Originally posted by KazetNagorraOhhh God you are such a weasel your parents must be horrified at how you turned out
If everyone can freely allocate their property then no one will be able to pay any taxes. Employers can freely allocate their resources to their employees then, for example. So no, it's not protected by law under all circumstances. Fortunately it isn't.
Originally posted by quackquackAre wealthy people less productive in areas where they pay more taxes? Can you support this statement with facts?
Well, it is not fair to tell people that they will get new benefits (health care) and have just one segment (the people the government decides are wealthy) to pay for it. We should all contribute if we want new benefits or better yet keep our money and purchase what we want. Besides being unfair it is just dumb, wealthy people should be encouraged to ...[text shortened]... eir fair share of taxes and we would not have idiotic proposals like a 100% tax on inheritance.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou could ask my younger brother, only he didn't survive pregnancy.
So you worked hard to be born?
Anyway, the perspective you should be seeing it from is the parents since you're taking away their right to do with the money what they want.
It's pretty revealing what part of my post you chose to respond to...
Originally posted by The Dude 84Well, that is a completely pointless criterion since any tax "takes away the right to do with it what you want". The question is, given that you need X amount of taxes to pay for whatever is deemed necessary, where can you best get the taxes? From hard-working average Joes or from trustfund babies? You seem to prefer taxing the hard-working average Joes.
You could ask my younger brother, only he didn't survive pregnancy.
Anyway, the perspective you should be seeing it from is the parents since you're taking away their right to do with the money what they want.
It's pretty revealing what part of my post you chose to respond to...
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI have no problem taxing trust fund babies a little more than Joe the hard worker. But to tax trust fund baby at 100% doesn't make sense. What you're doing is telling Joe to make sure not to work any harder than he absolutely needs to to make the life he wants to himself because he's not going to be able to pass along any of it anyway.
Well, that is a completely pointless criterion since any tax "takes away the right to do with it what you want". The question is, given that you need X amount of taxes to pay for whatever is deemed necessary, where can you best get the taxes? From hard-working average Joes or from trustfund babies? You seem to prefer taxing the hard-working average Joes.
A big reason why Joe works in the first place is to make a better life for Joe's children.
Originally posted by sh76Well, I never proposed a 100% inheritance tax. But aside from that:
I have no problem taxing trust fund babies a little more than Joe the hard worker. But to tax trust fund baby at 100% doesn't make sense. What you're doing is telling Joe to make sure not to work any harder than he absolutely needs to to make the life he wants to himself because he's not going to be able to pass along any of it anyway.
A big reason why Joe works in the first place is to make a better life for Joe's children.
Are people less productive in areas where inheritance tax is higher? Can you support this statement with facts?
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYour second post of this thread led off with:
Well, I never proposed a 100% inheritance tax. But aside from that:
Are people less productive in areas where inheritance tax is higher? Can you support this statement with facts?
[/b]Ideally, it should be taxed at 100%.[/b]
Are people less productive in areas where inheritance tax is higher? Can you support this statement with facts?
Are these societies that have a 100% inheritance tax or anything approaching it?
I have no problem with a steep inheritance tax. I have a problem with a confiscatory one.
The Laffer curve for income tax must have some sort of equivalent for estate tax. (Or, if there is none, one can be generated.) Figure out the optimal estate tax in those terms and we'll go from there.
Originally posted by sh76Afterwards, I said: "Pragmatically..."
Your second post of this thread led off with:
Ideally, it should be taxed at 100%.[/b]
Are people less productive in areas where inheritance tax is higher? Can you support this statement with facts?
Are these societies that have a 100% inheritance tax or anything approaching it?
I have no problem with a steep inheritance tax. I have a pro ...[text shortened]... ne can be generated.) Figure out the optimal estate tax in those terms and we'll go from there.[/b]
Inheritance tax cannot be 100% because that would make it impossible, for example, for parents to give their children any pocket money since it would all be taxed away. So you need a tax-free inheritance wedge, after which the tax picks up at whatever rate does not cause alarming evasion.
Until recently inheritance tax here was set at over 60%, but it was lowered to 20%. The main reason for this is that the very wealthy found it rather easy to evade the taxes since they usually own businesses and can easily transfer the funds through there. The moderately wealthy, which did not have such options available, were taxed at a very high rate, which was deemed unfair (and I agree). I don't think labour productivity increased after the tax was lowered.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIn your response, "X" doesn't represent a finite number, but an infinite attempt to grab whatever they can by any means necessary. Do you really think the government anywhere will EVER say "we have reached X???"
Well, that is a completely pointless criterion since any tax "takes away the right to do with it what you want". The question is, given that you need X amount of taxes to pay for whatever is deemed necessary, where can you best get the taxes? From hard-working average Joes or from trustfund babies? You seem to prefer taxing the hard-working average Joes.
And what is "necessary"? Don't kid yourself! Though you would never put it this way, you want to outlaw wealth.
That you're making yourself out to be a Robin Hood figure, the champion of the proletariat, is funny and not at all surprising...it's the first thing I'd do if I was a shameless criminal too.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraIt should not be surprising that people chose to work less when taxes increase or they move to lower tax areas. In the US, states with higher taxes have a decreasing propulation while those with lower taxes have an increasing popultaion. You proposed a 100% tax so it is pretty inconceivable that it would not have dramtic effect on people's decision to work.
Are wealthy people less productive in areas where they pay more taxes? Can you support this statement with facts?
Originally posted by The Dude 84Good job at not getting the point. Presumably you want low taxes. Even then, you have to make choices as to what to tax and who to tax. You can put heavy taxes on inheritance to make taxes for the average Joe lower - even if you want only "small government". This is the only aspect of this debate - whether or not government should be "big" or "small" is a different debate.
In your response, "X" doesn't represent a finite number, but an infinite attempt to grab whatever they can by any means necessary. Do you really think the government anywhere will EVER say "we have reached X???"
And what is "necessary"? Don't kid yourself! Though you would never put it this way, you want to outlaw wealth.
That you're making yo ...[text shortened]... ot at all surprising...it's the first thing I'd do if I was a shameless criminal too.
Most democratically elected governments are reluctant to raise taxes - and deficits result - so your fear that governments will always aim at high taxes is rather absurd, really.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraNo, this is too weak. Come with something substantial, not just rhetorical flourishes in the air.
So your solution, when you have an issue of collective responsibility, is the collective shrug? I don't understand your point here. And don't you think you can do better than the simplistic socialism/capitalism dichotomy?
Originally posted by The Dude 84X is a function of wealth disparity. It is a natural response to rich people who violate others' right to earn property by withholding resources from them.
In your response, "X" doesn't represent a finite number, but an infinite attempt to grab whatever they can by any means necessary. Do you really think the government anywhere will EVER say "we have reached X???"
And what is "necessary"? Don't kid yourself! Though you would never put it this way, you want to outlaw wealth.
That you're making yo ...[text shortened]... ot at all surprising...it's the first thing I'd do if I was a shameless criminal too.