im ok with the government taxing income

2/10/2007 4:01:33 PM

sounds good to me. TAKE WHAT YOU WANT!!! AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT!!!

2/10/2007 4:35:18 PM

thats not what im saying. you are making an ideological argument based on the idea of this money already having been taxed. its a false argument, its income just the same.

ill probably agree with you a lot if we want to talk about lowering taxes, but that is beside this issue

2/10/2007 5:48:26 PM

so by this logic, your parents are better off buying you a new car, or house instead of leaving you money, just to avoid taxes? that way you cant consider it income? I think it wrong to be doubled tax and penalize people for doing the right thing..saving money and trying to provide for further generations. Instead, if they just pissed away all thier money, they wont be penalized by the govt. In fact, they will get free healthcare and a nursinghome.

2/10/2007 8:46:33 PM

well, spending money is good for the economy.

2/10/2007 9:22:08 PM

ehhh, not so much.

Saving and/or investing money is better for the economy than spending it.

2/10/2007 10:04:04 PM

investing and saving are not the same thing.

[Edited on February 10, 2007 at 10:35 PM. Reason : saving is smart on a personal level but too much of it is bad.]

2/10/2007 10:32:52 PM

Quote :

"so by this logic, your parents are better off buying you a new car, or house instead of leaving you money, just to avoid taxes? that way you cant consider it income? I think it wrong to be doubled tax and penalize people for doing the right thing..saving money and trying to provide for further generations. Instead, if they just pissed away all thier money, they wont be penalized by the govt. In fact, they will get free healthcare and a nursinghome."

your parents are dead, they aren't being penalized.

2/10/2007 10:45:59 PM

Quote :

"investing and saving are not the same thing."

What do you think the bank does with your money when you deposit it?

Take an economics class, plz

2/10/2007 11:03:28 PM

the hell they aren't being penalized. they are being penalized for being smart with their money instead of pissing it all away before they died

2/10/2007 11:57:35 PM

Dead? are you serious? Well I am way off base then, thank you. I would assume in thier LIVING years they couldnt give away thier money in the form of "gifts" so their money wouldnt go to the govt but to thier loved ones.

2/11/2007 12:00:44 AM

they can give gifts all they want. they just shouldn't cry about dead people being unfailry taxed. Because they are dead and dead people don't have feelings or concerns since they are dead.

2/11/2007 12:04:52 AM

insightful thanks. But how should we tax the unicorns?

2/11/2007 12:07:50 AM

ok nuts, I assume you are in college so Ill try to put it on terms you might understand. Lets say you bought a new ipod. Your little sister loves your ipod so you tell her she can have it when you die. And when you die the govt takes your ipod, and gives your sister the headphones. Now, since you are dead and all, this doesnt bother you, i know. However, lets say the govt tells you ahead of time that they are going to take your ipod and give you sis the headphones...so now, while living, would that piss you off?

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 12:12 AM. Reason : mispelling]

2/11/2007 12:11:58 AM

I graduated from college. Based upon that horrible analogy, I'm going to assume then you are a mongoloid.

Quote :

"But how should we tax the unicorns?"

The same way you tax any other mythical creature. You don't. We don't tax churches, so why should we tax unicorns?

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 12:14 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 12:14:04 AM

So you didnt follow the analogy? What didnt you like about it.

2/11/2007 12:18:55 AM

if you give your little sister a sum of money while you are still alive she reports it appropriately with her income and it is taxed (i understand that is a very simply explanation, but if you read some of the posts you'll realize im just trying not to go over someone's head)

if you die and leave her this money it is income to her, so why should it not be taxed? because you were leaving it out of the goodness of your heart? well then fuck, i'll just stop working for my salary and tell me boss to pay me in good hearted gifts so they cant be taxed.

2/11/2007 12:38:51 AM

Quote :

"So you didnt follow the analogy? What didnt you like about it."

because it is specious at best.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 12:48 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 12:48:39 AM

Estate taxes can wipe out small businesses and family farms.

Let's say you have a family business. Let's say you die with assets worth $3 million which pass to your heirs. Now you didn't actually have $3 million dollars. That's just the total worth of the business and all your money & stuff. The tax on your estate would be about $460,000... due right now...not later.

If you cannot come up with that cash, the business and other assets must be liquidated to pay the tax. A business that took a lifetime to build can be destroyed almost instantly by the death tax. All of the asset-rich and cash-poor small businesses in the country are at risk.

The death tax encourages a "die-broke" mentality. Wealth accumulation is the fuel of growth. It should not be dumped all over the ground in frantic consumption to avoid the evil death tax.

2/11/2007 2:24:32 AM

no they can't. now shut the fuck up.

the cap is 4 million. likewise, it is still income to the recipient. I don't understand your problem here. are you that dense?


I'm sure old people just think, fuck it, I was going to give this to my kids, but the death tax is after me, so I'm going to buy a shit ton of coke and go to town?

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 2:30 AM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 2:29:03 AM

I hate taxes as much as the next guy, but selecting the estate tax seems arbitrary. The government taxes money pretty much everytime it changes hands: when you earn it, when you spend it, corporations are taxed on profits they earn from the products you buy, etc, etc... Why is the estate tax especially heinous?

Incidently, you should die broke. If you want to leave assets to your children, there are ways to do so that do not involve dying and letting the government do it for you. A little planning and foresight should make estate taxes a non-issue for most people.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 9:20 AM. Reason : ]

2/11/2007 9:19:40 AM

So you get $3M in assets and all you owe is $460k? Sign me up.

All you have to do is borrow against the assets and pay off the tax over time.

Passing wealth from generation to generation is not a very positive thing. This is a meritocracy, not an aristocracy.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 10:08 AM. Reason : ?]

2/11/2007 10:07:18 AM

"Passing wealth from generation to generation is not a very positive thing."

What? Providing for your family is a terrible thing. Its better to pass wealth from workers to nonworkers. LOL

Specious? How so? They are both personal property? It has been paid for, and the govt wants more. congrats on your degree, sorry I assumed you were in college.

2/11/2007 11:42:04 AM

someone make the argument for how this is not an income tax, i dont understand your position

2/11/2007 12:39:14 PM

Quote :

" Specious? How so? They are both personal property? It has been paid for, and the govt wants more. congrats on your degree, sorry I assumed you were in college."

okay mongoloid. the fact that you used something that is non-dividable at first is the first problem. An ipod isn't like land or a liquid asset. Secondly, at no point would the government take control of the ipod then hand out the rest. Thridly, it is more on the lines of government takes headphones and leaves ipod for sister.

2/11/2007 3:43:02 PM

mongoloid again huh, how cute. First off, your INCOME once earned now becomes an asset, just like your ipod. You paid a tax to obtain that asset, and you dont pay taxes on those again. If you chose to give your ipod or other assets to anyone should that be taxed? So why tax one and not the other? Thats the problem I see, someone has already PAID the taxes on those assets and want to give them to thier family members when they pass. Why should they be taxed again?

Oh I think an ipod is pretty liquid, you could easily get cash for one.

Serious question then, do you claim the money you received for christmas?

2/11/2007 6:18:28 PM

Quote :

"If you chose to give your ipod or other assets to anyone should that be taxed? So why tax one and not the other? Thats the problem I see, someone has already PAID the taxes on those assets and want to give them to thier family members when they pass. Why should they be taxed again? "

Because it is income to the person you gave it to.

Also, I don't get cash at Christmas.

2/11/2007 6:22:06 PM

so would be giving the person an ipod or a car, on a larger scale a house. Where do you draw the line? do you just want to punish people who are successful?

Im sure if you did get money for christmas you would claim it. I bet you conviently dont get any money for your birthday as well.

2/11/2007 6:32:52 PM

I don't get money on my birthday. My family has this weird tradition of actually giving gifts. Furthermore, there is already a cap of $4 million. if the estate is under that it doesn't get taxed. Likewise, the recipient of the inheritance is being taxed, not the dead person. no one is being taxed for being sucessful, unless you call being dead sucessful.

2/11/2007 6:36:18 PM

You just said if the estate is over 4 million they get taxed. I dont know too many unsuccessful people who make over 4 million. The point is that whoever amassed the money has already PAID those taxes and the income is now an asset. If they want to give those assets to thier kids then there shouldnt be a penality to do so.

Amazing to have never received a check or cash in over 22 years of hollidays and birthdays.

2/11/2007 6:42:51 PM

you have a fucked up view of reality.

Having over 4 million dollars in the bank when you are done working is beyond "everyone who is successful"

2/11/2007 6:48:47 PM

Quote :

"You paid a tax to obtain that asset, and you dont pay taxes on those again."

Really so your telling me I can stop paying property taxes?

2/11/2007 6:50:08 PM

Quote :

"What? Providing for your family is a terrible thing. Its better to pass wealth from workers to nonworkers. LOL"

Providing for your family is good. But creating aristocracy is bad. There is nothing wrong with the estate tax except that the exemption is probably 2-4 times higher than it needs be.

I'm not sure what you mean about passing money from workers to non-workers. The gov't serves all quite well. Just ask Google and Halliburton.

To put this in perspective, only about 2% of estates are subject to the estate tax. Don't pretend that any of you have a dog in the fight against it. Us 98% are perfectly justified to wet our beaks after the 2% die. I wonder where their money came from anyway?

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:55 PM. Reason : ?]

2/11/2007 6:52:00 PM

^^^total assets and a bank account are two completely different things


ok fine, some of you people do not want to be wealthy, thats fine, whatever floats your boat, but this whole thing with class warfare , penalizing, and hating on people that want and strive to have something is completely retarded



whatever, by the time I have something "big enough" to worry about it will be taken care of, I'll die with not a dollar to my name

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:54 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 6:53:27 PM

haha, that would be great. But cash your paycheck and put it under your pillow. You wont pay taxes on it again. I promise.

If you want to argue what sucessful is, thats fine. To me the estate tax is wrong. Its wrong if it happens to anyone whether they make 4million or 40k. Ill never be in the position of having over 4million, most here wont either. But that doesnt make it right.

2/11/2007 6:54:25 PM

Class warfare? Cry me a fucking river. Don't flatter yourself into thinking you are on the other side of this issue.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:57 PM. Reason : ?]

2/11/2007 6:56:46 PM

Quote :

"But that doesnt make it right."

I can think of a million things that are no more right and a lot more harmful. We can repeal the estate tax when we repeal income taxes for the lower middle class (and below).

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ?]

2/11/2007 6:58:53 PM

Pat, you dont understand about passing money from workers to nonworkers? How can that be? It seems pretty simple. Tax=wealth redistribution. And with an income tax you punish people for being more successful and same with this estate tax.

2/11/2007 6:59:22 PM

The gov't only (or mostly) benefits non-workers?

2/11/2007 7:00:22 PM

quit double posting all the time, use your edit button


^^^^ yeah, class warfare... a bunch of "have nots" screaming at the "haves" which has been the popular thing today in "democrat culture"

oh btw tell me what side of an issue I am on since you seem to know me so goddamned well?

Quote :

"repeal income taxes for the lower middle class (and below)."

thats a good idea, but who is gonna pay for that change? Do you reall suppose the the govt is just gonna quit blowing money?

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 7:01 PM. Reason : stop double posting, damn it's aggravating to respond to]

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 7:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/11/2007 7:01:06 PM

class warfare?
lets talk about starving education, all social service programs, and advocating either an end to the minimum wage or never raising it again.
lets talk about advocating for more and more regressive taxes.

2/11/2007 7:04:00 PM

revolt, its a different discussion, but you do have a few good ideas. In case you havent seen the news, starving is the farthest from the truth on these social programs.. Only country with an obese "poor" population.

2/11/2007 7:09:41 PM

obessity is the largest healthcare crisis in america. Furthermore, the poor are obesse because they end up buying shit food that is unhealthy for them. They do not have the options of a healthier diet.

2/11/2007 7:14:45 PM

hahah, options of a healthier diet. Thanks, best laugh ive had in awhile. Food stamps only allow you to buy junk foods...classic. By no means should we expect some people to have some kind of responsibilities.

2/11/2007 7:37:49 PM

Quote :

"oh btw tell me what side of an issue I am on since you seem to know me so goddamned well?"

The same side everybody at NCSU is on.

Quote :

"thats a good idea, but who is gonna pay for that change? "

Who paid for raising the estate tax exemption? Who paid for the Bush taxcuts? If you believe the bushies, it will spur such economic growth that we'll end up with more revenue.

Quote :

"a bunch of "have nots" screaming at the "haves""

It's really that simple? I'd say it's the 98% vs. the 2%. I'd say it's the strong protecting the weak.

[Edited on February 11, 2007 at 7:43 PM. Reason : ?]

2/11/2007 7:41:54 PM

Quote :

"hahah, options of a healthier diet. Thanks, best laugh ive had in awhile. Food stamps only allow you to buy junk foods...classic. By no means should we expect some people to have some kind of responsibilities."

every poor person is on foodstamps. Let's look at the school lunches being offered these kids. cheaper food is food that is high in fructose corn syrup and trans fats. this is fact.

2/11/2007 7:54:12 PM

You said, they do not have the option to eat healthy. If you believe that, then god help you. Its a funny thing, but most processed foods actually cost more. I suppose people dont know cigs are unhealthy too?

I am curious as to what field you work in. It has to be social work or teaching. I would still venture you are young and naive. I dont understand how someone can come to the conclusions you continue to produce. I dont mean that as an insult, im just puzzled by your views.

2/11/2007 8:24:39 PM

Beyond the stupidity of it, and its implications for the incentives of older Americans (who create the most jobs for the younger Americans):

Quote :

"to answer said question, what need have you of your money when you are dead? after (presumably) giving the best health care, education, etc that you could afford to your children, why shouldnt it go to help society? i would love to see a system where you were allowed to pass on a certain, reasonable amount to your children, and then either all the rest goes to government or you could give it to charity and avoid the tax. ((commence head spinning))"

This is not enforceable in any reasonable way. If this were the case, they would simply dump their money in other ways, and you can bet your sweet ass it wouldn't be to the government. They would buy businesses and run them into the ground (but in a reversible way), then give them to their heirs and pay the gift tax on them at their cheap levels and have their heirs reverse the damage.

If you think a 100% (or close to it after a "reasonable" amount) is desirable, I fear for you. If you think it is plausible, I fear for your brain.

2/11/2007 8:38:04 PM

eyedrb,
you seem to be an expert so could you please explain to me how this is not an income tax. im trying to see the other side of this issue but so far all of the arguments of points that i can read ignore that this is an income tax.

2/11/2007 8:38:10 PM

guth, by no means am I an expert, I am just stating what seems fair. The way I would answer your question is that the income tax has already been paid on that money. It is now an asset, so when the person dies they have already paid the taxes on it and shouldnt have to pay more. That money is thiers,just the same as any painting or car they also had bought and willed to a relative. I understand the opinion that it is the next persons income, but I disagree. Do you claim your christmas gifts? And why dont you?

So if my brother needed some money and I gave him 20 bucks...why not tax that? Its income? I know you are saying thats not alot of money, but the principle is the same.

2/11/2007 8:47:44 PM