I have a question
Someone explain how the Estate Tax, taxes income 2x’s?
for example, If some wealthy daddy leaves Dave Burris Jason $100 million dollars, isn’t that now considered income to Jason?
It is money right? it came “into” Jason, right? There for it is “income” to Jason, so now Jason gets that “incoming” money taxed.
So Jason’s money was taxed 1 time only.
Unless God has a new banking plan it doesn’t do the dead guy any good. So why would some lucky sperm that has grown up to be a productive person within the economy deserve money that he didn’t work for? Especially if he/she feels that money should not be taxed?
If we go on the logic that income shouldn’t be taxed more than once what do we have currency for then?
Call me crazy…
Simply put: The money that was earned by the father was taxed at the time it was earned. Those dollars should be free from taxation as Uncle Sam already got his share. What happens to it thereafter should be up to the earner. The same argument goes for capital gains taxes. I’ve invested after tax dollars and then taxing those dollars again when they grow is unfair and discourages savings/investment in favor of spending.
Very simply, no transaction is actually taking place. When you take money you earned and spend it on something else (an exchange of money for product or service) then it would be subject to tax. In an inheritance no exchange of service or product is taking place. Ergo, it should not be taxable.
Understand, I am all for eliminating sales tax too (including transfer tax, etc.). But that is a separate issue.
The IRS Code starts with a very simple assertion: “All income is taxable.” It is up to governement to decide what income to tax, how much, what gets exempted, etc.
“the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.”
That is the definition of income. Inheritance does not fall into that definition.
By Duffy and Chris’s logic I should never pay sales tax…or any taxes on gasoline or anything…EVER…since Uncle sam already taxed that money once.
“By Duffy and Chris’s logic I should never pay sales tax…or any taxes on gasoline or anything…EVER…since Uncle sam already taxed that money once.”
Works for me.
What a bunch of freeloaders!
duffy,
I’ve invested after tax dollars and then taxing those dollars again when they grow is unfair and discourages savings/investment in favor of spending.
key difference Duffy is the guy that gets the inheritance didn’t do shit for his money…
the problem with the guys theory that thinks its a death tax is that someone that did nothing for the money is allowed to have it given to them.
that isn’t how our society is set up. We aren’t a monarchy or aristocracy. It is for the people by the people, not for a collected few to pass on their wealth to those that have done nothing in society to earn it.
“the monetary payment received for goods or services, or from other sources, as rents or investments.”
not being a lawyer OTHER SOURCES jumps out at me big time.
“By Duffy and Chris’s logic I should never pay sales tax…”
I am disappointed Jason. You usually actually READ what is written. Here let me put what I wrote again…
“When you take money you earned and spend it on something else (an exchange of money for product or service) then it would be subject to tax.”
So yes. You would pay sales tax. Whether or not we should be paying it, is another matter for discussion.
so funny I love it. Because someone’s father or mother worked hard for their money they feel they should be able to get sais money for free.
what a joke. Move to another country if you want to be able to amass your wealth and not have it taxed when you die.
“that isn’t how our society is set up. We aren’t a monarchy or aristocracy. It is for the people by the people, not for a collected few to pass on their wealth to those that have done nothing in society to earn it.”
THERE YOU HAVE IT. THE GREAT DONVITI. LOVER OF REDISTRIBUTION!!!!
So DV is saying, when you die, you don’t need your money anymore. So I guess all of it should immediately go to the community pot? Screw your family, the libbie pols need more money to buy votes.
“Because someone’s father or mother worked hard for their money they feel they should be able to get said money for free.”
And what entitles the government to another piece of it? What commerce has taken place?
If you can demonstrate what business is taking place, we can discuss whether or not it should be taxed.
By your theory, if I give my kid $20 to go buy a present, I need to send the government a check for a chunk of that? How much blood does your ideal government need to suck out of the people?
So DV is saying, when you die, you don’t need your money anymore. So I guess all of it should immediately go to the community pot? Screw your family, the libbie pols need more money to buy votes.
you got it Chrissy, and there are more than a few people that understand how this country was established to prevent a Monarchy and weatlh being controlled by a limited few.
finally you are catching on to what a democracy is. All man is created equal Chrissy, remember that one, it is in both the bible and the constitution….
“Key difference Duffy is the guy that gets the inheritance didn’t do shit for his money…”
So freaking what? It still doesn’t mean it belongs to the government. And yes, I have inherited money. Now, if there was a move to take away the Kennedys’ inheritances, I could support that, since the source of the money was bootlegging and political corruption.
The alternative to an estate tax is for the peasants to rise up every hundred-fifty years or so and cut off the aristocrat’s heads. The Founding Fathers were hoping to avoid that.
funny how GOP’ers don’t know that we live in a democracy isn’t?
“you got it Chrissy, and there are more than a few people that understand how this country was established to prevent a Monarchy and weatlh being controlled by a limited few.”
Communism is alive and well in the state of Delaware.
As for your absurd notion, in no way shape or form was this governement set up to prevent wealth be ACCUMULATED by a limited few, only to allow all to have a voice in how the country is run. In fact, the country was set up to allow ALL MEN (and now ALL WOMEN) to have the opportunity to make as much freaking money as they can to support themselves and to pass along to their families.
In fact, if you believe what you believe, then why are you so opposed to the eminent domain fight being detailed in another post? It is just the government taking what you claim belongs to all the people.
“funny how GOP’ers don’t know that we live in a democracy isn’t?”
Funny how lefty libs don’t know that we have a capitalistic-based economy.
“funny how GOP’ers don’t know that we live in a democracy isn’t?”
We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic.
It’s just not your day, DV, is it?
Don V, why do you hate family farms and small business owners? You know, those ordinary folks who have to sell out to greedy corporations or land developers when Daddy dies?
framers leave Monarchy to come to set up another monarchy you guys got me
“The money that was earned by the father was taxed at the time it was earned. Those dollars should be free from taxation as Uncle Sam already got his share.”
Wow! Then most everyone who earns an income shouldn’t be taxed. Every individual consumer who gets a paycheck and has taxes taken out of their paycheck use their remaining ALREADY TAXED income to buy groceries, hire electricians and plumbers and mechanics, and pay all sorts of other bills which become the income for those providing these good & services to them. Since the supermarket cashier, the electrician and plumber receive their income from income ALREADY TAXED, then I guess they should be exempted from paying income tax as well.
Oh, but our Republicans friends aren’t talking about the little guys, now are they. They are talking about income from estates over $2 million because any amount below that is tax free given all the credits given to estates under $2 million. So you see, the little guy WORKING to earn $30,000 a year from the already taxed income of the customers he does business with should pay taxes on ALL of his income, but not the biological offspring of elite parents. It would be unfair to tax them one dime from ANY OF THE INCOME the they receive from the already taxed income they inherited.
This is how absurd the capital gains tax is. I know someone who receives about $200 a year in dividend income from a fortune he inherited and invested. While I was earning $45,000 a year and being taxed at a rate of over 30%, he was being taxed on $200,000 at a rate of 15%. Bush and the Repub congress arranged that smarmy deal. BUT if you think that is staggeringly unfair, Bush & many of the congressional repubs actually argued that it was unfair that my friend had to pay any income taxes at all! In other words, Dana Garrett should continue to work and pay taxes to fund the services and benefits of the US government that my friend enjoyed while he sat back & did nothing and enjoyed a $200,000 income entirely tax free.
Imagine. Let the little guy work to subsidize the idle rich guy. That is what Repubs call fair and, comically, it’s not what they call welfare. In fact, it’s an utterly transparent and shameful scam.
“Wow! Then most everyone who earns an income shouldn’t be taxed. ”
Let another libbie with the inability to read. Why must I keep repeating myself. I CLEARLY SAID:
“When you take money you earned and spend it on something else (an exchange of money for product or service) then it would be subject to tax. In an inheritance no exchange of service or product is taking place. Ergo, it should not be taxable.”
Now as to your other points..
“While I was earning $45,000 a year and being taxed at a rate of over 30%, he was being taxed on $200,000 at a rate of 15%.”
Again, what transaction was taking place with his money…anything. Was he receiving some sort of product or service? Then what should be the triggering mechanism for the government to come back in and take more. When he spends that money, then they government will grab there share. When that money was earned, they grabbed a piece of that too. Why should money sitting idle be subject to further tax? Even when passed from father to son (or daughter or wife, whatever), no commerce is taking place. This really isn’t difficult Dana.
You don’t like paying 30% then lets go flat tax. How does a flat 18% sound. Everyone pays on what they earn. Can’t be fairer than that can it…or is that the problem…you really aren’t interested in fair…just envious of those who have more….
Talk about transparent.
Those who like the idea of death taxes are typically the practitioners of the politics of envy. The money was left over from earnings that were already taxed.
While some may resent vast sums of money going to some wastrel heir, such fortunes tend to vanish in spite of trust funds.
One should note the machinations used by the Kennedy family to keep their fortune intact using offshore shelters.
“When you take money you earned and spend it on something else (an exchange of money for product or service) then it would be subject to tax. In an inheritance no exchange of service or product is taking place. Ergo, it should not be taxable.”
Oh, I am aware of what you wrote. I’m also aware of what logicians call a persuasive definition:
“A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the ‘true’ or ‘commonly accepted’ meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition
I ignored the part of your definition which was obviously a contrivance intended to expand the the rights and eliminate the duties of your preferred elite group while maintaining the rights and duties of working Americans to have to pay their taxes.
It’s simply special pleading to argue that the exchange of money for a product or service is an exception to the principle that previously-taxed income should be taxed but inheriting an estate is not.
If you are allowed to make up your own definitions and create exceptions to them only for the purpose of supporting your political and economic goals, then other people are too. So here is mine:
“An income earned from the exchange of income for a product or service should not be taxed at all if the income used for purchasing the product or service was itself subject to taxation. But income derived from no exchange of income for a product or service should be taxed even if the income used for purchasing the product or service was itself subject to taxation. The reason why the former kind of income should be excluded from taxation but the latter shouldn’t be is because the former was earned through labor which itself contributes to the economic whole of society, but the latter kind of income should be taxed because it is income received from doing nothing and is merely the result of being someone who bears some kind relationship to someone else who provides the unearned income.”
So if you can arbitrarily to define the argument in ways that support your favorite constituency so can I. And even at that my persuasive definition is more noble than yours because mine mostly protects working people but yours protects the idle rich.
In short, I ignored your definition because it was fallacious.
“Those who like the idea of death taxes are typically the practitioners of the politics of envy.”
Thank you for the stock wingnut response. What decent discussions could go on w/o one.
I really love this one, however. It’s so revealing:
“While some may resent vast sums of money going to some wastrel heir, such fortunes tend to vanish in spite of trust funds.”
In other words, don’t worry about people receiving fortunes through no personal effort because they will probably just blow it all and end up destitute anyhow.
You see, it’s precisely because I don’t have envy for the wealthy that I don’t want to see them end up destitute. But, interestingly, you do.
Dana,
you said Wow! Then most everyone who earns an income shouldn’t be taxed. Every individual consumer who gets a paycheck and has taxes taken out of their paycheck use their remaining ALREADY TAXED income to buy groceries, hire electricians and plumbers and mechanics, and pay all sorts of other bills which become the income for those providing these good & services to them. Since the supermarket cashier, the electrician and plumber receive their income from income ALREADY TAXED, then I guess they should be exempted from paying income tax as well.
much more eloquently then when i said If we go on the logic that income shouldn’t be taxed more than once what do we have currency for then?
but alas it falls on deaf ears that do not know anything about being Christian I guess, all men are not created equal in there eyes and that is just fine with them.
I think it is clear that the GOP has blown up the idea that in America if you work hard and play by the rules you can succeed.
We still hold onto that fantasy in books and movies, but the the systemn is now rigged so that the only way your children will be better off than you is if you leave them tons of money when you die.
Though a flat tax appears to be fair, since everyone is being taxed at a same rate, but in reality it’s not.
The wealthier an individual is, the more tax-funded resources they will use (ie – transportation services & infrastructure). So, in effect, a progressive tax structure is much fairer.
To me, the estate tax is like a tax on lottery winning. The recipient did not earn this income; he/she ‘won’ it by chance. Though I’d consider lowering the rate somewhat, though….
“I think it is clear that the GOP has blown up the idea that in America if you work hard and play by the rules you can succeed.”
Really? Let’s see it from your point of view. If you work hard and play by the rules, the more successful you are, the more we are going to take away from you. What is the incentive there?
“The wealthier an individual is, the more tax-funded resources they will use (ie – transportation services & infrastructure). ”
I beg to differ on this one. Yes, the wealthier use the infrastructure when they are driving, and perhaps they use that more than someone who does not have a car. Other than that, how exactly are the wealthier using more tax-funded resources? They are getting same police and fire coverage. The same military security. And if fact, they are not using all the tax-funded social services that the less wealthy may be using. This is a weak argument at best.
Other than that, how exactly are the wealthier using more tax-funded resources?
The businesses that keep making them rich and richer are operating on tax-funded roads, fire services, etc…
If you work hard and play by the rules, the more successful you are, the more we are going to take away from you. What is the incentive there?
Patriotism.
It is just a dumb old concept that you would know nothing about.
“Patriotism.
It is just a dumb old concept that you would know nothing about.”
This from the crew that wants us to bend over and hand an olive branch to those that would think nothing of chopping off our heads while we do that.
So patriotic.
so we should kill them all?
so Christian
Success: (n) The state of having reached the level in which pathetic, jealous liberals have begun hating and resenting you.
“And if fact, they are not using all the tax-funded social services that the less wealthy may be using. This is a weak argument at best.”
The social services you’re talking about, the ones specifically designed to help the poor, pale in comparison, dollar-wise, to the overall usage-costs of airports, roads, bridges, business subsidies, waste removal, federal lands, by middle-to-upper income classes. Also, wealthier Americans’ extremely low military participation rates demonstrates a lack of sacrifice (in wartime, no less!), but all the while, they cheerlead so they can obtain the benefits of those results brought on by less wealthier Americans.
The one thing that’s weak is the False Bravado emanating from today’s conservatives.