chicowalker

rigorous poll?

regardless, I'd like to hear more about how society's outcome hinges upon whether marriage has to be only b/t a man and a woman

PatsFanInVa

Not sure at what point I said that, B5.

However, I do think of it this way: as a philosophical absolute, a level playing field is a child alone with nothing.

That's also an excellent exercise in establishing the uselessness of philosophical absolutes, isn't it, as well as a perfect exercise establishing the fallacy of the "self-made man."

Sidetracks aside, we're not trying to create a level playing field. A level playing field would include a 100% inheritance tax, and deep state intervention at the earliest possible age. This makes the worst of false gods of "equality" to the point where everybody loses, and we end up with a socialist dystopia (precisely what rightists carp about when you talk about a different marginal tax rate -- as if a change to the highest bracket's tax tables is the equivalent of a state confiscation of their young.)

So yeah, how would you define a "level playing field," in the abstract?

Do you think that we have a "level playing field"?

By what sleight of hand do we call any of the realistic choices a "level playing field"?

Doesn't sound like we have one. But I don't think anybody is advocating an absolutely level playing field.

We do, however, therefore have a question before us: by what rationale do we call ourselves "self-made" when the playing field is un-level? By what rationale do we declare ourselves not to "owe" society anything, when we become among society's "winners"?

I mean, those are points of view most germane to a situation of a level playing field, just talking in absolutes.

To me it seems like it can seem a little leveler.

PFnV

The Brandon Five

I was reading that as the meaning behind:

I was looking at this with two things in mind:

1. You have been making the argument that one should only be able to leave enough to sustain one's spouse and children. How much is enough? Who decides what that figure is? How much per child? Does it depend on their ages?

2. What about transfers while alive? You thought of the whole Medicaid scam (we are in agreement on that one). I was thinking more conceptually about the meaning of transferring an asset to a relative. If someone sets up a $100,000 UTMA account for their grandchild for the purposes of funding their future education (tuition is only going to continue to go up--gotta fund those $200-$600k salaries for professors at UMass) $87,000 of that counts as a taxable gift (in terms of gift/estate tax) against the lifetime exclusion (set at $5 million for the next two years, but bound to be reduced). This is not a transfer after death. It is a gift given while alive. You object to transfers after death (over a certain amount). Do you then favor eliminating the annual gift tax exclusion so that people may give as much money as they want as a gift to their families while alive?

State

I'm glad you say this.

For a lot of people, probably me included, it's a self-evident truism that the success of marriage will determine the health of society.

I used to be a liberal until reading Charles Murray's 1984 book _Losing Ground_, which irrefutably (and time has only confirmed this I think) showed that paying women who were stuck with babies and no husband unintentionally provided a stimulus to just that behavior.

And it wrecked havoc on the children growing up, without a father figure. Esp. boys.

And whole communities are built like this, where crime and disorder are the rule of the day.

It was the same when Irish males left to work on the railroads and their communities were similarly impacted.

PatsFanInVa

Here is where bulletin board flaming gives way to policy ideas.

I've already said here that there is a principle at work -- that a "level playing field" would mean the same start for everybody (and it would be a grim one, unless of course we allow that by some state mechanism each start would be brought up to some floor level that averaged out the wealth.)

But we really don't want a level playing field. And that "mechanism" may be rife for abuse. Fortunately for us - per your question above - we have the option of some middle mechanism.

I'm uncomfortable with utopian absolutist theories. Luckily there's also a real world at work, and in the real world, you don't create a level playing field. In the U.S., as it happens, we are very far from one. So making progress against the debts of the country is possible without creating anything like the level playing field.

So the question, regarding eliminating inheritance, is what's the exemption, and who decides it.

My choice would be that like other tax law, it be voted on by the elected representatives of the people. In other words, just as the estate tax was voted out of fashion in a previous era, the nuts-and-bolts decision would be to vote it back into fashion.

As to what agency would collect the inheritance tax, I see no reason to create a new bureaucracy -- would you favor one? I think the IRS is the natural administrative organ for it.

Prior to the estate tax going away in 2010, the exemption was $3.5 million. In the '76 it was $60K; In '86 it was 500K; George II's tax cuts doubled the exemption to $1M, then it rose to $3.5M by 2010, followed by the elimination of the tax.

So how much is enough/too much? It seems that historically we have answered that not by what each minor child and spouse needed or even wanted, but by what buttons we could push. After all, from '76 to today the equivalent purchasing power of $60K did not grow to $3.5M, a factor of nearly 600. I mean, inflation's bad but not that bad.

In addition, the tax was a marginal rate phase-in.

In other words we ask the question "how much is enough," answer the question (currently) "only an infinite amount," or previously, "3.5 million," and then allow for relatively low levels of taxation at the $3.5 million mark.

It's worth noting, however, that this is one of the cuts for the wealthy where the previous rates will apply upon reversion (i.e., the graduated rate starts at 500K.)

So one real-world answer is that graduated taxation of an estate would begin at $500K, if we let it. I would be in favor of that.

No, of course not.

I don't know the nuances of UTMAs, UGMAs, Coverdell ESAs, and the like. I do know that trust funds are predicated on giving you a "kiddie rate" to advantage a child, while providing for a shelter for the adult.

I presume you mean eliminating the cap on the gift exclusion, not eliminating the gift exclusion, right? In other words, effectively, you are asking if I favor making gifts tax-free to counteract tax on inheritance.

It would seem that if you do not raise the amount they transfer while alive, and do not reduce the amount they transfer while alive, yet do affect the amount they can transfer after death, you have at least begun the process.

Since I am so bad at teasing out the nuances of trust fund law, let's leave it alone for the moment. I'm not going to research a deeper level of granularity right now, but am willing to go down that path as the argument develops.

At the top-line, property-rights level - I'd say Locke's "good and sufficient for others" clause really pertains directly in terms of a debt situation, where the common welfare is being maintained on borrowed funds.

At the top-line, public policy level - I'd say look deeper into the use of each specific kind of gift transfer (UGMA, UTMA, various college funds, etc.) for unintended consequences.

Two questions arise:

1) what would be the real-world effect of cheap tax transfers to minors getting more expensive, and

2) over on the ideological side, what's the rights argument for and against the taxation of such gifts.

You asked if I'd effectively tax-advantage a greater part of a wealth-perpetuation tactic while the earner is still alive.

My answer is no.

I tend to think I would also remove some existing advantages/inventives to passing wealth to the next generation, but have to think about that more before writing another Patsfans white paper on it.

PFnV

chicowalker

What does the issue of women who are single moms unintentionally have to do with gay marriage (or, for that matter, heterosexual couples that wind up in divorce) -- situations where there are 2 parents who are (or could/should be) involved, both emotionally and financially?