My God, you are an idiot.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Retirees

Yeah, I guess so.

and those receiving small inheritances

Huh? Small inheritances are already tax free.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

This makes no sense to me.

Why? Cutting taxes has to this point never resulted in shrinking the size of government.

And it probably isn't going to meaningfully do so this time either, unless you consider reducing social security and medicare benefits to be reductions in the size of government.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Huh? Small inheritances are already tax free.

Not if it is a small part of a large estate. $10,000 out of a taxable estate would be "subject to" estate tax and go to someone with taxable income under $20k--the numbers underlying that chart were developed by people who want to show how everyone is benefited, so I expect they would do the accounting that way.

[Adder]

No worries, Timmy's just gonna mint a trillion dollar platinum coin or two.

Which actually might be a really appealing solution.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Not if it is a small part of a large estate. $10,000 out of a taxable estate would be "subject to" estate tax and go to someone with taxable income under $20k--the numbers underlying that chart were developed by people who want to show how everyone is benefited, so I expect they would do the accounting that way.

Okay, could be.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Not if it is a small part of a large estate. $10,000 out of a taxable estate would be "subject to" estate tax and go to someone with taxable income under $20k--the numbers underlying that chart were developed by people who want to show how everyone is benefited, so I expect they would do the accounting that way.

If so, that's some serious monkeying with numbers.

Estate taxes are imposed on the estate, not on the beneficiaries. And just how often is an estate, large enough to be taxable, distributed to individuals with less than $20k annual income?

[Fugee]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

If so, that's some serious monkeying with numbers.

Estate taxes are imposed on the estate, not on the beneficiaries. And just how often is an estate, large enough to be taxable, distributed to individuals with less than $20k annual income?

Small bequests made to "the help"?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Fugee

Small bequests made to "the help"?

Statistically insignificant, especially when you limit it to "help" getting paid less than $20k/year.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Estate taxes are imposed on the estate, not on the beneficiaries. And just how often is an estate, large enough to be taxable, distributed to individuals with less than $20k annual income?

Then how does one justify dividing up estate tax burdens by quintiles at all? Try to get inside the head of someone who calls it a "death tax" before formulating your response.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Then how does one justify dividing up estate tax burdens by quintiles at all? Try to get inside the head of someone who calls it a "death tax" before formulating your response.

If it's really a "death tax", seems pretty logical to base it on the income of the decedent during the last year of life.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

If it's really a "death tax", seems pretty logical to base it on the income of the decedent during the last year of life.

Sure. And then, assuming that upon death the decedent ceases to earn income (dunno if correct, Code-wise), if that person dies early enough in January, em might well have less than $20k in income and a taxable estate. And, for the basis of projections, and projecting ($47 less the benefit of reduced corporate tax) in benefits to however many million taxpayers, all you need is to assume one person per year has a taxable estate and less than $20k in income in em's last tax year.

Any projections made by either side are so full of BS that it's almost impossible to unpack. And projections related to inheritance tax are about the worst.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Sure. And then, assuming that upon death the decedent ceases to earn income (dunno if correct, Code-wise), if that person dies early enough in January, em might well have less than $20k in income and a taxable estate. And, for the basis of projections, and projecting ($47 less the benefit of reduced corporate tax) in benefits to however many million taxpayers, all you need is to assume one person per year has a taxable estate and less than $20k in income in em's last tax year.

Any projections made by either side are so full of BS that it's almost impossible to unpack. And projections related to inheritance tax are about the worst.

ETA: never mind. far too boring.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Why? Cutting taxes has to this point never resulted in shrinking the size of government.

And it probably isn't going to meaningfully do so this time either, unless you consider reducing social security and medicare benefits to be reductions in the size of government.

Hence, the push for a balanced budget amendment.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Hence, the push for a balanced budget amendment.

By which you mean symbolic vote on a horrid, draconian thing that will never be adopted that likely is only honestly supported by the small handful of its dimmest sponsors.

Good to know that they are tackling the pressing scourge of constant tax increases that never happen though.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Hence, the push for a balanced budget amendment.

If the Rs hadn't pushed through the 22nd Amendment, you would have had something better than a balanced budget amendment: a third and fourth Clinton term instead of Bush.