Final-Fan said:
Aeolus451 said:
He's fixating on the kid "earning" his or her inheritance when I already explained my position but I'll answer the bolded questions for the sake of clarification.
For (1) and (2) since my answer is similar. I consider earning to be acquiring money through any legal means.
(3) Yes but it's not a matter of if the kid earned it or not because it's a gift of sorts from their dead parent to them.
(4) Nope. I'm completely fine if that happened but I doubt that it would play out like that.
I did answer your question but I didn't answer it in the way you wanted. To answer those new questions. Because I consider it immoral of the government to tax something as sacred as the parting gift of a parent to a child or heir. It doesn't matter if the person died, their choices regarding where their possessions or wealth would go should still be honored without the government trying to steal what's not theirs. If I decided to give my kid my car when I die, does that mean the government should get half of my car or any of it? No. The same thing applies to money that's meant as an inheritance. I just disagree with any sort of death tax or inheritance tax whatsoever. Normal taxes should apply when they choose to do something with what they inherited like sell it, buy something, etc.
To the last question, nope.
|
Okay, thanks for the answers. I think Bandorr and most people do not mean what you mean when they consider the word "earn", but now that we understand each other it's mission accomplished. Arguing over whose definition is "right" is an entirely different topic.
(Before I reply to your position, a brief aside on whether you "answered my question but not in the way I wanted": technically I suppose this is true, to the extent that your answer was (paraphrasing both my question and your answer) "An estate tax levied after you die is more onerous than an income tax, sales tax, or property tax levied while you are alive because it's not normal income and therefore taxing it is like thievery." However this answer is indistinguishable from "just because" (it's worse than income tax because it's not income and taxing it is worse) and is worthless for the purposes of any kind of meaningful discussion. Your new answer actually explains your position, for which I thank you.)
I can't say I share your opinion of a gift from parent to child being a particularly "sacred" form of wealth transfer, but assuming for the sake of argument that that was the case then I don't see how your own stance regarding my final question can be morally correct. I presume from your responses above that you are not morally opposed in principle to income taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes, since you have not mentioned any such thing when those were mentioned. If I have mistaken your beliefs on that point, please correct me without delay. Nevertheless, the following argument should, I think, be more or less valid even if you are simply less morally opposed to those taxes than the estate tax.
Now, since there presently exists immoral goverment activity, why on earth would you not be in favor of replacing it with government activity that is not immoral? If you just want to cut taxes, don't hide behind this cloak of moral opposition. If what you are opposed to is the estate tax on principle, then I would think you would jump at the chance to abolish it, whether in a revenue neutral way or otherwise. It's not like people haven't endured higher tax rates in the past. Abolishing an immoral tax ought to be an issue separate from—and more important than—cutting taxes in general.
Please explain yourself!
After that, but only after that, perhaps we can have an interesting discussion on why you think the passing of wealth from one generation to another is more sacrosanct than the keeping of wealth that you yourself worked for.
|
