Perfect argument FOR the estate tax-Paris Hilton

[fishguy]

Paris Hilton
Why should that idiot inherit millions without paying taxes?
She should become the poster child for the estate tax.

[Skittles]

1. perfect argument proving the dumbing down of America

people watching CRAP like The Simple Life.

[bluestateguy]

2. Nothing personal against Paris...

but she should not get to escape the estate tax. The US government does a whole lot to maintain a capitalist system of government that allows families like the Hilton's to make a whole lot of money. The least they can do is pay a little bit of a tax in return.

[BigDaddyLove]

3. Are you suggesting that the Hilton Corporation or family.......

doesn't pay taxes?

[arewethereyet]

4. I can only hope that daddio does the right thing

and kick that little whore out to the curb cut off completely.

He won't, of course. But out of control does not begin to describe that child.

[BigDaddyLove]

5. I see her as a perfect poster child for what this society.....

has become (or deteriorated to).

Classless, vapid, free of morality, and just plain ugly.

[beaconess]

7. She is less a symbol of these things

than are the people who have turned her into a celebrity.

Without the vast audience of voyeurs that hangs on her every move, she'd be just another anonymous rich girl.

[BigDaddyLove]

15. Right.......

she is a symbol for a society which does such things.

[economic justice]

9. I agree with all of that except....

Ugly? Paris Hilton? I have to say, I DO like her sister Nickey better, but I wouldn't send her down the highway.

[BigDaddyLove]

11. Ugly, with regard to the entire package.......

just looking at a picture of her without knowing who or what she is, then no she is not ugly per se.

[economic justice]

12. ahhh....then I agree 100% !!! <eom>

[arewethereyet]

31. even with the makeup she is ordinary at best

without it she is nothing to write home about.

[BrendaM]

6. Not just that rich little witch but many other making too much money

I do fine on less than 40k a year and I can't see why anyone else needs more than that. I say tax those making more than 50k at 60% or more and let's get some help to those that really need it.

[ComerPerro]

18. Well, thats more than a little extreme, don't you think?

But, perhaps you are trying to bait someone into responding. Who knows...

[BrendaM]

35. Not at all extreme

There are too many poor people in the country and we NEED to help them. If any of us have more than we need then we MUST help them.

If my family can survive on 40k with money to spare for the needy then you can too. We don't need to be greedy and allow others to suffer. It is not fair to them and we must be more sensitive to those in need.

[Silverhair]

60. That has been done before in America.

At one time the top tax bracket was 91%. I remember it. Of course I wasn't in that bracket. The real world result was a stagnant economy. At people got into the higher brackets, they would quit working for the rest of the year. It wasn't worth it for them to work as the gov't took too much of it. The result was the same as if those people were unemployed.

Most people who make a lot of money like that, do so because they are highly productive. You want your super producers to be working as much as they can for the economy to be healthy.

I taxation is so wonderful, why not take it all, and have a gov't person determine what your needs are and give them to you, no matter what work you did, or didn't do?

[economic justice]

8. Because the Hilton's have already paid tax on that money

I despise the double/multiple taxation of the estate tax. It's as simple as this: The Hilton's start out with $100. After taxes, they have say, $75 left. If the father dies and leaves the $75 to his children, they turn around and pay tax AGAIN and have probably $46 left over. Now, increase this to the kind of money we're talking about with the Hilton's and explain how it's fair for his kids to be taxed on money he's already paid taxes on? We may not like our current wealth gap, tax structure, etc.....but I DO think that the estate tax is unfair.

[spooky3]

13. a coupla things

I'm no estate tax expert (hope someone here is) but

1) there is a HUGE exemption ($1 million or more) before anyone pays estate tax. This exempts 99.9% (or something like that) of all estates. It is a Repug-fueled myth that small business, small farmers, etc. get confiscated by estate tax due.

2) much of the money accumulated in the estate has NOT been taxed previously. Most will include a house that has appreciated greatly in value. The children inheriting the house will inherit it at the fair market value, not at the parent's probably very low basis, so if they sell it the next day, they pay 0 income tax on the gain. For example, if a parent bought a house years ago for $35000, & put $65000 into it, in many cities it might be worth $600000 or more. If s/he leaves the house to you, your basis is now $600000+, not $100000. If you sell it tomorrow for $640000, you pay no tax at all on this. AND, s/he never paid tax on the gain. Why shouldn't these gains be taxed in the estate tax, to the extent that that they would have been taxed as income to the parent?

[NavajoRug]

20. The house example is a good one, but . . .

. . . that just means the transfer of ownership should be taxed as a capital gain, and nothing else. If the parents paid $100,000 for a house and it was valued at $600,000 when they transferred it to the child, then the child should pay a tax on the $500,000 gain, not the $600,000 value of the asset (let's ignore the $1 million exemption for the sake of this argument).

All this does is collect taxes up front that might otherwise be collected later. Because if the child later sells the house for $800,000, then the capital gain is only $200,000 instead of $700,000 (since the asset was valued at $600,000 when it was originally transferred, not $100,000).

[DoNotRefill]

28. Huge?

"1) there is a HUGE exemption ($1 million or more) before anyone pays estate tax."

My mother bought her home for $189,000 in the 1970s. It's now worth over $1 million due to property appreciation and renovation (which I did a fair bit of myself), and it's not a really expensive house for the area, since housing costs are quite high. When she dies, we'll either have to cough up a huge chunk of change (which we don't have) to pay the taxes, or sell the house.

It'd be nice to live in the house I grew up in and worked to make a nice place to live, but I'll not be able to afford to keep it due to the death tax. My mom's contemplating burning the place down as one of the last things she does before she dies, so at least we'd be able to keep the land.

It's one thing for people who have 500 million dollars, but quite another for people who live in areas where real estate prices have soared, but don't have a lot of other assets.

[spooky3]

30. good news for you; in 2004 it goes to $1.5 million.

http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P12_5745.asp

I don't think everyone will come to agreement on what is fair on this one. While it is sad that some beneficiaries will have to lose their family house, they will also collect a lot of money as a gain when the house is sold, even after any tax due is paid. And, they did not have to work for this money, which can then be used to fix up their own house, invest in tax free bonds, or take a well-deserved vacation. Why this is more unfair than the situation of a bus driver or teacher or accountant or police officer, who will never live in or sell a house worth 1/4 as much, and who has to pay full income tax on his/her low wages/salaries, is open to debate.

The elderly parent also has the option of selling the house while living and taking the $250K or $500K if married exclusion from income tax. Again, the low earning worker does not have this option of shielding his/her income.

[DoNotRefill]

36. It's like being injured in an accident and collecting money damages...

While the cash is nice, I'd rather have the house, just as an injured person would rather have their health and be pain-free rather than rich.

BTW, I'm an ex-cop, and my wife's a teacher. My mother was a teacher too. We're not exactly the fucking Hiltons, yet the law is going to screw us.

A friend of mine is in the same situation. Her dad was enlisted military, and her mom was a secretary. No way in hell she'll be able to keep the house, either.

[Pithlet]

38. She couldn't have been doing too badly

if she bought a nearly 200 grand house in the 70s. I'm not unsympathetic to your situation. I'm very sentimental about stuff like that. Hopefully I won't have to sell my parent's house for that reason. But, if I do, I'm still a lot better off than the majority of Americans. I do think that something could be done for this kind of situation, but I'm not for dumping the estate tax. And I think a 1.5 million exemption is more than fair.

[spooky3]

39. oops, Beaconess already made this point so I'm deleting my post

sorry!

[DoNotRefill]

48. Heh...

It was one of those situations where it was originally a nice house that had deteriorated. We couldn't afford furniture at first, and have scrimped and saved on other things in order to redo the house. For the first 2 years we lived there, my bed was literally a puke-yellow sofa that the previous owners abandoned, since I'd outgrown my old mattress. My parents were sleeping on my maternal granmother's old mattress, which dated to the 1950's and which both she and my grandfather had died on. Not an antique, mind you, just a piece of junk. The first "leave home" vacation I ever got to go on was when I was 18, which was my school's senior spring break trip. This didn't mean my parents left me at home while they went on vacation, rather they NEVER took vacations. Their "vacation" time was spent working on the house, not yardwork, which was a daily kind of thing, but rather structural stuff. We were finally able to replace the carpet a couple of years ago. It was done using remnants that don't cover the entire floor, cut to be square, and then put in the middle of the floor.

If you want to punish the rich, OK, fine. Make it so that in order to get hit with it, you actually have to BE rich. Don't punish people who whave worked their asses off to get what they have, and then take the product away from them.

BTW, I no longer live there. I moved out and bought a big old house for around $70,000 with my wife. Right now, if the place got inspected, it'd be condemned as unfit for human habitation. The foundation is screwed, but we've been working on fixing it. We've got a 50 year old furnace that heats the kitchen and basement only, and are relying on kerosene and propane space heaters to heat the rest of the part we live in, with the top half left unheated. For air conditioning in the summertime, we have drafts. All of our furniture is "hand-me-downs", either from our families or from thrift stores. The electric system is archaic (some parts are still "knob and tube", but we've disconnected that part because it's a fire hazard, and just don't have electricity in the top half of the house, the downstairs was that cloth-insulated stuff from the 1930's). This christmas, my wife and I split a pallet of drywall with each other as our christmas gifts to each other. In 30 years, this place will be worth a small fortune. And if I can't leave it for my kids, I'll burn the fucker to the ground. NO WAY am I going to let it be sold to finance some future war effort or whatever.

[Pithlet]

51. Have you actually talked to an accountant?

First of all, are you sure you'd have to sell the house because of an estate tax? If she gifts the house to you before she dies, you won't even have to pay an estate tax.

[DoNotRefill]

53. If she gives it to me...

there's still capital gains tax, which would necessitate selling it anyway.

[Pithlet]

57. No

You don't pay capital gains on gifts. If an accountant told you this, you need to get a new one. And the gift tax is well over a million, so you should be okay there, too.

[spooky3]

43. But you're still way ahead of the person who has nothing to inherit

that's how it's different from your accident analogy. The person who has the accident still has to live with the effects of the injury, disability, etc., and the money compensates for that, but the injured person still suffers from something that the person who was not in an accident does not. Those damages are to make you as whole as possible, as much like the non-injured. Those who inherit cash OR property are ahead of those who do not.

[DoNotRefill]

52. Gee, and all I had to give up was a "normal" childhood...

in order to spend my time working on the house.

I didn't get a single set of clothes that didn't come from a thrift store or wasn't a hand me down or mil-surp until I was 22 years old, except for underwear.

And somehow I'm the bad person that needs to be punished for acquiring assets, while many of the people who don't pay the estate tax (and have comparable incomes to mine) don't have to because they blew their income of Tommy Hilfiger and $100 Nikes and a new car every 4 years. I'm 35 years old, and still wear shoes to work that I got used for $5 from a surplus store. I drive a 1988 subcompact car with over 250,000 miles on it. And a "vacation" for me is invariably spent ripping out and replacing stuff around the house.

Sometimes, I really do think I'd be better off saying "fuck it" and just being a typical American "consumer".

[Cleita]

32. Things do need to be fixed especially for people like you

who are property rich but not cash rich. Also, old people losing their homes because the property values are so high that they can't pay the taxes anymore is also another problem in some places. We need legislators, not Republicans, who are genuinely interested in helping the ordinary working class person to fix these inequities. :shrug:

[spooky3]

40. One option for the old people still occupying their homes

is the "reverse mortgage." The bank in effect pays them a mortgage payment as long as they live, and then the bank owns the house when they pass on. This gives them more income for their bills while living.

[DoNotRefill]

54. Sure, spooky...

that's a GREAT idea. Let's enrich a corporation....

[TreasonousBastard]

16. That, of course, is...

complete and utter crap.

I made money and bought something, so the person I bought it from should pay no taxes?

Cash transfers are taxed all the time, and there is tax on top of tax every where you look. Instead of calling this an "estate tax" call it an "income tax" for the recipients of this largess.

For some curious reason, if I go out and make a bunch of money, I have to pay tax on it (even though those who paid me paid taxes, right?). If, however, I had the wherewithall to choose the proper parents who dropped a bigger load of money on me, it is "unearned" income and not taxed.

We pay taxes on money we earn, but not on that we don't earn?

This makes absolutely no economic, financial, or social sense.

[economic justice]

21. Well....

It comes down to what constitutes "legacy"....huh? If I built a company and made X number of dollars and paid tax on it, I feel I should be able to transfer that money to my children without them paying tax on it. It is very different than "spending" money....it is a matter of leaving my money to my children without being taxed AGAIN. If the house is paid for - damn right my children should get it without having to pay the government. Should YOU be taxed if your grandfather were to leave you a gold watch worth $2000? Yes? After all -- it's "unearned"!!! What is a legacy and what is not? Very different than spending money at a shop and the shopkeeper paying tax on it. Apples and oranges, in fact.

[Fla_Democrat]

17. Get your duct tape ready

This thread is gonna be a doozie. :evilgrin:

[ComerPerro]

19. You are completely missing the point

I will even use your example.

but, to make it more likely, lets drop the "dollar" bullshit and look at it more realistically. So, multiply by 1 million.

Lets say he makes $100 million dollars, and after taxes (whatever he doesn't get to weasel out of) he is left with $75 million to leave his girls. Now, he dies and leaves them the $75 million, but they are "only" left with $46 million.

And...


Can you explain why I should give a shit?

"Oh, the poor Hilton girls. They never worked a day in their lives, but because of the evil government and its unfair tax system, when their rich daddy dies they will only have 46 million dollars to show for it."
Come on. Give me a break.

[economic justice]

22. I made a point of saying

that problems with the tax STRUCTURE aside.....I suppose if this country was a socialist society, well then yes, tax it....hell, take it all! BUT, we are not and with our current system it's simply not right to take legally obtained money from a family.....in my opinion. Soon, they'll be coming after yours. I understand the other side, I just think we lose sight of the fact that the money was earned by the family and should be able to leave it to the heirs....unless.....we decide we are not a capitalist country and begin confiscation at death.

[ComerPerro]

23. Last time I checked

No one in my family even comes close to qualifying for the estate tax.

See, here's the thing. No average person will ever have to worry about this.

And, sorry to tell you this, but most fortunes are never entirely "legally obtained", and are almost never truly earned.

[economic justice]

25. I am a Democrat

I am not an apologist for wealth. I also agree with you that much money in wealthy families is NOT "earned"......with that, we can agree.

[ComerPerro]

26. Ok, maybe I got jumpy

My main point is one that many people forget when discussing the "death tax", as Rethugs like to call it.

Essentially, there are exemptions. No one who will actually be hurt by the estate tax will have to pay it.

Anyway,

:-)

[DoNotRefill]

29. Not true.

We're going to have to sell my mother's house because we can't afford pay the estate tax on it. This is the house I grew up in, and helped renovate. I'd really like to keep it and live there, butthere's no way in hell I could afford the mortgage necessary to pay the estate taxes that will be due on it.

If you live someplace where housing is cheap, it's pretty easy to avoid. If you live someplace where real estate prices have appreciated, it's easy to get screwed by it.

[formernaderite]

41. it seems like you do give a shit...

See, I really don't give a shit that some people are wealthy. I wouldn't want it, but I do understand that to some it's important, and that's cool. I happen to be an expert at living on the lower economic scale.
However, I would like to see more equity of opportunity, but I don't buy into a redistribution of wealth system in the same way that some on this board do. I'd like to see affirmative action pushed to be more inclusive of socio-economic classes, and the ill-educated. I just don't think having little is a detriment, it can be very freeing, in the same way as having too much can be a prison for some.

[beaconess]

24. The same argument could be made to outlaw sales tax

since that's a double taxation, too. Funny, there doesn't seem to be a huge push to eliminate THAT particular form of double taxation - probably because it's a form of tax reform that would actually benefit someone other than the wealthiest members of our society.

[BOHICA06]

10. No way ...

I'd much rather Paris keep her families millions than become indigent and a burden on the state - she is totally unemployable. I think I'd resent more her 3-hots & a cot expense for her time on solicitation than her present ignorable condition.

[bobthedrummer]

14. ROTFLMAO!

Touche!

[stevedeshazer]

27. I agree, BUT

All the dullards who watch this want to be EXACTLY like her.

Make no mistake, there are millions of Amurikans waiting to become the next Paris Hilton.

Furthermore, who do you think they'll vote for?t

[sendero]

33. I thought we lived in a meritocracy...

.... being born into a rich family is not a "merit".

Death taxes should be 100% :)

[DjTj]

42. ...America is not a meritocracy; we live under capitalism...

...people aren't paid based on "merit", they are paid based on market value.

And taking all of someone's money because they've made a lot of it would seem to be a punishment for merit instead of a reward.

[Pithlet]

47. What market value is there

in belonging to the lucky sperm club? The inheritors didn't make the money. Their parents did. I value hard work, but a person's financial status isn't always directly related to how much, or the value of their work. I've had enough friends who were trust fund babies to know this. They are some of the laziest and unmotivated people I know.

Changed the title to make the response more apropos.

[DjTj]

49. People are motivated to help their children...

...so people will work harder if they can pass wealth on to their children. The rich have very little incentive to work now, and they will have even less if they can't give money to their children.

[Pithlet]

50. People will not work

to make a comfortable living for themselves? Rich people will no longer want to vacation on the Riviera and drink 1000 bottles of champaign because they won't get to pass on every red cent to their children? Not to mention that most people raise their children while they're still alive. I might add that the estate tax doesn't come anywhere close to taking all of the inheritance even if you don't take into consideration the million or so ways that there are to shelter inheritance money from the tax already. It hardly seems unfair to have the children of extremely wealthy people give back a portion of that wealth to help support the society that created the conditions that allowed their parents to become filthy rich. Bill Gates' kids will never have to work a day in their life, estate tax or no estate tax. And that's because Bill Gates was born in America. If he had been born in Afghanistan, he'd already be dead. The only reason he's rich is because he lives in a society that allows him to convert his talents into money. Supporting that society is his obligation.

The estate tax is part of that obligation, just as the payroll tax is an obligation for people who work for a living.

[DjTj]

55. If estate tax were 100%...

...people would not work.

I think the current estate tax is perfectly reasonable within our system, and if anything should be more progressive.

In the long run, I would like to see both the estate tax and payroll tax gone in favor of a more consistent consumption-based tax, but that kind of reform is probably decades away.

[Pithlet]

58. Where did I say?

It should be 100% I'm okay with the estate tax as well. I guess we don't disagree then.

I do disagree with you on this: consumption taxes are horrible for poor people, and are generally not progressive.

[DjTj]

59. A progressive consumption tax though...

...was already being implemented under Clinton. IRA's and other exemptions for savings move towards taxing spending rather than simply income. The higher we raise the exemptions for savings, the closer we get to a progressive consumption tax.

The top comment was about 100% and I was generally responding to that post.

[randr]

34. Proof that the very rich are already exempt

[maggrwaggr]

37. Hey! That was my line!

But I'll let you borrow it for now. :)

[bhunt70]

44. disagree...this kind of elitism is bad for our party.

So she's not the brightest bulb in the package and she's wealthy as hell...big deal, I'm sure there are people here that are richer and dumber than me but that doesnt make me better.

[DjTj]

45. A consumption tax would solve all these controversies...

...give everyone an unlimited deduction for savings and eliminate the death tax.

If you inherit a house and live in it, you won't be taxed. If you inherit a fortune like Paris Hilton and use it to live an extravagant life, you will be taxed on your lifestyle.

What distinguishes the wealthy is their lifestyle and that's what should be taxed.

Tax wealth not work.

[AntiCoup2K4]

46. Better argument - George Bush Jr

Paris Hilton is useless, but she's also harmless.

Junior, on the other hand, is living on money that originated from his grandpa's dealings with Hitler and was augmented by Poppy's drug trafficking and other CIA dealings. Any "job" Junior ever had was because Poppy got it for him. Including his current job. The first family of fascism must be eliminated one way or the other, and taxing the living shit out of money they didn't earn sounds about right to me.

[terryg11]

56. That's exactly what I said

in some other thread not too long ago, cool