Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Aisling207 t1_jbhatl3 wrote

Reply to comment by psychcaptain in Pennsylvania has No. 4 highest tax rates in U.S.: report by dissolutewastrel

Oh, boy.

I never said “unmarried for tax reasons,” I pointed out that many widows/widowers will lose all of their pension and social security benefits if they remarry. That’s not about taxes, it’s about survival.

The Fed absolutely does tax 401(k) benefits.

Found families are taxed at 15% by PA. Lineal descendants are taxed at 4.5%, siblings at 12%. So yes, they are absolutely treated differently.

2

psychcaptain t1_jbhb2ac wrote

401(k) are exempt from Income Taxes.

Roth is not.

And if a person benefits financial from not being married, I don't see why it should be up to us to give them more.

−2

Aisling207 t1_jbhbuzn wrote

You have that completely backwards. A Roth IRA has already had federal taxes withheld and withdrawals are not taxed. 401(k)s contributions and gains are not taxed by the Feds until withdrawal.

And no one is “giving” anyone “more” by abolishing inheritance tax.

0

psychcaptain t1_jbhdj0l wrote

Ironically, I've worked in the retirement industry for over half a decade, and I do know the rules for 401(k) and Roth pretty well. I was talking about taxes per payroll.

Since we are talking about being dead, you aren't actually taxes on your 401(k). It can be passed on to your children and or spouse.

As for inheritance Taxes, I love it. It solves 3 distinct problems and no one suffers.

1). In a capitalist system, money should be earned. People should work for it. Competition should bring out the best. Generational Wealth distorts the system. It creates dynasties of people earning wealth on their wealth based on little or no input of the one holding it. It creates lazy lay abouts landless aristocracies and new version of feudalism. It breaks the system down.

2). The funding can be used for things that people care about, rather than statues, university wings of colleges you family will never attend, KKK groups or Libraries.

3). It helps people realize that they should spend their hard earned money and enjoy life. Accumulating wealth should not be something people do as an end goal Eye of a needle vs camels.

Now, I am happy to make exceptions for spouses and minor children, but outside of that, well, I hate the idea of creating more loop holes where none are necessary.

−3

Aisling207 t1_jbhft7l wrote

My point was that even the Fed recognizes that taxing all estates/inheritances regardless of size is unfair. You are arguing for a regressive tax. A widow/er who would lose their income or right to be buried with a previous spouse by remarrying should not be forced to sell their house to pay the state if their partner dies. A person without children should not be penalized for wanting to provide for the time and expenses of an unrelated caregiver.

1

psychcaptain t1_jbhg399 wrote

A widow only loses the benefits if they get married before age 60.

Do you know a lot of 50 year Widows living off their dead spouses Social Security Benefits?

We aren't talking about 75 year Meredith, we are talking about 50 year Sandra's, who should get a job.

And if they are disabled at 50, and getting DIB, they also keep their Spouses benefits.

−1

Aisling207 t1_jbhi6f2 wrote

Look, it’s really not your business to tell anyone to get a job. But realistically, yes, we ARE talking about 75 year old Meredith, who relies on a pension and cannot remarry, but who met a nice person she’d like to be with, but would lose that pension and the ability to be buried with her first spouse if she remarried. She and her partner own a house together. Or maybe she and her sister own the house. If that person dies, she owes PA a big check, which forces her to sell. Plus she has to turn over part of her bank accounts.

We really aren’t talking about Real Housewives of Altoona or Paris Hilton or whatever.

1