Re: OT: Estate tax and Levees

"Dan Koren" <dankoren@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:431bfee7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Wayne Reimer" <wrdsl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d85942444b22cc6989ec8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> In article <431bd88b$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, dankoren@xxxxxxxxx says...
>>> "John Harrington" <beartiger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:1125892597.982905.173520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Karnaaj wrote:
>>> >> The estate tax has been an injustice since its inception.
>>> >> Punishing people for their success is a mantra to socialists.
>>> >> It should have been repealed decades ago.
>>> >
>>> > The estate tax has been just since its inception.
>>>
>>> In what way is estate tax "just"?
>>>
>>> Is a person's death an event that should be taxed?
>>>
>>> Why should local, state or federal governments be
>>> entitled to levy taxes on assets that have already
>>> been taxed?
>>>
>>> IMHO double taxation should not be allowed for any
>>> reason whatsoever (social security benefits should
>>> not be taxed either).
>>
>> This is so simple that even I can understand it. The
>> assets aren't "family" assets in some sort of perpetuity;
>
> Why not?

Because the government wants money, and they decided to get some of it from
the richest people when they give stupendous sums away, figuring (strangely
intelligently for the government) that if you're giving away zillions of
dollars, you can probably afford tax. That is most true for the deceased.

>> they should be taxed each time the person(s) owning
>> them changes.
>
> Then birthday presents should be taxed too, right?

They are, if they're above a certain amount. :-)

> You
> are stating your opinion as if it were an absolute and
> self evident truth, and you don't even bother to make
> clear the logic and assumptions to back your case.

No, the poster to whom you're responding was merely stating some reasons
behind the (very reasonable) law.

> You
> are asserting that ownership change when no money has
> been exchanged should be trated the same as change of
> ownership that occurs in the course of a commercial
> transaction. Perhaps you should explain to all of us
> why do you think this is justified, or even makes sense.

You really should read up on these things if you're going to argue with
people about them. Actually, gifts are, in general, taxed far *more* highly
than commercial transactions, so, actually, the government does not do what
you suggest the original poster is asserting.

>> Not a difficult concept, really,
>
> It is a completely absurd concept.

Which concept? What he said, what you said, or what the government actually
does?

> The tax system is
> by and large designed to allow government to generate
> revenue from commerce and economic transactions -- the
> exchange of work, goods and services for money.

Huh? Ever heard of property tax? Perhaps you don't own property. I do,
and I've been paying property tax for 20 years. No exchanges took place
there, thanks. Yet that is a huge source of revenue for the government.

> No such
> transactions are involved in inheriting (parts of) an
> estate.

That's nice. They aren't involved in owning a property, either, but it's
taxed. Every year. For eternity.

>> and it shouldn't get all mucked up with the idea of the
>> accumulation of wealth by families across generations,
>
> The mucking is entirely on your side. You have offered
> no explanation at all as to why inheritance should be
> treated the same as a commercial transaction.

Actually, the original posted doesn't need to. The government doesn't treat
them the same, and it doesn't have to.

Your entire argumenting style consists of inaccurate generalities and vague
insults thrown at the question in a vain attempt to cover your real point:
you think taxes are wrong. You're welcome to that opinion--many share it
with you. Many more realize that they are a necessary evil.

Michael


.

Relevant Pages