Hillary Clinton proposes to raise the death tax to 65% from 40%

Uncle Siggy said:

Doesn't she claim that rich people got rich by stealing it or being a criminal??? (Unlike herself of course)...

Click to expand...

Do you have a quote of hers to share in that regard?

dogs4thewin said:

Well, is it right, though?

Click to expand...

It depends on your definition, I guess. If you take the notion that all taxation is theft, following some sort of Ayn Rand morality, then you might not think so.

One of the reasons that estate taxes are so high is to make up for the capital gains taxes that typically aren't paid on those assets, because when you inherit unrealized capital gains, the gains on those investments magically vanish.

IOW, lets say your folks are rich and, over the course of their lives, they turn a $100 million investment into a $1.1 billion portfolio. That means they've had capital gains of $1 billion. If they cashed out the day before they died, they'd owe capital gains taxes on that $1 billion. But if, instead, they held onto their investments and left it all to you, then you would get a pile of stock worth $1.1 billion. However, contrary to what you may think, neither you nor their estate would be on the hook for taxes on that $1 billion in gains. Their estate doesn't have to pay anything and you would only be on the hook for any future gains you realized beyond the $1.1 billion you inherited. Without the estate tax, that $1 billion in gains all magically becomes tax-free, and inherited investment portfolios would become a giant tax shelter for wealthy families.

Mountain_Girl406 said:

It depends on your definition, I guess. If you take the notion that all taxation is theft, following some sort of Ayn Rand morality, then you might not think so.

Click to expand...

Yep, the battle cry has changed from "no taxation, without representation" to "tax is theft". Can you imagaine the anarchy if this group got their way?

LivingWordUnity said:

View attachment 183127

Sources:
Canada Free Press
Forbes
WSJ

Click to expand...

You forgot the important "over the amount of" part. Purely accidentally, I'm sure.

VanillaSunflowers said:

You might want to watch the WSJ link. Rich people insulate their assets so this tax won't apply to them. That means it will apply to you, me, and all of us who aren't as rich as Hillary.

Click to expand...

Do you, me and "all of us" have half billion dollar estates?

I am still trying to figure out why anyone who does not live in the US would give a hoot about how we tax ourselves. I would think they have enough concerns in their own country without trying to tell us how we should run ours.

civilwarbuff said:

I am still trying to figure out why anyone who does not live in the US would give a hoot about how we tax ourselves. I would think they have enough concerns in their own country without trying to tell us how we should run ours.

Click to expand...

It's popcorn entertainment from the cheap seats. Also taxation does define America sonewhat, it is one of the reasons you declared independence.

LivingWordUnity said:

View attachment 183127

Sources:
Canada Free Press
Forbes
WSJ

Click to expand...

Wow...Now the dead will need to hire lobbyists and lawyers. RIP just got a bit more complicated.

civilwarbuff said:

I am still trying to figure out why anyone who does not live in the US would give a hoot about how we tax ourselves. I would think they have enough concerns in their own country without trying to tell us how we should run ours.

Click to expand...

They just want us to be as miserable as they are writing a check every year to the government. Misery loves company.

Actually, I'm okay with a large death tax...much like our founding fathers were.

I'd prefer very low income tax, very low sales tax, and high estate tax.

If you read some of the writings from men like Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison, it was pretty clear that they all preferred to tax the dead instead of the living...and with good reason, they knew that if you simply allowed a handful of families and entities to amass massive amounts of wealth from generation to generation, you'd end up with an aristocracy, and in turn, people who could unfairly rig the political system in their own favor. ...or, in a nutshell, what we see today where rich people heavily influence elections.

A few of our founders had this to say
A power to dispose of estates forever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.

by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic and promoting contention and injustice.

Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic

ThatRobGuy said:

Actually, I'm okay with a large death tax...much like our founding fathers were.

I'd prefer very low income tax, very low sales tax, and high estate tax.

If you read some of the writings from men like Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison, it was pretty clear that they all preferred to tax the dead instead of the living...and with good reason, they knew that if you simply allowed a handful of families and entities to amass massive amounts of wealth from generation to generation, you'd end up with an aristocracy, and in turn, people who could unfairly rig the political system in their own favor. ...or, in a nutshell, what we see today where rich people heavily influence elections.

A few of our founders had this to say
A power to dispose of estates forever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fullness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural.

by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic and promoting contention and injustice.

Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic

Click to expand...

Now that is the best defence and justification for taxing inheritance so far on this thread.

civilwarbuff said:

I am still trying to figure out why anyone who does not live in the US would give a hoot about how we tax ourselves. I would think they have enough concerns in their own country without trying to tell us how we should run ours.

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't really care how you tax yourselves, although it is amusing watching some of your nuttier countrymen arguing for utterly bizarre and implausible systems. It's the dishonest slant of the reporting I take issue with.

LivingWordUnity said:

View attachment 183127

Sources:
Canada Free Press
Forbes
WSJ

Click to expand...

Personally, I believe dealing with an estate after a death is extremely difficult. Increasing to 65% tax seems to be adding insult to injury. People already are dealing with the death of a family member, they have to deal with all the other legal complications related to this, and the heirs may not even be rich themselves. Often, the legal proceedings take years to complete. Imagine trying to deal with losing a parent and having to focus on legalities instead of dealing with your grief. No matter how rich someone is, that doesn't change that pain.

My perspective is that 45% is already very high. 65% is wrong. The American Dream is that every man and woman should have the opportunity to achieve success from hard work. If a man or woman starts from nothing and through hard work achieves that dream, shouldn't they be able to pass that on to their loved ones?

The argument about the capital gains not being taxed is the best argument for why the estate tax is there. On the other hand, if that is the reason, it would make sense to me to just tax heirs on the gains of stocks when they sell it, instead of having the estate tax.

All4Christ said:

Personally, I believe dealing with an estate after a death is extremely difficult. Increasing to 65% tax seems to be adding insult to injury. People already are dealing with the death of a family member, they have to deal with all the other legal complications related to this, and the heirs may not even be rich themselves.

Click to expand...

Unless the number of heirs is quite large they stand to become wealthy once the estate has been distributed as the federal estate tax only applies to amounts of $5.45 million or more.

All4Christ said:

Imagine trying to deal with losing a parent and having to focus on legalities instead of dealing with your grief.

Click to expand...

If someone passes with assets of more than $5 million and leaves behind unclear instructions or did not do any estate planning it's they who caused the problems for their beneficiaries, not the tax code.

ThatRobGuy said:

If you read some of the writings from men like Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison, it was pretty clear that they all preferred to tax the dead instead of the living...and with good reason, they knew that if you simply allowed a handful of families and entities to amass massive amounts of wealth from generation to generation, you'd end up with an aristocracy, and in turn, people who could unfairly rig the political system in their own favor. ...or, in a nutshell, what we see today where rich people heavily influence elections.

Click to expand...

With modern conditions I don't think that the fear of aristocracy is well founded. The fortunes that survive past the second of third generation are notable exceptions to the rule that most are lost or squandered by heirs.

Desk trauma said:

Unless the number of heirs is quite large they stand to become wealthy once the estate has been distributed as the federal estate tax only applies to amounts of $5.45 million or more.



If someone passes with assets of more than $5 million and leaves behind unclear instructions or did not do any estate planning it's they who caused the problems for their beneficiaries, not the tax code.

Click to expand...

It is very possible that the number of heirs is large. Not every estate is passed down to children alone, or even passing the primary amount to children.


While I personally am not someone who dealt with legal proceedings, I do personally know some people who dealt with this. Even with estate planning, dealing with legal proceedings for an estate is complicated at best.

All4Christ said:

It is very possible that the number of heirs is large. Not every estate is passed down to children alone, or even passing the primary amount to children.


While I personally am not someone who dealt with legal proceedings, I do personally know some people who dealt with this. Even with estate planning, dealing with legal proceedings for an estate is complicated at best.

Click to expand...

The amount of legal proceedings is unlikely to change with this proposal.

All4Christ said:

While I personally am not someone who dealt with legal proceedings, I do personally know some people who dealt with this. Even with estate planning, dealing with legal proceedings for an estate is complicated at best.

Click to expand...

They would not become magically simple with the removal of a federal tax on a handful of them. The complications of estates are found in the most problematic of things, the people who they are left to.