Iriemon

Yet that is what happens every year we pay taxes on our income.

Why should it be OK to single someone out and say they don't deserve to have what they do when it comes to income, but it is not OK with when it comes to inheritance?

This is true, it's probably about 3% higher taxes on working folks to make up the difference. Though of course currently its just adding on to the debt.

Irrelevant to whether there should be an inheritance tax.

__________________
Matthew 5:9

Iriemon

Sure. Don't you remember Bush slashing taxes on the basis that we were going to have all those years of surpluses that would pay down the debt?

Revenue have to come from somewhere. If the Paris Hiltons don't have to pay it on their inheritance, then someone else does, unless you think debt is a great thing.

That fellow should be concerned. Because the Govt has stolen over $2 trillion from the SS trust fund to fund the deficits, there's a good chance that fellow won't be getting the benefit he's expecting.

Because the pass the buck generation has blown the SS trust fund, part of the $9 trillion in debt, it will be an interesting battle fought between the baby boomers and gen-x and beyond. The boomer generation, who have had decades of lower taxes financed by a huge debt, will en masse want to sharply raise taxes to pay for their retirement benefits, as well as the necessary interest on their debt. The Gen-xers will balk at the sharply higher tax rates required, and want to slash boomer pension and health benefits.

A titanic inter-generational struggle is coming, thanks to the fiscal irresponsibility of pass the buck leaders like Ron, George and George. Alas, it could have been avoided.

Mr. X

But isn't, at least a small part of your argument, based on the fairness and equity of this tax? That's the only reason I mentioned it. I don't want to derail the subject of discussion, but to say an advocacy of a flat tax has no relevance to the inheritance tax, or any other form of tax, isn't accurate.

__________________
Hell is other people.

Patrickt

"Revenue have to come from somewhere. If the Paris Hiltons don't have to pay it on their inheritance, then someone else does, unless you think debt is a great thing."

You seem to be under the impression there is a specific amount of money the government needs and they tax to raise that amount and when they get enough, well, golly, they're done. In fact, it's the other way around. They raise all they can and then set a budget to spend it.

I worked for years and saved my money. I really would like to leave it to people I love so they can spend it. Some are family and some aren't. I understand that some of you would rather the government take it and spend it. It's easy for people to be jealous of Paris Hilton or, for that matter, me. It's so much easier than working and living within your means.

Let's face it. People love a tax, that's on someone else. John Kerry pays a lower tax rate than I do and he thinks my taxes should go up. Senator Kennedy has overseas trust funds to protect his family's money so he feels comfortable taking mine and buying votes with it. Folks, it's getting old.

Iriemon

If you think a flat tax is fair, why if it fair that a worker pay a higher 25% flat so the Parises pay -0-% tax on their inheritances?

Iriemon

Yes. The Govt needs revenues equivalent to expenditures, or else it has to borrow.

I disagree with your contention that Govt spending is closely correlated to revenues. In the late 90s, the Govt had higher relative revenues, but did not spend more, and there was a surplus that was paying down the debt. In the 00s taxes were slashed, and revenues plummeted accordingly. Despite having less revenues, the Govt spent faster. Result: $3 trillion more debt since 2001.

My employer worked hard for his money. He would love to give some of it to me in exchange for the work I do. Why should the Govt take and spend the money my employer worked for, and so have to pay me a higher salary, so that Paris can inherit money she did not earn tax free?

I certainly agree that tax loopholes that allow folks like Kerry and Cheney to pay lower rates of tax that you and I is obsence. If Kerry and Cheney paid tax rates even equivalent to ours, our tax rates could go down. We are paying higher taxes to subsidize tax breaks for the likes of Cheney and Kerry. It is old. No debate about that here.

Patrickt

Iriemon: The money your boss gives you to work is probably not a gift. You can test this easily by not showing up for work again and seeing if the "gift" continues. I am assuming, you work is also not a gift and the day you don't get a paycheck your "gift" of work would stop.

Mr. X

The basis of the inheritance tax, or any tax, should not be to screw the Paris Hilton's of the world. What I support is taxing any earned income at an equal rate. Of course a floor would have to be drawn under which taxes aren't paid, but that's common sense. Where that floor should be and what the percentage should be are both worthy of debate.

If somebody is fortunate enough to be born to wealthy parents, or snatched from some third world country for a fashionable celebrity adoption, well bully for them. I'm not going to say that we should structure a tax system because of them.

We're trading on anecdotes here and that's not going to accomplish anything. Everybody I know is a worker, but that's probably just because I'm not fashionable enough to get invited to the really good parties. I've seen photos of Paris Hilton so presumably she exists, but she seems more like a Tom Wolfe creation than a real person I would use to buttress an argument.

Money should be taxed when it's earned. That's my point. If your parents earn money, it should be taxed. If they die and leave some of it behind to you than that should be where that money goes.

Iriemon

That is the gist of it. Why should a transfer based upon services be taxed but a transfer based upon a gift not be taxed. It is income to the recepient either way.

If we aren't going to tax gifts, I'll just tell my employer to stop paying me wages and give me gifts instead.

Iriemon

I agree, the tax Paris pays should be equivalent to what someone who work pays.

Bully for them. But I'm not willing to pay higher taxes (or go more into debt) just so they can pay no tax.

LOL is anything every accomplished here?

What is the basis for asserting earned income should be taxed but unearned income should not be taxed? Seems to me if anything it should be the other way around. If you have any belief in a metrocracy, those who work and earn should be taxed less than those who do not.