Inherited wealth. Any justification?

[California Girl]

That's such a silly and pointless argument.

Money is fungible. It's taxed when it changes hands. Isn't your paycheck taxed? When you buy groceries with your already-taxed income, doesn't the grocer then get taxed on his income? Isn't his post-tax income taxed again when he pays the mechanic and the mechanic gets paid?

So if earned income is taxed every time it changes hands, why should un-earned income be any different?

Will you guys ever come up with a position that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker?

It's my money so fuck off.

Not when you're dead. Dead men don't have money. It becomes somebody else's money. That person has to pay tax on it just like any other money he acquires.

It's already been taxed. It's the same money, just a different person. Fuck off trying to take what doesn't belong to you.

 

[Cuyo]

I don't see the argument for giving anything back to the government when taxes have already been paid.

That's such a silly and pointless argument.

To you it would be a pointless arguement, to a conservative it's a valid point.

It broadcasts an ignorance of what money actually is. It's not a finite tangible object that gets a little "OK" stamp after it's been taxed and never has to be taxed again. It's taxed at the time it changes hands. The tax itself then makes its way back into the private sector.

Back to your post-tax paycheck and the grocer. Do you think the grocer ought not have to pay taxes because your paycheck "was already taxed?"

It's a silly argument. You disagree but offer no reasonable defense.

 

[percysunshine]

In a merit-based society, is their any justification for wealth being passed down generationally. And, if so, is there any limit to such justification?

Just askin'

Who ever said we have a merit based society?

Good hair is what counts.

 

[Cuyo]

It's my money so fuck off.

Not when you're dead. Dead men don't have money. It becomes somebody else's money. That person has to pay tax on it just like any other money he acquires.

It's already been taxed. It's the same money, just a different person. Fuck off trying to take what doesn't belong to you.

They don't give it to me 'Mo chara.'

And AGAIN - It's the same money when you spend it. The guy who gets your money gets taxed again. That's the way it works. It's changed hands.

 

[Oddball]

Not when you're dead. Dead men don't have money. It becomes somebody else's money. That person has to pay tax on it just like any other money he acquires.

It's already been taxed. It's the same money, just a different person. Fuck off trying to take what doesn't belong to you.

They don't give it to me 'Mo chara.'

And AGAIN - It's the same money when you spend it. The guy who gets your money gets taxed again. That's the way it works. It's changed hands.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to rationalize grave robbery, dude.

 

[chikenwing]

Greedy people with their hands in every pocket the can find.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's such a silly and pointless argument.

Money is fungible. It's taxed when it changes hands. Isn't your paycheck taxed? When you buy groceries with your already-taxed income, doesn't the grocer then get taxed on his income? Isn't his post-tax income taxed again when he pays the mechanic and the mechanic gets paid?

So if earned income is taxed every time it changes hands, why should un-earned income be any different?

Will you guys ever come up with a position that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker?

It's my money so fuck off.

Not when you're dead. Dead men don't have money. It becomes somebody else's money. That person has to pay tax on it just like any other money he acquires.

Clever choice of words.
Inheritance isn't income.

 

[Jarhead]

Not when you're dead. Dead men don't have money. It becomes somebody else's money. That person has to pay tax on it just like any other money he acquires.

It's already been taxed. It's the same money, just a different person. Fuck off trying to take what doesn't belong to you.

They don't give it to me 'Mo chara.'

And AGAIN - It's the same money when you spend it. The guy who gets your money gets taxed again. That's the way it works. It's changed hands.

Does a welfare recipient get taxed on the welfare money when he or she receives it?

 

[Cuyo]

It's my money so fuck off.

Not when you're dead. Dead men don't have money. It becomes somebody else's money. That person has to pay tax on it just like any other money he acquires.

Clever choice of words.
Inheritance isn't income.

It's money? Money that was someone else's before, but now it's yours?

Prior to getting into "Wordsmithing," what do you call it if it ain't income?

 

[Jarhead]

Not when you're dead. Dead men don't have money. It becomes somebody else's money. That person has to pay tax on it just like any other money he acquires.

Clever choice of words.
Inheritance isn't income.

It's money? Money that was someone else's before, but now it's yours?

Prior to getting into "Wordsmithing," what do you call it if it ain't income?

Transfer of funds

 

[Cuyo]

It's already been taxed. It's the same money, just a different person. Fuck off trying to take what doesn't belong to you.

They don't give it to me 'Mo chara.'

And AGAIN - It's the same money when you spend it. The guy who gets your money gets taxed again. That's the way it works. It's changed hands.

Does a welfare recipient get taxed on the welfare money when he or she receives it?

Don't know the answer to that. UE recipients do, but welfare, my guess is that it's treated as a form of income, but people in that dire straits probably do not wind up owing taxes.

 

[Cuyo]

Clever choice of words.
Inheritance isn't income.

It's money? Money that was someone else's before, but now it's yours?

Prior to getting into "Wordsmithing," what do you call it if it ain't income?

Transfer of funds

I think from an accounting standpoint, 'unearned income' is probably a more proper term. 'Transfer of funds' could accurately refer to almost anything.

Not that it's really relevant to the argument one way or another... It's money you've got now that you didn't have before... Calling it 'income' is not disingenuous.

 

[percysunshine]

I think we should abolish all income and inheritance taxes and tax everything every time it changes hands with a VAT.

There is, of course, an assumption that value has been added...which is something we should discourage at every turn.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not when you're dead. Dead men don't have money. It becomes somebody else's money. That person has to pay tax on it just like any other money he acquires.

Clever choice of words.
Inheritance isn't income.

It's money? Money that was someone else's before, but now it's yours?
Prior to getting into "Wordsmithing," what do you call it if it ain't income?

A transfer of property.

It is not "income, from whatever source derived", as "income" is "the return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profits, salary, wages, etc."

 

[Jarhead]

Clever choice of words.
Inheritance isn't income.

It's money? Money that was someone else's before, but now it's yours?
Prior to getting into "Wordsmithing," what do you call it if it ain't income?

A transfer of property.

It is not "income, from whatever source derived", as "income" is "the return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profits, salary, wages, etc."

And with that in mind...what do you do with property that is inherited?
How about a family heirloom....a diamond ring valued at 350K for example...onme that was worn by different women of multiple generations...
And what if the reciopient of that ring was not wealthy....how do they pay a tx on it?
Sell it? Would they be forced to sell something becuase the government wants their fair share?

 

[Cuyo]

Clever choice of words.
Inheritance isn't income.

It's money? Money that was someone else's before, but now it's yours?
Prior to getting into "Wordsmithing," what do you call it if it ain't income?

A transfer of property.

It is not "income, from whatever source derived", as "income" is "the return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profits, salary, wages, etc."

Dood... honestly... What the hell's the difference what you call it? Is it your position that a transfer of property in exchange for consideration should be taxed, but that a transfer of property without consideration should not be taxed?

I don't understand where you're trying to go with this... As if by successfully divorcing inheritence from the term 'Income' you've made some profound point in the argument.

 

[Wiseacre]

What about a small business with assets in the 5-10 million range, which I imagine would be more than a few. Places where the property, equipment, machines, livestock, whatever, are the major component of the estate. So the owner dies but his business has to be sold to pay the taxes?

If I were in such a situation, might I be disincentivized to grow my business beyond the 5 million dollar threshhold? If I were a foreign entrepeneur might I be discouraged to create my enterprise here in the US instead of somewhere else with little or no estate tax?

And for what? Estate taxes in 2009 were about 29 billion in total, you ain't going to solve the debt crisis this way. The really wealthy people have their stuff tied up in foundations and tax exempt shelters somehow, or it's offshore somewhere. Wouldn't we be better off collectively if the estate tax was eliminated? Why incentivize people to cheat or otherwise not put their money to a use that benefits us all here in the US?

Liberals are so damned caught up in this class warfare thing, it's like a forest and trees thing. If you're so worried about exorbitant wealth, why don't you go for a consumption tax? You gotta understand, it's a global economy now. Rich people can skedaddle and take their money with them if you make it worth their while to do so. Many have already, don't you think it's pretty stupid to encourage rich people to leave and discourage foreign rich people to go elsewhere?

 

[Cuyo]

What about a small business with assets in the 5-10 million range, which I imagine would be more than a few. Places where the property, equipment, machines, livestock, whatever, are the major component of the estate. So the owner dies but his business has to be sold to pay the taxes?

If I were in such a situation, might I be disincentivized to grow my business beyond the 5 million dollar threshhold? If I were a foreign entrepeneur might I be discouraged to create my enterprise here in the US instead of somewhere else with little or no estate tax?

And for what? Estate taxes in 2009 were about 29 billion in total, you ain't going to solve the debt crisis this way. The really wealthy people have their stuff tied up in foundations and tax exempt shelters somehow, or it's offshore somewhere. Wouldn't we be better off collectively if the estate tax was eliminated? Why incentivize people to cheat or otherwise not put their money to a use that benefits us all here in the US?

Corporations have indefinite life; They don't die along with their founders. Stock in the company are treated as part of your portfolio. If you don't want your heirs to be subject to the tax, then you just don't will any one of them more than the lower limit.

Grandpa's farm and the family heirloom are not the crux of the issue; They're situations that almost never impact anyone in real life. What they are is political strawmen created by the people that actually are impacted by estate taxes.

So are we talking about these specific situations, or are we talking about estate tax in general. Either way is fine with me, but we can't say we're discussing estate taxes the way they really exist in practice (a tax on the heirs of very wealthy men), then tailspin off into hypothetical strawmen that almost never happen in real life.

 

[MikeK]

I have no need for a job. I just want some of the free money you right-wing fanatics are always talking about. Why can't I have some? Is it really available -- or are you just a bunch of drum-pounding water carriers for the corporate masters and super-rich you seem to worship?

I worship no man, nor do I hate anyone for having more than me. I am perfectly capable of earning my own way through life. And I do. I ask you for nothing - other than you stay the fuck out of my way - and out of my pocket. What is mine, is mine. Whether I earn it or whether it is given to me by an equally hard working relative. Get your own fucking wealth.

Earn it or starve, I could give a shit which. I help those who need my help. That ain't you.

And don't fuck with my children. I will raise them, and you need to stay the hell away from them.

I will and do help people less fortunate than myself, and I don't need somebody else to do it in my name. I will choose how and when I help, and my help will be in accordance with my own value system and beliefs. Stay away from my value system and beliefs; I have a right to live by them.

Yes, yes. I know. I am quite familiar with the "Keep away from my money and etcetera!" routine because I see it a lot in this forum. But you right-wing folks are evading my question.

You keep sending me to the unemployment place but I can't get any money there because I'm retired and I get a pension. What I want is some of that free government money you guys are always talking about. Where can I get some? I ask you and all I get is, "Fuck you! Stay away from my kids!" and so forth.

That's not very friendly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's money? Money that was someone else's before, but now it's yours?
Prior to getting into "Wordsmithing," what do you call it if it ain't income?

A transfer of property.

It is not "income, from whatever source derived", as "income" is "the return in money from one's business, labor, or capital invested; gains, profits, salary, wages, etc."

Dood... honestly... What the hell's the difference what you call it?

The govenrment only has the power to tax income.