Tax the rich!!!

[Geronimo]

Japher please explain why and how it matters how many times my money is taxed.

[Flubber]

hmmm so we should tax people becoause we don't like how they spend their money and because some rich folks get lazy??

To the death tax proponents . .. just curious why you propose a huge tax grab when someone dies and not a true annual wealth tax where you can nibble and nibble and nibble. After all if accumulation of wealth is so horrible,I'm suprised you are willing to wait until someone dies to go after it.

For me its simple-- I can live with the idea of income taxes as a necessary evil-- but once I have my post-tax income, its mine dogonnit .. . mine, mine, mine and I'll give it to whom I choose and when I choose-- it will be my wife and child but its mine to deal with and dispose of and the governemnet should keep their all too grasping hands to themselves

[Dauphin]

Having several smaller taxes is, imho, a better system than one large tax. If you place the tax revenue onus on one method it is easier to circumvent. Also it is less likely to cause economic problems.

If you only had a sales tax, you will see an increased amount of smuggling and blackmarketing.

If you only have an income tax, people will leave the area to work where taxes are not as high.

If you only have corporation tax, fewer companies will choose to set-up or invest in the area.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Flubber
hmmm so we should tax people becoause we don't like how they spend their money and because some rich folks get lazy??

To the death tax proponents . .. just curious why you propose a huge tax grab when someone dies and not a true annual wealth tax where you can nibble and nibble and nibble. After all if accumulation of wealth is so horrible,I'm suprised you are willing to wait until someone dies to go after it.

For me its simple-- I can live with the idea of income taxes as a necessary evil-- but once I have my post-tax income, its mine dogonnit .. . mine, mine, mine and I'll give it to whom I choose and when I choose-- it will be my wife and child but its mine to deal with and dispose of and the governemnet should keep their all too grasping hands to themselves

I'm a Death tax proponent so I can provide some answers to your questions.

First I like accumulation of personal wealth it's what keeps the wheels of the economy going at all income levels.

Second I hate taxes. Necessary evil at best. The less in total I spend on taxes the happier I am and the healthier the overall economic system is (assuming it reigns in government spending as well)

As a result of 1 and 2 I loathe the idea of the government nibbling away at my income all throughout my life.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I'm a Death tax proponent so I can provide some answers to your questions.

First I like accumulation of personal wealth it's what keeps the wheels of the economy going at all income levels.

Second I hate taxes. Necessary evil at best. The less in total I spend on taxes the happier I am and the healthier the overall economic system is (assuming it reigns in government spending as well)

As a result of 1 and 2 I loathe the idea of the government nibbling away at my income all throughout my life.

So would you tax my "gifts" to my child during my lifetime as well?? perhaps I want to pay off his college loan or help him get his first house.

If you tax that, aren't you doing the nibbling you "loathe" and if you don't , aren't you making it really easy to avoid the tax you want to impose?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber

To the death tax proponents . .. just curious why you propose a huge tax grab when someone dies and not a true annual wealth tax where you can nibble and nibble and nibble. After all if accumulation of wealth is so horrible,I'm suprised you are willing to wait until someone dies to go after it.

Simple- we are taxing an estate, NOT a person0the person being dead. So what the government is taxing is the gaining of new income or property by the inheritors, who after all, did nothing to get it but being born (we tax lottery recepits as well), and since the person who earned it is dead and hence no longer an issue, who cares?

For me its simple-- I can live with the idea of income taxes as a necessary evil-- but once I have my post-tax income, its mine dogonnit .. . mine, mine, mine and I'll give it to whom I choose and when I choose-- it will be my wife and child but its mine to deal with and dispose of and the governemnet should keep their all too grasping hands to themselves

Sorry, but we tax gifts, and that is what passing an estate to someone else is, a giant Gift. Besides, your abilityt o elgally pass it along to anyone is there thanks to the State. So they get the ability to take a chunk of it. After all, when you die your rights have come to an end.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Flubber


So would you tax my "gifts" to my child during my lifetime as well?? perhaps I want to pay off his college loan or help him get his first house.

We are taxing someone elses income. If you want to make sure they get more, figure in the taxes and give more. Besides, both things you mentioned are not taxed as gifts.

[Geronimo]

Ok Gepap I give up, I will finally (try) to stop calling the estate tax a "death tax". It feels like I'm using a cute euphamism though

[KrazyHorse]

It's hard to tax somebody when they're dead, as they cannot own property.

EDIT: GODDAMNIT, I hate typing in "their" when they're is what I meant.

[GePap]

Exactly, which is why the tax is on the ESTATE of X, which is a legal creation. You know, just like the Estate of Elvis can still sue you even if he is long dead (or so they say.... )

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap
Exactly, which is why the tax is on the ESTATE of X, which is a legal creation. You know, just like the Estate of Elvis can still sue you even if he is long dead (or so they say.... )

Gepap I suppose I might agree with that logic because it supports my argument in this case. But in the big picture It seems to me that this logic could extend to an awfully large spectrum of potential tax victims.

For instance the networks and radio stations are essentially legal creations. The radio bandwidth they control is essentially public domain that the government regulates in such a way as to allow the private secotr to put to profitable use. The logic you used above would seem to risk justifying free government access to such bandwidth at will! imagine the awful increase in political ads we might experience if this logic were to gain wide acceptance.

A second example might be patent and copyright law. Again the government could use such logic to justify piracy of software for it's own use with the logic that exclusive intellectual property rights also exist only because of the government.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with singling out an estate in a special way simply because it is an artifical legal construction.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It's hard to tax somebody when they're dead, as they cannot own property.

EDIT: GODDAMNIT, I hate typing in "their" when they're is what I meant.

You'd think, but its amusing that many dead persons still needs to complete an income tax return as they were alive part way through the tax year.

I've had to send letters to dead people informing them of their dividend tax credits before now.

[KrazyHorse]

[KrazyHorse]

Properly, though, in terms of income tax the government is a creditor of the estate as the person owed the taxes while alive. Just like the estate owes the phone company for any unpaid bills etc.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo



For instance the networks and radio stations are essentially legal creations. The radio bandwidth they control is essentially public domain that the government regulates in such a way as to allow the private secotr to put to profitable use. The logic you used above would seem to risk justifying free government access to such bandwidth at will! imagine the awful increase in political ads we might experience if this logic were to gain wide acceptance.

Hmm, hello: The public OWNES the airwaves, and networks lease it from the state. The state can and does demand conditions from the networks for their use of the public's bandwith. In fact, news shows on the networks exist becuase the government mandated them. So, in fact, the government, when it renews the leases of networks, can ask whatever it wants from them. Cable is different from simply broadcast, which is why you can have cable stations with no form of public info on them.

A second example might be patent and copyright law. Again the government could use such logic to justify piracy of software for it's own use with the logic that exclusive intellectual property rights also exist only because of the government.

Correct again- you see, the government sets the length of a patent, and after the patent is up, anyone can use or make the thing or idea. So yes, intellectual property rights do exist only becuase of the government, and if the government wanted to revoke all patents, it could.

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with singling out an estate in a special way simply because it is an artifical legal construction.

The State enforces the law-there are no such things as natural rights of man.