Inheritance Taxes Discourage Oligarchy. Hence libertarian types hate inheritance taxes

And how does one get to a billion dollars in the first place? Ironically, greed?

The state provides the framework for that money to be accumulated. Without the state, the game in which the rich play wouldn't exist.

Your life's work is just that, YOUR LIFE. Not someone elses. It's generous enough that you can pass a few million on to your kids tax free. Warren Buffets or any other rich person doesn't have to worry about the life of their children.

And if Buffet is so concerned, he can give his life's work tax free - all the billions of it, by giving it to charities

 

Hey, dip****, he already paid those taxes when he made the money.

Simply transferring your money from you to your children is not a reason for the government to take a single penny.

 

First of all, I'm not against taxes. I'm against estate and inheritance tax.

And as for your other point, the effective tax rates today are NOT lower than they have ever been since the nineteen-teens.

The rich used to have top rates of 90%, but nobody ever paid that due to the amount of deductions. The effective rate was LOWER than it is today.

Learn how taxes work before you start saying stupid ****.

 

Transferring money is the basis of our entire system of taxation.

How old are you?

 

Hey dumbf#^%, it wasn't taxed when the children received it, so it should at the very least incur income taxes. Of course, every single dollar is taxed multiple times, so that red herring is just plain stupid, but I shouldn't expect anything else from a dipsh!t like you.

You're greedy, full stop.

 

I am a scholar whose area of expertise is tax policy, dumba$$.

 

So is envy.

P.S... it's not greedy to want to keep what you've earned. However, it is greedy to take from someone what they've earned.

 

greed is a motive, a why, not a how

how it could be done, several possible ways:

(1) providing billions of dollars in value to others

(2) stealing billions of dollars from others

(3) others feeling compelled to give you the money voluntarily without equal value in return (inheritance/charity, etc.)

 

Obviously not if you say stupid **** like the rich pay less in taxes now than they have in the past. Look up the effective tax rates and get back to me.

 

You're wrong, of course, but that has been apparent all along...

"Noah writes in his ten part series entitled "The Great Divergence," that in 1979, the effective tax rate on the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers was 42.9 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office, but that by Reagan's last year in office it was 32.2%. This effective rate on high incomes held steadily until the first few years of the Clinton presidency when it increased to a peak high of 41%. However, it fell back down to the low 30s by his second term in the White House."

This is without even considering the change of effective tax rates from the Kennedy tax cuts. Effective tax rates on the wealthy fell over 25% just from the Reagan tax cuts, for God's sake. Maybe you should consider facts before you call someone who knows a LOT more than you about taxes a "dipsh!t."


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...xx/doc9884/12-23-effectivetaxrates_letter.pdf

 

I did, you're wrong, but I know you'll never admit it. Idiots like you never do.

 

It is greedy to not want to support the society which made your wealth possible in the first place.

I don't envy anyone, I am thrilled that people are able to get rich in America.

 

Makes sense. You've always struck me as a highly educated guy with low critical thinking skills.

 

Start building your own roads, schools, electrical grid, sewage plants, airports, etc and then you can keep everything you've earned.

 

You've always struck me as someone with no critical thinking skills whose opinion is spoon fed to him by Fox pundits.

 

...was this like a blind bluff?

wat

 

Sorry, but I don't watch Fox.

In another thread, I gave you a hypothetical situation. You and I were coworkers, and our boss asked for the latest edition of the Wall St. Journal. I gave him nothing, and you gave him an edition that was 20 years old. I asked you if you felt that you did a better job than me, and you said you did.

Poor critical thinking skills.

Even now, they're on display. For instance, you said:

And when you're challenged on that assertion, you counter with:

First, the timeframe of your original assertion spanned the nineteen-teens through the present. However, your counterargument only covers 1979 through 2005. Second, your link shows that effective tax rates in 2005 were slightly higher than those in 1989 and 1990, and that contradicts your assertion. Third, your assertion referenced the "wealthy", but your counterargument looks at the top .01 percent of taxpayers. You're moving the goalposts of your argument.

 

Sure, I hear that a LOT from people who regurgitate their talking points, whatever.

You'll have to provide a link for context, I don't store silly hypothetical situations in memory and I don't trust your memory at all.

Yes, you exhibit them regularly.

I found the most easily accessible reliable information which clearly showed that my assertion was absolutely true. I went on and found less reliable information indicating that in the 1950s, when the top rate was over 90%, that the top effective tax rates were between 50 and 60%.

Perhaps, instead of questioning my critical thinking skills, you should find some evidence that what YOU claim is true. I did so and stand by my assertion, which is that before Reagan cut taxes, the effective tax rates were much higher for the wealthy, which is absolutely true. Since the Reagan tax cut, the effective rate for the very wealthy is down about 25%.

 

I'm quite sure those people are paying taxes. Your only argument is based on what YOU think is fair or not fair. There is nothing objective about it.

 

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=8659888&postcount=229

Here you go.

Incorrect. How can we currently have the lowest effective tax rate since the nineteen teens (your assertion) when it was lower in 1989 and 1990?

If I'm looking to prove you wrong, I don't need to provide a better argument. I can simply find holes in your argument.