Ding Dong, the witch is dead

[9th Engineer]

I was lumping the inheritors of their parents wealth into that group of people that recieved money they didn't earn. I question the doling out of any sort of aid at the federal level, and would love to see someone get ballsy enough to tighten down on loose money faucets. Even if it costs more I think there would be some way to improve the continual processing of applicants and use the money saved to pay the extra people to do it. No money gained overall, but at least the money is going to people doing a job.
I don't know if society should take care of people who are facing hard times, I really see that as a responsibility of citizens. We throw so much stuff into the governments lap and then dust our hands off with a sigh of relief that we don't have to concern ourselves with it anymore.
Government wellfare will always be something to hang your head about, perhaps if people could be convinced to get their heads out of their asses we would be able to impliment something better

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

I don't know if society should take care of people who are facing hard times, I really see that as a responsibility of citizens. We throw so much stuff into the governments lap and then dust our hands off with a sigh of relief that we don't have to concern ourselves with it anymore.
Government wellfare will always be something to hang your head about, perhaps if people could be convinced to get their heads out of their asses we would be able to impliment something better

Government is the responsibility of the citizens. If more people would wake up and remember that the government is elected by the people in order to do the people's bidding, we'd all be a lot better off. Most individual citizens couldn't give a rat's ass about the poor and needy disabled. How much do YOU contribute to the local battered women's shelter? How about to programs for kids born with developmental disabilities. When's the last time you made aREAL contribution to a food drive for the needy in your area - and I don't mean just throwing a can of generic canned corn into a basket.

I am on SSDI and I don't hang my head over it. I worked and paid into the system for 30 years of my life only to become disabled and end up with a "benefit" of $671.00/month plus $10.00 in food stamps. The American people are so lacking in concern for those in need that its a national disgrace.

Why don't YOU get your head out of your ass and learn about the REAL world - especially in the country you live in?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Thank you Brianna. I can't believe I let him get to me like that. You have put it back into perspective.

Yes, good job Brianna. When a couple of members go at a heated debate, the worst thing is people choosing sides..... contribute views and opinions, yes....but not taking sides based on popularity.

Originally Posted by marichiko

How much do YOU contribute to the local battered women's shelter?

Go to hell, I'm not battering any women to supply any damn shelter. :p

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Go to hell, I'm not battering any women to supply any damn shelter. :p

Nice try, Bruce, but I already know how kind you are. You can't fool me! You are one cool dude. I am humbled before you. So there!

[Undertoad]

Having watched people (usu. my age and younger) with inheritances act as if they were Lotto winnings, any money not gotten by the Death Tax will soon enter the economy as taxes on other stuff.

You have to be fair: you have to look at the Death Tax in two ways. You look at it, first, from the inheritee's position ("free money!"), which says tax the hell out of it, appealing to the American instinct not to reward anyone who didn't earn it.

Then, you have to look at it from the original breadwinner's position. They (typically) earned the money in the economy; they (usually) did it by being productive and/or making good decisions that (often) grew the economy while the wealth was being used/invested. It's their money free and clear; they should be able to decide what to do with it, rather than to face one last time the gummint's slice. Particularly at death when one's lifetime should be honored and praised, if due, and not subject to the usual rude accounting.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Then, you have to look at it from the original breadwinner's position. They (typically) earned the money in the economy; they (usually) did it by being productive and/or making good decisions that (often) grew the economy while the wealth was being used/invested. It's their money free and clear; they should be able to decide what to do with it, rather than to face one last time the gummint's slice.

That sounds like an argument against the gift tax as well.

And hey, the sales tax, too. The money you use to buy something was already taxed. Why should the government get one last slice just because you're picking up a new shirt?

Another thing to keep in mind is that an inheritance that is big enough to trigger the estate tax is usually primarily made up of tax-deferred money, on which tax has not been paid. The deferred tax is replaced with the estate tax, saving the inheritee lots of time, and possibly money.

[BigV]

disclosure: I am in favor of the inheritance tax.

The part that (actually, one of the parts) chaps me is the whole "I already paid taxes on it" argument. Money's not taxed, not even once. We use money to represent value, as a fungible, tangible hunk of value. And what gets taxed is the *transaction*.

You can have a stack of hundred dollar bills. But if you don't move them, they're not "taxable". They're also not very valuable either. Money needs to move to exercise its value. And it's that movement that is taxed.

You pay to cross the bridge, not for being on one side or the other.

[Spexxvet]

It is, but this is another yardstick that shows how our tax codes are a much bigger burden on those who are not wealthy.

Whenever I hear the against arguments they are always in emotional terms, "they get free money that they did not work for!".
This is something that one, obviously, cannot know. Many/most young people help their parents in family endeavors, support them in many ways; both tangible and intangible. The same is true for spouses.
It smacks of envy, greed & malice. "I'm not getting a big inheritance, so no one should..." or "we should all get a piece of that"... sour grapes.
I am for either/or. Tax us when we get it or when we spend it, that's it, and only one percentage for all, across the board... no games.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

The same is true for spouses.

Spouses don't pay estate tax. One of the legal benefits of marriage is shared estate.

Tax us when we get it or when we spend it, that's it,

The estate tax is for when the inheritors get it. It is levied on the estate instead of each individual inheritor for several reasons, including simplicity and the management of deferred tax assets. Can you imagine inheriting a large portfolio of stock, and having to figure out what the original purchase prices were, to calculate the capital gains? All of that is replaced by the estate tax.

I do not pretend to know all the in's and out's... I just know that a flat-tax makes the most sense.
All pay a fair, even, percentage.

[DanaC]

The trouble with a flat tax, as I see it, is that 10% of $400,000 per annum, is a significantly lower burden in terms of living standards as 10% of $30,000.

A sliding scale of tax takes account of the fact that the higher the income (and face it, most people with high incomes also have significantly higher holdings than those on lower incomes also) the lower the impact of the tax, despite the fact they are paying more.

This works particularly well, if the income brackets are set so that you are only paying the higher rate on the money you earn above the threshold. Then the majority of that $400,000 gets taxed at the normal rate, but the amount over $300,000 (random figures:P) gets taxed at say 40% or 50%. The person earning, still comes away with a big wage cheque.

The impact of 10% on wage of $30,000 is still higher than the impact of that supertax on the $400,000 earner. But, to me it seems a great deal fairer. Yes, that person earning the high wage has done so with their own work.....but they've done so in a country that belongs to you all. They've benefitted from the particular set of circumstances provided by that country and if they're earning such a high wage, likely they've also benefited from the labours of someone earning considerably less.

Shawnee, don't let Noodle get to you. You know how the world works, pity him, he is blind.

[Rock Steady]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The trouble with a flat tax, as I see it, is that 10% of $400,000 per annum, is a significantly lower burden in terms of living standards as 10% of $30,000.

Yes, you are right. Income Burden is the salient feature.

But, in comparision to weath tax, this graduated/progressive INCOME tax WORKS as opposed to a WEALTH tax which is completely rediculious.

Hypothetically, say I make a company that generatings big profits and I sell it for X times my investment. Then, I see another big opportunity where I can invest/work and create jobs off the capital gains of that first company. I create new jobs, why should the government tax me more between these opportunities to create new jobs?

If I just go off and spend my first investment on cars, clubs, women, and wine, sales tax me heavily. Making a new company and creating new jobs should be handled differently.

I am so under the influence, that I am thinking that I am no longer making any sense.

But, yeah, let's bury "Borrow and Spend" Republicans. Why isn't there a third party of "Tax and Save"? They might get some votes in this century.

[9th Engineer]

In my perfect world I'd definately like to see a tax system like Dana suggested, as well as inheritence taxes funding a merit based system of scholorships for education and afterschool programs to supliment school ciriculums (kind of like subsidized intense study schools). I wish society had to obey the Law of Conservation, you get out exactly what you put in, schools and work would be the converter for effort into rewards. But unfortunately humans are, at this point, incapable of operating under a better system than what we have now on large scales. It gets easier with smaller and smaller groups (one reason why I don't think you can compare the health care of a small country to one with 100 times its population), but human nature rules out a completely just system of government on any level. What we have is pretty good, needs to be tweaked, but doesn't need an overhaul in my opinion.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Rock Steady

But, yeah, let's bury "Borrow and Spend" Republicans. Why isn't there a third party of "Tax and Save"? They might get some votes in this century.

Because that would be silly. The government shouldn't be saving money; it should figure out what it intends to spend, and tax the appropriate amount to pay for it.