Not only is federal income tax the most ineffecient tax levied on the entire planet, but it is also unfair, unjust, and unconstitutional. How can the federal government set arbitrary tax brackets on every dollar earned without considering the actual buying power every dollar earned gets you? My point being that someone making 100k in Manhatten is actually making less than someone making 100k in Jackson, MS so therefore the person in Manhatten should be paying less in federal income taxes than the person in Jackson, MS. Conservatives should understand this concept since they are generally better with money...
I don't have a problem with keeping estate tax and use taxes. The whole tax system is messed up but its complexity means it will probably never be "fixed".
(no message)
Where did I ever mention anything about corporate tax reform? Not to mention, your post is a bunch of discombobulated set of statistics with no point that doesn't really tell me anything. Was GE's bailout only 16 billion? I know the media kept this one pretty hush hush, but I am not an avid supporter of government bailouts of any kind. Businesses come and businesses go. That is how capitalism works...
Politically, since most people can recognize this
and public services and not him? Makes sense...
Why should that family have to pay for the roads twice?...once when your neighbor's parents earned the money, and a second time when your neighbor's parents die...just because they chose to save the money rather than spend it at the local casino? The estate tax is a tax on families, and it punishes savings...and it punishes farmers (whose inheritance is tied up in land and very expensive equipment) and people in like circumstances...they have to sell off their inheritance to pay the tax. Not fair. Just tax once and be done. Taxing the neighbor twice, and you once is not fair.
The idea that it taxes "families" twice is a non-starter.
If you think it is important to note that some inheritances do not go to family members, I will obviously grant the point. I will also note that it is probably the least important part of my post.
The vast majority of estates taxes consist of a majority of unrealized capital gains that have not been taxed previously.
(no message)
Capital gains are income. That is why they are taxed.
You are not taxed for your basis. So yes, you bought the asset with after tax money, and you are not taxed on that amount of the purchase price.
By this measure, I've already paid for the roads too, and I shouldn't have to pay any income tax!
(no message)
So if your father pays taxes, and you get taxed, then you are being double taxed, right?
asset to pay taxes?
portfolio of stocks and bonds. In monetary terms, they are more similar than different.
It's a little harder (and it has more lasting consequences) to sell off a portion of your farm every generation...
...or, perhaps even having to sell one of your harvesters (which are can be 6 figure investments akin to a house more than a car).
Farming can be an real/physical asset intensive enterprise, and estate taxes hurt such enterprises more than they hurt intangible asset holdings like bank accounts, CDs, stocks and bonds.
(no message)
(no message)
but combines do not cost anywhere near 11 million, so....
Look on the bright side, at least you won't be paying so much in property taxes anymore...
Combines can cost on the high end of 6 figures. Under the old exemption, one of those would take up the entire exemption.
By the way, you are making some valid points, and setting aside other issues, I can see why you might think that $5M is sufficient exemption for any inheritance. While I'm not sure this is political hill I would choose to fight on first, or even die on, I do admit to working hard to pass wealth on to my kids, and my default bias is "hands off" when it comes to the government taxing anything I might want to give my kids. I perceive that as an attack on the family unit. There should be no taxing on transactions between family members. If an inheritance leaves the family (the case Lehigh raised), then I'm less opposed to it being taxed.
Also, can you explain your 11 million number? Are you assuming that parents die separately, and own property separately, and bequeath separately, and so have separate exemptions? This is an honest question.
If one spouse dies, and the intestacy laws give the property to the second spouse, who then dies, the exemption is $5M applied in succession (that is, anything over $5M is taxed twice...after having already been taxed as income...and in some cases after having also already been taxed under capital gains laws if it is stock, for example).
There is no estate tax when the first spouse dies and the exemption is $11 million upon the death of the second spouse.
exemption will double to 11 million if probably taken care of before death in a revocable living trust. Example below:
If your spouse is a U.S. citizen, you can leave him or her an unlimited amount when you die with no estate tax. But there can be problems when the second spouse dies.
For example, let's say Bob and Sue have a combined net estate of $10 million and they both die when the federal exemption is $5 million. When Bob dies, he leaves everything to Sue, so no estate taxes are due then. But when Sue dies, her estate of $10 million uses her $5 million exemption. The tax bill on the remaining $5 million? $1,750,000!
Congress tried to fix this. If Bob dies in 2011 or 2012, his unused exemption can be transferred to Sue. But if Sue remarries and outlives her new husband, she would lose Bob's unused exemption. Also, by leaving everything to Sue, Bob has no control over how his share of the assets are managed or distributed. Plus, any growth on the assets will be included in Sue's estate and taxed when she dies.
If Bob and Sue plan ahead, they can use both exemptions and solve these problems. A tax-planning provision in their living trust splits their $10 million estate into two trusts of $5 million each. When Bob dies, his trust uses his $5 million exemption. When Sue dies, her trust uses her $5 million exemption. This reduces their taxable estate to $0, so the full $10 million can go to their loved ones.
In addition, Bob can keep control over how his share of the estate is managed and distributed; the assets are valued and taxed only at his death, so no growth is included in Sue's estate; yet, the assets in Bob's trust can be available for anything Sue needs. Married couples with estates of all sizes find these benefits appealing. (This planning can also be done in a will, but you would not avoid probate or enjoy the other benefits of a living trust.)
That is where my 11 million comes from. It is caused by one of the many loopholes in the estate tax currently.
(no message)
(no message)
Forced to sell acreage to pay the tax man? Why do you believe the governmet has any right to a family's wealth?
I made the percentage up, but you get the drift.
How many farmers own over $11,000,000 worth of land?
(no message)
(no message)
ground.
(no message)
skills are up to par. It the farmer is good at his trade, the Big Business will rent him the farm and provide him cheaper seed on the economies of scale offered through volume purchasing incentives from the Big Business owning other farmland. It's a win win for everyone and makes the economy more competitive...
Or, transfer them to corporate enterprises who lobby Congress for policies like yours...and reduce the farmers to tenant laborers.
Your views seem to come from opposition to the rich...but your policies seem to help the rich.
the person inheriting the money will do anything with it that leads to more tax revenue?
Who cares what his parents spent in taxes in accumulating the wealth, he is not his parents. He should be taxed on this "gift" that suddenly goes from a 14k threshold to an 11mil threshold because someone in his family died, and he should be incentivized to work in the economy like everyone else with significantly reduced income taxes on earned income, in order to contribute to higher GDP for the country.
Sitting around playing xbox and ordering pizzas in the air conditioning all day with mommy and daddy's money does not contribute to the economy and increase the country's GDP and reduce the trade deficit like Trump continuously brought up in his 2016 debates.
(no message)
in federal taxes than unemployed rich kids who inherited massive amounts of wealth. I would like to see a repeal of all federal income taxes, and begin to look for alternative forms of taxation to get our budget in line. A start would be putting increased excise taxes on unhealthy products in our economy that are increasing healthcare costs (tobacco, weed, alchohol, fast-food, etc.) Another idea would be implementing a carbon tax in replacement of income taxes to deal with the global warming crisis. This would force the economy to be less reliant on fossil fuels, which isn't necessarily being done by increased regulation which Obama had to resort to, because Congress doesn't have the balls to replace the income tax with a carbon tax.
(no message)
our economy than are income taxes on earned income.
The first 5,000,000 is already tax free.
If we are going to tax anything, it seems to be a good idea to tax when people get money for absolutely nothing in return.
it's essentially the first 11mil that's tax free, since it's 5.45 + 5.45 that usually gets passed to the spouse tax free, which doubles to about 11mil by the time it passes down to little Johnny (who probably dropped out of college at the age of 21 and is unemployed since his liberal professors had already taught him it's more about who you know, and he knows his wealthy parents).
Maybe make a provision for leaving some dough for handicapped children if applicable.
right now would not come anywhere close to fulfilling the current federal budget. So hopefully we can make significant budget cuts, while getting all these unemployed old money fucks to start paying some taxes, and be incentivized to work like everyone else.