billvon 2,887 #226 April 14, 2010 Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #227 December 21, 2010 inheritance tax is the fairest of course (their parents might have earned it - but their children haven't) stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #228 December 21, 2010 Quote inheritance tax is the fairest of course (their parents might have earned it - but their children haven't) Your Poll seems to show the opinions of others does not agree with you and Barney. The funds in ones inheritance is taxed at least once prior to it being inherited, yes? In some cases more, depending on how the stocks, bonds, shares, partial ownership of property and realty is reported etc. So if I am already square with the Taxes, why should my Daughter or Son pay again on this? MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #229 December 21, 2010 Quote inheritance tax is the fairest of course (their parents might have earned it - but their children haven't) You only say that because you don't stand to inherit very much.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doughboyshred 0 #230 December 21, 2010 because it's income for them. And furthermore, it's income they didn't even have to work for. The whole argument that the money has already been taxed is ludicrous. The money isn't what is taxed, it's the person that is earning the money. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #231 December 21, 2010 Quotebecause it's income for them. And furthermore, it's income they didn't even have to work for. The whole argument that the money has already been taxed is ludicrous. The money isn't what is taxed, it's the person that is earning the money.How do you know that the kids didn't earn the money... suppose the kids work for their parents... and subsiquently help earn the money that their parents saved and passed on... one of the things that kind of bothers me is paying taxes on the sale/purchase of used items... if someone has already paid taxes on a used car that I want to buy from them (when they purchased it new 5 years ago) then I shouldn't be required to pay taxes on it again...Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #232 December 21, 2010 Quotebecause it's income for them. And furthermore, it's income they didn't even have to work for. The whole argument that the money has already been taxed is ludicrous. The money isn't what is taxed, it's the person that is earning the money. I won't touch the "it's the person that is earning the money" part. But if it is income, tax it at income rates and no higher. If it is property add it to the persons holding and tax it as such, but no higher. It still gets taxed a second, third, and etc time. The family earned it by being in that family, and can un-earn it at the will and whim of person who will pass it along. Up on my Son and Daughters birth's they earned what ever I deemed I wanted to give them, that I owned, in my death. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,934 #233 December 21, 2010 Quote It still gets taxed a second, third, and etc time. The family earned it by being in that family, and can un-earn it at the will and whim of person who will pass it along. Matt That is a really stupid argument. I earn a salary and it is taxed. I spend it and it is taxed. It now becomes revenue and eventually someone's income and is taxed again, they spend it and it's taxed again, . If you insist that money rather than a person is taxed, then ALL money is taxed over and over and over again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
firemedic 7 #234 December 21, 2010 Sorry for interjecting late in this thread, I just happened to catch it today. I attended an estate planning sympoium put on by a law firm. They presented an option to avoid estate taxes not mentioned here. The Trust. If someone sets up a trust for thier Heirs, the estate passes to the heirs without probate and without the death tax. The downside is a trust is a bit expensive to set up. In my state they are around $5,000 depending on how complex it is and what assets are involved. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #235 December 21, 2010 Quote one of the things that kind of bothers me is paying taxes on the sale/purchase of used items... if someone has already paid taxes on a used car that I want to buy from them (when they purchased it new 5 years ago) then I shouldn't be required to pay taxes on it again... This is where the VAT would be least palatable to us. Every transaction is taxed, rather than just at the point of sale (or every time a car changes hands). It would seem to compress supply pipelines, rather than have commmodities owner sell to manufacturer who sells to distributor to actual sales vendor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #236 December 21, 2010 QuoteQuote It still gets taxed a second, third, and etc time. The family earned it by being in that family, and can un-earn it at the will and whim of person who will pass it along. Matt That is a really stupid argument. I earn a salary and it is taxed. I spend it and it is taxed. It now becomes revenue and eventually someone's income and is taxed again, they spend it and it's taxed again, . If you insist that money rather than a person is taxed, then ALL money is taxed over and over and over again. Professor, I am not following you. You stated the same thing I did in money being taxed, I think. My second sentence you quoted is how some families will write in and out of a will members of the same family over disputes. And, yes I do believe money is what is taxed, how ever I can see ones point of view that people are taxed since some people don't pay taxes and keep their money. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,934 #237 December 21, 2010 QuoteSorry for interjecting late in this thread, I just happened to catch it today. I attended an estate planning sympoium put on by a law firm. They presented an option to avoid estate taxes not mentioned here. The Trust. If someone sets up a trust for thier Heirs, the estate passes to the heirs without probate and without the death tax. The downside is a trust is a bit expensive to set up. In my state they are around $5,000 depending on how complex it is and what assets are involved. My late wife set up a trust to own her house with her heirs as beneficiaries. It cost far less than $5,000 to set up. Also an estate has to be pretty large before there are ANY estate taxes to be paid (amount seem s to vary annually, but right now I believe it's $3.5M) so the overwhelming majority of people the GOP tries to scare don't get to pay it anyway.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,934 #238 December 21, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote It still gets taxed a second, third, and etc time. The family earned it by being in that family, and can un-earn it at the will and whim of person who will pass it along. Matt That is a really stupid argument. I earn a salary and it is taxed. I spend it and it is taxed. It now becomes revenue and eventually someone's income and is taxed again, they spend it and it's taxed again, . If you insist that money rather than a person is taxed, then ALL money is taxed over and over and over again. Professor, I am not following you. You stated the same thing I did in money being taxed, I think. My second sentence you quoted is how some families will write in and out of a will members of the same family over disputes. And, yes I do believe money is what is taxed, how ever I can see ones point of view that people are taxed since some people don't pay taxes and keep their money. Matt Just like guns don't kill people, people kill people, so money doesn't pay tax, people pay tax. Hence money can't be taxed twice.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,887 #239 December 21, 2010 >And, yes I do believe money is what is taxed Aha! I have a good excuse for the IRS if I ever get in trouble with them - "those damn $20's aren't paying their taxes again." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
matthewcline 0 #240 December 21, 2010 Ah! So it is a English Language "thing". People have money and the Government takes the Money in the form of a Tax! I get it now. It matters not if the same dollar passes through the hands of ten people and at each passing of the hand the Government takes a cut, it is the People being taxed. MattAn Instructors first concern is student safety. So, start being safe, first!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,934 #241 December 21, 2010 QuoteAh! So it is a English Language "thing". People have money and the Government takes the Money in the form of a Tax! I get it now. It matters not if the same dollar passes through the hands of ten people and at each passing of the hand the Government takes a cut, it is the People being taxed. Matt Correct. And people have property and have to pay tax on that too in many (most) states. So just because tax is taken in the form of money it doesn't mean that the money is being taxed. It's the person with the money, income, purchase, property, telephone, etc. that's being taxed.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Royd 0 #242 December 22, 2010 QuoteWhen was the last time a government representative actually pointed a gun at you? Your argument is sensationalist, at best.Ask Wesley Snipes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #243 December 22, 2010 Property and estate tax are, off the top of my head, the only two taxes that aren't taxing some kind of economic activity. The reason inheritance is taxed is because enough pe- oh wait I made this post a year and a half ago to this same thread and nobody gave a shit then either... nevermind. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dreamdancer 0 #244 December 22, 2010 QuoteThe reason inheritance is taxed is because. it's unearned income (otherwise known as welfare)...stay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,934 #245 December 22, 2010 The entire thread is silly. Taxes are there to provide revenue for the government with the least net squealing from those taxed. "Fair" has nothing to do with it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,934 #246 December 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteWhen was the last time a government representative actually pointed a gun at you? Your argument is sensationalist, at best.Ask Wesley Snipes. Why would Snipes know the last time a govt. rep pointed a gun at JCD's head? I doubt Snipes even knows JCD.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #247 December 22, 2010 No tax is fair. Taxes, like government, are a necessary evil. Both must be restricted to the least amount necessary to protect individual liberties that can not be protected otherwise. But, I am of the opinion that all who are so protected should contribute in direct relation to their benefit. Therefore, a percentage of their earnings would be representative of what they have been able to do with their liberty. A rich person would contribute more and the poor would contribute less. Since all enjoy the liberties, all should contribute.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,934 #248 December 22, 2010 QuoteNo tax is fair. Taxes, like government, are a necessary evil. Both must be restricted to the least amount necessary to protect individual liberties that can not be protected otherwise. But, I am of the opinion that all who are so protected should contribute in direct relation to their benefit. Therefore, a percentage of their earnings would be representative of what they have been able to do with their liberty. A rich person would contribute more and the poor would contribute less. Since all enjoy the liberties, all should contribute. Why earnings rather than net worth?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DiverMike 5 #249 December 22, 2010 QuoteWhy earnings rather than net worth? Net worth is too subjective. Do you include unrealized capital gains? Who assigns a value to privately held companies? Is my antique butter urn that Benjamin Franklin sat on worth $1 or $100,000? For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #250 December 22, 2010 Earnings are a measure of the realized gain from the playingfield protected by the necessary evil that is government. Net worth is a reflection of your spending habits, family expenses and a host of other things that I don't want the government involved in. Government involvement would not be directly related to protection of individual liberties so much as protection of government. Never a good thing.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
