|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 28 2015 08:58 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 08:40 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 08:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 28 2015 06:11 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2015 06:06 cLutZ wrote:On August 28 2015 05:33 Velr wrote:
ROFL.. Clutz. So your Parents would rather die piss poor than to "just" leave "most" of their assets to you? Wow... Just wow.
Umm...yes. Whenever you get inheritance taxes about 50% or so you start seeing this. I do not work in estate law like Plansix, but I do work with some wealthy people. And basically they do not want to die piss poor, what they do is spend $500k on a perishable luxury, like a boat or RV instead of leaving it in the estate, even though they would rather just give their kids 500k. Or they set up weird vanity charities, or start "businesses" that really just employ their kids because the income tax rate is lower than the inheritance rate. I think the idea of an inheritance tax is stupid, but if you are going to have it, it should be low such that it just kind of skims off a bit of money not how nearly every one in the modern world is: basically a punishment for dying. See that is something I don't get my head around. Say I am old and will probably die within a decade or 2. I have 500k and a nice house. I would be perfectly fine living off the 500k and when I die see half of the remainder go to my children and the other half to the state. My children will still get a very nice sum of money and it wasn't like i was going to use any of it anyway. I am dead after all. (And if their rich enough to not care about getting 100k+ then I give even less about the money) You are a just saying how you think you would feel about it. I'm quite sure, if you actually were on that situation, and how you made your money might make your hipothetical answer different. For "rich" people it's not about the money. It's about not letting the government take away their hard earned work. As a current entrepreneur (I have 2 businesses) both the taxes I have to pay and the legal burden I have to face are overwhelming. My crossfit Gym has 4 owners (I'm one), 2 of which work like 60 hours a month for 220 USD atm (the coaches) and have been for the last year because we basically break even and are betting on keep growing. We have to pay 19% sales tax on every membership, which adds up to 1 to 3k USD every month. With that money we could have way bettter equipment, do proper marketing, and pay my 2 friends a livable wage (you need way less money in Chile than US/Europe to live properly) My friends have to deal with their family supporting them, while they are running a business that might or might not flourish. I'm in the same boat. Being broke all the time, their parents giving them shit about it (get a "real" job), not being able to take their gf's out, etc. The amount of damage taxes do is brutal, but armchair economists and social justice warriors simply do not see it. They think 10/20/30 sales tax is reasonable, when it's not. How governments waste money is ridiculous and a burden to hard working people. Good job, you have failed to understand how taxes work and the countless ways they benefit you as well as your business. Setting things like basic human decency aside, think about this, how many customers would you lose if no one could afford medical care? How many because your gym isn't connected via proper roads and public transit. How does the water and electricity get there? Do you think these things are conjured up out of thin air? No business rakes in the dosh right away. Many don't ever get to achieve sustained profitability, that's how things go in a competitive economy. Huh? The government could do that with 5% income tax, current levels are totally unreasonable.
That's amazing, you would continue to offer basic government services while cutting the budget by 95%! You should run on that one. Being a small business owner, I am sure your numbers are completely realistic and fiscally responsible. Your epiphany I am sure will come as a complete revelation to the millions of politicians who've worked in governments for hundreds of years, but to whom such a unique thought has never before occurred.
|
Someone who judges economic policy solely by GDP per capita isn't in a position to criticize anyone's knowledge.
|
On August 28 2015 09:58 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 09:28 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 09:25 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 28 2015 09:11 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 08:58 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 28 2015 08:40 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 08:29 GoTuNk! wrote:On August 28 2015 06:11 Gorsameth wrote:On August 28 2015 06:06 cLutZ wrote:On August 28 2015 05:33 Velr wrote:
ROFL.. Clutz. So your Parents would rather die piss poor than to "just" leave "most" of their assets to you? Wow... Just wow.
Umm...yes. Whenever you get inheritance taxes about 50% or so you start seeing this. I do not work in estate law like Plansix, but I do work with some wealthy people. And basically they do not want to die piss poor, what they do is spend $500k on a perishable luxury, like a boat or RV instead of leaving it in the estate, even though they would rather just give their kids 500k. Or they set up weird vanity charities, or start "businesses" that really just employ their kids because the income tax rate is lower than the inheritance rate. I think the idea of an inheritance tax is stupid, but if you are going to have it, it should be low such that it just kind of skims off a bit of money not how nearly every one in the modern world is: basically a punishment for dying. See that is something I don't get my head around. Say I am old and will probably die within a decade or 2. I have 500k and a nice house. I would be perfectly fine living off the 500k and when I die see half of the remainder go to my children and the other half to the state. My children will still get a very nice sum of money and it wasn't like i was going to use any of it anyway. I am dead after all. (And if their rich enough to not care about getting 100k+ then I give even less about the money) You are a just saying how you think you would feel about it. I'm quite sure, if you actually were on that situation, and how you made your money might make your hipothetical answer different. For "rich" people it's not about the money. It's about not letting the government take away their hard earned work. As a current entrepreneur (I have 2 businesses) both the taxes I have to pay and the legal burden I have to face are overwhelming. My crossfit Gym has 4 owners (I'm one), 2 of which work like 60 hours a month for 220 USD atm (the coaches) and have been for the last year because we basically break even and are betting on keep growing. We have to pay 19% sales tax on every membership, which adds up to 1 to 3k USD every month. With that money we could have way bettter equipment, do proper marketing, and pay my 2 friends a livable wage (you need way less money in Chile than US/Europe to live properly) My friends have to deal with their family supporting them, while they are running a business that might or might not flourish. I'm in the same boat. Being broke all the time, their parents giving them shit about it (get a "real" job), not being able to take their gf's out, etc. The amount of damage taxes do is brutal, but armchair economists and social justice warriors simply do not see it. They think 10/20/30 sales tax is reasonable, when it's not. How governments waste money is ridiculous and a burden to hard working people. Good job, you have failed to understand how taxes work and the countless ways they benefit you as well as your business. Setting things like basic human decency aside, think about this, how many customers would you lose if no one could afford medical care? How many because your gym isn't connected via proper roads and public transit. How does the water and electricity get there? Do you think these things are conjured up out of thin air? No business rakes in the dosh right away. Many don't ever get to achieve sustained profitability, that's how things go in a competitive economy. Huh? The government could do that with 5% income tax, current levels are totally unreasonable. Public health care is atrocious, most people go private with insurance (80% of the population, at least). We pay water and electric bills separately? I have a finance major, a profitable 4 year old business and recently purchased a crossfit gym, I understand how a competitive economy works way better than you do. Because I do, the idea that business go bankrupt because of high taxes, and worse, bad legislation, is horrible to me. Financially and ethically. I didn't mention the our accountant's 100 USD/month wage and 500 USD payment for the anual balance. All that shit slowly eats away our margins. We also pay taxes on the cleaning lady's wage. Thanks for your support, but don't worry, we are moving to a bigger, cheaper location to acomodate our goal of 300 students for a profitable business pretty soon. We provide exelent coaching, motivation, and have changed for good many people's life.That said, the grind could have been a lot easier. Okay, so we have established that your countries infrastructure is not that great, yet the government, which is running a deficitary is supposed to make do with a slashed budget? You also fail to address the point of infrastructure, you may pay your water bill to a private company even, but where do you think the funds for water lines, reservoirs, a canalisation, etc came from? I could go on, what in case your fancy new building catches fire? Are you paying for a private fire brigade to come over and put it out? Maybe you want them to stop in front of your office and negotiate a higher price while your hard work is burning to the ground, too. I mean you are studying business after all, so feel free to go ahead and explain. Again this all is disregarding all the people in help of need and social security support. Do you just want them to die in the streets? My point is that those activities do not need to be performed by the government and that the private sector would do it more efficiently. Rising wages, education, health care, etc etc have been improving way before the government intervened them. I believe in taxes to fund government functioning, justice, defense (cops included) and few other stuff (like help to disabled people or families of mentally challenged who cannot really work). That can be achieved with 10% of the current government budget. Firefighters are volunteers. Our renter pays for insurance; we also pay private security (24/7 alarm and support). We do not need big governments to protect the poor. The poor exist because of big governments. Okay, so you're basically some crazy right win nut, that's cool too. Our filthy socialist countries appear to be winning in your all important competition for money though. ;P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capitaBy the way, Chile spent over 10% of their budget on defense alone, but I am sure all these things could be accomplished with 10%. Way to put your finance degree to work. You realize Chile has leapfrogged up those charts with free market reforms, right? They used to be poorer than Argentina, Mexico, and Venezuela by as much as 50% in GDP per capita, and now are the richest Latin American country... http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/countries/1W?order=wbapi_data_value_1990 wbapi_data_value wbapi_data_value-first&sort=asc&page=4&display=default
They managed to surge past such economic powerhouses as a bunch of mafia cartels, a country that defaults every other week while being run by an absolutely clown show, etc., basically countries which are plagued by deep running problems while mostly relying exports from their montane industry. wa0w How well do you think they would be doing if the ~50% of total exports coming from their copper mines wouldn't exist?
|
Yea, all those "clown shows" are just Socialist countries that lack the built up social and economic capital to support European-style welfare states. You are arguing that a poor country should implement policies that just barely work in a rich country.
|
On August 28 2015 10:14 cLutZ wrote:
Yea, all those "clown shows" are just Socialist countries that lack the built up social and economic capital to support European-style welfare states. You are arguing that a poor country should implement policies that just barely work in a rich country.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with one junta or another completely messing up their fiscal policy again and again, defaulting every other year while causing a ruckus over the Falklands to distract their populace or their government being run by some crony family for the last 15 years. Something like that, or blame it on the fact people have to pay taxes so everyone has healthcare.
Oh neither of those countries you mentioned can fall back on 50% of their exports due to expensive metals either.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
in some of these countries it's more of a question of how the government money is used rather than how much it taxes. cronyism and corruption is more destructive than a 19% tax
|
It is because they don't have Statoil, Wärtsilä, Nokia, Ericsson, SAAB, Volvo, Scania... you'd have to somehow tax at thrice the GDP per capita to have the same revenue, and then there is corruption.
|
On August 28 2015 05:58 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 05:53 Velr wrote:And how is inheritance tax interacting your income tax? In fact it could even lower it. I'm all in favor of taxing assets instead of income. But this is a bad topic to discuss here, tax codes are too diffrent among countries. 2 people could have nearly the same basic views, but due to the diffrent taxrates and taxes in general they have to pay in their countries they would argue for diffrent stuff  . Because inheritance tax would follow the same argumentation. Why should I work if I can't leave anything for my children?
Who said you couldn't leave anything for your children? A percentage of the inheritance goes to the state, and they get the rest. The more you work, the more they'll get.
|
On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again.
The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once.
Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income.
|
On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income.
The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? With inheritance tax the inheriting party gets fucked over by the state for something they had absolutely no control over and probably did not want to happen.
|
On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it?
You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it?
edit: to clarify, the candy bar example was there to show that plenty of transfers of money from the parents to other parties still get taxed even though they're using the money from their income which was taxed. Inheritance should be no different.
|
On August 28 2015 10:50 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it?
Assuming we're talking about the money the parent would have bought it with, it's being taxed extra because the child had to pay inheritance tax. The amount of work that's been put into earning said money is still exactly the same, except the child is going to have less because someone died.
I realise your money is going to be taxed for different things after you pay your income tax. I just don't see how having what essentially amounts to extra VAT due to the misfortune of your parents croaking is something you'd to have in fair/ethical tax system.
|
On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income.
You are kind of illustrating why there should only be one layer ( consumption is generally thought to be the most efficient) layer of taxation.
|
On August 28 2015 10:53 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it? Assuming we're talking about the money the parent would have bought it with, it's being taxed extra because the child had to pay inheritance tax. The amount of work that's been put into earning said money is still exactly the same, except the child is going to have less because someone died.
I think you misunderstood how I was using that example. Like I said in my edit, the candy bar example was there to show that plenty of transfers of money from the parents to other parties still get taxed even though they're using the money from their income which was taxed. This was to explain that the sentence "it has already been taxed" is meaningless - the fact that the parents' income was taxed is irrelevant to the fact that following transfers of money from them to other parties (a house maid working for them, the store where they buy their groceries, etc.) still get taxed. Inheritance is just another transfer of money from them to other parties - their children -, and there's no reason not to tax it. It'll be the first time that particular transfer of money will have been taxed.
On August 28 2015 10:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. You are kind of illustrating why there should only be one layer ( consumption is generally thought to be the most efficient) layer of taxation.
No, I'm not. At all.
|
On August 28 2015 10:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:53 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it? Assuming we're talking about the money the parent would have bought it with, it's being taxed extra because the child had to pay inheritance tax. The amount of work that's been put into earning said money is still exactly the same, except the child is going to have less because someone died. I think you misunderstood how I was using that example. Like I said in my edit, the candy bar example was there to show that plenty of transfers of money from the parents to other parties still get taxed even though they're using the money from their income which was taxed. This was to explain that the sentence "it has already been taxed" is meaningless - the fact that the parents' income was taxed is irrelevant to the fact that following transfers of money from them to other parties (a house maid working for them, the store where they buy their groceries, etc.) still get taxed. Inheritance is just another transfer of money from them to other parties - their children -, and there's no reason not to tax it. It'll be the first time that particular transfer of money will have been taxed. Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:56 cLutZ wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. You are kind of illustrating why there should only be one layer ( consumption is generally thought to be the most efficient) layer of taxation. No, I'm not. At all.
The thing is, inheritance doesn't equal an economic interaction, you're merely changing the ownership over some goods out of necessity rather than some kind of action by either party. If you were to purchase anything, invest your money to generate revenue, w/e there's some kind of activity taking place. I fail to see how that's the case here. So essentially the children are being taxed for money existing in their account.
|
On August 28 2015 10:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:53 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it? Assuming we're talking about the money the parent would have bought it with, it's being taxed extra because the child had to pay inheritance tax. The amount of work that's been put into earning said money is still exactly the same, except the child is going to have less because someone died. I think you misunderstood how I was using that example. Like I said in my edit, the candy bar example was there to show that plenty of transfers of money from the parents to other parties still get taxed even though they're using the money from their income which was taxed. This was to explain that the sentence "it has already been taxed" is meaningless - the fact that the parents' income was taxed is irrelevant to the fact that following transfers of money from them to other parties (a house maid working for them, the store where they buy their groceries, etc.) still get taxed. Inheritance is just another transfer of money from them to other parties - their children -, and there's no reason not to tax it. It'll be the first time that particular transfer of money will have been taxed. Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:56 cLutZ wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. You are kind of illustrating why there should only be one layer ( consumption is generally thought to be the most efficient) layer of taxation. No, I'm not. At all.
You say you aren't, but you are illustrating how having multiple levels of taxation dies affect peoples' choices on the timing of spending and thier saving/spending balance.
|
On August 28 2015 11:05 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:58 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:53 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it? Assuming we're talking about the money the parent would have bought it with, it's being taxed extra because the child had to pay inheritance tax. The amount of work that's been put into earning said money is still exactly the same, except the child is going to have less because someone died. I think you misunderstood how I was using that example. Like I said in my edit, the candy bar example was there to show that plenty of transfers of money from the parents to other parties still get taxed even though they're using the money from their income which was taxed. This was to explain that the sentence "it has already been taxed" is meaningless - the fact that the parents' income was taxed is irrelevant to the fact that following transfers of money from them to other parties (a house maid working for them, the store where they buy their groceries, etc.) still get taxed. Inheritance is just another transfer of money from them to other parties - their children -, and there's no reason not to tax it. It'll be the first time that particular transfer of money will have been taxed. On August 28 2015 10:56 cLutZ wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. You are kind of illustrating why there should only be one layer ( consumption is generally thought to be the most efficient) layer of taxation. No, I'm not. At all. The thing is, inheritance doesn't equal an economic interaction, you're merely changing the ownership over some goods out of necessity rather than some kind of action by either party. If you were to purchase anything, invest your money to generate revenue, w/e there's some kind of activity taking place. I fail to see how that's the case here. So essentially the children are being taxed for money existing in their account.
Except the money didn't "exist in their account". The money gets transferred to their accounts as inheritance. By definition, that's a transfer of money/wealth, which has not yet been taxed, and which can and should be taxed.
Let me ask you the question again: do you think that the income of someone who works his ass off to earn 100,000$ should be taxed more than the 100,000$ that will go to someone who has done zero work to earn that money and simply inherited it?
On August 28 2015 11:08 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 10:58 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:53 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it? Assuming we're talking about the money the parent would have bought it with, it's being taxed extra because the child had to pay inheritance tax. The amount of work that's been put into earning said money is still exactly the same, except the child is going to have less because someone died. I think you misunderstood how I was using that example. Like I said in my edit, the candy bar example was there to show that plenty of transfers of money from the parents to other parties still get taxed even though they're using the money from their income which was taxed. This was to explain that the sentence "it has already been taxed" is meaningless - the fact that the parents' income was taxed is irrelevant to the fact that following transfers of money from them to other parties (a house maid working for them, the store where they buy their groceries, etc.) still get taxed. Inheritance is just another transfer of money from them to other parties - their children -, and there's no reason not to tax it. It'll be the first time that particular transfer of money will have been taxed. On August 28 2015 10:56 cLutZ wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. You are kind of illustrating why there should only be one layer ( consumption is generally thought to be the most efficient) layer of taxation. No, I'm not. At all. You say you aren't, but you are illustrating how having multiple levels of taxation dies affect peoples' choices on the timing of spending and thier saving/spending balance.
No, I'm not. You misunderstood the example.
|
On August 28 2015 11:11 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 11:05 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:58 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:53 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it? Assuming we're talking about the money the parent would have bought it with, it's being taxed extra because the child had to pay inheritance tax. The amount of work that's been put into earning said money is still exactly the same, except the child is going to have less because someone died. I think you misunderstood how I was using that example. Like I said in my edit, the candy bar example was there to show that plenty of transfers of money from the parents to other parties still get taxed even though they're using the money from their income which was taxed. This was to explain that the sentence "it has already been taxed" is meaningless - the fact that the parents' income was taxed is irrelevant to the fact that following transfers of money from them to other parties (a house maid working for them, the store where they buy their groceries, etc.) still get taxed. Inheritance is just another transfer of money from them to other parties - their children -, and there's no reason not to tax it. It'll be the first time that particular transfer of money will have been taxed. On August 28 2015 10:56 cLutZ wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. You are kind of illustrating why there should only be one layer ( consumption is generally thought to be the most efficient) layer of taxation. No, I'm not. At all. The thing is, inheritance doesn't equal an economic interaction, you're merely changing the ownership over some goods out of necessity rather than some kind of action by either party. If you were to purchase anything, invest your money to generate revenue, w/e there's some kind of activity taking place. I fail to see how that's the case here. So essentially the children are being taxed for money existing in their account. Except the money didn't "exist in their account". The money gets transferred to their accounts as inheritance. By definition, that's a transfer of money/wealth, which has not yet been taxed, and which can and should be taxed. Let me ask you the question again: do you think that the income of someone who works his ass off to earn 100,000$ should be taxed more than the 100,000$ that will go to someone who has done zero work to earn them and simply inherited them?
It's been transferred by necessity rather than choice. What else should happen with it? Should someone's assets just disappear into thin air once they die? In my opinion this constitutes a tax that's confiscatory in nature, rather than being levied for a reason.
The $100.000 is still the same money, regardless of whether parent or child owns it. The parents worked their ass of just as much as the random person who earned the same amount, got taxed the same amount, for all intents and purposes that money is the same. Why should the child have less because it has been put into the unfortunate situation where he has to assume possession of it?
|
On August 28 2015 11:17 dismiss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 11:11 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 11:05 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:58 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:53 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it? Assuming we're talking about the money the parent would have bought it with, it's being taxed extra because the child had to pay inheritance tax. The amount of work that's been put into earning said money is still exactly the same, except the child is going to have less because someone died. I think you misunderstood how I was using that example. Like I said in my edit, the candy bar example was there to show that plenty of transfers of money from the parents to other parties still get taxed even though they're using the money from their income which was taxed. This was to explain that the sentence "it has already been taxed" is meaningless - the fact that the parents' income was taxed is irrelevant to the fact that following transfers of money from them to other parties (a house maid working for them, the store where they buy their groceries, etc.) still get taxed. Inheritance is just another transfer of money from them to other parties - their children -, and there's no reason not to tax it. It'll be the first time that particular transfer of money will have been taxed. On August 28 2015 10:56 cLutZ wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. You are kind of illustrating why there should only be one layer ( consumption is generally thought to be the most efficient) layer of taxation. No, I'm not. At all. The thing is, inheritance doesn't equal an economic interaction, you're merely changing the ownership over some goods out of necessity rather than some kind of action by either party. If you were to purchase anything, invest your money to generate revenue, w/e there's some kind of activity taking place. I fail to see how that's the case here. So essentially the children are being taxed for money existing in their account. Except the money didn't "exist in their account". The money gets transferred to their accounts as inheritance. By definition, that's a transfer of money/wealth, which has not yet been taxed, and which can and should be taxed. Let me ask you the question again: do you think that the income of someone who works his ass off to earn 100,000$ should be taxed more than the 100,000$ that will go to someone who has done zero work to earn them and simply inherited them? It's been transferred by necessity rather than choice. What else should happen with it? Should someone's assets just disappear into thin air once they die? In my opinion this constitutes a tax that's confiscatory in nature, rather than being levied for a reason.
The reason for the transfer of money is irrelevant - the point is that this particular transfer of money has not been taxed yet. It's not more "confiscatory" than any other tax - in fact one could argue that having inheritance tax at the same rate as income tax would make the inheritance tax less confiscatory than the income tax, because there was zero work done to earn the inheritance while the worker had to work to earn his income.
On August 28 2015 11:17 dismiss wrote:
The $100.000 is still the same money, regardless of whether parent or child owns it. The parents worked their ass of just as much as the random person who earned the same amount, got taxed the same amount, for all intents and purposes that money is the same. Why should the child have less because it has been put into the unfortunate situation where he has to assume possession of it?
The parents are dead. They are not getting taxed. The children, who are now earning money in a new transfer that has not been taxed yet, are going to see this new transfer of money get taxed, because there is no reason at all for them to be taxed less on money they're earning by doing zero work than a hard worker on the money he's earning by actually working.
It's "unfortunate" to be getting free money, now?
You still haven't answered the question. Which transfer of money deserves to be taxed less?
1. The 100,000$ going to someone who worked his ass off to earn that income and was not lucky enough to ever receive any inheritance.
2. The 100,000$ going to someone who did zero work to earn them and simply inherited them.
The idea that it is "morally hazardous" to tax inheritance is laughable when you take a step back and realize it's money you're getting for doing nothing, as opposed to income money that you've actually worked for.
|
On August 28 2015 11:27 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 11:17 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 11:11 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 11:05 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:58 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:53 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:50 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 10:47 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:
[quote]
So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. The candy bar would be taxed regardless of whether the parents or children buy it. Buy why should it be taxed extra when the child buys it? You lost me there. How is it taxed extra when the child buys it? Assuming we're talking about the money the parent would have bought it with, it's being taxed extra because the child had to pay inheritance tax. The amount of work that's been put into earning said money is still exactly the same, except the child is going to have less because someone died. I think you misunderstood how I was using that example. Like I said in my edit, the candy bar example was there to show that plenty of transfers of money from the parents to other parties still get taxed even though they're using the money from their income which was taxed. This was to explain that the sentence "it has already been taxed" is meaningless - the fact that the parents' income was taxed is irrelevant to the fact that following transfers of money from them to other parties (a house maid working for them, the store where they buy their groceries, etc.) still get taxed. Inheritance is just another transfer of money from them to other parties - their children -, and there's no reason not to tax it. It'll be the first time that particular transfer of money will have been taxed. On August 28 2015 10:56 cLutZ wrote:On August 28 2015 10:45 kwizach wrote:On August 28 2015 04:59 dismiss wrote:On August 28 2015 04:56 Velr wrote:
Money should be earned not inherited? So you want to punish people with wealthy parents because they have wealthy parents? It's all money that has already been taxed at the appropriate rate, it seems hardly fair to tax it again. The transfer of money from the parents to the kids has not been taxed yet. The phrase "it has already been taxed" is meaningless. Say the parents buy a candy bar before dying - should there be no VAT because the money they're paying the candy bar with "had already been taxed" when they earned it? Of course not. The parents' income was taxed, and it's not getting taxed a second time. The children inheriting money are not the same people as the dead parents who earned the income that was taxed. The inheritance going to the children is not the same transfer of money as the parents earning the money from their jobs. The income was taxed once, and the inheritance is taxed once. Let me ask you a different question: how exactly would it be fair for someone who works his ass off to earn money to see his income be taxed at a higher level than a kid who earns his inheritance by doing nothing? I'm not saying at all that inheritances should fully go to the state, but it's perfectly normal and ethical to tax inheritance at the same level (at least) as income. You are kind of illustrating why there should only be one layer ( consumption is generally thought to be the most efficient) layer of taxation. No, I'm not. At all. The thing is, inheritance doesn't equal an economic interaction, you're merely changing the ownership over some goods out of necessity rather than some kind of action by either party. If you were to purchase anything, invest your money to generate revenue, w/e there's some kind of activity taking place. I fail to see how that's the case here. So essentially the children are being taxed for money existing in their account. Except the money didn't "exist in their account". The money gets transferred to their accounts as inheritance. By definition, that's a transfer of money/wealth, which has not yet been taxed, and which can and should be taxed. Let me ask you the question again: do you think that the income of someone who works his ass off to earn 100,000$ should be taxed more than the 100,000$ that will go to someone who has done zero work to earn them and simply inherited them? It's been transferred by necessity rather than choice. What else should happen with it? Should someone's assets just disappear into thin air once they die? In my opinion this constitutes a tax that's confiscatory in nature, rather than being levied for a reason. The reason for the transfer of money is irrelevant - the point is that this particular transfer of money has not been taxed yet. It's not more "confiscatory" than any other tax - in fact one could argue that having inheritance tax at the same rate as income tax would be less confiscatory, because there was zero work done to earn the inheritance while the worker had to work to earn his income. Show nested quote +On August 28 2015 11:17 dismiss wrote:
The $100.000 is still the same money, regardless of whether parent or child owns it. The parents worked their ass of just as much as the random person who earned the same amount, got taxed the same amount, for all intents and purposes that money is the same. Why should the child have less because it has been put into the unfortunate situation where he has to assume possession of it? The parents are dead. They are not getting taxed. The children, who are now earning money in a new transfer that has not been taxed yet, are going to see this new transfer of money get taxed, because there is no reason at all for them to be taxed less on money they're earning by doing zero work than a hard worker on the money he's earning by actually working. It's "unfortunate" to be getting free money, now?
The reason for the transfer of money is highly relevant, rofl. That's how a tax code works. You pay different amounts of taxes on different things for x number of reasons. Sometimes you have to pay less, or even get some money back because you do certain things. Here you do nothing, the state comes along and tells you "Fuck you, we're going to take your money." If that's not confiscatory when compared to say an environmental tax being levied on fuel I don't know what is.
Why are you unwilling to engage my question regarding the alternative uses of an inheritance? Someone has to take possession of it. The utter lack of an action by the beneficiary is gist of the matter here, I can't repeat that often enough. As opposed to the trigger for the vast majority of other taxes they're being taxed here without being an active participant in any activity.
E: As I explained the money should be taxed equally, only that the money in case 2. has already been taxed when it was originally earned. If it is taxed again on transfer to the child it would get taxed more. To flip your question, do you think it's fair if 2 people end up with the same amount of money but one has had to pay an extra 20% in taxes?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
