econ fagz, would estate tax solve income inequality?

[umair127]

john oliver brought up income inequality on his show, but i thought it was bizarre that he suggests the way to fix it is to raise estate taxes.

i personally find estate taxes to be morally repugnant, so i think he's a cunt for peddling it, especially since his call to action is to make it more severe.

[TECSHARE]

Whatever happened to corporate taxes? How come this is never in question.

[zolace]

Call it what it is: DEATH TAX.

Since someone has to DIE for it to happen.

Why the government should get anything because someone dies is what is repugnant.

Study after study shows most millionaires earn their money, not inherit. But libtards always want more money. To buy votes and power to continue their agenda of getting a real 1984.

[umair127]

I'm not really a finance guy, but I'd say no, it wouldn't solve our income inequality issue. Wealthy people can often get out of paying a number of different taxes on much of their income that middle and lower class people generally have to (one reason why a national sales tax replacing an income tax is a horrible idea) I guess the theory is that the estate tax will be able to capture those assets that may have previously evaded (legally generally) taxation and thus make them more equal to more middle income families in terms of percentage of assets taxed. Once again, i'm not really a finance/tax guy, but it seems like a fairly easy tax to hide money from, which would defeat the purpose and more so hit the less wealthy people who don't have the same capabilities when it comes to moving their assets around in order to escape it (in part).

[pedrog]

When did it aired?

You're right, it's really bizarre to suggest a tax to fix income inequality...

[Rigon]

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

[Chef Ramsay]

An estate or death tax hits someone or their family at their most vulnerable time in life: when someone passes. Furthermore, this wealth, property, etc was accumulated by working throughout one's life and that work was taxed yearly going back to when that work began. So, this estate has already been taxed throughout the ages and this is what's left after the fact. That said, liberals are known for always wanting to tax something else.

[Lethn]

Income equality is largely due to inflation, taxes can certainly affect things but they aren't the main problem.

[Kluge]

Maybe, indirectly... it's just one more thing to disincentivize earning as much. I don't want to earn much more than EITC covers with a dependent. Up to ~$20k annual reported income, I effectively make a bit under 50% per hour more from federal and state tax breaks than for hours worked beyond that. It seems like a relatively raw deal to have "earned income" beyond that. You gross more, but the more you work, the more strongly diminishing the returns are (where $10/hr would become $15/hr by limiting how much you work, it can easily become $7.50/hr if you don't limit how much you work even though you'll still net more than the hours-limiting guy), which really screws over people working insane hours for low pay. Very few people keep that in mind, though -- better for most to earn as much as possible. -But in the same vein, I wouldn't want to lose boatloads of money just because I died and "earned too much," either. Some people facing imminent death, and even just retired people, already gift maximums each year to beneficiaries to try getting around the death tax (there are sneakier ways), but this isn't going to keep the IRS off someone with billions.

Estate tax basically tries to take luck out of life (and really, money has diminishing returns -- $10B taxed to $1B probably isn't as life-changing to a beneficiary as $100K cut down to $10K)... but then the government operates the lottery, basically the most counter-Progressive program on Earth, so...

Anyway - the government can use the income to come up with some wage subsidization scheme, pay for interning and vocational programs, more funding for general education and retraining programs - or unemployment, TANF, EBT, section 8, other things that simply increase net income. If you really wanted to increase income quality, the pretty straightforward choice is harsher progressive income taxes. If they just raised estate taxes to combat the budget deficit, I can't think of any reason it should significantly impact income equality.

[sublime5447]

Call it what it is: DEATH TAX.

Since someone has to DIE for it to happen.

Why the government should get anything because someone dies is what is repugnant.

Study after study shows most millionaires earn their money, not inherit. But libtards always want more money. To buy votes and power to continue their agenda of getting a real 1984.

First I am opposed to all forms of theft or uh... taxes what ever you want to call it, but the death tax works like this. The government lets me defer all of my tax liability by reinvesting my profits to grow my business in the hopes that I will employ people and grow the pie for everyone.

Let me restate that.. I pay 0 income taxes not one cent and sometimes get a refund even though I contribute nothing in the way of income tax. If I have a tax liability at the end of the year I spend what ever amount I need to on my business to 0 it out. I can do this indefinitely until I die at which point the government gets it's cut.. The government is owned by business and they make laws and tax code that benefits entrepreneurs, if you dont own a business you should start one if for no other reason than limiting you tax liability.

     

[LostDutchman]

john oliver brought up income inequality on his show, but i thought it was bizarre that he suggests the way to fix it is to raise estate taxes.

i personally find estate taxes to be morally repugnant, so i think he's a cunt for peddling it, especially since his call to action is to make it more severe.

Why should there be income equality?

[spazzdla]

john oliver brought up income inequality on his show, but i thought it was bizarre that he suggests the way to fix it is to raise estate taxes.

i personally find estate taxes to be morally repugnant, so i think he's a cunt for peddling it, especially since his call to action is to make it more severe.

Why should there be income equality?

Bill gates born in africa would of never achieved anything, that is why.

I look at everything on a Global scale, the idea of countries is disgusting.. Oh how we take advantage of people because of invisible boarders.

[LostDutchman]

john oliver brought up income inequality on his show, but i thought it was bizarre that he suggests the way to fix it is to raise estate taxes.

i personally find estate taxes to be morally repugnant, so i think he's a cunt for peddling it, especially since his call to action is to make it more severe.

Why should there be income equality?

Bill gates born in africa would of never achieved anything, that is why.

I look at everything on a Global scale, the idea of countries is disgusting.. Oh how we take advantage of people because of invisible boarders.

Oh, OK.

[sana8410]

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

[zolace]

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc?

GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy.

[LostDutchman]

john oliver brought up income inequality on his show, but i thought it was bizarre that he suggests the way to fix it is to raise estate taxes.

i personally find estate taxes to be morally repugnant, so i think he's a cunt for peddling it, especially since his call to action is to make it more severe.

Why should there be income equality?

Bill gates born in africa would of never achieved anything, that is why.

I look at everything on a Global scale, the idea of countries is disgusting.. Oh how we take advantage of people because of invisible boarders.

I think you mean "borders".

[sana8410]

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc?

GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy.

President Obama has suggested closing some loopholes, the problem of course is that Verizon for example has much stronger lobbying power in Congress than I do. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to pay taxes, or that I should have to have a heavier tax burden than they do. In fact you were JUST referencing the concept of entitlement negatively in your previous post. But suddenly you are relying on it to justify tax inequalities against the middle to lower income class?

[zolace]

It's such an emotional issue dependent on where you stand. You have people like the Hilton sisters who make people question whether they really deserve what they have for doing nothing. But these same people seem to have no issue with what Justin Beaver or LeBron James and others make. Nasty CEO's and their millions are just horrible people when so many of our citizens "deserve" a piece of their pie to make their lives so much easier.

Personally I'd rater see an increase in opportunity equality than simply focusing on income.

It isn't just about that though, it is also about tax inequality in terms of the rate at which we are effectively taxed. Ideally, it would be a bit progressive like our graduated income tax, in reality though the wealthy often have access to mechanisms that can effectively give them lower tax rates than some middle class households (the same goes for big businesses). I pay more in taxes than General Electric does for example (as a percentage).

If we simply removed loopholes would that work for you? What about loopholes that government has put in place giving tax breaks for job creation, etc?

GE gives back in the way of jobs and innovation. How many poor families can now afford refrigerators compared to the poor of the past? Same goes for cars, TV's, phones, etc. Sure, we can make them pay more but they have the capability of moving large portions of their infrastructure to other countries (global economy) which some say would hurt our poor (and hurt ever growing government coffers....and government keeps wanting more so who pays?) more than helping our economy.

President Obama has suggested closing some loopholes, the problem of course is that Verizon for example has much stronger lobbying power in Congress than I do. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't have to pay taxes, or that I should have to have a heavier tax burden than they do. In fact you were JUST referencing the concept of entitlement negatively in your previous post. But suddenly you are relying on it to justify tax inequalities against the middle to lower income class?

Lobbying and "paid for" politicians is quite an issue.I agree they should pay taxes and I'm not justifying one over the other. It's a complex issue and I don't really have the knowledge level to say which one is right or not.

[umair127]

There is a lot I do not understand about the "inequality" crowd. For one, what equality are they concerned with? Equality of opportunity or equality of outcomes? In my view, no form of government or economy has ever designed a way to provide for equality of outcomes, and those that have tried have failed miserably. And market capitalism, especially American market capitalism, has proven time and time again to provide the best equality of opportunity while at the same time increasing general prosperity.

The other thing I do not understand is what I will call the "Pinketty solution." Pinketty correctly identifies a problem: return on capital is higher than general growth (r>g), so the rich get richer while the laboring classes' wages do not increase as quickly. But his solution is perverse: a punitive tax (80%) on all income over $500,000. I think we can all agree that this will have the effect of reducing the number of capitalists in the world. How can this be a good thing? If returns on capital exceed general growth, shouldn't the goal be to create more capitalists, not less?

[sana8410]

I don't either. I also think though, that the national dialogue is rather driven by such people who, as you mentioned, tend to rely on emotive one liners or reduced and distilled talking points which are easier to understand, but leave a lot out leading to misconceptions and bad information.