Politics House GOP Tax Bill Keeps 39.6% Rate for High-Earners, Cuts Corporate Rate to 20%

Except that even excluding the estate tax, current tax law doesn't support that thought process. Any transfer of consideration is subject to taxation, even gifting of previously-taxed earned wealth. If you give your child $1M the day before you die, that gift is taxed. Why shouldn't it be taxed similarly after death? It's not the giver who is taxed, but the receiver.

I would support a modification as suggested by BFW, in which the taxable basis of non-liquid assets is retained into and through the estate process, and not taxed until/unless sold. But I see no reason to eliminate the estate tax as a whole.

 

No it doesn't. It lists a number of things the money COULD be spent on, some of which do not increase GDP.

And you think foreign entities can't invest in the USA? That's what you'd have to believe to think that that money is 'trapped' overseas.

barfo

 

I could get behind that compromise. Might be tough to administer, but it's not like the tax laws are simple right now anyway.

barfo

 

People who have $1.8M estates are top 5%.

 

I'm not sure this is a good plan at all.

It is what it is.

 

So would I.

The money was taxed all along. The dead person paid income tax on what he earned, capital gains on his profits.

Passing the asset along should't change its cost basis. It cost what it cost.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/smal...oyed/frequently-asked-questions-on-gift-taxes



(Though I don't see it as a gift, it's an inheritance)

 

I'm pretty sure Mags is actually a troll on a bed in St. Petersburg.

But I'm not so sure that no one here has an estate over $5.5M.

barfo

 

That may be true, but it isn't particularly relevant to a discussion of estate taxes.

barfo

 

I worked 30 hour days for most of my youth. That's 22 hours (straight) of work, 8 hours of sleep.

Whatever the government is doing now, it's spending far more than it's taking in. Something has to give and some changes have to be made.

The overall tax rate, the amount government at all levels TAKES from everyone, has never been higher (or at least we're right up there with the highest).

If government taxes 20% of GDP and GDP is $100, it takes in $20. If it takes in 20% of GDP and GDP is $200, it takes in $40. Or you can try to take 40% of the $100 GDP and take in that same $40.

That is what the debate is. Democrats think you should take 40% and stifle GDP. Republicans think you should grow GDP and spending accordingly. In reality, both parties will spend more than we take in.

We're living large on a massive amount of borrowed money and those who borrow can't see (or won't admit) that the ever increasing interest payments on the debt are going to squeeze out spending on programs everyone seems to care about or are going to require awfully high taxes that aren't buying anything more/new.

Consider the democrats are complaining about $1.5T over 10 years in supposed increase to the debt (remains to be seen, though). Consider we're paying $400B (and growing) each year, or $4T over 10 years on interest on the debt. Who owns the debt? The rich, and foreigners. So direct payments, massive, to the rich.

Whenever there's a tax cut, in terms of $$$ the rich will get a lot. Is that really an issue? If the rich get a 1% break and the lowest earners get a 10% break, who's getting the big break?

If it grows GDP, it's good (nobody needs to pay higher taxes to get that $40).

If you measure standard of living by how big government is, by all means take it all (and then some, because there's never enough). If you measure standard of living by how free people get to spend their money on things that make them happy, then government needs to live up to its means.

 

Sure it is. You'd tax everyone's net worth, right?

 

It's my way of saying I'd want to see more Reasoned discussion about its merits before deciding for myself.