technically the money was already taxed when the relatives earned it. Plus any earned income off of the original sum is also taxed on a yearly basis. The death tax is like dividends tax it's the gov't using it's power to double dip in the tax payers pockets.
I'm not sure where you are coming from. I never said anybody shoudn't be free to earn anything they can. I never said that rich people hurt me in any way. I never said they should give it to the poor. What I said was that I think the extremely rich (particularly those who make their money from investments, not from hard work) should pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes than ordinary working stiffs, who also work hard for their pay. The taxes should go to paying for the government, from whom the wealthy get many benefits, not the least of which is a stable democracy and economy where wealth can be made. There are more national expenses than just the poor to worry about. A 50% tax rate would cripple you and me, but a billionaire would still make an fantastic income with a tax rate that high (and it used to be higher). I agree completely. NAFTA is a great boon to corporations who can move their operations south to Mexico for greater profitablity. It is a disaster for American productivity, American workers, and American preparedness. We won WWII because of our overwheming industrial capacity. A capacity that is now largely lost and we have instead a "service" economy. Service economies can't build ships and tanks when you need them. Again, wealthy people who make their money from stocks in these corporations become richer, while there are fewer and fewer well-paying jobs for the masses. When the gap between the haves and have-nots becomes too great, unrest and political activism result. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
All true. I just think inheritance time is a good time to do it and for good reasons. Calling inheritance taxes a "death tax" is a republican strategy that is kind of lame. The dead aren't being taxed. It is the inheritors that are being taxed. It is new income to the inheritors and taxable, just like gifts received are taxable. That's why I approve raising the cutoff to $3 million or so. In this way one can leave the family farm (or a sizable nest-egg) to heirs without taxation. But really giant fortunes should pay more taxes when acquired. They can afford it.
right, you are saying you want the rich to pay your share, instead of everyone paying eaqually. you dont want the rules to be applied fairly. of course the children have automatic right to the money, in the same way you have automatic rights to the gifts you were given for christmas. you want big government to intervene in our lives and prevent parents from giving money to children. i dont think you are justified to tell somebody what they "haven't earned", just because you want to take it from them.
right, they can afford it. from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, lets be marxists.
are you kidding me? you actually make a distinction? you truly say some dumb things. unbelievable. investment is risk! you try to get rich by investing. it is sketchy and hard and stressful and intense. why do you resent the rich? plus investors provide the capital that drives business and are taking risks that drive the economy. this mentality that you have to get your hands dirty to do real work is incredibly childish and resentful. i am beginning to think tirk was right about you.
He continues to claim that he is a moderate. However, time and time again, in various threads, his true RDDB self comes out.
You are arguing with yourself by putting words in my mouth. Where do I say I want the rich to pay my share? Where do I say I want to prevent parents from giving gifts to children? Where do I say I want to take "it" from somebody? Nowhere. Why don't you address what I actually say? If parents give children more than $10,000 it is taxed as income. Always has been. Inheritance should be no different, just with higher ceilings. It's my opinion. Get used to it. I don't give a rat's ass if you agree.
you said it right here: you want the rich to pay more, that means you dont want to pay your share equally, you want the rich to pay it for you. if you wanted to pay your share, you would favor tax rates that were equal for all people. but you want the rich to pay more than you, so you will pay less. you just said you favor taxing inheritance on the rich. do you know what inheritance is? (it is parents giving to children.)
It ain't a black and white world, Skippy. I expected you to be able to see the shades of grey. Too bad. Maybe in 20 or 30 years. Just because the middle is to the left of you doesn't mean there aren't many more people on the true left. I know you can't see it. One of the problems with an extreme position is poor perspective. Incidently, my parents weren't communists, they were George Wallace segregationists. Wrong again.
