By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
LurkerJ on 22 October 2017
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:
LurkerJ said:

You sound like someone who's butthurt rich people have a lot of money. For the life of me, I'll never understand the rationalizing behind what you are proposing, which is basically stealing. It also encourges rich people to stop reaching new heights, which would ultimately hurt the poor and the middle class.

(1) The rich hire others to INCREASE their wealth, if they realize that increasing their wealth will ultimately decrease it, they will stop hiring. Even if that was not the case, (2) taking money from people who earned it legally isn't moral, it's theft. It doesn't matter if the majority voted to steal that money, it's still theft.

Oh, and like the guy you quoted, I obviously don't have 5 millions in my bank account.

(1) There is literally no tax in the United States designed such that a person should, upon making MORE money, be left with LESS money after taxes than if they had done nothing.  I won't say it's completely impossible, with the crazy, massive patchwork of tax breaks, credits, incentives, penalties, etc., but if it happens it directly contradicts the designed function of our tax code.  Agree/disagree—if disagree, evidence please.  If agree, I trust you will not ever bring this point up again. 

(2) Do you really intend to say that ALL taxation is theft?  Because that is literally what you're saying.  (If it's not mandatory/compulsory, it's not taxation but rather donation.) 

2.5  If taxation is not inherently theft, and assuming that SOME taxes must be collected, do you think that the taxes should be designed to inflict the least palpable harm?  Or should the taxes be spread more equally across the population, even if it means taking money from people who will, as a result, starve, be unable to afford medical care, lose their jobs, lose their small businesses, etc.?  Or do you favor a third option (other than "do less harm to people" and "tax more equally")? 

I was specifically talking about estate tax and inheritance tax. The deceased had already paid their share of fair taxes, why do you feel entitled to take more of his/her money? because you think they have too much of it? What is too much money anyway? Who gets to decide? 

One can simply argue that 100k dollars is too much money to be passed to your kids without giving some of it to the government, because 100k dollars can be considered too much money. Hell, even 100 can be too much.