Iriemon

First you whine because I claim gave short shift to your conclusory post.

So I say OK, I'll debate it seriously, and I do and ask you to explain how I am being "coersive" and how your point is an argument for exempting the inheritance tax versus any other tax.

Instead of attempting to defend your undefendable position, you punt by saying "reread the thread."

Well golly, we can all see now who it is that is really cutting and running with their tail between their legs.

Anyone who wants to seriously debate the inheritance tax I'll be happy to do so.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

ARealConservative

The debate was about the use of the term "unearned" and your coercion.

Iriemon

I repeat my position. I'll be happy to seriously debate the inheritance tax with anyone who wants to do so. I'm not going back to reread the whole thread to guess at your meaning.

My last post stands:

"That is the case for all taxes. How is that an argument that there should be no tax on inheritance?"

ARealConservative

it's all contained on page 1 - but I do understand your reluctance.

Iriemon

I reviewed pages 1 and 2, I adressed your points and stand by my posts.

Liberal-conservative

A very signifigant difference, as a matter of fact. If one were to follow your logic, one would tax one million individuals on their income, all of whom could pay a small fraction of the overall tax revenue, and then find a very small minority of individuals, 100 individuals for example, and tax them on a seperate income external to work, essentially dividing the tax revenue amongst 100 individuals and therefore increasing the burden that each of those tax-paying individuals has to bear. The government could tax a million individuals 1 dollar on their income per month, and receive one million dollars for the month in tax revenue, where if the government were to tax the group of 100 individuals on their inheritance, each individual would have to pay 10,000 dollars each. Each worker only has to pay 1 dollar a month to make up the same tax revenue that each inheritance recipiant would have to contribute 10,000 dollars to. If two individuals in the nation were recieving money through different means again, would the government need to tax them half a million dollars each per month? Of course not. This if of course a hypothetical situation, in which both demographic groups are paying the same amount of tax revenue regardless of the large difference in numbers between the two, which is unlikely to be the case, but it certainly serves to prove my point. This is why the inheritance tax in unfair, aside from the plethora of other more moral reasons, such as those pertaining property rights, individual rights, and indeed, any form of liberty whatsoever. This is the 'difference it makes how often it happens'.

Yes, there will. But under your scheme, most of it will go the government, and the recipiants great grandfather who started out living in the gutter and worked his way up to own his own factory and become rich so that he may give his money to his relatives when he died is probably rolling in his grave when 50 percent of his money is being given to a bunch of pot-smoking lay-abouts, sitting at home watching Jerry Springer and faking two broken legs just so that they can get unemployment benefits. Enough said.

If the government cuts spending, everyone will benefit, not just inheritance recipiants. I don't understand where the arguement is here.

What difference does it make if I choose to give my money - my property - to one individual as opposed to another individual? What difference does it make if I choose to give my money to my own relative, as opposed to a family in Africa half way around the globe? Whether I give that money to one individual or another is irrelevant; their own personal financial well-being is also irrelevant, because I am the only person who decides to whom my own personal belongings will be given, I am the only one who decides who needs that money the most, I am the only one whose priority matters in the transfer of my own money because it is my property, and my property alone. This is an inaliable right. If inheritance is taxed, why shouldn't donations be taxed? This truly holds a candle to the anti-rich bias of the Left - when money is given to those in need, they dance around singing praises, but if it's going to a white, middle class suburbanite, then they fire from the guard towers and want to levy rediculous taxes. Predictable. If its my money, it goes only to who I decide - only to who I decide.

__________________
"Abortion is advocated only by people who have themselves been born"

"When I first joined the militairy, it was illegal to be a homosexual. Then it became optional. I'm getting out before it becomes mandatory"

Iriemon

No one is or has ever suggested that the inheritance tax rates be set so that the inheritance tax generates the same amount revenue as the income tax. Just the same rate of tax.

Your point has to do with expedentures, not how revenues are collected. It is irrelevant, and the same point could be made regarding the the income tax or any other tax.

It is not an argument as to why someone who inherets money should not be taxed.

Me neither. What the Govt spends has nothing to do with whether those who inherit should not have to pay taxes.

Yes, this is exactly my point. It makes no difference. If it makes no difference whether you give your money to Ben because you like him or John because he painted your house, why should the transaction with John be taxed if the one with Ben is not? Or conversely, why should the transaction with Ben not be taxed if the one with John is?

You can certainly make an argument that donations transactions should be taxed the same anything else, I can see the point. Why should a transaction be tax free because it goes to a church or charity? That just means eveything else is taxed more to make up the difference.

chevydriver1123

Well there inheriter didnt earn the money he or she just got the money. Simliar to winning the lottery he or she didnt earn that money they got it. So I understand the reasoning behind it.

__________________
Examples of social/religious conservatism: Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE

Examples of fiscal liberalism: Cuba, Venezuela, Europe

Voidwar

Pure classism.