Systems of morality, and concepts of equality, fairness, and so forth underlie a lot of the tax system, and as such are actually fairly important.

[TeyshaBlue]

Systems of morality, and concepts of equality, fairness, and so forth underlie a lot of the tax system, and as such are actually fairly important.

Can't argue that. Probably explains why our tax system ranks only slightly ahead of current Republicans in popularity.

We're real happy with our tax system in America.

[LnGrrrR]

If I buy a loaf a bread from the baker, she pays income tax on the profit she makes from that bread, and all the other goods he sells. She takes what is left, then decides to buy a new oven. She gives money to an oven manufacturer, who presumedly makes a profit from that sale.

Should then the oven manufacturer not be taxed on its profit, because technically, the bakers profits were already taxed?

Or should then the manufacturer be taxed on its profits, on the theory that its income is seperate from the baker's?

Yes, but those are transactions entered by different parties, and as you stated, you can't obviously track each dollar for once-taxation.

The other issue I see with that is that we don't charge taxes on "added utility" alone. As I said before, when I give a gift to my wife, that increases her "profit". I don't get taxed on that again, right? Would you agree that, in essence, inheriting money is rather analagous to inheriting a gift?


I think that at some point we have to ask ourselves, does one human being really *need* to have billions of dollars?

Is the accumulation of vast wealth even moral?

There's a lot of things Americans don't "need" though. Does one human being need to eat so much that they're overweight? The "one person doesn't need X" argument is not a strong one, I find.

As far as accumulation of vast wealth being moral, I don't think so. If one earned that wealth fairly, of course. Now if someone chooses not to donate/help/etc their money, we may think of that person as a jerk, but it doesn't mean they are immoral.


I don't think so. You can't take it with you, and you do your children no favors in giving them something they have usually done little to earn.

But that's a personal opinion. Sorry RG, I don't find it particularly strong. As you pointed out yourself, Paris Hilton came from a rich family but made her own cash.


If you have the case of a family business, and someone is working within the company, it is just as easy to give them stock options that bypass this anyways. Good business and succession planning can bypass the estate tax and easily pass on a larger family business to ones children. That in and of itself nullifies the "family business" argument.

Right, but the point isn't "How easy is this law to bypass" but rather "how moral/correct/useful is this law"?

[LnGrrrR]

Can't argue that. Probably explains why our tax system ranks only slightly ahead of current Republicans in popularity.

We're real happy with our tax system in America.

To be fair, I'd be surprised if there was high approval for any program in which your money is taken away :D

[LnGrrrR]

That is actually what a progressive tax rate is based on, as well as the official poverty level.

The economic concept of "marginal income" comes from thinking on this subject, i.e. at what income level is it possible to buy a minimum level of food, shelter, clothes, transportation?

Past this point, any extra income just buys better food, clothes, etc.

This is the point at which income taxes should be applied.

Totally agree, which is why a flat tax isn't exactly fair. Obviously, 10% of 30,000 (300) means alot more to that person than 10% of 1,000,000 (10,000) does, because as you rightfully pointed out, the first example most likely cuts into a person's necessities.


At some point, and we have touched on morality here via bible-quote pissing contests, one has to ask "how much is too much?" and be serious about it.

I agree here, I just don't think the estate tax is morally acceptable. Income taxes are a different story.

[TeyshaBlue]

As far as accumulation of vast wealth being moral, I don't think so. If one earned that wealth fairly, of course. Now if someone chooses not to donate/help/etc their money, we may think of that person as a jerk, but it doesn't mean they are immoral.


Accumulation of wealth has no intristic moral values to assign to it. The methodology behind the accumulation is fair game. But to predicate a position on the simple belief that accumulation itself is immoral poisons the debate. Might as well discuss the morality of living to be 100 years old or breathing more air than one needs.

[TeyshaBlue]

To be fair, I'd be surprised if there was high approval for any program in which your money is taken away :D

:lol:toast

[LnGrrrR]

Accumulation of wealth has no intristic moral values to assign to it. The methodology behind the accumulation is fair game. But to predicate a position on the simple belief that accumulation itself is immoral poisons the debate. Might as well discuss the morality of living to be 100 years old or breathing more air than one needs.

Well put. To frame it another way, some people think that it's "immoral" to have children, because each child uses up resources, contributes to pollution, etc etc. (Fine for the person themselves, but if they start advocating it for the world at large... well they're pretty wacko.)

[CosmicCowboy]

Totally agree, which is why a flat tax isn't exactly fair. Obviously, 10% of 30,000 (300) means alot more to that person than 10% of 1,000,000 (10,000) does, because as you rightfully pointed out, the first example most likely cuts into a person's necessities.





Clearly math isn't a strong suit...:lol

[Th'Pusher]

This may have been touched upon by others, but I figured I'd start a new dialogue with you RG, if I may.

Taxes, in my mind, should be as voluntary as possible, and should serve a specific purpose. The estate tax, to me, is deplorable. If you earn a certain amount in a lifetime, you are taxed on that. Cool beans. Then you decide to hand that off to your offspring, and your offspring is taxed again on that money.

But if it was taxed originally as a source of income, where does the justification for taxing the recipient again? He did not make that income, it was gifted to him. If I gift something to my wife for Christmas, the gov't doesn't make me give 8% of the gift when I hand it over. If I give my child a toy, I don't hand over an extra 8% when I give it to him. (etc etc)

Stepping in and demanding a "fair share" of what a person wishes to give to his parents also strikes me as cold. The passing of a loved one is obviously an intimate affair, and the gov't claiming a percentage of money saved for loved ones leaves me with a bad feeling. (I know this is based on an "ewww" feeling and thereby isn't the strongest argument, but felt I needed to air my biases.)

But gifts cash gifts over $13k annually are in fact taxed. Do you take issue with the gift tax as well?

[LnGrrrR]

Clearly math isn't a strong suit...:lol

Ha!

<---retarded

Obviously, I meant 3,000/100,000. :D

[LnGrrrR]

But gifts cash gifts over $13k annually are in fact taxed. Do you take issue with the gift tax as well?

Yes, I think that the "gift tax" touches along the same lines, although I don't find it as unacceptable from a "moral" standpoint because I think that the passing-down of one's life savings to their heirs involves some degree of "sacred-ness", if you will. (Again, I know that's not a strong argument.)

[RandomGuy]

if someone chooses not to donate/help/etc their money, we may think of that person as a jerk, but it doesn't mean they are immoral.

In the most absolute sense, I think it does.

In a world where no small number of children and families literally live on garbage dumps, millions of children starve to death every year, and there are more people in crushing poverty in the world than in all of the US, the US spends more money on PETS than it does food aid, I think something is a tad out of kilter.

Christina-Aguilera-Shoe-Closet1.jpg
http://www.mizztissa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Christina-Aguilera-Shoe-Closet1.jpg

Living in a Landfill: Cambodia > IMG_0827.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o4/61/30061/1/65275718.OFx19Q8b.IMG_0827.jpg

Is it "serial killer" type of immorality? No.
Do I give all of MY money to charity? No.

We don't want to think that women who spend more on shoes than the average person in the US earns in a year is immoral, because at some point we all aspire to that level of wealth, in our worship of materiality.

People don't like to think their value systems are immoral.

[RandomGuy]

•2007: $41.2 billion
http://exoticpets.about.com/cs/resourcesgeneral/a/petstates.htm


Real GDP (2009 est.): $23.7 billion.\


In Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, the
United States provided more than $2.9 billion of food assistance to developing countries
http://www.fas.usda.gov/fy09ifar.pdf


9,330,596,000
http://www.usaid.gov/policy/budget/cbj2007/summary.html

There is a reason the US is resented a bit in some circles, and I don't think that is entirely without merit.

[LnGrrrR]

In a world where no small number of children and families literally live on garbage dumps, millions of children starve to death every year, and there are more people in crushing poverty in the world than in all of the US, the US spends more money on PETS than it does food aid, I think something is a tad out of kilter.


That's a slippery slope. Technically, you probably don't need the internet you're using to post this message, or a cell phone, or any number of items. Should these "luxuries" make you immoral? What's the tipping point?

I would say that it IS moral to do something with your wealth, but it is not IMMORAL to not do so. It's not an all-or-nothing thing.

And most people that do have that much cash are probably donating a good deal of cash to charities anyways.

For instance, took me a few seconds to find these articles:

http://crushable.com/entertainment/get-christina-aguileras-clothes-and-support-charity/

http://justjared.buzznet.com/2010/05/13/christina-aguilera-wfps-new-ambassador/

Does this mean she's now "moral"? Even though she has a lot of shoes?

[TeyshaBlue]

In the most absolute sense, I think it does.

In a world where no small number of children and families literally live on garbage dumps, millions of children starve to death every year, and there are more people in crushing poverty in the world than in all of the US, the US spends more money on PETS than it does food aid, I think something is a tad out of kilter.

Christina-Aguilera-Shoe-Closet1.jpg
http://www.mizztissa.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Christina-Aguilera-Shoe-Closet1.jpg

Living in a Landfill: Cambodia > IMG_0827.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o4/61/30061/1/65275718.OFx19Q8b.IMG_0827.jpg

Is it "serial killer" type of immorality? No.
Do I give all of MY money to charity? No.

We don't want to think that women who spend more on shoes than the average person in the US earns in a year is immoral, because at some point we all aspire to that level of wealth, in our worship of materiality.

People don't like to think their value systems are immoral.

Again, the simple accumulation of wealth is neither moral nor immoral. If you want to extend beyond the accumulation, then that is another matter entirely. Without separating that reduction from the initial premise, then it could be argued that virtually any accumulation is immoral. Christina Aguilera, by dint of exceptional artistic talent, has accumulated wealth. That she chooses to spend it on shoes is irrelevant if we do not know what her charitable contributions are. Let's say she has 20k worth of shoes but donates 2 million to charities. Is that ratio acceptable or is she immoral? Is her shoe collection : Avg. American Salary ratio, which is kinda strawish btw, really a metric for morality?
She donates more to charities than the average person in the US earns in a year. By that metric, she must be extremely moral.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, I think that the "gift tax" touches along the same lines, although I don't find it as unacceptable from a "moral" standpoint because I think that the passing-down of one's life savings to their heirs involves some degree of "sacred-ness", if you will. (Again, I know that's not a strong argument.)

An estate tax that exempts up to 5M from this fully allows for the vast majority of people to pass their wealth on.

There is no full exemption like that yet, but it is proposed.

I am not against passing on things to your kids, but I am opposed to dynastic wealth of people with more money than many small countries. I don't think that is in tune with what our country should be about.

[boutons_deux]

Don't think the rest of the world doesn't know American Imperialist Empire sucks down 25% of the world's oil for 5% of the world's population.

[LnGrrrR]

There is a reason the US is resented a bit in some circles, and I don't think that is entirely without merit.

Those with advantages are often resented by those without such advantages.

Let me put it this way; if I'm starving, a piece of bread is wonderful. If all my neighbors are eating goose liver though, I probably won't be as happy. It's all relative, and for good reason. I'm at a disadvantage in the mating game if I don't compete with my peers.

[LnGrrrR]

An estate tax that exempts up to 5M from this fully allows for the vast majority of people to pass their wealth on.

There is no full exemption like that yet, but it is proposed.

I am not against passing on things to your kids, but I am opposed to dynastic wealth of people with more money than many small countries. I don't think that is in tune with what our country should be about.

I would argue that the government confiscating some of the money that people have earned and wish to pass on to their kids doesn't sound very "American" to me. :)

And I don't agree with the idea that more money = ok to be taxed in this specific situation. Inheritance is inheritance to me, whether 10 bucks or 10 million.

[LnGrrrR]

RG, what do you think of people who say that having children is immoral? After all, each child does more to cause pollution/spend resources etc. Do you think that's immoral when we already have trouble feeding the poor?

[RandomGuy]

[Christina Aguilara] donates more to charities than the average person in the US earns in a year. By that metric, she must be extremely moral.


And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and beheld how the people cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.
42And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing.
43And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

I speak in the most absolute of terms, and as I have pointed out, don't really live up to those ideals either.

As has been pointed out, once you have a certain amount of money beyond what is necessary to sustain life, you have more than hundreds of millions of people.

If you choose to value hundreds of pairs of shoes over human beings, when you could simply do with a few, that is immoral.

I would cast myself in with that. I could easily live a bit more simply, and donate or give more.

That doesn't mean I don't recognize my own immorality.

[RandomGuy]

RG, what do you think of people who say that having children is immoral? After all, each child does more to cause pollution/spend resources etc. Do you think that's immoral when we already have trouble feeding the poor?

I think that is nonsense.

If one were to follow that to the extreme, the human race would simply cease to exist.

Children are *the* only real important thing in the world, IMO.

If one doesn't want to have kids, more power to them, and I don't think that is bad, merely a choice.

[RandomGuy]

So many good questions and interesting points to make, so little time. Gotta go.

[LnGrrrR]

I think that is nonsense.

If one were to follow that to the extreme, the human race would simply cease to exist.

Children are *the* only real important thing in the world, IMO.

If one doesn't want to have kids, more power to them, and I don't think that is bad, merely a choice.

And if we were to follow your example to the extreme, we'd all be living in candle lit huts until every child had shelter and food. Right?

Additionally, if you care about children, why would you bring another one into the world? Shouldn't you be using the resources you have now to take care of the children currently in existence?

[TeyshaBlue]

I speak in the most absolute of terms, and as I have pointed out, don't really live up to those ideals either.

As has been pointed out, once you have a certain amount of money beyond what is necessary to sustain life, you have more than hundreds of millions of people.

If you choose to value hundreds of pairs of shoes over human beings, when you could simply do with a few, that is immoral.

I would cast myself in with that. I could easily live a bit more simply, and donate or give more.

That doesn't mean I don't recognize my own immorality.

Well, I guess absolute values can lead to irrational conclusions...If I had a certain amount of money, regardless of whether it were enough to sustain life (whatever "sustain" is defined as at the time), I would likely have more than hundreds of millions of people.
That metric...having more than others is rendered virtually meaningless by the simplest of extensions. However, it's the lynch-pin of the the scripture you quoted.

[TeyshaBlue]

So many good questions and interesting points to make, so little time. Gotta go.

:toast:toast

[LnGrrrR]

That doesn't mean I don't recognize my own immorality.

Then everyone is immoral to some degree. In fact, it's human nature to acquire things. If you readily gave up all your stuff, you're pretty much admitting defeat in the "propagation of your DNA" contest, which is one of the most potent driving factors of all humanity.