Posted on 08/15/2006 7:34:55 AM PDT by tang0r
It can be universally agreed upon that those who create wealth are more crucial to a countries economy than those who inherit wealth. It follows that we should substitute as much of the federal income tax possible with taxes taken from inheritance. Like Ben Franklin said, nothing should be certain except for death, taxes and the death tax
A Heaping Load of Dung.
The money which was already taxed belongs to me and my kids. Why shouldnt they have it?
And if this became law, I can assure the tax people that when I die, there would be zero taxable dollars to confiscate.
What a stupid idea.
Was it Marx or Lennin who disliked inheritance so much? I forget.
(1) Whose money is it??
(2) Why do you think a collectivist, confiscatory, now-defunct communist/socialist scheme is better than free enterprise?
We do not live in a nanny state...
If you think we do... or think we should....
Perhaps you should consider a one-way ticket to wonderful communist vistas.... Fidel's Cuba... Dear Leader's place over there in NK...etc
Troll alert.... boys and girls....
DRPCB.... I s'pect...
idiotic.
Hey Joe! Stuff it!
Liberals love to misquote great men. You misquoted the great Benjamin Franklin: "Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes. "
He did not condone taxes, he was only recognizing the nature of government and human nature.
If I worked my whole life and paid my taxes why shouldn't I be able to pass it on to my beloved family or whomever I choose?
Your argument is the argument of a communist.
It is amazing, the stupidity and blindness that some suffer from. The death tax, a very Marxist socialist egregious for of keeping wealth from transferring to the next generation of your own family (Marx was dead against it, so to speak) is disgusting and so very un-American.
We are a nation that is already taxed to the hilt. For many of us, OVER 50% of our earned income is taken as taxes (all forms combined) -- and it escapes me why the American public continues to take it in the shorts.
If there was a limit of $100,000 of inherited wealth per heir, with the rest of everyone's estate going to churches or charities, we would never have heard of the Kennedy clan, leftist outfits such as the Ford Foundation would be out of business, government wouldn't get to buy votes by promising welfare because the charitable organizations could take care of the needy, and we'd see just how talented and productive the elite class really is. My bet is that they would be at the bottom of the heap.
The web site deathtax.com disagrees with with the title of this thread !!!
They already tax my income. They tax my investments. They tax my property. They tax my purchases. They tax the fuel I use. Sure, go ahead and steal everything I leave to my kids. That sure seems fair to me. Spit.
No taxation without respiration!
BS. The money is at least triple taxed by the time it is taxed as inheritance in most cases. It's outright theft from the dead. I'm not wealthy, but if I get there, the government deserves 0% of what I pass to my kids.
It can be universally agreed upon that those who create wealth are more crucial to a countries (sic) economy than those who inherit wealth.
No. It can be universally agreed that they play different roles in the economy, but universal agreement along the spectrum of normative economic philosophy as to whether or not one is more crucial to a country's economy or which is more crucial to the economy is impossible. Your posited theory suggests that you are an economic ignoramous.
It follows that we should substitute as much of the federal income tax possible with taxes taken from inheritance.
Again, no. It does not follow that taxes taken from inheritance should comprise a larger share of the federal income tax. If it did follow, then it would also follow that the government should encourage euthanizing of its citizens as they reach the age where productivity begins to decline so as to maximize the revenue from the taxation of their estates. This would also solve the social security solvency problem as nobody would live long enough to collect the benefits.
Like Ben Franklin said, nothing should be certain except for death, taxes and the death taxWhat your inane post fails to address is the very simple and straightforward truth that wealth accumulated over a lifetime of paying taxes should not be subject to confiscation by the government simply because you die. It is every bit as wrong as it would be if the government came along every ten years or so and said "You have accumulated more wealth than you need, so we are going to take 50% of your assets and confiscate them for the greater good."You are now 0 for 3. Franklin didn't say nothing should be certain except for death and taxes. He said nothing IS certain except for death and taxes.
.....and everyone would come into the world naked and completely at the mercy of the state.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.