This sort of stuff makes the argument for inheritance tax

[ProfJohn]

So she was worth $400 million.

Which is a rounding error when it comes to government spending.
We waste 3-4 times that much each year via fraud and over spending 80 million other things.

Sad.

 

[Infohawk]

Her assets were surely invested in something, and the very article you link says she set up a foundation to support the arts.... what on earth would make you conclude her wealth "did nothing"?

/Thread

What people really want to complain about is the idea that someone went their whole life without working (I assume she didn't have a job). If that's what you want to complain about go for it. But it's silly to act like her wealth wasn't being productively.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Why is some income considered special and untouchable while money that people actually work for bears the weight of most taxes? And it will only get taxed if it is spent in a state where sales tax applies. The Federal Government doesn't tax spending.

oh, so we're in agreement that we should abolish income tax.
goodie.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Why are you rightwingers targeting income earned through hard work for higher taxation than income that is not worked for at all? Why do you want to punish hard work and reward sitting on your butt collecting dividends off your inheritance?

another fair tax supporter?

why do liberals support progressive taxation and higher taxes on higher income earners who work harder?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Maybe you just don't get it, but some of that "earned money" is never taxed if it is passed on. Consider this scenario:

The Yankees were worth $10 million when Steinbrenner first purchased them in the 70s (his basis value). Now, they are worth close to $1.2 billion. As long as the investment was never sold, that $1.19 billion is never taxed. Now that has passed onto the sons, but they have a new basis value. If they sold the Yankees tomorrow for $1.3 billion, they would pay capital gains taxes on $0.1 billion. The remaining part of the gain is tax free. So it was not taxed when it was "earned".

It's amazing how when everyone talks about taxes they focus on earned income instead of the real issue: passive income rates. But there is always some rube that will come along and defend them... That CEO making $1 in salary (oh so noble!) and millions in stock options (15% capital gains rate after 1 year of investment; no payroll taxes either), etc.....

when the value of the yankees were rising, did the owners not invest a ton of money to make this happen?
did they not sign players to mega million dollar contracts? did they not refurbish/renovate the stadium multiple times, which means jobs for contractors, construction crews, concession stand employees, etc.?
did they not bring money to local businesses?
did not all of these get taxed?

the bottom line is to raise money for govt and stimulate the economy right?
i'd say they did their fair share.

 

[Brainonska511]

when the value of the yankees were rising, did the owners not invest a ton of money to make this happen?
did they not sign players to mega million dollar contracts? did they not refurbish/renovate the stadium multiple times, which means jobs for contractors, construction crews, concession stand employees, etc.?
did they not bring money to local businesses?
did not all of these get taxed?

the bottom line is to raise money for govt and stimulate the economy right?
i'd say they did their fair share.

And operating expenses and construction projects don't detract or necessarily add to the total value of the team. They may have made an investment at one point, but I'm sure it has paid for itself through increased revenues. I'm talking about the capital gain - the rise in value of the team from the initial purchase price.

oh, so we're in agreement that we should abolish income tax.
goodie.

Too bad I didn't say that at all....

I don't think there should be any differentiation in the progressive tax structure between earned and passive income.