[Rounteetepehryn]

Exempt the 1st $75,000/ year in income. Tax all amounts above that at whatever rate is needed to fund the current budget. Remove all other taxes and any deductions.

The death tax is absurd. If I decided to take my "fortune" to Vegas and blow it on the craps table then there is no "transfer" tax, but let me leave it to my children and hold on! Uncle Sam has to get his! Ridiculous.

[Qxkmsxsx]

Originally posted by PLATO
The death tax is absurd. If I decided to take my "fortune" to Vegas and blow it on the craps table then there is no "transfer" tax, but let me leave it to my children and hold on! Uncle Sam has to get his! Ridiculous. Well, blowing the fortune in Vegas probably has a more positive effect on the economy than leaving it to your children . I'm sure those casinos are better in investing that money .

[Kalobbis]

How abouit birth taxes?

[BundEnhamma]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Just curious -- I have no dog in this hunt -- isn't paying sales tax on items purchased with my taxed income also double taxation? If so, why is that no problem, but an inheritance tax is? If you chose Texas back when you had to list a home state then you have a state sales tax and no state income tax so theres no double taxation for the state there, but if you chose another state that has state income and state sales tax then yea you are paying twice.

[heinz_1966]

Originally posted by General Ludd
How abouit birth taxes? Babies don't have any money to tax. The IRS can't tax you if there isn't any money to tax. They do have some limits to their power.

[orillaVar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


The fact that the infrastructure of society has allowed the rich to accumulate and keep their wealth. We, could, after all, just leave them to their own devices and not give them police protection and have them pay for their own roads to send goods to people (ie, an anarcho-capitalist state). But that wouldn't really work out so well... and probably would lead to some sort of socialist revolution where the rich would be hanging from lampposts and their riches "distributed", as it were. So the rich don't complain all that much. Isn't it why they, or the company they own, pay taxes in the first place? I'm not an anti-tax anarchist, but there should be limits to what the State can or cannot tax. Some forms of taxation are perfectly legitimate, others are theft pure and simple. The way you guys present it, Death tax seems nothing more than the State sponsored theft, IMO.

I also believe that equality is not everything. A responsible government should try to aim for equality AND liberty. Of course, its really hard to balance the two, but, in an ideal world, you shouldn't favor equality at the expense of liberty, nor liberty at the expense of equality.

[optormtix]

Babies don't have any money to tax. The IRS can't tax you if there isn't any money to tax. They do have some limits to their power. Debt is really bad when you are sadled right out of the womb. Welcome to liberal dream land

[JasminBerkova]

What makes a form of taxation legitimate to you Nostromo? Very hard question. And I don't have an answer. Maybe I should reread my Rawls But one thing's for sure, you shouldn't introduce a new tax and justify it based only on egalitarian concerns. Equality, yes, but don't disregard or ignore the consequence of your new policy on people's liberty, like Odin and Imran are doing.

[Beerinkol]

Equality, yes, but don't disregard or ignore the consequence of your new policy on people's liberty, like Odin and Imran are doing.

People who inherit taxable estates have plenty of liberty to spare.

[Olphander]

Originally posted by aneeshm
It amazes me how some people think that they are the only ones in possession of some elite knowledge, and have the right, nay, the duty, to ram their vision down the throats of others, by force if necessary. The assumption underlying this is, of course, that they know better than everyone else, and that everyone else's opinions or even rights don't count as much as their vision does, consequences be damned. If a democratic, meritocratic, egalitarian society isn't protected from plutocrats then you WILL have a bunch of elites shoving their visions down other's throats, regardless.

[Aagotiq]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But that wouldn't really work out so well... and probably would lead to some sort of socialist revolution where the rich would be hanging from lampposts and their riches "distributed", as it were. So the rich don't complain all that much. Or it would become a plutocratic police state (AKA Fascism).

[RealCHEAPsoftDOWNLOAD]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Do the rich somehow use these more than the poor? They just use them more effectively. How dare they be successful

In fact, the rich probably use these things less... The rich benefit more, so they should have to pay more.

[AricGoffgog]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


well youre more leftie than me.

While I can accept the people making judgements about society, the first purpose of a tax is to raise revenue, and a 100% tax will obviously raise littlerevenue (since no one will save a penny for an estate, except by accident)

And I suspect a rate that high WOULD impact saving, entrepreneurial behavior etc. And I dont think everyone with a million dollar estate is really an "aristocrat" anyway. A million just doesnt go that far anymore.

Actually, Im not convinced we need a substantially higher estate tax than we have now. If we were to raise, id suggest raising it slowly, to check for incentive effects and actual revenue raised. I'm I misreading this or do you think that a higher death tax would not raise more revenue?

[QQQQQ-Trek]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I'm I misreading this or do you think that a higher death tax would not raise more revenue? youre misreading it.

I think a 100% inheritance tax (IE confiscation of estates above a certain size) would not raise more revenue, and in fact would raise no revenue on the large inheritances. Whether a higher revenue than the current one would raise more revenue, and if so, how much, is an empirical question I cant answer. I dont know what studies have been done, and I merely suggested caution in raising rates.

all largely academic, since right now its hard enough politically protecting the current inheritance tax.

[Stoottnoiciek]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Why shouldn't I be allowed to pass on my wealth to my children? They don't deserve it. Why should they get a **** load of tax free money so that they can sit on their ass and not work so that we have to pay all their taxes.

[Zptmsemk]

nostromo,

50% tax seems like a lot, but govt is expensive. I'm sure your mom worked hard. I don't argue with that. But taxes need to be paid. You talk about cutting waste. That's all fine, but you need to be specific and the majority needs to agree with your cuts. If they don't then the taxes need to be paid, and there's no reason, except political, to complain about it anymore than you complain about any other of your expenses.

[anfuckinggs]

The poor person, becasue the rich arrange for private security, which is a 100 or so times more effective than the (existing) public police forces. Look at your crime statistics, and see who criminals target. Take aways the public police, and the rich have there own private security, and the por have none.