That is where I cannot see how this is NOT considered double taxation. The arguments that some folks have been using is; why should your heirs get money that they have not "earned". If the money is taxed BEFORE it is distributed, then your heirs aren't being taxed - you (or your estate) are. Obviously my example is extreme, but at the very least, I should be able to distribute every dollar I have left rather than every dollar I have left, less taxes. If you are concerned about the heirs not "earning" this money, then I don't see how you can argue with my example.
I am on board for the consumption tax, but as long as we have the taxation mechanism we now have, IMO, the inheritance tax is an integral part.
Why is it that you damned leftists want to tax every little damned thing. Every transaction, you bastards want to tax to fund this that or the other. Want to know why I sound angry? Listening to your tortured logic explain why it is moral for govt. to tax nearly every transaction in the name of "fairness." A straight-up consumption tax would pay for our national defense and other essentials and force us to get rid of all this entitlement garbage, be it to corporations or individuals. These include: -Medicaid -Mediscare -Flood Insurance (lets encourage coastal development by paying for people to rebuild their homes. The govt.'s tortured logic "They're going to build there anyway!") -Social Security (properly privatized and eventually phased out) -funding for the arts (where is it written the Federal govt should fund art of any sort?) -federal funding for education (lets take money from taxpayers, lop off a bit in admin. fees by letting Congress handle it and parcel it out when we could allow local districts to fund themselves). -WIC and EBT (I saw one of those damned EBT options on a cardreader at Kroger and I nearly split a gasket). - money for medical research (it has become far too politicized, note the ridiculous amounts spent on AIDS at the Federal level when heart disease and cancer kill far more folks) -Any sort of federal funding for industrial development (let the marketplace force corporations to pay for their OWN research and development). Sam, I'm sick of your constant carping on how the evil rich don't pay "their fair share." The richest 1% pay most of the damned taxes and yet........it isn't enough! When is enough, enough? When? What is fair? Give me a solid figure rather than the psychobabblings of your favorite liberal's lib Krugman.
Original income tax unconstitutional In 1868, Congress again focused its taxation efforts on tobacco and distilled spirits and eliminated the income tax in 1872. It had a short-lived revival in 1894 and 1895. In the latter year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the income tax was unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states in conformity with the Constitution. In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. More about the tax It was repealled once, but has since been adopted as permanent. Though there is some question as to whether the 16th amendment was sufficiently ratified. Interesting reading I was wrong about it being temporary. DD
The inheritance tax, in theory, IS double tax. If you tax the stream of income, and later dip into what's left over, you have taxed the same income twice. If DaDa and Sam earn the same incomes over their lifetimes, but Sam has none left over (sued for leeching images, perhaps?), while DaDa leaves a big estate that's then taxed, DaDa has paid more tax on the same income. Double taxed. The fallacy, of course, is that much of the inheritance is not taxed. There was an article posted here a while back noting that unrealized investment gains and the such -- which often make up much of the bigger estates -- may not have ever been taxed. Also, Max and his ilk set up them complicated schemes to avoid the tax altogether. So... Debate, if you will, on whether the tax should be changed and whether it is effective. But please -- stop with the 'it ain't double tax cuz they gots too much money anyways' position. Unless you want to address wealth that has, or hasn't been taxed.
If Sam spent that money on those images, the guy he paid would be taxed. This seems to be a simple concept if you ask me.
Right, It is a transaction of services Pgab. If Sam got the images as an iheritance, he should not pay taxes on them. You're right pretty simple. DD
I am aware of the various work arounds, but in essence, I should not have to pay someone in order to assure my estate is taxed less (or not at all). Dadgumit, I want to leave my 1 billion to the children in the USA.
Here is an idea that would really be fair. Don't have taxes at all. Send everyone a bill for the services that they actually use. We all use the military, so we all get to split that bill. We all depend on law enforcement, so we can share that one too. Everything else is pay as you go. Need to put your kid in school? Pay for it yourself. Need to drive on the roads? You can pay by the mile at the end of the year. Flying in a plane? The cost of airport security and air traffic control can be added to your ticket. Want to sue somebody? You pick up the court costs (or include them as part of your lawsuit ). Nobody ends up paying for anything they don't use. You never go to the theater? Now you aren't stuck paying for some theater company. You never had kids? Now you don't have to send someone else's brat to school. Now that would be a fair system. To quote DMB, "You pay for what you get."
It's amazing how people keeps going back to this "rich will get around paying tax with loop holes" as if there are some big secrects only the rich knows. When the fact is the US TAX code is there for everyone to read. If you are an intelligent person, rich or not, there are many ways to LEGALLY minimize your tax obligation. If the rich were really getting away with paying less than their share, they wouldn't be contributing the most tax dollars. It seems guys like andymoon love to say "let's tax the rich more". Of course it's always easy to say "take the other guy's money, just don't touch mine". I bet if andymoon has 20 million in the bank, it'd be much harder to shout: "Please take away 8 million of my money, NO actually, please take more, because I am rich"
wait...if I never have kids, I don't have to pay for the school system?? we as a society don't benefit from educated people?? ummm...as an employer, I absolutely benefit from public education.
Max, Some things should be factored in as "good for the whole" consumables. Education would be one of them, as would military, police, etc..etc.. DD
That is the core of what being a libertarian is all about. You are a libertarian and don't even realize it.
No, no. Public education is a socialist plot. As are public libraries. It's slippery slope don't you know.
I actually do realize it (though there are a couple small issues I have with other libertarians, like the fact that I am pro-life). I only vote republican because I don't want the democrats to win (though in national elections mine is a throwaway vote living in Commufornia.)
In the case of the estate tax, since it doesn't kick in until a relatively high level of assets, many people consider it only the rich who would be affected by the tax. That would, of course, depend on your definition of "rich". And the tax code is complicated, and oftentimes it takes hiring professional help to minimize taxes. I don't think I could set up a trust on my own, for example. And even if we could understand, we might not have the time to spend looking over the documents, etc. Plus, there is the whole effort vs. reward. If I'm making $36K per year, the effort to find and set up tax minimization schemes may not be worth the amount of tax I would save. But for someone who's tax bill is higher, every percentage point saved may be worth the effort. But as long as the loopholes are there, I don't blame anyone for taking advantage of them. They're playing by the rules. I imagine a lot of people would like the rules changed to allow for fewer loopholes for everyone other than themselves.
