The Grimmest Reaper

People live quite a bit longer today. The money that one receives for a lifetime of work is generally keeping them afloat in terms of long term health issues. I see many seniors use the majority of their money to take care of themselves in their ending years, usually alive but sick. My father was talking about how he doubted he would have any money left when he died.

I have noticed that this senior generation is very interested in leaving their children something when they die. I guess because so many of their parents were new to the United States and they wanted to give their own children advantages that were not available to previous generations.

So, due to the life expectancy of many people, I wonder how much a death tax will bring in anyway.

By then, there won't be much left for many people

to contribute to these big taxes anyway.

Why don't we just put a 40% tax on Designer label clothing, handbags and shoes and music CD's and DVDs That ought to bring in quite a bit of revenue and then people can be frivolous and feel philanthropic too if 40% of their purchase contributed to a more merit based economy.

Forgive me for another slant on TAXES. The "Fat Tax" has been discussed also about implicating it soon. One friend told me that his medical coverage announced no more preventive care and bariatric/counseling cost coverage for the obese this January. That is the beginning of the end of America dealing with the so called obesity epidemic of currently 66% of persons overweight.

We have the "Sin Tax" already for many years. We have the "Property Tax". We have the "Luxury Tax/sales tax".

Well, I can't list them all. But your post is understood, wcbiv49. I just wonder when we shall throw a Boston Tea Party and say enough is enough?

Our entire will is going to ECFA based ministries. Let them stand on the front lines and fight for their monies. We are out of here and at least all our loved ones will not have to swoop in like vultures and deal with the govt.

TAX THE CHURCHES instead. Is there a "bottom" below which inheritance will not be taxed? Is it all inclusive. I see "lightening rod Hillary" is getting it again. I will have to see more about this issue before I make any other comments.

Quite frankly, my mother will probably need everything she has to take care of herself until she dies. My kids are "On their own". And, what I have left will go to my younger wife to spend as she sees fit for having taken care of an put up with me. She'll still be "hot" at 65. If i make it till then, I will be 80. So, for me, the point is moot anyway. LOL Money to charities (including churches) instead of children is a step in the right direction.

Isn't something like the first $300,000 of an estate exempt from the "Death Tax"?

I used to know a couple of guys who Gush Pfleghmball had convinced that "Billary" was going to come grab 1/2 their double-wide and junk Trans-Ams after they died.

Since I've written-off my abusive father who wields his Last Will and Testament like a club to try and get people to do what he wants, and in all likelihood will die in poverty myself, I could give a crap.

Same goes for the AMT. I make 1/2 of what I'd have to in order to be liable for that, too. Sucks to be "Middle Class", eh?

While the concept of merit based economy isn't bad by itself since the tax discourages inherited wealth (the old Europe model) that the founding fathers disliked, in the hands of the class-warfare promoters can be dangerous. Perhaps we can set for the tax to kick in at a higher net worth say 10mils.

My beef is more with the tyranical progressive income tax and taxes on capital gains and divedents.

IMHO, there are many forms of injustice in life, and sure -- having your inheritance diminshed by a factor up to 40% or so by Uncle Sam (and, as I'm sure you know, this only applies to estates of a significant size, currently $2 million I think?) would feel unjust. I am of the school of thought, however, that, to be placed in perspective, injustices must be ranked comparatively. Is the fact that someone's heirs will receive only $6 million instead of the $10 million they'd get in the absence of an estate tax as serious a problem as these: the lack of adequate care for our wounded and psychologically damaged veterans; dilapidated and failing schools; inadequate inspections of our food and our bridges, leading to innocent deaths from food poisonings or catastrophes such as occurred in Minnesota; and substandard medical care for kids with the bad luck to have poor parents? Methinks not. I'd love to live in a world where all the services that a sane society needs to provide could be arranged without taxing anyone! Just don't see how to do it -- ergo, I have no philosophical problem with the estate tax. As you also probably know, because of legislative quirks, the estate tax is scheduled to be abolished for one year a few years from now, and then return the following year. Congress is likely to address and modify this odd scenario, and while many will presumably urge a permanent abolishment of the tax, I'd prefer that it be continued with an exemption level tied to inflation that ensures that it only affects the wealthy. Anything else would, in my view, constitute a continuation of the trend since 2001 to stack the deck more in favor of the haves as opposed to the have nots. Is that a class warfare theme? I think it's just calling a spade a spade.

You must make a lot of money and have a lot of lucrative investments. 10million? Gee I wonder what percentage of the population would have THAT much to leave! I'd bet less than 5%. But, I HAVE led a sheltered life. :-)