Also, if the business has enough value to render the estate taxable, financing could be obtained for the tax.
Gumby said: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.
Gumby said:IMHO, all estates should escheat to the governnment upon death.
saluki9 said: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 said: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.
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..
bongo2 said: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 said:IMHO, all estates should escheat to the governnment upon death.
bongo2 said:Who deserves their money more, people who have worked for it, or people who inherit it?
How about this question instead: Which policy promotes behavior that advances society and the country?samclem said: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 said:How about this question instead: Which policy promotes behavior that advances society and the country?
samclem said: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?"
Will Work 4 Beer said: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 said: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.
Hamlet said: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.