Eye Opening Article on Taxes

#77
#77
I would be okay for the government to charge a fee for the notary stamp to transfer each asset or account over, but to levy is % is BS.
 
#78
#78
rjd970 said:
Somebody is still gaining something they didn't have before, whether it is earned or not.

I don't know, the angle you look at this determines your viewpoint I guess. I still don't think it is being double taxed though. The money should fall under the income tax, whether it is $5,000 or $500,000.
Click to expand...

That would be a fundamental difference in opinion then as to when something is being taxed twice.

Should the government required christmas and birthday gifts/money to be taxed?
 
#79
#79
The dad is irresponsible for not either spending all his money or not leaving it for the government who needs it more than his kids.
 
#80
#80
rjd970 said:
Neither has the income you inherited, it is now "new income"?

Again, not sure. I am probably not thinking about income in the right way. The household example was a good one, but what if I inherited from a non family member, or of which I was not part of the household?
Click to expand...

Lets put some of your skin in the game here RJD.
I am sure that you have life insurance. Lets assign it at $500,000. You get killed tomorrow in an accident. Your wife and kids get that money. You are saying that she should turn right around and write the government a check for $175,000.
Am I following your logic or does this not meet your definition of "pure luck"?
 
Last edited:
#81
#81
T-TownVol said:
Lets put some of your skin in the game here RJD.
I am sure that you have life insurance. Lets assign it at $500,000. You get killed tomorrow in an accident. Your wife and kids get that money. You are saying that she should turn right around and write the government a check for $175,000.
Am I following your logic or does this not meet your definition of "pure luck"?
Click to expand...

If there is an income tax, I see nothing inconsistent with this nor with taxes on gambling earnings.

I do not think there should be an income tax; that takes care of said consistency problem.
 
#82
#82
Will Rogers on paying inheritance tax:

"I don't see why a man shouldn't pay an inheritance tax. If a Country is good enough to pay taxes to while you are living, it's good enough to pay in after you die. By the time you die you should be so used to paying taxes that it would just be almost second nature to you." WA #168, Feb. 28, 1926
Click to expand...

"Now they got such a high inheritance tax on 'em that you won't catch these old rich boys dying promiscuously like they did. This bill makes patriots out of everybody. You sure do die for your country if you die from now on." DT #1767, March 23, 1932
Click to expand...

"They have passed the big inheritance tax, and that gets you when you are gone. You used to could die and be able to beat taxes, but not now. The undertaker don't go over your body as carefully as the assessor does your accumilated assets, and he gets his before the undertaker. They have it on these big fortunes now where they pay as high as 60 to 70 percent of what they leave. That's mighty expensive dying when it runs into money like that, and you won't see 'em dropping off as casually as they have been." WA #594, May 13, 1934
Click to expand...
 
#83
#83
T-TownVol said:
Lets put some of your skin in the game here RJD.
I am sure that you have life insurance. Lets assign it at $500,000. You get killed tomorrow in an accident. Your wife and kids get that money. You are saying that she should turn right around and write the government a check for $175,000.
Am I following your logic or does this not meet your definition of "pure luck"?
Click to expand...

I'm not making a determination on whether or not it is right. I am giving an opinion on what is income.

I'm saying the policy is now income to the beneficiary, falling under the income tax.

As much as you think this is about me saying I like taxes, it isn't. I know that is hard for you to see, as everything is right-wing or left-wing in your opinion.
 
#85
#85
Bottom line is if you are wealthy enough to pay a lawyer to set up your estate so things get transferred through a trust you can avoid the death tax. Normal Joes get life insurance--1 policy to cover the family's needs, 1 to cover the mortgage, 1 to cover the funeral costs and 1 to cover the estate tax. If I were in the insurance business I might pay a lobbiest or two to make sure the death tax was never repealed. . .
 
#86
#86
My point is that a transfer of assets, which is all the an estate is, should not be taxed again since it was taxed at full capacity when earned. Then taxed again with the inheritance tax. Now he wants it taxed again as income to the family members.
I stand corrected, by my CPA spouse, winnings at a casino should be taxed as it is a risk that one takes willingly.....hint, hint......"willingly"
 
#88
#88
rjd970 said:
I'm not making a determination on whether or not it is right. I am giving an opinion on what is income.

I'm saying the policy is now income to the beneficiary, falling under the income tax.

As much as you think this is about me saying I like taxes, it isn't. I know that is hard for you to see, as everything is right-wing or left-wing in your opinion.
Click to expand...

If you save your money for 20 years and then decide to take some out of your savings and spend it, is that income?

If you decide to spend it on your kid's college tuition, should it be considered income for your child?
 
#89
#89
rjd970 said:
I'm not making a determination on whether or not it is right. I am giving an opinion on what is income.

I'm saying the policy is now income to the beneficiary, falling under the income tax.

As much as you think this is about me saying I like taxes, it isn't. I know that is hard for you to see, as everything is right-wing or left-wing in your opinion.
Click to expand...

Several examples have been given as to why it is not income. Assets are not income. If you consider assets income, you in fact do want more taxes.

This country was founded on the equality of opportunity not the equality of results. You want to tax people who are successful and are able to have assets to transfer to their heirs. I do not think that is what this government should be allowed to do.

right wing - left wing have nothing to do with this situation......I just use the Dems as an example because they are the traditional spenders and "raise taxes" party.
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
YorkVol said:
If you save your money for 20 years and then decide to take some out of your savings and spend it, is that income?

If you decide to spend it on your kid's college tuition, should it be considered income for your child?
Click to expand...

My dad gives my kids a $500 savings bond on every birthday, I guess they need to send in taxes on them.
I just do not see where anyone can consider that the government has a right to any of this gift.
 
#91
#91
T-TownVol said:
Several examples have been given as to why it is not income. Assets are not income. If you consider assets income, you in fact do want more taxes.

This country was founded on the equality of opportunity not the equality of results. You want to tax people who are successful and are able to have assets to transfer to their heirs. I do not think that is what this government should be allowed to do.

right wing - left wing have nothing to do with this situation......I just use the Dems as an example because they are the traditional spenders and "raise taxes" party.
Click to expand...

This isn't hard. Where have I said I want an income tax?

At the very least there is a consistency problem.
 
#92
#92
T-TownVol said:
My point is that a transfer of assets, which is all the an estate is, should not be taxed again since it was taxed at full capacity when earned. Then taxed again with the inheritance tax. Now he wants it taxed again as income to the family members.
I stand corrected, by my CPA spouse, winnings at a casino should be taxed as it is a risk that one takes willingly.....hint, hint......"willingly"
Click to expand...

Who me?

This is getting to the point of being ridiculous.
 
#93
#93
T-TownVol said:
So, you have no problem with your wife having to pay taxes on what you leave her although you have already paid taxes on the income you use to make the insurance payments?
Click to expand...

Yes I do have a problem with it.
 
#96
#96
RJD, Do you think that inheritance should be taxed as income to the recipient?
 
Last edited:
#97
#97
T-TownVol said:
RJD, Do you think that inheritance should taxed as income to the recipient?
Click to expand...

NO.

I don't agree with the income tax.

I think inheritance should be considered income to the reciepient.

I don't think it is being "double taxed".

Is it really that hard for you to understand?
 
#98
#98
rjd970 said:
Don't understand why you would be in favor of taxation on work performed and saving, yet not be in favor of taxing what amounts to be pure luck on who your parents are. Seems backwards to me. Tax the shat out of dumb luck, lower it on income actually earned. Let people keep what they actually earn.
Click to expand...

?....can you see where my confusion comes from.....I can go back and get more of these types of quotes from you
 
#99
#99
T-TownVol said:
?....can you see where my confusion comes from.....I can go back and get more of these types of quotes from you
Click to expand...

Not really.

How is that inconsistent?

If there is going to be an income tax, tax inheritance as income to the reciepient. Tax what is earned at a lower rate than what is dumb luck.

Doesn't mean I agree with income tax. But if it does exist, lower on income actually earned.
 
#100
#100
inheritance is not always cash. How do you tax a person on the supposed value of an asset?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top