"A lot of this "crying" is B.S. Let's be honest, if you own a business and it's worth that much, you can find ANY bank to loan you enough for the taxes so that you can keep the business and pay the taxes over time (to the extent the fed. government doesn't already allow you to pay over time)." You should not have to do this. That does not seem very fair as you put it. This business (and the owners) have already paid taxes on the money earned and then used to build their business, so now there kids would have to go take out a loan to keep the business in the family. Do you think that would work out well for businesses with low gross margins, lower revenue or profit but the value is still worth millions? If it cannot be weighted for actual cash flow without creating extra loop holes and problems than I am less in favor of it than I was before. Double taxation for the redistribution of wealth sounds closer to socialist's view of fairness. I think your view on 80% redistribution of wealth has just pushed me back into reality. Heritage means nothing with your 80% Estate tax plan. Sell the farm, Sell the house that your grandfather or dad was born in, sell the their favorite car, sell the furniture that your grandfather or great grandfather made, sell the clock, sell the collections of paintings, lets just give away their blood, sweat, and tears to the government so they can give to someone who will not make the effort to make it on their own. These people earned their money and should have the right to do whatever they please with it. I am sure most would rather pay taxes even if more while they are living to be able to keep certain properties within their family. I have read that Bill Gates wants to give most of his money away when he dies, which is great if that is his decision. I am sure he trusts that he can make a better decision than the government as to where his money should go. Also with your plan if you do not want to see a situation like Bengal B brings up than you should want a flat "death" tax - no deductions, no loop holes that you need to pay a tax attorney or an accountant to figure out, no need to think someone may be getting away with something that you do not know how to do, ...etc. Even with that you would have to make sure to track all transactions with the family or even outside the family to make sure someone was not trying move around assets improperly before death. Spending it all on worthless crap or blowing it all just to not let the government get anything. Meaning more lawyers and more accountants anyway to figure out what is right and what is really going on. Should we create a tax code that is fair and easy for all to understand, or should we create one that gives us more reasons to hire attorneys and tax accountants remembering that in fairness not all can afford this.
Yea it is not like these people actually earned their money own their own before they died, or it is not like they as individuals and also their businesses never paid federal, state, and local taxes during their entire lifetime. Are these wealthy Americans opposing the repeal prohibited to give as much of their money to the government or charities as they want to? If this is want they want they can do it right now. Outside of the 401Ks and other type of savings taken out of income before taxes that are to be taxed when withdrawn when the person was living what else is not taxed? I do not think deductions can be counted, because your taxable income lowered but you still pay taxes (and probably paid state and local taxes on item deducted). You buy a house you have to earn money that was taxed, you may save some money where the interest is taxed, you pay the taxes when you buy and every year that you own it. Same thing with a car. Anything that is bought is bought with money that was earned at one point (through work or interest) and paid taxes on those earnings, and probably had to pay some sort of sales tax on it. You pay sales taxes to service and repair your property. What is not taxed in one way or the other either through the Fed, State, or local governments. If is he is meaning inheritance that has already been double taxed. On a lighter note do you think the "questionable" accidental death rate is going to go up in 2010. I wonder how many people are going to give the ok to "pull the plug" in December of 2010.
As I tell many of my friends, I PRAY that when I die my kids have to pay $100 million in taxes. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???? So FEW people are paying the Estate Tax that "fairness" rarely comes into question - but don't let that little FACT get in the way of Stevie Forbes' lies. Sell the favorite car??? Are YOU F*(&KING SERIOUS???? It's hard to feel sorry for little Stevie Forbes' who only got $400 million when Malcolm died instead of $800 million. He also got all the advantages that $800 million could buy during his lifetime, like guaranteed admissions/payment to the school of his choice, etc. And, WHAT'S WITH EVERYONE'S FASCINATION WITH FAMILY FARMS? How MANY "little" Family Farms are even left? And, how many of them have estate tax problems? Most farms are owned by multinational corporations now-a-days. When I hear it for the "poor family farmer" I know that there are just WAY too many gullible voters who can't see through Steve Forbes B.S.
Are you serious? How about most of the "wealth" in America. Take Bill Gates - he founded Microsoft so has a really low basis in the smajority of the stock he owns. If he were to sell that stock today, he'd take a HUGE hit in Capital Gains tax. People who own such low basis stock don't sell it because of such tax. When they die, their heirs get a step up in basis so that when they sell the stock, that "gain" disappears. If Bill Gates kids sell the stock they inherit the day after he dies, they have ZERO income tax liability on that sale. Had Gates sold it the day before his death, he'd have a HUGE tax liability. Also, most of the inherent built up "value" in businesses is untaxed. Another example was the Jack Kent Cooke estate. Cooke bought the Washington Redskins for about $1 million. When he died, it was worth over $600,0000. That gain was never taxed. And, his heirs took the Redskins with a $600,000 million basis so if they sold it the next year, they'd have ZERO tax on that sale. They wound up selling the team because they couldn't agree on managing the team. But, if they could have agreed, ANY bank in the world would have loaned them the amount they needed to pay the Estate Tax. But, instead they sold the team an blamed the estate tax.
Bud, its my feeling that people like Bill Gates and Jack Kent Cooked earned their money and should have the same rights all of us have to distribute it any way they want when they die. For the rest of us the example of "family farms" might have been overused but there are thousands and thousands of small businesses that would have a valuation of a few million dollars that produce a decent but not exorbitant living for their owners and their families. Hardware stores, independent grocery stores, construction companies, real estate brokerages just to name a few. If these businesses were taxed at full value upon the death of the owner most of them would cease to exist instead of being passed on to the heirs who may or may not have grown up working in the family business and might want to continue to operate those businesses. People like that shouldn't have to go heavily in debt just to pay the estate taxes.
You are the one bringing up the socialistic idea of an 80% tax to redistribute wealth as being fair. You listed no other limitations, exemptions, or deductions on your tax plan. Your limitations were actually talking about the current tax structure. So again heritage and family traditions mean nothing to you including the family car and the house, furniture, land, businesses, ...etc You just want to die and leave all the decisions to the government and your kids. You 80% plan is the worst idea I have ever heard. If your friends do not debate you on it, it is only because they are laughing at your idea behind your back.
First $600,000 then $600 million I know what you are trying to say, but for someone who studies tax law so much you would think you would pay attention to little details when attempting to prove your point. Did the Redskins not pay taxes (FED, State, and any local) on anything? Capital gains are in the same realm of the 401K exceptions of items I listed where taxes are not paid until they are withdrawn or gained, which should be taxed at the going rate not through the higher inheritance rate (and do not forget we do tax the return on capital assets already before a Capital gains tax). I am not ok with someone earning money and paying taxes on this income, using what is left to buy property, paying taxes on the sale and then annually, probably paying sales taxes of some sort on the upkeep, repair, and improvement on property, and then having to pay half the value in an inheritance tax. If there is a gain on top of the amount previous owner invested initially, invested later for improvements and upkeep, and on top of the improvements based upon the owner's own work then they can pay the going rate on that remaining gain (again not inheritance rate) but should not have to pay anything on the rest of value of the property. You keep bringing up loans? Why should someone have to take a loan to continue a family business? Not a small business but in the Redskins case if the heirs take just the $600 million basis to keep the team they would need a loan of 55%(estimate) of $599 million to keep the team (not accounting for exemptions and other stuff because I do not know all that was involved)? I am sure any bank would take that with the team as the collateral. Of course they can blame the estate tax as the paying of an estimated extra $25 to $35 million a year depending on the terms of loan is a lot to overcome. Your article points out that until Bush's reform the threshold was $675,000. How far reaching was that? Of course like a good lawyer you will probably point out the loopholes and exemptions, but why should we need a lawyer to get the lowest rate? Again why don't we have a tax code that is truly fair and easy to understand? Why when your basis is fairness would you want to keep a tax code that requires the use of accountants and lawyers to get the best rate? You have yet to prove your case as to why an 80% tax is the fairest tax of all.
They paid taxes on any profits they made in the course of business. But you listen to baseball and they "lose" money, yet the values of franchises skyrocket. Why shouldn't taxes be paid on gains on sales of businesses? If WalMart sells a cup they bought for $.25 for a buck, they pay tax on the profit. What is the difference if you buy or sell a business. What did make sense was ITC for actual investments in capital, factories, equipment, etc - of course, that was grossly abused, so ought it went, largely, in 1986.
Bengal B - We ALL earn our money and YET we are all taxed FOR earning money. SERIOUS QUESTION - What's fairer in your mind - Taxing people who go to work day-to-day who WORK HARD to live paycheck to paycheck so that they can send their kids to a decent school and provide for a public school college when their kids graduate - OR To tax THE KIDS of MULTI millionaires who have had all the advantages that MILLIONS could buy during their lifetimes? Obviously, in the MOST FAIR world, we'd have no taxes. But, WE DO. And, what it comes down to is deciding what is the "BEST WAY" to tax people. Given the choice of an income tax or an Estate Tax, I'll take an Estate Tax EVERY TIME. If you had the OPTION of paying an Estate Tax and ELIMINATING your income tax (even if the Estate Tax was in the 70-80% range), what would you choose?
To be fair you should give other options - like paying income tax and eliminating the Estate Tax, status quo, flat tax for everything, VAT, national sales tax...etc. You listed no other options except your plan.
