Should an increase in estate/inheritance tax be included in a "fiscal cliff" deal?
I think we can do a better job with this one.
Family farms are getting fewer and fewer. Much of the farming these days is by big corps.
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.
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.
The inheritance tax is NEW income for the recipient, therefore taxing it is fair game.
within the next few years. :-/
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...
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
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" ;)
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.
Right, I understand. I could see some type of exemption added for family farms.
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.
What about farmers and ranchers that rely on there land
Detrimental to farming family's who need a large amount of land that is valuable and is taxed heavily when it is inherited.
It's already been taxed once...
Wedaslaves: see my comment below.
I agree with you, but this is still not "double taxation."
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
@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.
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).
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.
Right, but will it stay that way if it goes up?
breaking some kind of "rule" of taxing.
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 ...
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?
everything up to 5 million is already exempt.
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.
Only if family farms valued at up to five million are excluded, so I put "no".
Yeah Bull they are but the difference is Republicans don't want to be part of it and we would rather work.
I think there should be no tax just because you inherit something.
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.
Abolish the Death Tax!
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.
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.
Republicans are just as much apart of the welfare state.
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!!
Work hard your whole life so the government can take everything you've earned after your death...
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.
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.
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.
Their fault for not being able to take it with them!
the problem with inheritance taxes is when it involves family farms.
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.
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.
People who want high inheritance taxes are people who won't be leaving their children an inheritance.
This cost of collecting this tax costs the same as the revenue generated, raises zero net revenue.