Death Tax and the DarK Side of Warren Buffet

[Hydroman]

http://www.ruralnorthwest.com/artman/publish/article_6545.shtml

 

[Martha]

Can't miss the point of view of that article, can we. 

Calling the estate tax the "death" tax is misleading.  Plenty of people whose estate's are never going to be taxable when hearing the term death tax believe their assets will be taxed when they die. Very few estates are taxed. The tax isn't on death, it is on taxable estates.

The article is also misleading when it refers to desperate families selling the family business to pay the 55% tax.  When a business is involved, the tax may be paid over time.  Also, if the business has enough value to render the estate taxable, financing could be obtained for the tax. 

The insurance information is wrong too.  See http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98968,00.html#estate

 

[razztazz]

Also, if the business has enough value to render the estate taxable, financing could be obtained for the tax.

HA! Yes, of course, those low LOW rates that make the Banking Class rich.

Anybody that gets the livng sht taxed out of them like that has so much money (mosty derived from not working, just owning the government created rights to other people's work) nobody needs to care about their problems. Boo the f hoo!

Stop working so hard. Give up the "ownership" of the wealth redistribution apparatus, give up the copyright protection and the inheritences and pick up a shove and work your babalonies off off for peanuts! Screw the tax man!

Never happen. Life ain't fair and they aim to keep it that way

 

[Gumby]

Perhaps I would have more sympathy for those who inherit large amounts and whine about paying the taxes if they didn't get a stepped up basis on the assets inherited.

In any event, I happen to think that heriditary wealth is not good for this country. I creates a separate class of people who often have power and influence through no merit of their own but based solely on the abilities of their ancestors. When the "leaders" have no conception of what life is like for the "followers", the country suffers.

IMHO, all estates should escheat to the governnment upon death. The children of the wealthy already obtain untold benefits by growing up in a wealthy family, including a proper education, both formal and informal, and other tangible and intangible assistance in gettting started in life. Beyond that, they should stand on their own two feet.

 

[Texas Proud]

Perhaps I would have more sympathy for those who inherit large amounts and whine about paying the taxes if they didn't get a stepped up basis on the assets inherited.

In any event, I happen to think that heriditary wealth is not good for this country. I creates a separate class of people who often have power and influence through no merit of their own but based solely on the abilities of their ancestors. When the "leaders" have no conception of what life is like for the "followers", the country suffers.

IMHO, all estates should escheat to the governnment upon death. The children of the wealthy already obtain untold benefits by growing up in a wealthy family, including a proper education, both formal and informal, and other tangible and intangible assistance in gettting started in life. Beyond that, they should stand on their own two feet.

Boy, did you get up on the wrong side of the bed....

I have no problem eliminating the step up in basis if the tax is repealed 100%.. fair is fair..

But, you do not distinguise between trust set up for the 'rich' children... if I gift my money away when I am alive... or put it in a trust then it goes to the kids... but, hang on and it goes to the state WTF??

And, I have read (again, no support.... sorry) that in most inheritence, the money is gone within two generations... and don't give me the Rockefellers and the Kennedy's... they are annomolies.. (sp..).. the people who earned it do not usually bring up saver kids.. so the kids blow it all...

 

[saluki9]

IMHO, all estates should escheat to the governnment upon death.

OMG I just vomited on my keyboard!

I can usually have a discussion on most things that I disagree about with other people. But on this one I just am shocked that there are people who think like that.

 

[Leonidas]

OMG I just vomited on my keyboard!

I can usually have a discussion on most things that I disagree about with other people. But on this one I just am shocked that there are people who think like that.

It certainly is an extreme view for this forum. But, there are such people in the world - they are called socialists, communists and sometimes anarchists.

 

[bongo2]

It certainly is an extreme view for this forum.  But, there are such people in the world - they are called socialists, communists and sometimes anarchists. 

Oh please! Now you made me hurl. There are big problems with the estate tax and the things that people (very reasonably and myself included) do to get out of it, but it also happens to be about the most moral tax on the books. Who deserves their money more, people who have worked for it, or people who inherit it?

 

[Gumby]

Saluki:

I'm just being cranky, as I sit in my office surrounded by children of wealth and privilege, most of whom don't have clue about real life.

I realize that if your estate did escheat to the government, it would remove a powerful incentive to save so that you can pass something on to your children.  And that desire is perfectly natural.

I also know that inherited wealth does not always have negative effects on the heirs, but I have seen many examples where it does.  In the end, I suppose that it is more the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children behave appropriately with inherited wealth than the role of the government in ensuring that there is no inherited wealth.

As Texas Proud points out, people would find always find away around such a rule.

 

[razztazz]

Adam Smith was a proponent of inheritance taxes as well as luxury taxes aimed deliberately at The Rich plus land taxes on large land holdings. These in his opinion were the only taxes necessary to run a prosperous country. Well, that and import tariffs when necessary. (And he DID thik they'd be necessary)

Those who today, go around calling themsleves capitalists have never read the book. Never read the footnotes. They have capitalism confused with feudalism.

He knew there were people who profit beyond their efforts and he knew they had to be brpoken to keep the economic model functioning. Adam SMith didn't have the blind crippled and crazy faith in his theory than too many people have today.

 

[saluki9]

I understand that you might be concerned about inherited wealth. I too live in an area with quite a bit of "old money" For full disclosure I should also add that my wife and I will some day inherit money from both of our parents (both of which ran successful businesses) so we are affected by the estate tax too. We hope not to see any money for another 40 years or more!

However, you need not punish an entire group of people for the behavior of a few.

Razztazz - I think you're confusing the wealth of Adam Smith's time with the people that actually are affected with the estate tax today. In his time (going all the way back to biblical times) it was very hard to be wealthy without stepping on the "little guys" . That however does not relate to a doctor, attorney, small business owner etc of modern times who works 70-80 hours a week and manages to save say $2M his investments and owns a $500K house. Why do these people deserve to "broken"

BTW: I don't support estate taxes on any size estate.

 

[Texas Proud]

Hmmmm... Let's get back to the original post which got hijacked...

Life insurance was one of the biggest estate tax planning tools back when I was doing estate taxes... most of the people did not want to 'lose' anything, so they planned to pay the taxes with their insurance...

I do not know how much of the insurance business is due to this compared with parents wanting to make sure their spouse and children are taken care of if they die...

But, I doubt that large businesses are being liquidated at bargain basement prices to pay the tax.... just doesn't add up.. to many loopholes for the very rich.. it might hit a semi-rich person, but then they do not have a large business..

 

[razztazz]

But, I doubt that large businesses are being liquidated at bargain basement prices to pay the tax.... just doesn't add up.. to many loopholes for the very rich.. it might hit a semi-rich person, but then they do not have a large business..

THis is exactly how the game is rigged. Only the "beer and prezles Rich" if anyone gets hurt. That way they can point to a guy who appears to ahve been raked over the coals for taxes and "own the issue" of DEATH TAX!"

Their solution is, to fix it for this "Little Guy" the hyper rch hand Business Class must also be swept up or it's "not fair" Everybody has to "win". Farmers are the best example. The death tax is a "Cry all the way to the bank" issue All loop-hole. No Tax

 

[Leonidas]

Oh please! Now you made me hurl. There are big problems with the estate tax and the things that people (very reasonably and myself included) do to get out of it, but it also happens to be about the most moral tax on the books. Who deserves their money more, people who have worked for it, or people who inherit it?

I wasn't referring to the estate tax. Rather, commenting on Saluki9's reaction to this statement:

IMHO, all estates should escheat to the governnment upon death.

Escheat technically means to return property to the state in the absence of heirs, but Saluki understood the OP's intended meaning (as did I) to be that when anybody dies all of their estate is forfeit to the government and any and all heirs are just screwed.

That's not taxation. It's theft.

 

[Gumby]

Sorry.  That's just the communist in me coming to the surface.  But you do raise an interesting point -- at what marginal tax rate do we deem it theft and not taxation?  Would 90% be okay? 70%?  36%?  All of them have been the law at various times in the past.

And a second question - who will ever pay the taxes on the accrued but not yet realized capital gains inherent in the assets bequeathed to the heirs?  They get a step up basis.

 

[samclem]

Who deserves their money more, people who have worked for it, or people who inherit it?

Which people are you referring to who "worked for it?" The government hands out lots of taxpayer money to folks who don't work for it.

How about this question instead: "Who should decide who gets this money--the guy who earned it, paid taxes on it, and owns it, or the government?"

 

[sgeeeee]

Which people are you referring to who "worked for it?"  The government hands out lots of taxpayer money to folks who don't work for it.

How about this question instead:   "Who should decide who gets this money--the guy who earned it, paid taxes on it,  and owns it, or the government?"

How about this question instead: Which policy promotes behavior that advances society and the country?

 

[samclem]

How about this question instead: Which policy promotes behavior that advances society and the country?

Exactly!

"The statesman who would attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himeslf with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted to no council and senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it."
- Adam Smith

 

[Zathras]

How about this:

Loose the exceptions for the estate tax.
Eliminate the income tax as THAT tax burdens the society to a greater extent.

AKA, you would be telling the government: You can have my money when I am done with it

 

[work4beer]

How about this question instead: "Who should decide who gets this money--the guy who earned it, paid taxes on it, and owns it, or the government?"

The fallacy here, of course, is that the guy who, for example, bought microsoft in 1985 and dies in 2005 has not paid ANY taxes on the capital gains. So eliminating the estate tax only insures that his heirs won't either.

 

[Zathras]

The fallacy here, of course, is that the guy who, for example, bought microsoft in 1985 and dies in 2005 has not paid ANY taxes on the capital gains.  So eliminating the estate tax only insures that his heirs won't either.

You claim fallacy and then use a false example?
Even if there were no estate tax, would not the son have to pay capital gains when he sold the stock?

If not, I would think that should be the way it should work.

 

[Gumby]

Actually, Zathras, the son would not pay the tax on the unrealized gain, because his cost basis in the stock is stepped up to the value of that stock at the time he inherited it. If he sold, he would only pay taxes on the amount it had gained since the inheritance. This is one of the reasons the estate tax is not so "unfair" as some would have it. I would agree to eliminate the estate tax if the heirs did not get a step up basis. (except for the times when my communist self would have your estate escheat to the government)

 

[work4beer]

You claim fallacy and then use a false example?
Even if there were no estate tax, would not the son have to pay capital gains when he sold the stock?

If not, I would think that should be the way it should work.

I don't know how a no-estate-tax system would work since the law is not passed yet. Who knows what would happen to the son's cost basis?
And I thought the whole problem some people have with the estate tax is that it forces heirs to sell businesses, not that they have to pay taxes when they do.

The real problem here of course is that without an estate tax, the son doesn't have to sell, nor the grandson, and so forth. So multiple generations can just live off the original family fortune and not pay any taxes (except dividends or income from the business).

 

[Hamlet]

This article has at least one factual error.  Dairy Queen was a public company when Buffet bought it, so the estate tax really couldn't have played a role in forcing a sale.

For those who want to eliminate the estate tax-- which tax would you increase instead?  I would much rather pay lower income taxes or lower Social Security taxes than lower estate taxes.  Give them my money now or after I'm dead?  I know which choice I'll take 

If I was in charge, I would reform the estate tax, not eliminate it.  Increase the exemption to 5-10 million, index it to inflation, and tax the rest at whatever the highest income tax rate happens to be.  After that, anytime someone suggests
eliminating the estate tax, I'd tell them to work on lowering the income tax instead.

 

[youbet]

If I was in charge, I would reform the estate tax, not eliminate it.  Increase the exemption to 5-10 million, index it to inflation, and tax the rest at whatever the highest income tax rate happens to be.  After that, anytime someone suggests
eliminating the estate tax, I'd tell them to work on lowering the income tax instead.

I concur Hamlet.........  The way tax loopholes are normally structured, only the ultra-rich may avail themselves.  Upper middle class folks who've managed to accumulate a few million via saving, investing, entrepreneurship, etc., get the shaft.  Let the exemption be 5 million, as you suggest, and then tax the crap out of amounts over that.