Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Morality? OK. What about taxing Joe that makes twenty five thousand a year so he can't send his kid to college. Or so Joe can't afford health insurance. Between that and taxing an estate so frank only inherits one million as opposed to two million. As far as I am concerned morality argues for the inheritance tax.
In addition, if Frank does not think he is going to inherit a lot of money, that forces him to plan for his retirement thereby forcing him to be a productive part of the economy. And as far as people spending their inheritance - I don't buy it. If the inheritance tax is 50% as oppossed to nothing, I have to save even more money so I can leave the amount of money that I want to my children.
The more you tax Frank, the less you tax Joe, which is more moral, and better for the economy. Morality argues for taxing the rich more, it is just economic practicality that argues against it. The problem with overtaxing the rich is that it also, in the long run, hurts the poor. But there is nothing fair about charging Bill Gates the same percentage of his income as you tax an employee at Wal Mart. Taxes suck and should be avoided wherever possible. But all things being even taxes on the poor are worse than taxes on the rich.
|
In the tradition of our founding fathers who took up arms to oppose the greivous sins of the poisonous taxation, the only morality that the free citizen-patriots of this once god-fearing and blessed nation should apply to the estate tax or the progressive income tax or the AMT is the morality of the second amendment.
That morality is available to the rich and poor alike.
The only tax I willingly pay is a tithe to the church, for the lord sits above all of satan's minions who preach the god-less marxist blasphemy of the taxation of man by man.
