Author Topic: Inequality: the long view  (Read 13026 times)

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4419
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #150 on: June 30, 2017, 11:31:42 AM »
I've never understood the mindset that thinks the government is more entitled to an estate than the heirs are.  SMH.

I always find it a bit difficult to understand the mindset that the heirs are entitled to anything at all.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would think the government should get the money
someone worked and already paid taxes on. The owner of the money should have the right to say where it goes.
Because we tax money when it changes hands.  Almost always.
The owner earned the money, the recipient did not, thus it gets taxed.

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #151 on: June 30, 2017, 11:41:14 AM »
I've never understood the mindset that thinks the government is more entitled to an estate than the heirs are.  SMH.

I always find it a bit difficult to understand the mindset that the heirs are entitled to anything at all.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would think the government should get the money
someone worked and already paid taxes on. The owner of the money should have the right to say where it goes.
Because we tax money when it changes hands.  Almost always.
The owner earned the money, the recipient did not, thus it gets taxed.

Alright Komrade Alim Nassor.

Maybe I'd understand this better if we talked about the amount of wealth that gets hugely taxed. If I have a nice muscle car, do I get to leave that to my grandson or does that get sold at a government auction?

Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

[MOD NOTE: Forum Rule #1]
« Last Edit: July 02, 2017, 07:10:14 AM by FrugalToque »

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #152 on: June 30, 2017, 11:47:09 AM »
I've never understood the mindset that thinks the government is more entitled to an estate than the heirs are.  SMH.

I always find it a bit difficult to understand the mindset that the heirs are entitled to anything at all.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would think the government should get the money
someone worked and already paid taxes on. The owner of the money should have the right to say where it goes.
Because we tax money when it changes hands.  Almost always.
The owner earned the money, the recipient did not, thus it gets taxed.

Alright Komrade Alim Nassor.

Maybe I'd understand this better if we talked about the amount of wealth that gets hugely taxed. If I have a nice muscle car, do I get to leave that to my grandson or does that get sold at a government auction?

Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

Reread that proverb. A COUNTRY grows great. Isn't that what a punitive inheritance tax would do? That is the worst possible quote you could use to support no inheritance tax.

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #153 on: June 30, 2017, 11:47:41 AM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

I guess it would have to be liquidated to pay the taxes, then a large corporation will buy it up?

That's the question I'm trying to get answered here by the proponents of the inheritance tax. The proponents think it will end dynasties of wealthy people. What it will really do is screw over the family who owns the $10million farm while the Waltons hire an army of lawyers to keep doing what they've always done.

Also, the proponents of inheritance taxes are operating under the assumption that the government will manage wealth well.
This is something I've been considering as well. Does anyone have a full understanding of how businesses or other large assets are taxed under the current estate tax? Is there a difference between farms and other businesses because I hear the family farm example a lot.

Also, the proponents of inheritance taxes are operating under the assumption that the government will manage wealth well.
No, they are not. Why has this argument been repeated so many times in relation to inheritance taxes? This is just as applicable to any form of taxation.

“If you could learn to cater to the king you wouldn’t have to live on rice and beans”…”If you could learn to live on rice and beans you wouldn’t have to cater to the king”

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #154 on: June 30, 2017, 11:53:52 AM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.
“If you could learn to cater to the king you wouldn’t have to live on rice and beans”…”If you could learn to live on rice and beans you wouldn’t have to cater to the king”

jmecklenborg

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #155 on: June 30, 2017, 12:00:48 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.


What's hilarious is that even among the landed gentry of England, there have been great strokes of luck or poor luck.  The families whose land just happened to sit on top of large coal reserves got much wealthier (and were able to pay the steep taxes brought about by Labour and keep their family homes) than those whose didn't.  Those with land close to London or the other major cities still hold title to hundreds of acres under well-established suburbs.  Some of England's Dukes inherited billions -- others are dirt poor, just because of where the land they inherited 500-1000 years ago is located. 

In England they acknowledge the role of luck in privilege.  In the United states we like to pretend that everyone gets what they deserve, when it's often not the case. 

MrMoogle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #156 on: June 30, 2017, 12:10:58 PM »
I've never understood the mindset that thinks the government is more entitled to an estate than the heirs are.  SMH.

I always find it a bit difficult to understand the mindset that the heirs are entitled to anything at all.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would think the government should get the money
someone worked and already paid taxes on. The owner of the money should have the right to say where it goes.
Because we tax money when it changes hands.  Almost always.
The owner earned the money, the recipient did not, thus it gets taxed.

Alright Komrade Alim Nassor.

Maybe I'd understand this better if we talked about the amount of wealth that gets hugely taxed. If I have a nice muscle car, do I get to leave that to my grandson or does that get sold at a government auction?

Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

Reread that proverb. A COUNTRY grows great. Isn't that what a punitive inheritance tax would do? That is the worst possible quote you could use to support no inheritance tax.
I disagree with your assessment.

Old men are more likely to plant trees to help their kids or neighbors than help their country.  If you remove the reward (help their kids) then they are much less likely to do it.  If the government takes the tree when the man dies, the old man is less likely to plant it.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #157 on: June 30, 2017, 12:13:50 PM »
You all need to back of the high inheritance tax ideas. I'm building wealth solely for the benefit of my family for my lifetime and afterwards. I want to leave a legacy to them so that my family can get ahead in future generations. Many people think like this even if they don't say it.

Get rid of inheritances (to be given the benevolent state who will surely administer the monies well) and most people won't want to leave an inheritance at all. Also, just curious if someone builds a company that's worth $35million, is that company administered by the government once the founder dies? Or will there be a work around for that?

That's a fine idea if you favor oligarchies.  If you happen to think that progressive democracy has led to the greatest innovation and wealth creation in history, then you may want to re-think that position. Teddy Roosevelt was a stinging critic of dynastic wealth, and I happen to think he was spot-on.

Basically:
If you have a bunch of wealth you tend to believe that your family should inherit it.
If you have little wealth then you are more likely to believe they should give it away to those who have little wealth.

Go figure.  It is always so easy to give away someone else's money.

BTW, you can't tax inheritance because those with enough money will always set up trusts to protect it.  All the tax does is make lawyers, trust managers, and accountants richer due to fees.

Yes you can. If you change a law about taxes on inheritances you can dictate what gets taxed and when it gets taxed. You're just assuming what would happen if we changed the rate only. You know what assuming does?

It's instinctual nature to care about your own progeny above society. That's why a democratic society decides as a whole and the rich aren't allowed to make the rules as they see fit.

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #158 on: June 30, 2017, 12:15:20 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #159 on: June 30, 2017, 12:15:51 PM »
I've never understood the mindset that thinks the government is more entitled to an estate than the heirs are.  SMH.

I always find it a bit difficult to understand the mindset that the heirs are entitled to anything at all.

I find it difficult to understand why anyone would think the government should get the money
someone worked and already paid taxes on. The owner of the money should have the right to say where it goes.
Because we tax money when it changes hands.  Almost always.
The owner earned the money, the recipient did not, thus it gets taxed.

Alright Komrade Alim Nassor.

Maybe I'd understand this better if we talked about the amount of wealth that gets hugely taxed. If I have a nice muscle car, do I get to leave that to my grandson or does that get sold at a government auction?

Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."

Reread that proverb. A COUNTRY grows great. Isn't that what a punitive inheritance tax would do? That is the worst possible quote you could use to support no inheritance tax.
I disagree with your assessment.

Old men are more likely to plant trees to help their kids or neighbors than help their country.  If you remove the reward (help their kids) then they are much less likely to do it.  If the government takes the tree when the man dies, the old man is less likely to plant it.

He would be more likely to donate it to charity if taxed high after his death which would be exactly what the proverb means. Your proverb is THE WORST possible proverb to support no inheritance tax.

index

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #160 on: June 30, 2017, 12:16:17 PM »
The purpose of changing the tax system back to the 1960's or 70's brackets is to level the playing field. Income inequality means it is more difficult to move from the median to the 1%. Take the 1980 breakdown of the rich, median, and poor in today's dollars for example:

On the left is the annual income it took to be in this percentile in 1980 in 2017 dollars; The right is 2017 in 2017 dollars:
               1980 / 2017
0.01% -  1.8M / 9.5M
0.1% -    400k  / 1.6M
1% -       197k / 465k
10% -     100k / 135k
20% -     80k / 80k
50% -     52k /  52k
75% -     25k / 25k

Granted, it is possible to move between brackets. A lot of people say "See social mobility" when they see someone going from median income to the top 10%. The problem is going from the median to 1% is much more difficult today than 1980, and it gets even harder to move to the 0.1 or 0.01. Productivity of the workers has increased, but the benefits of the increase have stayed at the top. And again, I'm not talking about fast food workers, I'm talking about professionals - Accountants, Lawyers, Engineers etc.



Society needs to find a way to deal with the inequality. Historically a few things have worked:

1. Increased Progressive Taxes
2. War <-- Historically the 1% are banished/killed
3. Plague  <-- Natural severe population reduction

If you see nothing wrong with the increasing change in the distribution of wealth since 1980 just state that and move on. Know one of the 3 preceding options will happen at some point to correct the imbalance.

In my opinion (and yes I'm in an income bracket that would get a tax hike), paying more than your fair share sucks, but it probably hurts a lot less than 2 or 3. 

EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #161 on: June 30, 2017, 12:17:16 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.


What's hilarious is that even among the landed gentry of England, there have been great strokes of luck or poor luck.  The families whose land just happened to sit on top of large coal reserves got much wealthier (and were able to pay the steep taxes brought about by Labour and keep their family homes) than those whose didn't.  Those with land close to London or the other major cities still hold title to hundreds of acres under well-established suburbs.  Some of England's Dukes inherited billions -- others are dirt poor, just because of where the land they inherited 500-1000 years ago is located. 

In England they acknowledge the role of luck in privilege.  In the United states we like to pretend that everyone gets what they deserve, when it's often not the case.

Life is not fair. It never was and it never will be. We don't all get what we deserve, but the odds are if you work hard in the US you will be much better off compared to those who are lazy.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #162 on: June 30, 2017, 12:18:07 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 12:20:04 PM by Bucksandreds »

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #163 on: June 30, 2017, 12:22:45 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.

No, I'm countering snark with snark. But what all of you pro-inheritance tax people are really saying, and it's a bizarre thing to read on MMM forum, is that we are all really just borrowing our wealth from the government until we die.

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #164 on: June 30, 2017, 12:29:10 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.
Or maybe they did it for survival? For the benefit of everyone? To gain power over others? For love? For life?

There's about a gazillion reasons for the establishment of civilization and If you asked someone why it happened I doubt their first response would be "to establish a dynasty for one's heirs".

I think you're confusing the concept of passing on your genetic material with passing down wealth. If you meant to say that we live to procreate I would agree, at least in terms of our animal instincts.
“If you could learn to cater to the king you wouldn’t have to live on rice and beans”…”If you could learn to live on rice and beans you wouldn’t have to cater to the king”

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #165 on: June 30, 2017, 12:30:09 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.

No, I'm countering snark with snark. But what all of you pro-inheritance tax people are really saying, and it's a bizarre thing to read on MMM forum, is that we are all really just borrowing our wealth from the government until we die.

What we are saying is to a degree that we are borrowing our wealth from society. Mostly it means that what we have belongs just as much to society as it does one's heirs. Government is the means to balance the playing field, to a degree. A society that gives a truly fair chance to all is expensive. Everyone can agree on that. The question is does one support policies that benefit society as a whole or policies that benefit the individual? 

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #166 on: June 30, 2017, 12:40:06 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.

No, I'm countering snark with snark. But what all of you pro-inheritance tax people are really saying, and it's a bizarre thing to read on MMM forum, is that we are all really just borrowing our wealth from the government until we die.

What we are saying is to a degree that we are borrowing our wealth from society. Mostly it means that what we have belongs just as much to society as it does one's heirs. Government is the means to balance the playing field, to a degree. A society that gives a truly fair chance to all is expensive. Everyone can agree on that. The question is does one support policies that benefit society as a whole or policies that benefit the individual?

Again, that's an odd thing to read in an MMM context. Don't we all know that wealth doesn't just happen? Look, I can see a reasonable inheritance tax. But when you get into numbers like 80%... jesus.

Can anyone tell me what happens after the death of my boss who has built a $35million company? Does the USG send a bureaucrat out to take over the company?

Jrr85

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 497
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #167 on: June 30, 2017, 12:41:17 PM »
Yes you can. If you change a law about taxes on inheritances you can dictate what gets taxed and when it gets taxed. You're just assuming what would happen if we changed the rate only. You know what assuming does?

It's instinctual nature to care about your own progeny above society. That's why a democratic society decides as a whole and the rich aren't allowed to make the rules as they see fit.

yea, yea, yea, makes an ass out of u and ming.  Just another example of how people think it's ok to make racist statements about Asians. 

solon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 883
  • Age: 1816
  • Location: CO
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #168 on: June 30, 2017, 12:46:03 PM »
Yes you can. If you change a law about taxes on inheritances you can dictate what gets taxed and when it gets taxed. You're just assuming what would happen if we changed the rate only. You know what assuming does?

It's instinctual nature to care about your own progeny above society. That's why a democratic society decides as a whole and the rich aren't allowed to make the rules as they see fit.

yea, yea, yea, makes an ass out of u and ming.  Just another example of how people think it's ok to make racist statements about Asians.

Can't figure out if you're serious. It's "make an ass out of you and me". It's a reminder - to you and me - not to rush to judgement. Asians have nothing to do with it.

Dabnasty

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 114
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #169 on: June 30, 2017, 12:48:05 PM »
Let's do a hypothetical.

Let's say you feel it is unfair to tax inheritance at all. However, not taxing inheritance will lead to increasing levels of inequality to the point where the world is owned by a few wealthy families and they control everyone else. This leads to an uprising of the masses in which they kill the ruling families and the entire financial system falls to nothing. We start over until it happens again.

Or the wealthy families give back a large portion with every generation. They keep enough to continue a life of luxury for themselves and continue to invest that given money so that they can do it again with the next generation.

Now I'm not saying that it's that clear cut, but isn't it even worth you're consideration? Maybe it isn't "fair" but is that really what matters?

Like my momma always said "Life isn't fair."

Edit: I missed the second half of Index's post. Sorry for being redundant. But seriously, think about it.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 01:03:29 PM by Dabnasty »
“If you could learn to cater to the king you wouldn’t have to live on rice and beans”…”If you could learn to live on rice and beans you wouldn’t have to cater to the king”

Jrr85

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 497
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #170 on: June 30, 2017, 12:49:00 PM »
The purpose of changing the tax system back to the 1960's or 70's brackets is to level the playing field. Income inequality means it is more difficult to move from the median to the 1%. Take the 1980 breakdown of the rich, median, and poor in today's dollars for example:

On the left is the annual income it took to be in this percentile in 1980 in 2017 dollars; The right is 2017 in 2017 dollars:
               1980 / 2017
0.01% -  1.8M / 9.5M
0.1% -    400k  / 1.6M
1% -       197k / 465k
10% -     100k / 135k
20% -     80k / 80k
50% -     52k /  52k
75% -     25k / 25k

Granted, it is possible to move between brackets. A lot of people say "See social mobility" when they see someone going from median income to the top 10%. The problem is going from the median to 1% is much more difficult today than 1980, and it gets even harder to move to the 0.1 or 0.01. Productivity of the workers has increased, but the benefits of the increase have stayed at the top. And again, I'm not talking about fast food workers, I'm talking about professionals - Accountants, Lawyers, Engineers etc.



Society needs to find a way to deal with the inequality. Historically a few things have worked:

1. Increased Progressive Taxes
2. War <-- Historically the 1% are banished/killed
3. Plague  <-- Natural severe population reduction

If you see nothing wrong with the increasing change in the distribution of wealth since 1980 just state that and move on. Know one of the 3 preceding options will happen at some point to correct the imbalance.

In my opinion (and yes I'm in an income bracket that would get a tax hike), paying more than your fair share sucks, but it probably hurts a lot less than 2 or 3.

I really don't get this attitude.  Mobility in the U.S. is just as great or greater on an absolute basis than that in western european countries that everybody wants to emulate, but people want to change our policies just because the U.S. has more rich people.  If a person born to parents making $20k has a 20% chance of making $80k, it seems like that's all that's relevant. 

But regardless, having estate taxes seems like a stupid policy.  If you want to tax estates, it would seem much better for almost any policy preference to tax inheritances.  Let people inherit up to say $5M tax free and anything beyond that get treated as regular income.   If people are just worried about too much wealth concentration, that will accomplish it while the extremely rich to pass their entire estate untaxed, as long as they are willing to devise it to enough people. 

index

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #171 on: June 30, 2017, 01:07:39 PM »
The purpose of changing the tax system back to the 1960's or 70's brackets is to level the playing field. Income inequality means it is more difficult to move from the median to the 1%. Take the 1980 breakdown of the rich, median, and poor in today's dollars for example:

On the left is the annual income it took to be in this percentile in 1980 in 2017 dollars; The right is 2017 in 2017 dollars:
               1980 / 2017
0.01% -  1.8M / 9.5M
0.1% -    400k  / 1.6M
1% -       197k / 465k
10% -     100k / 135k
20% -     80k / 80k
50% -     52k /  52k
75% -     25k / 25k

Granted, it is possible to move between brackets. A lot of people say "See social mobility" when they see someone going from median income to the top 10%. The problem is going from the median to 1% is much more difficult today than 1980, and it gets even harder to move to the 0.1 or 0.01. Productivity of the workers has increased, but the benefits of the increase have stayed at the top. And again, I'm not talking about fast food workers, I'm talking about professionals - Accountants, Lawyers, Engineers etc.

Society needs to find a way to deal with the inequality. Historically a few things have worked:

1. Increased Progressive Taxes
2. War <-- Historically the 1% are banished/killed
3. Plague  <-- Natural severe population reduction

If you see nothing wrong with the increasing change in the distribution of wealth since 1980 just state that and move on. Know one of the 3 preceding options will happen at some point to correct the imbalance.

In my opinion (and yes I'm in an income bracket that would get a tax hike), paying more than your fair share sucks, but it probably hurts a lot less than 2 or 3.

I really don't get this attitude.  Mobility in the U.S. is just as great or greater on an absolute basis than that in western european countries that everybody wants to emulate, but people want to change our policies just because the U.S. has more rich people.  If a person born to parents making $20k has a 20% chance of making $80k, it seems like that's all that's relevant. 

But regardless, having estate taxes seems like a stupid policy.  If you want to tax estates, it would seem much better for almost any policy preference to tax inheritances.  Let people inherit up to say $5M tax free and anything beyond that get treated as regular income.   If people are just worried about too much wealth concentration, that will accomplish it while the extremely rich to pass their entire estate untaxed, as long as they are willing to devise it to enough people.

What? Mobility from the bottom 20% to the the top 20% is much lower in the US than countries with more progressive tax policies!


ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 598
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #172 on: June 30, 2017, 01:21:22 PM »




So much for male priviliedge.

You guys realize most of the wealth you want government crony's to seize isn't bricks of cash in the basement right? It's functioning businesses employing millions of people. How does the government take that, without forcing people shut down and sell off the business? That is a real, clear detriment to working class, and I beleive, a net negative to society.

Luck12

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #173 on: June 30, 2017, 01:24:28 PM »
I really don't get this attitude.  Mobility in the U.S. is just as great or greater on an absolute basis than that in western european countries that everybody wants to emulate, but people want to change our policies just because the U.S. has more rich people.  If a person born to parents making $20k has a 20% chance of making $80k, it seems like that's all that's relevant. 

Oh really?  I guess the dumbass myth that America has more mobility than most other countries just won't die despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise.   Facts just don't matter to you people! 

http://inequality.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Pathways-SOTU-2016-Economic-Mobility-3.pdf

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2013/dec/19/steven-rattner/it-easier-obtain-american-dream-europe/

Luck12

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #174 on: June 30, 2017, 01:31:44 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though.

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

[MOD NOTE: Attack the argument, not the arguer.  No sweeping generalizations about your opponents.  This is getting tiresome to police all of this stuff.  Thank you.]
« Last Edit: July 02, 2017, 07:03:19 AM by FrugalToque »

bender

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 765
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #175 on: June 30, 2017, 02:00:19 PM »


The Nordic states don't really compare to the top world economies.  Where's China, Japan, France, Germany and India?

sokoloff

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #176 on: June 30, 2017, 02:01:01 PM »
There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.
Reading farther back on the thread, we have people offended with people who accumulate a singular of million USD and others who are advocating for 80% inheritance taxes. Those are the type of taxes that liquidate functioning businesses upon owner death, destroying economic value and jobs in the process.

The current policy is relatively sane. Some suggestions on this thread do not strike me the same way.

MrMoogle

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Huntsville, AL
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #177 on: June 30, 2017, 02:13:37 PM »


The Nordic states don't really compare to the top world economies.  Where's China, Japan, France, Germany and India?
The title is worded weirdly too, I'm not sure what it means.  "Ended up" as in last paycheck?  Also, something like 75-80% of American adults have at one time been in the bottom 20% (I believe I read this in a Thomas Sowell article years ago).  So is that referring to 75% of Americans?  I know it easier to show data like this, but it's simplifying a complex issue. 


EnjoyIt

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 754
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #178 on: June 30, 2017, 02:23:38 PM »
Just a thought and a theorized possibility in the US.  Lets just take an example of a toilet paper maker.  Everyone in the US uses toilet paper.  Therefor toilet paper makes have a captive audience.  If the amount of people grow in the United States, there are more asses that need wiping and therefor increased purchase of toilet paper.  That would mean the owner of the toilet paper company would have an increase in income solely based on population growth. 

Could a similar phenomena be happening with some of the richest people?  Could they be just profiting from population growth since the .1% owns so much business?

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #179 on: June 30, 2017, 02:36:34 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 02:40:25 PM by thesvenster »

ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 598
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #180 on: June 30, 2017, 02:39:57 PM »
There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.
Reading farther back on the thread, we have people offended with people who accumulate a singular of million USD and others who are advocating for 80% inheritance taxes. Those are the type of taxes that liquidate functioning businesses upon owner death, destroying economic value and jobs in the process.

The current policy is relatively sane. Some suggestions on this thread do not strike me the same way.

Precisely. The leftists are doing a shell game where they PROPOSE confiscatory estate taxes, and when you point out the problems, they point out how the CURRENT taxes make sense, convieniently ignoring that the current ones aren't necessarily the ones at issue. It's how leftists at times can be very factually correct while being absolutely wrong.

[MOD NOTE:  I realize politics is incredibly divisive where you are, but this condescending generalization thing has got to stop.]
« Last Edit: July 02, 2017, 07:06:07 AM by FrugalToque »

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #181 on: June 30, 2017, 03:13:34 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

How does it work now when there is a $5 million limit on untaxed estates? Straw man #2 of the day. Keep it up conservatives. You're working hard to muddy the water.

Scortius

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #182 on: June 30, 2017, 03:16:08 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

They can get a business loan to cover the costs if they want to buy it, or they can sell shares in the company to cover the tax.  If it's a profitable company, it should be easy to secure a loan and pay it off and/or buy those shares back.  Now, that completely ignores how the government would value the company.  Obviously there would be more consideration given to the whole ordeal.

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #183 on: June 30, 2017, 03:25:46 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

How does it work now when there is a $5 million limit on untaxed estates? Straw man #2 of the day. Keep it up conservatives. You're working hard to muddy the water.

There you are again citing current laws. Look through the posts, there's people suggesting 80% inheritance taxes.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #184 on: June 30, 2017, 03:29:05 PM »
Yes you can. If you change a law about taxes on inheritances you can dictate what gets taxed and when it gets taxed. You're just assuming what would happen if we changed the rate only. You know what assuming does?

It's instinctual nature to care about your own progeny ab ove society. That's why a democratic society decides as a whole and the rich aren't allowed to make the rules as they see fit.

yea, yea, yea, makes an ass out of u and ming.  Just another example of how people think it's ok to make racist statements about Asians.

Sorry, they're just such easy targets.

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #185 on: June 30, 2017, 03:29:44 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

They can get a business loan to cover the costs if they want to buy it, or they can sell shares in the company to cover the tax.  If it's a profitable company, it should be easy to secure a loan and pay it off and/or buy those shares back.  Now, that completely ignores how the government would value the company.  Obviously there would be more consideration given to the whole ordeal.

How many shares can they sell if the company is now largely owned by the US government?

Dear god, I'm suddenly sympathizing with Ayn Rand from talking to you people. You really don't care about what people build or create.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #186 on: June 30, 2017, 03:30:58 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

How does it work now when there is a $5 million limit on untaxed estates? Straw man #2 of the day. Keep it up conservatives. You're working hard to muddy the water.

There you are again citing current laws. Look through the posts, there's people suggesting 80% inheritance taxes.

You asked how does a $35 million dollar company survive in a higher tax environment. Well how does it survive today when it is valued at 7 times the current tax free estate value? If you don't understand this question then take a critical thinking course! Hint: the answer to your question is related to  the answer to my question. Other hint if that company valued at $35 million today is hit by inheritance tax what do they do about it?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 03:34:46 PM by Bucksandreds »

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #187 on: June 30, 2017, 03:34:01 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

How does it work now when there is a $5 million limit on untaxed estates? Straw man #2 of the day. Keep it up conservatives. You're working hard to muddy the water.

There you are again citing current laws. Look through the posts, there's people suggesting 80% inheritance taxes.

You asked how does a $35 million dollar company survive in a higher tax environment. Well how does it survive today when it is valued at 7 times the current tax free estate value? If you don't understand this question then take a critical thinking course!

Ah, Jerry Brown logic. Because companies are able to make it under the current tax and regulatory regime means that more can be piled on with no consequences.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #188 on: June 30, 2017, 03:38:31 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

How does it work now when there is a $5 million limit on untaxed estates? Straw man #2 of the day. Keep it up conservatives. You're working hard to muddy the water.

There you are again citing current laws. Look through the posts, there's people suggesting 80% inheritance taxes.

You asked how does a $35 million dollar company survive in a higher tax environment. Well how does it survive today when it is valued at 7 times the current tax free estate value? If you don't understand this question then take a critical thinking course!

Ah, Jerry Brown logic. Because companies are able to make it under the current tax and regulatory regime means that more can be piled on with no consequences.

What do they do now? In theory they should be hit with a large tax bill on $25-$30 million. Are they? If so how do they survive? You would have been much better served saying the company was valued at $5 million or less but you didn't. This has left you in a position where you could continue the debate or do what you're doing and dodge it. You know that. I know that. So does everyone else here. Continue dodging it if you want. It only makes you look foolish.

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #189 on: June 30, 2017, 03:48:16 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

How does it work now when there is a $5 million limit on untaxed estates? Straw man #2 of the day. Keep it up conservatives. You're working hard to muddy the water.

There you are again citing current laws. Look through the posts, there's people suggesting 80% inheritance taxes.

You asked how does a $35 million dollar company survive in a higher tax environment. Well how does it survive today when it is valued at 7 times the current tax free estate value? If you don't understand this question then take a critical thinking course!

Ah, Jerry Brown logic. Because companies are able to make it under the current tax and regulatory regime means that more can be piled on with no consequences.

What do they do now? In theory they should be hit with a large tax bill on $25-$30 million. Are they? If so how do they survive? You would have been much better served saying the company was valued at $5 million or less but you didn't. This has left you in a position where you could continue the debate or do what you're doing and dodge it. You know that. I know that. So does everyone else here. Continue dodging it if you want. It only makes you look foolish.

What the fuck are you even talking about? You keep moving the goal posts back and forth. One minute you and the other pro-inheritance tax people say that we need massively greater taxes, the next minute you say you're happy with the laws as they stand.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #190 on: June 30, 2017, 03:57:07 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

How does it work now when there is a $5 million limit on untaxed estates? Straw man #2 of the day. Keep it up conservatives. You're working hard to muddy the water.

There you are again citing current laws. Look through the posts, there's people suggesting 80% inheritance taxes.

You asked how does a $35 million dollar company survive in a higher tax environment. Well how does it survive today when it is valued at 7 times the current tax free estate value? If you don't understand this question then take a critical thinking course!

Ah, Jerry Brown logic. Because companies are able to make it under the current tax and regulatory regime means that more can be piled on with no consequences.

What do they do now? In theory they should be hit with a large tax bill on $25-$30 million. Are they? If so how do they survive? You would have been much better served saying the company was valued at $5 million or less but you didn't. This has left you in a position where you could continue the debate or do what you're doing and dodge it. You know that. I know that. So does everyone else here. Continue dodging it if you want. It only makes you look foolish.

What the fuck are you even talking about? You keep moving the goal posts back and forth. One minute you and the other pro-inheritance tax people say that we need massively greater taxes, the next minute you say you're happy with the laws as they stand.

Lol. Dodging! Where did I say I'm happy with the laws as they stand? I'm saying that this company, hypothetical or real, would have a similar issue in today's environment. You are demonstrating classic avoidance behavior. You're so defensive now you're swearing at me.

BFGirl

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #191 on: June 30, 2017, 03:59:39 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I don't know the current state of the law, but a lot of times family businesses plan for this and transfer minority interests in the business to other family members.  They can then take certain discounts, but the IRS is trying to close this loophole.  It's more complicated than I want to research and explain right now, but here is a link for those who are interested:  http://www.claconnect.com/resources/articles/gift-and-estate-tax-discounts-likely-to-shrink-for-closely-held-businesses

mm1970

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4419
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #192 on: June 30, 2017, 04:04:04 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.

No, I'm countering snark with snark. But what all of you pro-inheritance tax people are really saying, and it's a bizarre thing to read on MMM forum, is that we are all really just borrowing our wealth from the government until we die.
No.  My wealth is mine.  MINE.

It is not, however, my kids'.  When/if they get an influx of money, it may be taxed.

Scortius

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #193 on: June 30, 2017, 04:06:12 PM »
What will happen to the family farm?  For example a farm valued at $10M that has been passed down from generation to generation.

Oh the "what will happen to all those family farms" bullshit arguement.  Gotta give you economic conservatives credit for marketing and fooling the public though. 

There's currently (and has been for last 6-7 years) an exemption of $5M+ and 35-40% tax on amounts greater than $5M, hardly somethng that would kill a family farm.  Not to mention this affects very few farms.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

I still haven't gotten an answer on what happens to my boss' $35million company when he dies. In the ideal world of higher inheritance taxes,  does a bureaucrat get appointed to run it? Or does the family get keep it while paying massive loans to the federal government?

They can get a business loan to cover the costs if they want to buy it, or they can sell shares in the company to cover the tax.  If it's a profitable company, it should be easy to secure a loan and pay it off and/or buy those shares back.  Now, that completely ignores how the government would value the company.  Obviously there would be more consideration given to the whole ordeal.

How many shares can they sell if the company is now largely owned by the US government?

Dear god, I'm suddenly sympathizing with Ayn Rand from talking to you people. You really don't care about what people build or create.

If, in your example, it's largely owned by the US government, they don't have to sell any shares, they already covered their tax liability.  If, in this extreme scenario, they want to cover their tax liability while maintaining ownership and control of the company, they can liquidate some of the value of the company (that somehow has been assessed at $35 million) by selling shares of the company, or taking out a business loan, thus covering their tax liability in cash, in which case the government owns absolutely zero percent of the company.

Now once again, this is an extreme contrived example in a scenario where tax rates would be exceptionally high, but I imagine this is how it would work and thus tried to answer your question.

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #194 on: June 30, 2017, 04:09:01 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.

No, I'm countering snark with snark. But what all of you pro-inheritance tax people are really saying, and it's a bizarre thing to read on MMM forum, is that we are all really just borrowing our wealth from the government until we die.
No.  My wealth is mine.  MINE.

It is not, however, my kids'.  When/if they get an influx of money, it may be taxed.

Classic Marxism, eliminating or severely limiting inheritances is a way to make families rely less on each other.

Scortius

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #195 on: June 30, 2017, 04:14:47 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.

No, I'm countering snark with snark. But what all of you pro-inheritance tax people are really saying, and it's a bizarre thing to read on MMM forum, is that we are all really just borrowing our wealth from the government until we die.
No.  My wealth is mine.  MINE.

It is not, however, my kids'.  When/if they get an influx of money, it may be taxed.

Classic Marxism, eliminating or severely limiting inheritances is a way to make families rely less on each other.

I don't think anyone is advocating for eliminating or taxing inheritances in the seven-figure or less category.  I think the discussion starts around the 8 figure mark, and even there only considers percentage tax, not a complete elimination.  Pretty much anyone can set their kids up for life with these amounts before any taxes come into play.

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #196 on: June 30, 2017, 04:19:12 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.

No, I'm countering snark with snark. But what all of you pro-inheritance tax people are really saying, and it's a bizarre thing to read on MMM forum, is that we are all really just borrowing our wealth from the government until we die.
No.  My wealth is mine.  MINE.

It is not, however, my kids'.  When/if they get an influx of money, it may be taxed.

Classic Marxism, eliminating or severely limiting inheritances is a way to make families rely less on each other.

I don't think anyone is advocating for eliminating or taxing inheritances in the seven-figure or less category.  I think the discussion starts around the 8 figure mark, and even there only considers percentage tax, not a complete elimination.  Pretty much anyone can set their kids up for life with these amounts before any taxes come into play.

Say it was 80% tax. A person with $1 billion could leave $200 million to their heirs. No legitimate argument can be made by anyone for real world Marxism/communism. Straw man arguments by the right are easier than legitimate debate.

thesvenster

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Location: Palmer, Alaska
    • My MMM Forum Journal
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #197 on: June 30, 2017, 04:22:54 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.

No, I'm countering snark with snark. But what all of you pro-inheritance tax people are really saying, and it's a bizarre thing to read on MMM forum, is that we are all really just borrowing our wealth from the government until we die.
No.  My wealth is mine.  MINE.

It is not, however, my kids'.  When/if they get an influx of money, it may be taxed.

Classic Marxism, eliminating or severely limiting inheritances is a way to make families rely less on each other.

I don't think anyone is advocating for eliminating or taxing inheritances in the seven-figure or less category.  I think the discussion starts around the 8 figure mark, and even there only considers percentage tax, not a complete elimination.  Pretty much anyone can set their kids up for life with these amounts before any taxes come into play.

Say it was 80% tax. A person with $1 billion could leave $200 million to their heirs. No legitimate argument can be made by anyone for real world Marxism/communism. Straw man arguments by the right are easier than legitimate debate.

Going back through Bucksandreds' comments, he/she/xir is not even a serious person. This one fantasy of his/her/xe's made me lol

"The conservatives will drive us to a French Revolution style event here and will be kneeling at the guillotine still blaming it all on the Welfare queens."

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 589
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #198 on: June 30, 2017, 04:39:26 PM »
Here's why I'm against inheritance taxes: it destroys the idea of a family building fortunes over generations, and fundamentally that's what life is all about. As the Greek proverb goes, "A country grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in."
Sweet, we've discovered the meaning of life! Good game everybody, we can all go home now.

Because people for all of history struggled and lived and built civilizations just for fun... not to leave something to their children.

No one is claiming that there should be no inheritance to pass. Virtually all would prefer a reasonable (up for debate) amount that could be passed on completely tax free. You just used a classic straw man.

No, I'm countering snark with snark. But what all of you pro-inheritance tax people are really saying, and it's a bizarre thing to read on MMM forum, is that we are all really just borrowing our wealth from the government until we die.
No.  My wealth is mine.  MINE.

It is not, however, my kids'.  When/if they get an influx of money, it may be taxed.

Classic Marxism, eliminating or severely limiting inheritances is a way to make families rely less on each other.

I don't think anyone is advocating for eliminating or taxing inheritances in the seven-figure or less category.  I think the discussion starts around the 8 figure mark, and even there only considers percentage tax, not a complete elimination.  Pretty much anyone can set their kids up for life with these amounts before any taxes come into play.

Say it was 80% tax. A person with $1 billion could leave $200 million to their heirs. No legitimate argument can be made by anyone for real world Marxism/communism. Straw man arguments by the right are easier than legitimate debate.

Going back through Bucksandreds' comments, he/she/xir is not even a serious person. This one fantasy of his/her/xe's made me lol

"The conservatives will drive us to a French Revolution style event here and will be kneeling at the guillotine still blaming it all on the Welfare queens."

I like your tenacity! I see a lot of myself in you. That was a serious anecdote. Let them eat food stamps!

Edited to thank you for teaching me about xir/xe. I just googled it. I honestly have never heard that until now.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 04:44:34 PM by Bucksandreds »

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: Inequality: the long view
« Reply #199 on: June 30, 2017, 05:30:50 PM »
I've never understood the mindset that thinks the government is more entitled to an estate than the heirs are.  SMH.

I always find it a bit difficult to understand the mindset that the heirs are entitled to anything at all.

I see.  So, government trumps family?  That doesn't sound like something anyone who desires a free society would say.