Do you think you'll make it into the top 1%?

actually the tax is levied on the recipients of your estate, who receive a gain.

I pay tax on an activity that generates no net gain, the exchange of my labor for currency. How much more unfair is that ?

I don't actually agree with the inheritance tax by the way, especially since the tax code is circumvented by those with enough cash to do so, by design.

 

Wrong, the estate pays not the recipients. It's a tax on the final wishes of the person who died.

 

Don't feel I need to be making millions to live an enjoyable life. In fact, I bet I live a more enjoyable life than most mulillionaires. I don't want to constantly be watching my back for people trying to suck away at my bankroll. I don't want to work 80 hours a week in order to maintain it. I'd rather sit on my porch and drink an ice tea with a clear concious as a poorer American, than a rich vampire. Now if I win the lotto, that's different.

 

It's not taxed until it is given to somebody other than a spouse, or they have it specifically protected by tax laws put in place for that reason. In any case no matter how you slice it, it is a gift and gifts are taxable.
　
　
What is even more telling is that if they give it to a political party, there will be no tax levied either. This is what happens when bought and paid for professional politicians create the laws for their bosses.

 

So if you do win the lotto, die, and give it to somebody else, should the gift be taxed?

 

No, because I was already taxed once when I received it. But, I do believe that they should close tax loopholes and stop paying people nearly all their tax money back to them simply because they have kids or are married.

 

There is a reason why flat taxes haven't ever been taken serious. Because the rich/elite and the best government corporate money can buy wrote the current tax code and will not allow it, since it is doesn't benefit them as much as the current one does.
　
　
The entire process needs to be overhauled, but as long as the rich/elites two party system is running the show, it will only benefit the rich/elites. A good start would be placing a 16% minimum on anyone making over $150,000 annually and 20% on anyone making over $250,000 annually, and eliminating all other federal taxes, until it can be done responsibly, with logic and common sense used as the determining factor, not who can grease the best government palms.

 

I think income is a bad basis for taxation. But current theory is that your exchange is not without gain/profit. The tax code allows you to make deductions for costs that you incur in producing that labor. Any income that is not offset with deduction is your profit.

The theory continues (I don't subscribe to this) that the labor you are selling is facilitated by the government infrastructure. They either helped you to meet customers/employers or let you use their highways and telephones to conduct business. You are therefore partners. By that thinking the government is collecting their "share" of the "profits" you collectively earned.

The theory breaks down though with regard to death taxes. The government does not claim to have helped me die and even if they did, there's little reason to reward them for it. They also didn't introduce my posterity to me.

Unlike other taxes, the death tax is probably the most honest tax the government imposes. They take the money because they want it and you have it.

Ultimately, any tax that doesn't charge equal citizens, an equal amount, for equal rights and privileges is unfair. Often necessary, but not fair.

Guess we're both playing Devil's advocate.

 

the 1 percent owe us the death tax to pay for our welfares because we helped put them in the position where they can earn millions through our menial labors

therefore when they die we are entitled to a portion of their wealth not their families or charities

even the welfare recepients who dont work contribute to their income when they purchase goods and services to sustain their lifestyles.

 

Because you bought something from me (with money you took from me) -- I owe you money? Poor reasoning. Whatever labor you provided, whatever goods you purchased, that was a transaction. You were paid for your labor. You received your goods. If you didn't call the cops; if you did -- I owe you nothing more.

 

the 1 percent participate in a legal systematic exploitation of the 99 percent whether they are their menial laborers or their consumers of goods and services

if we can't get them to agree to pay for our welfare when their alive, we will get our money when their dead through the death tax.

 

If you can't get what you want in fair trade, you'll rob the dead.

 

the wealth disparity does not show fair trade so robbery is okay

 

It only shows different folks got different results. But I appreciate your honesty in characterizing what you are advocating as robbery.

 

Does the disparity in football rankings show that some teams are cheating or have unfair advantages?

 

the richer teams can afford better players

 

non se·qui·tur noun \ˈnän-ˈse-kwə-tər also -ˌtu̇r\
Definition of NON SEQUITUR

: a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said

 

Better players get higher scores leading to a points disparity.

Does that mean that wealth disparity means that some people are just plain better at gathering wealth than others?

So it isn't luck and privilege, it actually is a result of better performance and capability?

 

Well, with the exception of inheritance. They never award a sucky team the champeonship because a great coach or player they had in the 1970s happened to die last week.

I appreciate ones offspring being important and wanting to support them, and not killing small businesses. But after a certain point, chopping things in half and making them incorporate is just the right way to go for long term national stability.

And I'd still prefir that over taxing the person more while they're trying to build their business. I'd rather they get to grow with less in their way, and get it when they can't take it with them anyway.

 

As long as the inheritance cutoff is fairly high, I think I could agree.

It wouldn't be right to take away the family home or family farm with a high inheritance tax, but as long as the inheritors get a fair portion of the inheritance, the rest could fairly be taxed.

 

nice you used a sports analogy.... yet in most sports (at least professional that is ) the team with the worse record gets the 1st pick in the Draft.... so even in sports they try to make it fair.

 

Yeah. Well, maybe lower for simple cash and stocks.

But for businesses I don't think an estate tax of any significant amount should kick in until the business of is sufficient size to incorporate and thus continue simply by using the funds from the initial public offering to pay the tax.

So a farm is almost certainly safe, a chain of hotels, however, would probably get hit up.

 

Rewarding poor performance.

=Left mantra.

 

But this fact further reinforces the idea that some players are just plain better at performing the actions that win games than other players.

Which is also true in life when it comes to money. Some people are just better at accumulating wealth than other players. This is the true source of wealth disparity.

Any attempt to fix it is just trying to create a "Harrison Bergeron" type of equal society.

 

I was going to say that's silly. Their objective isn't to handicap people. Simply to let them soar while taking their money.

However I suppose in many ways that can be handicapping. For example, if you're going to get violated by taxes, incurring a huge debt from medical school seems like a bad idea.