Technically, this is all a philosophical arguement. One problem we have not touched on is that a large portion inheritance is not cash or other liquid assets. Farm land is the classic example. Should a farmer's family have to sell generational farm land because they can't pay the inheritance taxes? You tell me why should wealth be taxed as income when it is passed along? I think a strong case could be made for the estate tax on several grounds, but wealth being income is not one of them. Right. Because the folks who eanred the income were already taxed.
If they want the farm or business or whatever, they should borrow the money to pay for it. If the farm or business can't support a loan of <50% of it's value, it shouldn't exist. Basic, free-market capitalism.
A fair point in most cases. But red55 is arguing that all inheritance should be taxed just like income. I don't think that is reasonable.
Well the exemption is at $3.5 million, so the average family farm falls well below the level that inheritance taxes kick in. I might add that the average inheritance falls under that level, too. I do not think that someone who inherits an agricultural corporation with a million acres under plow should evade any taxes. How is it not income if wealth passes from one person to another? :huh: You speak as though wealth passing from parent to child isn't real wealth. Families are not corporations. Income tax is by individuals, not by families. One doesn't have to be a family to inherit, either. If I leave you a million dollars in my will, have you not gotten a million dollars of income?
I do not suggest removing the $3.5 million exemption that allows families to keep houses, farms and family property. But allowing certain categories of income to get special treatment is inherently unfair since we don't all receive income in the same fashion.
No, you shouldn't be penalized for that. But you shouldn't be rewarded, either. Okay, so you're born into poverty, do what you can to get out of it. Go to school, get a job, better yourself. EVERYONE is capable of that. Lose everything in a house fire? Should've had insurance. That's what savings are for. If you don't live outside your means, you can put money away for a rainy day. Medical issues...well that is an entirely different subject that I don't care to get into. How is it not realistic? What is keeping people from trying to be successful in life? Okay, so you don't make enough money to live in a big mansion on St. Charles Ave, but you could still get to a point where you can support your family and live somewhat comfortably. People born poor usually stay poor because they typically don't try and get out of being poor. Maybe they could stay in school. Work a few jobs. Save money and don't buy extravagant crap. Will it suck? Sure. That's what makes it worth it.
I'm not sure why you threw the word "idle"n there to narrow the conversation down to about 8% of the country. It doesn't really strengthen your attempt at an argument or make your sarcastic remark clever. There's a fine line between being poor and being homeless in America. Low tax rates allows the poorest to keep their more of their income for expenses that they still barely earn. So keeping someone barely housed and off the streets is now being rewarded? Schools, job training costs money which is something that the poorest doesn't have. Poverty has been linked to poor testing, which in turn provides money for scholarships, grants, etc. Savings don't exist for the poorest people in our country simply because the income income is needed for the high cost of living in this country. The days of 30% of your income going to rent simply does not exist for the lower class. Who says that they're not trying and who are you to make that determination? Do you really feel that a majority of the country is pleased with their low income levels and thus do not attempt to do better? No one is going to the extreme of absolute wealth and talking about mansions. Who owns extravagant crap? As someone who was born into abject poverty and is now in the middle class, I can honestly say that you have no idea what the **** you're talking about.
am i missing something here between you and red? if your ole man dies, and has $100 to give you. Uncle Sam takes 20 bucks and you get 80. or if it makes you feel better: your dad gives you 100, and you give Uncle Sam 20. either way, you and Uncle Sam get the same phucking thing. who gives a **** about the details?
