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.
This simply means we have more lazy people in this country that are unwilling to work for what they want. They want it given to them on a silver plater.
Yes, and paid for by those who are willing to work!
That's not true. Many of the ultra rich simply inherited their wealth and did not create it themselves.
Very few people inherited their wealth. And so what if they did? Why shoudn't someone be able to leave their wealth to their family members, without the government taking a large portion of it? Why? It does not belong to the government. It belongs to the family! They can leave it to whom they want to. Why should the government have any of it? It was taxed once when it was earned!
How many times does the government tax the same dollar?
typical marxist/communist thinking. kill the rich and give their money away to everyone else!!
absolutely right. take everything away from george soros, warren buffet, the koch brothers, and every other rich person today, and with in a year or two they will be back among the rich again. and take those assets you took from the rich, and give them to the poor, and the poor will be poor again with in the year or two as well.
When the entrepreneures quit producing, because they are disgusted with the government taking their earnings, what then?
Nobody is demonizing rich people. We just think they should pay higher taxes.
And modestly raising their taxes increases revenues substantially.
Sure you do. They already do pay higher taxes. Why should they pay more than anyone else? Fair, is everyone paying the same rate. Don't Leftists always talk about "fairness?" You have a strange definition.
It has been proven over and over again that cutting taxes actually increases revenue to the government.
Very few people inherited their wealth. And so what if they did? Why shoudn't someone be able to leave their wealth to their family members, without the government taking a large portion of it? Why? It does not belong to the government. It belongs to the family! They can leave it to whom they want to. Why should the government have any of it? It was taxed once when it was earned!
How many times does the government tax the same dollar?
Sigh. They tax the same dollar over and over and over. Its not like a dollar gets taxed once and then never again.
I buy a fruit, that money goes to the vendor, who buys from a farmer, who pays thier laborers with the already once taxed money I used to pay for the fruit, so that they can go buy fruit.......
So the answer is, money should be taxed when it changes hands.
As for why should we do this to inheritances? Why to avoid plutocracies. And no it doesn "belong to the family". It belongs to the person who earned it. If he transfers it to someone else, taxing it is not unreasonable.
Everyone believes in boot strapping yourself....all the way up until its THEIR kids they are talking about apparently.
Not who you were talking to, but I will respond in bold...
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Sigh. They tax the same dollar over and over and over. Its not like a dollar gets taxed once and then never again.
I buy a fruit, that money goes to the vendor, who buys from a farmer, who pays thier laborers with the already once taxed money I used to pay for the fruit, so that they can go buy fruit.......
So the answer is, money should be taxed when it changes hands.
Fair, but why couldn't it be taxed when you consume...encourage people to save, spend wisely, harder to avoid taxes...
As for why should we do this to inheritances? Why to avoid plutocracies. And no it doesn "belong to the family". It belongs to the person who earned it. So if I have the only job in my family, you would argue that my wife owns nothing? A kid can own nothing??? If he transfers it to someone else, taxing it is not unreasonable. I am not necessarily opposed to modest inheritance taxes, but I think it is ridiculously flawed to say only the family member that earns it owns it.
Everyone believes in boot strapping yourself....all the way up until its THEIR kids they are talking about apparently.
A Model T with zero modern features in 1913 cost $550 or $13K in 2013...
A Hummer fully loaded with XM radio, power steering etc costs $54K...
We are being ripped off, we are being destroyed...look at that massive inflation!!! It costs so much more to get the exact same product - a automobile!!!
Not who you were talking to, but I will respond in bold...
1. why couldnt it be taxed when consumed? Because to be honest I dont want to tax people on the basic things-food, water, shelter. I find taxation of the requirements for life to be immoral.
2. yes I would argue that. She should probably go get a job, I am a firm believer in equal rights. But if she chooses not to, then the insignificant amount of inheritance tax is a small penalty.
3. Currently the first 5.25 million is tax exempt. Beyond that it can get taxed as high as 40%. A not unreasonable tax on money above 5 million for which you did nothing but breathe longer then the person giving it to you. Additionally there are tons of ways to avoid it with careful planning.
1. why couldnt it be taxed when consumed? Because to be honest I dont want to tax people on the basic things-food, water, shelter. I find taxation of the requirements for life to be immoral.
2. yes I would argue that. She should probably go get a job, I am a firm believer in equal rights. But if she chooses not to, then the insignificant amount of inheritance tax is a small penalty.
3. Currently the first 5.25 million is tax exempt. Beyond that it can get taxed as high as 40%. A not unreasonable tax on money above 5 million for which you did nothing but breathe longer then the person giving it to you. Additionally there are tons of ways to avoid it with careful planning.
1. Can't you have a consumption tax that doesn't tax food, water, etc????
2. WOW... So if only the husband works..you would say the wife legally owns nothing???? Divorce, the wife out on her butt?
3. I agree.
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.
