Tax loophole saves wealthiest Americans billions

[William Thornton]

Guaranteed to set forum mod-lib's teeth on edge.



It's about the estate tax.

Theses a lesson here for revenue hungry statists who desire to punish the wealthy.

[Dave Roberts]

Just another case of welfare for the "deserving rich" at the expense of the "undeserving poor." WWJD?

[William Thornton]

[Tim Bonney]

[Tim Bonney]

[Dave Roberts]

[Sandy]

Those who earned their wealth did it with considerable help from the benefits provided by tax money. Their property, wealth and business interests are protected by the military, not only at home but abroad. Their goods are transported to market via an infrastructure constructed with tax dollars. The value of their wealth is stabilized by a monetary and banking system provided by tax dollars. They stake out their turf and protect it with a legal system supported by tax money. Proportionately, they benefit from, and are protected to a far greater degree by a system that runs on tax dollars than those who are less wealthy. Therefore, their tax burden should reflect the proportion of their benefit from it.

[ET]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

This is clearly a conniving tactic to avoid taxes. Why it has not been dealt with in Congress is no doubt influenced by those wealthy people who intend to keep this tax avoidance scheme. Note that not all of the wealthy employ this tax avoidance scheme, just a few that are cheating the system. Thus this is not “class warfare” viewpoint or an attempt to "punish the wealthy", but rather a matter of law enforcement (even if it is technically legal and I doubt that it is).

To boot, passing along large estates to their beneficiaries is mucking up the American ideal of equal opportunity. Take the young 20-30 year old son of a wealthy family. They often receive large sums for no work. I thought the cons were against giving money to those not working as a matter of principle. Especially troublesome in that young junior has probably benefitted throughout much of his life already and may have even been given a job in dear old dad’s company.

Despite their purported principle (no work, no pay), cons are usually for limiting or eliminating estate taxes. I guess they hear the word TAXES and they go crazy. Why not return estates (after liquidation) to the government (some split between local, state, federal), so that taxes on the rest of us can be lowered or services enhanced? And equal opportunity would be enhanced.

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

To answer Sheldon Anderson question “How many times do you have to pay taxes on money?”

The answer is every time money changes hands and that includes estates.

Personally I’d like to see a 100% estate tax (all estates not just the wealthy) in order to make somewhat more good on the claim that America is the land of Equal Opportunity. But lacking that, because it is such a big change, estates should be taxed as at last ordinary income.

Older folks should be able to give yearly amounts to their beneficiaries (most often sons and daughters) out of pure love and concern. By doing so annually, the tax burden could be made more even. But still because money is changing hands, it should be taxed. This framing of taxes as being double-taxed is specious. In the limit we would have to track each dollar bill even with electronic transactions, to avoid what Anderson was decrying. Absolutely silly.

[Haruo]

[William Thornton]

Following Keith's logic, with an assist from the others in certain ways, the thought is that wealth belongs not to the individual but to government. The individual is allowed to merely keep it for a period then it may be seized by government.

Tax avoidance is practiced by every person on this forum who earns enough to have a tax bill. Evidently, none of us believe that there is any moral issue with that practice.

Dave, I fail to see anything in my post that would lead you or anyone to conclude that I believe that there should be no taxes. As for social security taxation, the question of a cap on taxable earnings is open as far as I am concerned. Fairness there would also include continuing the principle of benefits being tied to contributions.

We already have progressive taxation. Rich folks pay more.

If taxes have already been paid on income, why should the wealth left be confiscated by government at death? The taxes already paid contributed to the costs of defense, infrastructure, etc.

You guys never disappoint when it comes to rich folks. The rich are society's evil scum, miscreants, and should be impoverished so that the non rich may feel smugly righteous.

Here's the lessons you guys miss: tax spending and consumption. The billionaire has six jets, several homes. Tax him on all those.

Here's the other related to the first: rich folks have the means and will always find ways to avoid income caps and other punitive taxes. This is why CEO pay limits are a tough thing to implement.

[Dave Roberts]

[William Thornton]

Dave, if I paid tax on my income, what is fair about taking a chunk of what's left when I die? This is classic class warfare.

SS is a tax on wages. Romney didn't create the program.

Again, tax consumption at the cash register and you extract taxes fairly from the rich who consume more. The poor can be insulated by a negative income tax credit.

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[Sandy]

[KeithE]

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy what do you think about the estate tax in relationship to the family farm?

Certainly I think income tax should be paid by farmers just like anyone else. But I'm skeptical of the idea that a farm that has been in the family for generations is taxed teach time it is passed on to the next family member. I see that has being a hardship for family farmers.

[William Thornton]

Keith, you might consider the difference between tax avoidance (you do this) and tax evasion.

[Sandy]