A Modest Proposal

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

In return for a much steeper progressive tax rate (and I'm talking a return to something closer to the Eisenhower-era), we eliminate the Estate Tax.

In theory, if we eliminate the ability to amass huge piles of wealth, we eliminate the need to tax estates after the fact.

Discuss...

1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Awesome Idea!
	0 (0%)
	Meh...
	0 (0%)
	Stupid Idea!
	0 (0%)
	Awesome Idea - BUT it will never happen
	1 (100%)
	Meh...
	0 (0%)
	Stupid Idea - AND it will never happen
	0 (0%)
	Pie
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[oldhippie]

1. I think your theory is off .....

The rich will still amass huge piles of wealth, just somewhere else. It would greatly expand the offshore investing industry.

But it ain't gonna happen.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

3. Good point...

One of those "devil in the details" things.

Of course, offshore investing as a way to avoid taxation is a big, fat flaming loophole that needs to be closed regardless.

[oldhippie]

4. And governments have been trying to close that loophole ....

... for as long as governments and taxes have existed.

[Boom Sound 416]

2. Their is the living will route already

[KittyWampus]

5. Estate taxes need to be revised upwards for families handing down real estate. The value of farmland

around where I live has gone to the stratosphere.

But I could never see getting rid of it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. Don't quote me on this...

But I think there are exceptions for family farms and family-operated businesses.

I think...

If not, there really should be -- because you can own millions in farmland and make only a very modest income from it -- in those years when you aren't losing money.

[cthulu2016]

6. Wealth is not income

For instance, if someone owns a million acres of land your propossal would be an amnesty against ever, in the future, being taxed on that wealth, in exchange for higher taxes on annual profits made from that land.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

10. If you sell the land, you have a capital gain

The only way to avoid never paying taxes on the land would be to never sell it. A million acres would make for a pretty large burial plot.

[rrneck]

7. I won't support allowing them to keep the money they have stolen.

At this point an estate tax is little more than a money laundering operation.

[bemildred]

8. I'd prefer a flat income tax system if we can get a 100% estate tax.

That's where the real money is.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

11. No, inheritance tax should be massively raised, not abolished. This is an appallingly unjust idea.

Inheritance tax is both one of the the fairest and (I think, although I can't quote chapter and verse) one of the least economically damaging forms of taxation.

We should be looking to shift the tax burden from earned to unearned income, not vice versa!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. My logic here (if you want to call it that)

Let's face it - CEO's didn't get 8-figure salaries back in the 1950's (even accounting for inflation) because when you're being taxed at 90%, there's no reason to pay someone that much. Lowering the top rates, in addition to making the income tax more regressive, lit the roman candle that is today's corporate executive pay.

If we returned to an era when incomes were (for all practical purposes) limited by the top rate, then it would be far more difficult to amass huge fortunes. I realize that as the current generation of overpaid CEO's starts meeting with the grim reaper, they're going to want to abolish the inheritance tax, and I agree that they should be allowed to take it with them (or keep it in the family).

Among the massively unworkable aspects of my suggestion is how we would possibly transition from one era to the next -- that's assuming there's the political will to make something like this happen. And I'm not sure there is.

[bemildred]

13. +1. If they can't take the money and run, then they won't. nt