Go back
Estate Taxes on the Super Wealthy

Estate Taxes on the Super Wealthy

Debates

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

I think they should be heavy.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think they should be heavy.
It is (or will be as of January 1, 2011)

Clock
Vote Up
1
Vote Down

But...but...but...what about the inalienable right to property?! :'(

http://conservativedailynews.com/2010/07/estate-tax-to-return-right-to-property-threatened/

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
But...but...but...what about the inalienable right to property?! :'(

http://conservativedailynews.com/2010/07/estate-tax-to-return-right-to-property-threatened/
They're not inconsistent.

The income tax is not inconsistent with the right to keep the money you earn.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
They're not inconsistent.

The income tax is not inconsistent with the right to keep the money you earn.
why not?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I think they should be heavy.
how'd that work out in UK?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why not?
Thread 132664

Clock
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Thread 132664
wow, less than a day old and already has 10 pages of posts.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
wow, less than a day old and already has 10 pages of posts.
People are passionate about their Right to Property.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why not?
Because the government needs money to function.

To get money it has to tax its citizens. It's not about denying anyone the right to keep anything, but the need of the government to take in revenues it needs to function.

We can debate appropriate tax levels until the cows come home, but the necessity for some level of taxation is a given.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

you might have said: The income tax is a tradeoff vs. the right to keep the money you earn.

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
Because the government needs money to function.

To get money it has to tax its citizens. It's not about denying anyone the right to keep anything, but the need of the government to take in revenues it needs to function.

We can debate appropriate tax levels until the cows come home, but the necessity for some level of taxation is a given.
As is the ability to decide where and what to spend money on..... our money

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sh76
Because the government needs money to function.

To get money it has to tax its citizens. It's not about denying anyone the right to keep anything, but the need of the government to take in revenues it needs to function.

We can debate appropriate tax levels until the cows come home, but the necessity for some level of taxation is a given.
So you agree that attacks on tax increases by using a "right to property" argument are ridiculous?

Clock
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by zeeblebot
why not?
You can view democracy as a market for collective goods. People collectively decide what collective goods to buy from their money, e.g. an army.

Clock
2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
You can view democracy as a market for collective goods. People collectively decide what collective goods to buy from their money, e.g. an army.
Since the "right to property" tends to be formulated in absolute terms by conservatives then it still undermines it. Of course, this is obviously not a problem for you and me who are happy to make it conditional on being post-taxation on the terms you just mentioned.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.