PDA

View Full Version : US 'Death Tax'



EMehl6
05-22-2008, 07:00 PM
Ugh. aghu;oheIAJRLFKGRA;FDCV

Also known as Inheritence or Estate tax. I don't even know what to say about this except BULL-FUCKING-SHIT! Basically, after someone dies, the government can steal even more money from what you leave behind as inheritence or whatever. They tax the shit out of you your whole life, and then steal a rediculous amount of what's left behind. I'm so pissed I don't even know what else to write. Look at this:

For amounts not greater than $10,000, the tax liability is 18% of the amount.
For amounts over $10,000 but not over $20,000, the tentative tax is $1,800 plus 20% of the excess over $10,000.
For amounts over $20,000 but not over $40,000, the tentative tax is $3,800 plus 22% of the excess over $20,000.
For amounts over $40,000 but not over $60,000, the tentative tax is $8,200 plus 24% of the excess over $40,000.
For amounts over $60,000 but not over $80,000, the tentative tax is $13,000 plus 26% of the excess over $60,000.
For amounts over $80,000 but not over $100,000, the tentative tax is $18,200 plus 28% of the excess over $80,000.
For amounts over $100,000 but not over $150,000, the tentative tax is $23,800 plus 30% of the excess over $100,000.
For amounts over $150,000 but not over $250,000, the tentative tax is $38,800 plus 32% of the excess over $150,000.
For amounts over $250,000 but not over $500,000, the tentative tax is $70,800 plus 34% of the excess over $250,000.
For amounts over $500,000 but not over $750,000, the tentative tax is $155,800 plus 37% of the excess over $500,000.
For amounts over $750,000 but not over $1,000,000, the tentative tax is $248,300 plus 39% of the excess over $750,000.
For amounts over $1,000,000 but not over $1,250,000, the tentative tax is $345,800 plus 41% of the excess over $1,000,000.
For amounts over $1,250,000 but not over $1,500,000, the tentative tax is $448,300 plus 43% of the excess over $1,250,000.
For amounts over $1,500,000, the tentative tax is $555,800 plus 45% of the excess over $1,500,000.
For years before 2007, additional tax brackets applied for amounts over $2,000,000 with marginal rates of up to 55%.

Read more here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States).

IamSam
05-22-2008, 07:01 PM
I've known of this for a while and find it horrible as well.

EMehl6
05-22-2008, 07:57 PM
Horrible isn't the word for it. I heard my dad talking about it today, and I was like there's no way this is real. Turns out it is. We really need some government reform.

Scythe Death
05-22-2008, 09:00 PM
Would "fucking idiotic" be a better substitute?

EMehl6
05-22-2008, 11:41 PM
That would work. But it still doesn't do it justice.

randman21
05-22-2008, 11:57 PM
Yeah, there is no word to accurately describe it. I, too, have known about this for a long time, but I never knew how much was taken away (and I never wanted to know, because I knew I'd be pissed). But aren't you pretty much at the point where you do nothing but shrug and say "fuck it"? I know I am.

Little_Miss_1565
05-23-2008, 12:22 AM
Nothing teaches you the value of money like not having it. Living in the most expensive city ever (except maybe Dubai), I have none. Were I to inherit a large sum, I'd cut the bitch who tries to take more than half. At the same time, I get that the tax is a democratizing force--it prevents too much wealth from just sitting around stagnating and doing nothing, passing from person to person within the same house. But a person ought to be able to leave whatever they like to their heirs.

The GOP has been trying to get rid of it for years. Somehow, they still haven't.

Moose
05-23-2008, 12:57 AM
I'm sure we aren't the only country that has this tax...

but that still doesn't make it right.

It is more of the amount they take, than the actual fact that they are taking any...but even then, it still seems shitty.

batfish
05-23-2008, 06:43 AM
Wow, that's pretty harsh.
We have something similar in the UK, but it's only taxable if your assets are above about 300,000, and I don't think it counts if your spouse inherits it even if it's above 300,000

I don't know what percentage is taxed in the UK, but it seems unfair on poorer people in the US as there is no minimum limit

nieh
05-23-2008, 07:25 AM
Somehow, they still haven't.

They would lose a significant amount of tax money if they got rid of it and would probably end up having to raise taxes elsewhere to make up for it. Not like the government's spending has anything to do with the actual amount of tax money they take in or anything.

HeadAroundU
05-23-2008, 08:05 AM
That will be for 100 years in Iraq with Mr. McCain. :d

Bazza
05-23-2008, 08:11 AM
Wow, that's pretty harsh.
We have something similar in the UK, but it's only taxable if your assets are above about 300,000, and I don't think it counts if your spouse inherits it even if it's above 300,000

I don't know what percentage is taxed in the UK, but it seems unfair on poorer people in the US as there is no minimum limit

It's 40% on anything over 300,000 (think the minimum has gone up a little though). Also you can be taxed on any gifts given up to 7 years proir, ie if your grandma gives you a nice lump sum (early inheritance) and then promptly pops her clogs you could get a call from the taxman (assuming her total worth was over the limit). The problem is that nowadays there is quite a lot of old folk with terribly expensive properties, which they won't be able to pass on to their kids/grandkids due to the taxation thus stopping them from getting on the property market.

I think the graduated scheme in America really sucks, basically because it's going to screw over pretty much everyone.

Mota Boy
05-23-2008, 02:59 PM
At the same time, I get that the tax is a democratizing force--it prevents too much wealth from just sitting around stagnating and doing nothing, passing from person to person within the same house. But a person ought to be able to leave whatever they like to their heirs.Yeah, you can still leave a significant sum, but as you said, I think part of the idea is to cut into the concept of aristocracy, that money continues to pass through the same families. Of course, it doesn't stop that at all, but it does somewhat diminish it. I mean, I personally fail to see how it's any worse than an income tax. Money given to you is, after all, income. The government currently has a ceiling of $20,000 annually that can be passed onto one's descendants tax-free, so it's possible to begin passing excess wealth down prior to one's death without getting caught completely flat-footed.

One unfortunate effect of the law is to negatively impact small farmers. As it's the total cost of your estate, many multi-generation farmers have to sell off a chunk of their land each generation in order to pay the tax, shrinking the arm and their further generate wealth. The flip side, however, is that in theory it makes it difficult for a landed aristocracy to just sit back on large tracks of real estate generation after generation. However, the really wealthy can get around it by forming REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), or essentially turning the land they own into a small corporation. That's one of the major problems with taxes in the US - the wealthier you are, the more options you have for cheating. Or rather, now that I think about it, the more it's worth it to spend time and money searching for loopholes. If you're paying $800,000 in taxes it's much more worth it to take extravagant measures to avoid paying than it is if you're "only" paying $8,000.

IamSam
05-26-2008, 10:26 PM
One unfortunate effect of the law is to negatively impact small farmers. As it's the total cost of your estate, many multi-generation farmers have to sell off a chunk of their land each generation in order to pay the tax, shrinking the arm and their further generate wealth. The flip side, however, is that in theory it makes it difficult for a landed aristocracy to just sit back on large tracks of real estate generation after generation. However, the really wealthy can get around it by forming REITs (Real Estate Investment Trusts), or essentially turning the land they own into a small corporation. That's one of the major problems with taxes in the US - the wealthier you are, the more options you have for cheating. Or rather, now that I think about it, the more it's worth it to spend time and money searching for loopholes. If you're paying $800,000 in taxes it's much more worth it to take extravagant measures to avoid paying than it is if you're "only" paying $8,000.

Exactly. You see it all the time in the Midwest. It enables large farm companies to 'buy out' small farms and because large companies sometimes don't pass off the company as 'inheritance' they are safe from being taxed.

Jesus
05-27-2008, 04:42 AM
This is just progressive income taxation, nothing wrong with it (besides some loopholes that are only worth it if you are rich).


That's one of the major problems with taxes in the US - the wealthier you are, the more options you have for cheating. Or rather, now that I think about it, the more it's worth it to spend time and money searching for loopholes. If you're paying $800,000 in taxes it's much more worth it to take extravagant measures to avoid paying than it is if you're "only" paying $8,000.

That's not only the problem in the US. But pretty much everywhere I guess (although with different tresholds). Here they actually made the rate for high amounts quite low because of all the loopholes the rich were using. They just used a twisted Laffer curve justification for it (Liberals eh) instead of the actual reason, namely that they were pretty much hopeless when it came to the rich.