Originally posted by no1marauderYour belonging are taxes. The technical distinction is meaningless. The practical effect that government uses its citizens death as an opportunity to receive money is not.
After you are dead, you are a "fictional entity".
An estate is hardly "fictional".
The correct answer is "yes". KN said "If you kill yourself, you don't have to pay taxes". That is true.
2 edits
Originally posted by quackquackFunny, you were relying on the "technical distinction" just two pages ago.
Your belonging are taxes. The technical distinction is meaningless. The practical effect that government uses its citizens death as an opportunity to receive money is not.
The practical effect of an estate tax is what KN says; the heirs to very large estates get a bit less than they otherwise would have.
:'( My smiley won't work, but that's a "boo-hoo" one.
Originally posted by whodeyFirst of all, you must know that the statistics on people dying from various causes are almost never reliable.
For those that champion pot as being equal to alcohol, did you know this?
About 450,000 die annually from smoking.
Only about 22,073 die from alcohol annually.
Of course, pot can be consumed in other ways, but everyone knows the method of preference is smoking it.
What should the FDA do, if anything? In fact, illegal and legal drugs only kill abo ...[text shortened]... r-da/
But as this article points out, the government is addicted to the revenue from smoking.
"About 450,000 die annually from smoking??" After how many years? What other contributing causes to their deaths? The simple truth is that almost nobody dies immediately and directly from smoking. That isn't to say that it is harmless, but it is a product that can be abused for year, decades many times with minimal negative effects.
When the consequences of prohibiting substances (making them illegal) and of enforcement are higher than just leaving that something alone, it may be time to consider leaving the matter to education and personal choice. After all, who thinks that hamburgers and fries with a soft drink is even a decent meal? But people don't die from it, not right away.
Everyone dies in the long run, and the real question is how much authority are we willing to grant to government, or how much responsibility can we accept for ourselves.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou presume that all "workers" are poor and all wealthy are "lucky". This is hardly the case. Many workers save and accumulate, and become wealthy over the course of many years, all the while paying taxes.
And you're free to believe that more desirable results will ensue from taxing the work of the non-wealthy rather than the luck of the wealthy. I do not share that belief.
It is far more common for the poor worker to rely on luck, hitting the number, than for the wealthy, who already know the odds are very slim and have chosen a better route.
Originally posted by no1marauder" A government needs revenue to function. "
It's not your property after you are dead.
A government needs revenue to function. It would be extremely difficult for anyone to amass property without a government and impossible for anyone to amass $5 million worth of it without government. You have no "right" to not pay what your fellow citizens have determined to be a fair share of s ...[text shortened]... natory or at such high levels they are confiscatory (i.e. leave you with not enough to survive).
And if it has insufficient revenues, it may have to limit its functions.
" You have no "right" to not pay what your fellow citizens have determined to be a fair share of society's taxes so long as the taxes aren't invidiously discriminatory or at such high levels they are confiscatory "
This seems to say that we have a right to reach into our more successful neighbor's pocket and take whatever we wish to democratically. It makes "fair share" a matter of personal opinion. Might as well just abolish private property rights altogether.
Originally posted by normbenignSince the system that lines his pocket was set up democratically, I see no reasoned objection to Society determining what a "fair" amount is to contribute to its continuance.
" A government needs revenue to function. "
And if it has insufficient revenues, it may have to limit its functions.
" You have no "right" to not pay what your fellow citizens have determined to be a fair share of society's taxes so long as the taxes aren't invidiously discriminatory or at such high levels they are confiscatory "
This seems to sa ...[text shortened]... e" a matter of personal opinion. Might as well just abolish private property rights altogether.
The last sentence is the usual hysterical hyperbole expected of you; the idea that taxing "abolishes private property rights altogether" would have been considered quite bizarre by those who championed the existence of such rights in the first place.
Originally posted by no1marauderI personally think that lawyers get paid way too much. Perhaps you should pay higher taxes than others. Your brethren make the laws.
Since the system that lines his pocket was set up democratically, I see no reasoned objection to Society determining what a "fair" amount is to contribute to its continuance.
The last sentence is the usual hysterical hyperbole expected of you; the idea that taxing "abolishes private property rights altogether" would have been considered quite bizarre by those who championed the existence of such rights in the first place.
Originally posted by normbenign(Shrug) Working lawyers already pay a higher rate than those who make their living on passive income like capital gains and dividends or hedge fund managers who get the "carried interest" exception but you are free to vote for those who will support such a proposal.
I personally think that lawyers get paid way too much. Perhaps you should pay higher taxes than others. Your brethren make the laws.
Originally posted by normbenignLawyers working for politicians and lobbyists generally craft the laws to meet the requirements of those that fund lobbying and campaign efforts. The funders may or may not be lawyers.
I personally think that lawyers get paid way too much. Perhaps you should pay higher taxes than others. Your brethren make the laws.
Originally posted by normbenignI missed where anybody proposed making tobacco illegal. The template for making recreational drugs legal should be about the same as tobacco; tax them to recover as much as possible the societal costs their use imposes and label them so that people are made aware of the dangers. After that, you're on your own.
First of all, you must know that the statistics on people dying from various causes are almost never reliable.
"About 450,000 die annually from smoking??" After how many years? What other contributing causes to their deaths? The simple truth is that almost nobody dies immediately and directly from smoking. That isn't to say that it is harmless, bu ...[text shortened]... y are we willing to grant to government, or how much responsibility can we accept for ourselves.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe costs are not, or at least should not be societal. They are individual consequences of poor decisions. Sin taxes just tax the sinner, but do literally nothing to mitigate the consequences, or to make the sinner reconsider his bad decisions.
I missed where anybody proposed making tobacco illegal. The template for making recreational drugs legal should be about the same as tobacco; tax them to recover as much as possible the societal costs their use imposes and label them so that people are made aware of the dangers. After that, you're on your own.
Originally posted by JS357I ought to have emphasized my sarcasm with a smiley. Of course I believe lawyers are as entitled to earning what the market will bear, just like everyone else.
Lawyers working for politicians and lobbyists generally craft the laws to meet the requirements of those that fund lobbying and campaign efforts. The funders may or may not be lawyers.
You did remind me that there is a revolving door between big business lawyers, lobbying firms, the legislature and the administrative part of government regardless of party. Perhaps this is why no1 and other lawyers love the proliferation of inscrutable laws, made by lawyers, for lawyers.
When it is possible to pit one group against another by crafting laws based on income, or type of income, type of work, or accumulated wealth, this must become invidious. It is fair only to those who promote it, whether it is Wall Street or welfare.
Originally posted by no1marauderWho determines what is a "fair share"? To be sure government must be funded by public revenue. However, when property can be confiscated for non payment of taxes, the principal of private property in general is placed in doubt.
Since the system that lines his pocket was set up democratically, I see no reasoned objection to Society determining what a "fair" amount is to contribute to its continuance.
The last sentence is the usual hysterical hyperbole expected of you; the idea that taxing "abolishes private property rights altogether" would have been considered quite bizarre by those who championed the existence of such rights in the first place.
This is exactly the kind of bickering that Madison said would ensue as a result of factions. Favoring one faction over others results in invidious discrimination.