Death Taxes

[Ramo]

at least in the US sales taxes generally apply to final consumers only, AFAIK. Precisely to avoid the above.

Fair enough.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But that wouldn't really work out so well... and probably would lead to some sort of socialist revolution where the rich would be hanging from lampposts and their riches "distributed", as it were. So the rich don't complain all that much.

Or it would become a plutocratic police state (AKA Fascism).

[Odin]

Originally posted by nostromo


Isn't it why they, or the company they own, pay taxes in the first place? I'm not an anti-tax anarchist, but there should be limits to what the State can or cannot tax. Some forms of taxation are perfectly legitimate, others are theft pure and simple. The way you guys present it, Death tax seems nothing more than the State sponsored theft, IMO.

I also believe that equality is not everything. A responsible government should try to aim for equality AND liberty. Of course, its really hard to balance the two, but, in an ideal world, you shouldn't favor equality at the expense of liberty, nor liberty at the expense of equality.

Too much economic liberty leads to a plutocratic police state and thus the end of almost all liberty. That is why Libertarianism is a fatally flawed political theory, Libertarians, in thier anti-state rants, forget to take corporate power into account.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Do the rich somehow use these more than the poor? They just use them more effectively. How dare they be successful

In fact, the rich probably use these things less...

The rich benefit more, so they should have to pay more.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Debt is really bad when you are sadled right out of the womb. Welcome to liberal dream land

Actually it's reality thanx to the defense budget.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


well youre more leftie than me.

While I can accept the people making judgements about society, the first purpose of a tax is to raise revenue, and a 100% tax will obviously raise littlerevenue (since no one will save a penny for an estate, except by accident)

And I suspect a rate that high WOULD impact saving, entrepreneurial behavior etc. And I dont think everyone with a million dollar estate is really an "aristocrat" anyway. A million just doesnt go that far anymore.

Actually, Im not convinced we need a substantially higher estate tax than we have now. If we were to raise, id suggest raising it slowly, to check for incentive effects and actual revenue raised.

I'm I misreading this or do you think that a higher death tax would not raise more revenue?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Patroklos
What right does the state have to disproportionaly tax the wealthy?

If people vote for higher taxes on the wealthy then the state has a responsibility if it likes to call itself democratic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm I misreading this or do you think that a higher death tax would not raise more revenue?

youre misreading it.

I think a 100% inheritance tax (IE confiscation of estates above a certain size) would not raise more revenue, and in fact would raise no revenue on the large inheritances. Whether a higher revenue than the current one would raise more revenue, and if so, how much, is an empirical question I cant answer. I dont know what studies have been done, and I merely suggested caution in raising rates.

all largely academic, since right now its hard enough politically protecting the current inheritance tax.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Death Taxes

Originally posted by Caligastia
Should death be a taxable event?

Sure, why not? You don't need it anymore.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Why shouldn't I be allowed to pass on my wealth to my children?

They don't deserve it. Why should they get a **** load of tax free money so that they can sit on their ass and not work so that we have to pay all their taxes.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Odin

Too much economic liberty leads to a plutocratic police state and thus the end of almost all liberty. That is why Libertarianism is a fatally flawed political theory, Libertarians, in thier anti-state rants, forget to take corporate power into account.

Like I said earlier, I'm not anti-tax per se and I'm certainly not a libertarian, those right-wing hippies. I was reacting to your earlier proposition, which I find drastic, to say the least. And you have not convinced me that its necessary either.

I happen to think that we're taxed enough as it is here in Canada. No need to create a new tax, thank you very much. When my mother was working, she had to give away 50% of her salary to the income tax. When you work hard, its really, really frustrating seing all that money go away. And its even more frustrating if you think about all the money that is wasted. What we need is not to raise the taxes, but spend it more wisely, fight waste and corruption.

[Kidlicious]

nostromo,

50% tax seems like a lot, but govt is expensive. I'm sure your mom worked hard. I don't argue with that. But taxes need to be paid. You talk about cutting waste. That's all fine, but you need to be specific and the majority needs to agree with your cuts. If they don't then the taxes need to be paid, and there's no reason, except political, to complain about it anymore than you complain about any other of your expenses.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Do the rich somehow use these more than the poor? They just use them more effectively. How dare they be successful

In fact, the rich probably use these things less...

who benefits more from police protection and national security? the rich person with more to lose in assets and quality of life, or the poor person who has almost nothing?

[Lefty Scaevola]

The poor person, becasue the rich arrange for private security, which is a 100 or so times more effective than the (existing) public police forces. Look at your crime statistics, and see who criminals target. Take aways the public police, and the rich have there own private security, and the por have none.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Do the rich somehow use these more than the poor? They just use them more effectively. How dare they be successful

In fact, the rich probably use these things less...

As stated before, the rich benefit far more from those services. Also a lot of these programs are designed to prevent the poor was rising up (satiate them) and just taking everything, instead of just taking a little .