U.S. House passes estate tax repeal despite veto threat

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Now think about this. i love this new bill! Brainiac, I'll be sure to invite you to my zero tax inheritance party!
 
jlprk said:
I'd love to do that, as long as I live under only the part of government I like. Your side pays for, and lives under, the wars, spies, and police. My side pays for, and lives under, the love and sharing. There would need to be a mechanism to keep us apart.

Many years ago when I was designing my utopia, I wondered what it would look like to have multiple governments operating side by side. One town capitalist, one socialist, one fascist, one Confederacy, one feudalist, one caveman, etc. Everyone would get to move around and try them for as long as he wanted before settling down.

There would be a sign on the road at each town's entrance, telling you the town's priorities of ideals, its hierarchy of gods. (There is an infinite number of permutations.) Then I realized that I was envisioning what the great liberal civilization of American Indians had before your war guys exterminated them. Totem poles.
Click to expand...

Congratulations on realizing you're a Federalist.

As for what you pay for, look at the role of the Federal Government as procribed in our Constitution.

Finally, if you were happy to pay $250K, why wouldn't you not be happy to pay the whole thing?
 
Denny is wrong again. He says estate tax on $7 million is $2 million. So everyone in the thread is using that number. (Side note: Only 0.5% of all deaths pay any estate tax, i.e. 1% of marriages.)

For a 2015 death, maximum IRS estate tax on a $7 million estate is $573,800. ($7 million - $5.43M exclusion = $1.57M taxable. $345,800 is the tax on the first $1M. Tax on the remaining $570,000 is at 40% = $228,000. $345,800 + $228,000 = $573,800.)

But anyone with sense will have estate planning, such as a trust, and pay 25-30% instead of 40%, which lowers it about $70,000 to $500,000. You can probably get it lower if the estate is in the form of a business, and you run your business in a way to minimize estate tax.

But no one runs his life just to maximize his grubby kids' take when he dies. Republicans have never heard, "You can't take it with you."

Summary of estate tax on a $7M estate:

tax...effective rate (= tax / $7M)...source
$500,000...7%...jlprk
$573,800...8%...IRS maximum amount
$2,000,000...28%...Denny
 
Last edited:
maxiep said:
Why didn't you write a check to the Federal Government for the entire inheritance? Why are you so greedy?

It always amazes me that liberals only think the way the government will accept money from them at the point of a gun. Our government will be happy to cash an unsolicited check?
Click to expand...

maxiep said:
Finally, if you were happy to pay $250K, why wouldn't you not be happy to pay the whole thing?
Click to expand...

You seem to think you have a clever piece of logic, posting it twice. Back at'cha:

Do you like the Iraq War? Then why don't you contribute all your money to it? Do you like Israel? Then why don't you contribute all your money to it? Do you like chocolate?...
 
MarAzul said:
Geez! After reading this thread, it's makes sense why civil wars are needed every so often. Here is a list of Ranches for sale in Oregon.
Click to expand...

Denny Crane said:
$5M < keeping the ranch.
Click to expand...

If you like Civil War, here's what happened last time your side started one. Gerald O'Hara tells his daughter Scarlett, don't sell Tara when I die. Daddy won't sell the farm.

 
jlprk said:
Denny is wrong again. He says estate tax on $7 million is $2 million. So everyone in the thread is using that number. (Side note: Only 0.5% of all deaths pay any estate tax, i.e. 1% of marriages.)

For a 2015 death, maximum IRS estate tax on a $7 million estate is $573,800. ($7 million - $5.43M exclusion = $1.57M taxable. $345,800 is the tax on the first $1M. Tax on the remaining $570,000 is at 40% = $228,000. $345,800 + $228,000 = $573,800.)

But anyone with sense will have estate planning, such as a trust, and pay 25-30% instead of 40%, which lowers it about $70,000 to $500,000. You can probably get it lower if the estate is in the form of a business, and you run your business in a way to minimize estate tax.

But no one runs his life just to maximize his grubby kids' take when he dies. Republicans have never heard, "You can't take it with you."

Summary of estate tax on a $7M estate:

tax...effective rate (= tax / $7M)...source
$500,000...7%...jlprk
$573,800...8%...IRS maximum amount
$2,000,000...28%...Denny
Click to expand...

No, I'm not wrong. Brainiac kept saying the family would get to "retire on $5M," The difference between $7.8M and $5M is $2M.

My points all still stand. Even at $500K in tax, you are forcing people who can't come up with that money to sell the property to evil corporations or someone in the 1%.

What are the capital gains when they sell the place? Short term if they sell within the 1st year, and that would be pushing 50%, if not more due to ObamaCare.

The government shouldn't be taxing you on unrealized gains, which is what inheritance tax exactly does.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
Let me get out my hankercheif, that poor 50 year old rancher will only get 5 million dollars to retire on for his parents hard work? Unfathomable sadness.
Click to expand...

I'm not 50, and my grandparents aren't dead.
But I have a job at their farm that I perform and work hard at every day.
I will be extremely sad when my grandparents pass away, even more so if we as a family can't afford to keep the farm in the family.
Personally 5 million isn't enough for me to not miss working there every day.
I grew up there, my childhood was there, both my cousins got married there, I remember at 6 years old catching and butchering a chicken there for a holiday...
5 million isn't near enough to lose that.
No dollar amount is.
 
Last edited:
Only 5400. LOL.

That's 108,000 over 20 years.

"Only."
 
Denny Crane said:
I've done the legwork of looking at businesses for sale. This tax affects businesses like truck stops in Tennessee. Truck stop is worth $7M. To pay the tax, survivors have to cough up (or borrow) $millions. Or sell the business.

It's bad enough the government TAKES peoples' incomes, but taking away life savings and source of income makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...
you like to quote the founding fathers' intent often enough so here are a couple of quotes concerning estates and inherited wealth by Thomas Jefferson and adams and their intent concerning estate taxes
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers
 
lawai'a said:
so we should only follow their intent when it suits your position?
Click to expand...

When it's not crystal clear in the Constitution, you can look to period writings to get some sense of what they were thinking.

No direct taxes means no direct taxes. And just because SOME of the founders felt one way doesn't speak for them all.

When it comes to what they were thinking when the constitution was written, the Federalist Papers provide a record of the debate that was going on.

What is certain is the constitution said "no direct taxes" period. So those who may have favored an inheritance tax were the minority.

I can't wait to see what your talking point sources figure out to counter the facts as they are.
 
lawai'a said:
so we should only follow their intent when it suits your position?
Click to expand...

The quote by Jefferson in the article you reference is taken out of context. He certainly is not speaking about an inheritance tax. The first inheritance tax was imposed in 1797 of .025%.
Jefferson signed the law repealing the tax in 1802. He is speaking about his generation passing laws the bind future generations to the use of the land. The author of the article needs to study
history a bit more. Well perhaps he already knows, but is counting on the reader not knowing. Agendas are polished often by the left with these tactics.

The current form of the tax was first implemented in 1916 by the first President that openly voiced disdain for the Constitution and implemented the income tax before it was ever ratified by the states. Both the inheritance tax and the income tax are direct taxes prohibited in the Constitution. The income tax did squeak through the state ratification process but the inheritance tax has never been through the amendment process. I sure isn't logical to bundle it as income.
 
Denny Crane said:
When it's not crystal clear in the Constitution, you can look to period writings to get some sense of what they were thinking.

No direct taxes means no direct taxes. And just because SOME of the founders felt one way doesn't speak for them all.

When it comes to what they were thinking when the constitution was written, the Federalist Papers provide a record of the debate that was going on.

What is certain is the constitution said "no direct taxes" period. So those who may have favored an inheritance tax were the minority.

I can't wait to see what your talking point sources figure out to counter the facts as they are.
Click to expand...
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed12.asp
I find Hamilton's position here supporting excise taxes and duties incongruious with free markets and free trade of this century. also he argues in favor of taxation on superior wealth as in Britain, when we can no longer rely on indirect taxation. please help me if I have miss read his intent.
 
speeds said:
Radical

Actually that guy is getting hammered on social media. Dick move = dick move whether it is to a 1%er or a pleb.
Click to expand...

That happened here in Portland. That guy is a douche.
 
lawai'a said:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed12.asp
I find Hamilton's position here supporting excise taxes and duties incongruious with free markets and free trade of this century. also he argues in favor of taxation on superior wealth as in Britain, when we can no longer rely on indirect taxation. please help me if I have miss read his intent.
Click to expand...

"It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."

No income tax. Are you on board with that? That's the entire gist of Federalist #12, along with the advocacy of duties as the means to generate revenues for the government.

"personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption."

Exactly the opposite of what you read into it. In plain english.
 
Denny Crane said:
"It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."

No income tax. Are you on board with that? That's the entire gist of Federalist #12, along with the advocacy of duties as the means to generate revenues for the government.

"personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption."

Exactly the opposite of what you read into it. In plain english.
Click to expand...
yet to quote the paper "in so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicle, than America, for the greatest part of the national revenues is derived from taxes of the indirect kind"
seems he left open the need to directly tax as an "opulent" nation those of superior wealth.
I contend that we have far surpassed the opulence of 1800's Britain and that our present government has expanded to be far more "vigorious" than Britain of the times.
"must be more tolerable" is where I garner this, doesn't say you will like it but if conditions became similar, this position of indirect only taxation would need modification to include the taxation of superior wealth. would you argue against the position that the 1% controlling superior income or that indirect taxation only would be fairer. seems the estate tax leads to a more level playing field and directly impacts the notion "that all men are created equal"
 
The nation has superior wealth. The whole point is to tax some % of the money in circulation.

"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates."

Nowhere does it say there should be an inheritance tax, or even to tax the rich.
 
Denny Crane said:
The nation has superior wealth. The whole point is to tax some % of the money in circulation.

"The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates."

Nowhere does it say there should be an inheritance tax, or even to tax the rich.
Click to expand...
no it does not , but it does seem to leave open direct taxation of "superior wealth.
 
lawai'a said:
no it does not , but it does seem to leave open direct taxation of "superior wealth.
Click to expand...

It consistently says direct taxation is not the way to go.

It does not mention wealthy individuals, inheritance, etc.

"personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption."

Slam dunk.

CONSUMPTION. Sales Tax. Duties.
 
maybe not the way to go ,or even preferral, but, still not forbidden and if the need arose, a mechanism to fund that "vigorous government" in the future.
""direct tax from superior wealth must be much more tolerable". hardly a slam dunk
 
lawai'a said:
maybe not the way to go ,or even preferral, but, still not forbidden and if the need arose, a mechanism to fund that "vigorous government" in the future.
""direct tax from superior wealth must be much more tolerable". hardly a slam dunk
Click to expand...

He doesn't argue for a direct tax. NOT AT ALL.

The entire document describes how to tax commerce.

Slam dunk.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I bet you interpret the red text to mean "build a giant welfare state."

LOL
 
Denny Crane said:
He doesn't argue for a direct tax. NOT AT ALL.

The entire document describes how to tax commerce.

Slam dunk.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

I bet you interpret the red text to mean "build a giant welfare state."

LOL
Click to expand...
do you deny any of the facts that I have presented? part of the quoted document describes the necessity of an opulent nation to tax "superior wealth". do you deny that America has achieved a level of opulence for greater than that of the time of the writing? the document as I have put forth allows for the evolution of the mechanisms for funding the government of today.
 
I think you see the word "welfare" out of context. That's why I brought it up. Fed 12 describes how to not direct tax. To use import duties, and how to deal with the black market.

The founders were unlikely to emulate much of what the British did, or we'd have a king, land grants, taxation to fund crusades, quartering of troops in our homes, a state religion forced upon us, and on and on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top