Straight-Talk Express embraces Voodoo Economics

[Arrian]

No, the procurement schedules for the military hardware have decreased if anything under the Bush Administration. Hell, Rumsfeld himself weilded an R&D red pen of doom his first years in office. Anyone remember the Crusader and the Comanche? The overruns are in operating costs. One way of the the other I imagine this will end in the next term, virtually handing whoever is in office a balanced budget.

I don't disagree with your overall line of thought (it's the wars, stupid!), but I think deeper cuts can be responsibly made than were by Mr. red pen of doom...

-Arrian

[snoopy369]

Oh, i'm not talking about rescinding it. I'm talking about going back to much higher levels than previously

Honestly, there's no economic reason for cutting estate tax. It's not going to encourage investment or anything. It's just an easy sell politically because everyone gets hit by it (with any meaningful power=wealth, anyway).

I say take 50% of everything from $100k-$500k, 70% from $500k-$1m, and 90% of $1m+ (staggered, so on a $1.5m estate the tax is (.5*400k)+(.7*500k)+(.9*500k).

Wonder what that would do in terms of our wealth distribution...

[rah]

Why should the goverment tax something they've already received taxes on? If they do, the exclusion limit should be quite high.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should people have to pay tax on their estate when they die?

Shouldn't they be allowed to give all their money to whomever they want?

Why should anyone be taxed, ever?

Ok, now that we've gotten that out of the way: because, generally speaking, we here in the USA don't like the idea of an aristocracy. Silver spoons and all that. The estate tax exists to curb the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the very few.

It's wealth redistribution. And it's good.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

Honestly, there's no economic reason for cutting estate tax. It's not going to encourage investment or anything.

Let me put it this way. The greatest proportion of estates tends to already be investment income. So this is a direct tax on investments, and rather then targetting the profits, it targets the principle.

I say take 50% of everything from $100k-$500k, 70% from $500k-$1m, and 90% of $1m+ (staggered, so on a $1.5m estate the tax is (.5*400k)+(.7*500k)+(.9*500k).

How about we take nothing, and let the wealth which has already been taxed continue to generate profits which can also be taxed? Estate taxes cut your nose off to spite your face.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
Why should the goverment tax something they've already received taxes on?

Why not? If the government has the right to tax at all, they can tax something as many times as wanted.

If they do, the exclusion limit should be quite high.

It already is.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should people have to pay tax on their estate when they die?

Shouldn't they be allowed to give all their money to whomever they want?

1. Dead people are DEAD, so beyond their corpse being treated nicely, they merit no consideration.

2. Why should they? They are dead, so it isn't their money anymore, is it? The estate tax is a tax on the INCOME of those receiving that GIFT.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, now that we've gotten that out of the way: because, generally speaking, we here in the USA don't like the idea of an aristocracy.

So because wealth is bad it makes sense to take it away from people who have worked hard all their lives and want to give it to their children? Sounds to me like the politics of envy.

The estate tax exists to curb the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the very few.

Oh really? Which is why it is better used to make officials wealthy rather then the people?

It's wealth redistribution. And it's good.

I think people should be able to decide who they want their money to go to when they pass on, without having the government take the lions share. If you support wealth redistribution, then why don't you give the government all of your paycheque?

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Arrian




The Republican party has just about trademarked the term "the death tax" and will go absolutely nuclear if such a thing is suggested. And people buy it.

I still think the better idea is to make the tax on inheritances, not on estates. That way, a large estate split between 10 people doesn't get hit as hard as one given to 1 heir. Spread the wealth, baby.

-Arrian

I'm fairly sure there are sound economic reasons for doing it on estates and not on inheritance (beyond the obvious that it would encourage interesting avoidance schemes by giving some to every living relation). I don't recall the arguments, though.

Ben: Because we tax GIVING money already, that's why (yes, if your friend Bill Gates handed you $500m, that would be heavily taxed). Beyond that, it's because economically speaking, there's no sound reason why estates should be allowed at all - it doesn't benefit the economy significantly to allow any sort of inheritance. Inheritance concentrates wealth (which is bad for the economy), and an estate tax is a highly effective 'progressive' tax.

Further, it is a tax that 'hurts' far less significantly, economically speaking, in that an income tax takes away earned money that you need to live on a day to day; a capital gains tax discourages investment (in that it lowers the benefit from investing); sales tax not only hurts the poor by making it harder to buy their basic goods, but also discourages spending locally, thus hurting the economy; while an estate tax just takes money you didn't have before (and generally don't need). All taxes are 'unfair', in that they take money you rightfully have and give it to the common good; that argument is nonsensical.

Estate taxes are less unfair than others, generally speaking, and make a lot of sense. When you die, you should provide for the common good ... I'd be happy to (and certainly don't intend to leave much to my children), and so should you

It's also something of a relic of older times, when you typically left things to your children during the peak of their adult years; if you died around 50, you left your estate to your children in their 20s or 30s, with nearly half their life ahead of them. Now you're 75, leaving your estate to a 50something year old, who not only has already lived most of his or her life, but is actually close to retiring him/herself. Inheritance at all makes relatively little sense, except in that it keeps money/power in the family...

The above tax I describe would have to have all sorts of loopholes fixed, of course, including trust loopholes and gift loopholes, but that's up to congress to do. Err, well, yeah...

[Ben Kenobi]

2. Why should they? They are dead, so it isn't their money anymore, is it? The estate tax is a tax on the INCOME of those receiving that GIFT.

So you don't believe a will is a contract?

Pity. I will have to put arrian in my will, just in case I pass on before he does, and he will have to give the money I would leave him to the government since wealth redistribution is an inherent good.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Whoha
Stimulus will not solve the problems in our economy, which is why I was disheartened when I heard Obama call for a second stimulus package.

That was pure pandering at its worst. Just like McCain calling for more tax cuts to magically balance the budget when we already have a massive deficit and $9.5 trillion in debt.

[Arrian]

So because wealth is bad it makes sense to take it away from people who have worked hard all their lives and want to give it to their children? Sounds to me like the politics of envy.

It's not taking the money away from the people who earned it, Ben. They're dead. It's taking the money away from people who didn't earn it at all: the children of the people who earned it.

As for envy... sigh, Ben, my proposal would hurt me financially. I'm not envious of wealth. I'm just into fairness, and I see fairness quite differently than you do.

Oh really? Which is why it is better used to make officials wealthy rather then the people?

Erm, tax revenue by and large doesn't "make officials wealthy." Usually that's the "consulting" gigs they get when they leave office, paid for by the people whose interests they served whilst in office. Tax revenue pays for government services - military, social security, etc... all the things we've been talking about cutting to close the budget deficit.

I think people should be able to decide who they want their money to go to when they pass on, without having the government take the lions share. If you support wealth redistribution, then why don't you give the government all of your paycheque?

I'm ok with taxes b/c they will apply not only to me, but to others. Me giving my paycheck to the government unduly harms me, whilst having nearly no impact on others. It's just silly.

-Arrian

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


So you don't believe a will is a contract?

Since when is a declaration by one party a contract? When I think of contracts, I think of their being two parties, not one.

But this is moot, since the simple point is that society has every reason and right to determine the ways in which the property that once belonged to a dead person should be handled after their deaths.

If you think there is a policy reason for not having an estate tax, argue it based on economic policy, not some assesine assertion of rights for the dead - heck, if they "pay taxes", shouldn't the dead get to vote as well?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Arrian
It's wealth redistribution. And it's good.

You're posting from the wrong account, che.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I will have to put arrian in my will, just in case I pass on before he does, and he will have to give the money I would leave him to the government since wealth redistribution is an inherent good.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
You're posting from the wrong account, che.

So, wealth redistribution = communism?

-Arrian