- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
All of which can be simplified with a better tax system based off of purchases or a flat rate. You still are not differentiating the fact that money in an estate is being taxed for the simple transference to it's new owners, this is what a will is for, to designate already paid on money to it's destination. Face it, re taxing is BS.All money is in circulation. My boss paid taxes on profits. Our customers paid taxes in their pay before that. When you recieve money you didn't have before that is income and should be subject to appropriate tax.
You seem to ignore the difference between properly taxed transactions that result in income exchanged for value be it goods or services vs gifts which were never seen as taxable transactions until the greedy parasites in government decided they needed more money to waste
Where are you getting this exchange of value stuff from? can you cite the law on that for us? And in the detailed example I gave you the exchange of value is obvious and repeated over and over again.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with multiple taxation. Try again.
why is there an estate and gift tax rather than it being in the income tax? because even a parasitic congress that wanted both such taxes realized they are different transactions
and tell us again why the government needs all this money. and why don't people like you start paying more if you think this is a good idea and stop demanding people like me who already pay tons pay even more
THIS GOVERNMENT HAS PLENTY OF MONEY TO DO ITS PROPER JOB
Your comment makes no sense. I showed you a detailed example where the same $100 bill was taxed again and again and again in just one days time. That is exactly multiple taxation on the same money. But then again, that is the way it works and that is the way it is suppose to work.
This right wing meme of "double taxation" of capital gains or inheritance is simply nonsense that scares nobody but themselves since they believe what they opt to believe even though it is fantasy.
the fantasy is the love for a wasteful government and the unending attempts to justify the government should take more and more wealth from us
Sorry Turtle but I answered your question of me straight out and direct. Please do the same before you ask more of your own.
Where in the law are you getting this stuff about exchange of value from as a necessary part of taxation?
its easy to defendWhy are you unable to defend your own argument? Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.
And please do not reply with more pontificating statements of belief that fail to answer the question about your own previous claims. Lets dot this letter i before we move on to new words or claims.
its easy to defend
inheritance is not INCOME and the INCOME TAX proves that
and again what justifies this unbelievable desire for the government to take more and more?
its easy to defend
inheritance is not INCOME and the INCOME TAX proves that
and again what justifies this unbelievable desire for the government to take more and more?
All money coming into a persons pocket or account should be taxed as income..... MONEY coming IN. Get it Turtle?
And quit moving the goal posts and answer the question that you have been impotent to speak to so far.
Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.
Show us all that you are not yet again simply making it up as you go along ala Indiana Jones in RAIDERS.
So now you are a statist using the states law to justify your own position? Amazing.
you are the one who loves government not me. I want to put that hog on a serious diet so it looks like the chicken as the founders intended
tell me where your attitude that an inheritance is income is found in the federal law. If that were true there would be no death tax or estate tax.
and tell me why you want the government to take even more money from people who already pay the top rates and pay the most actual federal tax dollars
This is where I fall on the issue.
- The person who has died has already paid tax on that money when alive.
I pretty much agree with all your points but think Jobs/economy would at least theoretically continue on even if sold.It's not always liquid cash. In the example of the chain of restaurants worth 20 million, 35% tax on that is 7 million dollars. If someone inherits those restaurants, but not much cash, he or she has to come up with that 7 mil somehow or sell some of the restaurants or close some down and lay people off. To me that makes no sense. It seems better for jobs and the economy to just leave them alone and let the restaurants continue as they did before the death.
Again with the statist argument of using the definition in the law to excuse your own position.
You keep asking question after question after question in a desperate attempt to get yourself out of the tight corner that you painted yourself into.
Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.
Why are you powerless to do this?
where in the law does it say that inheritance is income
and I guess if this board were limited to discussions where the law is all that matters, it would be rather dead
we are making a just argument why transactions that merely involve a transfer of money rather than an exchange of value are not income generating and the tax code tends to agree with us rather than you
Your first line contradicts the position of the second line. You cannot make a statist argument in your first statement and then decry the position of the law in your second statement.
Where does this exchange of value stuff come from as a necessary component for taxation?
again from my post 66
I never said inheritance was part of the definition of income IN THE LAW. It is clearly handled under the estate tax laws. I was agreeing with you that we should abolish estate taxes and I said the way to handle this would be to simply classify it as income and tax it accordingly. Are we clear on that now Turtle?
I never said inheritance was part of the definition of income IN THE LAW. It is clearly handled under the estate tax laws. I was agreeing with you that we should abolish estate taxes and I said the way to handle this would be to simply classify it as income and tax it accordingly. Are we clear on that now Turtle?
Again with the statist argument of using the definition in the law to excuse your own position.
You keep asking question after question after question in a desperate attempt to get yourself out of the tight corner that you painted yourself into.
Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.
Why are you powerless to do this?
Once again, this has nothing to do with the law. The law is irrelevant to this discussion. What I and TD (and I usually HATE agreeing with TD and other assorted righties) are arguing is that INHERITANCE IS NOT INCOME. Meanwhile, the examples you listed a few pages back of your $100 being taxed more than once IS an example of income, and in each instance you gave it was appropriately taxed as such.
I don't believe that it's appropriate or makes much economic sense for the government to assess a tax on WEALTH - which is exactly what the estate tax is. It is a tax on a stock, rather than a flow.
I'm not in favor of the estate tax.
In general terms, I am against taxes on wealth in general. I just think it makes more sense for the government to tax income (a flow) rather than wealth (a stock) in the form of estate taxes, property taxes, and whatnot, and this includes transfers of wealth from one person to another.
Ok, it's not tax on wealth. It's tax on unrealized unrealized appreciation. If you inherit 5 million in stocks, you have to pay taxes on the amount of appreciation from the basis of the stock until the time of inheritance. If this did not occur, wealth could be passed from generation to generation without ever being taxed, which would result in an aristocracy.
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?