English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If there are existing exemptions for one or two million dollars now, most but the uber wealthy have some wealth sheltered. And most people with means do establish trusts to protect assets to some extent. How can Bush be so brash as to promote more advantages for himself and his wealthy pals at the expense of the rest of us?

2006-07-15 18:11:13 · 13 answers · asked by murphy 5 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

13 answers

Less then 1% of the population of the US is affected by the inheritance tax. And the funding for the repel of it is coming from the 18 wealthiest families. The founding fathers were for the tax as they didn't want a landed gentry. They knew if to much money was kept in the richest families, nation stood a chance to become an oligarchy. The Republican President Teddy Roosevelt supported the inheritance tax. in his opinion the excesses of the rich were leading to a increase in socialist propaganda.
" When our tax laws are revised the question of the income tax and the inheritance tax should receive the careful attention of out legislatures. In my judgment both of these taxes should be a part of our system of Federal taxation" Teddy Roosevelt's Seventh Annual Message 12/3/1907.
Now for the myth of family farms being lost. The American Farm Bureau Federation can not find one family farm that has been lost due to the inheritance tax. And they are a pro-inheritance tax repeal group. All a person has to do is look up how the founders of this great country thought about things and see how we are traveling away from their great experiment in Democracy!

2006-07-15 21:15:07 · answer #1 · answered by ggarsk 3 · 9 5

I think it's a question not so much of who it benefits, but whether there's any point to it. The estate tax was designed to prevent the formation of an American aristocracy who passed on wealth and power to their children. Immediately after it was created, the super-rich people (who it was designed to target) figured out ways around it. They don't pay it. It's only the moderately wealthy (small business owners, some farmers and other landowners) who pay.

The same thing happened with income taxes. Originally, it was sold to the American public because they were assured it would only affect the very rich. The very rich developed tax shelters. They don't pay income tax, either.

I think the only tax that very rich people pay is sales tax, because they go shopping, too. I'm all in favor of 1) setting up a national sales tax, 2) elminating all other taxes and 3) giving debit cards to the poor so they can still buy groceries and basic needs. The reason we haven't seen it yet is because the rich people don't want to have to figure out another way to dodge that tax.

2006-07-15 18:20:17 · answer #2 · answered by foofoo19472 3 · 0 0

With inheritance tax, the government takes the money and spends the way it sees fit whether you like it or not.
Without inheritance tax, the heirs spends the money they spend the way they see fit whether you like it or not.
In either case, the money moves through the economy benefitting different people.
Government has not been spending the tax money any more wisely than the heir, I don't feel the elimination of the tax is at the expense of me.

As you follow on statement shows, and Warren Buffet's latest donation of $31billion to Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation confirmed, they protect the assets so that philanthropy can be done more effectively and focussed than government. Afterall, government's interest is in its prosperity, i.e. more government bureacrat, creating more dependency and not necessarily greater social good or self reliance.

2006-07-15 18:26:17 · answer #3 · answered by ele81946 3 · 0 0

hahaha... yes, we all have seen just how much Bush "loves" the middle class... he gives them about $100 tax cut, while he goes and cuts taxes to the wealthy by billions...

"The estate tax (inheritance tax) covers fewer than 2% of the estates at death because of the applicable exclusion available from the lifetime unified credit against federal gift and estate taxes. The tax is applicable to estates valued over $2,000,000 and the maximum rate for 2005 is 47% due to drop one point annually until 2007 when it will stay at 45% until 2009."

in other words... this doesn't hit the farmers and the middle class..

some conservatives don't have any idea what their own party is doing... hahaha

2006-07-15 18:16:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Even if the heirs have to pay inheritance taxs they still end up with a tremendous amount of money. It's true, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Answer who is going to pay the difference if we reduce the taxes on the rich.... The poor and the middle class pick up the tab. So lets put it in context... What you are saying is that "I would like to pay more in taxes so the the Rich can buy another yacht, or take anohter vacation or buy another car". Rich heirs don't invest in you and me, they invest in themselves... Rich heirs will still have plenty.

2006-07-15 18:59:27 · answer #5 · answered by Britton J 2 · 0 0

Use your head. Farmers will benefit, you know those guys who produce most of the food you eat? Every time a farmer tries to pass his farm down to his kids the government (read democrats) seem to think we have no right to keep our own property without paying dearly for the privilege. Don't believe everything the liberals tell you. The democrats are NOT for the little guy, at least not the ones who earn their own living.

2006-07-15 18:18:16 · answer #6 · answered by Grandma Susie 6 · 0 0

It will not matter. Trusts, Foundations and Insurance guarantee the rich will stay rich even if they reinstate the tax. Its a long boring story but we have already compensated for anything the government might do. You know the "golden rule" he who has the gold makes the rules. The American aristocracy is alive and well.

2006-07-15 18:48:28 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Actually he is promoting freedom. Taking money from someone with the threat of imprisonment is robbery, regardless of whether you are the "government" or not. I just wish he felt this way about all of the rest of our freedoms.


Who does it benefit? It benefits every citizen of the country that believes in the freedom to earn something and keep it for them or their family and not have it stripped from them by the government for fill in the blank reason.

EDIT: eliminate all taxes, they are immoral, against the constitution and not really supported in the bible(which most politicians in U.S. history claim to believe heavily in)

2006-07-15 18:17:35 · answer #8 · answered by mike 2 · 0 0

The heirs of the wealthy will benefit most.

2006-07-15 18:14:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bill Gate's children

2006-07-15 18:28:24 · answer #10 · answered by acopa06 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers