Democracy, taxes and wealth redistribution

[David S]

A certain member of this forum is expecting to inherit a very large sum of money in the future. That individual is also an advocate of high taxes on the "rich" (70%) and government redistribution of wealth. Should that person's inheritance be taxed away at a 70% tax rate to be redistributed to other Atlasians?

[opebo]

NOOOOOOO!

[A18]

No, but neither should anyone else's.

[John Dibble]

No, but it would be some terrific irony.

[Gabu]

Hey, he supports it himself; I would have no problem with that policy.

[TomC]

The rate is way too high. It should definitely not be higher than the income rate, which is what? 36%? Even the 15% cap gains rate would be appropriate.

Wealth redistribution is as pointless and ephemeral as trickle down economics. Provide opportunity and tools for people to create their own wealth.

[opebo]

The rate is way too high. It should definitely not be higher than the income rate, which is what? 36%? Even the 15% cap gains rate would be appropriate.

I think Capital Gains should be taxed at the same rate as other income.  I suppose it is arguable that an inheritance is 'income' in that year for the heir, however I think it would be fair to treat it as something other than income.  Certainly a large exemption of a few million seems reasonable.  In any case, as my friends mom used to say 'you should have such problems!'.

That said most heirs have had to kiss the ass of annoying parents for decades.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Same thing.  Free education, high wages, and a social safety net are the only way the lower classes can improve themselves.

[A18]

There should be no taxes on inheritance or gifts of any kind.

No exemption is tolerable.

[opebo]

There should be no taxes on inheritance or gifts of any kind.

No exemption is tolerable.

Intolerable?  What are you going to do about it?

Anyway, a 50% rate above say five or ten million would be perfectly fine.

[A18]

I would obviously hope that, the GOP being in power, they would never accept such a ridiculous compromise. It makes absolutely no sense at all to tax inheritance twice - once as income, a second time as a gift.

If there's going to be a ridiculous beat-the-economy-to- Death Tax, everyone should have to deal with its direct effects.

[opebo]

I would obviously hope that, the GOP being in power, they would never accept such a ridiculous compromise. It makes absolutely no sense at all to tax inheritance twice - once as income, a second time as a gift.

If there's going to be a ridiculous beat-the-economy-to- Death Tax, everyone should have to deal with its direct effects.

The GOP won't be in power forever.  Besides, the idea is that the inheritance has nothing to do with the dead person.  It is income to the heir.

Your obsession with double taxation is very silly.  For example if I make a large salary, and then spend part of it to hire a butler, does that mean his salary should not be taxed because the money was 'taxed before'?

[A18]

It shouldn't be taxed again until it is actually used, dipsh**t.

[opebo]

It shouldn't be taxed again until it is actually used, dipsh**t.

How is giving it to your son for kissing your ass his whole life different from paying a butler?

[A18]

When it becomes earned income again, there has been use. There has been consumption.

[DanielX]

Opebo has a bit of a point there.

Income taxes are bad, period. Better to fund the government through sales and excise taxes, user fees, etc.

[A18]

Opebo has a bit of a point there.

Transfering money is not the same as buying something. The idea is to have incomes taxed once per consumption.

[TeePee4Prez]

Opebo has a bit of a point there.

Income taxes are bad, period. Better to fund the government through sales and excise taxes, user fees, etc.

Hmm.. NOOOOO!  I oppose heavier sales taxes like the ones proposed by Jim DeMint.  Can you say inflation?

[DanielX]

Opebo has a bit of a point there.

Income taxes are bad, period. Better to fund the government through sales and excise taxes, user fees, etc.

Hmm.. NOOOOO!  I oppose heavier sales taxes like the ones proposed by Jim DeMint.  Can you say inflation?

You realize that the current income tax saps money out of the economy, right?

Plus, unlike some in Congress, i'd accompany my new tax plan with spending cuts - as much as 50% of non-defense spending.

[opebo]

When it becomes earned income again, there has been use. There has been consumption.

Sounds pretty vague to me.  Better to just tax it when it passes from one person to another - that is simple and clear.

Opebo has a bit of a point there.

Income taxes are bad, period. Better to fund the government through sales and excise taxes, user fees, etc.

Hmm.. NOOOOO!  I oppose heavier sales taxes like the ones proposed by Jim DeMint.  Can you say inflation?

You realize that the current income tax saps money out of the economy, right?

Plus, unlike some in Congress, i'd accompany my new tax plan with spending cuts - as much as 50% of non-defense spending.

What do you mean the income tax 'saps money out of the economy'?  What rot - the money is immediately spent!  On tanks and planes (and in an ideal world the poor) instead of mansions and yachts, but it is very much still in the economy.

[A18]

When it becomes earned income again, there has been use. There has been consumption.

Sounds pretty vague to me.  Better to just tax it when it passes from one person to another - that is simple and clear.

There's nothing vague about it at all. Tax earned income, and earned income only. That is the mark of consumption.

[opebo]

When it becomes earned income again, there has been use. There has been consumption.

Sounds pretty vague to me.  Better to just tax it when it passes from one person to another - that is simple and clear.

There's nothing vague about it at all. Tax earned income, and earned income only. That is the mark of consumption.

But what does 'earned' mean?  Did you 'earn' it if you bought low and sold high?  Of course you did.  Do heirs earn their inheritance by kissing parental ass?  Of course they do.  No, there is no meaningful distinction between capital gains and wages, or even inheritance for that matter.

[A18]

It means someone is doing something. It means there is consumption.

Under your patently ridiculous system, if I give someone $2,000 for nothing, he should have to charge me 4% in sales tax.

[opebo]

It means someone is doing something. It means there is consumption.

Under your patently ridiculous system, if I give someone $2,000 for nothing, he should have to charge me 4% in sales tax.

Well, I personally do not like the sales tax.  I prefer income taxes.  But certainly if you give someone $2,000 for nothing, you should be charged sales tax, if one exists, and particularly he should be charged income tax.

Otherwise  you'ld just get people claiming wages and capital gains were 'gifts'.

[David S]

The rate is way too high. It should definitely not be higher than the income rate, which is what? 36%? Even the 15% cap gains rate would be appropriate.

I think Capital Gains should be taxed at the same rate as other income.  I suppose it is arguable that an inheritance is 'income' in that year for the heir, however I think it would be fair to treat it as something other than income.  Certainly a large exemption of a few million seems reasonable.  In any case, as my friends mom used to say 'you should have such problems!'.

That said most heirs have had to kiss the ass of annoying parents for decades.

Tough job but somebody's got to do it.

Maybe its almost as difficult as  working for a living.... Nahhh!

[A18]

It means someone is doing something. It means there is consumption.

Under your patently ridiculous system, if I give someone $2,000 for nothing, he should have to charge me 4% in sales tax.

Well, I personally do not like the sales tax.  I prefer income taxes.  But certainly if you give someone $2,000 for nothing, you should be charged sales tax, if one exists, and particularly he should be charged income tax.

Otherwise  you'ld just get people claiming wages and capital gains were 'gifts'.

That's what you call fraud, obviously.