Iriemon

However you want to characterize it; if you eliminate estate taxes as a source of revenue it means that others are paying more taxes

Why does this proposition apply more to an inheritance than earned income?

"I" as an individual has no right to decide how a person disposes of his income. The Govt certainly does.

How the Govt spends tax revenues is a separate issue. The issue here relates to collecting tax revenue.

Why does this proposition apply more to an inheritance than earned income?

I'll agree with that general proposition.

Why does this proposition apply more to an inheritance than earned income?

And a person who inherits assets has not been taxed on that transfer.

That is what every law is. That is what society is. One block of people imposing their moral outlook upon another.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Iriemon

It is absolutely relevant. How is someone who is working and paying taxes getting an unfair or free ride? If working folk should be paying their fair share of taxes, why shouldn't prople who are transferred a bunch of money without working for it not pay their fair share of taxes for it? You could make an argument that they should pay more taxes because they did not earn it, and in a meritocracy, if any would get a tax privilege, it should be those who worked for and earned it.

AcePylut

No, it means others are paying their “fair” share of the taxes (assuming that each dollar of income is taxed at the same rate as the next tax of income… thus the quotes around “fair”)

Income and inheritance are not the same thing. Income has already been taxed. Taxing inheritance is double-taking one’s choice of how to dispose of his income.

You are arguing that you have a right to tell someone that his already-taxed income can be taxed again, based on his decision on how to dispose of that already-taxed income.
On this thread, the gov’t isn’t arguing how to dispose on one’s income, “you” are, and you are trying to get a bunch of people on your side to decide how to dispose of someone else’s income, to make this for-the-people-of-the-people-by-the-people gov’t to force your moral outlook on someone else.

Yes, and that you want to support a system of taxation that doulbe-taxes income.
That is the issue.

The income has already been taxed.

[/quote]

No it’s not. Our gov’t exists to prevent one person from imposing their will upon another person.

That we may have laws that allow one person to impose their will upon another, again, is the heart of this matter. That it exists does not somehow make it “right”.

The only “fair” form of taxation is to tax each and every dollar of income the same as the every other dollar of income. Inheritance is not “income”.

__________________
http://www.debatepolitics.com/forum-...rum-rules.html

Disruptive behavior, such as personal attacks, can lead to temporary or permanent revocation of posting privileges.

Be noted: I will not accept any personal attacks directed towards me. If you want to discuss a topic with me, you will do it in a civil manner or you will be reported to the moderators, no exceptions.

AcePylut

Because not every dollar is taxed at the same rate as the next dollar. That is what's "unfair". When every dollar earned is taxed at the same rate as the next dollar, fairness exists.

Inheritance is the disposal of already-taxed income. To tax it twice, merely based on the choice the disposer makes, is not taxation. It's theft. If I go out and bust my arse to making a million "taxed" dollars - you, me, my neighbor, etc. has no right to tax that money again, because of who I choose to give it to.

Voidwar

I never said this at all, so that makes it a strawman or just a misconception on your part. Either way, its poppycock. They should pay the same rate as you do, and if they are richer than you by X % then their tax contribution will br larger by X %.


No, I didn't. Another misconception of yours, or deliberate ,mis-statement ??

I claimed they were working Americans. I did not claim their work built their inheritance

Voidwar

Make up the difference ? Like that weathly person's money was ever yours in the first place. Your working folks choose to hose the wealthy rather than pull their own wagon. Anyone who is for a progressive tax is saying I'd like that rich guy to do my share of the wagon pulling. If there IS a difference to be "made-up", if there's someone walking with the pall bearers but not lifting the casket, I think thats the poor, not the wealthy.

Voidwar

What an unsavory performance..

Deliberately obtuse about the difference between a gift and pay for services.

Deliberately ignoring the real parallel, that of Joe Schmoe's Kid's Christmas present money. Joe Schmoe would not direct the Taxman to demand a slice of his neighbor's kids christmas present, but envious lefties will try to tell Joe that stealing isn't stealing if the victim has a lot of money.

Iriemon

What is "fair" is a separate issue.

I agree that income and inheritance are not the same thing. But not because of double taxation. Taxing an inheritance is no more double taking of one' choice on how to dispose of his income than taxing payment for services rendered.

I've stated several times that I agree it is the heir or beneficiary that should be taxed, not the estate. But the double tax issues doesn't hold a lot of water for the deceased -- he's dead.

You mean that when the Govt taxes income, that is not arguing how to dispose of one's income, but if the Govt taxes inheritance, that is arguing how to dispose of one's income? How so?

But I guess it is true that I am arguing for my moral outlook -- IMO it is moral that someone who receives a transfer of assets by gift, inheritance or bequest pays a tax at least roughly equivalent to someone who receives a transfer of assets because he worked for it and earned it; or else the worker is paying more taxes so that the form doesn't have to pay any.

No, I support a tax system that taxes transfers of assets.

The income has already been taxed for the person who receives pay for services too. So what?

Then why can't I legally smoke a joint?

Whether it is "right" is a matter of opinion. I've explained mine.

It is not "fair," IMO, to tax monies needed for necessities the same as monies not needed for necessities. We are discussing precisely this issue in this thread if you want to join in:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...tml#post566050 (Clinton: Shared Prosperity Should Replace 'On Your Own' Society)

rathi

Thats the sort of thinking that directly led to the French revolution. Feudalism was a stupid idea that only lasted when military power was in the hands of knights or samurai. Otherwise the poor simply overwhelm the rich with violence and pillage all their wealth.

Strangely enough, poor people who have move into poverty from such a tax plan, don't consider that "fair."

However, under an inheritance tax, income tax would be reduced my the same amount. So you would have extra money while you alive, but have to pay it back when you are dead. It would be like having a loan that you only have to pay when you are dead.

__________________
He'd be right at home on some ancient battlefield, swinging an axe into somebody's face.

Iriemon

I'm not sure how that explains that working people who pay taxes are getting a free ride. But if you want to discuss the pros and cons of a progressive tax structure, I'll debate you in the other thread. I just don't want to regurgitate the same stuff over again here.

So is payment for services. Explain to me why it hasn't.

No more than the taxation of payment for services.

Your neighbor and I don't, I agree. But the Govt does. It has just as much right to tax the person you give money to as it does to tax the person you pay money to.

Explain to me why, under your "double taxation" arguement, money you pay to someone to paint your house is somehow not "double-taxed," if you claim the exact same money you give to someone is.