Topic: econ fagz, would estate tax solve income inequality? - page 3. (Read 2354 times)

Why should there be income equality?

First I am opposed to all forms of theft or uh... taxes what ever you want to call it, but the death tax works like this. The government lets me defer all of my tax liability by reinvesting my profits to grow my business in the hopes that I will employ people and grow the pie for everyone.

Let me restate that.. I pay 0 income taxes not one cent and sometimes get a refund even though I contribute nothing in the way of income tax. If I have a tax liability at the end of the year I spend what ever amount I need to on my business to 0 it out. I can do this indefinitely until I die at which point the government gets it's cut.. The government is owned by business and they make laws and tax code that benefits entrepreneurs, if you dont own a business you should start one if for no other reason than limiting you tax liability.

     

Maybe, indirectly... it's just one more thing to disincentivize earning as much. I don't want to earn much more than EITC covers with a dependent. Up to ~$20k annual reported income, I effectively make a bit under 50% per hour more from federal and state tax breaks than for hours worked beyond that. It seems like a relatively raw deal to have "earned income" beyond that. You gross more, but the more you work, the more strongly diminishing the returns are (where $10/hr would become $15/hr by limiting how much you work, it can easily become $7.50/hr if you don't limit how much you work even though you'll still net more than the hours-limiting guy), which really screws over people working insane hours for low pay. Very few people keep that in mind, though -- better for most to earn as much as possible. -But in the same vein, I wouldn't want to lose boatloads of money just because I died and "earned too much," either. Some people facing imminent death, and even just retired people, already gift maximums each year to beneficiaries to try getting around the death tax (there are sneakier ways), but this isn't going to keep the IRS off someone with billions.

Estate tax basically tries to take luck out of life (and really, money has diminishing returns -- $10B taxed to $1B probably isn't as life-changing to a beneficiary as $100K cut down to $10K)... but then the government operates the lottery, basically the most counter-Progressive program on Earth, so...

Anyway - the government can use the income to come up with some wage subsidization scheme, pay for interning and vocational programs, more funding for general education and retraining programs - or unemployment, TANF, EBT, section 8, other things that simply increase net income. If you really wanted to increase income quality, the pretty straightforward choice is harsher progressive income taxes. If they just raised estate taxes to combat the budget deficit, I can't think of any reason it should significantly impact income equality.

Income equality is largely due to inflation, taxes can certainly affect things but they aren't the main problem.

An estate or death tax hits someone or their family at their most vulnerable time in life: when someone passes. Furthermore, this wealth, property, etc was accumulated by working throughout one's life and that work was taxed yearly going back to when that work began. So, this estate has already been taxed throughout the ages and this is what's left after the fact. That said, liberals are known for always wanting to tax something else.

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.

When did it aired?

You're right, it's really bizarre to suggest a tax to fix income inequality...

I'm not really a finance guy, but I'd say no, it wouldn't solve our income inequality issue. Wealthy people can often get out of paying a number of different taxes on much of their income that middle and lower class people generally have to (one reason why a national sales tax replacing an income tax is a horrible idea) I guess the theory is that the estate tax will be able to capture those assets that may have previously evaded (legally generally) taxation and thus make them more equal to more middle income families in terms of percentage of assets taxed. Once again, i'm not really a finance/tax guy, but it seems like a fairly easy tax to hide money from, which would defeat the purpose and more so hit the less wealthy people who don't have the same capabilities when it comes to moving their assets around in order to escape it (in part).

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.

Whatever happened to corporate taxes? How come this is never in question.

john oliver brought up income inequality on his show, but i thought it was bizarre that he suggests the way to fix it is to raise estate taxes.

i personally find estate taxes to be morally repugnant, so i think he's a cunt for peddling it, especially since his call to action is to make it more severe.