Senate Going Postal: The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

Uh, I do. All the time.

Also, the college program / stock speculation tax are... not the commonly accepted numbers. As in, reverse them and it's closer.

The removing of SSI tax caps is a no-brainer, and I don't know why literally every single candidate hasn't adopted that (even *I* have been saying this for at least a decade), but I'm curious what "estate tax loopholes" Sanders is talking about... the press release I can find (here) is... vague.

And I'm not talking about progressive taxation on increasingly valuable estates (which makes sense), but the generic term "loopholes," as the only main one I know of offhand is spousal transference -- once you give to the generation down, everything gets taxed (at a pretty decent clip already), unless he's talking about charitable contribution offsetting taxes (or the yearly "gift credit" per person you can give).

 

Republicans will fight tooth-and-nail to stop any increase in estate taxes. It’s like what blood is to vampires for them.

 

The free market is good and all but inherited wealth is so much better. DEATH TAX

 

I'm more interested in what the proposal is...

I think there's probably more room for movement and/or negotiation on estate tax and capital gains tax than most other taxes. Toss in some protections for family farm estates, and start with estates over (say) $50 million and it's a populist message that's harder to rail against... then work your way down from there.

 

Actually, some small digging found likely what the two loopholes are that Sanders wants to close (I'm in favor):

https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/ten-facts-you-should-know-about-the-federal-estate-tax

and

So even just eliminating those two would be a big hit.

 

Why wouldn't it be? A man's money is his money. Simple.
What is it about death that makes you think it's now the government's money??

 

Why does someone need to pass billions without any tax? I’m fine with exempting some income, even up to a large amount like $50 million, but beyond that, some level of taxation is perfectly appropriate, especially if the money is used to help people (such as paying for healthcare, for example).

Would you be in favor of an inheritance tax to say, fund a war against Iran, or provide revenue to subsidize farmers in red states that are being hurt by Trump’s tariffs? Or is your position absolutist, like it is for guns? I understand the ‘triple taxation’ argument, and I’m even sympathetic to it to an extent, but like 6-week no-exception abortion bans, zero inheritance tax goes too far.

So where do you draw the line?

 

The thing is, there's so many current loopholes in inheritance taxes right now - it's typical conservative talking-point laws where they exist for them to complain about, but in practice are easily evaded. Trump's own life story is a parable of How To Cheat Inheritance Taxes.
It's even more amusing when married with the conservative ideal that "the wealthy earned their money, the poor just don't want to work", which again, Trump is the living example of the pure hypocrisy of that belief - unless you really think that he deserved a six figure "salary" when he was five years old.

 

A man's money is his. Period.

There is nothing about death that makes his property the property of the government. If you could explain to me the rational that makes it ok to take something from a dead man's heirs, maybe I can understand it.

But that's his money. To do with as he wishes. Why should his property to go someone he doesn't want to have it?

There's rarely a such a thing as a tax loophole. Those shelters are typically there intentionally and calling it a loophole makes it sound like someone is illicitly using the tax code in a manner that is not intended.

That's a falsehood.

 

Sadly, Trump's own life shows how false your own statement is.
But of course he earned all his money through "hard work", right? He was a millionaire by age 8. Must've been an amazing lemonade stand. Yet he repeatedly lies that he was a "self-made millionaire" that only got a million dollar loan from his dad that he paid back "with interest!" Just one of the endless lies about your candidate that you shrug off.

 

That's all fine and good. If I was walking around talking about Trump being self-made, you'd have a point.

Meanwhile you are running around using the term "loophole" disingenuously.

You didn't even address my post. LOL.

 

J-Rod how is a man’s money “his” after death? Unless it’s all buried with him?

I get your point, but the bigger question is: does society have a right to tax large estates to help improve the health and well-being of said society as a whole (which itself has downstream benefits for everyone, including you).

My answer is yes. Yours is no. I’ve explained my position, so I will ask you again: why do billions need to be passed down without any tax? A lot of people could benefit from some of that money, so why should a dead person get to hoard it all? Your argument makes sense for a society without any form of social structure or government, but not in the United States, where we have both.

 

Where does that man's (and it's almost always a man, but that's a whole other thing) money come from, J-Rod? Does it appear from thin air? That money is largely gained off the backs of the poor and middle classes. Why is it wrong to take some of that money back, especially after they're dead and can no longer enjoy it anyway, to use to help benefit those people who largely helped that man get their money?

Why is the Estate Tax even something you care about so much anyway? Are you or your heirs going to benefit from it not being there? Not really, no. It's not like you have a net worth that would be targeted by the Estate Tax. On the contrary, redistribution of some of that wealth (some of that wealth) would likely benefit you and those you care about. Why do you feel solidarity with such a miniscule section of the population that couldn't be more different from you culturally if they tried? They're using you, J-Rod, wrapping their own interests into a package of false freedom from tyranny to appeal to you and get you to work for them in one more way than they already are.

 

This mentality seems so naive to me, like you're worshiping the upper class and believing that every dollar they make is honest. That's not how the world works. Class is a real thing, and American laws - including tax laws - are designed to favor rich people over poor people. How does it happen? Because they're the ones writing the laws! Billionaire's wealth isn't generated through income reported on a W2.

I suspect it's because he knows that if we had a fair system of taxation then his fairy godfather hero would never be wealthy let alone president.

 

It's not even as if an estate tax would obliterate any inheritance.

a % off the top of any inheritance over £Xm with a lower allowance being tax free


e.g. you pass on £100m and none of it is taxed

You pass on £101m and there is 10% tax on the £1m over the 100. How in anyway does that hurt those who will inherit?

You pass on £500m and the inheritor gets £100m tax free and the remainder is subject to 10% so the government gets £40m and the inheritors get a further £360m

The inheritors are still insanely wealthy but the government then gets money to put into infrastructure like schools and road and maybe even healthcare which helps everyone.

If the tax was 99% then yes I'd agree with you but a reasonable levy for the benefit of all considering their wealth is off the backs of everyones work is reasonable IMO.

 

My problem with inheritance taxes are when they apply to money that's already had taxes paid on it. Like if you have money you've earned as income, and you've saved it, that's already been taxed. I don't see why the people inheriting it should have to pay more taxes on it a second time. This assumes they themselves are wealthy when that's not always the case.

I feel extra annoyed about this because my grandfather has a lot of money which the family will inherit someday. We're not rich, he's the rich one. It could drastically help out my parents, aunts, and uncles. But we'll have to pay a huge portion of it in taxes... why exactly?

I'd rather they go after the actual rich people's actual income and dividends and such and tax those, rather than punishing the children of people who saved up money to pass down.

 

All of this also ignores the fact that a happy, healthy, and financially secure populous benefits society as a whole, including those at the top. They might have some millions less than they would have otherwise, but they'll benefit from a greater production of art and scientific advancement that they'll be able to enjoy and take advantage of. They'll be able to use the roads that are repaired. For that matter the people more able to gain higher levels of education will enter the workforce largely still working for them, so they'll benefit from a larger talent pool for their personal investments.

 

That's why I would put any sort of inheritance tax at someone with wealth in the millions and above and would only do it after a threshold is met. I get where your coming from but scalping a small % off people with gajillions to help the less fortunate and to put infrastructure in place to help the masses too can only be a good thing.

 

@solojones

if the first $50 million inherited are free from taxes, and it's a % tax on the first dollar after the first fifty million, then yes - we can assume those inheriting money are rich. Because they have $50 million.

and you'll pay taxes on the money after the first fifty million because (IMO) society has invested in the money made that you are inheriting, so taxing it to allow others to benefit from it is basically a moral obligation of society. Everyone who has made a fortune has done it with some help on the backs of others. There are no exceptions. Taxing that helps everyone else do a little better. I'd rather you lost 10 or 20% of everything you inherit after $50 million so that people can, I dunno, not have to choose between death and bankruptcy when they have cancer or, I dunno, have a chance to utilize education to improve their social status without crippling debt.

ninja'd a bit by FatBurt, but still worth calling out.

 

It's vulturous and still doesn't explain why anything material or monetary wealth should default to the government just because someone died.

 

Well, I don't believe in handouts. Why should his family or friends get money they haven't earned? They should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They want money, they can work for it. He earned it; it's his; no one else should ever have it. It should be destroyed. All of your possessions should be destroyed or else buried with you when you die. It's the only fair way.

 

It's not going to the government. The government is the middleman. If you specify that money from a specific tax goes to a specific social program, then who benefits from it? The people.

 

Considering how he was "LOL"ing Fred Trump's schemes to evade inheritance taxes, I would assume that's a given.
In the end, Fred Trump's estate was over a billion dollars, yet 5.5 million was paid in inheritance taxes through shady schemes he had set up. And that's ignoring the gifts before his death like Fred "buying" 3.5 million dollars worth of casino chips at Donald's failing casino.
I'm guessing that his inheritance is just one of many reasons why the "most transparent" president ever is desperate to hide his tax returns.

 

Why should it go to their kids they've not earned it?


Same sort of standard applies. A proper inheritance tax should not be punitive nor should it affect no one but the significantly affluent. They have made their money off the hard work of those who have worked for them, in a lot of cases for minimum wage. They have had their life of luxury and their inheritors will continue to have a live of luxury but there is this thing called giving back and the inheritance tax if implemented correctly allows for this to happen.

I don't however see why you have such an issue with something that in all honesty should never ever affect you (unless you have a spare $100m hiding around) and again it should only be done to the 1% of the 1%. your average Joe should NOT in anyway shape or form have to pay a tax of this nature.

 

Boy if you think that's gruesome wait until you hear about this ****ed up system we have where wealthy individuals extract surplus value from laborers at little or no inconvenience to themselves while hoarding all their wealth for further reinvestment in a seemingly endless cycle of exploitation.