- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 120,954
- Reaction score
- 28,531
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
You are confusing my position. I am NOT saying that inheritance is income under the present law. It clearly is treated differently under its own estate law codes and rates. I was agreeing with the position of Turtle and others that we should abolish the estate taxes and my idea was to simply apply all that new money going into persons pocket or account as INCOME with a new law and apply the appropriate rates.
As to the exchange of value, Turtle keeps insisting this is necessary for taxation and I keep asking where he gets this from.
Thank you for acknowledging that my example of repeated taxation of the same money happens all the time and is right and proper. It matters not if the law sees it as income or ot under the law, the principle is a valid one: the same money is taxed repeatedly under our system and to do so for capital gains or inheritance is no deviation from that principle.