Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not twice though. Club claims it's wrong to tax it twice, because it's formerly been taxed as income. Putting aside the merits of the argument, it's factually untrue. Many estates have sizable untaxed gains. Note that this is particularly likely to be true for houses, which many old people keep to death so that the kid gets a step up in basis.

I never said taxed as income. For most people, the largest asset in an estate is a home, which has been taxed at the time of purchase. But if we are going to treat disposition by inheritance like every other transfer of property, then I guess some sort of tax on transfer is appropriate. Query though, why we don't tax the recipient based on value of the property at the time it is acquired. That would seem to be consistent with Ty's (not Wonk's) theory for the tax in the first place.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how cutting the estate tax will significanlty benefit the economy, and where the lost tax cuts in other areas of the economy or increased deficits (since we are in deficits it has to be one or the other) will not hurt the economy.

I don't think anyone was making that claim. .

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how cutting the estate tax will significanlty benefit the economy, and where the lost tax cuts in other areas of the economy or increased deficits (since we are in deficits it has to be one or the other) will not hurt the economy.

Given the narrow focus of the estate tax I don't think it has an impact one way or the other. The efficiency gain is simply from eliminating the lawyers who get paid to help their clients avoid/minimize their tax liability.

The main issue with the estate tax is a moral one, that is how much control should the deceased have over the disposition of their assets.

BTW, increasing the estate tax would likely have a salutary effect on the economy, by forcing people to spend like it's going out of style (and that's 50% more spending that their inheritors would engage in). That or they'd all buy annuities so nothing would be left over.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I never said taxed as income. For most people, the largest asset in an estate is a home, which has been taxed at the time of purchase. But if we are going to treat disposition by inheritance like every other transfer of property, then I guess some sort of tax on transfer is appropriate. Query though, why we don't tax the recipient based on value of the property at the time it is acquired. That would seem to be consistent with Ty's (not Wonk's) theory for the tax in the first place.

Houses aren't "taxed" at the time of purchase, other than a recordation tax (which is pretty low).

Hey, if you want to get rid of the estate tax, then just charge the inheritiance to the income of the recipient. But I don't think that really solves any of your concerns--it's still a tax on something that you claim was previously taxed.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Given the narrow focus of the estate tax I don't think it has an impact one way or the other. The efficiency gain is simply from eliminating the lawyers who get paid to help their clients avoid/minimize their tax liability.

The main issue with the estate tax is a moral one, that is how much control should the deceased have over the disposition of their assets.

BTW, increasing the estate tax would likely have a salutary effect on the economy, by forcing people to spend like it's going out of style (and that's 50% more spending that their inheritors would engage in). That or they'd all buy annuities so nothing would be left over.

Morality? OK. What about taxing Joe that makes twenty five thousand a year so he can't send his kid to college. Or so Joe can't afford health insurance. Between that and taxing an estate so frank only inherits one million as opposed to two million. As far as I am concerned morality argues for the inheritance tax.

In addition, if Frank does not think he is going to inherit a lot of money, that forces him to plan for his retirement thereby forcing him to be a productive part of the economy. And as far as people spending their inheritance - I don't buy it. If the inheritance tax is 50% as oppossed to nothing, I have to save even more money so I can leave the amount of money that I want to my children.

The more you tax Frank, the less you tax Joe, which is more moral, and better for the economy. Morality argues for taxing the rich more, it is just economic practicality that argues against it. The problem with overtaxing the rich is that it also, in the long run, hurts the poor. But there is nothing fair about charging Bill Gates the same percentage of his income as you tax an employee at Wal Mart. Taxes suck and should be avoided wherever possible. But all things being even taxes on the poor are worse than taxes on the rich.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
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.

Once you're dead, you have no rights. You're dead. We give effect to the wishes of dead people for different reasons, but not because the dead person has rights.

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?

I didn't say you needed to come up with a moral basis against anything -- you made a statement about property rights that was silly.

Government doesn't have a moral right to collect taxes, except that government needs to exist for all sorts of moral reasons, and taxes are necessary for this to happen.

[chad87655]

Originally posted by Spanky
Morality? OK. What about taxing Joe that makes twenty five thousand a year so he can't send his kid to college. Or so Joe can't afford health insurance. Between that and taxing an estate so frank only inherits one million as opposed to two million. As far as I am concerned morality argues for the inheritance tax.

In addition, if Frank does not think he is going to inherit a lot of money, that forces him to plan for his retirement thereby forcing him to be a productive part of the economy. And as far as people spending their inheritance - I don't buy it. If the inheritance tax is 50% as oppossed to nothing, I have to save even more money so I can leave the amount of money that I want to my children.

The more you tax Frank, the less you tax Joe, which is more moral, and better for the economy. Morality argues for taxing the rich more, it is just economic practicality that argues against it. The problem with overtaxing the rich is that it also, in the long run, hurts the poor. But there is nothing fair about charging Bill Gates the same percentage of his income as you tax an employee at Wal Mart. Taxes suck and should be avoided wherever possible. But all things being even taxes on the poor are worse than taxes on the rich.

In the tradition of our founding fathers who took up arms to oppose the greivous sins of the poisonous taxation, the only morality that the free citizen-patriots of this once god-fearing and blessed nation should apply to the estate tax or the progressive income tax or the AMT is the morality of the second amendment.

That morality is available to the rich and poor alike.

The only tax I willingly pay is a tithe to the church, for the lord sits above all of satan's minions who preach the god-less marxist blasphemy of the taxation of man by man.

[chad87655]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Government doesn't have a moral right to collect taxes, except that government needs to exist for all sorts of moral reasons, and taxes are necessary for this to happen.

In the days of heavanly glory, before the serpent invaded the garden of eden, there was no government and the highest form of earthly morality reigned. Government is the result of the sins of Adam and Eve and has no moral basis. Taxation is the amorality of the demonic serpent.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by chad87655
In the days of heavanly glory, before the serpent invaded the garden of eden, there was no government and the highest form of earthly morality reigned. Government is the result of the sins of Adam and Eve and has no moral basis. Taxation is the amorality of the demonic serpent.

So you believe that all taxes should be ended? Then how would we pay for the invasion of Iraq, all that censorship of the media, and the jailing of woman who have abortions and the execution of abortion doctors?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
3) I like Patrick Byrne's idea.

Me too. I suspect that if you want to drill down to find government waste, you'll find a lot of it in local governments, like school districts. It's hard to find qualified officials to run these governments, and it's hard for voters to pay attention to make sure they work right. I'm sure there's waste in my local school district, but who has the time to pay attention to that stuff?

That said, I'd like to know where the 65% number came from, and whether it's a good line to draw.

[Spanky]

The goal of economic "science" is to increase the prosperity of the society in question. Or as I like to say, increase as much as possible the "utils" in the society. You don't choose one economic policy over another because it is moral, you choose it because it brings the most "utils". Taxes suck because they decrease the prosperity of the society in question. However, some taxes are necessary because what they are used for increase the utils to a society more than they decreased utils caused by the taxes. A person that makes thirty thousand a year, an increase in prosperity of $2000, creates a lot more utitlity for that person, than an increase of prosperity of $1 billion to Bill Gates. So taxing the rich dimishes the amount of utility in a society less than taxing the poor. Free market economics are better than socialist economics because it brings more utils to the society. Once economists start talking about morality beyond utility they almost always screw it up. Like the flat tax is more moral than a progressive tax - Not. The only valid argument for the flat tax would be that, overall, it would benefit the society more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I never said taxed as income. For most people, the largest asset in an estate is a home, which has been taxed at the time of purchase. But if we are going to treat disposition by inheritance like every other transfer of property, then I guess some sort of tax on transfer is appropriate. Query though, why we don't tax the recipient based on value of the property at the time it is acquired. That would seem to be consistent with Ty's (not Wonk's) theory for the tax in the first place.

I'm not sure I had a theory, and certainly I would hesitate to say anything different from my elder and better, Wonk.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not sure I had a theory, and certainly I would hesitate to say anything different from my elder and better, Wonk.

I thought you were justifying the tax on the recipient because they didn't earn it?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Houses aren't "taxed" at the time of purchase, other than a recordation tax (which is pretty low).

Hey, if you want to get rid of the estate tax, then just charge the inheritiance to the income of the recipient. But I don't think that really solves any of your concerns--it's still a tax on something that you claim was previously taxed.

My concern is more with my conception of property rights than double taxation.

[chad87655]

Originally posted by Spanky
So you believe that all taxes should be ended? Then how would we pay for the invasion of Iraq, all that censorship of the media, and the jailing of woman who have abortions and the execution of abortion doctors?

User fees.