Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It's quite elemenary, and I'm baffled you can't comprehend the other side's morally and logically justified position.
Say your parent works hard his or her whole life, hard enough to be lucky enough to amass a fortune of, say $6mil. That $6mil has been taxed, at one rate or another, along the way, as that person made it. Now, despite those taxes, that person has saved that money, which is a damned hard thing to do (don't give me some shit about how 'its all gravy once you get the first million; it's just as easy to lose the first million as it is to compound it). Now, to add to all the hurdles that person faced his or her whole life to amass that fortune, hurdles he or she wants his kids never to have to endure, the govt - our goddamned useless fucking govt - is going to step in and demand a fat slice of everything over $3mil? That's fair? That "fairness" you champion is exactly why this country is so fucked up. Its exactly why this shithole "entitlement" cesspool I work in can't keep any business within its borders. "Gimme gimme gimme." That's all you fucking here in these parts. As long as pathetic democrats keep pandering to that degenerate base, this country's just going to keep spinning its wheels and hand-wringing about "what to do with the people who can't care for themselves." Maybe, ya think just maybe, if ya stopped taxing and regulating the piss out of everything, people might be a little more entrereneurial? Maybe people could start businesses of consequence without having to grab gobs of VC to pay the ridiculous costs of workers comp, insurance out the ass to keep trial lawyers from taking their homes, and shakedown money for local govt shysters who enforce their little bridge tolls every time you try to make a buck? Ya think maybe that'd work? Maybe the poor you care so much about might have better jobs?
I agree with you that its gross to see people like Paris Hilton get massive chunks of change, but people with between 5-10 million dollars shouldn't have to hire armies of fucking lawyers to structure their estates. And they certainly shouldn't suffer the insult of having their money retaxed and given to the worst run organization in the nation, which would waste it in the most offensive ways imaginable. The cutoff, if we must have one, should be high, very fucking high.
I'd burn my money before I'd see it given to the govt.
|
What right do the kids have to the money? They didn't work for it. They don't have some inherent need for it that exceeds anyone else's. What's the moral basis? They got a better slot in the genetic lottery?
I don't accept the notion that people have an inherent right to determine where their wealth will go on their death without paying some tax for the privilege of doing so.
What's more, I am further opposed to eliminating the tax on the transfer of wealth if it increases the incidence of tax on earned income. I think that's inherently unfair and regressive.It's been that way as long as there has been a right to bequeath. What logical basis is there for not imposing the transfer tax? People are taxed on the income they earn, even though soemoen who earned it before them was taxed on it.
Finally, as a practical matter, I have seen very few instances of people who inherited wealth using it to create jobs, good, and economic growth, relative to the number of heirs who use it to buy second homes, million dollar condos on the Gold Coast, and $500 Cavalli jeans or $750 Yves St. Laurent sweats, depending on their taste and their age.
