NMR: State of the Union Address - thoughts?

vlagrl29

that is way too much to be paying for a well visit - was it an in network doc.  like the other poster said, wellness visits are covered 100%.  I haven't paid for one in many years.  You shouldn't even have to pay a co pay with it.

I'm such a cheapskate when it comes to medical bills - in your situation I would call the doc and ins to see how it was coded and then have them resubmit the claim…..that's just silly.

CuriousKiddosMama

AprilH81 said:

smerka said:

Here are my thoughts if anyone cares. First the government makes you takes RMDs from 401ks and traditional IRAS, because they are tax deferred, not because they want to tell you when to take out your money. Second, I think a lot of people are going to be upset when they see how the ACA affects their taxes if they bought insurance through the exchanges. I like the ACA, but they have done a horrible job of explaining it. Third, instead of taxing the rich more, I would really like to see the tax code overhauled so that more people are paying income taxes. We currently fall into the 47% who don't because we have ridiculous property taxes, two kids, and education and medical expenses (yes we paid over $8,000 out of pocket last year and that's with pretty good insurance. Autism is effing expensive). It's insanity that we pay nothing in federal taxes on $65,000 of income. I face our tax liability is negative. The government pays us about $300 every year. But this year may be more. But no one will get elected on a platform where people in the middle and lower classes actual start paying taxes.

I don't think most people realize just how many people have (for whatever reason) zero federal tax liability.  Everyone always says "tax the rich" but at some point there will be no more rich people left to tax because the government will have taxed everyone to the point that they don't do business in the US anymore.

I would like to see a flat tax/consumption tax so that it was based on what you purchase.  If you are a high consumer (new phones, new clothes, lots of STUFF) then you pay more in taxes.  If you save more, buy used, etc. then you pay less in taxes.  

I agree so much with a consumption tax!!! I am actually very interested in Texad politics this term because Dan Patrick was elected lt. Governor and has been for years rallying for a consumption tax instead of our current real estate tax system. We don't have state income tax.
The real estate tax system is completely meaningless and based on made up numbers. We own a rental property that was valued in 2013 at 60k, when they reevaluated it in 2014- it was suddenly worth 95k. Um, smoke what????? There is no way the value on that house went up 50% in 1 year. And because we don't live there it is almost impossible to protest the tax valuation. Honestly the house in the market is probably worth 110, so it is still undervalued, but this type of fluctuation is taxing people out of their homes. On average the taxable value of a house, which means the taxes on the house is doubling every 7-10 years, which not everybody can afford.

CuriousKiddosMama

noffgurl said:

At what point do you consider something an emergency? With or without insurance? My H has a couple of medical bills from when he had excruciating pain in his scrotum that he waited a good month before finally going to the ER and unfortunately they couldn't find anything and referred him to a specialist that he still refuses to go to now that we have insurance because he knows the cost will still probably not be covered nearly enough for us to be able to afford it. On the flip side my medical bills are when I had insurance that we were paying a lot of money for. I went for a preventative check up and am being charged $1,200 for after what insurance covered. We now have insurance that costs H $150 per week out of his paycheck and we are afraid to even try and use it. Honestly, I would love to go the doctor right now because for the past couple of years I may have 2-3 periods in a year and now, since November, I have bled heavy (with some really big clots that I have never had this big before) for 36 of the 58 days. I am also getting covered head to toe in these weird painful sores. So, ya, I am pretty sure there is something really wrong, but since I'm not dying right this second its really not an emergency. If I go to the doctor I will come out judged for using facilities and supplies for non-emergency and probably another $1,200+ bill that I can't pay.

You really need to know your coverage. Not the same thing, but I had this issue before with my last dentist. X-rays were only covered every other year, but the dentist said I had to have them every year, and "well they should be covered". I was stupid enough to believe him and of course got a bill for the X-ray. Never made that mistake again, and never went back to that dentist. My current dentist checks coverage before hand to know what they can and cannot do for a normal cleaning and check up.

kyrgyzstan

AprilH81 said:

I didn't watch last night, I can't stand to listen to Obama talk anymore...

I read an article over the weekend that he wanted to propose to tax the 529s to pay for two free years of community college (as others mentioned this would be punishing those who planned ahead), increase the capital gains tax (punishing those who wanted to invest in good ideas that boost the economy) and the inheritance "death" tax (taxing money that had ALREADY been taxed as income, capitol gains, etc just because the government "needs" it), AND he wants to cap the amount of money you can save in retirement accounts because you know, it wouldn't be fair for someone to have more in retirement than someone else.  X(

It boils my blood.  The money I earn is MINE not the government's.  They shouldn't be able to decide someone else needs it more, raise my taxes and then give it to whatever special interest group they deem worthy.  

The government should not be able to to essentially confiscate a person's estate when they die, it should be distributed according to a will or given to the next of kin in absence of a will.  If their argument is that "the heir didn't earn it" then that applies to the government too, the government didn't earn that money either.

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

kyrgyzstan

AprilH81 said:

smerka said:

Here are my thoughts if anyone cares. First the government makes you takes RMDs from 401ks and traditional IRAS, because they are tax deferred, not because they want to tell you when to take out your money. Second, I think a lot of people are going to be upset when they see how the ACA affects their taxes if they bought insurance through the exchanges. I like the ACA, but they have done a horrible job of explaining it. Third, instead of taxing the rich more, I would really like to see the tax code overhauled so that more people are paying income taxes. We currently fall into the 47% who don't because we have ridiculous property taxes, two kids, and education and medical expenses (yes we paid over $8,000 out of pocket last year and that's with pretty good insurance. Autism is effing expensive). It's insanity that we pay nothing in federal taxes on $65,000 of income. I face our tax liability is negative. The government pays us about $300 every year. But this year may be more. But no one will get elected on a platform where people in the middle and lower classes actual start paying taxes.

I don't think most people realize just how many people have (for whatever reason) zero federal tax liability.  Everyone always says "tax the rich" but at some point there will be no more rich people left to tax because the government will have taxed everyone to the point that they don't do business in the US anymore.

I would like to see a flat tax/consumption tax so that it was based on what you purchase.  If you are a high consumer (new phones, new clothes, lots of STUFF) then you pay more in taxes.  If you save more, buy used, etc. then you pay less in taxes.  

At what point will there be no more rich to tax? The income gap is widening, not shrinking. 

formerlyGDaisy09

blondie42107 said:

Health care will never be perfect. My employer has to offer me insurance because I work over 30hrs/week however I'm not full time so I would be responsible for the full cost of the premium. I would pay $690/month for individual coverage. I would have a $2500 deductible followed by specific copays for office visits, specialists, urgent care and ER. (Just for comparison - the premium for two people is $1660/month, family coverage is $2030/month.) And saying birth control shouldn't be covered... making changes to that now would open a huge can of worms. Not all birth control is "free," like many people think. Also it is frequently used for other medical issues other than preventing pregnancy. Then if we aren't willing to have that covered by insurance, why have Viagra and the like covered for men? I'm glad immunization annual max has been removed. I know people who wanted to have their children vaccinated postponed because of the out of pocket cost. It would be nice if our country could focus on how to live healthy lives and use preventative care to lower medical costs. However you can only prevent so much.

Oh Man, I think free birth control is an amazing thing, I have used it for years for more than just birth control.  However, from an insurance company's stand point I understand their argument against coverage. 

formerlyGDaisy09

noffgurl said:

AprilH81 said:

noffgurl said:

At what point do you consider something an emergency? With or without insurance? My H has a couple of medical bills from when he had excruciating pain in his scrotum that he waited a good month before finally going to the ER and unfortunately they couldn't find anything and referred him to a specialist that he still refuses to go to now that we have insurance because he knows the cost will still probably not be covered nearly enough for us to be able to afford it. On the flip side my medical bills are when I had insurance that we were paying a lot of money for. I went for a preventative check up and am being charged $1,200 for after what insurance covered. We now have insurance that costs H $150 per week out of his paycheck and we are afraid to even try and use it. Honestly, I would love to go the doctor right now because for the past couple of years I may have 2-3 periods in a year and now, since November, I have bled heavy (with some really big clots that I have never had this big before) for 36 of the 58 days. I am also getting covered head to toe in these weird painful sores. So, ya, I am pretty sure there is something really wrong, but since I'm not dying right this second its really not an emergency. If I go to the doctor I will come out judged for using facilities and supplies for non-emergency and probably another $1,200+ bill that I can't pay.

For me an emergency would be a really high fever, days of vomiting, blood in your vomit/stool, car accidents, possibly broken limbs, etc.

Sores?  Irregular cycles (which sounds a lot like what I went through in my 20s, not fun), etc. are not emergencies and I would make an appointment with your regular doctor/OB-GYN for those.  Unless they run a log of dignostic tests the cost shouldn't be more than a few hundred dollars if you have zero coverage.

Also, what kind of check up did you get that cost $1,200?  A general wellness visit shouldn't cost that much unless they ran a lot of blood work or other tests.

Another low cost health option is County/City Health Departments.  They can usually provide vaccinations and physicals and other "routine" stuff for a much lower cost than a doctor.

It was the Pap Smear with some blood work. I wouldn't go to the emergency room for what I have now, I'm scared to go the doctor at all for the reasons I listed above.


*Edit
I just don't understand why it all costs so much, but then we really aren't supposed to use it unless we ABSOLUTELY have to. So we throw $150 a week away. Or get fined. What an awesome system.

I would definitely do some checking on how your visit was coded, and if the provider you saw is an in-network provider for your insurance.  I am making an assumption that you have some kind of PPO insurance, I guess it might be possible if you're on some kind of indemnity plan that that might be a real charge, in which case I would contact the provider's office/institution and see if they offer an out of pocket discount. it sounds like, based on your premium, you probably have a PPO plan. during open enrollment in the fall it might be worth it to see what you can get on the health care exchanges. 

Steven Brill's article does a great job outlining why health care costs are so inflated and vary so much even between hospitals in the same city.  a lot of it comes down to the fact that hospitals have to play a numbers game with their payer-mix.  when they serve lots of medicare or medicaid patients they loose money treating those patients (medicare generally reimburses about 80% of cost, medicaid is much less), if they treat a lot of uninsured patients most of those claims end in bad-debt and/or charity care. To make up for their losses they inflate their prices to account for the discount that they have to give to insurance companies to be considred "in-network", they need those claims paid for by insurance companies to help balance their books.  So the price you see on a statement from your insurance is generally 200 or 300% of the cost of the care you received, so when they take their 30 or 40% discount the hospital is still making up for some of their losses from treating medicare, medicaid, and uninsured. 

CuriousKiddosMama

kyrgyzstan said:

AprilH81 said:

I didn't watch last night, I can't stand to listen to Obama talk anymore...

I read an article over the weekend that he wanted to propose to tax the 529s to pay for two free years of community college (as others mentioned this would be punishing those who planned ahead), increase the capital gains tax (punishing those who wanted to invest in good ideas that boost the economy) and the inheritance "death" tax (taxing money that had ALREADY been taxed as income, capitol gains, etc just because the government "needs" it), AND he wants to cap the amount of money you can save in retirement accounts because you know, it wouldn't be fair for someone to have more in retirement than someone else.  X(

It boils my blood.  The money I earn is MINE not the government's.  They shouldn't be able to decide someone else needs it more, raise my taxes and then give it to whatever special interest group they deem worthy.  

The government should not be able to to essentially confiscate a person's estate when they die, it should be distributed according to a will or given to the next of kin in absence of a will.  If their argument is that "the heir didn't earn it" then that applies to the government too, the government didn't earn that money either.

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

Um, my husbands family farm may end up being more than that. And his dad is a small time farmer with 80acres, so yeah, inheritance tax isn't someyhing I support either. We may have to sell the farm when the time comes in order to pay the taxes- and is that really right? Taxes have been paid on the income the farm produces, taxes have been paid every year on the land, and now they get to tax it again because my mil andfil will pass away sometime? Um, no.
I don't think April was saying that she didn't want to pay for roads or police or anything like that- but there is a point where there is just too much. I don't mind paying for those things either. However I do mind those on welfare for life, not even trying to find a job or working just 10 hours when they could work 40 because that would cut their benefits. And I have seen this for years, so do t bother telling me that it doesn't happen.
And I am a libertarian. I believe in necessary government, but what we have is way bigger than that.

hoffse

AprilH81 said:

kyrgyzstan said:

AprilH81 said:

I didn't watch last night, I can't stand to listen to Obama talk anymore...

I read an article over the weekend that he wanted to propose to tax the 529s to pay for two free years of community college (as others mentioned this would be punishing those who planned ahead), increase the capital gains tax (punishing those who wanted to invest in good ideas that boost the economy) and the inheritance "death" tax (taxing money that had ALREADY been taxed as income, capitol gains, etc just because the government "needs" it), AND he wants to cap the amount of money you can save in retirement accounts because you know, it wouldn't be fair for someone to have more in retirement than someone else.  X(

It boils my blood.  The money I earn is MINE not the government's.  They shouldn't be able to decide someone else needs it more, raise my taxes and then give it to whatever special interest group they deem worthy.  

The government should not be able to to essentially confiscate a person's estate when they die, it should be distributed according to a will or given to the next of kin in absence of a will.  If their argument is that "the heir didn't earn it" then that applies to the government too, the government didn't earn that money either.

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

I don't mind paying for SOME taxes because, yes the government provides services that I can't provide for myself (roads, national security, etc.).

I do mind constantly rising tax rates, new taxes when the government is doing a lot of crap it doesn't need to do.  The government doesn't need to be funding the digging of tunnels under a road to provide a save crossing for turtles. I'm not making this up, and the source isn't FOX news.  

"For instance, the Florida Department of Transportation wants to spend $3.4 million in stimulus money for a turtle tunnel. That's right, $3.4 million to help turtles cross under a highway. Each year, 1,035 turtles are killed on a half-mile stretch of highway north of Tallahassee, according to The Lake Jackson Ecopassage Alliance, a group advocating for the tunnel. They are hoping to use the stimulus dough to save the turtles."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=8045022

If a state wants to build a turtle tunnel let the citizens vote for it, but the federal government should not be funding pet projects in individual states with tax money raised from people who don't even live in the state.

There is SO MUCH waste (not to mention fraud and abuse) in all of the federal programs, from the military down to food stamps and everything in between.  If they would just tackle the fraud, waste and abuse we would have more money to pay down our federal debt and keep more programs in operation.

Slow clap.  Taxes absolutely serve a public need, but there are plenty of things they pay for that the public doesn't need.

As for the estates - believe it or not, the estate tax exemption isn't that high. In today's dollars, it's really not a ton of money, especially for people who have saved their whole life.  Further, a lot of people have assets that wind up driving the estate value up, whereas if they had taken the time to do some real planning they could have gotten it out of their estate before death.  My dad is a college professor at a small state school and my mom worked for a public school system and made less than a public school teacher for her entire career.  They are both savers/investors, and if they both passed tomorrow, their estate would probably be subject to the estate tax.  They've been looking at ways to start reducing their estate at my prompting, because all three of us would rather see that money go to charity than to the IRS.  If a couple of people who averaged school teacher salaries for their entire careers can be looking at paying estate taxes, then it affects more families than you might think.  Besides, April is correct - this money has already been taxed once.  The estate tax is a way to tax it a second time.

As for taxing the wealthy, I think there will be some flight from the US as taxes go up.  The thing about wealthy people is that they have the means to leave if they want to.  H and I have had serious discussions about retiring overseas for financial reasons, if the taxes here start to choke us. It's going to be an option for us, and it's something we will consider closely if we wind up paying 50% of our income in taxes to subsidize people who insist on handouts.

Taxes do have a place, but it's gotten completely overblown here.

@Vikingsfan, I like the flat tax idea a lot too.  It would be so easy that it would put me out of a job, but I would still prefer it over what we have now!

Xstatic3333

AprilH81 said:

kyrgyzstan said:

AprilH81 said:

I didn't watch last night, I can't stand to listen to Obama talk anymore...

I read an article over the weekend that he wanted to propose to tax the 529s to pay for two free years of community college (as others mentioned this would be punishing those who planned ahead), increase the capital gains tax (punishing those who wanted to invest in good ideas that boost the economy) and the inheritance "death" tax (taxing money that had ALREADY been taxed as income, capitol gains, etc just because the government "needs" it), AND he wants to cap the amount of money you can save in retirement accounts because you know, it wouldn't be fair for someone to have more in retirement than someone else.  X(

It boils my blood.  The money I earn is MINE not the government's.  They shouldn't be able to decide someone else needs it more, raise my taxes and then give it to whatever special interest group they deem worthy.  

The government should not be able to to essentially confiscate a person's estate when they die, it should be distributed according to a will or given to the next of kin in absence of a will.  If their argument is that "the heir didn't earn it" then that applies to the government too, the government didn't earn that money either.

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

I don't mind paying for SOME taxes because, yes the government provides services that I can't provide for myself (roads, national security, etc.).

I do mind constantly rising tax rates, new taxes when the government is doing a lot of crap it doesn't need to do.  The government doesn't need to be funding the digging of tunnels under a road to provide a save crossing for turtles. I'm not making this up, and the source isn't FOX news.  

"For instance, the Florida Department of Transportation wants to spend $3.4 million in stimulus money for a turtle tunnel. That's right, $3.4 million to help turtles cross under a highway. Each year, 1,035 turtles are killed on a half-mile stretch of highway north of Tallahassee, according to The Lake Jackson Ecopassage Alliance, a group advocating for the tunnel. They are hoping to use the stimulus dough to save the turtles."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=8045022

If a state wants to build a turtle tunnel let the citizens vote for it, but the federal government should not be funding pet projects in individual states with tax money raised from people who don't even live in the state.

There is SO MUCH waste (not to mention fraud and abuse) in all of the federal programs, from the military down to food stamps and everything in between.  If they would just tackle the fraud, waste and abuse we would have more money to pay down our federal debt and keep more programs in operation.

We can argue state vs. federal funding, but wildlife road mortality is a big, big problem. The article doesn't list the species of turtle, but my guess is that it is threatened or endangered if they are spending that kind of money. I do think the federal government has a big role to play in protecting our nation's natural resources and biodiversity. Once they're gone, they're gone, and I would like us to be able to pass them on to our children and grandchildren.

als1982

Do we want to move from politics to discussing religion next?

Frankly, the usual lack of posts like this is one of the reasons I enjoy this board.

hoffse

Xstatic3333 said:

kyrgyzstan said:

AprilH81 said:

I didn't watch last night, I can't stand to listen to Obama talk anymore...

I read an article over the weekend that he wanted to propose to tax the 529s to pay for two free years of community college (as others mentioned this would be punishing those who planned ahead), increase the capital gains tax (punishing those who wanted to invest in good ideas that boost the economy) and the inheritance "death" tax (taxing money that had ALREADY been taxed as income, capitol gains, etc just because the government "needs" it), AND he wants to cap the amount of money you can save in retirement accounts because you know, it wouldn't be fair for someone to have more in retirement than someone else.  X(

It boils my blood.  The money I earn is MINE not the government's.  They shouldn't be able to decide someone else needs it more, raise my taxes and then give it to whatever special interest group they deem worthy.  

The government should not be able to to essentially confiscate a person's estate when they die, it should be distributed according to a will or given to the next of kin in absence of a will.  If their argument is that "the heir didn't earn it" then that applies to the government too, the government didn't earn that money either.

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

I don't mind paying for SOME taxes because, yes the government provides services that I can't provide for myself (roads, national security, etc.).

I do mind constantly rising tax rates, new taxes when the government is doing a lot of crap it doesn't need to do.  The government doesn't need to be funding the digging of tunnels under a road to provide a save crossing for turtles. I'm not making this up, and the source isn't FOX news.  

"For instance, the Florida Department of Transportation wants to spend $3.4 million in stimulus money for a turtle tunnel. That's right, $3.4 million to help turtles cross under a highway. Each year, 1,035 turtles are killed on a half-mile stretch of highway north of Tallahassee, according to The Lake Jackson Ecopassage Alliance, a group advocating for the tunnel. They are hoping to use the stimulus dough to save the turtles."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=8045022

If a state wants to build a turtle tunnel let the citizens vote for it, but the federal government should not be funding pet projects in individual states with tax money raised from people who don't even live in the state.

There is SO MUCH waste (not to mention fraud and abuse) in all of the federal programs, from the military down to food stamps and everything in between.  If they would just tackle the fraud, waste and abuse we would have more money to pay down our federal debt and keep more programs in operation.

We can argue state vs. federal funding, but wildlife road mortality is a big, big problem. The article doesn't list the species of turtle, but my guess is that it is threatened or endangered if they are spending that kind of money. I do think the federal government has a big role to play in protecting our nation's natural resources and biodiversity. Once they're gone, they're gone, and I would like us to be able to pass them on to our children and grandchildren.

I really think it's a state-level issue.  I don't know about you all, but I would much rather pay state income and property taxes than federal taxes.  The things that most of us really care about - police, firemen, roads, schools, etc. are mostly funded from state money.  As a perk - states actually have to balance their budgets.  That's a novel idea.

Federal taxes have a place too in defense (though the amount we spend on that is appalling) and some regulatory agencies... the FDA was revolutionary, and I doubt any of us would want that to go away.  But the way the feds divide pork for projects that affect only a single state is pretty sketchy, regardless of who or what it is helping.  Florida may need to build that tunnel, but it should come from state money.  I think the fed's role in wildlife/environmental conservation should really be limited to things like passing the Endangered Species Act - which helps deter hunting at a national level- and management of national parks that cross state lines and would be difficult to manage at the state level.  In other words, the feds should be worried about things that can't really be accomplished efficiently at the state level, you know?

In theory we live in a federalist system, but we've gotten away from that in the last 100 years.  States can't do everything efficiently, and that's where the feds should take an active role.  But if something really affects the people, resources, etc. of a single state or community, then I personally think those matters should be left to that group to figure out and fund.

smerka

Let's talk some real numbers. 80 acres of farmland isn't going to get close to the 5.43 million limit. Even at $10,000 an acre, that's only $800,000. If you are in the 25% tax bracket, I highly doubt you're actually paying 25% after exceptions and deductions. You need to look at your effective tax rate. While there is no doubt some waste in the budget, it's really just pocket change. The biggest expenditures are Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. That's 63% of the budget. You want to move the needle, you have to cut those.

hoffse

als1982 said:

Do we want to move from politics to discussing religion next? Frankly, the usual lack of posts like this is one of the reasons I enjoy this board.

Yeah but once or twice a year isn't so bad.  I think these posts usually come up around tax time when everyone is seeing what they actually paid/owe.

I wrapped up an estate a couple months ago where the executor kept meticulous records of his mother's estate.  Afterwards, we thanked/complimented him for making our jobs so much easier.  He said, "It all comes from my mother.  Believe me, if she had been in charge of the national budget, that sucker would have been balanced and heaven help anybody who would have tried to fund programs with national debt!  She lived by a strict budget and expected everybody else to do the same."  I've been thinking about that a lot recently as I've been sighing over our taxes.

I don't think we've ever touched religion while I've been here.  Probably shouldn't go there...

formerlyGDaisy09

AprilH81 said:

smerka said:

Let's talk some real numbers. 80 acres of farmland isn't going to get close to the 5.43 million limit. Even at $10,000 an acre, that's only $800,000. If you are in the 25% tax bracket, I highly doubt you're actually paying 25% after exceptions and deductions. You need to look at your effective tax rate. While there is no doubt some waste in the budget, it's really just pocket change. The biggest expenditures are Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. That's 63% of the budget. You want to move the needle, you have to cut those.

Don't forget the farming equipment, buildings and all the other stuff needed to run the farm.  Trackers and combines aren't cheap.

I used to work for a company that helped state and federal governments recoup erroneous payments (whether on purpose or accident), and uncover other fraud waste and abuse.  The numbers we recovered were staggering and our company only had a piece of the overall pie. 

Working to eliminate FWA in Medicaid/Medicare, Social Security, and Defense would go a long way to funding those programs with out actual cuts.

You hear the stories all the time, defense contractors being related to someone higher up and then the government buys toilet seats at $10,000 each.  That crap needs to stop.

You have people who are covered by private insurance and Medicaid and the doctor's office auto bills Medicaid (who then pays) without checking to see who is actually supposed to cover the procedure.  Medicaid is a payer of last resort (meaning other coverage pays first, Medicaid pays last) and if no one checks for other coverage Medicaid has paid out a bunch of money that never should have been paid.  That crap needs to stop too.

Whenever our government gets its hands on a program in almost instantly becomes cumbersome, slow moving, ineffective and way more expensive than it needs to be.  

in most cases medicaid is actually a state-run program, there's some federal money funding it, but for the most part the states determine who is eligible. most of the time there are quite a few hoops to jump through to get qualified for Medicaid

hoffse

smerka said:

Let's talk some real numbers. 80 acres of farmland isn't going to get close to the 5.43 million limit. Even at $10,000 an acre, that's only $800,000. If you are in the 25% tax bracket, I highly doubt you're actually paying 25% after exceptions and deductions. You need to look at your effective tax rate. While there is no doubt some waste in the budget, it's really just pocket change. The biggest expenditures are Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. That's 63% of the budget. You want to move the needle, you have to cut those.

No, but if you have a life insurance policy and it's not structured correctly, all of a sudden you might have another million or more included in your estate.

Or you might have your assets tied up in a family business in such a way that it gets counted.

Or maybe you have investments.  Or retirement accounts.

It's things like that which drive estate values up.  The problem is that people tend to think that their estate includes their land, their house, their bank accounts, their personal property, and some might think to include investments.  A lot of people have no idea that these other things can get included, and so they don't bother to get it structured correctly. 

vlagrl29

ah turtle tunnels and shrimp on treadmills - I totally forgot about all that.  Lots of waste but that's what the government is for.  They do have good programs out there but they have a lot of unnecessary ones as well.

Xstatic3333

AprilH81 said:

Xstatic3333 said:

kyrgyzstan said:

AprilH81 said:

I didn't watch last night, I can't stand to listen to Obama talk anymore...

I read an article over the weekend that he wanted to propose to tax the 529s to pay for two free years of community college (as others mentioned this would be punishing those who planned ahead), increase the capital gains tax (punishing those who wanted to invest in good ideas that boost the economy) and the inheritance "death" tax (taxing money that had ALREADY been taxed as income, capitol gains, etc just because the government "needs" it), AND he wants to cap the amount of money you can save in retirement accounts because you know, it wouldn't be fair for someone to have more in retirement than someone else.  X(

It boils my blood.  The money I earn is MINE not the government's.  They shouldn't be able to decide someone else needs it more, raise my taxes and then give it to whatever special interest group they deem worthy.  

The government should not be able to to essentially confiscate a person's estate when they die, it should be distributed according to a will or given to the next of kin in absence of a will.  If their argument is that "the heir didn't earn it" then that applies to the government too, the government didn't earn that money either.

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

I don't mind paying for SOME taxes because, yes the government provides services that I can't provide for myself (roads, national security, etc.).

I do mind constantly rising tax rates, new taxes when the government is doing a lot of crap it doesn't need to do.  The government doesn't need to be funding the digging of tunnels under a road to provide a save crossing for turtles. I'm not making this up, and the source isn't FOX news.  

"For instance, the Florida Department of Transportation wants to spend $3.4 million in stimulus money for a turtle tunnel. That's right, $3.4 million to help turtles cross under a highway. Each year, 1,035 turtles are killed on a half-mile stretch of highway north of Tallahassee, according to The Lake Jackson Ecopassage Alliance, a group advocating for the tunnel. They are hoping to use the stimulus dough to save the turtles."

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Economy/story?id=8045022

If a state wants to build a turtle tunnel let the citizens vote for it, but the federal government should not be funding pet projects in individual states with tax money raised from people who don't even live in the state.

There is SO MUCH waste (not to mention fraud and abuse) in all of the federal programs, from the military down to food stamps and everything in between.  If they would just tackle the fraud, waste and abuse we would have more money to pay down our federal debt and keep more programs in operation.

We can argue state vs. federal funding, but wildlife road mortality is a big, big problem. The article doesn't list the species of turtle, but my guess is that it is threatened or endangered if they are spending that kind of money. I do think the federal government has a big role to play in protecting our nation's natural resources and biodiversity. Once they're gone, they're gone, and I would like us to be able to pass them on to our children and grandchildren.

And how are you going to get the turtles to use said crossing if it is built?  That is what is so silly about spending MILLIONS of dollars on a project like this.  The turtles won't know to use the tunnel and they will still get hit by vehicles.

I'm not saying "fuck the animals, let them all die" but there is no point in wasting taxpayer money on projects that won't do a thing to help animals.

I know you were making a larger point and just happened to hit on something from my line of work, but this is actually pretty interesting stuff (to me, at least).  Semiaquatic turtles that spend part of their life in water and part in the forest are genetically "programmed" to follow certain routes from their aquatic habitat to their terrestrial habitat.  That's why they cross roads in the first place; not because they have a death wish, but because that's just their route.  The closest analogy I can compare it to is how salmon return to their place of birth. That's not a perfect comparison, however, because turtle movement in some species can also be effected by weather, food availability, etc.   

Though I'm not familiar with the particular tunnel you referenced, with tunnels that have been built in my area a lot of research has been collected to pick the location where the road deaths are occurring.  They also do things to make the tunnel feel natural to the turtle, like adding natural light.  Simple, low fences can also be used to divert the turtles to the tunnels.  I promise you a ton of research goes into these things; I can certainly see why it seems wasteful to some but they DO work when built properly.  

Please don't think I'm trying to get personal with any of this.  I live this stuff-environmental science is my career-and it does sting a little bit when it gets demonized.  I like a spirited debate though and no grudges will be held.  

ETA: Not saying you were demonizing it.  But the press does (as I learned when I Googled the project you were referencing).  Gah.  Trying to properly phrase "no hard feelings" and think I'm failing miserably.  

Xstatic3333

smerka said:

Let's talk some real numbers. 80 acres of farmland isn't going to get close to the 5.43 million limit. Even at $10,000 an acre, that's only $800,000. If you are in the 25% tax bracket, I highly doubt you're actually paying 25% after exceptions and deductions. You need to look at your effective tax rate. While there is no doubt some waste in the budget, it's really just pocket change. The biggest expenditures are Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. That's 63% of the budget. You want to move the needle, you have to cut those.

Agree that there is lot of waste in many government programs.  I think my philosophy is that it doesn't mean the government shouldn't have these programs, but that they need to work to make them better.  I see government waste firsthand when dealing with some of my federal agency colleagues and it is frustrating.  

smerka

I don't disagree Hoffse with any of that. It's just that there is no way a farm of 80 acres is going to be worth 5,000,000. I looked up average farmland prices and NJ and CA are the only place where an acre is over $10,000. And farmland is probably going to decrease in value because the price of oil (ethanol) is down. Also 2/3 of medical costs are spent in the last 6 months of life. And I'd venture to guess that almost all of that falls to Medicare. We need to stop giving 80 year women dying of lung cancer Pap smears. And do something about tort reform.

formerlyGDaisy09

smerka said:

I don't disagree Hoffse with any of that. It's just that there is no way a farm of 80 acres is going to be worth 5,000,000. I looked up average farmland prices and NJ and CA are the only place where an acre is over $10,000. And farmland is probably going to decrease in value because the price of oil (ethanol) is down. Also 2/3 of medical costs are spent in the last 6 months of life. And I'd venture to guess that almost all of that falls to Medicare. We need to stop giving 80 year women dying of lung cancer Pap smears. And do something about tort reform.

I think money would be well spent to educate both doctors and patients on the benefits of hospice care, as well as work on advanced directives, and medical proxie education. studies have shown that most people would prefer to die at home with minimal medical intervention, but that is not what happens.  People enter hospice programs too late to get any benefit from them. most doctors are hesitant to offer patients hospice care as a real option when dealth is inevitable. 

Atul Gawande is another public health writer who has amazing insights surrounding end of life care, I recommend reading everything he's written, but here's an interview about his book "Being Mortal" that hits on a lot of his views clicky

brij2006

kyrgyzstan said:

AprilH81 said:

I didn't watch last night, I can't stand to listen to Obama talk anymore...

I read an article over the weekend that he wanted to propose to tax the 529s to pay for two free years of community college (as others mentioned this would be punishing those who planned ahead), increase the capital gains tax (punishing those who wanted to invest in good ideas that boost the economy) and the inheritance "death" tax (taxing money that had ALREADY been taxed as income, capitol gains, etc just because the government "needs" it), AND he wants to cap the amount of money you can save in retirement accounts because you know, it wouldn't be fair for someone to have more in retirement than someone else.  X(

It boils my blood.  The money I earn is MINE not the government's.  They shouldn't be able to decide someone else needs it more, raise my taxes and then give it to whatever special interest group they deem worthy.  

The government should not be able to to essentially confiscate a person's estate when they die, it should be distributed according to a will or given to the next of kin in absence of a will.  If their argument is that "the heir didn't earn it" then that applies to the government too, the government didn't earn that money either.

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

I will admit that this is a big fear of mine.  My parents' farm is more than this in value, and I would like to keep the farm active and going after they pass.  However, because of the taxes I am going to have to sell a share of the land just to be able to cover the insane estate taxes when I inherit it.  I have zero problem with being taxed on some of it, but this is a 4 generation farm and our family has worked very very hard to keep it growing, profitable, and in the family.  Then to pass it down to the next generation and have there be over $1mil in taxes because of it, we will have to sell some of it just to cover that.  Which means not keeping all of it in the family. 

brij2006

hoffse said:

smerka said:

Let's talk some real numbers. 80 acres of farmland isn't going to get close to the 5.43 million limit. Even at $10,000 an acre, that's only $800,000. If you are in the 25% tax bracket, I highly doubt you're actually paying 25% after exceptions and deductions. You need to look at your effective tax rate. While there is no doubt some waste in the budget, it's really just pocket change. The biggest expenditures are Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. That's 63% of the budget. You want to move the needle, you have to cut those.

No, but if you have a life insurance policy and it's not structured correctly, all of a sudden you might have another million or more included in your estate.

Or you might have your assets tied up in a family business in such a way that it gets counted.

Or maybe you have investments.  Or retirement accounts.

It's things like that which drive estate values up.  The problem is that people tend to think that their estate includes their land, their house, their bank accounts, their personal property, and some might think to include investments.  A lot of people have no idea that these other things can get included, and so they don't bother to get it structured correctly. 

How would that be the case?  Don't those go directly to the beneficiary anyways, or are you talking about life insurance policies that pay out to the estate?

Xstatic3333

brij2006 said:

kyrgyzstan said:

AprilH81 said:

I didn't watch last night, I can't stand to listen to Obama talk anymore...

I read an article over the weekend that he wanted to propose to tax the 529s to pay for two free years of community college (as others mentioned this would be punishing those who planned ahead), increase the capital gains tax (punishing those who wanted to invest in good ideas that boost the economy) and the inheritance "death" tax (taxing money that had ALREADY been taxed as income, capitol gains, etc just because the government "needs" it), AND he wants to cap the amount of money you can save in retirement accounts because you know, it wouldn't be fair for someone to have more in retirement than someone else.  X(

It boils my blood.  The money I earn is MINE not the government's.  They shouldn't be able to decide someone else needs it more, raise my taxes and then give it to whatever special interest group they deem worthy.  

The government should not be able to to essentially confiscate a person's estate when they die, it should be distributed according to a will or given to the next of kin in absence of a will.  If their argument is that "the heir didn't earn it" then that applies to the government too, the government didn't earn that money either.

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

I will admit that this is a big fear of mine.  My parents' farm is more than this in value, and I would like to keep the farm active and going after they pass.  However, because of the taxes I am going to have to sell a share of the land just to be able to cover the insane estate taxes when I inherit it.  I have zero problem with being taxed on some of it, but this is a 4 generation farm and our family has worked very very hard to keep it growing, profitable, and in the family.  Then to pass it down to the next generation and have there be over $1mil in taxes because of it, we will have to sell some of it just to cover that.  Which means not keeping all of it in the family. 

I don't think I realized until this thread how common it was for family farms to be valued in that range. I know the price of farmland in my state is going through the roof due to development pressure, but farms here tend to be smaller.

I think a good thing about debates and discussions like this is that it takes me away from blindly agreeing with my party to hear personal stories. An expansion of the estate tax does make me uneasy in many ways. For estates that are mostly in real estate, it will make it impossible for families to pass on what they intended, and that's a shame.

hoffse

brij2006 said:

hoffse said:

smerka said:

Let's talk some real numbers. 80 acres of farmland isn't going to get close to the 5.43 million limit. Even at $10,000 an acre, that's only $800,000. If you are in the 25% tax bracket, I highly doubt you're actually paying 25% after exceptions and deductions. You need to look at your effective tax rate. While there is no doubt some waste in the budget, it's really just pocket change. The biggest expenditures are Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. That's 63% of the budget. You want to move the needle, you have to cut those.

No, but if you have a life insurance policy and it's not structured correctly, all of a sudden you might have another million or more included in your estate.

Or you might have your assets tied up in a family business in such a way that it gets counted.

Or maybe you have investments.  Or retirement accounts.

It's things like that which drive estate values up.  The problem is that people tend to think that their estate includes their land, their house, their bank accounts, their personal property, and some might think to include investments.  A lot of people have no idea that these other things can get included, and so they don't bother to get it structured correctly. 

How would that be the case?  Don't those go directly to the beneficiary anyways, or are you talking about life insurance policies that pay out to the estate?

Brij, here's some info on this.  I've typically seen it caught up in the estate value when the deceased was the owner of the policy:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/06/transferlifeinsurance.asp

It's pretty easy to get it out of the estate to reduce the estate's value... but as you can imagine, most people who buy life insurance policies probably buy policies on their own life, and they have no idea that the policy amount then "counts" as part of their estate if they die.... since they are both the owner and the insured. 

hoffse

I should add - that article is a few years old, but it's a good overview of how it works.

Xstatic3333

AprilH81 said:

Xstatic3333 said:

brij2006 said:

kyrgyzstan said:

<snip>

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

I will admit that this is a big fear of mine.  My parents' farm is more than this in value, and I would like to keep the farm active and going after they pass.  However, because of the taxes I am going to have to sell a share of the land just to be able to cover the insane estate taxes when I inherit it.  I have zero problem with being taxed on some of it, but this is a 4 generation farm and our family has worked very very hard to keep it growing, profitable, and in the family.  Then to pass it down to the next generation and have there be over $1mil in taxes because of it, we will have to sell some of it just to cover that.  Which means not keeping all of it in the family. 

I don't think I realized until this thread how common it was for family farms to be valued in that range. I know the price of farmland in my state is going through the roof due to development pressure, but farms here tend to be smaller.

I think a good thing about debates and discussions like this is that it takes me away from blindly agreeing with my party to hear personal stories. An expansion of the estate tax does make me uneasy in many ways. For estates that are mostly in real estate, it will make it impossible for families to pass on what they intended, and that's a shame.


Since I am learning things today...  

Outside of family farms and actual real estate, would you support a "death tax" on estates? If so, why? 

I can't wrap my head around why this is okay since the money that is left to be passed down has been taxed already (taxed as income, capital gains, etc.) with the possible exception of tax deferred retirement accounts and insurance policies.  Tax those if you must, but if it has already been taxed it shouldn't be taxed again just because the government wants a bigger piece of someones hard work.

I think we're in agreement on this one, April. It doesn't sit right with me at all. Then again, I don't know much about it. The gift tax feels similar. If anyone knows anything about why we have these, why they make/made sense, etc. I'd be curious to hear.

With taxes, my number one concern is closing offshore tax loopholes for large corporations. I know that large corporations are job creators. However, they also generate loads of profit and I think they should have to pay their share. No politician on either side, except for Elizabeth Warren, ever wants to touch that one at all since they are paying so much into the campaign system. Some large corporations also use this influence to create policies hostile to small-business competitors too, and that bugs me to no end.

brij2006

hoffse said:

brij2006 said:

hoffse said:

smerka said:

Let's talk some real numbers. 80 acres of farmland isn't going to get close to the 5.43 million limit. Even at $10,000 an acre, that's only $800,000. If you are in the 25% tax bracket, I highly doubt you're actually paying 25% after exceptions and deductions. You need to look at your effective tax rate. While there is no doubt some waste in the budget, it's really just pocket change. The biggest expenditures are Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. That's 63% of the budget. You want to move the needle, you have to cut those.

No, but if you have a life insurance policy and it's not structured correctly, all of a sudden you might have another million or more included in your estate.

Or you might have your assets tied up in a family business in such a way that it gets counted.

Or maybe you have investments.  Or retirement accounts.

It's things like that which drive estate values up.  The problem is that people tend to think that their estate includes their land, their house, their bank accounts, their personal property, and some might think to include investments.  A lot of people have no idea that these other things can get included, and so they don't bother to get it structured correctly. 

How would that be the case?  Don't those go directly to the beneficiary anyways, or are you talking about life insurance policies that pay out to the estate?

Brij, here's some info on this.  I've typically seen it caught up in the estate value when the deceased was the owner of the policy:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/06/transferlifeinsurance.asp

It's pretty easy to get it out of the estate to reduce the estate's value... but as you can imagine, most people who buy life insurance policies probably buy policies on their own life, and they have no idea that the policy amount then "counts" as part of their estate if they die.... since they are both the owner and the insured. 

That is a very good article, thank you.  Now that my brother is deceased, the farm will just be going to me.  Which will actually make things easier with my parents' estate.  I'm thinking that maybe we should be looking into changing their life insurance policies to pay directly to me instead of the estate.  That way we aren't taxed on those on top of all of their assets.

brij2006

Xstatic3333 said:

Xstatic3333 said:

kyrgyzstan said:

<snip>

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

I will admit that this is a big fear of mine.  My parents' farm is more than this in value, and I would like to keep the farm active and going after they pass.  However, because of the taxes I am going to have to sell a share of the land just to be able to cover the insane estate taxes when I inherit it.  I have zero problem with being taxed on some of it, but this is a 4 generation farm and our family has worked very very hard to keep it growing, profitable, and in the family.  Then to pass it down to the next generation and have there be over $1mil in taxes because of it, we will have to sell some of it just to cover that.  Which means not keeping all of it in the family. 

I don't think I realized until this thread how common it was for family farms to be valued in that range. I know the price of farmland in my state is going through the roof due to development pressure, but farms here tend to be smaller. I think a good thing about debates and discussions like this is that it takes me away from blindly agreeing with my party to hear personal stories. An expansion of the estate tax does make me uneasy in many ways. For estates that are mostly in real estate, it will make it impossible for families to pass on what they intended, and that's a shame.

Since I am learning things today...  

Outside of family farms and actual real estate, would you support a "death tax" on estates? If so, why? 

I can't wrap my head around why this is okay since the money that is left to be passed down has been taxed already (taxed as income, capital gains, etc.) with the possible exception of tax deferred retirement accounts and insurance policies.  Tax those if you must, but if it has already been taxed it shouldn't be taxed again just because the government wants a bigger piece of someones hard work.

I think we're in agreement on this one, April. It doesn't sit right with me at all. Then again, I don't know much about it. The gift tax feels similar. If anyone knows anything about why we have these, why they make/made sense, etc. I'd be curious to hear. With taxes, my number one concern is closing offshore tax loopholes for large corporations. I know that large corporations are job creators. However, they also generate loads of profit and I think they should have to pay their share. No politician on either side, except for Elizabeth Warren, ever wants to touch that one at all since they are paying so much into the campaign system. Some large corporations also use this influence to create policies hostile to small-business competitors too, and that bugs me to no end.

I will flat out say that I think it's pure bullshit.  
So, we're going to tax someone who was smart with their money and invested, saved, etc.  Then when they die and pass that legacy down to their children, we're going to tax it again.  

Sorry, but successful people didn't get there by doing nothing.  So why penalize them and then penalize their family because they made smart decisions and worked hard?

hoffse

AprilH81 said:

Xstatic3333 said:

kyrgyzstan said:

<snip>

Lol. Maybe you should go live on a boat in international waters. Otherwise, stop using roads and highways, police, fire, our national defense, and a boatload of other programs. The money you earn is yours, but we pay for the privilege of being Americans with taxes. 

As for estates, anyone giving 5.43 million dollars to their next of kin can afford the taxes. I'm not particularly shedding any tears for the minute group of people suffering from inheriting more than that. 

I will admit that this is a big fear of mine.  My parents' farm is more than this in value, and I would like to keep the farm active and going after they pass.  However, because of the taxes I am going to have to sell a share of the land just to be able to cover the insane estate taxes when I inherit it.  I have zero problem with being taxed on some of it, but this is a 4 generation farm and our family has worked very very hard to keep it growing, profitable, and in the family.  Then to pass it down to the next generation and have there be over $1mil in taxes because of it, we will have to sell some of it just to cover that.  Which means not keeping all of it in the family. 

I don't think I realized until this thread how common it was for family farms to be valued in that range. I know the price of farmland in my state is going through the roof due to development pressure, but farms here tend to be smaller. I think a good thing about debates and discussions like this is that it takes me away from blindly agreeing with my party to hear personal stories. An expansion of the estate tax does make me uneasy in many ways. For estates that are mostly in real estate, it will make it impossible for families to pass on what they intended, and that's a shame.

Since I am learning things today...  

Outside of family farms and actual real estate, would you support a "death tax" on estates? If so, why? 

I can't wrap my head around why this is okay since the money that is left to be passed down has been taxed already (taxed as income, capital gains, etc.) with the possible exception of tax deferred retirement accounts and insurance policies.  Tax those if you must, but if it has already been taxed it shouldn't be taxed again just because the government wants a bigger piece of someones hard work.

I would not.  If for no other reason than the trigger of the tax (death) is horrible to deal with.  Taxes really make the situation that much worse.

The government taxes estates in an effort to break up family dynasties.  But the reality is that there's a lot you can do within the limits of the tax law to reduce it.  You just have to be willing to talk to somebody who can plan it for you or learn the rules yourself.  So the IRS's own rules sort of work against the entire goal, and in the meantime I have to harass people who are grieving to make sure they file their estate tax return for a loved one.

Because I'm me, I would be open to an alternative where the there is an exemption ceiling like we have now.  Everything over that limit is "taxable."  And then you have an option to pay those "taxes" to the either IRS or a designated 501(c)(3).  That would encourage people to spread the wealth a bit, while still enabling them to choose their own beneficiaries - both individual and charitable.  Many high wealth individuals donate at death anyway, and this would simply encourage more of it.

What's really interesting is to look at the "giving" rates around the country.  The percentage of income that people give away tends to be highest in the Southeast and into parts of the west:

http://philanthropy.com/article/Interactive-Explore-How/149107/#results

My city (Birmingham, AL) is ranked #3 on the "most giving cities" list, behind Salt Lake City and Memphis (but just ahead of Atlanta and Nashville).  This is probably largely to do with cost of living and religion, but the results are still remarkable.  Tax planners down here spend a lot of time working the charitable deduction, and I wish we could do more of it.