|
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
We also don't live in a feudal one, where your lot in life is determined by what family you're born into. |
So what's your point?
| quote: | | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov This is a separate debate, but that's not usually the case. It is supposed to work that way... but the tax code is broken. |
Oh really? My grandfather used to make a low to mid-level six-figure salary back in the 1970's, and even after taking advantage of any write-offs (and there were a lot), he was in this tax bracket that sucked nearly half of his income away.
There is this myth that people who make a lot of money somehow get around paying taxes. Just because they don't pay it in direct income, doesn't mean that they didn't pay it in some other way. There is no getting around paying taxes. Kid yourself all you want...
THAT'S your "proof"??? 
The article is about board members of companies who think CEO's make too much, not CEO's! And even then, it's only one-third who think that CEO's make too much...hardly "many", as you described (not that their opinion matters anyway, in terms of defending your statement).
And there's no mention of the Athletes that you claim think they "make too much money" either.
Admit it; You pulled that statement out of your rectum. 
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Bottom line: The government did not create the wealth, it should not be the government's place to arbitrarily take possession of that wealth just because someone has passed on. The rights of the creator to pass the fruits of his/her labor on to those of his/her choosing should always supercede the will of the government to attempt to forcibly steal that wealth for its own coffers in any true democracy based on individual rights and justice. Furthermore, the amount of wealth is irrelevant in this argument as it is the principle of the "death tax" that is being debated, not how it should be applied to those in the highest income brackets. Everything else is simply wealth envy.
The one simple caveat to this would be: If a person wants the government to have their money after they die, they can certainly account for that in their last will and testament. Otherwise the government can go fuck itself on this matter. |
Beautifully written and EXACTLY dead-on RIGHT! 
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Balls! It's a tax on the rich and imo they don't get taxed nearly enough so excuse me if I have no sympathy for them...
Rich people who don't pay their fair share of taxes shoulder ALL blame for the vast majority of societies ills so anything to get them to contribute more to the society that has allowed them to grow stupidly rich at the expense of others gets my full support.
There is no way whatsoever that the US inheritance tax is fair, the threshold should be much lower
In the UK, the threshold is £300,000 ($600,000) and you have to pay 40% after that amount of any inheritance
I'd probably say that with the rising price of houses a fair inheritance tax would be something like $500k - $1m = 30%; $1m - $2m = 50%; and $2m+ = 75% |
Your country's history of wealth, the wealthy class and your government systems, are different from ours.
I can't speak fully to what's fair and what's not in your country, given this history of rigid class separatism, but over here, it's wholly unfair to label people of wealth as being part of some grand conspiracy to keep the rest of our society down, and as people who bring society most of it's ills. Now you're talking like Trancer. It's just absurd.
I'd also add that the "1% theory" (of people who feel any effect from this tax) has been challenged in recent history. It's part of why the code has been slowly changing to represent more current income levels (cost of living increases, or inflation, had never been factored in to the original deductible amount).
But I'll even give you one personal example of why this tax is unfair;
A close friend's father passed away in 2004, about a decade before before he would have been at the minimum legal retirement age of 65. He'd taken an early retirement just a few years before, in 2001. He was always VERY frugal throughout his entire life, in anticipation of taking the early retirement, and the money he was going to need to live on in order to pull it off. He went without a lot of luxuries throughout his life as a result, luxuries he could have easily afforded, had he chosen to work another decade.
Now; had he died just a few years earlier, in 2001 for example...when the old tax law was still in place and the inheritance deductible was lower...his family would have had to cough up about $250,000.00 in Inheritance Tax. In essence, the father and the family would have been punished by the government for the father having the audacity to DIE too early, before he had a chance to spend his hard earned money in retirement that he planned and saved for.
So how does this make the father part of this mythical "dirty rich people" that you all seem to think exist? He was an ordinary guy with a pretty ordinary service job, who managed to build up wealth by saving money, more than anything. But now, you'd punish someone who makes the same amount of money as anyone else for NOT spending enough?
I'll tell you another thing; $2 million, or $6 million dollars is NOT a lot of money anymore. This is middle-income money we're talking about here. It's family homes, farms and/or businesses. And more often than not, it's getting distributed to more than one family member too. So this fantasy about "wealth building" is again a Democratic Party lie.
Those of you who are jealous of people who make more than you, or who have managed to save more than you, maybe YOU need to try harder yourselves and stop coveting your neighbors wealth.
___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do
Last edited by donnybrasco on Feb-19-2008 at 22:16
|
