I don't really see how an inheritance tax isn't taxing alive people, really. The title-holder is dead, but the next title-holder is presumably very much alive and kickin'. What is the tangible difference here?
Semantics, I guess. And potentially a ton of money. I tend to view inheritance and estate as pooled wealth, regardless of whose account it rests in. Money/goods given to family was generally earned with that purpose at least marginally in mind, and whatever of that value was generated from income (likely, most of it) has already been taxed.
Ah. Well, okay, I sort of see where this is coming from. The current state approach is currently similar - except that 'pooled wealth' is only held to exist for married couples (and possibly civil unions etc. but let's not go there). Their children or intended heirs don't get included in said pool.
For me it does seem unusual to expand the pool to include more individuals, but I sort of see how it works.
Earning 'in mind' doesn't quite apply because 'in mind' is really endogenous, isn't it? - if there's no inheritance tax, you can earn with leaving an inheritance in mind, if there is such a tax, you don't? Likewise with double taxation. We already double tax all spending outside the pool if we define double taxation as such.
I would be more willing to buy into the 'pool' idea if the title holders had less control over inheritance. Logically with allegedly pooled wealth the title should be understood to be jointly held, yes? If the title holder retains total control over said wealth before abruptly passing total control over to another individual (the heirs), that doesn't seem like pooled wealth. That seems like intergenerational gifting and should be treated as such.
Are we seriously having this conversation? I feel like Robert Vaughn in BASEketball right now, and you just asked who Ty Cobb was.
Communism is the ERASURE of large-scale ownership by individuals. Not the shifting of liquid assets amongst them. This is shit you should have understood by middle school.
Communism is complicated; the transition stages all have assorted capitalist elements (e.g., taxation, ownership, state ownership) that are supposed to be dispensed of along the way.
Throw in a million self-proclaimed authorities on communism and you have a big mess. Marx? Lenin? Trotsky? The bizarre ivory tower of academic Marxism, or the fire and steel of actual Marxist rebels (who still exist by the way)?
So it's hard to say precisely what communism is. I've never seen taxation seriously described as communist or having communist elements, though, precisely because it is something to be discarded in virtually all self-proclaimed communist systems.
Socialist and redistributionist would be more appropriate. But not communist.
Calling an idea "communist" as a way to argue against it is nothing more than guilt by association. But hey, you've already shown a willingness to invent meanings for terms as you go along ("communist fascism" :rotate: ) so I guess it's not all that surprising.
I mean what the hell does "it's a hard lean" toward communism even mean?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Hell, does communism even have taxes? The government owns everything from the getgo.
Nope, Soviet Russia was one of the only places in the world without largescale taxation. In Soviet Russia goverment pays taxes to you!
It was one of the reasons Russia sucked in the 90s, no IRS to collect the taxes they suddenly needed. Wich of course is why one of Putins favourite tricks is to accuse his enemies of tax evasion, since Rich in Russia = never paying their taxes.
Its also why so many Easter European countries have the flat tax, people don't actualy pay their taxes and enforcement is hard enough without exemptions and deductibles.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Ross, do you feel that egalitarianism (in the sense of 'equality of opportunity', to clear out the obvious caveats) is not a desirable social aim? Not that I endorse MrMister's argument, I haven't been following this thread closely so I'm not sure what his argument is.
But assuming he does have an argument that ultimately terminates in an appeal to egalitarianism. Do you think this isn't sufficient? What do you regard as tangible benefit, anyway? This is good because _?
I do think opportunity should be provided for, and egalitarianism in that vein is not an undesirable goal. The disagreement is over how to achieve it and whether or not its acceptable to strip a family's estate and inheritance in the name of equality of opportunity.
I don't think a family's wealth should become forfeit when the titleholder dies, and that's pretty much the long and short of the argument. However, I also am against Scrooge McDuck-style money silos. If we need taxation to provide for egalitarianism, we could at least have the decency to hit people up for the money while they're still alive. If you want to do this on increased income or luxury or capital gains taxes, go ahead. But don't take a family's worth post-mortem because of a need to feel like you've helped poorer people. At best, that's delayed communism.
Hmm.
A hypothetical: suppose inheritance were taxed as windfall income (i.e., the inheritors are taxed as if they had won the lottery for the inherited amount). Would that be acceptable?
I don't really see how an inheritance tax isn't taxing alive people, really. The title-holder is dead, but the next title-holder is presumably very much alive and kickin'. What is the tangible difference here?
e: there is a certain arbitrariness in the tax code here, in that inheritance is essentially gifting by proxy (likely a closer idea than windfall income). And gifts are indeed taxed. But from this point of view the problem is tax code inconsistency, not inheritance taxes. What is the problem with inheritance taxes? You can't just stop your chain of logic there - to be trite, that equates to "just because" too.
Not really as you have no information regarding the living recipients contribution to the deceased's assets. If my parents own a home that I have helped paid for, done repairs to, etc. but reside solely in their names, I have invested some of my money and time into that asset. If they will it to me when they pass on, why should I also be taxed heavily for such a "windfall"?
Hell, does communism even have taxes? The government owns everything from the getgo.
Nope, Soviet Russia was one of the only places in the world without largescale taxation. In Soviet Russia goverment pays taxes to you!
For the first time ever, the joke actually works! Now, I must find and kill that damn Ukranian art teacher, Yakov Smirnov.
But yes, the notion that communism itself is a unified series of ideas is pretty bunk too. People died--and killed eachother--over this differences. A lot. Trotsky didn't end up with an ice pick in his head because he was tired with hats.
Trying to unify the past century of communist ideologies is like tying capitalism to everything from the Dutch fish-preserving economies to European imperialists killing tens of millions of people...well, everywhere. Yes, they do draw upon eachother, but they're not always the same thing.
If you wanted a legal/financial stake in the home, there's ways to set that up
So, maintain a legal/financial stake in all family assets, across the board, so I won't have a huge tax taken out when I inherit them. And completely unrealistic.
Ross, do you feel that egalitarianism (in the sense of 'equality of opportunity', to clear out the obvious caveats) is not a desirable social aim? Not that I endorse MrMister's argument, I haven't been following this thread closely so I'm not sure what his argument is.
But assuming he does have an argument that ultimately terminates in an appeal to egalitarianism. Do you think this isn't sufficient? What do you regard as tangible benefit, anyway? This is good because _?
I do think opportunity should be provided for, and egalitarianism in that vein is not an undesirable goal. The disagreement is over how to achieve it and whether or not its acceptable to strip a family's estate and inheritance in the name of equality of opportunity.
I don't think a family's wealth should become forfeit when the titleholder dies, and that's pretty much the long and short of the argument. However, I also am against Scrooge McDuck-style money silos. If we need taxation to provide for egalitarianism, we could at least have the decency to hit people up for the money while they're still alive. If you want to do this on increased income or luxury or capital gains taxes, go ahead. But don't take a family's worth post-mortem because of a need to feel like you've helped poorer people. At best, that's delayed communism.
Hmm.
A hypothetical: suppose inheritance were taxed as windfall income (i.e., the inheritors are taxed as if they had won the lottery for the inherited amount). Would that be acceptable?
I don't really see how an inheritance tax isn't taxing alive people, really. The title-holder is dead, but the next title-holder is presumably very much alive and kickin'. What is the tangible difference here?
e: there is a certain arbitrariness in the tax code here, in that inheritance is essentially gifting by proxy (likely a closer idea than windfall income). And gifts are indeed taxed. But from this point of view the problem is tax code inconsistency, not inheritance taxes. What is the problem with inheritance taxes? You can't just stop your chain of logic there - to be trite, that equates to "just because" too.
Not really as you have no information regarding the living recipients contribution to the deceased's assets. If my parents own a home that I have helped paid for, done repairs to, etc. but reside solely in their names, I have invested some of my money and time into that asset. If they will it to me when they pass on, why should I also be taxed heavily for such a "windfall"?
The fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax in question.
If you wanted a legal/financial stake in the home, there's ways to set that up
So, maintain a legal/financial stake in all family assets, across the board, so I won't have a huge tax taken out when I inherit them. And completely unrealistic.
Your response to the windfall tax question was basically "but what if I had all this money invested in something but have no way to track it or get a return on it." That's a silly objection.
edit: or what wwtmask says
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Ross, do you feel that egalitarianism (in the sense of 'equality of opportunity', to clear out the obvious caveats) is not a desirable social aim? Not that I endorse MrMister's argument, I haven't been following this thread closely so I'm not sure what his argument is.
But assuming he does have an argument that ultimately terminates in an appeal to egalitarianism. Do you think this isn't sufficient? What do you regard as tangible benefit, anyway? This is good because _?
I do think opportunity should be provided for, and egalitarianism in that vein is not an undesirable goal. The disagreement is over how to achieve it and whether or not its acceptable to strip a family's estate and inheritance in the name of equality of opportunity.
I don't think a family's wealth should become forfeit when the titleholder dies, and that's pretty much the long and short of the argument. However, I also am against Scrooge McDuck-style money silos. If we need taxation to provide for egalitarianism, we could at least have the decency to hit people up for the money while they're still alive. If you want to do this on increased income or luxury or capital gains taxes, go ahead. But don't take a family's worth post-mortem because of a need to feel like you've helped poorer people. At best, that's delayed communism.
Hmm.
A hypothetical: suppose inheritance were taxed as windfall income (i.e., the inheritors are taxed as if they had won the lottery for the inherited amount). Would that be acceptable?
I don't really see how an inheritance tax isn't taxing alive people, really. The title-holder is dead, but the next title-holder is presumably very much alive and kickin'. What is the tangible difference here?
e: there is a certain arbitrariness in the tax code here, in that inheritance is essentially gifting by proxy (likely a closer idea than windfall income). And gifts are indeed taxed. But from this point of view the problem is tax code inconsistency, not inheritance taxes. What is the problem with inheritance taxes? You can't just stop your chain of logic there - to be trite, that equates to "just because" too.
Not really as you have no information regarding the living recipients contribution to the deceased's assets. If my parents own a home that I have helped paid for, done repairs to, etc. but reside solely in their names, I have invested some of my money and time into that asset. If they will it to me when they pass on, why should I also be taxed heavily for such a "windfall"?
The fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax in question.
Investing or contributing to your family is hardly stupid. What IS stupid is to force a law that seeks to take assets that have been previously taxed because the owner of said assets decides to transfer those assets to another party.
But, as this entirely silly thread is heavily populated by an amazing sense of entitlement and bitching at the evil rich, I am not surprised by your stupid answer.
If you wanted a legal/financial stake in the home, there's ways to set that up
So, maintain a legal/financial stake in all family assets, across the board, so I won't have a huge tax taken out when I inherit them. And completely unrealistic.
Your response to the windfall tax question was basically "but what if I had all this money invested in something but have no way to track it or get a return on it." That's a silly objection.
Ross, do you feel that egalitarianism (in the sense of 'equality of opportunity', to clear out the obvious caveats) is not a desirable social aim? Not that I endorse MrMister's argument, I haven't been following this thread closely so I'm not sure what his argument is.
But assuming he does have an argument that ultimately terminates in an appeal to egalitarianism. Do you think this isn't sufficient? What do you regard as tangible benefit, anyway? This is good because _?
I do think opportunity should be provided for, and egalitarianism in that vein is not an undesirable goal. The disagreement is over how to achieve it and whether or not its acceptable to strip a family's estate and inheritance in the name of equality of opportunity.
I don't think a family's wealth should become forfeit when the titleholder dies, and that's pretty much the long and short of the argument. However, I also am against Scrooge McDuck-style money silos. If we need taxation to provide for egalitarianism, we could at least have the decency to hit people up for the money while they're still alive. If you want to do this on increased income or luxury or capital gains taxes, go ahead. But don't take a family's worth post-mortem because of a need to feel like you've helped poorer people. At best, that's delayed communism.
Hmm.
A hypothetical: suppose inheritance were taxed as windfall income (i.e., the inheritors are taxed as if they had won the lottery for the inherited amount). Would that be acceptable?
I don't really see how an inheritance tax isn't taxing alive people, really. The title-holder is dead, but the next title-holder is presumably very much alive and kickin'. What is the tangible difference here?
e: there is a certain arbitrariness in the tax code here, in that inheritance is essentially gifting by proxy (likely a closer idea than windfall income). And gifts are indeed taxed. But from this point of view the problem is tax code inconsistency, not inheritance taxes. What is the problem with inheritance taxes? You can't just stop your chain of logic there - to be trite, that equates to "just because" too.
Not really as you have no information regarding the living recipients contribution to the deceased's assets. If my parents own a home that I have helped paid for, done repairs to, etc. but reside solely in their names, I have invested some of my money and time into that asset. If they will it to me when they pass on, why should I also be taxed heavily for such a "windfall"?
The fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax in question.
Investing or contributing to your family is hardly stupid. What IS stupid is to force a law that seeks to take assets that have been previously taxed because the owner of said assets decides to transfer those assets to another party.
But, as this entirely silly thread is heavily populated by an amazing sense of entitlement and bitching at the evil rich, I am not surprised by your stupid answer.
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
If you wanted a legal/financial stake in the home, there's ways to set that up
So, maintain a legal/financial stake in all family assets, across the board, so I won't have a huge tax taken out when I inherit them. And completely unrealistic.
Your response to the windfall tax question was basically "but what if I had all this money invested in something but have no way to track it or get a return on it." That's a silly objection.
edit: or what wwtmask says
While is may be legally naive to not have a paper trail for every penny within family transactions, it is the most typical way that families behave. Next time you lend a family member $100, make sure that you have them sign for it in triplicate.
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Ross, do you feel that egalitarianism (in the sense of 'equality of opportunity', to clear out the obvious caveats) is not a desirable social aim? Not that I endorse MrMister's argument, I haven't been following this thread closely so I'm not sure what his argument is.
But assuming he does have an argument that ultimately terminates in an appeal to egalitarianism. Do you think this isn't sufficient? What do you regard as tangible benefit, anyway? This is good because _?
I do think opportunity should be provided for, and egalitarianism in that vein is not an undesirable goal. The disagreement is over how to achieve it and whether or not its acceptable to strip a family's estate and inheritance in the name of equality of opportunity.
I don't think a family's wealth should become forfeit when the titleholder dies, and that's pretty much the long and short of the argument. However, I also am against Scrooge McDuck-style money silos. If we need taxation to provide for egalitarianism, we could at least have the decency to hit people up for the money while they're still alive. If you want to do this on increased income or luxury or capital gains taxes, go ahead. But don't take a family's worth post-mortem because of a need to feel like you've helped poorer people. At best, that's delayed communism.
Hmm.
A hypothetical: suppose inheritance were taxed as windfall income (i.e., the inheritors are taxed as if they had won the lottery for the inherited amount). Would that be acceptable?
I don't really see how an inheritance tax isn't taxing alive people, really. The title-holder is dead, but the next title-holder is presumably very much alive and kickin'. What is the tangible difference here?
e: there is a certain arbitrariness in the tax code here, in that inheritance is essentially gifting by proxy (likely a closer idea than windfall income). And gifts are indeed taxed. But from this point of view the problem is tax code inconsistency, not inheritance taxes. What is the problem with inheritance taxes? You can't just stop your chain of logic there - to be trite, that equates to "just because" too.
Not really as you have no information regarding the living recipients contribution to the deceased's assets. If my parents own a home that I have helped paid for, done repairs to, etc. but reside solely in their names, I have invested some of my money and time into that asset. If they will it to me when they pass on, why should I also be taxed heavily for such a "windfall"?
The fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax in question.
Investing or contributing to your family is hardly stupid. What IS stupid is to force a law that seeks to take assets that have been previously taxed because the owner of said assets decides to transfer those assets to another party.
But, as this entirely silly thread is heavily populated by an amazing sense of entitlement and bitching at the evil rich, I am not surprised by your stupid answer.
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
are you arguing against lottery winners being taxed, now?
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
I see, you're going to play the willfully obtuse role. Since I have to spell it out for you: unless you specifically told me that a condition of giving me the $5 was that I buy a lottery ticket and share the winnings with you, you're entitled to a repayment of your $5. Likewise, unless you go out of your way to show your investment in your parents house in a way the government considers meaningful (ie, you get your name on the deed), you can't bitch about not reaping the benefits of owning the house.
I don't have a problem paying my taxes, and I'd gladly pay it on any lottery winnings I ever get. I'm happy to see any entitlements that will be paid for with said taxes. You, however, aren't entitled to anything just because you lent someone $5.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
are you arguing against lottery winners being taxed, now?
Lottery pools that are assets built by a citizen pool, and assembled specifically for the funding of public programs like education, is not the same thing as inheriting an asset from a family member when they are deceased. No issues with those winnings being taxed as, for the winner, it is "found money".
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
I see, you're going to play the willfully obtuse role. Since I have to spell it out for you: unless you specifically told me that a condition of giving me the $5 was that I buy a lottery ticket and share the winnings with you, you're entitled to a repayment of your $5. Likewise, unless you go out of your way to show your investment in your parents house in a way the government considers meaningful (ie, you get your name on the deed), you can't bitch about not reaping the benefits of owning the house.
I don't have a problem paying my taxes, and I'd gladly pay it on any lottery winnings I ever get. I'm happy to see any entitlements that will be paid for with said taxes. You, however, aren't entitled to anything just because you lent someone $5.
You brought up the stupid $5/lottery analogy. I was just extending it to your sense of entitlement that I am sure you want to see all parties involved in said transaction get their fair share of a windfall you didn't really earn.
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
What exactly defines excessive? Would the ranting against capital gains and/or inheritance taxes diminish if we used a graduated progressive tax scheme like we do for income taxation? Or do we already do that, and the complaint is about the amount levied in the highest bracket?
I'm not all that familiar with these forms of taxation, so I'm genuinely curious. I know capital gains tops out around 15% and that suggests to me it's a flat scheme.
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
I see, you're going to play the willfully obtuse role. Since I have to spell it out for you: unless you specifically told me that a condition of giving me the $5 was that I buy a lottery ticket and share the winnings with you, you're entitled to a repayment of your $5. Likewise, unless you go out of your way to show your investment in your parents house in a way the government considers meaningful (ie, you get your name on the deed), you can't bitch about not reaping the benefits of owning the house.
I don't have a problem paying my taxes, and I'd gladly pay it on any lottery winnings I ever get. I'm happy to see any entitlements that will be paid for with said taxes. You, however, aren't entitled to anything just because you lent someone $5.
You brought up the stupid $5/lottery analogy.
To be fair, you started with a stupid example anyway.
I was just extending it to your sense of entitlement that I am sure you want to see all parties involved in said transaction get their fair share of a windfall you didn't really earn.
You're exactly right, which is why I'd give Uncle Sam his due and give you back your $5. If only you'd arranged with me to share in the winnings as a condition of the $5 loan.
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
I see, you're going to play the willfully obtuse role. Since I have to spell it out for you: unless you specifically told me that a condition of giving me the $5 was that I buy a lottery ticket and share the winnings with you, you're entitled to a repayment of your $5. Likewise, unless you go out of your way to show your investment in your parents house in a way the government considers meaningful (ie, you get your name on the deed), you can't bitch about not reaping the benefits of owning the house.
I don't have a problem paying my taxes, and I'd gladly pay it on any lottery winnings I ever get. I'm happy to see any entitlements that will be paid for with said taxes. You, however, aren't entitled to anything just because you lent someone $5.
I never said I was. I was just saying that, due to your position on wealth distribution and not wanting to become one of those arrogant rich people, I'm sure you would see your way clear to give me more than my $5 back.
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
I see, you're going to play the willfully obtuse role. Since I have to spell it out for you: unless you specifically told me that a condition of giving me the $5 was that I buy a lottery ticket and share the winnings with you, you're entitled to a repayment of your $5. Likewise, unless you go out of your way to show your investment in your parents house in a way the government considers meaningful (ie, you get your name on the deed), you can't bitch about not reaping the benefits of owning the house.
I don't have a problem paying my taxes, and I'd gladly pay it on any lottery winnings I ever get. I'm happy to see any entitlements that will be paid for with said taxes. You, however, aren't entitled to anything just because you lent someone $5.
You brought up the stupid $5/lottery analogy.
To be fair, you started with a stupid example anyway.
I was just extending it to your sense of entitlement that I am sure you want to see all parties involved in said transaction get their fair share of a windfall you didn't really earn.
You're exactly right, which is why I'd give Uncle Sam his due and give you back your $5. If only you'd arranged with me to share in the winnings as a condition of the $5 loan.
Way to get that "idol money" back out to those who need it. Good job there. When your family comes asking for some of the money to help them out, make sure you tell them that they should have made arrangements in case you ever won some money.
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
I see, you're going to play the willfully obtuse role. Since I have to spell it out for you: unless you specifically told me that a condition of giving me the $5 was that I buy a lottery ticket and share the winnings with you, you're entitled to a repayment of your $5. Likewise, unless you go out of your way to show your investment in your parents house in a way the government considers meaningful (ie, you get your name on the deed), you can't bitch about not reaping the benefits of owning the house.
I don't have a problem paying my taxes, and I'd gladly pay it on any lottery winnings I ever get. I'm happy to see any entitlements that will be paid for with said taxes. You, however, aren't entitled to anything just because you lent someone $5.
You brought up the stupid $5/lottery analogy.
To be fair, you started with a stupid example anyway.
I was just extending it to your sense of entitlement that I am sure you want to see all parties involved in said transaction get their fair share of a windfall you didn't really earn.
You're exactly right, which is why I'd give Uncle Sam his due and give you back your $5. If only you'd arranged with me to share in the winnings as a condition of the $5 loan.
Way to get that "idol money" back out to those who need it. Good job there.
Is this you being clever? Because I've gotta say, you're not very good at it.
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
Ah yes, yet another way for the rich to avoid paying taxes, eh wwtMask? Thanks for pointing out another loophole.
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
I see, you're going to play the willfully obtuse role. Since I have to spell it out for you: unless you specifically told me that a condition of giving me the $5 was that I buy a lottery ticket and share the winnings with you, you're entitled to a repayment of your $5. Likewise, unless you go out of your way to show your investment in your parents house in a way the government considers meaningful (ie, you get your name on the deed), you can't bitch about not reaping the benefits of owning the house.
I don't have a problem paying my taxes, and I'd gladly pay it on any lottery winnings I ever get. I'm happy to see any entitlements that will be paid for with said taxes. You, however, aren't entitled to anything just because you lent someone $5.
You brought up the stupid $5/lottery analogy.
To be fair, you started with a stupid example anyway.
I was just extending it to your sense of entitlement that I am sure you want to see all parties involved in said transaction get their fair share of a windfall you didn't really earn.
You're exactly right, which is why I'd give Uncle Sam his due and give you back your $5. If only you'd arranged with me to share in the winnings as a condition of the $5 loan.
Way to get that "idol money" back out to those who need it. Good job there.
Is this you being clever? Because I've gotta say, you're not very good at it.
Better than you as I am not contradicting myself as you have throughout this thread. And touchy now that it's your money, eh?
Futurist on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Why do you think that assets can't be taxed just because they've been taxed already? Did it ever occur to you that the government can tax financial transactions, and that the transferal of wealth from parent to child is a financial transaction?
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
How so? The threshold for when they actually kick in is quite high and using a tax advisor you can avoid a lot of the strawmen that people throw up.
Posts
Ah. Well, okay, I sort of see where this is coming from. The current state approach is currently similar - except that 'pooled wealth' is only held to exist for married couples (and possibly civil unions etc. but let's not go there). Their children or intended heirs don't get included in said pool.
For me it does seem unusual to expand the pool to include more individuals, but I sort of see how it works.
Earning 'in mind' doesn't quite apply because 'in mind' is really endogenous, isn't it? - if there's no inheritance tax, you can earn with leaving an inheritance in mind, if there is such a tax, you don't? Likewise with double taxation. We already double tax all spending outside the pool if we define double taxation as such.
I would be more willing to buy into the 'pool' idea if the title holders had less control over inheritance. Logically with allegedly pooled wealth the title should be understood to be jointly held, yes? If the title holder retains total control over said wealth before abruptly passing total control over to another individual (the heirs), that doesn't seem like pooled wealth. That seems like intergenerational gifting and should be treated as such.
It IS a whole system.
How can you not know that?
This is Grade A ignorance on your part, dude.
Are we seriously having this conversation? I feel like Robert Vaughn in BASEketball right now, and you just asked who Ty Cobb was.
Communism is the ERASURE of large-scale ownership by individuals. Not the shifting of liquid assets amongst them. This is shit you should have understood by middle school.
Throw in a million self-proclaimed authorities on communism and you have a big mess. Marx? Lenin? Trotsky? The bizarre ivory tower of academic Marxism, or the fire and steel of actual Marxist rebels (who still exist by the way)?
So it's hard to say precisely what communism is. I've never seen taxation seriously described as communist or having communist elements, though, precisely because it is something to be discarded in virtually all self-proclaimed communist systems.
Socialist and redistributionist would be more appropriate. But not communist.
I had to pay my taxes. Now I know what living in a Communist Dictatorship is like.
I mean what the hell does "it's a hard lean" toward communism even mean?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Nope, Soviet Russia was one of the only places in the world without largescale taxation. In Soviet Russia goverment pays taxes to you!
It was one of the reasons Russia sucked in the 90s, no IRS to collect the taxes they suddenly needed. Wich of course is why one of Putins favourite tricks is to accuse his enemies of tax evasion, since Rich in Russia = never paying their taxes.
Its also why so many Easter European countries have the flat tax, people don't actualy pay their taxes and enforcement is hard enough without exemptions and deductibles.
Not really as you have no information regarding the living recipients contribution to the deceased's assets. If my parents own a home that I have helped paid for, done repairs to, etc. but reside solely in their names, I have invested some of my money and time into that asset. If they will it to me when they pass on, why should I also be taxed heavily for such a "windfall"?
If you wanted a legal/financial stake in the home, there's ways to set that up
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
For the first time ever, the joke actually works! Now, I must find and kill that damn Ukranian art teacher, Yakov Smirnov.
But yes, the notion that communism itself is a unified series of ideas is pretty bunk too. People died--and killed eachother--over this differences. A lot. Trotsky didn't end up with an ice pick in his head because he was tired with hats.
Trying to unify the past century of communist ideologies is like tying capitalism to everything from the Dutch fish-preserving economies to European imperialists killing tens of millions of people...well, everywhere. Yes, they do draw upon eachother, but they're not always the same thing.
So, maintain a legal/financial stake in all family assets, across the board, so I won't have a huge tax taken out when I inherit them. And completely unrealistic.
The fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax in question.
Your response to the windfall tax question was basically "but what if I had all this money invested in something but have no way to track it or get a return on it." That's a silly objection.
edit: or what wwtmask says
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Investing or contributing to your family is hardly stupid. What IS stupid is to force a law that seeks to take assets that have been previously taxed because the owner of said assets decides to transfer those assets to another party.
But, as this entirely silly thread is heavily populated by an amazing sense of entitlement and bitching at the evil rich, I am not surprised by your stupid answer.
Imagine that, you agree with wwtmask
Investing in anything without having any way to show said investment or ownership and then expecting to reap the rewards of ownership is, in fact, the mark of stupidity. I supposed that if you lend me five bucks and then I use 1 dollar on a winning lottery ticket, you're going to come to me hat in hand asking for your share of the prize money.
While is may be legally naive to not have a paper trail for every penny within family transactions, it is the most typical way that families behave. Next time you lend a family member $100, make sure that you have them sign for it in triplicate.
Well, applying your sense of entitlement and fair share, I'm sure I wouldn't have to because you are so benevolent that you would automatically make sure that windfall is spread evenly across everyone you know. So I guess I don't have to worry about getting my money back, and then some!
are you arguing against lottery winners being taxed, now?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Assets are taxed all of the time (homes, cars, etc.), but the excessive taxing transfer of funds/assets within a primary family, due to inheritance, is somewhat wrong.
I see, you're going to play the willfully obtuse role. Since I have to spell it out for you: unless you specifically told me that a condition of giving me the $5 was that I buy a lottery ticket and share the winnings with you, you're entitled to a repayment of your $5. Likewise, unless you go out of your way to show your investment in your parents house in a way the government considers meaningful (ie, you get your name on the deed), you can't bitch about not reaping the benefits of owning the house.
I don't have a problem paying my taxes, and I'd gladly pay it on any lottery winnings I ever get. I'm happy to see any entitlements that will be paid for with said taxes. You, however, aren't entitled to anything just because you lent someone $5.
Lottery pools that are assets built by a citizen pool, and assembled specifically for the funding of public programs like education, is not the same thing as inheriting an asset from a family member when they are deceased. No issues with those winnings being taxed as, for the winner, it is "found money".
You say this like there aren't mechanisms available to avoid or minimize the inheritance tax. Again, the fact that you make stupid financial decisions isn't actually an argument against the tax.
You brought up the stupid $5/lottery analogy. I was just extending it to your sense of entitlement that I am sure you want to see all parties involved in said transaction get their fair share of a windfall you didn't really earn.
What exactly defines excessive? Would the ranting against capital gains and/or inheritance taxes diminish if we used a graduated progressive tax scheme like we do for income taxation? Or do we already do that, and the complaint is about the amount levied in the highest bracket?
I'm not all that familiar with these forms of taxation, so I'm genuinely curious. I know capital gains tops out around 15% and that suggests to me it's a flat scheme.
To be fair, you started with a stupid example anyway.
You're exactly right, which is why I'd give Uncle Sam his due and give you back your $5. If only you'd arranged with me to share in the winnings as a condition of the $5 loan.
I never said I was. I was just saying that, due to your position on wealth distribution and not wanting to become one of those arrogant rich people, I'm sure you would see your way clear to give me more than my $5 back.
Way to get that "idol money" back out to those who need it. Good job there. When your family comes asking for some of the money to help them out, make sure you tell them that they should have made arrangements in case you ever won some money.
He's been making false accusations for the entire thread. Had to be called out to end it. Hopefully we can now focus on reality instead of fantasy.
Is this you being clever? Because I've gotta say, you're not very good at it.
Ah yes, yet another way for the rich to avoid paying taxes, eh wwtMask? Thanks for pointing out another loophole.
Better than you as I am not contradicting myself as you have throughout this thread.
How so? The threshold for when they actually kick in is quite high and using a tax advisor you can avoid a lot of the strawmen that people throw up.