Would you support an estate(death) tax of 75%?

[Deleted]

Fuck that. What's earned and taxed once shouldn't be touched, no matter how incapable the heir is.

[Total Crica]

Rich people make it their second job to avoid ANY taxes. This one would be no different, the money would be passed on in other ways before they allow it to be taxed when they die.

[A dot Ham]

Funny, you don't know me and yet, you feel confident calling me a snarky know-it-all. Mkay. You don't know that one of my econ profs called me a prodigy or that I've had discussions regarding monetary policy with people who work for the Fed since I was a child. I don't have much ego about such things and I'm quite ready to simply say I don't know about something when that's the case. But, ya know, you do you. Ad hominems are better than factual arguments, anyway, amirite?

Btw, there are plenty of economists out there. You don't have to be a CPA to understand taxation.

Either you're being disingenuous or ignorant on this point. Doesn't really matter which because I don't care about your motives.

You assume all sorts of things about Mr. Buffet when you don't know anything about how he arrived at his decisions. You cannot extrapolate what he paid in taxes with how he's choosing to distribute his wealth and know for certain what his motives are. You just can't. That projection isn't just unproductive, but beyond disingenuous.

This is the very essence of defending dogma.

Oh, and to be clear, I'm a Service Connected Disabled Vet and a former Network/Multimedia Engineer. I built original things in my field and now I have the time and wherewithal to study my other fields of interest including economics and public policy.

Some of us simply have a lot of information. Denigrating knowledgeable people as know-it-alls is the purview of obscurants.

Wow there is just so much to unpack there I don't know where to begin.

I suppose we should start with the stolen honor, its one thing to pretend to be something you're not (as if a list of accolades makes you more right ) but I really think this one crosses a line.

You also seem to be confused when I say know-it-all... it wasn't meant to imply that I myself think you know it all, but rather that you think you are.

This "understanding" of taxation. My only "mistake" being that I used the word "gave" which honestly I figured most people would understand the difference... but I clarified for you. Your need to nitpick that point speaks more of an internet troll than it does an intellectual... just sayin. Neither one of us has gone into any deep or even elementary discussion of taxation here so your conclusion that you somehow have a superior understanding of taxation is laughable.

I feel like your little tirade here is straight out of sitcom. First, you berate me for making assumptions about you being a snarky know-it-all, and then you proceed to give me a list of reasons why you actually are a know-it-all and that I really didn't know how spot on I was.

I call BS on this whole fiction.

Some of us simply have a lot of information. Denigrating knowledgeable people as know-it-alls is the purview of obscurants.

The real irony here is that you have provided not one iota of additional information to the topic or discussion in your interaction and your comments to me.

You assume all sorts of things about Mr. Buffet when you don't know anything about how he arrived at his decisions. You cannot extrapolate what he paid in taxes with how he's choosing to distribute his wealth and know for certain what his motives are. You just can't. That projection isn't just unproductive, but beyond disingenuous.

Quite frankly so do you. You assume that simply because he has a lot of money he must know what he is talking about.

However, as pointed out what he plans to do with his money is 100% contrary with what he proposes happens with everyone else's money.

If that doesn't make a self proclaimed intellectual at least take pause and ask, "Why?" then there is a problem.

One might also then question whether the statement, "Warren Buffet is for this idea." is truthful at all.

Funny, you don't know me and yet, you feel confident calling me a snarky know-it-all.

I saved this one for last.

Your one comment/attack/nit pick of a previous comment of mine, tone, demeanor, and childish desire to point out the one "error" in my post, absolutely qualifies me to make certain assumptions about you. I'm sorry you don't like the evaluation... I am not sure how to help you as I too come across as a snarky asshole. I just call it like I see it.

I'm not actually attacking Mr. Buffet. I doubt his support for it, and IF he does support I then question why he plans to do something different with his own money. The two are not congruent.

[Beardless Man]

Fuck that with an iron rod.

I refuse to let the government tax the shit out of me when I die. I want my belongings and wealth to be passed down to my children when I die. There is no good reason why I'd value society over my own children or wife.

[Alydael]

Well, just move to Somalia then, you won't be taxed. Enjoy your stateless dream.

I think it was explained something between one thousand to one million times already that such taxe only happen when the total assets are well inside "wealthy" territory.

I am fine with paying taxes and I actually file early and have never been delinquent or "off the books."

I am just not fine with the government taxing the same money twice. I think it is immoral and greedy.

It is also unseemly for the government to come knocking at your door when a loved one passed like grave robbers. It inspires distrust and hate towards the government.

Not only all of that, but- once they tax your money twice, it won't be long before the "let's tax them three times on it!" proposal comes.

Then we could call it the "mid- life" tax. It could go hand in hand with the ole' "mid-life crisis." We tax your money: when you earn it, w/e you have in your "estate" at 50 years and then again when you die. (Then get ready for the 4x tax)

Greed never stops, it just wants more when you feed it.

We don't have a "tax problem," the government (at least the US gov't) has collected record tax income for each of the last nine years (including this one).

The government has a spending problem. What else do you expect when you are using 10 million dollar missles to blow up a guy in a used $10,000 pick up?

Honestly, looking at how they spend money (both parties)- there can be a lot of belt tightening before they need to tax us more.

I will agree that if there is significant belt tightening and responsible spending in government and they still need more money- at that point, I would be open to more taxes.

- - - Updated - - -

I would like to see the country that has a 75% tax that isn't one where the government hasn't seized virtually all private property.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes because communist countries are know for their success and happiness right?

The world isn't fair but your moronic economic theories have been tried and millions starved to death as a result. I am tired of watching fools thinking that this time communism won't end like all the other times.

Hell you can look into Venezuela to see the effects of people like you in real time.

My ex girl lost her mom's home in order to pay the death tax when her grandmother passed. A home that was built by her family and four generations had lived in.

Just so some senators could drive around in limos and fly around in private jets- going to summits and parties.

That estate tax wasn't even 75%! I could only imagine what her family would have had stolen by the government had the estate tax been 75%.......

That estate tax is way too greedy........

- - - Updated - - -

Fuck that with an iron rod.

I refuse to let the government tax the shit out of me when I die. I want my belongings and wealth to be passed down to my children when I die. There is no good reason why I'd value society over my own children or wife.

Exactly, it is hard for me to see why people would even support this tax at all........ It is so obviously a money grab by a greedy, gluttonous government.

[Akka]

I am just not fine with the government taxing the same money twice. I think it is immoral and greedy.

It has already been explained countless times in the thread how it's not double-taxing. If you're too much of a fucking retard to read, it's on you.

[Gestopft]

My ex girl lost her mom's home in order to pay the death tax when her grandmother passed. A home that was built by her family and four generations had lived in.

A four-generation old home worth 5.5 million? Was it the entirety of the inheritance or something? I smell some BS here...

[Jonnusthegreat]

It has already been explained countless times in the thread how it's not double-taxing. If you're too much of a fucking retard to read, it's on you.

I mean, it is a tax after tax, but the government taxes more than just twice.

[Mackeyser]

Wow there is just so much to unpack there I don't know where to begin.

I suppose we should start with the stolen honor, its one thing to pretend to be something you're not (as if a list of accolades makes you more right ) but I really think this one crosses a line.

You also seem to be confused when I say know-it-all... it wasn't meant to imply that I myself think you know it all, but rather that you think you are.

This "understanding" of taxation. My only "mistake" being that I used the word "gave" which honestly I figured most people would understand the difference... but I clarified for you. Your need to nitpick that point speaks more of an internet troll than it does an intellectual... just sayin. Neither one of us has gone into any deep or even elementary discussion of taxation here so your conclusion that you somehow have a superior understanding of taxation is laughable.

I feel like your little tirade here is straight out of sitcom. First, you berate me for making assumptions about you being a snarky know-it-all, and then you proceed to give me a list of reasons why you actually are a know-it-all and that I really didn't know how spot on I was.

I call BS on this whole fiction.



The real irony here is that you have provided not one iota of additional information to the topic or discussion in your interaction and your comments to me.


Quite frankly so do you. You assume that simply because he has a lot of money he must know what he is talking about.

However, as pointed out what he plans to do with his money is 100% contrary with what he proposes happens with everyone else's money.

If that doesn't make a self-proclaimed intellectual at least take pause and ask, "Why?" then there is a problem.

One might also then question whether the statement, "Warren Buffet is for this idea." is truthful at all.


I saved this one for last.

Your one comment/attack/nit pick of a previous comment of mine, tone, demeanor, and childish desire to point out the one "error" in my post, absolutely qualifies me to make certain assumptions about you. I'm sorry you don't like the evaluation... I am not sure how to help you as I too come across as a snarky asshole. I just call it like I see it.

I'm not actually attacking Mr. Buffet. I doubt his support for it, and IF he does support I then question why he plans to do something different with his own money. The two are not congruent.

I'm too old to care enough what others think to lie about anything I've done. I never understood what prompts a person to falsely represent themselves online. But then again, I grew up with rotary phones and banks were only open 10am-3pm, Monday through Friday.

You have your opinion about Mr. Buffet. Fine. I don't have an opinion about him, I solely stated that all you have is an opinion and that's not enough to make concrete statements.

I know quite a bit about econ because it's a subject I studied in college and continue to learn and grow in the subject. I KNOW I'm not a know-it-all as my wife of 28 years makes sure to keep me humble on a pretty constant basis.

And I didn't think of you as any kind of an asshole. My assessment was simply that you were holding on to something in dogmatic fashion that isn't true in one instance and is unknowable in the other. If that's "calling it like you see it", then perhaps it's time to look again.

Anyway, this exchange doesn't need to continue. Be well and have a fine weekend.

- - - Updated - - -

A four-generation old home worth 5.5 million? Was it the entirety of the inheritance or something? I smell some BS here...

It's possible. Rare, but possible. There are towns where a larger home built to house multiple generations were built. They were either sleepy or distant towns that now are "hot real estate".

Santa Monica, CA used to be a sleepy beach town with bungaloes and smaller family houses. Heck, that was most of the beach towns in Santa Monica Bay. Even as the north part of Santa Monica was somewhat monied, it wasn't crazy and a person could have built a larger house there with a modest sum. That larger house now, even without upgrades could easily be worth more than $5.5M.

There are other towns where it could be nothing more than the location or size if the lot in an area of high demand.

It's rare, but it does happen. It won't likely happen much after this generation since the number of generational homes in desireable neighborhoods dwindles by the day.

[Stop Pretending]

Well sorry you havnt done much in your life

Nope, didn't work and go to school to work my way up to a six figure salary.

All while you sit here crying about how people obviously have money because they were born into money. People who have accomplished nada have this narrow minded view.