And ghouls, they wanna have som-ome.
Oh ghouls just want to have some.
Bloomberg News reported, "One way the rich get richer is through inheritance, and they’re barely paying taxes on it.
"Americans are projected to inherit $764 billion this year and will pay an average tax of just 2.1% on that income, New York University law professor Lily Batchelder estimates in a paper published Tuesday by the Brookings Institution.
"By contrast, the estimated tax on work and savings is 15.8%, more than seven times higher. Many higher-income workers pay far more, with the top marginal rate now 37% plus payroll taxes."
Now for the rest of the story on the death tax Mini Mike may want to impose on the middle class.
All parents pay taxes as they earn the money that they scrimp and save to make sure they are not a burden on their children. United Income raised the question a few years ago: Living Too Frugally?
The report said, "We find that wealth and investments generally grow in value as people age. Similarly, the average retired adult who dies in their 60s leaves behind $296k in net wealth, $313k in their 70s, $315k in their 80s, and $238k in their 90s."
Many inheritances are turning over a farm or small business to one's progeny who in many cases took over the business as their parents grew to old to work full-time. And by full-time, I mean 12-hour days, six days a week (seven for dairy farmers).
And as president, Bloomberg may tax that scrimping and saving, and a lifetime of hard work. Let he who pays a 100% death tax try to impose that on the rest of us.
President George Walker Bush and Congress decimated the death tax in 2001 and 2003. Only the really rich pay it.
The plan promoted by Mini Mike's news service would raise $1.4 trillion over 10 years or $140 billion a year. That would not even be a down payment on reparations and student loan forgiveness.
But it would keep the middle class from moving up. The biggest threat to socialism is a healthy and vibrant middle class.
And now you know the rest of the story.
I dissent from conservative/Republican orthodoxy on the death tax. My position, reduced to a bumpersticker, is this:
ReplyDeleteTax Life Less, Tax Death More
I would rather pay taxes after I die than when I am living.
-TK
Sure, they will drop the income tax to get the death tax. Then, as sure as the sun rises and sets, once the death tax is in place, they will reimpose an income tax.
DeleteNo, they will PROMISE to lower or drop the income tax in order to get a death tax. Then renege.
DeleteSince the government prints the money, it belongs to them. They just loan it out to you because you're better at making it grow in value then they are.
TarsTarkas
I always thing of the VAT in the UK. Impose the VAT and we will get rid of the income tax. But for some reason they have both now as does most of Europe and Canada. In the US such a change must require a constitutional amendment.
DeleteYet "charitable" foundations go untaxed and unscrutinized, even with assets in the billions. It's one thing for it to be dedicated to medical research, for example, but in many cases, foundations are used to bankroll political movements outside our system of checks and balances or as a money laundering scheme (right, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton?). Closing these loopholes are much more in the public interest than grabbing family farms.
ReplyDeleteNB
On a related note, what is the game plan to deal with the federal deficit that will top $1 trillion for the first time ever in 2020 and continue to exceed $1 trillion annually for the next decade?
ReplyDeleteSeriously. Someone give a viable solution cause no one under a dome is even addressing this.
Toss in the the national debt which is growing at its all-time high and no one want to address the elephant in the room.
I guess we wont be see any R proposing a balanced budget constitutional amendment anytime soon that was so popular in Obama's term. I'm open to reasonable discussion but asking on this forum is probably going to elicit dodge-and-deflect comments. Well, I tried.
Dammit, I’ve engaged the issue before...
DeleteThe three largest MANDATORY spending pieces of the current budget pie are:
1) Social Security
2) Medicare
3) Medicaid
Which do you want to reduce first?
You are the guy/gal who is obessessed with solutuions to problems that are not problems, and with problems that have no possible solutions.
DeleteDo you want to die leaving no debt? Well, that is easy!! You die. You got no debt!!! Even the debt collectors aint gonna track you down!!!
Ever hear of the ebb and flow of tides?
Ever hear of the concept of from ashes, to ashes?
Ever hear the words, ya cant take it with you?
No?
Yes?
Chill.
Like I said, I tried for cognitive discussion but figured it wouldn't happen. I also knew Z would chime in but with little to offer. Okay, Z, cut Social Security right now. Ask Surber if he likes that option. Don, I know you're reading this. Do you wish to see SS go "bye bye"?
DeleteSo Z, you are also saying the only way to address the deficit/budget problem is to slash one of three (or all three) social programs? That's it? That's the only solution? This monstrosity cannot be addressed in any other way? So, you dismiss trickle down economocis then? Interesting. Reagan is cussing you from his grave.
In summary, no one here cares about kicking all this red ink down the road to your kids and grandkids? And no one has a solution to offer (but thanks for trying ZR)?
Social Security is an insurance program that has a surplus of a couple of trillion bucks in reserve. I double dog dare you to try to steal that money that I was forced to pay into when I was 16.
DeleteMedicare has a special tax. It also has a surplus. Kill it, kill the tax. Gain little.
Medicaid is the budget buster that wreaks havoc on 50 state budgets. Rein it in, help the states. Medicaid triggered 50 years of the medical industry's double inflation rises in prices. This affects drugs, insurance, hospitals and doctors.
We balanced the budget in 1998 without touching these 3 programs. We can do it again.
Thanks for playing.
You are very good at finding the problem but get upset with others for not providing answers. That's not cognitive discussion, that's provocation. Why not present YOUR solutions and invite discussion as to their strengths or weaknesses?
Delete"We balanced the budget in 1998 without touching these 3 programs. We can do it again."
DeleteOkay, how?
Thanks for trying.
Oh Z, told you Surber would go ape at the thought of touching SS.
Hahahaha
DeleteGo ape?
What a maroon. I wasted enough time on you. I told you how to balance the budget. Be stupid, I don't care.
I'm pretty sure that Mr Surber has other pensions/annuities/savings to cover his current life expenses and could do without his Social Security. (I'm in that situation). House is paid for, kids are educated, etc., so expenses are lower.
DeleteNonetheless, he (and I) have paid into Social Security for more than half a century. We should reap from what we have sown in taxes.
OP larr is fretting and wetting the bed again.
DeleteNot to worry, larry, you will always have your bed to piss in, no matter how much our nation owes anyone.
The more the debt balance, the greater the risk to the lenders.
Yet, somehow, the lenderrs keep on lending!!!
Why, it is almost as if that is the business they all!are in!!!
What do the lenders fear most of all??
Renegotiated juice rates.
And who is our President???
C'mon now, you know thjis one!!!!
The balanced budget in 1998 required the revenues from SS payments. Placing SS off budget would have shown a deficit for that year.
DeleteThe Social Security reserve is nothing but IOUs from Fed Gov. The "trust fund" has already been robbed.
DeleteMany of the problems with death can be taken care of by putting everything in a living trust. Then, on death, the kids take over the trust. There is no death tax applied, at least according to the estate lawyer that set ours up.
ReplyDeleteUntil they change the law to get at the trust money. They're already doing it for the 401Ks.
DeleteTarsTarkas
Many of my friends have spouses with memory/cognition issues. At the end of life their assets are mostly forfeited paying for care. Lots of laws are on the books already that keep a family from spending their money instead of paying for care later. It sucks to get old.
ReplyDeleteTimothyJ - I too was going to mention trusts. If you have trustworthy kids, irrevocable trusts also provide benefits during ones lifetime, besides benefits to survivors after death.
ReplyDeleteIf the government lovers the death tax threshold, more people will use trusts. Results - less tax revenue then projected. A lot less. And as gubment likes to say, unexpectedly.
I am no attorney, but here is what I think I know. Gifting has limits, and at death, the amount gifted is included in the value of ones estate.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have a tax/revenue problem, as many have pointed out, we have a SPENDING problem! The Death Tax is pure evil. The wealth created has already been taxed to death already (pardon the pun). As Don pointed out, the point is to decimate the middle class and prevent them from 'moving on up!'... We need to take back the country. Simplest way to balance the budget is across the board 10% spending cuts on ALL federal spending. and then lock in that budget for a decade or so. probably 25% is waste fraud and abuse anyway so it would be easy to cut 10%.
ReplyDeleteThis is the leverage the Executive Branch has over the Legislative Branch.
DeleteReelect Trump.
Flip back House.
Increase Senate majority.
The Judicial Branch restoring to Constiturtional will follow.
The Executive Branch utilizing leverage will reduce spending, aka cut the hogbfat graftings, and achieve reductions across the board.
Legislative can pass all the increases hey can, but Executive does not have to spend them!!
Excuve can then apply surplus to debt reduction.
Keep the MAGA Train rolling!
If you dont need it, need it being if you dnt got it you die, then give it to whomever you care to.
ReplyDeletePush yourself to the maximum on this by asking yourself these questions:
1. Do you truly need it now?
2. Do you even use it anymore?
3. Will you ever need to use it again?
4. Could someone you care about use it?
5. Would someone you care about who could use it appreciate being given it?
6. Do you appreciate having it more than you would enjoy someone you care about appreciating having it?
7. Can you give it to whomever you choose to and not have to inform big brother pocketpicking government parasites of it?
8. Can you sell it and give the cash to whomever you care to?
9. Are you capable, now, of recognizing just how little you will end up needing of what you have and do not use as your time of death nears?