Should EVERYONE be Subject to an Estate Tax, No Matter Their Political Affiliation?

[cherokeeprogressive]

Poll question: Should EVERYONE be Subject to an Estate Tax, No Matter Their Political Affiliation?

I'm betting that the answer is yes.
Should any estate tax be retroactive? I say yes.

Mr. Geithner has a fortune.
Oprah has a fortune.
Steve Jobs has a fortune.
Ben and Jerry have a fortune.
Dan Rather's pretty fucking well off.
Tom Daschle might not be the richest guy in the world, but he's in the top .01, and he's a tax dodge to boot.
Ted Kennedy has a fortune, NONE of which he earned. RFK Jr. has a fortune, NONE of which he earned. Caroline has a fortune, none of which she earned.

I'm for an estate tax IF the estate tax is applied to EVERY single person, NO MATTER WHO their ancestors might be. IF it doesn't matter what their ancestors might have used that money for. No person should be exempt from an ESTATE tax because their ancestors donated to the right political party.

[Hello_Kitty]

1. Was anyone suggesting they shouldn't be?

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. So you're okay with confiscating every dollar the Kennedy's didn't work for after Joe died?

[Hello_Kitty]

5. Is that what you think the estate tax is?

For one thing, the maximum that could be "confiscated" is 50% of it.

[BlooInBloo]

7. That's why the OP and this thread are stupid. It's a "damn those welfare queenz" thread.

[lukasahero]

22. You know, used to be you could come here and learn stuff

Now it seems a whole lot of time is spent a) educating idiots or b) discrediting RW myths. :(

[anonymous171]

3. Economic royalty should not exist in Captalism. nt

[bluestateguy]

4. I'm not sure I understand here

When you say that "everyone" would have to pay, do you mean to say that someone inheriting $50,000 from their grandparent should be subject to the estate tax?

[Hello_Kitty]

6. What do you mean by retroactive?

[izquierdista]

8. Actually, I change my vote to no

I wouldn't mind if there was no tax on estates at all. IF, and this is a big IF, inheritances were taxed at a reasonable rate, like 70% on anything over $1 million. The only reason the dead are taxed as opposed to the heirs is that they are much less able to put up a fuss.

[MrModerate]

10. Or maybe because the wealth is the dead person's and not the heirs' . . .

And the dead person *really* doesn't need it anymore.

[ashling]

13. ???

Inheritance taxes, estate tax, or what the Repubs like to call death taxes are all the same thing and are levied on a portion of the estate .

[progdonkey]

9. huh?

Why would this even be an issue? Of course it doesn't matter what political party the person donated to--it's all about whether they have an estate in excess of $2 million. (I believe that's the current figure.)

"I'm for an estate tax IF the estate tax is applied to EVERY single person, NO MATTER WHO their ancestors might be."

So, the sons of poor fishermen should not be allowed to inherent anything when their father dies? That helps America how?

Is that what you even mean?

Estate taxes are levied according to the size of the estate, (Duh.) not according to the person's party affiliation, so I don't see why this would even come up.

What a stupid poll.

[TWiley]

11. Tax the Republicans Triple !

Their wars, their deregulation, and their failed policy got us where we are today. Tax the republicans triple, and while we are at it, tax the churches too. They are mostly republican PAC's anyway.

[Thothmes]

12. So much for the XIV Amendment

[PVnRT]

14. Huh?

Is there someone arguing that Democrats shouldn't pay estate taxes? That's as absurd as saying every estate should be taxed. Parents leaving their $90,000 house to their kids is not the start of aristocracy.

All of the people in your list will be paying estate taxes, provided that Congress starts closing loopholes.

[MadHound]

15. With no floor on it?

You would be consigning the poor and middle class to losing family estates, their homes, etc. Not a good idea.

Put a floor on it, say around 500,000 or so and I have no problem with it.

[DireStrike]

16. On imageboards, they have a "sage" function

You can reply to a thread without bumping (kicking) it.

Wish I could do that here. This is a very strange post. It's like answering the doorbell to find a non-burning bag of dog shit on your stoop. Perhaps for that reason, I have to say something, even if it's just a verbose equivalent of "Huh?!"

[TWiley]

17. Maybe a name change to Cherokee-Republitard would be in order?

Interesting that a "progressive" would take issue with the wealth of ONLY Democrats.

Why was Prescott Bush (guilty of treason) and his idoit son and moron grandson not on your list? Like the shrub ever worked a day in his life?

Furthermore, how can you be so sure your claim is even true? I happen to think you have it dead wrong .... once again.,

[cherokeeprogressive]

18. Did you read the last paragraph?

I don't mind being wrong. All I want is a response. It's better than being ignored!

Cherokee-Republitard? How creative.

Have you seen threads here advocating the seizure of wealth from the wealthy? I have. There was even a poll recently whose result was overwhelmingly in favor of taxing the shit out of people with over 500k of net worth. I'm worth that much in equity alone, as I bet you are. The reason I posted this thread was to make people think, and I think it got under your skin.

The reason I chose the people I did was to point out that some here seem to think that only rethugs are rich. When it's pointed out that statement isn't true, people start to get antsy. "Yeah but the Kennedy's use their money for GOOD!". I don't give a fuck. They're still rich. As such, they should be every bit as much a target of wealth redistribution as anyone else. As EVERYONE else.

Why was prescott * never charged with treason? Was it the rethugs who kept it from happening? How many AG's, appointed by Dem presidents, failed to indict PB for treason? Is that an issue for you... WHY was he never charged with treason? I think that's a pretty good question.

rethugs weren't on my short little list because I wanted responses. I don't take issue with anyone's wealth actually. That said, any redistribution of wealth should include EVERY wealthy person, not just those who belong to the wrong party. There should be no "yeah, but Oprah supported Obama, and WOW who else has started a private school for girls in Africa?" involved in the equation.

Tax the rich. I have no problem with that. Tax them ALL is what I want to hear. Point out that rethugs aren't the exclusive holders of obscene wealth in this country though, and it brings some pissed off people out of the woodwork.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. You're arguing a strawman

No one has ever proposed that Democrats be taxed differently than Republicans. Not in IRL and not on DU.

[demodonkey]

20. No, there should NOT be an estate tax. For anyone.

Estate tax highly penalizes the next generation of farmers, small family business etc. Many of these "kids" put sweat equity into the family farm or store most of their adult lives and deserve to inherit free of another tax on their labor. They should not be forced to sell what they (and their parents) worked for just to afford the taxes. And yes THAT DOES happen now, with the law as it is, so let's not make it worse.

Even kids who do nothing and just plain have rich parents, if their parents paid their tax onee one whatever they earned, they should have the right to gift it to anyone of their choosing before or after death.

What would be more productive and equitable would be to close loopholes in the tax laws that allow corporations and many rich people to pay little or nothing while alive.

[Hello_Kitty]

23. You do know that they've never found a single family farm or small business that has been affected?

That's a right wing myth you're arguing there. The plain fact about the estate tax is that hardly anyone pays it. A good financial planner can set up the trusts and things that enable a family to avoid the whole thing entirely. But if they eliminate the estate tax it would be very costly in the long run. There are financial institutions, like life insurance and annuity companies, for whom it's their life's blood. A lot of people would lose their jobs. Charitible giving would decline precipitiously, since many people bequeath large sums of money to nonprofits through endowments or charitable remainder trusts. Those organizations - and we are talking hospitals, universities, social service agencies, etc - would lose billions of dollars and then guess what? The government would have to fill the void they left. So we'd have a situation where large sums of money are staying in the hands of a few people at the top while the country goes further into debt.

[dysfunctional press]

24. "And yes THAT DOES happen now..." really? please provide a link.

seeing as it DOES happen now, it should be fantastically EASY for you to back that statement up with some documented evidence.

[Hello_Kitty]

26. If it's happening at all it's due to financial ignorance and lack of estate planning

There is no reason whatsoever for a small business or farm to have to be liquidated to pay estate tax unless the person did absolutely no succession planning of any kind.

[dysfunctional press]

27. it doesn't happen.

about the only time that family farms and businesses are sold when the patriarch dies is because the heirs don't want to continue in that business.

[Still Sensible]

21. The retroactive part would be unconstitutional IMO

Section 9:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

[dysfunctional press]

25. who has ever been exempted due to their "political affiliations"?

:shrug:
just wonderin'

[Bill McBlueState]

28. No, only straw men should be subject to the estate tax. n/t