Time to respect property

[The Terrible Sweal]

Have your say.

[Hugo]

--

[takeanumber]

How many times have you beat your wife?

The question is pretty biased, IMO.

That's my say.

[August1991]

So TS, how much are you expecting to inherit?

[maplesyrup]

What's the big deal about giving up 10%?

If you expire with $1 million, you could still leave $900,000.00 behind for your loved ones to fight over.

[Slavik44]

The problem I have with it, is that what the NDP proposed did not differentiate between 1 million to 4 children and 1 million to 1 child. I also don't think it differentiated between a 1 million dolalr house with 850,000 left on the mortgage and a 1 million dollar house completley paid for. Jack layton also sorta talked his way out of answering questions about wether or not the million was fixed or if it would take inflation into consideratio for the benchmark amount, He also, as far as I could tell, refused to comment on wether or not the million dollar benchmark would ever be dropped lower. So no I don't think I could support such an inherritance tax.

[Harfang]

This is an idea from a socialist party, it sounds good but is really stealing from people who worked for this property. This property was accumulated from money that has already been taxed.

Why should governments keep taking more and more from taxpayers, other than to keep spending like drunken sailors.

[playfullfellow]

Say you buy a house for 150,000 bucks. You are around 30 years old. You live in this house for 30 years and you kick the can. Over those 30 years you would pay around a 1000 bucks are year in porperty taxes which equals 30,000 dollars. You have also paid pst, gst on everything that has gone into this house including your utilities and services. Conservatively, you have paid around 45,000 dollars over 30 years to own this house. That 45,000 are taxes and now they are proposing another 10 percent when you kick the bucket. We now bring the count up to 60,000 dollars in taxes on this place, which if you figured in inflation would be a lot more. You also fail to figure that the new owner will continue to pay these taxes and services as well.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We should distinguish between two issues: the overall level of taxation; and the methods and effects of taxation.

For the former, can it be agreed that taxes should be kept as low as possible to accomplish the democratically determined objectives of the state?

It is respecting the latter question that I propose inheritance tax.

[playfullfellow]

What about the people who bought houses in an area that was cheap 50 years ago, lived there all their lives before passing and now the house and property are worth a miilion bucks? They may have bought that house for 50,000 dollars, were middle income for their whole lives and their heirs are middle income. There may be no money to pay 100,000 dollars in taxes. Then this property has to be sold. Now, the property sells and the governement gets its 100,000 in inheritance tax. We have 900,000 left over minus all the leagl fees of lawyers and realestate aganets to comes off. Probably another 50,000 or so. We have 850,000 left. The tax man rubs his hands together again, we now move into the category of income tax. I know a ceratin amount of an inheritance is tax exempt but do not now the amount so I use 100,000 as an example. We have 750,000 left over, whats the tax rate on this for someone who does not have access to loop holes and write offs? Probably over 50% so I use 50% as an example. That leaves us with 375,000 dollars. Out of a million dollars, you get 475,000, the tax man gets 475,000 and the rest get 50,000. This is not an unrealistic assumption that this will happen. What it boils down to is that it is a tax that is supposed to take from the rich but in the end, bites the working class slob who does not have fancy lawyers and tax accountants. This reads like a tax that will force all middle to low income people to force selling off a property just so the governement can get more taxes.

[Cartman]

PFF did you previously work for Arthur Anderson?

Perhaps all surplus wealth should be appropriated by the state. That way people would spend all their money while they are alive thereby contributing greatly to the economy. We could also lower taxes for alive people. As well, rich kids would not sit on their asses for the better part of their lives waiting to earn money the old fashioned way (inheriting it). And finally, it would also ensure that everyone starts life with the exact same opportunities. This would force people to truly compete based on their abilities and actions.

Perhaps this tax should slide rather than be flat or alternatively raise the threshold a little.

[August1991]

Perhaps all surplus wealth should be appropriated by the state.  That way people would spend all their money while they are alive thereby contributing greatly to the economy.

Contribute greatly to the economy? Since when do little bits of paper contribute to the economy? This is mindless gibberish, typical of Leftist thinking. You are confusing money and wealth, symbol and reality.

We could also lower taxes for alive people. As well, rich kids would not sit on their asses for the better part of their lives waiting to earn money the old fashioned way (inheriting it).  And finally, it would also ensure that everyone starts life with the exact same opportunities.

Think, for Godsakes think of the consequences.

You know that when you die, everything you have accumulated in life will go to the State. So, first everyone gives it to the kids (or a charity) before they die. (Think of the consequences of that for old people.)

So, the State figures a way to stop that - and collect all the dough. So, why bother accumulating anything? Just enough to live on and nothing more! After all, the State is going to take it anyway. (Now think of the consequences of that!)

Thank God your suggestion flies in the face of the human genome!

The State taxes us now in a variety of ways: income tax, sales taxes, pension premiums, property taxes, capital gain taxes, EI, health premiums, corporate taxes. The State forces us to buy things (air bags) whether we want to or not.

So, why not impose an estate tax (inheritance tax) too?

No one likes to pay taxes and indeed, everyone would prefer to avoid them. It's the crazy things people will do to avoid a tax that determine whether a tax is good or not. An estate tax is an invitation to absolute foolishness. It's not a good tax.

[Cartman]

I thought that my last sentence made it clear that I was not serious. I do not endorse a 100% estate tax, I endorse a small sliding estate tax with a high threshold. I sincerely apologize for my dry humour.

[August1991]

I sincerely apologize for my dry humour.

I sincerely apologize for my sarcasm, the lowest form of humour. My error. Sorry.

The government needs money. How to get it? I suggest that taxes creating the least foolishness are the best. For the government, taxes which raise the most revenue with the least hassle are the best. Same idea.

Estate taxes (inheritance taxes) do not meet that criteria. The government gets little and people go into contortions.

Lesson? The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[caesar]

The government should start accounting for the money it is collecting now. Payroll taxes were a temporary thing to pay form world war 1; lotteries got started to pay for the Montreal olympics; now we have lots of them, BC is turning into Las Vegas with casinos; which donates a big share to the government. Every hospital has a lottery to pay for equipment. We even get gst's on other taxes. Too many taxes not enough accountability.

[caesar]

Perhaps all surplus wealth should be appropriated by the state.  That way people would spend all their money while they are alive thereby contributing greatly to the economy.

They are already doing that to seniors; if you saved enough to have enough money to enjoy your retirement years you start losing government pensions and benefits.

[Cartman]

We even get gst's on other taxes. Too many taxes not enough accountability.

I thought that it was illegal to tax a tax. I suppose I am wrong because it happens, but was this not illegal at one point in time? Does anyone know for sure?

[Guest eureka]

I don't know how it could be illegal since there is no Cnstitutional reference and I don't tink equity enters into this.

A tax on an already taxed item has been with us since taxes were a fact of life. It is merely an increase in taxes by indirect means. I reserve my judgement on the discussion since, though I am inclined to support wealth and inheritance taxes provided they are progressive and with substantial exemption, I have yet to see any strong argument against such taxes. The idea of taxes having already having been paid does not really cut it. That can be applied to all manner of economic activity.

[caesar]

if it were illegal to tax a tax; they make one a levy, license or some other special name.

[theloniusfleabag]

I oppose estate tax. If Joe Shmoe works all his life and builds himself a house, he did so while paying heavy taxes all the while. The house and everything in it have been taxed. Upon Joe Shmoe's demise, if he 'wills it' to someone else, the taxes have been paid and the gov't has no right to tax them again. If, through a series of misfortunes, the inheritors die off and bequeath the estate again and again, it is possible that the inheritance taxes could exceed the value of the house. Joe Shmoe would have been better off to burn the house down, and let the heirs have the insurance money.

[playfullfellow]

These types of taxes have been tried by various socialist type countries in Europe and have largely fallen flat on their arses. In some countries, it has been customary that the family home gets sold at the death of someone because no one can afford to pay the high taxes associated with death. The government has taken away any insentive for the kids to retain the family home, they can not afford it. The government gets their inheritance taxes plus income taxes from the benefactors.

With what is being proposed here, how many family farms would stay in the family? How many businesses would be able to stay viable because of the large cost associated with death? Not very many because in all reality, people do not have that kind of money laying around. The proposition made on this tax is in essence supposed to be a punishment for the rich but in the end will only bite the middle and low income class people. It will give them no possibility to increase their standing or worth because the government wants its share first. The governement does not give a baboons butt about what further grief this may cause people who have just lost a loved one. It is not an inheritance tax, it is a grief tax.

[The Terrible Sweal]

PFF did you previously work for Arthur Anderson?   

Perhaps all surplus wealth should be appropriated by the state.  That way people would spend all their money while they are alive thereby contributing greatly to the economy.  We could also lower taxes for alive people.  As well, rich kids would not sit on their asses for the better part of their lives waiting to earn money the old fashioned way (inheriting it).  And finally, it would also ensure that everyone starts life with the exact same opportunities.  This would force people to truly compete based on their abilities and actions. 

Perhaps this tax should slide rather than be flat or alternatively raise the threshold a little.

You've hit the points right on.

Rightwing economists tell us it is optimal to have wealth remain in the control of those who have created it. So, if the creation of wealth is the justification for possessing it, then clearly inheritance runs contrary to this principle.

Also, it is question able why the state provides the apparatus for inheritance at all. Should not the needs of citizens (persons alive) outweigh the obsolete whims of non-citizens (the dead)?

And then there's the merit principle and its essential underpinning: the principle of equality of opportunity. It is clearly not economically optimal to place wealth into feckless hands out of nepotism when there are others who could be more effective in its use.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We even get gst's on other taxes. Too many taxes not enough accountability.

I thought that it was illegal to tax a tax. I suppose I am wrong because it happens, but was this not illegal at one point in time? Does anyone know for sure?

It isn't illegal, it's just bad policy.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I oppose estate tax. If Joe Shmoe works all his life and builds himself a house, he did so while paying heavy taxes all the while. The house and everything in it have been taxed. Upon Joe Shmoe's demise, if he 'wills it' to someone else, the taxes have been paid and the gov't has no right to tax them again. If, through a series of misfortunes, the inheritors die off and bequeath the estate again and again, it is possible that the inheritance taxes could exceed the value of the house. Joe Shmoe would have been better off to burn the house down, and let the heirs have the insurance money.

1. What if tax policy were appropriately amended to somehow wash out taxes on taxes while still putting in inheritance tax? Would you support inheritance tax then?

2. You say the government has no right to tax Joe Shmoe at death because it already taxed him. But surely this is not true. If the government can tax its citizens at all, it can tax them in any fashion it enforces equitably.

In other words, what rule says the government has no right to tax them again? Answer, none. The goverment does have that right.

3. Obviously an effective inheritance tax regime would have to be set up to capture wealth tranfers of various kinds.