econ fagz, would estate tax solve income inequality?

Lethn

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1000

Quote from: zolace on July 25, 2014, 12:27:52 PM

Quote from: Rigon on July 25, 2014, 12:22:23 PM

.............one reason more and more of our economy is underground; i.e. cash only or bartering. No records for the tax Nazi's.

Yep.

I don't like paying taxes but I understand the need.

But when it gets to the point where I'm losing 50% and some money is being taxed two/three times, I'm going to start "doing this to reduce my taxes."

This whole problem would be easily solved with a simple flat tax rate and careful money management but I have yet seen a government of even a medium sized country even consider it so if their country collapses it's their own fault as far as I'm concerned.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on July 25, 2014, 12:22:23 PM

.............one reason more and more of our economy is underground; i.e. cash only or bartering. No records for the tax Nazi's.

Yep.

I don't like paying taxes but I understand the need.

But when it gets to the point where I'm losing 50% and some money is being taxed two/three times, I'm going to start "doing this to reduce my taxes."

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

.............one reason more and more of our economy is underground; i.e. cash only or bartering. No records for the tax Nazi's.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 25, 2014, 12:16:46 PM

Quote from: zolace on July 17, 2014, 01:45:58 PM

Call it what it is: DEATH TAX.

Since someone has to DIE for it to happen.

Why the government should get anything because someone dies is what is repugnant.

Study after study shows most millionaires earn their money, not inherit. But libtards always want more money. To buy votes and power to continue their agenda of getting a real 1984.

Well, john oliver was focused solely on estate taxes, not all death taxes.I'm personally against all death taxes, but this thread is about estate tax in particular.

what other ESTATE taxes are NOT death taxes?

are not all estate taxes triggered by death?

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-...yed/Estate-Tax

The Estate Tax is a tax on your right to transfer property at your death

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 17, 2014, 01:45:58 PM

Call it what it is: DEATH TAX.

Since someone has to DIE for it to happen.

Why the government should get anything because someone dies is what is repugnant.

Study after study shows most millionaires earn their money, not inherit. But libtards always want more money. To buy votes and power to continue their agenda of getting a real 1984.

Well, john oliver was focused solely on estate taxes, not all death taxes.I'm personally against all death taxes, but this thread is about estate tax in particular.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 25, 2014, 12:10:46 PM

Easiest way to get around estate tax is to tie a big chunk of your money up in precious metals that aren't reported. Your beneficiaries know where the metals are after you die and can gradually sell it off, cash transactions, as they need money. The same is true for guns, art, collectible currency... Don't name it in your will and only let the beneficiary know how to get to it.

The same is true with cash.

I know someone in his 80s who randomly withdraws odd amounts in the $5-10k range and sticks it in a safe. When he dies and his friend opens the safe and finds $500k in there, he'll spend it and never pay a tax.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Easiest way to get around estate tax is to tie a big chunk of your money up in precious metals that aren't reported. Your beneficiaries know where the metals are after you die and can gradually sell it off, cash transactions, as they need money. The same is true for guns, art, collectible currency... Don't name it in your will and only let the beneficiary know how to get to it.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on July 25, 2014, 12:06:25 PM

Quote from: noviapriani on July 25, 2014, 12:04:27 PM

I agree with this. It's all a misdirected blame game. While government spending continually goes up and incomes go down then someone needs to be the bad guy. How about the person with the shiny car instead of the politician?

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...ion-a-day.html

Government spending as a percentage of GDP hasn't really dramatically increased. It is about The same as it was under Reagan.

and?

Continually increasing federal debt (currently $17,833,481,663,000) is a good thing. I forgot. Why don't we simply double down? It's not like the "rich" and evil CEO's can even afford to pay off what we borrow yearly anyway. We can use that additional credit to give more to the poor.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Quote from: noviapriani on July 25, 2014, 12:04:27 PM

I agree with this. It's all a misdirected blame game. While government spending continually goes up and incomes go down then someone needs to be the bad guy. How about the person with the shiny car instead of the politician?

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...ion-a-day.html

Government spending as a percentage of GDP hasn't really dramatically increased. It is about The same as it was under Reagan.

noviapriani

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

I agree with this. It's all a misdirected blame game. While government spending continually goes up and incomes go down then someone needs to be the bad guy. How about the person with the shiny car instead of the politician?

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...ion-a-day.html

LostDutchman

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 250

Communism.

Failed!

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 24, 2014, 02:18:09 PM

Quote from: zolace on July 24, 2014, 02:12:50 PM

Moral arguments aside, even if the estate tax was 100% I don't think it would affect inequality that much. But I don't know the numbers

This is the position that I've always had too. I looked it up a few years ago and saw that the estate tax makes up very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very little of our total receipts, to the extent that doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. wouldn't even be noticed from a revenue standpoint, but it would certainly be noticed from the standpoint of families whose lives can be ruined as a result of it.

Besides which giving money to the government doesn't magically solve inequality. Corporatocracy still says the money will be used for increased military spending, bigger contracts for bigger business, etc. The little guy factors into this exactly nowhere.

Hell, how about taxing 100% of everyone's income and realizing it's not even close to covering government spending? It's one of those non-issues that was created to misdirect the public so they have someone to be angry about.

I'm looking forward to France's 75% 'millionaire tax' to become law and see all the smart and successful people flipping the bird and moving out of this country.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

There's already so much shit to deal with after someone dies. Inviting the fucking Gestapo to goose step through it all is cruel and shitty. People who are okay with that are monsters. Just bitter and jealous little monsters.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 24, 2014, 02:12:50 PM

Moral arguments aside, even if the estate tax was 100% I don't think it would affect inequality that much. But I don't know the numbers

This is the position that I've always had too. I looked it up a few years ago and saw that the estate tax makes up very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very little of our total receipts, to the extent that doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. wouldn't even be noticed from a revenue standpoint, but it would certainly be noticed from the standpoint of families whose lives can be ruined as a result of it.

Besides which giving money to the government doesn't magically solve inequality. Corporatocracy still says the money will be used for increased military spending, bigger contracts for bigger business, etc. The little guy factors into this exactly nowhere.

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

Wealthy people have liabilities too. Their total monthly payments to keep everything running smooth might even exceed Average Joe's annual income. It's not as easy as "the family will just take over" either. You have bankers, lawyers, accountants, executors, trustees, beneficiaries, etc. to deal with. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and everyone wants to be sure their piece of the pie is the correct size. So the courts might freeze all assets, or the banks might lock the account until a court orders otherwise, etc. Now it's up to the rest of the family, who might all be fighting, or at the very least are grieving, to come up with the means to pay the bills. But since these guys are Average Joe, and they have their own lives to take care of, they simply can't afford it. Or maybe a kid or two gives up their own home(s) so they can save their parents' home and/or business / whatever. And at the end of the day, assuming they all make it through the initial battles and the dust settles, it's possible that none of them even have the wherewithal to keep the wheels turning, so income dries up and they lose the bulk of the estate anyway.

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: Rigon on July 24, 2014, 02:09:44 PM

40k salary = (40000 - 30000) = 10000 * 17% = 1700 / 40000 = 4.25%
400k salary = (400000 - 30000) = 370000 * 17% = 62900 / 400000 = 15.7%
2M salary = 1970000 * 17% = 334900 / 2M = 16.75%
2B salary = 1.97B * 17% = 334.9M / 2B = 16.75%

The higher the salary, the closer to the 17% of said salary you would get under that plan (not weighing in on the merit....yet).

I agree with your flat tax proposal, but I think you could get away with a lower rate--something like 15%--and not affect revenue.

I disagree with your comment about states, though. States can and should do what they want. If a state has higher taxes, businesses and individuals are free to locate to a different, lower tax state.

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Moral arguments aside, even if the estate tax was 100% I don't think it would affect inequality that much. But I don't know the numbers

Rigon

sr. member

Activity: 994

Merit: 441

40k salary = (40000 - 30000) = 10000 * 17% = 1700 / 40000 = 4.25%
400k salary = (400000 - 30000) = 370000 * 17% = 62900 / 400000 = 15.7%
2M salary = 1970000 * 17% = 334900 / 2M = 16.75%
2B salary = 1.97B * 17% = 334.9M / 2B = 16.75%

The higher the salary, the closer to the 17% of said salary you would get under that plan (not weighing in on the merit....yet).

umair127

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: zolace on July 24, 2014, 01:42:46 PM

Quote from: umair127 on July 24, 2014, 01:39:06 PM

Quote from: zolace on July 18, 2014, 12:01:16 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 18, 2014, 11:57:35 AM

Quote from: Rigon on July 17, 2014, 01:56:52 PM

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc?

GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy.

GE "doesn't pay tax" because the tax structure in the US is stupid.

To bring overseas money home would require paying upwards of 30%, while most countries only require 0-3%. There have been plenty of CEOs in the news lately stating if the US fixed that issue they'd be more than happy to bring billions back and employ people here.

Flat Tax is the way to go. 17% of everything you make over $30,000 and no deductions, loopholes, NOTHING.

That would bring in more revenue and would save people money who have to now get their taxes done and pay for that or buy software and pay for that.

And all those tax lawyers and other parasites would have to get more honest work.

Billions would be saved by the people on that alone.

Still have state tax systems to deal with. So if I make $40k salary I should pay 5% of my income in taxes, but if I make $400k you think it's fair that I pay 0.5%?

zolace

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: umair127 on July 24, 2014, 01:39:06 PM

Quote from: zolace on July 18, 2014, 12:01:16 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on July 18, 2014, 11:57:35 AM

Quote from: Rigon on July 17, 2014, 01:56:52 PM

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc?

GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy.

GE "doesn't pay tax" because the tax structure in the US is stupid.

To bring overseas money home would require paying upwards of 30%, while most countries only require 0-3%. There have been plenty of CEOs in the news lately stating if the US fixed that issue they'd be more than happy to bring billions back and employ people here.

Flat Tax is the way to go. 17% of everything you make over $30,000 and no deductions, loopholes, NOTHING.

That would bring in more revenue and would save people money who have to now get their taxes done and pay for that or buy software and pay for that.

And all those tax lawyers and other parasites would have to get more honest work.

Billions would be saved by the people on that alone.

Topic: econ fagz, would estate tax solve income inequality? (Read 2293 times)