|
The Death Tax (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Don't give up so easily--this is a debate forum! |
haha.....yes, but work is calling
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Did government play a direct hand in producing, marketing or distributing and ultimately selling anything?
|
no, but they played a very important indirect role.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Furthermore, would that somehow give them the "right" to tax? And even furthermore, does that somehow give them the right to tax some far greater than others (on both an absolute and percentage basis?) Where exactly does the "right to tax" come from? It sounds like a very friendly way of saying they're justified in taking as much of your money as they see fit. |
the 16th amendment. not sure if that was rhetorical. i belive it does because rich people make full use of government resources. to give you different examples of how the rich people use the government (in more expensive ways than a $3000 earned income tax credit - or 50 more police officers in a bad neighborhood): cities subsidizing the cost of building a stadium, cities and states issues tax exempt bonds so that private developers can have a lower interest rate, the power of eminent domain used to take property so that a rich developer can develop that property, state research and development incentives for businesses to move to certain states, the domestic production tax deduction(this deduction is 2% of income which could be in the millions or billions - far more than ), and cities provide tax abatements for businesses to develop property. none of these benefits accrue to the poor. i could go on with some thought, but the point is that while you see the benefits that poor people get, the benefits to rich people aren't in your face, but they are still present. furthermore, the benefits to the rich can cost the government far more (building a stadium is a great example of a huge subsidy to a rich team owner - even if the team has to pay it back, the government is losing on interest and opportunity costs associated with issuing that debt). some of the above examples might not display that entirely, but i just listed what i could think of off the top of my head.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I have never argued that the government should not collect taxes for services they provide. There are basic functions of government that obviously have to be funded. If I have somehow given the impression that governments don't need tax revenues to function then I have been grossly misinterpreted. However, I don't think I ever made that statement.
Edit: I see your above edit. |
i don't think you directly said that, but i thought you implied that government shouldn't take from an estate because the government didn't create that wealth. i believe the government has the right because i believe wealthy people utilize government resources more so than poor people to create that wealth. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
So what exactly are you saying!? That it should be up to individuals to decide how much tax they pay?! |
I'm merely saying that collecting taxes is a function that government has granted to itself. It strikes me as a bit intellectually dishonest to call that a "right." Perhaps it would be somewhat akin to the Divine Right of Kings (if I may give an example that may be a bit closer to home for you). i.e. basically saying "It's my right because I say so." However, let's not stray too far off topic. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm merely saying that collecting taxes is a function that government has granted to itself. It strikes me as a bit intellectually dishonest to call that a "right." Perhaps it would be somewhat akin to the Divine Right of Kings (if I may give an example that may be a bit closer to home for you). i.e. basically saying "It's my right because I say so." However, let's not stray too far off topic. |
that right is granted under the constitution, which was approved by the people of each state that was a part of the union at the time. so, the people gave the government the "right" to tax. while the government proposed this right for itself, ultimately, it was up to the people to approve the amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtee...es_Constitution |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I'm merely saying that collecting taxes is a function that government has granted to itself. It strikes me as a bit intellectually dishonest to call that a "right." Perhaps it would be somewhat akin to the Divine Right of Kings (if I may give an example that may be a bit closer to home for you). i.e. basically saying "It's my right because I say so." However, let's not stray too far off topic. |
Don't give up so easily--this is a debate forum! (As some not-so-genius once said!)
You're opinions on inheritance tax seem to be linked to your overall opinion of taxes in general, so it is on topic...
If you recognise the need for the state to collect taxes, then what exactly is your problem with the state collecting taxes? If it's not a right of the state, then how would you describe their revenue collecting capacity? |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
haha.....yes, but work is calling |
True dat--I'm spending too much time on this as well!
| quote: | | no, but they played a very important indirect role. |
I will grant that.
| quote: | | i belive it does because rich people make full use of government resources. |
And being a progressive code or not, they still pay a far greater absolute amount of money, so do we really need to argue that they should still be paying even more?
| quote: | | cities subsidizing the cost of building a stadium, cities and states issues tax exempt bonds so that private developers can have a lower interest rate, |
Okay, and this also generates more revenues for the municipality which they can spend on other programs. Also, I don't know about where you live, but where I live, stadiums and parks usually are closer to poorer areas than more wealthy areas, and as a result of their construction there is usually a benefit to everyone in the surrounding areas. We might be starting down a path of overly granular argument though, and I'm not really in disagreement with you here--rather just pointing out that everyone likely benefits in some way.
| quote: | | the power of eminent domain used to take property so that a rich developer can develop that property, |
Don't even get me started on this. If there is one thing I could not be more against in most cases, it is the power of eminent domain. I think it is a travesty and a disregard for individual property rights.;)
| quote: | | state research and development incentives for businesses to move to certain states, the domestic production tax deduction(this deduction is 2% of income which could be in the millions or billions - far more than ), and cities provide tax abatements for businesses to develop property. none of these benefits accrue to the poor. |
I don't totally agree. In the same way you say the government plays an indirect hand in creating a lot of wealth, I think you can also argue (as I mentioned above with the stadiums and such) that said construction also give an indirect benefit to surrounding areas (as well as directly benefiting the areas by increasing the value of the land). I'm sure some of those people would much prefer a straight cash handout, but that money would likely be wasted whereas the new stadium likely gives some of those people a new opportunity to sell various wares (haven't you ever noticed how many seemingly poor people hock t-shirts and such, provide parking lot services, etc. around ball parks?).
| quote: | | i could go on with some thought, but the point is that while you see the benefits that poor people get, the benefits to rich people aren't in your face, but they are still present. furthermore, the benefits to the rich can cost the government far more (building a stadium is a great example of a huge subsidy to a rich team owner - even if the team has to pay it back, the government is losing on interest and opportunity costs associated with issuing that debt). some of the above examples might not display that entirely, but i just listed what i could think of off the top of my head. |
Thanks--I appreciate the thought and input.
| quote: | | i don't think you directly said that, but i thought you implied that government shouldn't take from an estate because the government didn't create that wealth. |
And also because there is a very likely chance that the money they want to tax has already been taxed at least once already. (Not sure if I explicitly said that anywhere earlier or not.) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
If you recognise the need for the state to collect taxes, then what exactly is your problem with the state collecting taxes? If it's not a right of the state, then how would you describe their revenue collecting capacity? |
As it pertains to the death tax (the topic of this thread), I think I've clearly outlined my objections by now.
If I don't pay my taxes, they put me in jail. Despite my objection that it violates my personal rights to some extent, I am largely powerless against the Federal Government! They collect by force (but I willingly, yet begrudgingly, pay because there are benefits to me from being able to live and prosper in this great nation and having the best department of defense in the world--among many, many other reasons!) |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
that right is granted under the constitution, which was approved by the people of each state that was a part of the union at the time. so, the people gave the government the "right" to tax. while the government proposed this right for itself, ultimately, it was up to the people to approve the amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixtee...es_Constitution |
OK. However, would you dispute that the "right" to collect taxes as envisioned in the 19th century has been bastardized and manipulated to give the government far more power to take than what the creators of that amendment envisioned? It's like the old saying--give a man an inch and he'll take a mile. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
As it pertains to the death tax (the topic of this thread), I think I've clearly outlined my objections by now.
If I don't pay my taxes, they put me in jail. Despite my objection that it violates my personal rights to some extent, I am largely powerless against the Federal Government! They collect by force (but I willingly, yet begrudgingly, pay because there are benefits to me from being able to live and prosper in this great nation and having the best department of defense in the world--among many, many other reasons!) |
So you recognise the need for governments to collect taxes and you support the collection of taxes by governments to pay for services to society. So your problem is...the amount of tax collected by government? |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Okay, and this also generates more revenues for the municipality which they can spend on other programs. Also, I don't know about where you live, but where I live, stadiums and parks usually are closer to poorer areas than more wealthy areas, and as a result of their construction there is usually a benefit to everyone in the surrounding areas. We might be starting down a path of overly granular argument though, and I'm not really in disagreement with you here--rather just pointing out that everyone likely benefits in some way.
I don't totally agree. In the same way you say the government plays an indirect hand in creating a lot of wealth, I think you can also argue (as I mentioned above with the stadiums and such) that said construction also give an indirect benefit to surrounding areas (as well as directly benefiting the areas by increasing the value of the land). I'm sure some of those people would much prefer a straight cash handout, but that money would likely be wasted whereas the new stadium likely gives some of those people a new opportunity to sell various wares (haven't you ever noticed how many seemingly poor people hock t-shirts and such, provide parking lot services, etc. around ball parks?). |
in theory, but i'm not convinced it always turns out that way. but importantly, the government forgoes current benefit and transfers that to a private citizen, in hope that the private citizen can improve the situation for everyone. i'm not against that proposition, i'm just pointing out that the rich person involved takes the greater benefit.
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
And also because there is a very likely chance that the money they want to tax has already been taxed at least once already. (Not sure if I explicitly said that anywhere earlier or not.) |
our corporate tax system works that way also. i'm not opposed a double tax system because inheritances are a disincentive for the beneficiaries to work hard. i have no problem with people accumulating the wealth they worked hard to create. but the people who inherit wealth simply by being related to someone are not deserving of that wealth and they have a general disincentive to be productive members of society (im not saying that they are, just that the ability to inherit generally will play a role in how they conduct themselve - i.e., paris hilton). one of the main premises behind keeping taxes low is to provide incentives to foster creativity and ingenuity so that people can benefit from their own hard work. this just isn't an issue with inheritances. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
OK. However, would you dispute that the "right" to collect taxes as envisioned in the 19th century has been bastardized and manipulated to give the government far more power to take than what the creators of that amendment envisioned? It's like the old saying--give a man an inch and he'll take a mile. |
yes, i would dispute that claim. the power that was given was very broad because the government wanted, and the people agreed to give, a broad taxing power. if the power was meant to be more limited it the provision could easily have been more limited. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
but the people who inherit wealth simply by being related to someone are not deserving of that wealth and they have a general disincentive to be productive members of society (im not saying that they are, just that the ability to inherit generally will play a role in how they conduct themselve - i.e., paris hilton). |
I think this is what it all boils down to. My primary objection here is that I don't think a proper role of government is to somehow artificially level the playing field in this manner. Since you (or whoever else is a proponent of the death tax) views the heir has somehow undeserving, it is therefore just in your opinion for the government to swoop in and take that money in the name of the common good. And who's to say that, left to their own devices, the inheritors won't find a better, more productive use for their (very fortunate) inheritance down the road?
Ask yourself this: Is a person who spends $1 and wins a $100M lottery any more or less deserving than the person who inherits a few million? Do you just view that $1 as some spectacular investment or them being incredibly lucky? Who are we to determine what other people deserve? If we have our governments dictating what is "fair" or "deserving" I think we start to go down a terribly dark and slippery slope.
| quote: | | one of the main premises behind keeping taxes low is to provide incentives to foster creativity and ingenuity so that people can benefit from their own hard work. this just isn't an issue with inheritances. |
I agree. But I question where it becomes the role of government to regulate these things. There are going to be things that everybody likes and dislikes about their government, tax code, etc., but should we always call in the government to "fix" things like this? Again, I just don't think the inheritance tax as we're discussing it is necessarily any of the government's business.
Is it comforting at all that Warren Buffet wrote his granddaughter out of his will? He's donating almost his entire estate to the Gates Foundation when he dies. I have no problem with that because he made the choice voluntarily, and he gets to direct where he wants the money to go. I'm much more comfortable with that than having the government strong-arm its way into his wallet. Yeah, maybe he's more of an exception than the rule, but it shows that you don't necessarily need the government to get involved to have a favorable outcome. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I think this is what it all boils down to. My primary objection here is that I don't think a proper role of government is to somehow artificially level the playing field in this manner. Since you (or whoever else is a proponent of the death tax) views the heir has somehow undeserving, it is therefore just in your opinion for the government to swoop in and take that money in the name of the common good. And who's to say that, left to their own devices, the inheritors won't find a better, more productive use for their (very fortunate) inheritance down the road?
Ask yourself this: Is a person who spends $1 and wins a $100M lottery any more or less deserving than the person who inherits a few million? Do you just view that $1 as some spectacular investment or them being incredibly lucky? Who are we to determine what other people deserve? If we have our governments dictating what is "fair" or "deserving" I think we start to go down a terribly dark and slippery slope.
I agree. But I question where it becomes the role of government to regulate these things. There are going to be things that everybody likes and dislikes about their government, tax code, etc., but should we always call in the government to "fix" things like this? Again, I just don't think the inheritance tax as we're discussing it is necessarily any of the government's business. |
there's really nothing left to say after that. we just have differing opinions on redistribution of undeserved wealth.
don't get me started on lottery. the winners are usually the most undeserving. but you have to play the game to win, and i don't play, so i guess they are more deserving than i am. aside from that, i don't really see how it relates to our discussion because the lottery is essentially a tax on people who play and don't win. but if i had to take a stance based on your reps, i would say that the lottery is more like an investment - and a truly lucky outcome. more like an investment in a junk bond. you are actually putting your own money to use as compared to sitting back and waiting for someone to die. an inheritance is really neither luck (outside of the fact that you are lucky you know someone who is rich) nor an investment. you have to do absolutely nothing, aside from being a normal human being to the person who is writing you in his will. |
|
|
|
|
