Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Death Tax

mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 3:28:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This year, there is no Estate Tax. Next year on, it will be 55%. It was never reinstated by Congress.

Discuss.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 4:01:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
There has been ample talk of Congress reinstating the tax this year by vote, so to say Congress hasn't reinstated it is true, but only if you add "yet."

As far as I know, however, there are no concrete plans yet that say, "estate tax will appear in full-form in 2011 at 55%." Its so far just been speculation - unless you have a non-Fox source to prove otherwise.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 4:18:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hm, no source for it though. I'd take that with a grain of salt, however it may be going off of any speculation.

I do have an alternate theory, though; apparently there was taxation repealed temporarily by Congress for 2010, but will come back in full force in 2011. It's been planned in advance, so to speak: http://localtechwire.com...
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 4:41:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 4:18:41 PM, Volkov wrote:
Hm, no source for it though. I'd take that with a grain of salt, however it may be going off of any speculation.

I do have an alternate theory, though; apparently there was taxation repealed temporarily by Congress for 2010, but will come back in full force in 2011. It's been planned in advance, so to speak: http://localtechwire.com...

As long as there is no death tax this year, but there is next year, elder rich people will feel guilty for surviving on the brink of death, when it will mean that they get to pass on less than half as much. It's terrible.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 4:44:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 4:41:26 PM, mongoose wrote:
As long as there is no death tax this year, but there is next year, elder rich people will feel guilty for surviving on the brink of death, when it will mean that they get to pass on less than half as much. It's terrible.

I'm not quite sure that is a really valid argument... but OK. Sure.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 4:45:20 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 4:41:26 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 1/4/2010 4:18:41 PM, Volkov wrote:
Hm, no source for it though. I'd take that with a grain of salt, however it may be going off of any speculation.

I do have an alternate theory, though; apparently there was taxation repealed temporarily by Congress for 2010, but will come back in full force in 2011. It's been planned in advance, so to speak: http://localtechwire.com...

As long as there is no death tax this year, but there is next year, elder rich people will feel guilty for surviving on the brink of death, when it will mean that they get to pass on less than half as much. It's terrible.

You're right, that is crazy.

2010: The best year to die.

Too bad it's not 2012... ;)
Lexicaholic
Posts: 526
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 5:44:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No matter what year you chose, you could always argue that it was a 'terrible' year for such imposition. Personally, I think the estate tax is one of the better progressive taxing schemes - although 55% flat-out would be ridiculous. If it's anything like the old estate tax it would only apply after a rather high 'free' inheritance amount, and even then only as against the overage and not at all if you have a surviving spouse. It really is tailored fairly well to keep wealth from accumulating in a manner that prevents the long term consolidation of wealth and power and encourages working for one's living.
http://mastersofcreationrpg.com... - My new site and long-developed project. Should be fun.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 7:48:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 5:44:06 PM, Lexicaholic wrote:
No matter what year you chose, you could always argue that it was a 'terrible' year for such imposition. Personally, I think the estate tax is one of the better progressive taxing schemes - although 55% flat-out would be ridiculous. If it's anything like the old estate tax it would only apply after a rather high 'free' inheritance amount, and even then only as against the overage and not at all if you have a surviving spouse. It really is tailored fairly well to keep wealth from accumulating in a manner that prevents the long term consolidation of wealth and power and encourages working for one's living.

Any year is terrible to have 0%, followed by a high percentage. This could mean that you save millions of dollars by dying a day earlier, which can really mess up people's priorities.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 7:49:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 7:48:15 PM, mongoose wrote:
Any year is terrible to have 0%, followed by a high percentage. This could mean that you save millions of dollars by dying a day earlier, which can really mess up people's priorities.

Uh, mongoose... I don't think its going to be that big of an issue. Really.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 7:51:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 7:50:41 PM, mongeese wrote:
We'll know if this is an issue based on the rich suicide rate of December 2010.

..... This can't be serious. Where are the cameras? This has got to be a joke...
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 7:55:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 7:51:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/4/2010 7:50:41 PM, mongeese wrote:
We'll know if this is an issue based on the rich suicide rate of December 2010.

..... This can't be serious. Where are the cameras? This has got to be a joke...

Do you have a more reliable way to tell if this will have any effect? I don't know if it will, but if it does, the suicide rate will tell us.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 8:00:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 7:55:07 PM, mongeese wrote:
Do you have a more reliable way to tell if this will have any effect? I don't know if it will, but if it does, the suicide rate will tell us.

Well, for one, there is no such data that you can access similar to what you're asking for, unless you work in a police agency somewhere. Information on suicide is shut to the public unless otherwise released for whatever purpose. There simply isn't any poll data for such a thing.

Secondly, I somehow doubt that wealthy individuals will start offing themselves, simply because they really, really, really want to give their kids money, unless they're already extremely sick, which is the only way I can even imagine this situation taking place. It simply seems very implausible. Sane, healthy people do not commit suicide for reasons such as this.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 8:02:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 8:00:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 1/4/2010 7:55:07 PM, mongeese wrote:
Do you have a more reliable way to tell if this will have any effect? I don't know if it will, but if it does, the suicide rate will tell us.

Well, for one, there is no such data that you can access similar to what you're asking for, unless you work in a police agency somewhere. Information on suicide is shut to the public unless otherwise released for whatever purpose. There simply isn't any poll data for such a thing.

Secondly, I somehow doubt that wealthy individuals will start offing themselves, simply because they really, really, really want to give their kids money, unless they're already extremely sick, which is the only way I can even imagine this situation taking place. It simply seems very implausible. Sane, healthy people do not commit suicide for reasons such as this.

There may be an increase in the murder of rich uncles.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2010 8:17:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 1/4/2010 8:02:50 PM, mongoose wrote:
There may be an increase in the murder of rich uncles.

..... I'm still waiting for Ashton Kutcher to come out and yell "punk'd."