Taxing Tragedies
By Rep. Kristi Noem
April 17, 2015
When I was 21 years old, I got a call late one afternoon from Joanie, who worked with my family on our farm. She said, “Kristi, your dad is stuck in a grain bin.” I knew instantly what she meant by that. I told her to turn on the fans and I was on my way.
By the time I got there, neighbors and friends had taken payloaders and ripped down the grain bin trying to find him. When they finally did, they started doing CPR. I followed the ambulance to the hospital with my family and the doctors fought to save him for hours into the evening. After he passed away, I remember opening the door to the little room they’d kept our family in and there was a crowd of people standing in the emergency room. It wasn’t just a tragedy to me and my family. It was a tragedy to our entire community. Their support is something I’ll never forget.
We were a family that grew up with a man who could do anything. To me, he was invincible. It was impossible to imagine how we were going to pick up the pieces.
My dad’s number one dream in life was to pass his family farm onto us kids. That’s why he got up at 5:00 almost every morning. He wanted to give us the opportunity to farm together, if we wanted to.
Shortly after the accident, my family got a letter from the IRS telling us that we owed the death tax because we had experienced a tragedy. We could see that we had land that my dad had started buying while he was still in high school and land that my grandpa had bought. We had cattle. We had machinery. And we had a family that needed to make good decisions.
What we didn’t have was enough money in the bank to pay the IRS the death tax. All I could hear in my head was my dad saying, “Kristi, don’t sell the land. God isn’t making any more.” We were fortunate to get a loan. It kept our family’s American Dream going, but it also impacted nearly every decision we made for a decade.
I have never understood why the federal government thought it was appropriate to go after families with this double tax – especially in a time of crisis. My dad had already paid taxes on the equipment, the land, and any other assets. Now, we had to pay taxes on it again because he had died. It’s not right.
On April 16, the House passed a full and permanent repeal of the death tax – the first time we had done so in a decade. The administration has already threatened to veto it if the Senate decides to put it on his desk, however, which saddens me. No family should have to go through what ours did.
Through the death tax, the IRS is jeopardizing the American Dream for just two days’ worth of government spending each year. They’re doing so at a time when a family is still grieving and trying to figure out how they’ll move forward without this person in their lives. It’s wrong and I’m committed to repealing it.
###
This is a touching story and my heart goes out to anyone who loses a loved one. Unfortunately, Kristi does not tell us the whole story here.
She says: “Through the death tax, the IRS is jeopardizing the American Dream”. What she does not say is that the exemption has already been raised to 10.8 million dollars per couple. That was not the case when her family experienced their loss. These kind of facts matter. So, unlike what she has claimed, this is not about our small businesses and family farms anymore. Kristi knows this.
And where is the compassion for you and me? Those of us who do not stand to inherit significant amounts of money at the time of their parents’ passing. We will still have to work AND pay taxes. And higher taxes too because this legislation reduces the taxes on a few thousand millionaires and billionaires and passes their tax burden on to us. Thats right… only a few thousand very wealthy estates in the entire country are even impacted by this in a given year. And almost no South Dakotans. That’s the real story.
As a Party, do we really believe that billionaire families should just keep passing on their billions generation after generation tax-free while the rest of us work and pay taxes? Is that what our Republican Party has become?
On this issue, its time for some honesty.
Could someone tell me WHY, when someone dies, the government feels compelled to TAKE more even though the decedent has paid taxes upon taxes for the property/wealth that he/she has worked for all their lives?
“What she does not say is that the exemption has already been raised to 10.8 million dollars per couple.”
That’s only applicable if both die simultaneously!
Do you research before posting again.
Bankrate website: “The new estate tax law, however, does offer PERMANENT portability between spouses.”
“This allows the surviving spouse the opportunity to take advantage of any unused estate and gift tax exemption left by the first spouse. The portability option must be selected when the estate tax return of the first spouse is filed, even if no federal estate tax is owed.”
Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/estate-tax-and-gift-tax-amounts.aspx#ixzz3YJpJct2E
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook
“On this issue, its time for some honesty.”
Actually, in your case, its time for some economic knowledge.
I’m a registered Democrat and the death tax is a sin.
don’t expect a hero’s welcome for making waves. thanks for sharing.
The section queen w ill take care of the rich and her self. I think she gets vested for a pension after her six years in congress like Thune on free wheels and deals for senators.
I want to be fair to Kristi but if there ever was a case of “Reverse Robin Hood”, this would have to be it. And it will never pass the test of time should this legislation ever be signed by a US President. There is no way the public will agree to allowing billionaire families to escape both income and estate taxes for generations.
The wealthy would delay selling the bulk of their holdings resulting in the avoidance of income taxes. Then, thanks to this legislation, their children could avoid taxes as well. Meanwhile, you and I have to pay taxes when we work hard and earn just thirty or forty thousand a year.
Unfortunately, our representatives are using the emotion of personal loss to promote the most inequitable tax policy imaginable. Audacious.
” Meanwhile, you and I have to pay taxes when we work hard and earn just thirty or forty thousand a year. ”
YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS JJ:
Taxes are not a zero sum game–just because others pay less estate tax, does NOT mean that someone else must pay the difference.
Got it?
Get over your jealousy–your obsession ion this is ugly.
$260 billion over ten years added to the deficit then, if you don’t think anyone else needs to pay for it. OK with you?
And this jealousy charge that you keep repeating is not true. But if you do not mind misleading readers, I guess you can just keep saying it.
Fact: raising [income or estate] tax rates tends to DECREASE revenues.
In other words, if you want to pay down the debt or cut the deficit, CUT income & estate TAX RATES!
Understand?
I must also include capital gains tax rates in the reality that lowering them, INCRESES capital gains revenues time & time again.
You say: Raising income tax or estate tax rates tends to decrease revenues? Well bud, maybe we should set them at zero and fill the federal coffers to overflowing.
Yes, I recognize Rush’s talking points. And yes, there is a point where rates are counterproductive but you want to eliminate the estate tax on the wealthiest families who already have the ability to minimize their income taxes.
You don’t have to be “jealous” to know that is unwise.
“You don’t have to be “jealous” to know that is unwise.”
The estate tax is UNWISE, because it’s COUNTREPRODUCTIVE.
“And higher taxes too because this legislation reduces the taxes on a few thousand millionaires and billionaires and passes their tax burden on to us. ”
Not only is that claim “misleading”, its largely false.”
Reducing tax rates on milllionaires & billionaires does NOT mean that the “burden” sifts to someone else, Simply NOT the way taxation works.
You’re stuck in the false belief that taxes are zero sum calculations.
Get over it.
“And this jealousy charge that you keep repeating is not true.”
I’ve pointed out time & time again how your claims are consistently false.
Yet, you still scream about “fairness” (” And higher taxes too because this legislation reduces the taxes on a few thousand millionaires and billionaires and passes their tax burden on to us.”)–you’re wallowing in the pigpen of jealously.
And doing so while in denial.
Get over it.
jimmy james – your thinking about the “260-billion shortfall” is backward. don’t gleefully spend more than you can take in, then keep spending it while you get the halves of your revenue source fighting about the debt rather than who is making the debt happen. the expansion of the federal bureaucracy since early 2007 is on the record, and if we as a whole people pay more, all we get for it is the means for politicians to approve even more and deeper debt. I’m tired of your rants against the ultra rich because they’re futile, and you justify actions which hurt the middle class and lesser-rich by doing so.
Yes, there have been plenty of “rants” on this subject. You will recognize them because they usually include words like “jealous”, “ugly”, “envy” and “screaming”.
I just disagree with you. You “get over it”.
politics of envy
“. Meanwhile, you and I have to pay taxes when we work hard and earn just thirty or forty thousand a year. ‘
In another thread, you said that you PAID tens of thousands of dollars in income taxes.
Which is it?
When I say 30 or 40 thousand dollars, it just is for comparison purposes. People pay income taxes at these levels of income.
Now, I have a question for you. What do you think of the following paragraph from an article on yesterday’s Cheat Sheet website?
“…the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates only 0.6% of farms have to pay an estate tax. The Washington Post also asked the office of Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who is sponsoring of the Senate version of repeal, about the farms, and “Thune’s staff conceded that they could not identify a single farm that had been sold because of the estate tax, but they said some farms had to sell acreage in order to pay the tax.”
Family farms? Our congressional delegation needs to stop this deception.
““Thune’s staff conceded that they could not identify a single farm that had been sold because of the estate tax, but they said some farms had to sell acreage in order to pay the tax.”
1. “Selling the farm” is just ONE way of paying the estate tax. Thus, how many farms were sold to pay the tax is IRRELEVANT.
Why do you believe that selling assets, with the proceeds given to the gov’t to use as some bureaucrat wishes, is any more MORAL or FAIR or RIGHT than allowing Noem’s family, or some wealthy heir, to use as they please?
Kristi has become a little too comfortable in Washington and forgot who she represents. We need to send a real Conservative there!
quiet democrat.
Democrat? Who?
who?
stop it my silly sibling! 🙂
Sounds like there will be at least one good challenger for Noem’s seat in “16” and
possibly two in the primary with one announcement coming soon. Always good for the party.
no there’s not.
”
jimmy james
April 20, 2015 at 4:23 am
“From the USA Today article posted above: “Neil Harl, a professor of agriculture and economics at Iowa State University who has been involved in this area since 1958, says he has never seen a farm sold off to pay inheritance taxes.”
That’s right…. “never”.
So JJ, we now have two farmers who are telling you that they had to sell the farm or take out a loan to pay off inheritance taxes.
Are you ready to retract your claim, and to denounce Neil Harl as a liar?
Your examples are from 20 and 30 years ago! I was under the mistaken impression that we were discussing today’s estate taxes which already have huge exemptions of 5.4/10.8 million dollars.
And as for liars, you might want to look at those who are claiming that this issue is all about family farmers and small businesses. You know that is not true. Don’t you?
Neil Harl did say that he had not seen a farm liquidated because of the estate since 1958 but that was just his recollection. It does not make him a liar. He may just think it is a rare circumstance and, to my knowledge, it is.
Jimmy James,
How does ending the death tax impact what rich people pay in income taxes?
Also, you keep saying you want fairness. But, only rich people pay death taxes. Do you also think everyone should pay death taxes?
P.S. Keep in mind, I support a death tax.
I would think that keeping the estate tax or ending it could impact how much is owed in income taxes or capital gains in many ways. I would find it hard to narrow that down. How an individual chooses to invest that kind of money can vary greatly.
As for “fairness”. I think that it is reasonable to allow for an exemption perhaps in the millions as it is today but I think that has to be weighed against how much we tax labor in the form of income taxes. I think 5.4/10.8 million is a lot of money compared to the net worth of most taxpayers.
We do not tax the dead. All taxes are on the living and I do not see moneys from inheritance as being superior to income from labor to the extent that it should be tax free while labor is heavily taxed.
I really do believe that it is an injustice to ask middle income laborers to pay income taxes while another inheriting billions is somehow exempt from the burdens of taxation.
I feel that it is OK to criticize my line of thought but some of these guys want to declare me jealous every time I say the word “equitable”. I think that is “unfair”.
With taxes, what is fair? Is it equal amounts in terms of tax dollars? Is it an equal rate? Or is it an equal burden? I think that most Americans have decided that it is the latter. The Republican Party may agree, at least in part. We are not advancing the idea that low income citizens start paying income taxes are we? We have means tests on most every government program. And I agree with that.
“I really do believe that it is an injustice to ask middle income laborers to pay income taxes while another inheriting billions is somehow exempt from the burdens of taxation. ”
The one has NOTHING to do with the other!
Thus, you’re simply ranting out of jealousy of what “they” have v. what you “pay”.
GET OVER IT!
“I really do believe that it is an injustice to ask middle income laborers to pay income taxes while another inheriting billions is somehow exempt from the burdens of taxation. ”
The wealthy (whether earned or inherited) PAY TAXES. PERIOD. They simply pay different KINDS of taxes than wage earners do, and more of them.
What do you not understand about this?
Jimmy James:
1) Keeping the death tax or terminating has absolutely no impact on taxes due on income or sale of capital assets.
2) I’m still confused. What is “fair” by saying a tax only applies because you are rich isn’t it arbitrary to say $5.4mm is fair. Why not $10mm or $1mm? Fairness implies giving both parties justice (their due).
3) Inheritance tax is a tax on the estate. We do tax the dead and condition the transfer upon the heirs seeing to it the tax is paid.
4) I’m confused again. Rich and middle class are taxed on their labor (not the poor) and the income from their assets/savings/investments. Tell me again why only the inheritance of the rich should be taxed?
5) Finally, have you ever asked yourself why if your facts are right why ending the death tax is widely supported by farmers in our state who if your fact is right will never pay the tax? Why it is widely supported by small retailers who will never pay the tax? Do you think they are dumb or have been duped?
I have. To some degree, I think it is that there is more farms affected than .6% (a fact I think is only possible if hobby farms are considered in the number of farms). However, if my extended family is any indication, I think the real reason is they see the farm as a family legacy and not a community legacy. Thus, even if their farm won’t pay death tax, they consider the death tax an affront to their legacy as well. I think this goes to the core why so many Americans who never expect to have to worry about the death tax oppose it- A person’s life work should be passed on without government taking its share.
(Want to keep stressing I don’t support abolishing the death tax but do want it reformed.)
The aging person with a large estate will behave differently if there is an estate tax versus no estate tax. And his/her heirs will obviously be impacted as well. I do not understand your challenging of the impact on income taxes. Its very difficult to know precisely what impact laws like this will have on specific people. But removing the estate tax is one heck of a boost to wealthy families.
And is 5.4 million exemption arbitrary? Yes. Of course. So is almost every other tax threshold. That does not make it unfair. It just may be more fair or less than another alternative.
You ask why the poor should be exempt from some of these taxes. I don’t know… maybe compassion or decency?? Are you “jealous” of poor people and want them to pay more? Are you in favor of eliminating means tests?
You ask me if my “facts are right” then why are so many farmers and other folks opposed to the estate tax? Because its easy to manipulate emotions when it comes to the subject of death. We all know it. Denying that is silly.
I also think that many are not aware of the already high exemptions and the multi-generation benefits that the wealthy would receive at the expense of other taxpayers. And that the wealthiest Americans can minimize their taxes more easily to begin with.
Its complicated and so manipulating the public’s sympathies can be very effective. At least until it is exposed for what it is. Until then, its “death should not be a taxable event”.
So what’s your proposal, Troy? In the above it sounds like you are somehow saying that the ‘landed gentry’ think they should somehow be excluded from taxation by their government. I get images of fiefdoms and Barons and serfs. Kings exempting nobility and clergy from taxation and filling their coffers with wealth produced by workers, craftsmen and merchants. In short, the condition of Europe in the 17th century… Conditions that drove vast numbers in their populations across the Atlantic to found our nation in the first palce. Oligarcy and the unregulated generational transfer of wealth. The good life if you happen to be born into it, rough going for everyone else.
Followup.
Troy, in thinking this through a little more, I’m wondering, from the perspective of “We the People” (a.k.a. U.S.Constitutional Government), what is the difference (tax-wise) between a person who inherits a fortune, and one who wins a gigantic sum of money in a lottery (Powerball, etc). Seems to me, both “winners” are blessed by chance, no?
Or is it something along the lines of this classic exchange in the movie “The Professionals”?:
________________________
J.W. Grant:
You bastard.
Rico:
Yes sir. In my case an accident of birth. But you, you’re a self-made man.
_________________
i.e. are lottery winners taxed more than rich people’s heirs because lottery winners actually went out and bought a ticket —thus in a sense, actually “earning” their money? 🙂
Bill,
The distinction is both simple and complex.
1) I pay you to design an ad. You get income. Taxed as ordinary income
2) I pay you for an old printer. You get income for the difference between your cost and what I pay for it. Taxed as capital gains if you own it for more than a year.
3) Mom and Dad give car to kid. Not taxed. Gift
Which of these three does a lottery winning look like? Not #3 since its not a gift. Not #2 because it (ticket) wasn’t owned over a year. Thus, #1.
Which of these does an inheritance look like? #3 clearly since the decedent could have chosen to give the inheritance to another person or a charity.
Anticipating your question in light of your drawing an equivalence to “lucky gene” vs. lucky lottery card.
First, I’m not a random “creation.” I’m the result of a conscious intentional act of my parents. Warren Buffet’s children are the result of his own conscious intentional act.
Second, if I buy a lottery ticket and win. You don’t buy a ticket, you don’t win. That is not the result of random luck but of actually different intentional acts (I choose to buy and you don’t).
Third, if we both buy but I win. But, how is that different than you choosing in 1980 a stockbroker who tells you to invest in AT&T and I pick a stockbroker who tells me to invest in Apple? As soon as we begin the process of equalizing based on judgment on “luck”, where does it stop and how is it not arbitrary based on perspective. You think I was lucky to invest in Apple. I think I judged my stockbroker better.
At the end of the day, I think there is a valid public policy rationale for the death tax. I don’t think most of the arguments in favor of it are anything more than
1) Lucky gene arguments.
2) Grounded in envy. “He has it and can afford it.”
3) Chance to get public benefits and have someone else pay for it.
Personally, I find them all lacking in morality and justice.
1. Actually, Troy, winning the lottery looks more like #2. (If that “old printer” you bought from me happens to have the right number on it, you can trade it in for a lot more than you payed for it.)
2. The fact that you are you and not someone else, Troy, is random. Any number of ways, not the least of which is the fact that there were around a billion sperm applying for the job that day and only one of them (you, and not your sister) got it. 😉
3. My overarching point is that it’s not a “death” tax, it’s a “luck” tax. And there’s no lack or morality and/or justice in that position as far as I can see. I would love to her your “even more moral and just” positions however, if you would care to discuss them.
#2: The fact I’m here and not my sister isn’t entirely random but I’ll accept you point. It is random that I’m here and not my sister. But it is not random that I’m a child of my parents and not of Warren Buffet. I was never going to be Warren’s child. So, to your point, I guess the sperm who died have a beef with Warren’s children but not me and not you.
#3: I don’t consider the wealth Buffet accumulated good luck and the lack of wealth accumulated by my parents bad luck. Thus, if Buffet chooses to leave his wealth to his kids and not me, I don’t envy that decision and nor do I think it a de facto moral justification to tax him because he chooses to give it his kids and not me.
That said, I support the concept of a death penalty for one simple reason. If given the choice to pay higher taxes while I’m alive and no death tax or lower taxes while I’m alive and a death tax, I prefer the latter.
However, when I hear all the envy motivations and assertion the rich don’t pay enough taxes when they are alive as you and Jimmy seem to assert, I guess I should just accept no death taxes and pay taxes when I’m alive. Both are to me unconscionable. Envy is a deadly sin.
Is your use of ‘death penalty’ to describe this form of tax intentional, Troy? It’s a curious choice of words. Do you see taxation as some form of ‘punishment’? If so, maybe that’s worth discussing. Some would argue that taxes are an investment.
As far as luck is concerned, we are all subject to it without exception. For example, if the earth wasn’t 93 million miles from the sun, no one would be here to inherit anything. But we are here, which is really the only reason we have to explain exactly why we’re that far away from the sun, or anything else. Lucky. 🙂
There is no envy in my position whatsoever, Troy. I think lottery winners (state lottery, sperm lottery, whatever…) should pay taxes on their income just like everybody else does. Call that envy if you want to, I call it equality.
To your point, I really don’t follow how you think it’s even possible for someone to pay taxes when they’re dead. You’ll have to explain it to me.
Thats right. Yelling “jealous” and “envy” every time a person mentions wealth is getting old. We are talking about the estate tax!
It cannot be done without comparing tax burdens of rich, middle class and poor. It can be done without the cheesy name-calling.
“but if there ever was a case of “Reverse Robin Hood”, this would have to be it”
“Reverse Robin Hood” sounds pretty cheesy, right?
Well, at least it isn’t calling someone “jealous” every time you cannot refute an opinion. I can’t say the word “wealthy” without being accused of envy. Childish. And laughably false.
“Well, at least it isn’t calling someone “jealous” every time you cannot refute an opinion:’
Or the emotional retort of “I pay thousands in income taxes while wealthy heirs pay little”–right?
Why do you believe that selling assets, with the proceeds given to the gov’t to use as some bureaucrat wishes, is any more MORAL or FAIR or RIGHT or EQUITABLE than allowing Noem’s family, or some other wealthy heir, to use as they please?
government gets the cut of what a rich person earns via income and property taxes. it is immoral for government to divest dead rich people of the wealth they would leave to their heirs, whether it’s liquidation of large land holdings and farm operations, liquidation of a business or other confiscation. if you cannot understand that, you are the one with the problem, not the newly dead rich person.
i am not rich. i enjoy being employed and paid by rich people. I’ve tried working for not-very-rich people who don’t manage money well, and i can offer rich testimony about which situation i prefer. the repeal of the death tax may not apply directly to me, ever – but it can mess with the source of my employment, and i am always against that.
all of this “darn you for calling US envious” crap rings very hollow.
Do you see the flaw in your reasoning, enquirer? I’ll try to point it out for you. It’s not really a matter of epistemology but rather, ontological (and perhaps semantic… isn’t everything?).
By definition, dead people don’t own anything. As you note, the “newly dead” don’t have any problems. Exactly. They don’t have anything. What they once had becomes an “estate.” That estate, by law is the entity that is taxed. That estate is the property of one’s heirs. A new source of income. And like it or not, our government (We the People) gets the funding to operate partially from its citizens by taxing their income via various instruments, inheritance tax being one of them.
In short, it is the heirs who are taxed via the estate, not the “recently dead rich person.”
You can argue the rightness or wrongness of that epistemologically, but let’s not confuse those beliefs and opinions with the ontology of the situation. It is what it is.
see troy jones below. he said it better than i could. anyone can justify anything so keep trying.
Yup, saw it. Thanks! It’s an “explanation” but hardly a convincing one, don’t you agree?
i.e. : Are YOU your “stuff?”
that’s a non-sequitur. i’m not on track to leave my heirs more than a box of old photo albums and knickknacks. it’s about people holding government back and MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS. abortion foes’d love to have the government’s justice department cut loose and prosecute every abortion as a murder, and the prevailing side constantly says MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. with regard to passing of familial wealth and assets, MYOB should apply as well. but hey having it both ways works 100 percent for one side and not at all for the other. i’m a fan of equal protection when it comes to being protected from the government.
Yup, as I said below, good argument.
But mine is not in fact a non-sequitur. More like a different issue. Or maybe you’re drawing a false equivalency?
Owning one’s stuff isn’t the same as owning one’s self is it? It does beg the question, to whom do we belong? Ourselves as individuals or to each other as members of society?
Seems like there’s a lot riding on that answer, and always has been, yes?
until this generation, the answer has been “ourselves as individuals, as defined and protected by the u-s constitution.” the ‘collective’ has always been part of a different type of government plan. that can go without saying, but i’ll say marxist socialism.
this is all a crap debate anyway. the ultra rich never even come near to a ‘death-tax’ penalty; the screaming and handwringing over this is on behalf of a government collection agency to preserve a lucrative and onerous revenue collection mechanism.
Well, that’s inaccurate of course. We (our Constitution) started out allowing men to “own” both women and slaves. And it has always allowed the seizure of property and the taking of citizens’ lives via due process. You way want to rethink your answer?
…and as far as “who owns your stuff,” it seems to me that’s never been Constitutionally in question. Like it or not, if you’re an American Citizen, your government owns at least some of it. 🙂
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….”
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1
Hello. Anyone there? The government takes my assets all the time. Why is it only the wealthy get your sympathy?
“Why is it only the wealthy get your sympathy?”
I thought you detested “emotion” based arguments?
When Jimmy James is asked “why are so many farmers and other folks opposed to the estate tax?”
Jimmy James answer: “Because its easy to manipulate emotions when it comes to the subject of death.”
Wow! The presumption of your superiority and wisdom is amazing. I guess they should feel grateful you are saving them from being duped and being so irrationally emotional.
Kristi says: “My dad’s number one dream in life was to pass his family farm onto us kids.” And…”What we didn’t have was enough money in the bank to pay the IRS the death tax.”
Emotion? Oh no.
And its all about the “family farm”. Gosh, you wonder why they might be persuaded to support her cause? (Pay no attention to the fact that there is up to a 10.8 million dollar exemption today.)
“Emotion? Oh no. ”
And no emotion when you whine about the thousands you pay in income taxes?
Relax. You asked for my opinion. What did you expect me to say? They do not have my “superior wisdom”.
You can deny the emotional arguments against the estate tax but I believe that is exactly what they are. And dishonest too. Family farms? You know better.
“You can deny the emotional arguments against the estate tax but I believe that is exactly what they are. ”
And when you brought up the thousands you pay in income taxes, you were being UNEMOTIONAL and HONEST?
Got it, Jimmy: When others use emotion, that’s dishonest. When you use the emotion of having to pay your own thousands in income taxes, that’s principled, right?
Bill,
Legally under property law and taxation law, the estate of a decedent “stands in the place” of the decedent until the estate is liquidated. And, any taxes due are due from the estate.
In short, the estate is a legal continuation of the “life” of the decedent. And, I believe your are technically incorrect with regard to the ownership of the estate. It is the process of liquidating of the estate which transfers ownership of the assets in the estate. I believe this is the case because I do know that debts secured by the assets don’t automatically transfer to the heirs and death usually doesn’t trigger an acceleration of the debt so long as the estate is conforming to the covenants of the debt.
Well, Troy, I suppose in an age where corporations are considered “people” it’s not unusual to consider a deceased person’s property “people” as well. So much for rational thinking, ontology, and the law, eh, my friend? For the record, after I’ve passed, I hope none of my kids think the stuff I have created and/or accumulated is somehow “me.” Because it’s not. 🙂
having the government invoke a large taking at the instant of death asserts the government’s right to a taking, and we should all be worried that it happens when the line is crossed between personhood and ex-personhood or non-personhood. since the government has created this taking for itself, it’s not a great stretch to see an expansion beyond the technical fact of actual end-of-life to establish a form of non-personhood for the preservation of the taking mechanism. what other life events could be incrementally related to death? entry into hospice? entry into nursing home care? acquisition of a smaller elder-appropriate home? retirement? the power of government to justify itself in the fact of its appetites is only offset by expensive court challenges or fights in congress. there are more considerations than needing to keep the unworthy kids of the rich from easily sliding into the parents fortune unearned. or whatever the incomprehensible logic of the death tax is.
Excellent points, enquirer. It goes without saying that your concerns apply to other key political issues (and in my opinion, more pressing) having to do with human rights on the other end of someone’s lifetime, but I think I’ll go ahead and say it anyway. 😉
I’m exploring the government’s proven habit of incrementally encroaching on the rights and perogatives of those from whom they derive revenues. They hide all types of wish-fulfillment spending, and when the bill becomes public suddenly it’s time to cast around for more revenue. you’re the one changing the subject away from whether a person has private and inviolate ownership rights, or only those meager rights as government sees fit to bestow.
It’s pretty cut and dried, in my mind, enquirer. And I don’t think I’m changing the subject at all. As per my note above:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….”
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1″
______________
We may not like it, but that’s just the way it is.
If you constitutional reference is controlling, why did we need an amendment for the income tax?
You’re about to be schooled!
The amendment is for clarification. The basic power is derived as stated above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
p.s. the amendments are part of the Constitution, last I checked. What’s your point?
“The amendment is for clarification.”
WRONG. The 16th Amendment was proposed in response to the UNCONSTITIONALITY of previous federal income tax laws.
In other words, your Art I reference has NOTHING to do with federal authority to levy income taxes (in fact, Art 1. is a BAR on federal income taxes!)
The point: you’re ranting again without the facts. Art 1 is not a general authority for the feds to levy taxes as you claim (“cut & dried”).
Yes, …and?
“It’s pretty cut and dried, in my mind, . And I don’t think I’m changing the subject at all. As per my note above:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….”
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1″
______________
We may not like it, but that’s just the way it is.”
You’re simply wrong.
Art. 1 that you quoted is NOT “cut & dried”, nor is it that way you claimed.
“it seems to me that’s never been Constitutionally in question. ”
Wrong. For example, why isn’t there federal tax on real property??
Okay Bill, what does this mean:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Here’s the history, is it a trick question?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_per_head#Capitation_and_federal_taxation
So you did not know what it meant before you started posting Constitutional references on taxes?
1. Isn’t an inheritance tax considered a levy or a duty?
2. Isn’t the 16th Amendment part of the Constitution?
3. Who’s schooling whom here? It’s always hard for me to tell (I learn something from everybody I interact with almost every time), but so far, you’ve not told me anything about the Constitution I didn’t already know.
4. Keep going though, maybe you’ll think of something interesting. 🙂
“1. Isn’t an inheritance tax considered a levy or a duty? ”
No. No.
Congress has the power to tax via the US Constitution, true, or false? Those powers have been clarified throughout US history via Amendments to the US Constution, true or false?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/levy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_(economics)
Excerpt:
“Duties may be import duties, excise duties, stamp duties, DEATH or succession duties, etc.; but not such direct impositions as personal income taxes.”
(caps are mine)
Anything else?
Of course they have, but you quoted this, and claimed that it was cut & dried, and settled based on Art. 1, Sect. 8, Cl 1:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….”
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 1″
That claim of yours is simply wrong, as evidence by the fact that the 16th Amendment was needed to enact the federal income tax.
Now, you’ve morphed into using the entire Constitution, but I doubt you know which parts are relevant to your [supposed] points.
Isn’t inheritance tax the topic? Isn’t the authorization of same the Congressional power to levy taxes? Do I need to know more than that to back up what I wrote? If so, you’re right, I don’t see why.
How about this source? Is it also mistaken?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/estate_tax
p.s. I hope you’re not a lawyer. It would be a shame to have to do all your research for you and then have to pay you to boot. 😉
i’d only like to point out that the u-s senate’s prior democrat majority made a career out of annually being in violation of laws pertaining to the annual budget. when i’m talking about whether government is inconsistent in its practices, i don’t care to be suddenly handed some inane chatter about “am i myself or am i my property.” the issue is government’s right of control, whether it’s a few moments after death or a few moments before death, a major swing in the size of government’s reach is contained therein. and government clearly fails to follow express common sense in prosecuting abortion as murder, happy instead to let “philosophers” hem and haw about whether the soul enters the body with its first breath but not before. this is pointless and i’m pointing out the huge hypocrisy which hangs on a relative few lines of law and court decision.
Well that’s easy to clear up… Some of it anyway. Stop calling it a death tax, and I’ll stop correcting you for it. Fair enough?
As for inconsistency in government, I’ll just take that as you ranting, and trust that you don’t have any better idea on how to change that than I do. 🙂