Announcement

**Ming** · July 28, 2004, 20:07

The death tax is double taxiation... period. They have already taken their fair share. It's that simple.

**Kidlicious** · July 28, 2004, 20:08

Originally posted by Ming
I live to provide for my family. I want my kids to have it even better than I did. I want them to succeed in life and be happy.

No one wants your kids to suffer from want, but everyone should be able to succeed and be happy though, not just your family. If you say people are capable of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and accomplishing anything then they don't need inheretence.

**The Emperor Fabulous** · July 28, 2004, 20:09

I agree with my more fiscally conservative counterparts like Imran and The Ming on this one. The Death tax is wrong.

Also, methinks Geronimo must not have kids.

**KrazyHorse** · July 28, 2004, 20:09

Originally posted by Ming
The death tax is double taxiation... period. They have already taken their fair share. It's that simple.

No it isn't. Everybody should start from Go.

I don't want any of my parents' money when they die.

**The Emperor Fabulous** · July 28, 2004, 20:11

KH: Well, I guess you don't believe in Life Insurance either. The only difference between the two is that the money in inheretance is already in the family.

**Kidlicious** · July 28, 2004, 20:12

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

No it isn't. Everybody should start from Go.

I don't want any of my parents' money when they die.

I already pissed every wealthy person off in my family. I get squat.

**KrazyHorse** · July 28, 2004, 20:12

No, I don't believe in life insurance except to cover any costs associated with death and (if the children are still minors) to cover the cost of raising them.

**Ming** · July 28, 2004, 20:14

Originally posted by Kidicious
No one wants your kids to suffer from want, but everyone should be able to succeed and be happy though, not just your family. If you say people are capable of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps and accomplishing anything then they don't need inheretence.

It's my money... not some other families. Again, I have already paid the taxes on it... and the government can do what it want's with what they have already taken.

To see families have to sell farms that have been in the family for generations is pure crap. To watch a family sell the family business because of a death is equally bad.

Everybody has the right to be able to succeed and be happy... all power to them. But my family doesn't deserve to lose everything we have built together just because I die.

**Kidlicious** · July 28, 2004, 20:15

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, I don't believe in life insurance except to cover any costs associated with death and (if the children are still minors) to cover the cost of raising them.

Is that what life insurance is for?

**Dauphin** · July 28, 2004, 20:16

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And what if you live in the house for thirty years, letting it run into disrepair?

You will have been paying taxes on the ownership of the property - such as council taxes and rates - for those 30 years. You will also be wantonly devaluing your assets worth and eroding the benefit you could have made. People shouldn't be taxed for losing money. At any rate the same result could be from the house price falling as part of an areas natural trend. The cause of the asset devaluation is not really the issue, its the wealth generated from the asset by whatever cause that is the central issue for gains taxes.

Why shouldn't you be taxed at the acquisition value instead of the value at sale?

For one valuation becomes a problem. If you make a sale then the figure value is quite clear - the received gain can be clearly shown. If you do not make a subsequent sale then you should be subject to the user taxes that generally go with the asset, and you are not making any benefit from the asset value without a sale.

Also, at what time do you value the assets for acquisition purposes - say you inherit a volatile asset such as shares, what value do you give them - the value at the time of death, the value at the time the will is being read, the value at the time the shares are received, or some other arbitrary time.

**KrazyHorse** · July 28, 2004, 20:17

No, life insurance is there to provide a motive in every mystery story ever written.

**Geronimo** · July 28, 2004, 20:17

Originally posted by Ming
The death tax is double taxiation... period. They have already taken their fair share. It's that simple.

Who cares if the government taxes money 2 times or 150 times? Which is better getting taxed 5 times for 1% of your income or 1 time for 50% of your income? obviously the number of times you are taxed matters only in as much as it is inconvenient to deal with more paperwork that way. Luckily I won't be dying very often so this tax shouldn't trouble me with extra paperwork very often.

**Kidlicious** · July 28, 2004, 20:17

Originally posted by Ming
Everybody has the right to be able to succeed and be happy... all power to them.

Apparently they don't have an equal right though.

**Kidlicious** · July 28, 2004, 20:19

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
No, life insurance is there to provide a motive in every mystery story ever written.

That's one of the reasons that I didn't renew mine, even though my wife insisted.

**KrazyHorse** · July 28, 2004, 20:19

Originally posted by Dauphin

You will have been paying taxes on the ownership of the property - such as council taxes and rates - for those 30 years. You will also be wantonly devaluing your assets worth and eroding the benefit you could have made. People shouldn't be taxed for losing money.

Then why could I not claim a deduction on devaluation on property (not used for business purposes) I bought with earned income?[/quote]

Announcement

Tax the rich!!!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment