NAKED N00B
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2012
- Messages
- 386
- Reaction score
- 224
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Encourages spending.why? justification?
Encourages spending.why? justification?
Encourages spending.
By government? perhaps- or to get people to buy land and art before they die?
that's not much of a justification
Question: If I run a local restaurant and ten people come in and purchase food and drink totaling $200.00, and several of them work for government and use their government salaries to pay me, how do I know the difference in their money or their impact upon my business?
Question: If I run a local restaurant and ten people come in and purchase food and drink totaling $200.00, and several of them work for government and use their government salaries to pay me, how do I know the difference in their money or their impact upon my business?
I cannot see the relevance of that comment to the death tax issue. and taking money from someone so others can buy stuff is not a justification based on your implied theory that the owner or an estate won't spend as much as if the estate had been plundered and given to constiutents of the plunderer
Not knowing they were government employees. How do you know if they work in a government position that is PORKED IN, which has driven up you taxes in more ways than Federal Income Tax, which takes money directly out of your profits and persnal earnings?
Just saying, HM...not trying to side with anybody's position...just responding to your hypothetical situation.
This, of course, , IN MY OPINION, is absolutely true.The normal knee-jerk response would be true, but those who have been paying close attention are well aware that it is false.
Government's track record has been to spend every penny it taxes, prints, borrows and steals and is forever seeking more-more-more.
How would anyone attempt to make that determination?
I will concede that in any area of employment, there are people working who perhaps have pork jobs which are net entirely on the up and up. That would be true for government as well as the private sector. Prices of products could also have been driven up by such inefficiencies and waste. No doubt about it. When any of them spends money, there is not way to separate that or its impact upon who gets the money.
By government? perhaps- or to get people to buy land and art before they die?
that's not much of a justification
There isn't any distinction to draw between spending through the public sector and spending through the private sector. If there were a Freedom of Information Act that applied to corporations, corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse would be found there to be simply rampant, institutionalized, and openly tolerated. And all of it worked to the significant detriment of consumers -- who are the very same people as the taxpayers, just by the way.
Haymarket's example opens the door to a simple realization though. If you are about average, then 20-25% of what nutjobs try to claim as their own "hard-earned money" was actually the direct or closely indirect result of government spending.
Inheritance money has already been taxed as income and that is why I think it should not be taxed again if the owner passes away.
Well, you are talking about paying it to someone else. Yes, if I pay someone to do something for me then that money should be taxed because that's the way it works. Inheritance is not paying it to anyone else, it's giving. If I would decide that I want to give my brother $1000, nothing will be taxed. But suddenly when I die the money somehow has to be taxed? It's a gift. Another example: imagine I told my brother that I was going to buy a car for him. If I would give my brother a new car of, let's say, $25.000, then the money would be taxed, right? After all, you're buying something so it should be taxed. But what if I would die before I could buy him that car, and in my testament, it was clear that I wanted $25.000 of my savings to go to my brother. Then suddenly, it has to be taxed? My brother would want to buy the car I was going to get him, but wait a second, now it gets taxed twice? First he has to pay the inheritance tax and then he also has to pay the taxes for the car! Notice that the car and the money are the same thing: a gift with a net worth of $25.000. But suddenly when I die, it get taxed twice. That's why I feel like inheritance money shouldn't be taxed.It is a NEW owner who is taxed on NEW money coming into their pocket or account that they did not previously have. The fact that somebody else once earned it or acquired it in some manner and paid previous taxes as their own legal obligation is irrelevant. Money is taxed again and again and again and again all the time when it changes hands from one owner to a new owner. That is simply the way money works. The fact that you got your paycheck and paid taxes on it in no way shape or form impacts me when you pay me some of that same money and now it is my income for me to pay my tax obligation upon it. And when I pay it to a third person down the line, they in turn will have their obligation to pay tax upon it. And so on and so on and so on down the line. That is simply the nature of money transferring from one legal owner to the next.
Well, you are talking about paying it to someone else. Yes, if I pay someone to do something for me then that money should be taxed because that's the way it works. Inheritance is not paying it to anyone else, it's giving. If I would decide that I want to give my brother $1000, nothing will be taxed. But suddenly when I die the money somehow has to be taxed? It's a gift. Another example: imagine I told my brother that I was going to buy a car for him. If I would give my brother a new car of, let's say, $25.000, then the money would be taxed, right? After all, you're buying something so it should be taxed. But what if I would die before I could buy him that car, and in my testament, it was clear that I wanted $25.000 of my savings to go to my brother. Then suddenly, it has to be taxed? My brother would want to buy the car I was going to get him, but wait a second, now it gets taxed twice? First he has to pay the inheritance tax and then he also has to pay the taxes for the car! Notice that the car and the money are the same thing: a gift with a net worth of $25.000. But suddenly when I die, it get taxed twice. That's why I feel like inheritance money shouldn't be taxed.
Because it isn't earned, it's a gift. So, according to you, I am allowed to buy a car for someone and get taxed only once but when I decide to give him the money to buy one himself instead, it suddenly has to get taxed twice?Inheritance is the transfer of money from one owner to a new owner. That makes it new money to the new owner and should be taxed.
As to gifts, the law makes exceptions for gifts and should do that. We certainly do NOT want to get in the silly situation of taxing normal gifts from one person to another. The law can set reasonable limits under which the tad would NOT apply.
As to your example of the inherited money and the purchase of the car with it. How is that any different than me or you earning our wages - which we pay tax upon - and then buying a car which we pay sales tax upon even though it was purchased with the money we already paid taxed upon?
Because it isn't earned, it's a gift. So, according to you, I am allowed to buy a car for someone and get taxed only once but when I decide to give him the money to buy one himself instead, it suddenly has to get taxed twice?
Because it isn't earned, it's a gift. So, according to you, I am allowed to buy a car for someone and get taxed only once but when I decide to give him the money to buy one himself instead, it suddenly has to get taxed twice?
You are correct-income is not the same as a gift. There is no transaction involving an exchange for value with a bequeath. It should not be taxed again. And in some cases, such as a grandparent dying and his child and spouse dying tragically shortly thereafter, the government gets two cuts at the same pool of money before it has a chance to regenerate.
its an evil tax and those who argue so vehemently for its continued existence you have to wonder about
You are confusing a sales tax upon the car - which is different than a income tax on my salary or an inheritance tax upon the transfer of wealth. They are two different things. We all pay lots and lots of taxes on different things with the money which is our main source of income that has already been taxed in a different fashion or through a separate tax.
Again, for a time beyond count, you bring up this "exchange of value" stuff. Where does this come from? Why are you treating it as some rule or law when it is neither? This is the same irrelevancy that has been brought up before and smashed and trashed before. It means nothing.
New money going into someones pocket or account is the same regardless if it is wages, capital gains or inheritance. It is impossible to tell the difference without knowing the source since it looks the same and spends the same. The only difference is the source and the preferential and discriminatory treatment one receives that the other does not receive.
because you are the one who wants to treat a bequeath as income and taxed the same.
I realize this wasn't addressed to me, but I feel the same (that inheritance should just be treated as income) so I thought I'd ask a question.
In your mind, what makes inherited money enough different than money earned as income that it should be treated as a special case in the tax code?