Estate Tax... Again! Woo!!

[BigBallinStalin]

Recall our conversation about broadening your concept of time in this circumstance. Simply because someone dies, it does not follow that all of their contracts made during their life are null and void.

Therefore, the following still stands:

If you support the voluntary contract which distributes dead guy's wealth to particular beneficiaries upon the his death, then you don't have a say in the matter. Not even social contract theory grants you the right to violate that contract. Of course, if no beneficiaries are stated in the contract, then (depending on government's law), the money falls into their jurisdiction (not society's though).

I don't support the voluntary contract which distributes his wealth after his death. I don't think that a person ought to be able to enter into a personal contract that is fulfilled after the individual dies -- in general. A non-entity cannot participate in a contract. A nonexistent person cannot participate in a contract. It seems absurd to me that present law allows for this.

The problem with your argument is that it can be used to justify a dictator's claim over other people's lives and property.

Therefore, either you respect voluntary contracts between consenting adults, or you reject them in favor of your vision of what is best for society (which lumps you into such 'great' visionaries like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, FDR, etc.). Have some humility.

In no way does it justify anyone's claim over any person's property. It justifies a government's claim over a non-person's property. Your slippery slope arguments are irrelevant; and since the government is the only entity which has a rightful claim on that property that does not belong to any individual, it therefore must claim all of that property. Although again, I'd prefer a law that requires the assets to be donated to a non-profit rather than given to the government.[/quote]

Oh, apparently, you don't understand how contracts work. Nor do you understand the rights delineated over property in these circumstances. Since you don't, then a conversation about this with you will be unproductive.

Arabic_Diplomat_Outro_Demeanour_Neutral_3: "Our discussions come to a close."

[Metsfanmax]

Oh, apparently, you don't understand how contracts work. Nor do you understand the rights delineated over property in these circumstances. Since you don't, then a conversation about this with you will be unproductive.

Arabic_Diplomat_Outro_Demeanour_Neutral_3: "Our discussions come to a close."

Ok.

[Frigidus]

Ah, various banks! And it is invested! Yes, it earns a certain amount of money for the owner who lent that money to the bank, but to whom does the bank lend this money--and what are the effects?

The money is going to be in banks regardless of what is done with it. If it goes to a charity, then the charity well temporarily put it in some sort of bank account. They will then give this money to someone in exchange for some sort of service, and it will be in some other bank account.

Banks definitely are a nice thing to have around, but individual people with bank accounts should not get partial credit for the services the bank provides.

Why? If someone is the fundamental cause of enabling the bank to provide that service, then surely that someone deserves some credit.

So clearly, they deserve some moral approbation for saving their "excessive" surplus; therefore, the following is false: "The sheer amount of good you are choosing not to do with that money is borderline immoral." Nothing is immoral about saving one's money in a bank or non-financial institution. Good need not be donating to charity alone--once we have recognized that one's savings can become another's investment, which spurs expenditures of capital and labor.

My point is, that money is going to be in the bank regardless. With very infrequent exceptions, large sums of money are kept in bank accounts. No matter how you use your money, it will ultimately be placed in a bank or invested by those you give it to. The only way to avoid this would be to stash it away or destroy it. Whatever positive that might come from keeping your money would still occur if you gave it away.

And, "It ceases to become potential things you could have and instead becomes a hoard, existing only for the sake of existing" has been shown to be false since hoarding is not occurring.

I still disagree here.

And nothing so far indicates what exactly is "excessive." This seems to be some emotionally driven charge against others who have more money than you, which to me is a repugnant position. That kind of ugly reasoning has been used to justify stealing other people's money, which is not at all morally good.

It isn't easy to pin down exactly at what point it becomes excessive, but I don't have much trouble giving an excessive example. That's why I used the example of someone with one billion dollars. If we can establish that there is a point at which having a certain amount of money is excessive, then at that point the only debate is over what would qualify as excessive.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ah, various banks! And it is invested! Yes, it earns a certain amount of money for the owner who lent that money to the bank, but to whom does the bank lend this money--and what are the effects?

The money is going to be in banks regardless of what is done with it. If it goes to a charity, then the charity well temporarily put it in some sort of bank account. They will then give this money to someone in exchange for some sort of service, and it will be in some other bank account.

Banks definitely are a nice thing to have around, but individual people with bank accounts should not get partial credit for the services the bank provides.

Why? If someone is the fundamental cause of enabling the bank to provide that service, then surely that someone deserves some credit.

So clearly, they deserve some moral approbation for saving their "excessive" surplus; therefore, the following is false: "The sheer amount of good you are choosing not to do with that money is borderline immoral." Nothing is immoral about saving one's money in a bank or non-financial institution. Good need not be donating to charity alone--once we have recognized that one's savings can become another's investment, which spurs expenditures of capital and labor.

My point is, that money is going to be in the bank regardless. With very infrequent exceptions, large sums of money are kept in bank accounts. No matter how you use your money, it will ultimately be placed in a bank or invested by those you give it to. The only way to avoid this would be to stash it away or destroy it. Whatever positive that might come from keeping your money would still occur if you gave it away.

But that still doesn't exclude the possibility of positive-sum gains through borrowing and lending, nor does "stashing it away" preclude the possibility of future expenditures. Some people don't trust banks; they refuse to lend their money to them. And this doesn't preclude the possibility of borrowing and lending through non-banks. There's nothing wrong with any of this either.

And your money is not actually in the bank. It's 'shipped' out, and all you have is a legal claim to x-amount in your deposit/savings account. This is the consequence of having less than 100% required reserves. Money in the bank != furniture in a storage shed.

And, "It ceases to become potential things you could have and instead becomes a hoard, existing only for the sake of existing" has been shown to be false since hoarding is not occurring.

I still disagree here.

Because you don't know what hoarding is, or your definition has changed, or it is simply unknown until clearly defined.

And nothing so far indicates what exactly is "excessive." This seems to be some emotionally driven charge against others who have more money than you, which to me is a repugnant position. That kind of ugly reasoning has been used to justify stealing other people's money, which is not at all morally good.

It isn't easy to pin down exactly at what point it becomes excessive, but I don't have much trouble giving an excessive example. That's why I used the example of someone with one billion dollars. If we can establish that there is a point at which having a certain amount of money is excessive, then at that point the only debate is over what would qualify as excessive.

"Excessiveness" is relative. If your outlays are $150 per year, and your revenue is $175 per year, then I think we can agree that your profit of $25 is not excessive.

If your outlays are $25,000 per year, and your revenue is $30,000 per year, then your profit of $5,000 is not excessive---except perhaps to someone in a country of $500 per-capita GDP, like Zimbabwe. OR, it may be excessive to someone from the US who reaps a profit of only $100 per year.

If your outlays are $150bn per year, and your revenue is $175bn per year, then I'll maintain that a profit of $25bn is still not excessive. You're not the one calling the shots with that money because you have no legitimate claim to it (i.e. no ownership/property rights to it), so I'm failing to see the relevance in determining "excessiveness."

[Night Strike]

Quick question: do you support the voluntary contract which distributes dead guy's wealth to particular beneficiaries upon the his death?

Of course not. A dead person cannot engage in a contract.

So you're okay with breaking all doctor-patient, lawyer-client, etc. confidentialities established during ones' life and making it all public knowledge instead of continuing it through a person's death?

[BigBallinStalin]

Nice reduction ad absurdum, NS.

"WAY TO GO, DONNIE!!"

[Metsfanmax]

Quick question: do you support the voluntary contract which distributes dead guy's wealth to particular beneficiaries upon the his death?

Of course not. A dead person cannot engage in a contract.

So you're okay with breaking all doctor-patient, lawyer-client, etc. confidentialities established during ones' life and making it all public knowledge instead of continuing it through a person's death?

Doctor-patient confidentiality is a rule set down by medical associations that describes appropriate conduct on the part of physicians. I fail to see how stating that a dead person cannot engage in a contract logically implies that medical associations should set down different rules for the behavior of their constituents.

This "reduction" was indeed absurd.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you can't notice the similarity between contracts concerning ownership (decision rights) about one's corpse and contracts concerning ownership (decision rights) on a dead guy's stuff, then I'm not sure how to explain to you how contracts and property rights work. A contract delineates obligations for the various parties involved, e.g. a Will says that guy X is obliged to receive whatever. How can you not understand that?

Who cares if it's set by medical associations? It can be set by any association--so long as the courts recognize its legitimacy. (What upholds the legitimacy of contracts concerning the exchange of ownership rights of a dead guy's stuff? Relying on social contract theory, Mets-Rawlian justice, and what not will fail to answer that question).

Again your reasoning, "a dead person cannot engage in a contract," completely misses the point. This statement: "In no way does it justify anyone's claim over any person's property. It justifies a government's claim over a non-person's property" also misses the point.

You're a smart guy, so why not read about this stuff before making uninformed arguments?

[Metsfanmax]

If you can't notice the similarity between contracts concerning ownership (decision rights) about one's corpse and contracts concerning ownership (decision rights) on a dead guy's stuff, then I'm not sure how to explain to you how contracts and property rights work. A contract delineates obligations for the various parties involved, e.g. a Will says that guy X is obliged to receive whatever. How can you not understand that?

Who cares if it's set by medical associations? It can be set by any association--so long as the courts recognize its legitimacy. (What upholds the legitimacy of contracts concerning the exchange of ownership rights of a dead guy's stuff? Relying on social contract theory, Mets-Rawlian justice, and what not will fail to answer that question).

Again your reasoning, "a dead person cannot engage in a contract," completely misses the point. This statement: "In no way does it justify anyone's claim over any person's property. It justifies a government's claim over a non-person's property" also misses the point.

You're a smart guy, so why not read about this stuff before making uninformed arguments?

You're not too good at sticking to your word, evidently, but that's ok. I'm finally exhausted by your didactic tone, and from now on, you and I are done. I gave you multiple chances to be respectful in conversations with me and you opted not to. Goodbye, BBS.

[BigBallinStalin]

Have fun making uninformed arguments!

[thegreekdog]

Oofa...

But still, bro, "if the legislators write out of the law the exemptions for trusts and gifts, so we've eliminated the ability to avoid the tax," would the benefits still offset the costs?

Who and which groups else benefits from gifts and trusts?

Yes, the benefits would still offset the costs.

Gifts benefit the people who are designated by the giver. Not sure what you're getting at here. It's pretty straightforward.

But still... Suppose I'm a rich, old guy. I should set up a charity, which will give x-amount to those on my informal Will, and the remainder to some other charity (which I may own) or to a SuperPAC (which I may own). Hell, I could launder the money through the "charity ---> SuperPAC" avenue and pay myself/teh kiddies as some executive/employee of the SuperPAC. *cha-ching! cha-ching! cha-ching!*

First, since this is a hypothetical law that I would write, the answer is you can't do that. That's the beauty of this hypothetical law, I can do whatever the f*ck I want.

Second, you can do that, sure. You can do that now too. However, I hate to break it to you, but there are restrictions associated with executive pay in the context of this type of thing. And I could drum up some more restrictions. Like, for example, the charity cannot be created by the grantor or any relatives and the charity cannot give money to or be run by the grantor or any relatives.

Wait, so your physical property is not taxed because it's not a liquid asset?

1. Suppose Mr. MoneyBags has used up his $5 million exemption.
2. Then, he gifts Mr. MoneyBags Jr. $1,000,000.
3. What happens next?
4a. The government taxes Mr. MoneyBags Jr. 100% on the $1 million, or
4b. the $1 million is taxed at 38% (i.e. taxed as income)?

Because if it's 4b, then obviously, I've avoided the 100% estate tax. If we choose 4a, then what? The government demands 100% of the money--even before Mr. MoneyBags dies?

4a is the correct answer.

Who is the government or TGD to decided how much heirs should get? Does TGD know what's best for people better than the people themselves?

I think not.....

Do I know what's best for people? No. Does the government know what's best for people? No. How are these questions relevant to this discussion? Unfortunately, we live in the United States, which is a republic, where the government has since the late 18th century made determinations as to what is best for the people. If you would like to live in some other country where you can decide what's best for you in all things, be my guest. Until then, I will think up tax laws so that I can earn as much of my own money as I can without the government taking it. Frankly, I'm perfectly willing to have Joe Richdaddy and his progeny pay estate taxes of 100% so that I may keep 90% of my paycheck, rather than 60%, especially with respect to Joe and his kids having a $5 million exemption.

So, Greekdog, in keeping with the "you didn't earn the inheritance and therefore it's public property stance," what about your body after your death? You didn't earn your body, it was given to you by your parents and upward from there. Should your body be donated (repossessed by the public for public services) to medical science since you are no longer alive?

Just curious about where you set the line at "earned" possessions and how they are dispensed after cessation of life.

-TG

My stance on the body is that it is your own, in keeping with Supreme Court decisions with respect to abortion. The right to privacy should extend beyond death, as far as I'm concerned; but if it doesn't, the right to the free exercise of religion with respect to rites at death should extent past death.

Say u have a wealthy individual. Once he gets to where he wants to be financially he can gift the vast majority of his income so long as he keeps enough for general expenses. That's not breaking any laws and never will be. It would be ludicrous and impossible to legislate that any other gifts fell into someone's estate for IHT. Say this wealthy guy has been given monies to friends and family for 40 years. The estate has little left to pay any IHT so how does it get paid.

Okay, well first, gifts are already taxable over a certain amount (I'm not sure what the amount currently is - I believe somewhere in the range of $1.2 million). In other words, if Joe Richdaddy gives a gift under the current law (not the TGD law, the current law), he is taxed over a certain amount and can only make gifts tax-free of a certain amount on a yearly basis.

Second, I can legislate whatever I want. Under the scenario above, the rich person is already taxable for gifts above the threshhold under the current law (not the TGD law, the current law), so of course it's doable for me to say "you can't give any more than $5 million over the course of your lifetime." It's already done now, it can be done under the TGD plan.

For the lovers and the haters... let me be clear (again) - My primary concern here is that income earners keep more of their own money on a year-to-year basis. My primary concern is not hoarding money or socialism or fairness. Well, I suppose it's fairness. The plan also must be taken in context - my proposal would include cuts to spending and to tax revenue apart from the estate tax. In a bubble, with just a 100% estate tax, of course it's easy to rail against the federal government. In the context of an overall plan to balance the budget, cut spending, and let people take home more of their pay, it's not easy to rail against this plan. And that is why no one has done so. I've yet to see an argument advanced by anyone that the replacement of an income tax with an estate tax, combined with cuts to spending, would not be a good idea. Mets and Frigidus are talking about hoarding; BBS is talking about hoarding; patches is talking about the role of the federal government. None of these things are really relevant.

The question for Mets and Frigidus is this - Would you rather the large estates go largely untaxed (the current law)?
The question for BBS is this - Would you rather the current system stay where it's at?
The question for patches is this - Would you rather the federal government take your current income or the income you would pass on to your progeny, keeping in mind that your argument is in defense of the people who don't actually work for a living (the children of the deceased) who are pretty much receiving welfare and your argument is in defense of aristocracy and is thus very much anti-American?

[patches70]

The question for patches is this - Would you rather the federal government take your current income or the income you would pass on to your progeny,

I answered your question in the spoiler.
So I have a question for you.

Joe Richdaddy (whom you don't know, aren't related to nor have any dealings with) has billions and he dies. Do you have the right to appeal to the government and request that you personally should be entitled to some of that money?

If no, why not?
If yes, why?

show

[thegreekdog]

I do not believe I am entitled to any of his money. In fact, I believe I'm entitled to none of it.

I also believe his children aren't entitled to any of his money.

Spoilers:

(1) "I don't want them to take any of it" is not an acceptable response. There will never be a time in this country, or any other country, where the government takes $0 from you.

(2) Not a strawman, just one of the many arguments one can make for a 100% estate tax.

(3) I'm saying both. Stop taking so much from me and cut your spending AND take it from someone else - who is dead; whose children received the benefit of the money already, without actually receiving the money itself; in a country that is a republic, not an aristocracy.

(4) It's what's best for everyone except those with more than $5 million of liquid assets in their estate upon their death. So pretty much everyone.

The rest:

I'm certainly not a statist. Perhaps you're confused. Our current estate tax and its benefits for those that have the wherewithal to plan is a statist invention and implemented by statist; granted, it is implemented by statists who wish to keep their own money. I think you're confusing "statism that benefits the wealthy" with libertarianism; that seems to be a common occurrence for you. Ultimately, the state is going to take something from its citizens in the form of taxes. My preference is that they take money from the wealthy deceased rather than from the poor, middle clas, and wealthy living people. This is certainly about my greed and the greed of hundreds of millions of Americans. This is about your greed as well. I never made mention of the wealthy individual's greed, however. That was all you my man. The wealthy individual has no need for greed... he's dead.

There are no unintended consequences of my proposal. All consequences are intended. If an estate wishes to provide money to something other than the government, it can certainly do so. If I had a $50 million estate, I could give $45 million to my alma mater or to the United Way or to the Catholic Church, rather than the U.S. federal government. Not only would that ease my mind, but it would provide the benefits to the poor (or whomever I wish) that would otherwise be provided by the government. The children of the deceased have had the benefit of the deceased's wealth throughout their lives and were adequately compensated for the hard work they accomplished being born to the deceased.

The remainder of your post are things I've said before and will say again (rule of law, majority stealing from minority, etc.). Those make for great sound bites. In your lifetime there will not come a point where the US government will be one of "the rule of law" or where the majority doesn't take from the minority.

There was a lot of stuff floating around in your message; mostly rhetoric, which I tend to agree with. I applaud your vehemence and conviction, I just wish you would table that stuff and be realistic.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

My stance on the body is that it is your own, in keeping with Supreme Court decisions with respect to abortion. The right to privacy should extend beyond death, as far as I'm concerned; but if it doesn't, the right to the free exercise of religion with respect to rites at death should extent past death.

K, well then imo you've got two conflicting opinions here. Money, possession, just estate in general is earned or produced by a person and the man hours of physical and mental labor or financial risk one assumes to "make money." The estate is produced by the sweat of one's brow, or however the saying goes, and is therefore a part of your body, your life force, for lack of a better term as I've not slept tonight. Everything that Joe Wealthy made throughout his life, be it through physical labor (lol yeah right) or facing financial ruin (stock market) is a piece of him because of the amount of his finite life that he used to secure the wealth.

When you say that you can't pass on your estate and that it should be used for the public benefit, you therefore say that the means used to secure that estate is public property as well as the body that produced it. If Joe Wealthy cannot pass on his estate to his children or slutty mistress after he keels over, then he can't determine his burial rites either.

Hope this comes out clear, but I didn't sleep tonight. You'll get the gist of it, I'm sure.

-TG

[thegreekdog]

My stance on the body is that it is your own, in keeping with Supreme Court decisions with respect to abortion. The right to privacy should extend beyond death, as far as I'm concerned; but if it doesn't, the right to the free exercise of religion with respect to rites at death should extent past death.

K, well then imo you've got two conflicting opinions here. Money, possession, just estate in general is earned or produced by a person and the man hours of physical and mental labor or financial risk one assumes to "make money." The estate is produced by the sweat of one's brow, or however the saying goes, and is therefore a part of your body, your life force, for lack of a better term as I've not slept tonight. Everything that Joe Wealthy made throughout his life, be it through physical labor (lol yeah right) or facing financial ruin (stock market) is a piece of him because of the amount of his finite life that he used to secure the wealth.

When you say that you can't pass on your estate and that it should be used for the public benefit, you therefore say that the means used to secure that estate is public property as well as the body that produced it. If Joe Wealthy cannot pass on his estate to his children or slutty mistress after he keels over, then he can't determine his burial rites either.

Hope this comes out clear, but I didn't sleep tonight. You'll get the gist of it, I'm sure.

-TG

Don't disagree with any of that. If we look at it from a "TGD is selfish" perspective (which I am), I'm saying the government's going to get some money from people; my preferred way is to tax the estate (over $5 million) rather than taxing me. I don't know if there is a lack of available bodies for science or organ donation (I suspect there are), nor do I care.

If I want to be evasive, I'll just point to the Constitution (and parachute out of the argument that way). There is also not a constitutional amendment dealing with being able to pass on your money after death, while there is one that deals with freedom of religion, which likely involves the disposal of one's body upon death.

[thegreekdog]

My stance on the body is that it is your own, in keeping with Supreme Court decisions with respect to abortion. The right to privacy should extend beyond death, as far as I'm concerned; but if it doesn't, the right to the free exercise of religion with respect to rites at death should extent past death.

K, well then imo you've got two conflicting opinions here. Money, possession, just estate in general is earned or produced by a person and the man hours of physical and mental labor or financial risk one assumes to "make money." The estate is produced by the sweat of one's brow, or however the saying goes, and is therefore a part of your body, your life force, for lack of a better term as I've not slept tonight. Everything that Joe Wealthy made throughout his life, be it through physical labor (lol yeah right) or facing financial ruin (stock market) is a piece of him because of the amount of his finite life that he used to secure the wealth.

When you say that you can't pass on your estate and that it should be used for the public benefit, you therefore say that the means used to secure that estate is public property as well as the body that produced it. If Joe Wealthy cannot pass on his estate to his children or slutty mistress after he keels over, then he can't determine his burial rites either.

Hope this comes out clear, but I didn't sleep tonight. You'll get the gist of it, I'm sure.

-TG

Don't disagree with any of that. If we look at it from a "TGD is selfish" perspective (which I am), I'm saying the government's going to get some money from people; my preferred way is to tax the estate (over $5 million) rather than taxing me. I don't know if there is a lack of available bodies for science or organ donation (I suspect there are), nor do I care.

If I want to be evasive, I'll just point to the Constitution (and parachute out of the argument that way). There is also not a constitutional amendment dealing with being able to pass on your money after death, while there is one that deals with freedom of religion, which likely involves the disposal of one's body upon death.

[patches70]

I do not believe I am entitled to any of his money. In fact, I believe I'm entitled to none of it.

Well, then, if you are not entitled to any of that money, then how can the government be entitled to it to give to many unknown persons who are just as not entitled to that money as yourself?

That's what you are saying with the 100% estate tax, that it will be taken and redistributed to people who were never entitled to any of that money.
How is that they are entitled to it now?

[Metsfanmax]

I do not believe I am entitled to any of his money. In fact, I believe I'm entitled to none of it.

Well, then, if you are not entitled to any of that money, then how can the government be entitled to it to give to many unknown persons who are just as not entitled to that money as yourself?

That's what you are saying with the 100% estate tax, that it will be taken and redistributed to people who were never entitled to any of that money.
How is that they are entitled to it now?

How is a second cousin who never even met the deceased entitled to it now?

[thegreekdog]

I do not believe I am entitled to any of his money. In fact, I believe I'm entitled to none of it.

Well, then, if you are not entitled to any of that money, then how can the government be entitled to it to give to many unknown persons who are just as not entitled to that money as yourself?

That's what you are saying with the 100% estate tax, that it will be taken and redistributed to people who were never entitled to any of that money.
How is that they are entitled to it now?

How is a second cousin who never even met the deceased entitled to it now?

I think the better question for patches is how is patches entitled to TGD's income? Because he's arguing in favor of the status quo, he must think that it is better for the government to take my income than the deceased's income.

[patches70]

I do not believe I am entitled to any of his money. In fact, I believe I'm entitled to none of it.

Well, then, if you are not entitled to any of that money, then how can the government be entitled to it to give to many unknown persons who are just as not entitled to that money as yourself?

That's what you are saying with the 100% estate tax, that it will be taken and redistributed to people who were never entitled to any of that money.
How is that they are entitled to it now?

I think the better question for patches is how is patches entitled to TGD's income? Because he's arguing in favor of the status quo, he must think that it is better for the government to take my income than the deceased's income.

So, you're not going to answer the question, then? Here it is again-

Well, then, if you are not entitled to any of that money, then how can the government be entitled to it to give to many unknown persons who are just as not entitled to that money as yourself?

[patches70]

Oh, and BTW, you said this about the heir's children-

I also believe his children aren't entitled to any of his money.

Which is a contradiction on your part. They have some sort of legitimate claim because you are all willing to magnanimously let them have up to $5 million. So apparently the children do have some claim, by your own admission. And also by your admission you have zero claim.

[thegreekdog]

I do not believe I am entitled to any of his money. In fact, I believe I'm entitled to none of it.

Well, then, if you are not entitled to any of that money, then how can the government be entitled to it to give to many unknown persons who are just as not entitled to that money as yourself?

That's what you are saying with the 100% estate tax, that it will be taken and redistributed to people who were never entitled to any of that money.
How is that they are entitled to it now?

I think the better question for patches is how is patches entitled to TGD's income? Because he's arguing in favor of the status quo, he must think that it is better for the government to take my income than the deceased's income.

So, you're not going to answer the question, then? Here it is again-

Well, then, if you are not entitled to any of that money, then how can the government be entitled to it to give to many unknown persons who are just as not entitled to that money as yourself?

I did answer the question a few posts ago.

I do not believe I am entitled to any of his money. In fact, I believe I'm entitled to none of it.

I also believe his children aren't entitled to any of his money.

[thegreekdog]

Oh, and BTW, you said this about the heir's children-

I also believe his children aren't entitled to any of his money.

Which is a contradiction on your part. They have some sort of legitimate claim because you are all willing to magnanimously let them have up to $5 million. So apparently the children do have some claim, by your own admission. And also by your admission you have zero claim.

Ironically, that post was in the same place where I answered your question. I mean, say what you want, but I answered your questions dude.

We can make the exemption $0 if that would mollify your accusation of contradiction. Ultimately, the purpose of the exemption was to avoid the taxation of estates where the benefit to the children would be material.

I feel like you're angry. Why are you so angry? Of all the taxes we can and do have, why does the estate tax anger you the most?

[Night Strike]

I feel like you're angry. Why are you so angry? Of all the taxes we can and do have, why does the estate tax anger you the most?

Because the people have already worked to amass that wealth using after-tax dollars and we don't think the government then has the right to just come and take it all away. If they can take it all away after death, what's stopping them from taking it all before death?

[AndyDufresne]

I feel like you're angry. Why are you so angry? Of all the taxes we can and do have, why does the estate tax anger you the most?

Because the people have already worked to amass that wealth using after-tax dollars and we don't think the government then has the right to just come and take it all away. If they can take it all away after death, what's stopping them from taking it all before death?

Or even before it is ever earned?

Wait a minute. I think they've already been taking away everyone's money before it is even earned. I feel like I should have more dollars than I do in my pocket. I think they took it away before I earned what I think I thought I should have.


--Andy