Great post Frick, very well said. Love, Frack! Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDBNo charge!
You make my point for me. They earned it. Shouldn't they decide what happens to their estate after they die? What gives you or the state the right to determine what happens to their estate?And there you have it, JD, personal responsibility or relying on a nanny state. There was a time when the overwhelming majority of our people didn't expect anyone else to take care of them. Further, many of them wouldn't have accepted it, anyway...personal pride and all that. We've almost turned 180 degrees on that...now the majority seems to want everything handed to them, as opposed to seizing the opportunities this country affords them.
You say that the country helped them get wealthy. I say that they helped the country be successful. They had an idea, they worked hard, and they built a business that hired workers, paid them, and paid taxes. The workers paid taxes on their income and bought things that had to be made by other people. Those people had to be hired by someone else to produce those items. The country had very little to do with it and lets be very clear here, when you say country you really mean government don't you? Government should have a very limited role in life. National defense, upholding the law, and protecting the defenseless from harm. There is nothing in our Constitution that said government should be in the role of deciding who gets ahead and who doesn't. In the early 1800s a bill was brought before the House. The goal was to establish a fund to help veterans from the Revolutionary War. James Madison stood against the bill. He said that it was a noble idea to help the poor but he could find no place in the Constitution that allowed for them to do that. He wrote most of the Constitution. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
You make my point for me. They earned it. Shouldn't they decide what happens to their estate after they die? What gives you or the state the right to determine what happens to their estate?Very little to do with it you say.....how about you move to Africa and see how much where you live in fact has a huge amount towards how you get by In life. That said, there was nothing you said that addressed my issue of any relative EARNING tax free income from a dead person, you can not do it when you are alive (give away money tax free to kinfolk ), why should you be able to when you die? Lastly, say the rich , who influence politicians to lower tax rstes which winds up concentrating the wealth further, should a kid who has done nothing, pay nothing on what amounts income? If that is not welfare for the rich, I don't know what is. Why would a dead person have any say or even care where his money went when he died? If you care enough, spend it on those things and die broke. The government does not tax broke fucs!
You say that the country helped them get wealthy. I say that they helped the country be successful. They had an idea, they worked hard, and they built a business that hired workers, paid them, and paid taxes. The workers paid taxes on their income and bought things that had to be made by other people. Those people had to be hired by someone else to produce those items. The country had very little to do with it and lets be very clear here, when you say countr Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn
WTF, we do have inheritance taxes. However, the rich will always find a way around them. I know you are a small, simple minded and unsophisticated businessman, but even your humble little operation has some taxable value. Give the whole thing to the government when you die. You could start the ball rolling towards a more equitable distribution of inheritances by giving all your own money and property (5000 total estate?) to the government upon your death, and not give any to your own kids. If you did that, I might believe the rest of the shit you say about death and taxes. Originally Posted by Jewish LawyerI did not say give everything to the government but there are folks that think the government should get nothing.
Rich and poor are relative terms; hence, someone will always be “richer” or “poorer” in relation to someone else. Therefore, there will always be those in society who are considered "poor."I am not advocating for the poor. I am advocating for taxes when you transfer money, you are taxed when you gift people when you are alive, what makes dying so special? Why do folks think there should be no tax on that transaction?
For example, when banker-financier J.P. Morgan died in 1913, “the newspapers estimated the value of his estate at about $80 million (or about $1.7 billion in 2011 terms), a fraction of the wealth of the businessmen he financed. John D. Rockefeller marveled upon learning the news, ‘And to think, he wasn’t even a rich man!’”
http://www.philanthropyroundtable.or...ierpont_morgan Originally Posted by I B Hankering
It matters not if I like him or not, if he gives you money when he is alive, you pay taxes on it as if it were income. Why should you pay no taxes on any money he gives you in his death? [/SIZE] Originally Posted by WTFSimply not true. Please google reputable sites.
Simply not true. Please google reputable sites.COG, My money that I make has been taxed, if I hire somebody to say paint my house , they pay taxes on it. It is income to them, even though I have paid taxes on it. Take your lies some place else.
And the money isn't transferred tax free. It's already been taxed, often more than once. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
COG, If you give a relative money over a certain amount, they pay a gift tax on that money. What is the difference between being alive or dead when you give them the money? It should be taxed, the person you give it to has no earned it, it is a gift. If you die it is just a gift from a dead person. You are showing your ignorance on tax laws. Originally Posted by WTFAnd what is that amount?
I've been reading WTF for years. WTF gets overloaded with his bull shit blabber and sometimes (O.K. frequently) cannot make sense.#1. He's actually toned it down in the past year or so from what I've seen.
What he means (based upon years of reading his tripe) is simple:
"TO EACH according to their needs as approved by his liberal, socialistic views, and
FROM EACH according to everything they have at the time of their death (which WTF is willing to help along if they are elderly, or below his liberal, socialistic views)."
If you re-read his recent diatribes, this is fairly easy to discern.
I'm just sayin'.
Old Dingus Originally Posted by Old Dingus