|
On April 23 2012 09:51 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own. You can donate money to each, and a child can receive from each family member up to around 30k€ every 10 years without paying taxes. That seems fine and enough to me. You can also give 150k€ in housing, or stocks, to your children, without paying taxes (double that for a couple) More looks okay to tax to me. "Hey, let's give our child 1 million !!" .........
So where exactly is the problem? I worked my ass off for decades and paid taxes on my work. I want to give my child 1 million or 10 million. Why on earth should my child be paying ANY tax on this whatsoever?
|
On April 23 2012 09:52 Jago wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own. My country actually has a gift tax, I kid you not  Try to wrap your head around that one.
Ahah. Mind blown.
But actually, having a tax on a tax in France is quite amazing, too. On oil, there is a tax, called TICPE (50% of oil price), and we pay TVA on that tax. Ahahah. Not bad either, albeit in another field !
@ Jago : well you did, not your child. I don't say I agree, just that I understand. Your donation is an income to him.
And it's obviously to avoid people giving everything before their death to avoid the inheritance tax.
|
On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own.
You're not paying anything, you're dead. Your child, however, pays a tax on his inheritance. He's getting money by doing nothing, there's really no reason why he should pay less in taxes than someone who works his ass off to earn the same amount.
|
On April 23 2012 09:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own. You're not paying anything, you're dead. Your child, however, pays a tax on his inheritance. He's getting money by doing nothing, there's really no reason why he should pay less in taxes than someone who works his ass off to earn the same amount.
So is your line of reasoning seriously something along the lines of "if you are getting money, for anything, from anything, you have to pay taxes on it"? That's some seriously twisted thinking...
|
On April 23 2012 10:01 Jago wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 09:55 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own. You're not paying anything, you're dead. Your child, however, pays a tax on his inheritance. He's getting money by doing nothing, there's really no reason why he should pay less in taxes than someone who works his ass off to earn the same amount. So is your line of reasoning seriously something along the lines of "if you are getting money, for anything, from anything, you have to pay taxes on it"? That's some seriously twisted thinking...
My line of reasoning, as already stated, is that there is no reason someone receiving money by not doing any work through inheritance should pay less taxes on that money than someone working his ass off to earn the same amount. Stop calling it "seriously twisted thinking", not only is that an ad hominem, it's also ridiculous since many countries have something amounting to an estate or inheritance tax, including the United States and your own country (Finland).
|
On April 23 2012 10:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 10:01 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 09:55 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own. You're not paying anything, you're dead. Your child, however, pays a tax on his inheritance. He's getting money by doing nothing, there's really no reason why he should pay less in taxes than someone who works his ass off to earn the same amount. So is your line of reasoning seriously something along the lines of "if you are getting money, for anything, from anything, you have to pay taxes on it"? That's some seriously twisted thinking... My line of reasoning, as already stated, is that there is no reason someone receiving money by not doing any work through inheritance should pay less taxes on that money than someone working his ass off to earn the same amount. Stop calling it "seriously twisted thinking", not only is that an ad hominem, it's also ridiculous since many countries have something amounting to an estate or inheritance tax, including the United States and your own country (Finland).
First of all, you need to look up the definition of ad hominen. Second, I am well aware my country (Finland) has an inheritance tax and it's one of the many reasons why I consider Finland's taxation system to be broken.
|
On April 23 2012 10:16 Jago wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 10:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 10:01 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 09:55 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own. You're not paying anything, you're dead. Your child, however, pays a tax on his inheritance. He's getting money by doing nothing, there's really no reason why he should pay less in taxes than someone who works his ass off to earn the same amount. So is your line of reasoning seriously something along the lines of "if you are getting money, for anything, from anything, you have to pay taxes on it"? That's some seriously twisted thinking... My line of reasoning, as already stated, is that there is no reason someone receiving money by not doing any work through inheritance should pay less taxes on that money than someone working his ass off to earn the same amount. Stop calling it "seriously twisted thinking", not only is that an ad hominem, it's also ridiculous since many countries have something amounting to an estate or inheritance tax, including the United States and your own country (Finland). First of all, you need to look up the definition of ad hominen. Second, I am well aware my country (Finland) has an inheritance tax and it's one of the many reasons why I consider Finland's taxation system to be broken.
From Merriam-Webster:
"1 : appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect" [which is what you're doing by calling it "twisted thinking" - you didn't even attempt to respond to the actual argument]
You're free to hold the opinion that inheritance tax should not exist, but so far you've either stated fallacies ("we're getting taxed twice" - wrong) or qualified my line of thinking as "twisted", which in no way addresses my arguments/advances the debate.
|
Furthermore, such taxes work towards equality by trying to compensate the fact that, well, life is unfair.
By taking a little of what is passed in each generation among the elite, you can develop the tools to give the lower classes the means to succeed.
No taxes are fair per se. Their justification relies on their goal.
Many believe that their money is theirs and was acquired through hard work, but it is often simply not true, much like castles that were passed on in noble families werent built by the owners themselves. The only merit they had was to be born in the right family.
|
On April 23 2012 09:55 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own. You're not paying anything, you're dead. Your child, however, pays a tax on his inheritance. He's getting money by doing nothing, there's really no reason why he should pay less in taxes than someone who works his ass off to earn the same amount.
Whether or not you are dead is irrelevant. Even if the person is alive you still believe the government should get its cut, as you've already said. I don't think you're going to change my mind with semantics. We both know what the inheritance tax is. Saying that the government takes its cut the millisecond after it is in the child's hands instead of the millisecond before it is in the child's hands doesn't change anything. Either way, a fee is paid for a parent giving something to a child.
|
On April 23 2012 09:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 09:16 1Eris1 wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? The money's already been taxed before though. Inheritance taxes are always extra taxes on money, not the sole tax. See my edit in my previous post for clarification. The two people earning money (one through his work, the other through inheritance) get taxed once each, which is perfectly legitimate. There is no reason why someone who earns his money through inheritance should be taxed at a lower rate than someone who earns his money through hard work. edit: ok you just edited your post after seeing my initial edit :p I'll use this space to reply to your newly edited post. edit2: I feel that your new post moves beyond the discussion we were having on estate tax, and discussing the specific bill that was mentioned by A. Weiner would pretty much amount to derailing this thread which is about French elections, so it's probably best to stop here... We can continue this via PM if you want, but basically my position is that a higher income tax for the richest people (or at least removing the tax breaks they're currently enjoying) would result in increased revenue for the state.
I guess what I'm saying here, is that if you raise inheritance taxes too high (and wealthy taxes in general) then you run the risk of those people simply leaving the country, and then you would get nothing whatsoever.
It's kind of a general point I know, and you could probably respond with something like "well you run that risk whenever you raise taxes, so we shouldn't raise taxes then?" but I just feel like 75%/three freaking quarters is probably over that imaginary threshold of when to stay or go.
|
|
|
Funny to see that people who vote for the racist party live in places where...there's almost no french with foreign roots (like in my birth place) ^^
In the same time, in Paris, a multicultural city, Le Pen is barely at 5% 
We've some work to do to stop this ignorance in our countryside, it's such a shame.
|
On April 23 2012 17:45 Agathon wrote:Funny to see that people who vote for the racist party live in places where...there's almost no french with foreign roots (like in my birth place) ^^ In the same time, in Paris, a multicultural city, Le Pen is barely at 5% We've some work to do to stop this ignorance in our countryside, it's such a shame.
Inside Paris not that much, and Paris is very segregated. Only 2 "arrondissements" with "banlieues" in it.
|
On April 23 2012 10:56 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 09:55 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own. You're not paying anything, you're dead. Your child, however, pays a tax on his inheritance. He's getting money by doing nothing, there's really no reason why he should pay less in taxes than someone who works his ass off to earn the same amount. Whether or not you are dead is irrelevant. Even if the person is alive you still believe the government should get its cut, as you've already said. I don't think you're going to change my mind with semantics. We both know what the inheritance tax is. Saying that the government takes its cut the millisecond after it is in the child's hands instead of the millisecond before it is in the child's hands doesn't change anything. Either way, a fee is paid for a parent giving something to a child.
It has nothing to do with semantics. The one giving the money is not the one getting taxed. The one receiving the money is the one getting taxed. How do you not see the difference? In the first case, someone would get taxed twice, in the second case each person gets taxed once, which is perfectly normal and is the way things work for everyone.
|
On April 23 2012 18:12 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2012 10:56 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:55 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 09:43 BlackJack wrote:On April 23 2012 09:06 kwizach wrote:On April 23 2012 07:32 Jago wrote:On April 23 2012 07:06 VyingsP wrote:
On the other hand, Hollande has some good measures, such as the ineligibility for 10 years of the politicians convinced with corruption, or the increase of the inheritance tax (which is only fair, if you consider that being rich should be deserved and not inherited). WTF? Inheritance tax is one of the most retarded taxations in existence. So if I work my ass off to build a nestegg for my wife and children, pay my taxes throughout the decades, then I die and then... they have to pay taxes AGAIN? Why should the money someone earns by inheritance be taxed at a lower rate than the money someone earns by working hard? Watch Anthony Weiner (I miss this guy SO much) completely demolish Megyn Kelly and Mike Huckabee on that precise topic: vs Megyn Kellyvs Mike HuckabeeThe fallacy that opponents of the estate tax use is the idea that the person who's dead has gotten taxed twice. That is NOT the case. That person got taxed once, when he earned his money. The person inheriting the money also gets taxed once, when receiving the money. Why should you have to pay in order to give your child something? That's a pretty twisted idea in its own. You're not paying anything, you're dead. Your child, however, pays a tax on his inheritance. He's getting money by doing nothing, there's really no reason why he should pay less in taxes than someone who works his ass off to earn the same amount. Whether or not you are dead is irrelevant. Even if the person is alive you still believe the government should get its cut, as you've already said. I don't think you're going to change my mind with semantics. We both know what the inheritance tax is. Saying that the government takes its cut the millisecond after it is in the child's hands instead of the millisecond before it is in the child's hands doesn't change anything. Either way, a fee is paid for a parent giving something to a child. It has nothing to do with semantics. The one giving the money is not the one getting taxed. The one receiving the money is the one getting taxed. How do you not see the difference? In the first case, someone would get taxed twice, in the second case each person gets taxed once, which is perfectly normal and is the way things work for everyone.
I'm saying the difference is negligible. It doesn't matter who hands the check over to Uncle Sam, we all know where the money is coming from. I don't know why this tiny technicality matters at all to you. There's nothing morally different about the equation if the parent pays the taxes or if the child pays the taxes, the only reason to argue for that distinction is so that you can say it isn't technically double taxation - in other words, semantics. It's clearly not "perfectly normal and the way things work for everyone" because this effects only a very very very small percent of people and if it were all that normal then it should already be covered by the income tax instead of the estate tax.
|
Having had to meddle with various inheritance and life insurance papers after my uncle died, I guarantee you that the cumulated taxes are absolutely ridiculous. You have to go through loopholes to guarantee that a decent part of your legacy actually goes to people you wanted to in your will.
|
|
|
Le Pen at 19%, Sarkozy at 25. Poor France...
|
On April 23 2012 19:56 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Le Pen at 19%, Sarkozy at 25. Poor France...
There isn't a single viable candidate, of course we're fucked. Le Pen (and Méléchon, ie the extremists) only got that amount of votes because people are sick of Sarko's bullshit and Hollande is deemed incompetent. He's already been ridiculed in the Times magazine (source). No one really likes Sarkozy either.
No candidates are viable. It's retarded. :/
|
But, make no mistake,
reading that line reminds me of
... war is coming, with all it's glory and all it's horror
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
