why should the government get two cracks at money when there was no exchange in value. Gifts should never be taxed, they are not income and they are not an exchange for value.
Well if we're going to go that route, why should the government get two cracks at money where there was an exchange in value? If we start going down that road, then pretty soon there will be no taxes at all, which great as that would be, is obviously impossible. The federal government taxes income. I want them to tax it all equally, regardless of the source.
the people who whine about inheritances are generally those who are mad they didn't get one
That may apply to some. It doesn't apply to me. My wife and I received a fairly decent sized inheritance last year.
why do you spend so much time justifying the government taking yet more money from other people
I'm not trying to justify the government taking more money from people. At least not in the sense that I think you're talking about, i.e. increasing total tax revenue as a whole. If you're simply asking why I'm suggesting a plan that results in some people paying more and others paying less than in the current system, then that's just a stupid question. Any plan that changes anything about the tax code would result in some paying more and some paying less.
do you honestly believe that the government actually needs more money?
For the time being, yes, probably. If we're going to get the debt paid off any time soon then more tax revenue is probably going to be part of it. I'm absolutely in favor of cutting government spending too though. And in the long term, once the debt is paid down to a much more reasonable number, then I do think that government spending and revenue could go down somewhat.
But I'm not suggesting just taxing capital gains and inheritance at the same rate as income and leaving it there. I'm suggesting that as part of restructuring the tax system as a whole. A restructuring that would be revenue neutral. So while tax rates on capital gains and inheritance would go up, income tax rates would drop for many to compensate (though they'd go up a little for some of the lower-income people most likely).
and the only people raped by the inheritance taxes are those who are the top bracket payers anyway. the vast majority of people don't pay it-why should only a small group get hit with this-the group that pays more taxes than most of the rest of the country combined?
Well for one, because the only people receiving large amounts of cash in an inheritance are the very wealthy. A lot of people that receive inheritances DO pay taxes on at least part of it, even if it isn't strictly called an 'inheritance tax'. For example, a lot of what my wife and I inherited was proceeds on the sale of her parents' home, and her mother's IRA. We paid capital gains tax on the money from selling the house, and because we chose not to roll over the IRA and instead use it to pay off our student loan debt, we paid income tax on that. So although the amount wasn't enough to pay either state or federal inheritance tax on, we did indeed end up paying a decent chunk of money in taxes on the inheritance we received.
inheritance, estate, or death taxes are nothing more than a surcharge on the top tax payers
A problem which my suggestion would solve, by requiring nearly everyone who inherited money to pay income tax on it.
