Tax the rich!!!

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
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.

I plan to have kids, I plan to spoil them rotten and have a good life insurance policy so they aren't SOL if I croak early. However I want them to earn their wealth and not get it as a family windfall.

I despise nepotism in any intrusion it makes in the economy or politics.

[KrazyHorse]

Dauphin:

If you use the asset then you are responsible for its devaluation. You thus need to pay income tax on it as soon as you acquire it. Just like if I won a car tomorrow on Wheel of Fortune I'd have to pay taxes on it.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


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

[/QUOTE]

If its for personal use, its a moot point anyway as its not subject to Capital Gains.

[KrazyHorse]

The income I purchased it with was subject to income tax though.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Dauphin:

If you use the asset then you are responsible for its devaluation. You thus need to pay income tax on it as soon as you acquire it. Just like if I won a car tomorrow on Wheel of Fortune I'd have to pay taxes on it.

Game prizes and other gambling wins are not subject to income tac in the UK either.

[KrazyHorse]

So why can I inherit a (let's say) car and never pay taxes on it (since I run it into the ground) but if I inherited cash and bought a car with it I'd have to pay taxes both on the money and sales tax on the car?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dauphin


Game prizes and other gambling wins are not subject to income tac in the UK either.

They are here, AFAIK.

In Canada the State-run gaming wins are not subject to taxes because they're...well, they're run by the State.

But if you win a giveaway contest then your win is subject to income tax.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Geronimo


I plan to have kids, I plan to spoil them rotten and have a good life insurance policy so they aren't SOL if I croak early. However I want them to earn their wealth and not get it as a family windfall.

I despise nepotism in any intrusion it makes in the economy or politics.

So no, you don't have kids.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Apparently they don't have an equal right though.

Sure they do... they had the same chance of being born to hard working rich parents as anybody else... the chances of having rich or poor parents are the same for eveybody

But seriously... I have no problem with being taxed and having that money help people who need it. I also give money to charities, as well as my free time... I am pissed at the how much of that money is wasted through inefficient welfare systems... and how welfare systems are not set up to help people help themselves, but in most cases, to just keep people in the system forever...

I think govenment should provide basic services for all... however, we aren't a socialist country. My family shouldn't suffer in an economic fashion just because I die. Families shouldn't have to sell their property, farms, business, possesions, just because one member dies...

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
So why can I inherit a (let's say) car and never pay taxes on it (since I run it into the ground) but if I inherited cash and bought a car with it I'd have to pay taxes both on the money and sales tax on the car?

If you inherited the car then the equivalent amount of sales taxes would have been paid by the previous owner who gifted you. Also sales taxes tend to be a function of sales cost, and in this case the sales cost to you is $nil, and hence the tax bill is $nil.

If you run the car into the ground you are blowing your cash benefit that could have been used on investing in another asset. Your choice really.

[KrazyHorse]

My family shouldn't suffer in an economic fashion just because I die.

If your children are relying on you as a source of income when you die at a (hopefully) ripe old age then something is wrong anyway.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ming
I am pissed at the how much of that money is wasted through inefficient welfare systems... and how welfare systems are not set up to help people help themselves, but in most cases, to just keep people in the system forever...

There have been a lot of changes to the welfare system over the years to help people get off of it. Unfortunately, the jobs that they get when they get off of it keep them poor. The problem with welfare is that it is seriously underfunded and the social workers aren't of the best quality, because their pay is so low.

Originally posted by Ming
I think govenment should provide basic services for all... however, we aren't a socialist country. My family shouldn't suffer in an economic fashion just because I die. Families shouldn't have to sell their property, farms, business, possesions, just because one member dies...

I don't want families to lose family things either. I'm not for the death tax per se, but I am for equality.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dauphin


If you inherited the car then sales taxes would have been paid by the previous owner who gifted you. Also sales taxes tend to be a function of sales cost, and in this case the sales cost to you is $nil, and hence the tax bill is $nil.

If you run the car into the ground you are blowing your cash benefit that could have been used on investing in another asset. Your choice really.

No, because I'm not buying another car that I would have.

So I'm never taxed on the car, even though I saw a net gain from it (without inheriting the car I would have spent 15000$, so I'm up 15000$ on the deal and I've not been charged any tax)

It's the heir's responsibility to utilise his inheritance to the fullest. The State should simply take its share of the inheritance based on its fair market value.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I made 40k when I lived in Ventura, CA. My rent was $1255 and I was paying on my college loan. I would say that I was barely above the poverty line with a family of three. Of course, I owned a car and things like that. I needed a car to get to work though. Things are expensive. 30k is only 'adequate' in some places, but you won't have any savings, and you really need savings in a capitalist economy.

See this is what I expected. If you honestly think 40k is "barely above the poverty line" you are seriously out of touch with reality.

Real poverty is not being able to afford electricity, to live in a truly dilapidated shack, and to go hungry on many nights. That is what being poor is and should mean.

[KrazyHorse]

I refer you back to my dictionary.com post

Being poor has never meant that you were necessarily starving

SImply that you don't have very much wealth.