Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

kdakota630 (29.56)

Peter Schiff - The Estate Tax Needs To Die

Recs

9

August 14, 2012 – Comments (9)

9 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On August 14, 2012 at 5:04 PM, awallejr (81.55) wrote:

Well he exaggerates on the effect on businesses.  Good estate planning helps tons.  Also, assuming no estate planning, the business doesn't need to be liquidated which he is suggesting, but can be sold intact and continue running under new management.

While I would keep the $5 million limit (adjusted for inflation) I am a firm believer in progressively increasing the tax on tax brackets.  My reason is simple, to prevent massive wealth accumulation in geneological lines.  I would give an alternative charitable contribution option where the money doesn't go to the government but to legitimate charities.

Report this comment
#2) On August 15, 2012 at 9:54 AM, outoffocus (23.09) wrote:

I agree with awellejr.  Money is not meant to be hoarded. Its meant to be circluated.  If money doesnt circulate the economy dies.  Say what you want about our tax laws, the top 1% benefitted disproportionally from the economic growth over the past 30 years.

Also, if you are rich enough to be hit with estate tax, yuou can afford a really good estate planner. 

On the other hand, with inflation the way it is, if they dont index the exemption for inflation, then the estate tax will become like the AMT in that it will hit more middle class than rich which is tragic.

Report this comment
#3) On August 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM, kdakota630 (29.56) wrote:

I think it's a tragedy that so many people think that the State is justified in taking whatever it wants, whenever it wants, so long as it is for, what is its opinion, the greater good.

I would like to think that the better option is for money and property from a person who has died to go to whoever that person wants.

If Warren Buffett or BIll Gates dies and they've left 99% of their wealth to charity, is it better if the government first takes half of that 99%?

I'm sure someone will say (or think) that none of that would happen with a good estate planner.  It's a shame that a good estate planner is necessary at all. 

There's little difference between that and picking the pockets of an accident victim. 

Report this comment
#4) On August 15, 2012 at 12:27 PM, awallejr (81.55) wrote:

I think it's a tragedy that so many people think that the State is justified in taking whatever it wants, whenever it wants, so long as it is for, what is its opinion, the greater good.

No one is saying that.  Frist most people don't really need estate planning since they pretty much have nothing.  Now people that own property might want to meet with an Elder Law attorney because with proper planning you could at least make it so that your whole estate doesn't go to the nursing home.  As an aside just curious if you think that is ok.

What amused me with Schiff was he kept saying "I" after he calculated the taxes, such as "I am only left with thirteen cents." He is wrong, he is dead.  He is in that big libertarian world in the sky.  The people that may take issue are the heirs.  Assuming no spouse surviving him (and doing so because she would be treated differently) sorry any money going to heirs is simply found money to them.  They didn't earn it.  It was just given to them by a person that is dead now.

And if that is the concern you will be allowing greater and greater wealth acumulation to stretch over geneological lines.  Sorry I perceive that as a greater danger to this Country than worrying about some dead person's wishes.

Buffett and Gates have already committed the bulk of their money to charity to their credit.

Report this comment
#5) On August 15, 2012 at 1:27 PM, kdakota630 (29.56) wrote:

And if that is the concern you will be allowing greater and greater wealth acumulation to stretch over geneological lines.

That's assuming that following generations will accumulate more wealth.  Typically that wealth is either squandered or dilluted as it passes from the first wealth generator to subsequent generations.  You can point to families where either situation happens.

Either way, government should not be the artibers of who gets what. With all the obstacles in the way of any wealth accumulation, it is evil for any of it to be taken by the State upon death for any reason.  If a person has a will, that will should be followed, not the government getting "its share" first. 

Report this comment
#6) On August 15, 2012 at 5:36 PM, awallejr (81.55) wrote:

They do it through trusts in order to prevent such squandering.  And the Government isn't the arbiter.  Wills are honored presuming they are properly executed.  And should a person die without a will the State sets up a basic "bloodline" distribution table.  The only time the estate would go to the State is if there is no will and no traceable living blood relative.

The issue isn't what rights does a dead person have (in my opinion none), the issue is what rights do the heirs of the dead person have.  The sole impact of taxing an Estate is a reduction to an heir.  Good. Heirs have no right to another's Estate.  I've seen parent's disinherit children.  I'm of the view "use it or lose it."  Once dead, adios. 

Want to talk about wealth accumulation just look at the charts in the following blog:

 http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/no-matter-how-conservative-you/655558

I just don't want to see that continue from the grave as well.

 

Report this comment
#7) On August 15, 2012 at 5:39 PM, awallejr (81.55) wrote:

P.S., I am excluding the spouse purposefully for purposes of discussion, since he/she are treated differently.  My arguments are assuming one spouse has already predeceased the other.

Report this comment
#8) On August 15, 2012 at 6:33 PM, kdakota630 (29.56) wrote:

I meant that the government is the arbiter in the sense that they can establish an estate tax in the first place.  And if they can do that, then they can also set the estate tax rate.

Ultimately, I don't believe the government should have the right to establish an estate tax, and the wealth of a person should go to who they choose to get it upon death.  No one else (the State included) should have any right to it regardless of the "good" that redistribution of it might otherwise do.  Anything else is simply, in my opinion, immoral.

Since you disagree with that statement I don't think we're going to get anywhere with each other here.  LOL!  That being said, I did enjoy the conversation. 

Report this comment
#9) On August 15, 2012 at 7:08 PM, awallejr (81.55) wrote:

Ultimately, I don't believe the government should have the right to establish an estate tax, and the wealth of a person should go to who they choose to get it upon death.

Yeah well that is a conversation killer between us heheh.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement