Estate Tax... Again! Woo!!

[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?

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

They didn't start taking it from a person's earnings until 1913. And once the remainder belongs to the person, the government cannot take it without due process.

[thegreekdog]

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?

Of for the love of...

Night Strike, your choices are as follows:

(1) All taxes stay where they are.
(2) Taxes on ordinary income decrease, taxes on estates increase.
(3) You leave the country.

There is currently no choice on of "all taxes are reduced to nil." Again, I applaud your rhetoric and agree with it, but let's at least live in some semblance of the real world (where a 100% estate tax is possible, but no taxes for anyone is not possible).

[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?

Of for the love of...

Night Strike, your choices are as follows:

(1) All taxes stay where they are.
(2) Taxes on ordinary income decrease, taxes on estates increase.
(3) You leave the country.

There is currently no choice on of "all taxes are reduced to nil." Again, I applaud your rhetoric and agree with it, but let's at least live in some semblance of the real world (where a 100% estate tax is possible, but no taxes for anyone is not possible).

You're leaving out many options. My choice is actually to remove all income and estate taxes and replace them with consumption/sales taxes. The federal government should only be receiving money on commerce since that's what they're tasked to regulate. It's not their role to regulate wages.

[thegreekdog]

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?

Of for the love of...

Night Strike, your choices are as follows:

(1) All taxes stay where they are.
(2) Taxes on ordinary income decrease, taxes on estates increase.
(3) You leave the country.

There is currently no choice on of "all taxes are reduced to nil." Again, I applaud your rhetoric and agree with it, but let's at least live in some semblance of the real world (where a 100% estate tax is possible, but no taxes for anyone is not possible).

You're leaving out many options. My choice is actually to remove all income and estate taxes and replace them with consumption/sales taxes. The federal government should only be receiving money on commerce since that's what they're tasked to regulate. It's not their role to regulate wages.

I thought about a national sales tax and I agree it fits into constitutional principles.

However, it would be killer to the economy. Absolutely killer.

Additionally, to the extent that there are exemptions or exclusions, it is ripe for rent-seeking like no other tax.

Additionally, additionally, the way sales taxes work on a state basis is that the burden of the sales tax falls to the ultimate consumer, which tends to be people like me. So, for selfish reasons, nuh uh.

[AndyDufresne]

Additionally, additionally, the way sales taxes work on a state basis is that the burden of the sales tax falls to the ultimate consumer, which tends to be people like me. So, for selfish reasons, nuh uh.

I agree with TGD's nuh uh.


--Andy

[Night Strike]

I thought about a national sales tax and I agree it fits into constitutional principles.

However, it would be killer to the economy. Absolutely killer.

Additionally, to the extent that there are exemptions or exclusions, it is ripe for rent-seeking like no other tax.

Additionally, additionally, the way sales taxes work on a state basis is that the burden of the sales tax falls to the ultimate consumer, which tends to be people like me. So, for selfish reasons, nuh uh.

What would be killer about it? Because people wouldn't go out and buy a bunch of stuff to run up debt? It wouldn't be killer because of people having less money. They would get an immediate pay increase by no longer having 6.2% Social Security, 1.45% Medicare (higher for some due to Obamacare), and 5+% income (based on exemptions) taxes withheld from a paycheck. Those alone are a minimum pay increase of almost 12%. I would also include in the legislation that the employer portion of those first two taxes should be paid out to the employee (currently going to the government), which would give employees another almost 8% in pay (it would also help address the cries for a higher minimum wage). That's almost a 20% increase in pay for every employee. Getting rid of the business taxes would also provide the opportunity to lower prices, which would further save consumers money (and cause them to pay less in sales taxes).

At that point, we institute a 17-20% sales tax on all goods and services sold in the country, with modifications and exemptions requiring 2/3 majority votes to enact. This tax would not apply to debt payments, giving an incentive to people to get out of their personal debts.

And overall, I don't see how this wouldn't be a boon for individuals and the economy. I personally pay about 1/3 or more of our take home pay in student loans and our rent. So while my overall income would increase by about 20%, I'd only be paying higher taxes on a maximum of 2/3 of my current income, which would still lead to a pay increase for myself. And I'm guessing a lot of people are in a similar situation as me or even pay more on debts.

[AndyDufresne]

TGD, I'll let you take this one, because my willing (and likely able) analysis goes as far as my agreement with your nuh uh.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

There is currently no choice on of "all taxes are reduced to nil." Again, I applaud your rhetoric and agree with it, but let's at least live in some semblance of the real world (where a 100% estate tax is possible, but no taxes for anyone is not possible).

Therefore, your hypothetical laws can be summarily dismissed.

Thanks, TGD!

[PLAYER57832]

I thought about a national sales tax and I agree it fits into constitutional principles.

However, it would be killer to the economy. Absolutely killer.

Additionally, to the extent that there are exemptions or exclusions, it is ripe for rent-seeking like no other tax.

Additionally, additionally, the way sales taxes work on a state basis is that the burden of the sales tax falls to the ultimate consumer, which tends to be people like me. So, for selfish reasons, nuh uh.

What would be killer about it? Because people wouldn't go out and buy a bunch of stuff to run up debt? It wouldn't be killer because of people having less money. They would get an immediate pay increase by no longer having 6.2% Social Security, 1.45% Medicare (higher for some due to Obamacare), and 5+% income (based on exemptions) taxes withheld from a paycheck. Those alone are a minimum pay increase of almost 12%. I would also include in the legislation that the employer portion of those first two taxes should be paid out to the employee (currently going to the government), which would give employees another almost 8% in pay (it would also help address the cries for a higher minimum wage). That's almost a 20% increase in pay for every employee.

A 20% increase, but no security in reitrement, no healthcare coverage... this is like a kid who wants his car today instead of saving for college tommorrow.

It will work if you have a very high-paying job, over 100K or so, or happen to have a wealthy daddy to fall back on. For the rest of society, Social security works and universal medical coverage, such as they have in every other developed and some not so developed countries would work if folks like you were not too terrified of the word "socialism" to even think straight about it.

[thegreekdog]

There is currently no choice on of "all taxes are reduced to nil." Again, I applaud your rhetoric and agree with it, but let's at least live in some semblance of the real world (where a 100% estate tax is possible, but no taxes for anyone is not possible).

Therefore, your hypothetical laws can be summarily dismissed.

Thanks, TGD!

It's a tightrope I walk. And I've apparently fallen off.

[thegreekdog]

I thought about a national sales tax and I agree it fits into constitutional principles.

However, it would be killer to the economy. Absolutely killer.

Additionally, to the extent that there are exemptions or exclusions, it is ripe for rent-seeking like no other tax.

Additionally, additionally, the way sales taxes work on a state basis is that the burden of the sales tax falls to the ultimate consumer, which tends to be people like me. So, for selfish reasons, nuh uh.

What would be killer about it? Because people wouldn't go out and buy a bunch of stuff to run up debt? It wouldn't be killer because of people having less money. They would get an immediate pay increase by no longer having 6.2% Social Security, 1.45% Medicare (higher for some due to Obamacare), and 5+% income (based on exemptions) taxes withheld from a paycheck. Those alone are a minimum pay increase of almost 12%. I would also include in the legislation that the employer portion of those first two taxes should be paid out to the employee (currently going to the government), which would give employees another almost 8% in pay (it would also help address the cries for a higher minimum wage). That's almost a 20% increase in pay for every employee. Getting rid of the business taxes would also provide the opportunity to lower prices, which would further save consumers money (and cause them to pay less in sales taxes).

At that point, we institute a 17-20% sales tax on all goods and services sold in the country, with modifications and exemptions requiring 2/3 majority votes to enact. This tax would not apply to debt payments, giving an incentive to people to get out of their personal debts.

And overall, I don't see how this wouldn't be a boon for individuals and the economy. I personally pay about 1/3 or more of our take home pay in student loans and our rent. So while my overall income would increase by about 20%, I'd only be paying higher taxes on a maximum of 2/3 of my current income, which would still lead to a pay increase for myself. And I'm guessing a lot of people are in a similar situation as me or even pay more on debts.

Woah... a 20% national sales tax?!?!!

Is there currently a disincentive for you to work because you don't want to pay a 25% to 35% tax rate on your income?
Would there be a disincentive for you to purchase a car because you don't want to pay a 20% national sales tax?

[BigBallinStalin]

There is currently no choice on of "all taxes are reduced to nil." Again, I applaud your rhetoric and agree with it, but let's at least live in some semblance of the real world (where a 100% estate tax is possible, but no taxes for anyone is not possible).

Therefore, your hypothetical laws can be summarily dismissed.

Thanks, TGD!

It's a tightrope I walk. And I've apparently fallen off.

James Buchanan, co-founder of Public Choice, may catch you. He supported a 100% inheritance tax, but I'm having trouble finding the citation (10 minutes googling, found some interesting stuff, but not his article/chapter on 100% inheritance tax).

[Night Strike]

A 20% increase, but no security in reitrement, no healthcare coverage... this is like a kid who wants his car today instead of saving for college tommorrow.

Where did I say that those programs were eliminated simply because you couldn't fund them from income taxes? Don't worry, you progressives will still be able to funnel the sales tax money into your welfare state.

Woah... a 20% national sales tax?!?!!

Is there currently a disincentive for you to work because you don't want to pay a 25% to 35% tax rate on your income?
Would there be a disincentive for you to purchase a car because you don't want to pay a 20% national sales tax?

Studies have stated that an approximately 17-20% sales tax would be required to provide the same tax revenues if it replaced every single income, estate, and corporate tax. Every person would have more money in their pockets, but if they still chose not to buy the new car because of the tax, then that would be their choice.

[thegreekdog]

Studies have stated that an approximately 17-20% sales tax would be required to provide the same tax revenues if it replaced every single income, estate, and corporate tax. Every person would have more money in their pockets, but if they still chose not to buy the new car because of the tax, then that would be their choice.

Interesting take. I need to think about it some more.

[Night Strike]

Studies have stated that an approximately 17-20% sales tax would be required to provide the same tax revenues if it replaced every single income, estate, and corporate tax. Every person would have more money in their pockets, but if they still chose not to buy the new car because of the tax, then that would be their choice.

Interesting take. I need to think about it some more.

Looks like the most popular plan (according to wiki) operates on a 23% inclusive tax rate, which would be a 30% sales tax rate as calculated today. However, it also includes the pre-bate payments to poorer families to offset the higher costs. As an addendum, businesses would not be exempt from paying taxes on end-use items such as office supplies, electronics, vehicles, etc. I don't know if a VAT should be included for the manufacturing materials (I know we need more manufacturing, so it might be best to not have that tax). About.com has a decent informational article about Fair tax.

[thegreekdog]

Studies have stated that an approximately 17-20% sales tax would be required to provide the same tax revenues if it replaced every single income, estate, and corporate tax. Every person would have more money in their pockets, but if they still chose not to buy the new car because of the tax, then that would be their choice.

Interesting take. I need to think about it some more.

Looks like the most popular plan (according to wiki) operates on a 23% inclusive tax rate, which would be a 30% sales tax rate as calculated today. However, it also includes the pre-bate payments to poorer families to offset the higher costs. As an addendum, businesses would not be exempt from paying taxes on end-use items such as office supplies, electronics, vehicles, etc. I don't know if a VAT should be included for the manufacturing materials (I know we need more manufacturing, so it might be best to not have that tax). About.com has a decent informational article about Fair tax.

I am going to read more and get back to you. My initial reaction remains "bad for the economy."

[AndyDufresne]

Studies have stated that an approximately 17-20% sales tax would be required to provide the same tax revenues if it replaced every single income, estate, and corporate tax. Every person would have more money in their pockets, but if they still chose not to buy the new car because of the tax, then that would be their choice.

Interesting take. I need to think about it some more.

Looks like the most popular plan (according to wiki) operates on a 23% inclusive tax rate, which would be a 30% sales tax rate as calculated today. However, it also includes the pre-bate payments to poorer families to offset the higher costs. As an addendum, businesses would not be exempt from paying taxes on end-use items such as office supplies, electronics, vehicles, etc. I don't know if a VAT should be included for the manufacturing materials (I know we need more manufacturing, so it might be best to not have that tax). About.com has a decent informational article about Fair tax.

I am going to read more and get back to you. My initial reaction remains "bad for the economy."

I'd probably just start buying goods from shady dealers in back Canadian alleys, and start up a moonshine like smuggling operation across the border.


--Andy

[Metsfanmax]

Studies have stated that an approximately 17-20% sales tax would be required to provide the same tax revenues if it replaced every single income, estate, and corporate tax. Every person would have more money in their pockets, but if they still chose not to buy the new car because of the tax, then that would be their choice.

If the policy is indeed designed correctly so that it pulls in the same tax revenue as before, then no -- on average, people will not have more money in their pockets.

[BigBallinStalin]

Studies have stated that an approximately 17-20% sales tax would be required to provide the same tax revenues if it replaced every single income, estate, and corporate tax. Every person would have more money in their pockets, but if they still chose not to buy the new car because of the tax, then that would be their choice.

If the policy is indeed designed correctly so that it pulls in the same tax revenue as before, then no -- on average, people will not have more money in their pockets.

How do you know?
(Do different taxes affect different industries in various ways?)

[Lootifer]

ITS A TRAP!

[BigBallinStalin]

Studies have stated that an approximately 17-20% sales tax would be required to provide the same tax revenues if it replaced every single income, estate, and corporate tax. Every person would have more money in their pockets, but if they still chose not to buy the new car because of the tax, then that would be their choice.

If the policy is indeed designed correctly so that it pulls in the same tax revenue as before, then no -- on average, people will not have more money in their pockets.

How do you know?
(Do different taxes affect different industries in various ways?)

[PLAYER57832]

A 20% increase, but no security in reitrement, no healthcare coverage... this is like a kid who wants his car today instead of saving for college tommorrow.

Where did I say that those programs were eliminated simply because you couldn't fund them from income taxes? Don't worry, you progressives will still be able to funnel the sales tax money into your welfare state.

I see, so according to you having a gauranteed retirement program, instead of relying upon the vagaries of the market is a "welfare state"?

And as to where those programs would be eliminated.... you have repeatedly mentioned how honerous & destructive ALL of these programs are.

Of course, the only example you give talks about single moms with multiple kids... exaggerated even at that and you generally neglect that most of us want to see reform on that end.

[BigBallinStalin]

I paid much tax for property of Arizona. Come now to Arizona Swift Dealers Anonymous. They will get you estate if you don't understand!

[loutil]

I always enjoy discussions were people who do not have money like to talk about how they can take away from people who do. I believe it was Margaret Thatcher who said "socialism works until you run out of other peoples money to spend."
I happen to be a person of significant means. I started a company 19 years ago and have enjoyed a large measure of success. Why should the government be entitled to my hard work when I die? I have already paid $millions in taxes. When is enough enough? I should be able to choose what happens to my wealth as it was ME who earned it. It is people like me that makes the free market system work. I have 48 people working for me. I invest in markets that provide capital and liquidity into the system. I travel the world often. It is rather pathetic when some suggest I do not pay my fair share. Especially when so many pay NOTHING....