The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

[unofan]

You don't really choose that.

Parents die: okay, we had this, now it's yours.
Uncle Same: okay, we want another piece of that. Just because.

I don't like it.

I agree that in the cases of the rich, they probably found loopholes to avoid an initial taxing (so close those loopholes), I just disagree with the inheritance tax. That money/property/etc is in that family. Let it be when it passes on to the next generation.

Yeah, the parents earned it, not the kids. If there's any income that deserves to get taxed, it's unearned income. We already have an income inequality problem in this country. There's no need to exacerbate it by encouraging dynastic wealth.

And do you know how many family farms have been lost to the estate tax? 0. That's a scare tactic raised by the GOP.

[The Rube]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

Yeah, the parents earned it, not the kids. If there's any income that deserves to get taxed, it's unearned income. We already have an income inequality problem in this country. There's no need to exacerbate it by encouraging dynastic wealth.

And do you know how many family farms have been lost to the estate tax? 0. That's a scare tactic raised by the GOP.

Our culture is generally: we earn to make our kids' lives a bit easier. It's not the kids' faults that their parents were successful. Why should that next generation be taxed for their parent's success?

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

Our culture is generally: we earn to make our kids' lives a bit easier. It's not the kids' faults that their parents were successful. Why should that next generation be taxed for their parent's success?

Often, the kids end up living off the fat of what their elders earned, instead of further contributing to society. Particularly by the time you get to the third and fourth generations.

For argument's sake, let's keep this simple. Say a billionaire dies, and his/her will divides the estate evenly among their three kids. Assuming no legal squabbles between them, that's a gross worth of $333 million for each kid. What's the buzzkill in the gubmint getting 20% from each of them? Sure, they'd have to have the lawyers liquidate some assets to cover it, but that's still more than enough wealth for them to do whatever with their lives, including sitting around and snorting blow all day, if they really want to.

[The Rube]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

Often, the kids end up living off the fat of what their elders earned, instead of further contributing to society. Particularly by the time you get to the third and fourth generations.

For argument's sake, let's keep this simple. Say a billionaire dies, and his/her will divides the estate evenly among their three kids. Assuming no legal squabbles between them, that's a gross worth of $333 million for each kid. What's the buzzkill in the gubmint getting 20% from each of them? Sure, they'd have to have the lawyers liquidate some assets to cover it, but that's still more than enough wealth for them to do whatever with their lives, including sitting around and snorting blow all day, if they really want to.

Was it Warren Buffett that had clauses? I appreciate that, and I would do the same. Get a job to contribute, and then you get my money. However, not everyone thinks like that. Either way, I don't like the idea of an inheritor getting taxed for something they really had no choice in participating in.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

IIRC, most of Buffet's money will go to charitable causes, such as the Gates Foundation. There are small trusts of a few million each for the kids and grandkids - enough to give themselves every advantage towards what they want to do with the rest of their lives, but not enough to do nothing.

[The Rube]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

IIRC, most of Buffet's money will go to charitable causes, such as the Gates Foundation. There are small trusts of a few million each for the kids and grandkids - enough to give themselves every advantage towards what they want to do with the rest of their lives, but not enough to do nothing.

Gotcha, thanks. I swear I heard one of the ultra-rich basically say "you be productive in society, or you get nothing." I like that.

[5mn_Major]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

I swear I heard one of the ultra-rich basically say "you be productive in society, or you get nothing." I like that.

Brent, Brent, Brent. Setting children aside who are terribly unproductive; what about someone that has a serious handicap, is blind, has down syndrome, or has some other sort of medical catastrophy hit them. Are we really so heartless?

What about the impact of such a pov on the rest of us and the economy? Those who are knocked out of the job market because of someone like W...get no assistance to get them training or back into the job market. 1) The unemployed suddenly pay no taxes - zero. Guess what happens. Government tax revenue gets decimated and we lose more than we gain by choosing to not help them. 2) Those that could be in jobs with assistance now can't afford a buffer and now end up on the streets. Causing strain in other services and lowering the quality of life for everyone. 3) Then without any government funding those on the streets may literally die. This may not seem like a big deal to some, but even to the heartless, the dead don't pay taxes either.

So as with nearly every other conservative solution, the above thought is heartless, totally stupid, and would torch the finances of this country rather than help. But nothing like the above will happen because (just as with immigration) the conservative top priority is to generate fear and anger in the base. And as conservatives are so easily manipulated, the status quo gets conservatives riled up.

[The Rube]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

Brent, Brent, Brent. Setting children aside who are terribly unproductive; what about someone that has a serious handicap, is blind, has down syndrome, or has some other sort of medical catastrophy hit them. Are we really so heartless?

What about the impact of such a pov on the rest of us and the economy? Those who are knocked out of the job market because of someone like W...get no assistance to get them training or back into the job market. 1) The unemployed suddenly pay no taxes - zero. Guess what happens. Government tax revenue gets decimated and we lose more than we gain by choosing to not help them. 2) Those that could be in jobs with assistance now can't afford a buffer and now end up on the streets. Causing strain in other services and lowering the quality of life for everyone. 3) Then without any government funding those on the streets may literally die. This may not seem like a big deal to some, but even to the heartless, the dead don't pay taxes either.

So as with nearly every other conservative solution, the above thought is heartless, totally stupid, and would torch the finances of this country rather than help. But nothing like the above will happen because (just as with immigration) the conservative top priority is to generate fear and anger in the base. And as conservatives are so easily manipulated, the status quo gets conservatives riled up.

Dafuq? I am talking about inheritance only. A rich parent handing down their earnings to their children, specifically. That's it. Making their children earn it. Jesus.

[5mn_Major]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

Dafuq? I am talking about inheritance only. A rich parent handing down their earnings to their children, specifically. That's it. Making their children earn it. Jesus.

Then I jumped the gun - and that's on me. Even so, that's not a rare perspective on the right.

Edit: I still disagree with that broadbrush statement on inheritance. Each inheritance situation requires independent assessment of all the facts.

[SJHovey]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

IIRC, most of Buffet's money will go to charitable causes, such as the Gates Foundation. There are small trusts of a few million each for the kids and grandkids - enough to give themselves every advantage towards what they want to do with the rest of their lives, but not enough to do nothing.

Yeah, that's allegedly Buffett's famous quote, that his children will be left with enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing. But in the CNBC article that I saw where that statement was quoted, they also quoted him as saying that each child would be left with "$2 Billion." Pretty sure that's enough to do nothing.

You'll have to pardon me if I'm skeptical of the supposed altruistic statements of Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, etc... Yeah, I think it's great that they'll give the vast majority of their fortunes to charitable foundations that will probably do great things around the world. But the alternative is to just turn over $30-40 billion on their death to the government, something I can't imagine they're very excited about. Why not give it to charity, keep most of it from the government, and build a monument to yourself in the form of a charitable foundation?

[St. Clown]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

Do you get taxed for your previous years refund too? That one seems weird to me

Your state taxes paid had historically been deducted from your Federal AGI. When you receive a state income tax refund, it raises your Federal AGI because you didn't actually pay that money into the state, in the end.

[5mn_Major]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

You'll have to pardon me if I'm skeptical of the supposed altruistic statements of Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, etc... Yeah, I think it's great that they'll give the vast majority of their fortunes to charitable foundations that will probably do great things around the world. But the alternative is to just turn over $30-40 billion on their death to the government, something I can't imagine they're very excited about. Why not give it to charity, keep most of it from the government, and build a monument to yourself in the form of a charitable foundation?

There's some merit in your position. Having said that, one could definitely make the argument that government is a better beneficiary than most private citizens who would just throw it in a bank account or worse.

Although most on the right wouldn't think that way if they pointed their arsenals to their collective heads. But in reality, most of what local government does is actually in the best interest of the people. Roads, police, schools, etc. The dicier topic is national government. The real problem is national government when Rs are in office. They can't seem to do anything but funnel the money to the rich or fund the military and ache to use it.

[Slap Shot]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

That money was most likely already taxed once. I'm against it.

It wasn't taxed from the recipient.

[unofan]

Our culture is generally: we earn to make our kids' lives a bit easier. It's not the kids' faults that their parents were successful. Why should that next generation be taxed for their parent's success?

Because all financial transactions are taxed. We covered this already. Taxation isn't punishment, it's the price of a functioning society.

[The Rube]

Re: The States: At Least Michigan is Better Than Indiana

Because all financial transactions are taxed. We covered this already. Taxation isn't punishment, it's the price of a functioning society.

What I've earned (and taxed on) is now mine. What I do with it should not be taxed again. *shrug* Just how I feel.