Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
The BIG creates an incentive to work (when the income amount isn't silly high), IMHO. The current system creates a disincentive.
Yes
Do what now?
It would create a massive underground economy. Restaurants, landscapers, construction... basically small business would all offer to pay their employees in cash at a low rate. This way, the employee can claim they are unemployeed, collect their 15K from the government, then get the low wage job to put on top of the 15K and end up making a decent living. The employer would like the fact that they would not have to pay a high wage in order to make their employees happy, and if paid in cash they could avoid any federal, ss, or payroll taxes.
Only those over 18
Only this law impacts a lot more than the hiltons of the world. It hits farmers and ranchers who are not monetarily wealthy but own land to farm. It doesn't really take that much land before your taxed and have to sell a portion just to pay this tax. It impacts a lot more people like who are 'working folks' that than the little hiltons. It's a bad tax.
Read better.
Car manufacturers disagree with you
But seriously, that is a good point. I'd probably be in favor of limiting it to those "out on their own" but I'm not sure if that is feasible or not.
Wait...To your first point, that indicates that the tax is paid by the dead wealthy person, which it isn't. It's paid by the person who inherits the money, presumably out of the inheritance assuming there is enough liquid assets to cover, no? I guess my issue is that if you were left a large sum of land, you would be responsible for paying estate taxes on a large, illiquid, potentially difficult to sell piece of land. While you are given assets that value far more than the taxes owed, those assets aren't always liquid or fairly appraised, especially if you have to sell them in a hurry to cover taxes. I'd liken it to the folks on Extreme Home Makeover who get million dollar houses, then don't have enough money to pay the increased income taxes. They have a million dollar house, yes, but they have no cash unless they sell the whole thing.Re. 1)Is it income? It's not really, because to your comment, they weren't the ones who earned it. How is it income if they didn't earn it? They may live off of it, but it was earned by the ancestor, who payed their taxes. Regarding the $5M exemption, everybody has their own definition of reasonable. To most, $5M is a huge sum of money, but in the eyes of someone making that in a year, that's an almost worthless amount of exemptions.
People that own millions of dollars of land don't really strike me as regular working folks.
More helpful: you don't have to be unemployed to collect the BIG. Everyone gets it, even Bill Gates.
Seems a bit strange to me that the workaholic that spends no time with his family is benefiting society but the guy with the regular job is not. Isn't there a benefit to society from having people spend time with their families?
Fixed.Exactly. After college drop out of high school move into a house with 4 or 5 of your buddies. Have a pool , ping pong , billiards, and have a great time .Sorry to bring common sense into this discussion, but you're saying that people would work 40 hours a week at a burger joint making $8 an hour when they could be making half that by sitting on their couches and eating doritos all day?
genius!
1) im not sure punishing children is the phrase I would use for applying a tax to inheritances over 5 million dollars, which is the maximum the law currently allows. But I understand your point: if you earn money, shouldnt you be able to do with it what you want? And the answer is yes, you should. But if you want to buy a car with it, you will have to pay sales tax and excise tax. If you want to buy a house, you will have to pay real estate tax. And if you want to secure your childs future, you may have to pay an estate tax - but only if its a really sizable amount. this is not a disincentive to save, this is simply a fact that high earners know, and they make an educated decision about how to leave their money and how it will be taxed when they die. That may include charitable contributions, leaving it to a spouse (where it is not taxed the same as an inheritance since it was presumably a joint asset), leaving it to children, or gifting it in other ways. 2) the effect you're describing is a real one, but you've actually provided an argument FOR the estate tax, not against it. What you're describing is often misunderstood as a case where someone says, oh well, there's no point earning any more money, since I will only get 60 cents of every dollar I make instead of 70. And to be sure, there is some of that. But the more serious issue is when someone says, I will not make this investment that has x% risk and y% return, because the after tax return is not worth the risk. That is a real issue with individual and corporate tax rates on the "job creators". But that doesn't happen with the estate tax. There is no return on investmen in your own death. What DOES happen, though, is that people go to a financial planner and say, how much do I need to give to my kid so they can be financially independent for life. And if that number is, say, ten million, and the person earns ten million, then they've hit your imaginary limit where darwinism no longer forces them to earn any more. (And I say its imaginary because that effect is rarely observed in practice). the estate tax actually forces them to earn more - 12 or 13 million per kid, say, instead of ten. By increasing the "price" of leaving your kids so much money they never need to do anything, we push the brass ring further out and encourage the job creators to work harder.Not that that is an argument for the estate tax in and of itself, but argument 2 doesn't actually work the way you described.
I guess you are saying the unemployment part is not correct? Because we are talking about just giving the 15K to eveyone that collects government benefits? Regardless of that detail, I think the same thing would happen.I would wager that even the current uemployment benefits are causing this to happen now. People are collecting government benefits now, and working cash jobs while collecting from the government. I think a plan like BIG would greatly increase the number of people that do this now.Unless there is something else I missed. Which I'm not counting out as a possiblity. I suck at reading.
The entire tax system is screwed up. I agree. /thread
This is completely wrong. There is no evidence out there this has cost anyone the family farm. Less than 1 percent of all estates are worth more than 1 million. Ending the inheritance tax is basically a give away to less than 1 percent of the population. That's why I picked 1 million as the number.
Not just "everyone that collects government benefits". Everyone. Period. No more games or patchworks of programs. Heck, if you came across someone who needed help the first thing you can ask them is "what did you do with your $15K" (or whatever) if you so desired. The current incentive to work for under the table money would be exactly the same as the incentive to work for under the table money under the BIG system. That particular objection is a wash, IMHO.
I agree that this is a huge potential problem.
How can this be your twentieth post in this thread? Yes, that's the plan weve been discussing in a thread where you are the leading poster. You now seem to be on the road to understaanding the plan you have been so vocal and opinionated about. If you go back and read some of the earlier posts, you will see this and other points addressed.Hold on - the plan is to give $15k a year to all 225M adult Americans? That's 3.375 TRILLION per year.I can't tell if you two are just totally missing the point of the BIG or if you have some other point you are trying to make here, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason they woud work for 8 bucks an hour is so they could make more money. They would gross 32000 per year instead of 16000, and only pay taxs on the eight bucks an hour. The BIG does not go down when you earn more money, everyone, including people who make much more than 16k/year, gets it. And you only pay taxes on the money you earned. This is in stark contrast to current programs like welfare and social security and unemloyment, which decrease or even eliminate benefits when you make money and provide a strong disincentive to work.
If you are seriously interested in this thread - and i dont blame you if you arent - then the question should be, if only there were a way to eliminate welfare, social security, and other programs, and actually encourage everyone to work by eliminating the primary disincentive in these outdated, and arguably failed, programs. And knowing your political bent, I would think that really is nirvana for you.
In all honesty, as you can see from my earlier posts, I didn't really get this either. The only problem is, I don't see how this fact makes the idea any better. IMO, it would make it worse.When I read that it would essentially replace our current welfare system, I thought it only involved those that currently collect government benefits... but giving it to everyone sounds kind of ridiculous to me, and I don't think it really negates any arguement against it.How can this be your twentieth post in this thread? Yes, that's the plan weve been discussing in a thread where you are the leading poster. You now seem to be on the road to understaanding the plan you have been so vocal and opinionated about. If you go back and read some of the earlier posts, you will see this and other points addressed.Hold on - the plan is to give $15k a year to all 225M adult Americans? That's 3.375 TRILLION per year.I can't tell if you two are just totally missing the point of the BIG or if you have some other point you are trying to make here, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason they woud work for 8 bucks an hour is so they could make more money. They would gross 32000 per year instead of 16000, and only pay taxs on the eight bucks an hour. The BIG does not go down when you earn more money, everyone, including people who make much more than 16k/year, gets it. And you only pay taxes on the money you earned. This is in stark contrast to current programs like welfare and social security and unemloyment, which decrease or even eliminate benefits when you make money and provide a strong disincentive to work.
Well, you can't just hand $15k to the losers of the country. #### that BS.
Unfortunately, just like my idea of giving everyone a $1 Million (capped) US Currency printing press, this would fail miserably for one simple reason. The minute corporate america found out that people had an extra $15k, prices rise. Instant inflation.In fact I would submit that inflation would rise to the point where that $15k would be worthless and you would be back at square one or most likely less.
$15K is an example. Pick a different number you like better: one that provides some sort of safety net (so we can get rid of all our other safety net programs), but that still provides a strong enough incentive to work. Waa-laa!
I guess you dont know many farmers then. I happen to know some and this tax sucks for them. And they work harder than you or I do.
The idea is simple. There is no more gaming of the system. if you make 100k now, your taxes would go up, and your net income would ultimately stay the same. If you make 0 now, but get welfare, your welfare would go away, and you would get thousands per year in BIG, and your net income would ultimately stay the same. The reason this is better is that right now, if you make 100k, you cant get welfare. If you make 0, you can. But what happens when you make 10k/yr in a part time job? In the current system, your welfare benefit goes down. So now instead of making 10k/year more by working, you pay taxes on your check (you get them back at the end of the year, but that's cold comfort right now) , and your benefits go down, and you may even lose access to state or federal programs that offer health or other benefits. But with the BIG, you get a check. No matter what. You get the same amount whether you take that part time job or not, so every after tax dollar you earn is yours to keep. No worries about your benefits getting slashed because you earn more. And you know what? Let's get rid of that minimum wage, too, since people who make 5 bucks an hour are still getting the BIG. These are things conservatives are supposed to like.Will people abuse this? Sure. They abuse welfare and unemployment and social security now, too. This just gives the abusers an incentive to work.
I like the part that it takes away government's ability to influence society. I think the mortgage credit is a bad idea.
Your stats are bad as usual. But forget that for now. Pass the 15 k a year deal and a 1m death tax and I have two good reasons not to work. Sign me up.
Inflation only happens if there is an increasing amount of money in the money supply. Presumably, the money for a hypothetical BIG program would just be money coming from other programs. But if someone presented a BIG program that just borrowed the money to give away, I wouldn't support it for this very reason.Much better comment, BTW, welcome back
It is a bad idea. The average American homeowner makes roughly 100.00 a year from it and there is no proof it increases home ownership. In fact there are countries without it that have higher ownership rates than the US.
I don't know many losers with physically and emotionally attractive significant others. I bet this strategy doesn't last your entire life.Exactly. After college move into a house with 4 or 5 of your buddies. Have a pool , ping pong , billiards, and have a great time .Sorry to bring common sense into this discussion, but you're saying that people would work 40 hours a week at a burger joint making $8 an hour when they could be making half that by sitting on their couches and eating doritos all day?
OLRY? If you are saying my "political bent" is that healthy people that would rather do nothing (see my little sister) and mooch off of others than work for themselves. Yeah, sure. I'm all for some kind of safety net although SS is just a giant pyramid scheme and you know it.
Agree. Maybe a good 6 years. 10 if youre industrious.I don't know many losers with physically and emotionally attractive significant others. I bet this strategy doesn't last your entire life.Exactly. After college move into a house with 4 or 5 of your buddies. Have a pool , ping pong , billiards, and have a great time .Sorry to bring common sense into this discussion, but you're saying that people would work 40 hours a week at a burger joint making $8 an hour when they could be making half that by sitting on their couches and eating doritos all day?
My grandparents had a very large farm in Iowa that sold for about $1.3M. FWIW, I support an estate tax threshold far above $1M.
You are missing the other bit - it also replaces most loopholes in the tax code (itemized deductions). So the FBG pulling in a sweet $150k/year who has $15k in deductions - those deductions are gone but you get the $15k guarantee.In all honesty, as you can see from my earlier posts, I didn't really get this either. The only problem is, I don't see how this fact makes the idea any better. IMO, it would make it worse.When I read that it would essentially replace our current welfare system, I thought it only involved those that currently collect government benefits... but giving it to everyone sounds kind of ridiculous to me, and I don't think it really negates any arguement against it.How can this be your twentieth post in this thread? Yes, that's the plan weve been discussing in a thread where you are the leading poster. You now seem to be on the road to understaanding the plan you have been so vocal and opinionated about. If you go back and read some of the earlier posts, you will see this and other points addressed.Hold on - the plan is to give $15k a year to all 225M adult Americans? That's 3.375 TRILLION per year.I can't tell if you two are just totally missing the point of the BIG or if you have some other point you are trying to make here, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason they woud work for 8 bucks an hour is so they could make more money. They would gross 32000 per year instead of 16000, and only pay taxs on the eight bucks an hour. The BIG does not go down when you earn more money, everyone, including people who make much more than 16k/year, gets it. And you only pay taxes on the money you earned. This is in stark contrast to current programs like welfare and social security and unemloyment, which decrease or even eliminate benefits when you make money and provide a strong disincentive to work.
You are hopelessly naive if you think we will get rid of all other safety net programs. You might initially, but they will come back because there will still be plenty of irresponsible people, plenty of kids going hungry, and plenty of media-driven sob stories.
I already said I agree with you. That is a huge problem. Probably my biggest hang up with the BIG as a concept.
agreed. This is where we differ though. I believe that personal pride and work ethic are the rule for most people and lazy, willing to mooch is the exception. Most people would not simply couch surf with their $15k, because most people don't do it now.Reminds me of Office Space:
people sit on their asses now, they don't need a monthly check from the gov't to do it. most people, I think, want a better place in life than the very bottom.
It is certainly one of the details to work out. I do think we could seriously reduce our entitlements. I think we could even eliminate a lot of them. I think we could also get some skin in the game from a lot of people who do use those programs that are left. We would probably still have food assistance but we would have less of it. We would probably have some housing assistance but we could get more from the residents rent wise. Again these are the discussions we would have to have before we did anything.
How can you be advocating a program that is nearly equal to the entire 2013 budget ($3.54T)? SS, Medicare and Medicaid all add up to $1.65T, about half of what is being proposed here.How can this be your twentieth post in this thread? Yes, that's the plan weve been discussing in a thread where you are the leading poster. You now seem to be on the road to understaanding the plan you have been so vocal and opinionated about. If you go back and read some of the earlier posts, you will see this and other points addressed.Hold on - the plan is to give $15k a year to all 225M adult Americans? That's 3.375 TRILLION per year.I can't tell if you two are just totally missing the point of the BIG or if you have some other point you are trying to make here, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt. The reason they woud work for 8 bucks an hour is so they could make more money. They would gross 32000 per year instead of 16000, and only pay taxs on the eight bucks an hour. The BIG does not go down when you earn more money, everyone, including people who make much more than 16k/year, gets it. And you only pay taxes on the money you earned. This is in stark contrast to current programs like welfare and social security and unemloyment, which decrease or even eliminate benefits when you make money and provide a strong disincentive to work.
