Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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?
|
1. We've had this argument on the board before. The right to property is not organic. It derives from the state, and the state has
always exacted an excise on its transfer to the next generation. There's nothig socialist about my position. It finds its roots in the English common law as well as the Roman civil law. You can't take it with you when you go, and without the sanction of the state, you can't exercise dominion over it from thee grave either. I gave both a moral and a logical basis for an estate tax. You gave neither in support of its repeal.
2. I guess we just disagree.
3. What about it is hyperbole? You have suggested that there should be no estate tax and that the basis stepup at death should be retained. What that means is that any property a person holds at death can pass tax-free to another person, and that heir can sell the property the same day without paying a tax on the built-in gain. Do you really think that would not create a huge reduction in tax revenues? Where would the government look to make up that shortfall if they can't tax estates and they can't tax the built-in gain on inherited property? They wouldn't make it up by taxing capital gains. Nobody would ever realize a capital gain if they could hold assets until their death and allow the gain pass tax-free. There is no source other than earned income from which to recoup the lost revenue.
4. Your statement here belies your whole prior argument. If consumption creates jobs and growth in the same way as investment, then there is no defensible reason to favor investment in making tax policy. The only motivavtion left is the fact that you believe you will inherit wealth some day or you believe you will accumulate wealth to pass on to your heirs and you don't care who gets taxed, or how much of a burden it is on them, as long as you can escape the burden. At least here, I have to give you credit for your candor, even if it may have been uninitentional.
5. Our tax system is progressive and always has been. We designed it that way from the start. Calling someone a socialist because they believe that the system should remain progressive only proves that you understand neither tax policy nor socialism.
