Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands December 2nd, 2012 12:00am

Should an increase in estate/inheritance tax be included in a "fiscal cliff" deal?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

wetheslaves Live each moment fully
12/02/12 12:01 pm

I think we can do a better job with this one.

Reply
asia
12/02/12 11:59 am

Family farms are getting fewer and fewer. Much of the farming these days is by big corps.

Reply
vstorm
12/02/12 11:58 am

How much money does the government need in terms of taxes? Even if we gave them all our money congress would over spend it all.

Reply
asia
12/02/12 11:57 am

Weda...in a family business the structure can be set up to transfer ownership without or with minimal taxes, but this shudder be done before death, as I understand.

Reply
Harrith2
12/02/12 11:56 am

The inheritance tax is NEW income for the recipient, therefore taxing it is fair game.

Reply
kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:53 am

uga, I understand your point, and I agree - But I think a cap on the amount that can be exempted would help. Overall though, I'm more concerned about keeping the family farm than worrying whether the Hiltons are tax evading, but again - I can't be unbiased as this will affect me VERY personally...

Reply
kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:50 am

No it hasn't. The tax is on the heir, not the dead person. Only the dead person has already paid taxes.

It is controversial, but saying that it's already been taxed makes as much sense as saying you shouldn't have to pay sales tax because you've already paid income tax. They are two separate events

Reply
falcsfan88 Middle Georgia
12/02/12 11:47 am

I understand your point, but adding more loopholes gives everyone a chance to exploit it. like if that's added, why won't the Hilton family just invest in a huge farm right before death? gives a new meaning to "he bought the farm" ;)

falcsfan88 Middle Georgia
12/02/12 11:47 am

I understand your point, but adding more loopholes gives everyone a chance to exploit it. like if that's added, why won't the Hilton family just invest in a huge farm right before death? gives a new meaning to "he bought the farm" ;)

Reply
kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:45 am

Gnott: you can oppose it, and helping farmers and ranchers is completely valid (as I am one and agree with you) but it's still not "double taxation." The tax is on the inheritor, not the dead person.

falcsfan88 Middle Georgia
12/02/12 11:43 am

Right, I understand. I could see some type of exemption added for family farms.

kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:42 am

The optional spending is too small to salvage the budget with cuts alone. Most of the budget not spent on defense goes to SS and Medicare, benefits that people have earned over a lifetime and depend on. Without some sort of revenue increase, the numbers don't add up.

gnott15 22401
12/02/12 11:41 am

What about farmers and ranchers that rely on there land

Reply
gnott15 22401
12/02/12 11:40 am

Detrimental to farming family's who need a large amount of land that is valuable and is taxed heavily when it is inherited.

Reply
jess1cas Tallahassee, FL
12/02/12 11:40 am

It's already been taxed once...

Reply
kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:39 am

Wedaslaves: see my comment below.

I agree with you, but this is still not "double taxation."

kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:38 am

Inheritance taxes often force a small business owner to ransom back the business that they've poured so much of their own life into, and that's HARD with razor-thin margins. We've seen many friends lose their farms.

Now liquid cash? I don't see a problem taxing money not invested.

Reply
wetheslaves Live each moment fully
12/02/12 11:37 am

This is especially harsh when we talk about a family business. Suddenly they need extra cash to keep the income flowing. This is very disruptive at the least.

Reply
kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:36 am

Hmm... I don't know. As a farmer's wife with an elderly father-in-law, I am obviously slightly biased. The problem with inheritance taxes for farmers (and often other small family businesses) is that by the time the parent dies, one child has often been running the operation for years.

Reply
falcsfan88 Middle Georgia
12/02/12 11:30 am

I agree with Kelly, and if they die with over five million, I'm not sure I'd consider that "the little they died with".

Reply
medicjones
12/02/12 11:29 am

Why can't it add up? If you spend less than you make and use the deference to pay down the debt. The only reason it won't work is people won't allow the kind of cuts it would require.

Reply
BAL North Carolina
12/02/12 11:28 am

@KellyW what you're saying isn't making any sense. If you save money on something, you can then spend the saved money on something else.

Reply
falcsfan88 Middle Georgia
12/02/12 11:28 am

Even the democrats are really only discussing bring it down to about 4 million. historically, it has been much lower than that (or higher, however you want to look at that).

Reply
kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:27 am

It's not taxing the dead person - it's taxing the person inheriting. There are many ways to argue against it, but this is not one of them. The law considers the acquisition of these funds to be two separate events.

Reply
kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:25 am

Right, but will it stay that way if it goes up?

kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:24 am

It was taxed when it was income to the parent, not the heir. Money is taxed at points all along the system, many times. There is no "dead end" to money, so there is no such thing as "double taxed".

You can argue that the estate tax shouldn't exist, but not really on the grounds that it's ...

wetheslaves Live each moment fully
12/02/12 11:19 am

They need to reduce the stinking inheritance tax. Rather tax everyone more evenly thought their lifetime. The death of someone is disruptive enough. Why make it worse by stealing what little they had before dying?

Reply
falcsfan88 Middle Georgia
12/02/12 11:17 am

everything up to 5 million is already exempt.

kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:15 am

Not true. There must be an increase in revenue or it absolutely does nor add up. Doesn't mean it has to be inheritance tax, but some tax WILL have to go up to balance the budget.

Reply
kellyw The Mississippi Delta
12/02/12 11:11 am

Only if family farms valued at up to five million are excluded, so I put "no".

Reply
acctdele
12/02/12 11:09 am

Yeah Bull they are but the difference is Republicans don't want to be part of it and we would rather work.

Reply
brisket Illinois
12/02/12 11:08 am

I think there should be no tax just because you inherit something.

Reply
acctdele
12/02/12 11:08 am

If Democrats keep taxing everything there will be less money in the economy and there will be less savings in banks. This will cause the worse depression we could ever imagine. No new taxes until the government gets their spending in control.

Reply
Arkansas123 Neoconservative
12/02/12 11:07 am

Abolish the Death Tax!

Reply
trock30000
12/02/12 11:02 am

isn't going to kill the government it just leaves extra money in my pocket to throw into the economy, save for retirement so I don't have to rely on ss benefits ect.

Reply
trock30000
12/02/12 11:00 am

that inheritance money has already gone through income tax and it was taxed when it came out of stocks so why do you have to tax it a third time when you will still collect taxes on if I spend any money or sell their house/car/boat/rv etc not collecting taxes every time someones money changes hands.

Reply
Bulleiver Earth
12/02/12 10:57 am

Republicans are just as much apart of the welfare state.

Reply
fuctup83
12/02/12 10:56 am

Tax any and everything so long as I dont have to give up my welfare and actually earn my own living!!! Notice the huge difference in Dem and Repub votes!!

Reply
whatsername Hawaii
12/02/12 10:51 am

Work hard your whole life so the government can take everything you've earned after your death...

Reply
Sakura-chan Reading and Writing.
12/02/12 10:44 am

Okay. . . It's an inheritance. The government is not entitled to any portion of that inheritance. It was meant for person/persons intended and should be given in whole, to the person/persons intended.

Reply
jonny323
12/02/12 10:43 am

All money is taxed repetitively. People work just as hard for their money, no matter what it is spent on. You could use both of your arguments to argue against most taxes.

Reply
MrWalrus Undergrid
12/02/12 10:39 am

No, they need to get rid of it, not raise it. How arrogant for politicians to think that they know better than us what to do with our money.

Reply
Pragmaniac Hipsterville
12/02/12 10:35 am

Their fault for not being able to take it with them!

Reply
RJ1969 SoCal
12/02/12 10:31 am

the problem with inheritance taxes is when it involves family farms.

Reply
selfthink
12/02/12 10:18 am

It doesn't matter what you make the inheritance tax rate because there are so many ways to avoid it. This is more about giving the illusion that the rich people will pay more. Simply put, the smart ones won't pay it anyways.

Reply
hmann Georgia
12/02/12 10:16 am

Libs haven't seen a source of taxing of other peoples money they don't like.

Socialism works until you run out of other peoples money.

Reply
EarlyBird Portland
12/02/12 10:15 am

People who want high inheritance taxes are people who won't be leaving their children an inheritance.

Reply
Contra Michigan
12/02/12 10:13 am

This cost of collecting this tax costs the same as the revenue generated, raises zero net revenue.

Reply