The Son Also Rises.

[JimC]

In Oz, university fees are sorted via a type of student loan called a HEX fee, so that tuition is free, but students pay the loan back when they start employment. It's virtually automatic, and done via the tax system I think...

Then it ain't free, is it?

Why do dunces insist on thinking that there is such a thing as a free lunch? Oh, wait, because they are dunces. Never mind.

By free, in context I clearly meant free at the time, not overall... I think that there is some government assistance, in that it is paid back at a lower interest rate than a normal commercial loan. Also, various scholarships are available to particularly able students.

Overseas students pay full fees up front. Interestingly, an Australian student can also do that, and if they do, they are able to get into a given course with a lower final secondary school score, which is often set very high for course like medicine and law. Not a good idea, IMO - it's a bit like buying a degree, and has the potential effect of lowering the average academic level of a given course (however, the numbers that do it are fairly low, I think...)

[Blind groper]

Seth makes one very good point. If a person makes him/herself rich, then inheritance tax may harm the economy by forcing a productive enterprise he/she built up to be sold off.

I am not a great fan of inheritance tax, because I think it is destructive, and it is a disincentive to excellence.

However, I do think wealthy people should pay more tax than others, for te simple reason that they can afford to. If a person is rich, then paying 50% instead of 30% on their earnings is not going to damage their standard of living. And that extra tax money can go a long way to helping those kids born to poorer circumstances getting a fairer shake at their start in life, such as providing a good education. If they choose not to take the opportunity provided, that is their choice, and they eventually pay the consequences.

[JimC]

BG, most places have some form of progressive taxation, but a lot of that is undermined by the fact that the wealthy can afford excellent lawyers to make use of a myriad loopholes that PAYG taxpayers can never avail themselves.

[pErvinalia]

In Oz, university fees are sorted via a type of student loan called a HEX fee, so that tuition is free, but students pay the loan back when they start employment. It's virtually automatic, and done via the tax system I think...

Then it ain't free, is it?

Why do dunces insist on thinking that there is such a thing as a free lunch? Oh, wait, because they are dunces. Never mind.

By free, in context I clearly meant free at the time, not overall...

Why do dunces insist on using the same old tired rhetoric that they've been schooled on before? Oh wait, because they are dunces. Never mind. And to be clear, I'm not talking about you here, Jim.

[mistermack]

Seth makes one very good point. If a person makes him/herself rich, then inheritance tax may harm the economy by forcing a productive enterprise he/she built up to be sold off.

No, it's a stupid point.
How does selling off a business harm the economy? People don't buy businesses just to stand there and look at them. They buy them to make money.
That means running them successfully.

It's a classic ''taking Seth seriously'' fallacy.

[Seth]

In Oz, university fees are sorted via a type of student loan called a HEX fee, so that tuition is free, but students pay the loan back when they start employment. It's virtually automatic, and done via the tax system I think...

Then it ain't free, is it?

Why do dunces insist on thinking that there is such a thing as a free lunch? Oh, wait, because they are dunces. Never mind.

By free, in context I clearly meant free at the time, not overall...

No, you, like all liberals want people to think "free" not "deferred payment plus interest" because it suits your agenda of hornswoggling people into believing they deserve and are getting a free lunch. If you were honest you would admit that it's nothing more or less than a taxpayer funded loan that costs the taxpayers more than they get back, even with interest, because of the time value of money and the "lower interest rate than a normal commercial loan."

It ain't free at all. No way, no how.

I think that there is some government assistance, in that it is paid back at a lower interest rate than a normal commercial loan.

And there's the proof....QED

Also, various scholarships are available to particularly able students.

Scholarships are generally grants made by private individuals using their own money, that they earned.

[Seth]

Seth makes one very good point. If a person makes him/herself rich, then inheritance tax may harm the economy by forcing a productive enterprise he/she built up to be sold off.

Yeah, like my ranch.

I am not a great fan of inheritance tax, because I think it is destructive, and it is a disincentive to excellence.

It certainly is. I have no intention of earning a big wad of cash just so the government can have half of it when I die. When I die I want all my property to be piled up in an open field and burned to cinders, just so the IRS can't get a single fucking dime more from me.

However, I do think wealthy people should pay more tax than others, for te simple reason that they can afford to.

Doesn't sound very rational to me. Sounds selfish and cupidinous. They can afford to because they worked harder and more efficiently than you did, and their wealth is their reward for being better at success than you are. If they have to give it all back to the government so you can get something for nothing, why bother earning it in the first place.

That's exactly what happen to Russia and the Soviet Union. When the profit and ability to enjoy the fruits of one's labor were taken away and redistributed to the proletarian masses, people quit inputting more labor than was minimally required to get the stipend everyone else got (a potato) because there was no point in doing so.

If a person is rich, then paying 50% instead of 30% on their earnings is not going to damage their standard of living.

Who the fuck are you to tell anyone else what their standard of living should be?

And that extra tax money can go a long way to helping those kids born to poorer circumstances getting a fairer shake at their start in life, such as providing a good education. If they choose not to take the opportunity provided, that is their choice, and they eventually pay the consequences.

"Do it for the children!" That is the mantra of the selfish liberal who only actually cares about raping the wealthy because he's envious of their success.

If more money were the key to educational success everybody in Europe and the US would be billionaires. It's not, largely because the money goes to the unionized teachers and not towards educating students properly.

[Seth]

In Oz, university fees are sorted via a type of student loan called a HEX fee, so that tuition is free, but students pay the loan back when they start employment. It's virtually automatic, and done via the tax system I think...

Then it ain't free, is it?

Why do dunces insist on thinking that there is such a thing as a free lunch? Oh, wait, because they are dunces. Never mind.

By free, in context I clearly meant free at the time, not overall...

Why do dunces insist on using the same old tired rhetoric that they've been schooled on before? Oh wait, because they are dunces. Never mind. And to be clear, I'm not talking about you here, Jim.

Why do dunces insist on trying to get away with purveying bullshit? If it ain't free, don't try to say it's free. That's pretty simple. Even dunces can figure that out. It's called "being a fucking liar."

[Seth]

Seth makes one very good point. If a person makes him/herself rich, then inheritance tax may harm the economy by forcing a productive enterprise he/she built up to be sold off.

No, it's a stupid point.
How does selling off a business harm the economy?

It puts people out of work and it destroys the labor of generations and the livelihoods of the former owners who shouldn't have to liquidate an operating concern just so that selfish liberal Marxist fucks can have another pack of fags.

People don't buy businesses just to stand there and look at them. They buy them to make money.

It's not about who buys the business, it's about who is forced to sell the business and why. I seriously doubt you'd be very pleased if the IRS came in and kicked you out of your home because you couldn't pay the assessed estate tax on it. Yes, the buyer will get a good deal, but you're fucked. And the IRS ALWAYS values your property higher than it is legally allowed to precisely so it can collect more tax. Take the case of an operating cattle ranch that, as a cattle ranch was worth about $4000 per acre, but the IRS decided that because it COULD BE (potentially) developed into luxury residential estate lots in a very hot real estate market, their demand comes in for a death tax at a valuation of $50,000 an acre. Few farmers have enough cash sitting around to pay off an estate tax bill of that size...ever. This forces them to sell to a developer WITHIN 90 DAYS in order to pay the tax bill, or alternatively spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting the IRS in court.

The reason for this inequity, that does indeed destroy the family farm/ranch on a regular basis is that the IRS insists on using the method of valuation used when a property is appraised for a private sale between a willing seller and a willing buyer. In that situation, the seller wants to get the highest valuation and the buyer wants the lowest, so they general settle somewhere around the "fair market value," which is defined as that value that represents the property's value at it's "highest and best use," which in turn means the most valuable use it could potentially be used for legally under the existing zoning and use laws. This is a fair value because it represents what the buyer COULD use it for by way of profiting from the land in the future, and therefore it fairly represents what the seller is entitled to receive for the land, even if the buyer intends other uses. This is a willing-seller, willing-buyer negotiation that meets in the middle with an agreeable number for both parties.

But with the IRS, which uses the same valuation model, the situation is exactly reversed. You have an unwilling "seller" who wants the property valued at the lowest possible valuation in order to not have to pay more tax than required, and you have a "buyer" who wants the property valued at it's highest possible valuation so that it can profit from collecting too much tax. Worse, the "buyer" holds almost all the cards and wields enormous coercive power over the unwilling "seller", including it's power to demand full payment of the taxes due within 90 days of the death of the prior owner as well as the power to completely freeze all of the assets of the estate until that tax bill is settled and even to seize the assets and deny the heirs the ability to dispose of them as a way to pay the tax bill.

The estate tax law actually says that the "value" of the estate is supposed to be based on what the estate is worth on the day the decedent died, not some speculative "highest and best use" value that it might someday be worth if its use is changed.

So in the case above we have a ranching operation worth $4000 per acre that should be taxed based on how it's actually being used when the decedent passed, but which is in fact taxed on the theoretical "highest and best use" value as if it had already been developed and the profits taken by the decedent.

And so the agricultural property gets sold off at fire-sale prices to settle the tax bill, a developer gets a hell of a deal, and more houses are built as the farmer or rancher goes on welfare and lives in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere.

The death tax is fucking evil incarnate and anyone who advocates or collects it ought to be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail...among other indignities.

That means running them successfully.

Yes, buying distressed small businesses at a tax auction at a huge discount because the jackbooted thugs with machine guns from the IRS have hauled off the legitimate owners and seized their property is a great investment plan, but it's morally reprehensible.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

While I agree with you that inheritance taxes are wrong, I still think that wealthier people should pay more.

I am retired now, but I ran my own, and very successful business for 15 years. I made what some people would call an obscene amount of money, and I was taxed heavily. My financial success had nothing to do with hard work, and I was very relaxed about it all. It had a lot to do with know how, and also a lot to do with luck. I began my business at the right time and place to fit nicely into an undeveloped niche. That was not predicted, and was pure luck.

The high tax rate I was on was, IMHO, entirely fair, and I did not resent paying it. In some ways, it was almost a privilege to be in a position to make such a contribution.

Of course, things are different now. I no longer earn much money, and live off savings. However, I still pay certain taxes and do not resent them. I also give money to certain charities.

Taxation is more than an imposition. It is a necessity. Society would collapse without that money to run essential services, and to support those who need support. People who are born into poverty have done nothing to earn that, and some government support with health and education goes a long way.

[mistermack]

It's morally reprehensible.

No it's not, because it wasn't your money. It was the parents.
As an inheritor, you don't lose because you never owned it.
You are arguing as if there is some divine right to inherit. There isn't.
A parent can make a will, leaving you nothing. You haven't lost anything, because you never owned it.

Currently, if you are left property in the will, you inherit whatever portion the current government considers fair. The rest of it was never yours.

[JimC]

It's morally reprehensible.

No it's not, because it wasn't your money. It was the parents.
As an inheritor, you don't lose because you never owned it.
You are arguing as if there is some divine right to inherit. There isn't.
A parent can make a will, leaving you nothing. You haven't lost anything, because you never owned it.

Currently, if you are left property in the will, you inherit whatever portion the current government considers fair. The rest of it was never yours.

In most cases, a son or daughter would be able to challenge that in court, with a fair chance of success...

[Seth]

It's morally reprehensible.

No it's not, because it wasn't your money. It was the parents.
As an inheritor, you don't lose because you never owned it.

Wrong. I owned it the second my ancestor's heart stopped beating because that's what my ancestor wanted.

You are arguing as if there is some divine right to inherit. There isn't.
A parent can make a will, leaving you nothing. You haven't lost anything, because you never owned it.

Of course there is no "divine right" and I never said there was, but there was a will. Go look up the word. That will transferred title of certain things to me the instant my ancestor died. Such transfer of title is NOT under the control of the state. In other words, the state CANNOT simply take property devised to me because it thinks it has a better use for it than I do. That much is guaranteed in the 4th Amendment. Private property is private, and it remains private even when it's transferred from one private person to another. It NEVER becomes public property at any point in that posthumous transaction, not for one microsecond. If the government tried to take possession of those items it would owe me "just compensation" according to the 4th Amendment.

Currently, if you are left property in the will, you inherit whatever portion the current government considers fair. The rest of it was never yours.

You are completely and entirely wrong, even in the UK inheritance is a right. That's why governments TAX estates. They are purportedly taxing the TRANSACTION between the deceased and the heirs, or in other words, it's a "transfer tax" similar to a sales tax that taxes the TRANSACTION between seller and buyer.

Can government impose such taxes on transfers? Of course it can. Is it moral or just for government to do so? Not even in the slightest. It's like taxing the transfer of a birthday present from father to son. Not every transfer of goods is or ought to be subject to taxation, and when a government intrudes too far into personal matters by trying to tax such transactions (like taxing tea shipments to land in Boston) the citizenry gets rightfully wrathful and is completely justified in removing from office, and/or this continuum, those who presume, as you do, that the power of government to tax is plenary and unlimited and not bound by any strictures, moral or legal.


And that is why we have the guns, and you do not.

The estate tax here was imposed by Woodrow Wilson and the Progressives as a way of funding World War I, and it was promised to go away once those expenses were paid for, but it never went away. But it looks like it might come 2016. That's because the liberal democrat Progressives were greedy lying sacks of shit who had no intention of ever repealing the estate tax for exactly the same reasons you state: They are greedy fuckers who want to stick it to the rich because the rich "can afford it" and somehow owe it to you fucking dependent-class slobs to sacrifice their property for your comfort. There's never been a rational or moral reason to impose a death tax, as if the families of the deceased don't have enough pain and heartache in their lives. These are the same lying shitbag progressive fuckers who promised that the income tax would NEVER, EVER exceed seven percent of anyone's income in order to get it passed into law.

Cocksucking death tax advocates ought to be horsewhipped.

[Seth]

It's morally reprehensible.

No it's not, because it wasn't your money. It was the parents.
As an inheritor, you don't lose because you never owned it.
You are arguing as if there is some divine right to inherit. There isn't.
A parent can make a will, leaving you nothing. You haven't lost anything, because you never owned it.

Currently, if you are left property in the will, you inherit whatever portion the current government considers fair. The rest of it was never yours.

In most cases, a son or daughter would be able to challenge that in court, with a fair chance of success...

True, but when it comes to the express wishes of the decedent, they take priority unless there is some proof of undue influence by another. The laws of inheritance are well settled, and were well settled thousands of years ago when monarchs ruled Europe because they had to be very specific in order for bloodlines to be preserved. Absent a direct disinheritance, the right of the spouse and children to inherit is the next thing to absolute.

And why the FUCK should they have to go to court at all. That property was private property before the owner died, and it stayed private property as it transferred to the ownership of the rightful heirs. Why the hell should the government get a fucking dime of it, ever, much less make the heirs spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting with the government to keep what is rightfully theirs?

[mistermack]

Because property is a legal concept. Not a divine right.
You might acknowledge that verbally, but you still haven't got it mentally.
And never will.