 |
| |
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
David, am I correct in assuming that you believe that it is absolutely essential government collect the lowest taxes possible and by the most uniform means available so as to ensure that the wealth one has is a direct reflection of ones success in earning income rather than a reflection of transfers of wealth from the earnings of others? If so do you support a high and uniform death tax as an alternative to an income tax? Suppose we had an accross the board 90% death tax. When you die 90% of your earnings would go to cover government expenses and while you live you could keep all of your earnings?
It sure seems as if a lot of libertarians find the death tax to be the most repugnant and evil of all taxes, but to me it seems to fit perfectly with their ideal that tax policy should interfere with ones earnings as little as possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
It doesn't punish anyone. If poor people pay a certain tax rate - say, 17% - what do they care if rich people also pay that same tax rate of 17%. It's not as if they are hurt by "the rich" having more disposable income. In fact, they are helped - "the rich" are generally the people who drive the economy and create new jobs.
|
Whoah, it is the rich who drive the economy? I've always heard that it is middle and lower class consumer spending which is the driving force of the modern US economy. Are you sure the wealthy consumers are the major driver of the economY??
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:33
|
|
No, no and NO!
"the inability to afford an 'adequate level of consumption' (whatever that is), is a cute way of dodging the question, because what YOUR definition of 'adequate level of consumption' is, will prolly be markedly different than mine, so that definition doesn't wash. The only way you can make it wash is if we set up "watchers" in society, whose sole purpose in life is to sit back and look over everyone's shoulders to determine who's got what, and if someone starts pulling away from the pack, to rein them in by taking their stuff and giving it to somebody who has less.
Of course, that sounds eerily similar to proposals you've floated in the past, Kid.
Poverty should be defined as subsistence, or below subsistence living. It's got nothing to do with not being able to afford cable just cos the Jones' down the street have it, and it's got nothing to do with "only" having one car.
If you can't keep the lights on without robbing Peter to pay Paul, you're po'!
If you have to make a choice between paying rent and eating, you're po'!
It might be marginally harder to nail down specific numbers, but the symptoms OF poverty ain't that hard to spot. As TO those numbers, that's what we got anti-poverty think tanks and groups set up for....to determine and associate specific dollar values to go WITH those obvious signs.
Simply saying 'adequate level of consumption,' however, is a non-answer.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... what do you think most wealthy Americans (as in very rich ones) do already? This is common to avoid the estate tax. They use every loophole to their advantage. Why do you think these accountants are being paid so much?
|
Again who cares? I don't care if 80% of them cheat this is still not a reason to oppose the tax. Look at it this way. The death tax is a convenient way for people to allow their estate to revert to public good when they die without having to overtly snub their children. It makes it easiest to revert an estate to the public and harder to hand it to particular privileged individuals who in no way earned any of that money. Remember liberitarians (claim to) despise artificial transfers of wealth.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970
time: 05:33
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
I live to provide for my family. I want my kids to have it even better than I did. I want them to succeed in life and be happy. This take away the right to pass stuff on to your kids stuff is just crap if you are family oriented person. The "in no way earned it" stuff is full of it. Why do you think I earned it in the first place... TO GIVE IT TO THEM. This is not an "artificial transfer of wealth"... it's a family working hard to keep the family going. The death tax is double taxiation. The money has already been taxed once, and I have no problem with that. Now, we have families who have lived on farms for years having to sell the family farms because of a death in the family because they can't afford to pay the taxes... this is an outrage. We should be taxed on what we earn... not because we die. |
Give them this stuff while you are still alive then. Every penny that is collected via the death tax is a penny that doesnt have to be collected from us while we are still alive. I'd like the government to at least have the decency to wait until I am dead before it starts digging its grubby paws in my piggy bank.
Last edited by Geronimo on 29-07-2004 at 05:18
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:33.
Apolyton Time is 00:33. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-07-2004 04:18
.
.
|