This sort of stuff makes the argument for inheritance tax

[Lithium381]

So you are saying that if I promise to deposit paycheck in the bank and pay taxes on the interest, I should not have to pay any income taxes? I don't see anything in your argument that would justify having people who get money from relatives for doing nothing pay no tax, while people who work for their money have to pay income tax on it.

You seem to be operating under the asumption that the original relative who earned it didn't pay taxes on it......

 

[Fear No Evil]

News to me that Gates and Buffet are not being taxed right now. WOW!!

You know what I meant. Why wait until they die to take the additional inheritance tax? Why not take 40-50% of their estate NOW? Honestly what do people like them need with so much money? They can't spend it all and their children aren't entitled to it, so just take it now.

 

[a777pilot]

You know what I meant. Why wait until they die to take the additional inheritance tax? Why not take 40-50% of their estate NOW? Honestly what do people like them need with so much money? They can't spend it all and their children aren't entitled to it, so just take it now.

Good idea.

Let's go one step further: Why not take 100% of all salary/income over $250,000 for a family and $200,000 if single. Then, in addition, take all wealth over $1,000,000 of all who are citizens of this nation or reside here.

There that ought to solve all our money problems.

LOL!

 

[nonlnear]

They both came by it legally? Are you arguing that we should only protect the perpetuation of wealth earned through industry? What other distinctions would you draw as to what wealth should be protected and what shouldn't?

Be careful with your answers, you could get yourself into trouble.

My morality is not contingent on the whims of any state. Therefore I don't care about "legality" when evaluating the justice of a transaction. What I care about is coercion. A government is a self-appointed monopoly on the power to remove consent. Therefore it is meaningless to say that a monarch (or government of any sort) acquired something "legally".

 

[theeedude]

You seem to be operating under the asumption that the original relative who earned it didn't pay taxes on it......

This has been discussed already, and no, I am not operating under that assumption.

 

[Brainonska511]

I don't get it..... it was taxed when it was earned, and it will be taxed when it is spent.... why does the government get it's grubby fingers on it in between? Just like in the example above.... you earned a paycheck and paid tax on it.... you give $100 to your 16 yo daughter to go buy a pair or jeans.... she buys them and is taxed on it. Youre saying that it should be taxed AGAIN when you hand her the $100?

Except things like capital gains are not taxed until they are cashed out. Being able to pass on capital gains tax-free means that your children have a new basis and get all those gains effectively tax free, if they choose to then cash it out. The Steinbrenner family made out big time because of that - the value of the Yankees has grown immensely in the last 30 years, but because he died in 2010, when there was no estate tax, the gains passed tax free and the heirs have a new basis value. Capital gains taxes will only apply on gains from that new, much higher value.

 

[Lithium381]

Except things like capital gains are not taxed until they are cashed out. Being able to pass on capital gains tax-free means that your children have a new basis and get all those gains effectively tax free, if they choose to then cash it out. The Steinbrenner family made out big time because of that - the value of the Yankees has grown immensely in the last 30 years, but because he died in 2010, when there was no estate tax, the gains passed tax free and the heirs have a new basis value. Capital gains taxes will only apply on gains from that new, much higher value.

So once again.... they were taxed when earned..... and when that money is spent...........
wait for it........

wait for it.......

here it comes.....

IT'S TAXED.

Why must it be taxed for every transaction? Why does everything we do in our society carry this penalty?

 

[Craig234]

So once again.... they were taxed when earned..... and when that money is spent...........
wait for it........

wait for it.......

here it comes.....

IT'S TAXED.

Why must it be taxed for every transaction? Why does everything we do in our society carry this penalty?

Because the government actually needs taxes to raise money.

BTW, decades of pre-tax growth is an enormous advantage.

Earn a dollar, pay tax that year.

Own an investment for decades, grow it pre-tax.

That's the benefit 401(k)'s are all about, pre-tax growth.

 

[Craig234]

My morality is not contingent on the whims of any state. Therefore I don't care about "legality" when evaluating the justice of a transaction. What I care about is coercion. A government is a self-appointed monopoly on the power to remove consent. Therefore it is meaningless to say that a monarch (or government of any sort) acquired something "legally".

Actually, a government isn't self-appointed, it's elected.

It doesn't remove consent; elections establish consent.

So, the people the citizens elect set policies for spending and taxing the people consented to by electing them, and legally collect the taxes owed. If they break the law, that's illegal.

In that case, you can call the authorities (paid for by taxes), have them investigate and try the criminals in the justice system (paid for by taxes).

We sure could use bringing back civics in schools (paid for by taxes).

We've got a lot of nutty paranoia and ideology running around.

Your wanting to live in a democracy and not pay taxes is like wanting to eat at a restaurant and not pay the bill.

Sure, you can not go to one restaurant and pick another, but you will have to eat, and living in democracy, there are costs requiring taxes. Don't pay for the meal - get coerced.

Really, talking to tea party mentalities who call taxes 'coercion' reminds me of street thugs who think they have the right to shoplift or burglar. Something wrong with them.

 

[Craig234]

Except things like capital gains are not taxed until they are cashed out. Being able to pass on capital gains tax-free means that your children have a new basis and get all those gains effectively tax free, if they choose to then cash it out. The Steinbrenner family made out big time because of that - the value of the Yankees has grown immensely in the last 30 years, but because he died in 2010, when there was no estate tax, the gains passed tax free and the heirs have a new basis value. Capital gains taxes will only apply on gains from that new, much higher value.

It's no problem we can afford not to have the taxes - our budget is balanced. The right-wingers here volunteered to please raise their taxes to make up for it. Right?

 

[xj0hnx]

Really, talking to tea party mentalities who call taxes 'coercion' reminds me of street thugs who think they have the right to shoplift or burglar. Something wrong with them.

I've never seen someone that loves, and worships government like you do.

Next time you go to a store try not paying the taxes on your items.

Next time income taxes roll around, send a letter to the IRS and let them know that you won't be paying them.

Try not paying your property taxes.

You're a fool if you think people would pay taxes if they weren't forced to.

 

[Lithium381]

Your wanting to live in a democracy and not pay taxes is like wanting to eat at a restaurant and not pay the bill.

Sure, you can not go to one restaurant and pick another, but you will have to eat, and living in democracy, there are costs requiring taxes. Don't pay for the meal - get coerced.

Contrary to John.... i accept that taxes are necessary. I think the money that comes into the government is not managed correctly. I also don't think that there should be a tax on EVERYTHING that we do. Earn an income: Pay a tax. Spend your income: Pay a tax. Invest your income: Pay a tax. Own a home: Pay a tax. Buy a car, buy gas, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol: Pay additional taxes. Have a cell phone: pay additional taxes again. What exactly do i get for all of that?
The problem with your analogy is that when you go to a restaurant, you typically order your own food voluntarily and there is a bill that comes at the end. You choose a service, it's rendered and you give payment for said service.
This is different from being kidnapped thrown in a dungeon and being told exactly what scraps off the floor you're going to eat. Then being charged for it... and you're supposed to feel privilaged for the opportunity to be abused.

Naturally you're going to respond with: "Don't you use the public roads, those are paid by taxes!!!"
Yes.... but why does the state pay 8 public union guys a full 8 hours day to fill three potholes(5 of those hours were waiting to get started because there was an aluminum can sitting in one of the potholes and they had to wait for the department of sanitation to get a guy out there to pick it up, union rules, sorry) when a private company could likely do it more efficiently?

Back to your restaurants: Imagine two taquerias right next to each-other. For the exact same 3" small chicken taco Restaurant A charges $40 and you have to wait an hour and a half for it and Restaurant B charges $1.50 and you can have it in three minutes. Which one would you go to? Why does the government dine at Restaurant A? Thanks for playing though.

Really, talking to tea party mentalities who call taxes 'coercion' reminds me of street thugs who think they have the right to shoplift or burglar. Something wrong with them.

Haha, but because it's our elected gubment they have the right to take private property?

Like i've agreed to, taxes are a necessity. The outrage is how they're seeping into EVERY ASPECT of our lives and then being spent poorly.

 

[nonlnear]

Actually, a government isn't self-appointed, it's elected.

It doesn't remove consent; elections establish consent.

I don't buy it. Elections do nothing of the sort. Elections create the myth of consent and little more. Most people believe the myth, so the truth of the matter is ignored.

It's one thing to spout off simlpistic truisms like "elections establish consent", but when you dig into the details of policy it's absolutely moronic to claim that elections have anything at all to do with establishing consent for specific policies. They are about establishing enough of a veil of consent that the public doesn't stage a revolution prior to the next round of elections.

So, the people the citizens elect set policies for spending and taxing the people consented to by electing them, and legally collect the taxes owed. If they break the law, that's illegal.

In that case, you can call the authorities (paid for by taxes), have them investigate and try the criminals in the justice system (paid for by taxes).

We sure could use bringing back civics in schools (paid for by taxes).

We've got a lot of nutty paranoia and ideology running around.

Your wanting to live in a democracy and not pay taxes is like wanting to eat at a restaurant and not pay the bill.

I do not want to live in a democracy. At least not one that resembles the current paradigm of "representative" democracy.

Sure, you can not go to one restaurant and pick another, but you will have to eat, and living in democracy, there are costs requiring taxes. Don't pay for the meal - get coerced.

Really, talking to tea party mentalities who call taxes 'coercion' reminds me of street thugs who think they have the right to shoplift or burglar. Something wrong with them.

I don't buy into the tea party platform (if such a thing even exists) for a multitude of reasons.

 

[Craig234]

I don't buy it. Elections do nothing of the sort. Elections create the myth of consent and little more. Most people believe the myth, so the truth of the matter is ignored.

It's one thing to spout off simlpistic truisms like "elections establish consent", but when you dig into the details of policy it's absolutely moronic to claim that elections have anything at all to do with establishing consent for specific policies. They are about establishing enough of a veil of consent that the public doesn't stage a revolution prior to the next round of elections.
I do not want to live in a democracy. At least not one that resembles the current paradigm of "representative" democracy.

If I give short shrift to the 'coercion' complaints and dismiss them with the consent of democracy, it's because I find the anti-tax zealots to have the views that are "absolutely moronic" and they get their worthless paranoia dismissed with a form answer. You can only do so much with irrational paranoia.

I'm not talking about any reasonable opinion wanting different budget policies, but the basically childish mentality that seems to think all taxes are crime and unneeded.

If the views were better than that, we could talk about something I've long commented on about how out democracy is corrupted. But not with 'all taxes are theft' views.

I don't buy into the tea party platform (if such a thing even exists) for a multitude of reasons.

That's good to hear, but your comments were the radical zealot type previously:

What I care about is coercion. A government is a self-appointed monopoly on the power to remove consent. Therefore it is meaningless to say that a monarch (or government of any sort) acquired something "legally".

No qualifications - your post says all taxes are by a 'self-appointed monopoly' (an exaggeration) that are all criminal.

So, society should not have any taxes. That does not deserve much of a response.

Maybe you didn't mean to say that. BTW, which country do you think you prefer?

 

[lupi]

A: this is a rather bad example.

B: there isn't any reason for such a tax unless you're a socialist that covets what someone else has.

 

[nonlnear]

If I give short shrift to the 'coercion' complaints and dismiss them with the consent of democracy, it's because I find the anti-tax zealots to have the views that are "absolutely moronic" and they get their worthless paranoia dismissed with a form answer. You can only do so much with irrational paranoia.

I'm not talking about any reasonable opinion wanting different budget policies, but the basically childish mentality that seems to think all taxes are crime and unneeded.

If the views were better than that, we could talk about something I've long commented on about how out democracy is corrupted. But not with 'all taxes are theft' views.

I don't oppose all taxes. Not by a long shot.

That's good to hear, but your comments were the radical zealot type previously:

No qualifications - your post says all taxes are by a 'self-appointed monopoly' (an exaggeration) that are all criminal.

Granted my words are similar in form to a lot of pretty "out there" types, but my political aspirations have very little in common with most such people.

Governments are self-appointed insofar as the underlying mythology is never up for debate. You can claim that elections establish consent, but it is impossible for elections to establish consent if the people oppose a government of the form that the elections establish. There is no mechanism for establishing consent for the authorities of a given government system. The only mechanism for removing consent is generally revolution. Now you may argue that if the people truly want a different and more limited form of government then all they need to do is elect one. This is problematic because the powers granted by elected office cause mechanisms to emerge which make megalomaniacal politicians self-selecting. i.e. People who desire power will work harder to get positions of power than people who want to destroy power.

So, society should not have any taxes. That does not deserve much of a response.

Where did I say that?

Maybe you didn't mean to say that. BTW, which country do you think you prefer?

See, I know you have a good sense of reason in there. Asking this question was worth your while. I advocate for mechanisms that establish real consent over specific policy. For as much as I rail against our system it's really not that far from one that could be truly great. Two mechanisms which would bring us a better approximation of consent are:

1. Automatic expiry of all laws. Limit the duration of all laws to, say, ten years. In order to keep laws in place they should require an explicit re-authorization. This should be done title with fine granularity (i.e. finer than title by title), not in omnibus re-authorizations - and with no amendments. A simple yes or no vote with no fancy procedures. This could be accomplished in an extra session of no more than a week's duration each year.

2. Citizen ballot initiatives which have the power to strike down any laws. Hold them annually for all laws passed in the previous session, and allow specific authorizations for votes on the removal of any older laws as well.

The problem with ballot initiatives is that they are usually set up as a mechanism for the creation of more legislation. What we need is more mechanisms for the removal of legislation. For all the griping about the growth of executive power, the larger threat to freedom is the completely unchecked growth of legislative power. After all, there are no effective checks on legislative authority at all. The courts are capricious at best, sometimes creating legislative authorities and ometimes removing them, but it's hard to argue with a striaght face that the courts effectively and consistently prevent legislatures from infringing liberties.

 

[rudder]

So if I want to give a nephew $20 for his birthday... i send him $18 then send the other $2 to the government?

If the money sits in the bank and earns interest... that interest is taxed. If the money is spent, it gets taxed... i.e., it is given away to a charity and the charity spends it.

then money was taxed when it was earned. and will be taxed again.

So you are saying that if I promise to deposit paycheck in the bank and pay taxes on the interest, I should not have to pay any income taxes? I don't see anything in your argument that would justify having people who get money from relatives for doing nothing pay no tax, while people who work for their money have to pay income tax on it.

Depositing your paycheck example has no bearing on the argument. I never said that. If I get income that is taxed when earned and I deposit it in the bank.. that deposit should not be subject to any taxes as long as it sits there.

The money given to relatives has already been taxed. If I received money from a relative that has already been taxed... should it be subject to another tax? Like my example... if I give $20 of my money, that I earned and paid taxes on to earn, to a relative... should my relative have to pay taxes on the $20? Think about it for a second.

If the relative holds on to the $20... eventually though inflation it will not be worth much. However, should it be spent... local, state, and possibly federal governments will get some tax revenue from that money.

In the OP that money did not just poof into existence. At some point it was earned and taxed. Should the government simply be allowed to continue taxing it until there is nothing left? I know that would be a liberals wet dream.

 

[Brainonska511]

So once again.... they were taxed when earned..... and when that money is spent...........
wait for it........

wait for it.......

here it comes.....

IT'S TAXED.

Why must it be taxed for every transaction? Why does everything we do in our society carry this penalty?

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.....

 

[piasabird]

Normally inheritance tax would have no effect till you get to a level of $100,000.00. An average working joe may accumulate more than this in his retirement fund, if he or she saved their money right, and maybe their employer was matching. For instance my employer matches whatever I can save at a rate of 100% for about the first 6.5%. Last year in fact I had almost as much interest, as I was able to save to my retirement account. This is only based on my personal deposits.

Maybe a good question would be "Did you pay taxes on your Christmas Presents!" Just kidding here. However, I had to show you how redicuous this is. Another anology is we could have a national registry of all funds given to a person for Aid. In that way say a person on their hard luck receives some aid from various agencies. After a year maybe he might have received $20,000.00 or more in aid. I think we should keep track of all this aid and report it to the IRS. I know there are people who try to bilk the system and go from agency to agency to attain as much free aid as possible. Some of these people may even be people who earn a retirement. Then they take their money and go buy beer and live the good life. So we should make them pay taxes on all their free money, even if it come from churches and the red cross or wherever.

If you want to be completely stupid about this, lets bring it on.

 

[IGBT]

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.

 

[theeedude]

Depositing your paycheck example has no bearing on the argument. I never said that. If I get income that is taxed when earned and I deposit it in the bank.. that deposit should not be subject to any taxes as long as it sits there.

The money given to relatives has already been taxed. If I received money from a relative that has already been taxed... should it be subject to another tax? Like my example... if I give $20 of my money, that I earned and paid taxes on to earn, to a relative... should my relative have to pay taxes on the $20? Think about it for a second.

If the relative holds on to the $20... eventually though inflation it will not be worth much. However, should it be spent... local, state, and possibly federal governments will get some tax revenue from that money.

In the OP that money did not just poof into existence. At some point it was earned and taxed. Should the government simply be allowed to continue taxing it until there is nothing left? I know that would be a liberals wet dream.

If the account ownership is transfered to a heir, the heir should pay taxes on the money as income. Yes, your relative should pay taxes on it when you give him the money. If you want to make some fixed amount like $1K per year tax exempt for gifts, that is fine, but unlimited transfers tax free, hell no.

 

[Lithium381]

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.....

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.

If the account ownership is transfered to a heir, the heir should pay taxes on the money as income. Yes, your relative should pay taxes on it when you give him the money. If you want to make some fixed amount like $1K per year tax exempt for gifts, that is fine, but unlimited transfers tax free, hell no.

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?

 

[Brainonska511]

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.

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.

 

[Craig234]

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.

Because the government actually needs to raise money with taxes.

You are asking for a tax increase for you, to cut their taxes.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

The OP talks about "efficient allocation" of this money... which is a veiled way of saying "the government should get more of this money because efficiency is what matters.. not ownership".

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.