The rates I quoted are indeed real and not fantasy.
no, they aren't. none of them exist in the
real world. what
does exist in the
real world are effective tax rates. in the
real world, your claim the wealthy who pay taxes on capital gains are being subsidized through lower rates is
not true.
You do not like that I gave all three examples with no other deductions.
no, I am fine with that. I do not like that you insist on pretending that such rates
actually apply to anyone in the
real world when not only do all logic, reason, and law bely the claim; but I have specifically cited the CBO
and the IRS demonstrating the
degree of falsity in the your claim.
You might have a point if I took them for one category but not for the others. But my not considering deductions was applied evenly to ALL THREE EXAMPLES
you are correct. all three examples are equal in the fact that they are
all false.
As has been explained to you time and time again, laws take that into consideration and establish those parameters and definitions. Today there are limits on non taxable gifts. There would be under my proposal also.
not true, for the simple reason that you assert an artificial value limit to such gifts at which point they become taxable, but you do not apply it to all gifts. College Education, for example, often costs
way above the tax free gift limit, as do the annual costs of raising a child; yet you do not wish to tax these and you are unable to explain why.
WHY is it different if a Parent gives his 21 year old adult child $48,000 in the form of an education subsidy v giving him $48,000 in the form of an automobile or cash?
Your argument about destruction is highly selective. If my wealth is in money, I have to "destroy" (to use your word) some of it to pay my tax obligations.
no, you are missing the issue that was pointed out to you. losing 35% of $8 million dollars does not weaken the value of the next 65%. It
does do so when you are taking 35% of an $8 million dollar small business or farm operation; and in the case of the small business, it could easily require it's destruction, and the firing of all of it's employees. You continue to avoid answering the question of why blue-collar employees should suffer so that you can collect more taxes from the grieving families of small business owners.
That is simple reality and the way things are. So if a person inherits farm land or real estate why should they be any different or in some protected class?
not at all. we shouldn't tax inheritance. for many reasons, the destruction it wrecks on the portion of our economy that is both most dynamic and creates most of our new jobs being one of them.
One other poster alleges the same thing. But we have seen nothing to support this claim.
sure - the uber rich have enough wealth to justify keeping it in trusts, protected by expensive lawyers and accountants. That, for example, is how Buffet protects
his wealth from taxation.
You think Paris Hilton is going to pay up 35% of her daddy's money minus $5 mil? HAH. No, the only fortunes the current measure destroys are those in the process of being built, which are not yet enough to protect themselves thus. That's how the estate tax protects the uber rich against competition - by securing their fortune against competition which must struggle against a tax burden which it does not face.