This sort of stuff makes the argument for inheritance tax

[JeffreyLebowski]

Because the government actually needs to raise money with taxes.

You want to pay more taxes, to reduce the inheritance tax?

The government needs to reduce spending and cut off welfare babies.

 

[Craig234]

The most ironic part is he wants the government to have the money but the government is the MOST INEFFICIENT entity at handling money ever devised.

No, it's not, right-wing ideologue. But your wrong ideology explains a lot of wrong views.

 

[Craig234]

The government needs to reduce spending and cut off welfare babies.

Except you're too ignorant to understand the cost efficiencies of safety net - apart from the moral benefits. Yes, let's have more poor families who can't afford to care for the kids.

That'll sure help the economy, having more illiterate people turn to crime, who have more health problems. A fine country you want to turn this into.

This is a reason why the economy does better - higher growth, lower unemployment, higher incomes better distributed, a stronger middle class under Democrats.

 

[Craig234]

Normally inheritance tax would have no effect till you get to a level of $100,000.00.

Inheritance tax generally has no effect on estates below $5 million for singles, $10 million for couples.

 

[senseamp]

I understand that.
The 10 million was taxed right? Why does the government get a piece of the new pie simply because Steinbrenner made a good investment? why is the government entitled to put their sticky fingers everywhere? when that money gets spent it will be taxed again.



I wish you could actually fathom what you're proposing. I'd like to follow you in a typical day and point out EVERYTHING you would be taxed for. Say you give your brother $200 and he gives $100 to each of his kids. You want it to be taxed at every transaction so that by the time the kids get it they're getting $20 each. Why? Why is the money so much less valuable if someone else has it or is going to spend it? Are they not going to pay the same tax rate when they go to the store as the original owner had? No wealth has been magically created.... so why reduce it?

When my employer pays me salary, no wealth has been magically created either, so why reduce it?

 

[senseamp]

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?

 

[Cogman]

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?

Why are you so upset with people that have more money than you? Why do you want to punish someone because their parents earned a lot of money?

 

[Lithium381]

When my employer pays me salary, no wealth has been magically created either, so why reduce it?

You, my friend, are starting to understand!
If the government is going to be all up in our business for EVERY transaction.... why bother having wealth or dollars at all if eventually it will be all funneled to the state at some point anyway if we had it your way. That way the government can provide everything you need, and all of your waking moments can be used to serve your government. Wait.... that sounds like communism

 

[Lithium381]

lets take a look at how you are pissing your money away. Got tat's/cell phones/nose bolts/doper/boozer/drive a car/nights out on the town/ etc. all superfluous expenditures.

Well golly gee, you shouldn't have any personal choice in life at all! If it makes someone happy, we should ban it immediately because it constitutes a waste of money, that money could have gone to the government to be spent more efficiently!!!!. Our lives should be structured by the government so we don't even have to think about anything anymore..... like cattle.....

 

[Craig234]

You, my friend, are starting to understand!

Too bad the same can't be said for you.

You are posting ridiculous things about extreme 'the government takes all your wealth'.

If the government is going to be all up in our business for EVERY transaction.... why bother having wealth or dollars at all if eventually it will be all funneled to the state at some point anyway if we had it your way. That way the government can provide everything you need, and all of your waking moments can be used to serve your government. Wait.... that sounds like communism[/QUOTE]

 

[senseamp]

Why are you so upset with people that have more money than you? Why do you want to punish someone because their parents earned a lot of money?

Punish them by making them pay taxes on their income, and inheritance is an income to them, like people who actually work for a living? This is rightwing mentality at its finest. People WORKING hard to make a living having to pay taxes at ordinary income rates but trustfund babies getting an inheritance for DOING NOTHING, and collecting dividends, well let's not tax them at all. Why do you want to punish working people?

 

[Craig234]

Why are you so upset with people that have more money than you? Why do you want to punish someone because their parents earned a lot of money?

Idiocy. Either the taxes come from the estate, or higher rates for you. Which?

 

[senseamp]

You, my friend, are starting to understand!
If the government is going to be all up in our business for EVERY transaction.... why bother having wealth or dollars at all if eventually it will be all funneled to the state at some point anyway if we had it your way. That way the government can provide everything you need, and all of your waking moments can be used to serve your government. Wait.... that sounds like communism

So any tax is communism? You are a dim bulb.

 

[Lithium381]

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?

Why are you leftwing socialist nutjobs targeting income earned through hard work and fortune of others? Why do you want the unemployed who don't work AT ALL to be rewarded for not working and sitting on their butts collecting dividends off someone elses' inheritance?

 

[senseamp]

Why are you leftwing socialist nutjobs targeting income earned through hard work and fortune of others? Why do you want the unemployed who don't work AT ALL to be rewarded for not working and sitting on their butts collecting dividends off someone elses' inheritance?

Forget to take your Lithium?

 

[werepossum]

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?

Right wingers are more oriented toward family. Thus it offends our sensibilities that government should take a large part of what someone earned to provide for and hand down to his family.

Left wingers are more oriented toward friends. Thus it offends your sensibilities that someone else might get a big chunk of change without you getting a cut.

From a libertarian viewpoint, it's a basic matter of freedom. It's one thing for government to take a cut of an economic activity to which it participates in some meaningful way. Inheritance has no meaningful government contribution; money belonged to one person and is passed to her heirs upon her death. We (small "L" libertarians) also find it meaningful that in the Middle Ages, as Europe left the age of serfdom, one telling measure of whether one was free or bound was whether one's parents had paid the death tax, as only for those bound in servitude was the lord allowed to claim the serf's best animal (or if he had none, his best tool or best suit of clothes) as heriot, literally the tax to let the serf's heirs inherit. (Even fuedal lords had to pay heriot to those to whom they owed allegiance, as in theory everything a lord or noble held was theoretically the possession of his liege lord.) Libertarians being (at least in theory) fonder of freedom and harder to bribe than progressives, we do not wish to continue customs associated with being owned, even if promised that only those richer than ourselves shall have to pay and that government will give us a cut.

 

[Brainonska511]

Right wingers are more oriented toward family. Thus it offends our sensibilities that government should take a large part of what someone earned to provide for and hand down to his family.

But did those people earn it or just let it appreciate in value by making a few investments? After all, earned income = money you get in exchange for your labor. Passive income (not earned) is all those dividends, capital gains, real estate....

 

[senseamp]

Right wingers are more oriented toward family. Thus it offends our sensibilities that government should take a large part of what someone earned to provide for and hand down to his family.

Left wingers are more oriented toward friends. Thus it offends your sensibilities that someone else might get a big chunk of change without you getting a cut.

From a libertarian viewpoint, it's a basic matter of freedom. It's one thing for government to take a cut of an economic activity to which it participates in some meaningful way. Inheritance has no meaningful government contribution; money belonged to one person and is passed to her heirs upon her death. We (small "L" libertarians) also find it meaningful that in the Middle Ages, as Europe left the age of serfdom, one telling measure of whether one was free or bound was whether one's parents had paid the death tax, as only for those bound in servitude was the lord allowed to claim the serf's best animal (or if he had none, his best tool or best suit of clothes) as heriot, literally the tax to let the serf's heirs inherit. (Even fuedal lords had to pay heriot to those to whom they owed allegiance, as in theory everything a lord or noble held was theoretically the possession of his liege lord.) Libertarians being (at least in theory) fonder of freedom and harder to bribe than progressives, we do not wish to continue customs associated with being owned, even if promised that only those richer than ourselves shall have to pay and that government will give us a cut.

The government participates in no meaningful way in my work, yet I have to pay income taxes. There goes your "logic."

 

[Lithium381]

Punish them by making them pay taxes on their income, and inheritance is an income to them, like people who actually work for a living? This is rightwing mentality at its finest. People WORKING hard to make a living having to pay taxes at ordinary income rates but trustfund babies getting an inheritance for DOING NOTHING, and collecting dividends, well let's not tax them at all. Why do you want to punish working people?

Okay, I accept the basis for your argument.

Idiocy. Either the taxes come from the estate, or higher rates for you. Which?

So any tax is communism? You are a dim bulb.

No, not any tax.... but a tax on every time money exchanges hands is exessive.

 

[Lithium381]

Forget to take your Lithium?

lolololololol OMG i had never heard that before

 

[senseamp]

Okay, I accept the basis for your argument.





No, not any tax.... but a tax on every time money exchanges hands is exessive.

Says who? That's what income tax is, money changing hands is an expense to one person and an income to another one.

 

[Fern]

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?

An inheretance is NOT income. It is a mere (non-business) transfer of property between people meeting certain limited criteria. We do have property rights in the USA, and that would include the ability to give it to whom you wish.

If there are characteristics indicating the transfer was for business or investment purposes it will be recharaterized and taxed as income (this has been tried and caught).

IMO, a proper estate tax should have higher rates than income tax. This was the specific intention when our tax system was designed.

Lower income tax rates so the productive person earning the income could enjoy the fruits of his labor, and a higher rate estate tax that would kick-in upon their death when they can no longer enjoy the wealth they created, and prevent dynasties.

To tax heavily while you're alive is seen as an obstacle to uppward mobility and disincentive to work hard. And a low estate tax is seen as a way to ensure the wealthy stay wealthy thus creating an aristocracy.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Says who? That's what income tax is, money changing hands is an expense to one person and an income to another one.

No, it's not an expense.

Words like "income" and "expense" have specific meanings in both accounting and taxation.

You can give someone else money and it may be a loan, thus not an expense. You can give also them money as a gift and it's not an expense.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

No, it's not an expense.

Words like "income" and "expense" have specific meanings in both accounting and taxation.

You can give someone else money and it may be a loan, thus not an expense. You can give also them money as a gift and it's not an expense.

Fern

Is inheritance a loan? No.
Is it a gift? If yes, then gift tax should be paid if it's over 13,000 per year, as is the law for gifts.

 

[werepossum]

But did those people earn it or just let it appreciate in value by making a few investments? After all, earned income = money you get in exchange for your labor. Passive income (not earned) is all those dividends, capital gains, real estate....

Someone at some time had to earn the money, even if it's accumulated wealth was mostly from interest. Also, investment income is not necessarily unearned; someone has to spend the time and effort researching investments. This is the same work as done for wages paid to stock brokers and investment counselors to pick investments, with the added risk of losing one's own money rather than a client's.

The government participates in no meaningful way in my work, yet I have to pay income taxes. There goes your "logic."

Some would argue that government does indeed participate in a meaningful way in your work. Government educated you, to allow you to do your work. You probably commute daily over government streets to a building with electricity, water, and sewage which is, if not furnished by government, at least regulated by government. Government probably regulates your industry as well, and makes sure that you have redress if your company does not pay you.

Inheritance by contrast requires much less government participation; it is a one-time transaction, and ongoing government participation (e.g. in protecting that wealth) is no different from before the death. If one posits that government participation for this entitles government to take a significant slice of the inheritance, then one must also concede that government is also due a significant slice of ANY accumulated wealth. At that point, government effectively owns whatever wealth you have accumulated - and thus, government effectively owns YOU. Remember, this is not an either/or thing, that if government participates in any slightest fashion it is then free to take whatever slice of your wealth it wishes.