- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 4/19/24 at 8:37 pm to turkish
Didn’t one of the Rothschilds die
They are without a doubt some of the richest people. Despite what list is disclosed on Forbes.
They are without a doubt some of the richest people. Despite what list is disclosed on Forbes.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 8:47 pm to Salviati
quote:
There is no estate tax on estates at or under $13,610,000.
You do know that number is set to dramatically decrease?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 8:54 pm to turkish
quote:That's kind of a stupid question. Who is OK with paying taxes under any circumstances? I don't like paying sales taxes, income taxes, capital gains taxes, property taxes, etc.
What percentage of that inheritance you received do you think would be a fair portion to forfeit as a tax?
I think everyone can agree that some level of taxes or individual contribution for common benefits are necessary. Nevertheless, the point of this thread is not whether taxes are OK. That's the topic of a different thread.
The point of this thread is whether taxes paid on estates received by beneficiary/heirs is a rational way to generate tax revenues.
It is, and it is the most fair and rational way to generate tax revenue.
Compare, for example, income taxes and estate taxes. Is it better to generate revenue from someone working for the money received, or is it better to generate revenue from someone who has not worked for the money received? Don't we want to incentivize people being productive?
If we had only two options to generate tax revenue, income tax or estate tax, would we not want to decrease income tax by generating estate tax revenue?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 8:58 pm to Salviati
quote:
It is, and it is the most fair and rational way to generate tax revenue.
Estates larger than the one you were involved in.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 8:59 pm to VetteGuy
quote:Yes. Five million is still a great deal of money. Moreover, the argument remains the same.quote:You do know that number is set to dramatically decrease?
There is no estate tax on estates at or under $13,610,000.
If we had only two options to generate tax revenue, income tax or estate tax, would we not want to decrease income tax by generating estate tax revenue?
Isn't it better to generate revenue from someone who has not worked for the money received (beneficiary or heir) than to generate revenue from someone working for the money received (self-employed or employee)? Don't we want to incentivize people being productive?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:08 pm to Salviati
Good grief, reread what you wrote...
Why would anyone start a business or save for the future, all the while paying taxes on the earnings, just to give the rest of it to the government upon death? That's an incentive?
And let's not pretend income taxes will go down if we increase inheritance taxes. That's just a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact.
Remember income tax rates already go up the more you make.
quote:
Don't we want to incentivize people being productive?
Why would anyone start a business or save for the future, all the while paying taxes on the earnings, just to give the rest of it to the government upon death? That's an incentive?
And let's not pretend income taxes will go down if we increase inheritance taxes. That's just a ridiculous statement with no basis in fact.
Remember income tax rates already go up the more you make.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:11 pm to turkish
quote:I'm not an economist. I'm not here to advocate for specific income tax rates, income tax thresholds, estate tax rates, or estate tax thresholds.quote:Estates larger than the one you were involved in.
It is, and it is the most fair and rational way to generate tax revenue.
I do believe that estate taxes are more fair and more rational that income taxes.
People who are earning income are showing the ability to be productive. People want people to be able to eat what they kill. We want people to be productive. We should reward productivity.
People who inherit wealth have not shown anything other than the ability to be offspring. What is it that they are doing that should be incentivized?
If given the choice between taking from producers or taking from people who have only shown the ability to inherit, I'd rather take less from the producers.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:14 pm to VetteGuy
You know you’re arguing with a bleeding liberal right?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:14 pm to Walt OReilly
Walt, you're right
.
.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:16 pm to Salviati
quote:
I'm not an economist. I'm not here to advocate
You are here to call our questions stupid though
quote:
We should reward productivity.
In this country? Good luck
quote:
People who inherit wealth have not shown anything other than the ability to be offspring. What is it that they are doing that should be incentivized?
I would imagine people that inherit money from productive parents continue to be productive and contribute to that income tax revenue you think is more fair.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:21 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I thought billionaires didn’t pay their fair share
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:23 pm to Deactived
quote:
You are here to call our questions stupid though
To be fair, that was me.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:31 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
You did and he did it twice
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:34 pm to Deactived
quote:You can imagine that. It might be true in some cases.quote:I would imagine people that inherit money from productive parents continue to be productive and contribute to that income tax revenue you think is more fair.
People who inherit wealth have not shown anything other than the ability to be offspring. What is it that they are doing that should be incentivized?
But we know that people who are paying income taxes are certainly being productive.
If I have $7 billion to give away, I'd rather it go to the person who has PROVEN they are productive rather than the person I'd IMAGINE might be productive. I'd rather give it to the Entrepreneur A (reduce income tax) than Entrepreneur B's kids (reduce estate tax).
Posted on 4/19/24 at 9:49 pm to Salviati
I can’t imagine arguing for the government to take more money from their citizens
Wasn’t there a war over taxation?
Wasn’t there a war over taxation?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 10:08 pm to Walt OReilly
quote:
I can’t imagine arguing for the government to take more money from their citizens
Posted on 4/19/24 at 10:11 pm to Walt OReilly
It is scary that there are people like him voting. It makes sense looking at the current state of this country.
Give me a flat tax and increase in sales tax over an estate tax. Death taxis BS.
Give me a flat tax and increase in sales tax over an estate tax. Death taxis BS.
Posted on 4/19/24 at 10:15 pm to Salviati
quote:
If given the choice between taking from producers or taking from people who have only shown the ability to inherit, I'd rather take less from the producers.
Why should government take from anyone? Why do you operate under the assumption that only productive people should keep their money?
Posted on 4/19/24 at 10:21 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Absolutely insane they can tax someone a second time on money I’m assuming they have already payed taxes on… like holy shite… how can u take that much money from anyone
Page 8 of 8
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News