Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I am not in favor of giving it to government. What prevents a wealthy person to let 95% of his wealth to, say, the schools in his or her community? The schools his or her children and grandchildren are likely to visit, although that is not really necessary...
You know Neuling, I can see in your posts that even you are not completely convinced of the logic behind your comments. What about that extra 5%?
Huh? I don't see any contradiction...
When person x gets unemployment benefits without trying to find or accepting a job offered, then I am not in favor of such handouts. But that is pretty much the only group of people where I see a fault.
People make bad decisions all the time that lead to their own financial difficulty. Those bad decisions are most definitely their own fault.
Quote:
Handouts should not be something permanent, but help to get back on track.
That would be great. That means we can end generational welfare benefits.
Quote:
Even if someone made wrong decisions in the past, does not mean he or she deserves to pay for their mistakes for the rest of their lives. Society should be interested in that person's recuperation.
So you agree, lifetime freebie government entitlements such as welfare, Section 8 housing, and Medicaid should be abolished. Good.
People make bad decisions all the time that lead to their own financial difficulty. Those bad decisions are most definitely their own fault.
That would be great. That means we can end generational welfare benefits.
So you agree, lifetime freebie government entitlements such as welfare, Section 8 housing, and Medicaid should be abolished. Good.
I don't agree with your position on fault. Actually, I don't even believe in the existence of fault, guilt etc., but that is a philosophical topic for another thread...
Of course I am not in favor of such entitlements that become a routine like a paycheck. But at the same time I do think that before simply cutting off such handouts we as a society have the duty to try and help people get back on track, which might include some "gentle pushing", paying for college prep programs, etc.
Those five percent or so are for instance for the widow.
I am not saying someone should not pass on anything at all, I just think it should be a very limited amount, that by no means can be called wealth.
But wouldn't any amount be considered undeserved? Barney Frank said that the next generation "didn't earn it so they shouldn't get it". Do you people realize that this stance defies logic?
so to the "double taxation" crowd, riddle me this:
we obviously need some taxes, so why is income tax considered 'acceptable' to tax, but estate/death taxes are not?
what is it about estate taxes that constitute "unfair redistribution of wealth" and "double taxation", that don't apply to all other taxes?
That's about the easiest question ever asked on CD.
Money in ones estate has ALREADY BEEN TAXED when it was earned. When the person was working, and earning an income, they paid taxes on that income. When that person sold property, or financial instruments, they were taxed. The money in the estate is what's LEFT OVER AFTER THE GOVERNMENT TOOK AS MUCH AS IT COULD from the person who earned it. So now that the person dies and wants to keep those assets in his estate, for his family, the governent should et another chunk of it? Silly. And CLEARLY double taxation.
I think what the poster really feels is that all of one's hard work and money should go to the government when he/she passes so that wealth can be distributed to those whom don't want to work hard and make money with their own merritt. 'Take from other's' is a common mantra I see thrown around here a lot.
The left despises the accumulation of private property, and this is a way in which they can deny that property to the people. The money i earn is my property, its the fruits of my labor. If I work my ass off for my entire life and decide to give money or property to my children upon my death, it should be of zero concern to the government. That property is mine, not theirs, and I have already followed the law and paid my taxes on it all. Just because I die, it does not mean the federal government is entitled to take half of my life's work.
Next year, when my children file their state and federal income taxes, they should declare the money I gave them upon my death. The taxes paid should be simply paid as normal income taxes, and the local government would tax me for any property I inherited as normal property taxes.
Exactly the opposite, we should give as much as possible to all of society and get rid of that primitive tribal and clan thinking. And yes, I do not think it is my responsibility to provide my children, let alone grandchildren with privileges at the expense of the rest of society.
But how is that "at the expense of the rest of society"? It's my money. I earned it. I paid taxes on it. I invested it in some business of my own, or in the stock market, providing publicly traded businesses with working capital so they could grow, driving the economy, or in a bank account, so that bank could lend it to others to buy a house or start their own business. I helped "the rest of society". And I've taught my children the value of doing the same. So they will take what I leave them and continue the same way of thinking, further helping the rest of society. Why should anyone now have the right to take from my heirs that which I worked so hard to give them? How does that benefit anyone?
Exactly the opposite, we should give as much as possible to all of society and get rid of that primitive tribal and clan thinking. And yes, I do not think it is my responsibility to provide my children, let alone grandchildren with privileges at the expense of the rest of society.
So abolish private property and destroy the family? Long live the socialist state.
But wouldn't any amount be considered undeserved? Barney Frank said that the next generation "didn't earn it so they shouldn't get it". Do you people realize that this stance defies logic?
Theoretically yes, of course no child has deserved anything it did not work for. But I think a certain, more symbolic amount is ok to inherit. But there should be a cap so that the child knows there is no material privilege waiting for them when they turn 16 or 18.
The family home would be a reasonable value to pass on to the remaining family. Stocks, gold, etc. in no way.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The schools his or her children and grandchildren are likely to visit, although that is not really necessary...
