Why do people vote for Hilary and Obama?

[Final-Fan]

Sqrl said:

Final-Fan said:

OK, I will admit that we perhaps are using competing senses of the word "fair".

But as for the estate tax:
A) You don't pay shit unless your estate is worth more than $1.5 million. [Correction: $2 million.]
B) You don't pay much unless it's more than $5 million.
C) Most such estates include very substantial assets that have grown in value in nontaxable ways, so
D) "Estates worth more than $10 million were 56.4 percent made up of unrealized, untaxed capital gains." [edit: Or, in fact, it may be much more; see below.]

In short, the estate tax falls heavily only on extremely rich people, who can shut the fuck up about society sqeezing them for cash [edit: and that goes double for income taxes]; and much of the assets of estates would NEVER BE TAXED if not for the estate tax.

(thanks FactCheck.org: http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html )

"We have found no study disputing these findings. In fact, they may be understated. For one thing the authors couldn't find any way to estimate the unrealized capital gains on art work or other collectibles, which can make up a sizeable part of some estates. More importantly, the very richest Americans aren't covered by this study, because the Federal Reserve Board survey on which the study is based doesn't include them. It is quite likely the averages are even higher for billionaires, whose fortunes are often built on appreciated stock or real estate that would go untaxed at their death but for the estate tax."

Taxable Farm or Business Estates, 2004
		Number of Returns	Average Tax (thousands)	Average Rate
Under $1 million		0		$0		0.0%
$1 - $2 million		190		$26		1.6%
$2 - $3.5 million		60		$190		7.5%
$3.5 - $5 million		40		$449		12.0%
$5 - $10 million		80		$1,322		19.3%
$10 - $20 million		50		$2,832		22.9%
More than $20 million		30		$23,442		22.2%
All		440		$2,238		19.9%
Source: Tax Policy Center, Table T04-0163 Note: Number of returns rounded to nearest multiple of ten.

To be clear, I'm not patronizing you when I say this, I am seriously asking.

What are you trying to say with this post? When I read it I basically get that you are highlighting a bit of why rich people are paying more than the average citizen and you are explaining why the changes in your first graph would accur if we moved to the new system...

But that doesn't really address what I said in my last post.

In short, the estate tax falls heavily only on extremely rich people, who can shut the fuck up about society sqeezing them for cash [edit: and that goes double for income taxes]; and much of the assets of estates would NEVER BE TAXED if not for the estate tax.

Its all well and good to play tough guy when you're not the one being squeezed. Down the line when they start applying the squeeze to your bracket I'm sure your tune would be different.

You really need to take a step back and think about it. What is more fair than applying the same thing to everyone? Particularly when it still accomplishes the goal of getting the rich to pay far more than their representative share and the poor to pay far less than their representative share. Its not only fair but workable from a humanitiarian standpoint.

Once you also realize that it means we get rid of the IRS and the entrenched beaurocracy along with its monumental price tag we free up even more money. I think the fair tax is one of the ideas that Miyamoto would say solves multiple problems at once.

I won't say the system is perfect and I won't say its as fair as it can be, but I doubt you could say with a striaght face that the current system is perfect or fair and I would be surprised if many people thought that this wasn't a step in the right direction.

Anything that gets rid of the IRS can't be all bad =P

 

My post quoted above was focused entirely on refuting your allegation that the estate tax was some kind of horrible burden on the survivors.  If someone inherits $100 million, I don't think anyone's going to be thrown out on the street if the government takes half of it.  And similarly, 40% of $1 million a year hurts a lot less than 40% of $40,000 a year. 

If by "fair" you mean "everyone pays a the same tax rate" then the FairTax is perfect. 

But the rich can afford to pay a larger share of their money in taxes, even leaving aside arguments about "evening out" the rich/poor disparity.  The simple fact is that people have necessities like food, shelter, transportation, etc. that take up money, and people with a lot of money have a lot MORE left over afterwards. 

And the IRS won't just disappear, you know -- taxes will still have to be collected and that collection will still have to be enforced.  (However, it is true that the IRS will be able to be considerably smaller due to the different tax collection technique.)  And the IRS budget is a tiny, tiny fraction of the total budget. 

I think that most people would say that taking MORE money from those in the $15k to $200k range and LESS from those in the $200k+ range is not what they would prefer.