Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
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.
|
In order:
1. It's not about need, its a property right. Your positions assumes some sort of socialist underpinning to our society. And what "right" does the govt have to your parents' money? What "right" has the rest of society to it? Are you suggesting the govt, or someone who claims to "need' the money more should get it over an heir? You don't really believe that. And what about the person leaving the money? He has no "right" to give it to his kids?
2. See #1.
3. I don't need to explain the flaw in that absurd statement. It's possibly the most hyperbolic comparison of apples and oranges I've evr seen.
4. Someone selling those jeans makes money, and hires workers to staff his store, who earn money. What would the govt do with that money? How would giving it to the govt help our economy?
