All Hank, all the time.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I thought it was already christened the "Throw Momma From The Train Act."

My bro is an OBGYN, and has told me about guys calling him in mid-to-late December to suggest that maybe their wives need to have labor induced..... I wonder if we'll see the reverse of this, Kevorkian-style, in a few years....

The prospect of this happening will prompt a scathing book from Ramesh Ponnuru analyzing the slippery slope among estate taxes, infanticide and mercy killings.

The working title will be Party of Death II, until he realizes that it was a GOP Congress that passed this legislation. The cognitive dissonace will be crippling.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Intersting tidbit from the article: the estate tax hit 1.17% of estates in 2002. That was with a $1,000,000 exemption. It's now $2,000,000., so the percentage has to be even less. It'll be $3.5m in 2009, unlimited in 2010, and $650k in 2011.

Clearly, something's going to have to be done before 2010, unless we're going to retroactively name the last act setting estate taxes "The Estate Tax and 2010 Euthenasia Act."

The $650K unified credit takes it back to where it was before the Bush Tax Giveaway Act was passed. And if you thought you were joking about the Euthanasia Act, I know for a fact that there are estate planners out there drafting advanced directives and durable powers of attorney providing that the plug is to be pulled on the client at 11:00 on December 31, 2010 if Congress hasn't repealed the sunset provision for the estate tax.

[Wank McBumsky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What right do the kids have to the money? They didn't work for it. They don't have some inherent need for it that exceeds anyone else's. What's the moral basis? They got a better slot in the genetic lottery?

I don't accept the notion that people have an inherent right to determine where their wealth will go on their death without paying some tax for the privilege of doing so.

What's more, I am further opposed to eliminating the tax on the transfer of wealth if it increases the incidence of tax on earned income. I think that's inherently unfair and regressive.It's been that way as long as there has been a right to bequeath. What logical basis is there for not imposing the transfer tax? People are taxed on the income they earn, even though soemoen who earned it before them was taxed on it.


Finally, as a practical matter, I have seen very few instances of people who inherited wealth using it to create jobs, good, and economic growth, relative to the number of heirs who use it to buy second homes, million dollar condos on the Gold Coast, and $500 Cavalli jeans or $750 Yves St. Laurent sweats, depending on their taste and their age.

Spoeken like a true socialist. Yuou know, Canada is just across the lake, although the girls of windsor might be more than you can handle.

[Gattigap]

linky

• "But the problem with Coulter is that she is a form of camp, is she not? The minute you take her seriously, you lose grip on her reality. She's not a social or political commentator. She's a drag queen impersonating a fascist. I don't even begin to believe she actually believes this stuff. It's post-modern performance-art. I think of Coulter in that sense as more at home on the pomo-left than the Christianist right (which is why the joke, ultimately, is on the Republicans who like her). Devoid of sincerity, detached from any value but performance, juggling rhetoric for its own sake, she is Stanley Fish's model student. Half the time, I tend to think that a Hannity or O'Reilly or Malkin actually believes their own rhetoric. With Coulter, I don't believe it for a second. And so her vileness cannot be taken seriously. She is worse than vile. She is just empty."

Damn.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Wank McBumsky
Spoeken like a true socialist. Yuou know, Canada is just across the lake, although the girls of windsor might be more than you can handle.

I see you couldn't come up with a moral or logical argument for the repeal of the estate tax while maintaining a basis stepup at death either.

So instead you call me a pinko. How terribly original. I just don't think I can stand up any more to your overwhelming intellectual prowess. So it's off to the land of Fu for you.


Buh-bye.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Wank McBumsky
Spoeken like a true socialist. Yuou know, Canada is just across the lake, although the girls of windsor might be more than you can handle.

Ahh, Windsor - just like Detroit, except better beer and health care.

[Wank McBumsky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I see you couldn't come up with a moral or logical argument for the repeal of the estate tax while maintaining a basis stepup at death either.

So instead you call me a pinko. How terribly original. I just don't think I can stand up any more to your overwhelming intellectual prowess. So it's off to the land of Fu for you.


Buh-bye.

The Soviets and Chi-coms banned books and censorred speach too. Take faith that you are esteemmed historical company.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What right do the kids have to the money? They didn't work for it. They don't have some inherent need for it that exceeds anyone else's. What's the moral basis? They got a better slot in the genetic lottery?

I don't accept the notion that people have an inherent right to determine where their wealth will go on their death without paying some tax for the privilege of doing so.

What's more, I am further opposed to eliminating the tax on the transfer of wealth if it increases the incidence of tax on earned income. I think that's inherently unfair and regressive.It's been that way as long as there has been a right to bequeath. What logical basis is there for not imposing the transfer tax? People are taxed on the income they earn, even though soemoen who earned it before them was taxed on it.


Finally, as a practical matter, I have seen very few instances of people who inherited wealth using it to create jobs, good, and economic growth, relative to the number of heirs who use it to buy second homes, million dollar condos on the Gold Coast, and $500 Cavalli jeans or $750 Yves St. Laurent sweats, depending on their taste and their age.

In order:

1. It's not about need, its a property right. Your positions assumes some sort of socialist underpinning to our society. And what "right" does the govt have to your parents' money? What "right" has the rest of society to it? Are you suggesting the govt, or someone who claims to "need' the money more should get it over an heir? You don't really believe that. And what about the person leaving the money? He has no "right" to give it to his kids?

2. See #1.

3. I don't need to explain the flaw in that absurd statement. It's possibly the most hyperbolic comparison of apples and oranges I've evr seen.

4. Someone selling those jeans makes money, and hires workers to staff his store, who earn money. What would the govt do with that money? How would giving it to the govt help our economy?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In order:

1. It's not about need, its a property right. Your positions assumes some sort of socialist underpinning to our society. And what "right" does the govt have to your parents' money? What "right" has the rest of society to it? Are you suggesting the govt, or someone who claims to "need' the money more should get it over an heir? You don't really believe that. And what about the person leaving the money? He has no "right" to give it to his kids?

2. See #1.

3. I don't need to explain the flaw in that absurd statement. It's possibly the most hyperbolic comparison of apples and oranges I've evr seen.

4. Someone selling those jeans makes money, and hires workers to staff his store, who earn money. What would the govt do with that money? How would giving it to the govt help our economy?

1. We've had this argument on the board before. The right to property is not organic. It derives from the state, and the state has always exacted an excise on its transfer to the next generation. There's nothig socialist about my position. It finds its roots in the English common law as well as the Roman civil law. You can't take it with you when you go, and without the sanction of the state, you can't exercise dominion over it from thee grave either. I gave both a moral and a logical basis for an estate tax. You gave neither in support of its repeal.

2. I guess we just disagree.

3. What about it is hyperbole? You have suggested that there should be no estate tax and that the basis stepup at death should be retained. What that means is that any property a person holds at death can pass tax-free to another person, and that heir can sell the property the same day without paying a tax on the built-in gain. Do you really think that would not create a huge reduction in tax revenues? Where would the government look to make up that shortfall if they can't tax estates and they can't tax the built-in gain on inherited property? They wouldn't make it up by taxing capital gains. Nobody would ever realize a capital gain if they could hold assets until their death and allow the gain pass tax-free. There is no source other than earned income from which to recoup the lost revenue.

4. Your statement here belies your whole prior argument. If consumption creates jobs and growth in the same way as investment, then there is no defensible reason to favor investment in making tax policy. The only motivavtion left is the fact that you believe you will inherit wealth some day or you believe you will accumulate wealth to pass on to your heirs and you don't care who gets taxed, or how much of a burden it is on them, as long as you can escape the burden. At least here, I have to give you credit for your candor, even if it may have been uninitentional.

5. Our tax system is progressive and always has been. We designed it that way from the start. Calling someone a socialist because they believe that the system should remain progressive only proves that you understand neither tax policy nor socialism.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You can't take it with you when you go, and without the sanction of the state, you can't exercise dominion over it from thee grave either.

Oh no? If my kids sell my sports memorabilia collection on ebay after I'm gone I will HAUNT their sorry asses!

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
1. We've had this argument on the board before. The right to property is not organic. It derives from the state, and the state has always exacted an excise on its transfer to the next generation. There's nothig socialist about my position.

The fact that property derives from the state, and that there's always been a tax on wealth transfers does not make your position any less socialist.

Socialism takes as its premise that all wealth is created by, and therefore is subject to the control of, the state. The conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow the premise. (and that assumes the premise is correct--property does not derive from the state; rather, the state ensures that property rights can be enforced by means other than brute strength)

[Wank McBumsky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The fact that property derives from the state, and that there's always been a tax on wealth transfers does not make your position any less socialist.

Socialism takes as its premise that all wealth is created by, and therefore is subject to the control of, the state. The conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow the premise. (and that assumes the premise is correct--property does not derive from the state; rather, the state ensures that property rights can be enforced by means other than brute strength)

When Fringey would sit on the other kids to get their candy it was not excatly brut strength they got them to surrender the properyt rights.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The fact that property derives from the state, and that there's always been a tax on wealth transfers does not make your position any less socialist.

Socialism takes as its premise that all wealth is created by, and therefore is subject to the control of, the state. The conclusion, however, does not necessarily follow the premise. (and that assumes the premise is correct--property does not derive from the state; rather, the state ensures that property rights can be enforced by means other than brute strength)

Actually, socialism takes as its premise that it is labor that creates value, not property, and that therefore the laborers should, through the mechanism of the state, control the means of production, of which property is only a part, in order to ensure that workerss are compensated accrding to their work, or, in other words, according to the extent they create value.

And if the state is the mechanism by which property rights are enforced, then it does indeed follow that the state should be supported in those efforts by those who seek to maintain their rights over said property.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
What right do the kids have to the money? They didn't work for it. They don't have some inherent need for it that exceeds anyone else's. What's the moral basis? They got a better slot in the genetic lottery?

What's the moral basis? Are you - as a parent - honestly suggesting that the federal government should get their mitts on your hard earned cash before your own heirs?

Isn't the concept of the "American Dream" based on the premises that one will work hard his children won't have to?

I don't accept the notion that people have an inherent right to determine where their wealth will go on their death without paying some tax for the privilege of doing so.

Or to some tax lawyer - ahem- into shielding it from the man

F that. I'm with Sebby on this. If necessary, I'd start lighting cigars with hundreds on by deathbed to get below the threshold

[Wank McBumsky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If necessary, I'd start lighting cigars with hundreds on by deathbed to get below the threshold

Wouldnt' be the firsttime, if Paigow is to be believed,