Originally Posted by Iriemon
Why is it a horrendous practice for Paris Hilton to inherit $28 million income and not pay a dime of tax, so that someone who works for and earns their income pays MORE tax?
edb19 said:Look - I criticize the media more than anyone I know for the attention Paris Hilton receives. Without question, she's a bimbo and an embarassment to hard working women who manage both a home and a job. However, her grandfather worked hard, made good investments and left his family an incredible trust fund.
The practice of inheritance tax is bad because it punished him (Conrad Hilton) for all his hard work. Here in Toledo there was a locally owned grocery chain (founded in the 20's I believe) - 4 stores. They offered outstanding customer service and great products - including things the national chains didn't. The founder/owner died about 6 years ago. His heirs had to sell the stores because of inheritance taxes. That's a loss to the community. As an aside - the national chain they sold to just closed all their Toledo area stores. I grew up in a farming family. Many family farms are sold to pay inheritance taxes. I know of several small family business owners that worry about what will happen to their business when they pass away.
Seems to me that the Paris Hilton's are the exception and the small business owners are the rule.
Personally, I don't agree with income tax either. The founding fathers never intended an income tax - heck, the constitution needed to be amended to allow for it. I work extremely hard - generally 45-50 hours at the office plus I bring work home. The government doesn't deserve one red cent of what I've earned.
I'd like to see us go back to the days when serving in Congress was a part time job, when representatives and senators had real jobs that occupied their lives for 9-10 months of the year, when they didn't have expense accounts and staffs larger than the one at my office. We live in a free market society and personally I think the private sector can do a better job of managing the country, providing education, building roads and bridges, taking care of the national parks and such than the government does. The government's role in our lives should be extremely limited.
Iriemon said:Should estates be taxed? Or to put it another way, should people inherit assets tax free?
edb19 said:
I work extremely hard for MY MONEY
cnredd said:Dude...seriously....If I got Donna Summer going through my head for the next two days, you are SO dead!:?
deadroses said:I like taxes.. i know crazy thing to say around here.. I agree with the inheritence tax.. aww go whine to your mummy and da because you will be taxed on what you really didn't earn in the first place.. whether or not they did...
and for income taxes... hell..if you want to see your money before the government does... well. plan on spending more on your water, roads, gas, cars, properties, heat, electricity, cable..... privitation my friend... higher costs... hell who cares about the poor.. they don't need water.. oh you work hard at mininum wage.. have two kids.. screw you.. i earned my money.. i don't want to help you...
yeah. that would be a great society( or lack there of) to live in
:roll:
Alan Ryan said:All questions about taxation are ultimately moral questions. A tax on inherited wealth is justified by notions of social and economic justice.
Unregulated economic privilege would result from the abolition of the inheritance tax, and confer advantage through the happy accident of having affluent parents. Without some redistributive levy on the fortunes of the wealthy, in a couple of generations vast accumulations of capital would be in the hands of a small number of "lucky" individuals. This is the route to a plutocracy that would result in a social aristocracy entirely alien to American concepts of success on merit.
Hume said:As to the first paragraph:
If, as you imply, I don't have any claim to the money my "mummy and da" earned, what claim does the government have to it over me? Ok, the money was given to me, but I didn't earn it; but the government didn't either, nor did the poor guy in the next paragraph, so why the hell should they get it? It was my parents; they have to right to give it as they see fit. They worked hard so that I could live a good life; hopefully I'll do something with the money, but if I want to sit around, that's my decision. It's not what I want to do with the money; I didn't earn it. It's what my parents wwanted to do with it, because it was their money.
As to the second paragraph:
Nothing that you mentioned has to do with income tax. You pay taxes on roads,water, police, etc. Electricity, gas, and heat; what does that have to do with anything? You pay for these separately. If you're suggesting they're always positively influenced by government activity, look at Iraq and gas.
Again, its my income; why should anyone else receive what I earned? If some guys poor because he refuses to work or refused to go to school, why should he get my money that I earned through working in school and now? What claim does anyone else have on that money?
128shot said:Bush is using it all as an excuse so we all can have a loophole in the tax system now, ya!
Anyway.....I think there should be no estate tax as long as the rest of us don't pay more taxes.
edb19 said:I guess I'm just anti-taxation.
I work extremely hard for MY MONEY - without question, I EARN every dime. I don't believe that the government should get a portion of MY income before I even see it. Along the same line - the money I've worked hard for since the age of 16 (and paid taxes on) shouldn't be taxed a second time because I died. My husband, children, grandchildren (or whomever I decide to leave my money to) shouldn't be penalized because I planned ahead and didn't spend every cent of MY MONEY.
Again - the public sector in a free market society could provide many of the same services and do them better than the government does. I've read (sorry, don't remember the source) that the government is the largest employer in the country - sorry, but that strikes me as wrong. They perpetuate themselves in order to justify their existence.
Stop right there, that is complete liberal:spin: and the biggest load of horse**** I have ever heard, not necessarily your fault, but just from people who don't face historical fact. Borrowing was increased during LBJ's "Great Society" and Carter extended those social programs, the U.S. has had a deficit going since at least the mid-sixties, yes, Nixon was guilty too, this was a period when the Democratic party had a deathgrip on the House and Senate(the branch responsible for budgets). Thank you for your time.Iriemon said:How are you going to pay interest ($320 billion) on the Republican debt?
Sorry, I get frustrated at that idea that Republicans ran up the national debt.
Back on topic though, estate taxes boil down to double taxation which is just plain wrong, period.
Iriemon said:This goes to the issue of whether there should be a tax at all as opposed to what should be taxed, or not, which is a completely different issue. That is a nice hypothetical issue, but given we do have a Govt and a populace that likes its entitlement, the question is, why should someone who works pay MORE of that tax so Paris can pay NO tax on money she inherits?
Iriemon said:How are you going to pay for the defense at $400+ billion a year? Volunteer force based on volunteer donations? How are you going to pay for fighting 2 wars at about $100 billion a year? How are you going to pay interest ($320 billion) on the Republican debt? Default on the notes?
And that's if you don't mind seeing starving old folks and kids lined up at stoplights begging for something to eat.
LaMidRighter said:Stop right there, that is complete liberal:spin: and the biggest load of horse**** I have ever heard, not necessarily your fault, but just from people who don't face historical fact. Borrowing was increased during LBJ's "Great Society" and Carter extended those social programs, the U.S. has had a deficit going since at least the mid-sixties, yes, Nixon was guilty too, this was a period when the Democratic party had a deathgrip on the House and Senate(the branch responsible for budgets). Thank you for your time.
Sorry, I get frustrated at that idea that Republicans ran up the national debt.
Back on topic though, estate taxes boil down to double taxation which is just plain wrong, period.
Hume said:My dad got taxed when he earned the money, he'll be taxed again if he spends it; now he can't even give it to his son without some guy coming and taking another unearned portion of it?
And stop using the Paris Hilton example, its extreme and stupid. She has also built an empire out of herself and makes tons of money modelling, selling products, advertising, etc. She pays money on all of that, and by economic measures contributes more to America than most other Americans.
Inheritance shouldn't be taxed because its money that already has been. Why should someone else be taxed twice so you can not be taxed at all?
Hume said:That is the one thing the government was created for; protection of the people! The American government was created to defend America, and all taxes were to serve this purpose. I have no problem with paying for the military.
And stop trying to draw sympathy by bringing up poor kids and starving "old folks"; its pathetic and everytime you say it you said like a four year old whining to their mother about donating to charity. No matter how much they starve, it still doesn't give you a right to take my money.
128shot said:The irony being, we want SS, but I can walk into the street corner down town and find at least 10 people who would abolish welfare on the spot.
Just sayin...
Iriemon said:Aside from the "fairness" issue of people who work having to pay tax while people who inherit do not; your post raises a broader, social policy issue.
Do we want to encourage wealth staying in families by eliminating a tax on intergenerational transfers and taxing people who work more to make up the difference? What social good is created by that policy? Such a policy doesn't seem to reward merit, hard work and talent to me.
Alan Ryan said:The short answer to your questions is No. If enormous fortunes are allowed to accumulate because inheritance tax doesn't redistribute some of the wealth, a situation will arise (pretty quickly) in which the already privileged will buy more privileges that will indemnify the plutocracy against its social dues. In other words, the gap between rich and poor will widen and incentives to succeed on merit will be weakened. As you say, people will have to work harder to make up the difference, and will they be motivated to do this in a society that encourages the growth of a leisured class of conspicuous consumers ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?