Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why would those statements be made by those persons if it was not a left leaning outfit?

Maybe it's a left-leaning outfit that does top-grade analytical work. There are conservative outfits that do good work, even if it gets deployed to do evil.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Why would those statements be made by those persons if it was not a left leaning outfit?

Jesus fucking christ, you have become one of those people who cannot imagine that anyone would compliment something purely on the quality of the work, or that anything could be neutral.

I wish, wish, wish Dole were president. He was on NPR or something this morning talking about bringing the sides together and that's the president's role, blah blah. He did not overtly criticize Bush, but.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You made a ludicrous statement about property rights. I challenged you for a basis. You declined to try to offer one.

What was ludicrous about the statement? You still haven't told me how we determine which rights of dead people we should in force and which we should not.

You then asked me to give a moral basis for the government's moral claim to the money. But I never said the government has a moral claim in the sense that you did -- i.e., as a "property right." The government taxes the money because we have to pay taxes to have a government, and because our elected representative chose that tax over others.

So the government need not have a moral basis to take the property of another? Let me get this staight. I have to come up with a moral basis against a double progressive taxation, which I did (i.e., property rights of the deceased), but you need not justify the government's side of the equation, other than to say, we need the money?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sigh. Apparently it is now OK to target a minority of the population, so long as that minority is "rich."

Well, yes, if you're talking about tax policy. Wealth has never been a protected class.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe it's a left-leaning outfit that does top-grade analytical work.

Perhaps. But with all of the misrepresentation that goes on with names of groups/centers etc., I've become very suspicious.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You mean progressive double taxation. The money has already been taxed.

God bless the principal that property rights are illussory in this country

The money frequently hasn't already been taxed. Most of the estates subject to the estate tax have a large component of inherited wealth. To suggest that it hasn't been taxed is as absurd as suggestiung that my fees shouldn't be taxed because they were already taxed to the client who earned them before me.

And property rights are not illusory. However, that doesn't mean that the government cannot properly assess an excise on the privilege of passing large amounts of property from one generation to the next.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Because the DEMs would oppose it even if we were in the black.

I agree that the GOP is a joke when it comes to fiscal policy. Only question I have is whether the DEMs (sans Clinton) would be any better.

On the basis of Bush's tax policy, I struggle to conceive of how they could possibly be worse.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think I could, based on the rights of the owner, but more importantly, what is the moral theory justifying the government's rights to a portion of the money?

The moral theory is that the property is no longer in its owner's hands. Therefore, it is appropriate that the government impose a transfer tax on it in exchange for granting the right to have it pass according to the decedent's wishes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The moral theory is that the property is no longer in its owner's hands. Therefore, it is appropriate that the government impose a transfer tax on it in exchange for granting the right to have it pass according to the decedent's wishes.

Nice try.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Really? New basis on transfer?

Yes. Automatic step up to fair market value. Poof! go the capital gains. Assuming the Republicans don't decide to eliminate the tax on them entirely anyway, rendering that point (and the economy) a dead issue.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
To play devil's advocate here, I've worked my butt off on a family enterprise in part because it was family but also because it's clear that one day it will be a quarter mine. Yes, there's been some estate planning in order to preserve as much of it as possible, but estate taxes could kill the inheritance. I'd like to think that we, having had a good part of our lives dedicated to it beyond simple return on investment, will do a better job running it than anyone else should we have to sell it in order to pay inheritance taxes.

I can't be alone on this.

If you have to sell it to pay estate taxes, your parent haven't done enough estate planning. And if it's really a working ranch, then you can qualify it for special valuation, and pay the estate tax over time. Of course, your parents can just give peices of it to you and your siblings every year and avoid the issue as well, but you lose out on the basis step-up there.

All of which retunrs me to my basic point that if it is lost, it's because of inadequate planning, not because the estate tax is confiscatory.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Nice try.

It's better than a nice try. It's atheory, albeit one which you may not agree with. In any event, it's more than you came up with on the other side of the argument.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's better than a nice try. It's atheory, albeit one which you may not agree with. In any event, it's more than you came up with on the other side of the argument.

It's not.

Why don't you like my property rights of the deceased theory?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Yes. Automatic step up to fair market value. Poof! go the capital gains. Assuming the Republicans don't decide to eliminate the tax on them entirely anyway, rendering that point (and the economy) a dead issue.

Is the estate tax calculated on market value at death or at acquisition value? I don't remember.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's not.

Why don't you like my property rights of the deceased theory?

Because the deceased have no property rights. They're dead.