Are the rich cheap?

Originally posted by wedgehead2
With no "death" tax, kids can live off their parents success. This isn't, as you would say, down to their own actions.

Many people who come into sudden, unearned wealth blow through it pretty quickly, as evidenced by all of the professional athletes and lottery winners who wind up broke. As to the defects of the death tax: Why shouldn't you be able to pass along the legacy of a lifetime of hard work to whomever you choose?

Originally posted by Ullr
First of all the "death: tax is a double tax because it is the government taxing money that has already been taxed. So basically the government is double dipping. Secondly, as a parent, I feel I should have every right to leave my hard earned money to my children if I so choose.

So you would be happier if your children never worked and spent your money, rather than actually contributed to society and the economy?
Whats wrong with taxing already taxed money- would you prefer more tax being taken out in the first place?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Many people who come into sudden, unearned wealth blow through it pretty quickly, as evidenced by all of the professional athletes and lottery winners who wind up broke. As to the defects of the death tax: Why shouldn't you be able to pass along the legacy of a lifetime of hard work to whomever you choose?

Because its your hard work- not theirs? You are giving your hard earned money away to people- precisely what you dislike about taxation, and discouraging the to work.

Originally posted by Ullr
I think he addressed that by mentioning the Kennedy's - those crusaders for social justice whom also happen to be living off daddy's money.

The Kennedy's aren't the only example!

Originally posted by wedgehead2
So you would be happier if your children never worked and spent your money, rather than actually contributed to society and the economy?
Whats wrong with taxing already taxed money- would you prefer more tax being taken out in the first place?

Your making an assumption that all children whom inherit money won't work and contribute to society. This is true in some cases but not all.

You seriously don't see anything wrong with government taxing money a second time or tax increases in general? Why is it that people whom have a problem with government oppression in general (i.e. cringe at the idea of the Patriot Act for example), don't see taxation as a form of oppression? Taxation is the most effective way for a government to oppress its citizens bar none and what I find most scary is the idea that more than half our citizens are willing to lay down and whistle past the graveyard while the government devises new ways to confiscate our property.

Originally posted by Ullr
Your making an assumption that all children whom inherit money won't work and contribute to society. This is true in some cases but not all.

You seriously don't see anything wrong with government taxing money a second time or tax increases in general? Why is it that people whom have a problem with government oppression in general (i.e. cringe at the idea ...[text shortened]... ssion? Taxation is the most effective way for a government to oppress its citizens bar none.

Surely a police state like Nazi Germany, which the Patriot Act is leading to, is surely worse than a high-tax state. High taxes aren't a negative- more money for government leads to better public services- which only Scandanavian countries seems to have realised.

Originally posted by wedgehead2
Surely a police state like Nazi Germany, which the Patriot Act is leading to, is surely worse than a high-tax state. High taxes aren't a negative- more money for government leads to better public services- which only Scandanavian countries seems to have realised.

Yes I will agree with you that a police state like Nazi Germany is worse and I too cringe at the thought of the Patriot Act but I also cringe at the thought of high taxation so at least I'm consistent. Too many others are not.

As far as public services go ... well I agree that a certain amount of taxation is necessary but I'd rather see it limited with the understanding that public services will be limited which frankly I rather not rely on at any rate.

Originally posted by Ullr
Your making an assumption that all children whom inherit money won't work and contribute to society. This is true in some cases but not all.

You seriously don't see anything wrong with government taxing money a second time or tax increases in general? Why is it that people whom have a problem with government oppression in general (i.e. cringe at the idea ...[text shortened]... ssion? Taxation is the most effective way for a government to oppress its citizens bar none.

There are lots of circumstances where taxes are doubled up.

If you have any sort of taxes on purchases, for example, this is also a tax on money which is already taxed.


The point of these kind of taxes, as opposed to a single, bigger tax in your income, is to tailor the tax system so that money is taken from spending on non-essential items.

So, for example, in the UK, we have Value Added Tax on some consumer goods.

Inheritance tax is the same - you don't need the money anymore, so you're passing it on to someone who hasn't earned it. I think this is a reasonable enough source of tax revenue.

Originally posted by Redmike
There are lots of circumstances where taxes are doubled up.

If you have any sort of taxes on purchases, for example, this is also a tax on money which is already taxed.


The point of these kind of taxes, as opposed to a single, bigger tax in your income, is to tailor the tax system so that money is taken from spending on non-essential items.

So, f n to someone who hasn't earned it. I think this is a reasonable enough source of tax revenue.

How about just decreasing the size of government? The cynic in me knows it will never happen but if we could cut the size of the US government in half then that entity wouldn't big enough to flex its muscle all over the world. And there's the crux of the matter isn't it? If the US federal government weren't so big and powerful we wouldn't be in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. So yeah lets keep the taxing estates when people die the US military can buy a few more cruise missiles.

Originally posted by Ullr
Yes I will agree with you that a police state like Nazi Germany is worse and I too cringe at the thought of the Patriot Act but I also cringe at the thought of high taxation so at least I'm consistent. Too many others are not.

As far as public services go ... well I agree that a certain amount of taxation is necessary but I'd rather see it limited with the ...[text shortened]... rstanding that public services will be limited which frankly I rather not rely on at any rate.

High taxation is not totalitarianism. Also- what do you see as public services? I see well staffed hospitals, police and fire forces as key to a strong economy and society. You never no what might happen in the future- lose your money, get ill.. oh dear.

Originally posted by Ullr
How about just decreasing the size of government? The cynic in me knows it will never happen but if we could cut the size of the US government in half then that entity wouldn't big enough to flex its muscle all over the world. And there's the crux of the matter isn't it? If the US federal government weren't so big and powerful we wouldn't be in places like I ...[text shortened]... keep the taxing estates when people die the US military can buy a few more cruise missiles.

Wouldn't is just be simpler to spend the money on something other than missiles?

Healthcare, education, etc.

I think where tax is spent is a whole different argument.

Originally posted by Ullr
How about just decreasing the size of government? The cynic in me knows it will never happen but if we could cut the size of the US government in half then that entity wouldn't big enough to flex its muscle all over the world. And there's the crux of the matter isn't it? If the US federal government weren't so big and powerful we wouldn't be in places like I ...[text shortened]... keep the taxing estates when people die the US military can buy a few more cruise missiles.

I don't think many people would oppose a scaling down of america's military capabilities! More tax for government doesn't mean more money spent on defence- its just that the 2 main american political parties unfortunantly follow that rather confused logic.

Originally posted by wedgehead2
High taxation is not totalitarianism. Also- what do you see as public services? I see well staffed hospitals, police and fire forces as key to a strong economy and society. You never no what might happen in the future- lose your money, get ill.. oh dear.

High taxation is a form of oppression, in my opinion, and if not outright totalitarianism then a sign that your government is well on its way. Also while we obviously need a police force I'd rather not see it too well staffed if you know what I mean (i.e. the Patriot Act).

Originally posted by Redmike
Wouldn't is just be simpler to spend the money on something other than missiles?

Healthcare, education, etc.

I think where tax is spent is a whole different argument.

It gets spent on those things too. The problem is though, again speaking only about the US Federal government, that you have an entity that is so big and economically powerful that its citizens no longer control it. Shrink it down drastically I say and let local governments handle most of the issues sorrounding healthcare, education, police, fire, etc.

Originally posted by Redmike
...Inheritance tax is the same - you don't need the money anymore, so you're passing it on to someone who hasn't earned it. I think this is a reasonable enough source of tax revenue.

The death tax has had the perverse effect of destroying more government revenues than it will ever collect:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=3427

Related:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba574/

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=8877