There is no Death tax

[vonork]

Something that’s repeated does not have to be true. So make one thing clear there is no death tax. To give you an example of a what IS, and what perhaps could be called a death tax.

Ex: Frank Dies and leaves to a value of $100 000 to his son, he also have a debt on $10 000.

So what happens, well the debt is played, that leaves $90 000, that is paid out to his son. Here comes the hard part, this is an INCOME to his son and that is taxed. Say tax 30% then the son get $63 000.

IF it was a death tax the tax would be paid before any debt was cleared. (tax and debt as above would give the son $60 000 - however that would then prob be tax as income to say 30% an then he would get $49 000)

 

[stormbind]

And being given $49 000 causes death because?

 

[SeleucusNicator]

"Death tax" is rhetoric used by Bush to make this tax sound evil with the intent of stirring support for his elimination of it.

Are you seriously expecting political rhetoric to not be misleading?

 

[AVN]

Something that’s repeated does not have to be true. So make one thing clear there is no death tax. To give you an example of a what IS, and what perhaps could be called a death tax.

Ex: Frank Dies and leaves to a value of $100 000 to his son, he also have a debt on $10 000.

So what happens, well the debt is played, that leaves $90 000, that is paid out to his son. Here comes the hard part, this is an INCOME to his son and that is taxed. Say tax 30% then the son get $63 000.

IF it was a death tax the tax would be paid before any debt was cleared. (tax and debt as above would give the son only $49 000)

How do you get that figure of $49000 ?
If the tax is paid first, the son will get $100000 - $ 30000 (tax) = $ 70000
Of course then he has to pay the debt of $ 10000. So in the end he will have $ 60000. Or am I making some mistake ?

 

[vonork]

How do you get that figure of $49000 ?
If the tax is paid first, the son will get $100000 - $ 30000 (tax) = $ 70000
Of course then he has to pay the debt of $ 10000. So in the end he will have $ 60000. Or am I making some mistake ?

Now you are correct, I assumed but missed to spell it out that the son still has to pay an income tax of 30%

Post edit

However that would NOT be a dubble taxation, also an missused term.

 

[EdwardTking]

There is a death tax and it is at 100%.

Because when you die, you can not take your money with you.

And there is nothing that President Bush can do about that!

 

[Hitro]

"Death tax" is rhetoric used by Bush to make this tax sound evil with the intent of stirring support for his elimination of it.

Are you seriously expecting political rhetoric to not be misleading?

I have to agree, I don't see the point.

Obviously this is just political rhetoric, of course a dead person can't pay taxes.

 

[ainwood]

It is tax paid on any monies or assets being transferred as inheritance.

In NZ, interestingly enough, we do have this, however it is set at exactly 0%. This being because it is easier to change the rate than it is to abolish / reinstate it via legislation.

 

[Azadre]

I like the idea of an estate tax.

 

[ainwood]

I like the idea of an estate tax.

I like the idea that the fruits of may hard labour, that are taxed as I earn them, don't get taxed again when I die. Therefore, I don't need to 'avoid' the tax by gifting all my assets to my next-of-kin, and they can get the full benefit of them.

 

[Azadre]

I like the idea that the fruits of may hard labour, that are taxed as I earn them, don't get taxed again when I die. Therefore, I don't need to 'avoid' the tax by gifting all my assets to my next-of-kin, and they can get the full benefit of them.

I believe the percentages are very low though. So it'd be like dollars for the middle class. If I am wrong on this, point me to some charts.

 

[AVN]

I like the idea that the fruits of may hard labour, that are taxed as I earn them, don't get taxed again when I die. Therefore, I don't need to 'avoid' the tax by gifting all my assets to my next-of-kin, and they can get the full benefit of them.

Sorry, but why should they get a benefit, a better start in life than others.
I don't see that, but maybe you can elaborate on that point

 

[ainwood]

I believe the percentages are very low though. So it'd be like dollars for the middle class. If I am wrong on this, point me to some charts.

I'm not interested enough in the details, and I'm not subject to US law.

The principle bothers me though. What is the possible justification for them?

 

[Azadre]

I'm not interested enough in the details, and I'm not subject to US law.

The principle bothers me though. What is the possible justification for them?

To prevent the Hilton sisters from being born to never have to work a day.

 

[ainwood]

Sorry, but why should they get a benefit, a better start in life than others.
I don't see that, but maybe you can elaborate on that point

Why should they not? You spend your entire life working hard, in order to provide for your family. It is the governments way of saying that you can be the provider in life, but not in death.'

As for the 'better start in life' this applies to everyone.

 

[ainwood]

To prevent the Hilton sisters from being born to never have to work a day.

Ahh! Tall poppy syndrome!

For every Hilton empire there is 1000 blue-collar workers who work hard to provide for their families.

 

[Sarevok]

They should not have any form of a death tax, its just a stupid idea.

 

[Richard Cribb]

Ahh! Tall poppy syndrome!.

Ouch! Pseudo-psychology! :thumbdown Perfect strategy for the privileged, patologizing everybody who out of more egalitarian convictions, dares to question their priviliges. Needless to say, this sort of debate-technique says more about those who uses such terms, than it does about those "diagnozed".

For every Hilton empire there is 1000 blue-collar workers who work hard to provide for their families.

Yes, at least. But that is two different cathegories, which should be dealt with accordingly different. There is a difference between what you have gained as a fruit of your labour (the blue-collars) and what you gained as the fruit of many other people's labour (e.g the Hiltons). That is the difference between possession and private property. And while the first should be inheritable, the second should not.

I like the idea of an estate tax.

And so do I. The more, the merrier. But it should be progressive, of course.

And with that I am out of this thread, I see absolutely no point in discussing this any further on the premises presented here.

 

[vonork]

It is tax paid on any monies or assets being transferred as inheritance.

Did you read my post?

 

[Sweeney Todd]

What's all this rubbish about death tax?

That's proposterous. Money that doesn't change hands, and isn't a component of this year's income or apart of any previous year's income that went unclaimed cannot be taxed. If the son inherits the €90,000 after all debts have been cleared, and to avoid tax, his father should have invested the money in stock (bonds, company shares etc, but not cash).

My best advice would be for the father to buy properties (not just one, but parts of many properties). Then the son could sell each property share and be exempt from tax as this would be considered taxable by capital gains tax, and as I'm aware, there is a threshold as to how much you can earn before you start paying capital gains.