Vox article on inheritance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

So you’re saying that we should replace the estate tax with a carryover basis? I’d be fine with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

So you’re saying that we should replace the estate tax with a carryover basis? I’d be fine with that.

No, I don't support that. How about we just tax estates like all other income/investments? No step up in basis on death on capital gains. Apply current tax rates. Simple. Fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

So you’re saying that we should replace the estate tax with a carryover basis? I’d be fine with that.

No, I don't support that. How about we just tax estates like all other income/investments? No step up in basis on death on capital gains. Apply current tax rates. Simple. Fair.

And force the estate into liquidation? Dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

So you’re saying that we should replace the estate tax with a carryover basis? I’d be fine with that.

No, I don't support that. How about we just tax estates like all other income/investments? No step up in basis on death on capital gains. Apply current tax rates. Simple. Fair.

And force the estate into liquidation? Dumb.

Simple and fair is dumb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

So you’re saying that we should replace the estate tax with a carryover basis? I’d be fine with that.

No, I don't support that. How about we just tax estates like all other income/investments? No step up in basis on death on capital gains. Apply current tax rates. Simple. Fair.

And force the estate into liquidation? Dumb.

People who divorce often have to liquidate some of their assets. Why do heirs and heiresses get an exception?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

So you’re saying that we should replace the estate tax with a carryover basis? I’d be fine with that.

No, I don't support that. How about we just tax estates like all other income/investments? No step up in basis on death on capital gains. Apply current tax rates. Simple. Fair.

Well if we treated estates like other income there would be a step up. When I buy a stock, my basis is my purchase price not the purchase price of the seller. As I understand you, you want an inheritance to be treated as income to the heir. So the heir would pay income tax on the value when inherited, and if later sold would pay income tax on any increase in value from the time he inherited to the time he sold. Your proposal would probably be a net tax decrease for gigantic estates and would definitely be a tax increase for small estates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

They did pay back society in taxes and likely job creation.
You sound bitter and insane.
You also might want to read some reasonably sound books on economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boomers who have achieved wealth are likely to die with a lot because of the way we handle elder care. They’ve saved a ton to try to protect themselves from a bad nursing home, and if they don’t end up needing long term care, they don’t get a chance to spend it.

Both my grandmothers spent a long time in nursing homes so my parents have long-term care insurance plus large savings. My dad just died at home. He never had to go to a nursing home and his only hospital stay was less than a week about 2 months ago. My mom is in reasonably good health and going to live with my sister so, hopefully, can live at home a long time. So, we're likely to end up with a significant inheritance but it was also possible, given family history, that one or both could have had Alzheimer's and expensive long term care, even beyond what their insurance would cover.

[Anonymous]

Fewer than 1 in 20 inherit $500k .... that’s not much imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

So you’re saying that we should replace the estate tax with a carryover basis? I’d be fine with that.

No, I don't support that. How about we just tax estates like all other income/investments? No step up in basis on death on capital gains. Apply current tax rates. Simple. Fair.

Well if we treated estates like other income there would be a step up. When I buy a stock, my basis is my purchase price not the purchase price of the seller. As I understand you, you want an inheritance to be treated as income to the heir. So the heir would pay income tax on the value when inherited, and if later sold would pay income tax on any increase in value from the time he inherited to the time he sold. Your proposal would probably be a net tax decrease for gigantic estates and would definitely be a tax increase for small estates.

Dead parents aren't selling their stock to their children. They are giving it. The basis of the stock is the purchase price. It doesn't make sense to step up the basis on death. It's a giveaway to heirs and heiresses. I think capital gains should be taxed the same for all. No capital gains tax breaks for heirs and heiresses.

Yep, I'm in favor of a flatter estate tax, even if that is a benefit to huge estates. I suspect most huge estates avoid most of these taxes anyway through careful planning. Only about 1000 estates reach the estate tax exemption each year. I would bet many, many more pass on millions under the threshold. If you have any data, please share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

They did pay back society in taxes and likely job creation.
You sound bitter and insane.
You also might want to read some reasonably sound books on economics.

How about we don't base our tax code on "likely."? I would support some type of tax credit for job creation. But that doesn't exist now. So no tax breaks for "likely job creation."

[Anonymous]

This is all so dependent on the family situation.

Barring unforeseen massive medical expenses (which certainly could happen), my sister and I are set to inherit a couple million dollars each + a fully paid off apartment in a pre-war building in Manhattan. Clearly we are exceptionally privileged.

That said, I do think we both have worked hard. My sister is a college professor and I’m a public servant. I don’t think we’ve taken our privilege for granted.

My parents did not come from money. My dad grew up middle class on Long Island, but his parents didn’t give him a penny after he turned 14. He was told to just go out and figure out how to make money. He got his first job from a friend who worked at a movie theatre, who was willing to look the other way around the fact that my dad wasn’t 16 yet (things were different in the late 60s).

My mom grew up working class in Queens (my grandma was a waitress and my grandpa was a glass blower). My mom was first in her family to go to college. My dad’s dad did go to college, but wouldn’t pay for my dad to go, so my dad got a scholarship.

They went to a law school ranked around 100, but graduated on the law review and both got excellent jobs. My mom stopped working when my sister and I were little, and my dad has worked his butt off as a lawyer for the last 40 years. Yes, he’s made a lot of money doing it, but he worked really hard at a job he did not like, to provide for his family.

So are my sister and I privileged? For sure.

Was there a lot of hard work involved? Absolutely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People whose parents were prudent with money dont “deserve” it but their parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids.

No they don't.

Society helped those parents make what they made. In many cases, those parents got a big head start from their own inheritance – they didn't do it alone. And even if they started from absolute zero, they built a business using roads that society paid for, with workers that society educated, in a peaceful and rule-of-law based society that government agencies and police departments created. Those parents benefited from society and they should pay back to society. Take what they earned and tax it, and make an equal playing field for more kids. No silver spoons for lazy, rich, entitled offspring.

And they paid taxes on everything every step of the way. Probably paid more in taxes than their dummer, lazier, less lucky etc, etc, etc counterparts. Those roads they used, on a relative basis, they probably paid for more of them. If they were successful, it’s idiotic to assume they used any government services for free. In fact, it’s the lumps who pay low taxes and create little value who should get punished. In my book, you create x number of jobs, pay x amount of taxes etc and you should be off the hook entirely for any estate taxes (which remember, are a tax on already taxed assets). Take out teachers, first responders, military and some healthcare/doctors and then publish everyone else’s overall contributions in taxes, charity, jobs created, etc and tout the successful and scorn the drips. And I am a youngish person with NO hope of receiving any resources via inheritance.

Let's assume all this is true. (I don't agree with much of it, but for the sale of argument . . . ) A trigger point (probably the most common one) for paying taxes in the US is the transfer of money or assets. You work, get paid, your employer transfers a salary to you, you pay taxes on it. You buy something at the store, the store pays taxes on the money it receives. You sell stocks or mutual funds, you pay taxes on your profit. Why should inheritance be reated any differently? Like it or not, it is a transfer of money or assets - why shoudn't it be taxed?

You say it is "a tax on already taxed assets" - that's true for virtually any asset. The money my employer pays me that I pay income taxes on? They already paid taxes on that. The money I pay to a store to buy groceries? I already paid taxes on that. Yes, a decedent already paid taxes in his or her estate - but the heirs didn't. Why shouldn't they?

A PP wrote, "parents deserve to pass on what they earned and saved and planned for their kids." First, many heirs aren't kids. But more fundamentally, why should they be able to pass it along tax free? I'm all for a reasonabel exemption, but $10m? Imagine if everyone could exempt the first $10m of wages from their income taxes.

It is taxed. That’s what the estate tax does. It taxes the transfer of assets at death.

Not for estates less than $11 million (or $22 million for a couple). Also the step up in basis on capital gains on death lets possibly huge sums of capital gains go untaxed. I have to pay capital gains on my investments? Why do heirs and heiresses get a tax break?

So you’re saying that we should replace the estate tax with a carryover basis? I’d be fine with that.

No, I don't support that. How about we just tax estates like all other income/investments? No step up in basis on death on capital gains. Apply current tax rates. Simple. Fair.

Well if we treated estates like other income there would be a step up. When I buy a stock, my basis is my purchase price not the purchase price of the seller. As I understand you, you want an inheritance to be treated as income to the heir. So the heir would pay income tax on the value when inherited, and if later sold would pay income tax on any increase in value from the time he inherited to the time he sold. Your proposal would probably be a net tax decrease for gigantic estates and would definitely be a tax increase for small estates.

Dead parents aren't selling their stock to their children. They are giving it. The basis of the stock is the purchase price. It doesn't make sense to step up the basis on death. It's a giveaway to heirs and heiresses. I think capital gains should be taxed the same for all. No capital gains tax breaks for heirs and heiresses.

Yep, I'm in favor of a flatter estate tax, even if that is a benefit to huge estates. I suspect most huge estates avoid most of these taxes anyway through careful planning. Only about 1000 estates reach the estate tax exemption each year. I would bet many, many more pass on millions under the threshold. If you have any data, please share.

Ok I’m confused about what you’re proposing then. You said you wanted to treat inheritance as income, but you also want a carryover basis, and you also want a flatter estate tax.