COVID-19 numbers

[pdub]

Many people live for their families.
It makes complete sense that they don't have to give a lot of their stuff, even after they pass, to a federal system they may not support and instead contribute to the things they care about.

[Deleted User 318]

That was a number I pulled out of the air.

Maybe you start taxing at 1.5 million and progressively increase from there.

But to the point MJL made. I just don't see why the Accountant making $90K has to pay a higher tax rate and the top level inheritance tax rate has dropped 20% over the past couple decades.

The argument against it is that it's already been taxed, but that was when it was someone else's money. If you got a windfall of money for sharing half your genetic information rather than working for it, tax the shit out of it, and be happy you got any money given to you. Let people who do something productive to earn their money keep more of it.

Well. Technically the wealth in thw inheritance money has already had tax paid on it when it was made. Its just a gift to the benefactor.


But. You can only receive i believe 13k per year in gift money tax free. So im not sure why inheritance would be different than that

I agree with TDub in part. Estate taxes are not the issue. An estate, theoretically, has already been taxed. It's loopholes in the tax code that leads to a lack of tax revenue. I don't agree with taxing income twice only because they died. That's pretty communistic (assuming that the state has more rights to the money than the heirs). If you want to put a nominal tax, 1-3%, I think that might fine. I don't know how you justify it other than "you did well in life, and we want a cut."

Also, tax-free giftable income is now $15k per person.

[pdub]

I think you all should gift me $15k per person.
Then you might get a POTD button.

[PhDhawk]

That was a number I pulled out of the air.

Maybe you start taxing at 1.5 million and progressively increase from there.

But to the point MJL made. I just don't see why the Accountant making $90K has to pay a higher tax rate and the top level inheritance tax rate has dropped 20% over the past couple decades.

The argument against it is that it's already been taxed, but that was when it was someone else's money. If you got a windfall of money for sharing half your genetic information rather than working for it, tax the shit out of it, and be happy you got any money given to you. Let people who do something productive to earn their money keep more of it.

Well. Technically the wealth in thw inheritance money has already had tax paid on it when it was made. Its just a gift to the benefactor.


But. You can only receive i believe 13k per year in gift money tax free. So im not sure why inheritance would be different than that

I agree with TDub in part. Estate taxes are not the issue. An estate, theoretically, has already been taxed. It's loopholes in the tax code that leads to a lack of tax revenue. I don't agree with taxing income twice only because they died. That's pretty communistic (assuming that the state has more rights to the money than the heirs). If you want to put a nominal tax, 1-3%, I think that might fine. I don't know how you justify it other than "you did well in life, and we want a cut."

Also, tax-free giftable income is now $15k per person.

But we HAVE an estate tax NOW. That goes from 18% (on anything up to $10,000) up to 40% (that caps out inheritance above $1 million). I'm not proposing something that doesn't already exist, so it's already been justified.

My point, is if you increase the tax rate on truly large sums of money, it should encourage people to use their money in their lifetimes rather than accruing familial wealth. And I'd get rid of it for smaller sums of money, I think it's silly to tax inheritances of say under $1 million (But that's currently happening - although there are large exemptions in most cases.)

Yes tax loopholes are a bigger problem. But you're sounding like a republican if you want to simplify the tax code and get rid of deductions.

[Deleted User 310]

We differentiate more between $60,000 and $80,000 than we do between $2.5 million and $2.5 billion. So that means a 1.3 fold increase in money matters more than a 1,000 fold increase.

Ya thats fucked up for sure. Totally agree there. That needs to change immediately....but i also dont trust the government to use that money wisely so i guess it is a double edged sword.

[TDub]

Smaller government. More power at state level, more power/ responsibility in individuals.


Now wheres someone to come call me racist for that, that would complete my day.

[zsn]

“The Government” doesn’t use the money one way or another. It’s the reprobates we elect who don’t use the money wisely. Actually it’s more a case of us voting for people who don’t spend the money wisely, with the definition of “wisely” being entirely in the eye of the beholder!

My solution? Get rid of representation for land-area (ie The Senate) for starters.

[Deleted User 318]

Smaller government. More power at state level, more power/ responsibility in individuals.


Now wheres someone to come call me racist for that, that would complete my day.

How is small government racist? Unless you mean Pygmies government.

[PhDhawk]

Smaller government. More power at state level, more power/ responsibility in individuals.


Now wheres someone to come call me racist for that, that would complete my day.

How is small government racist? Unless you mean Pygmies government.

Ask ousdahl. He says that almost daily.

[Deleted User 310]

“The Government” doesn’t use the money one way or another. It’s the reprobates we elect who don’t use the money wisely.

Very true.

And on a state level that is one of Illinois greatest problems.

[TDub]

Smaller government. More power at state level, more power/ responsibility in individuals.


Now wheres someone to come call me racist for that, that would complete my day.

How is small government racist? Unless you mean Pygmies government.

Thats a good question. Ive been called racist on here for preferring smaller government and saying that we should lessen the federal power and increase state level power.

[Deleted User 318]

Smaller government. More power at state level, more power/ responsibility in individuals.


Now wheres someone to come call me racist for that, that would complete my day.

How is small government racist? Unless you mean Pygmies government.

Thats a good question. Ive been called racist on here for preferring smaller government and saying that we should lessen the federal power and increase state level power.

Weird. One would think with what’s going on in certain cities, big fed govt would be the racist side.

[jfish26]

Well. Technically the wealth in thw inheritance money has already had tax paid on it when it was made. Its just a gift to the benefactor.


But. You can only receive i believe 13k per year in gift money tax free. So im not sure why inheritance would be different than that

I agree with TDub in part. Estate taxes are not the issue. An estate, theoretically, has already been taxed. It's loopholes in the tax code that leads to a lack of tax revenue. I don't agree with taxing income twice only because they died. That's pretty communistic (assuming that the state has more rights to the money than the heirs). If you want to put a nominal tax, 1-3%, I think that might fine. I don't know how you justify it other than "you did well in life, and we want a cut."

Also, tax-free giftable income is now $15k per person.

But we HAVE an estate tax NOW. That goes from 18% (on anything up to $10,000) up to 40% (that caps out inheritance above $1 million). I'm not proposing something that doesn't already exist, so it's already been justified.

My point, is if you increase the tax rate on truly large sums of money, it should encourage people to use their money in their lifetimes rather than accruing familial wealth. And I'd get rid of it for smaller sums of money, I think it's silly to tax inheritances of say under $1 million (But that's currently happening - although there are large exemptions in most cases.)

Yes tax loopholes are a bigger problem. But you're sounding like a republican if you want to simplify the tax code and get rid of deductions.

I...don’t think it’s from dollar one right now?

[Deleted User 318]

I...don’t think it’s from dollar one right now?

I remember talking to a lawyer that said if any client had to pay an estate tax, that client's lawyer should be disbarred.

But to answer your question, it's like 12 millions dollars that the federal estate tax comes into play. Then dollar one does comes into play, but it's so toothless that less than 2k estates a year actually have to pay estate tax.

[PhDhawk]

I agree with TDub in part. Estate taxes are not the issue. An estate, theoretically, has already been taxed. It's loopholes in the tax code that leads to a lack of tax revenue. I don't agree with taxing income twice only because they died. That's pretty communistic (assuming that the state has more rights to the money than the heirs). If you want to put a nominal tax, 1-3%, I think that might fine. I don't know how you justify it other than "you did well in life, and we want a cut."

Also, tax-free giftable income is now $15k per person.

But we HAVE an estate tax NOW. That goes from 18% (on anything up to $10,000) up to 40% (that caps out inheritance above $1 million). I'm not proposing something that doesn't already exist, so it's already been justified.

My point, is if you increase the tax rate on truly large sums of money, it should encourage people to use their money in their lifetimes rather than accruing familial wealth. And I'd get rid of it for smaller sums of money, I think it's silly to tax inheritances of say under $1 million (But that's currently happening - although there are large exemptions in most cases.)

Yes tax loopholes are a bigger problem. But you're sounding like a republican if you want to simplify the tax code and get rid of deductions.

I...don’t think it’s from dollar one right now?

I think technically it is, but because of exemptions, practically it isn't.

[PhDhawk]

I...don’t think it’s from dollar one right now?

I remember talking to a lawyer that said if any client had to pay an estate tax, that client's lawyer should be disbarred.

But to answer your question, it's like 12 millions dollars that the federal estate tax comes into play. Then dollar one does comes into play, but it's so toothless that less than 2k estates a year actually have to pay estate tax.

Loopholes.

[Deleted User 318]

Per Worldinfo, US will hit 5 million confirmed cases today.

[jfish26]

Per Worldinfo, US will hit 5 million confirmed cases today.

And who said American exceptionalism is dead.

[Deleted User 318]

As, I hate to put on the tinfoil hat, but Florida's numbers have been suspiciously low the last week, when it appeared they were cooking the numbers earlier own (pneumonia deaths, not allowing some number to report). Newsweek reported this week that there are 10s of thousands of cases in Texas that aren't being reported.

I love how Republican led states are hiding numbers as they think it will make them/the party look poorly. I hope the Biden administration looks into this, and gives up better estimates on how many folks actually are thought to have had this.

[jfish26]

As, I hate to put on the tinfoil hat, but Florida's numbers have been suspiciously low the last week, when it appeared they were cooking the numbers earlier own (pneumonia deaths, not allowing some number to report). Newsweek reported this week that there are 10s of thousands of cases in Texas that aren't being reported.

I love how Republican led states are hiding numbers as they think it will make them/the party look poorly. I hope the Biden administration looks into this, and gives up better estimates on how many folks actually are thought to have had this.

Not to mention the testing lag that will result from Isaias, and perhaps the infection bump from people sheltering together.

Unfortunately, whatever chance we had at ever diagnostically understanding the scope of the pandemic is long past. It will be up to science/math to come up with an estimate, based on what we'll eventually learn about transmissibility and true death rate, and possibly from better antigen testing applied in groups.