re: "They want us to go back to no income tax, no regs, earn what you want, fam inherits all"

quote:

---

Your taking money away from people against their will,

---

And returning the same amount of money that was taken from others against their will. I reiterate. The money I’m taking is not from anyone at all. The person who owned it is dead. And the money I am able then to return is to people who friggin earned it.

quote:

---

I am recommending more of this, yet you are arguing with me. My recommendation is that the government take more of inherited money and LESS OF EARNED MONEY.

I am also saying this is only for the rich. The middle class, and even the slightly affluent, should be able to pass on their wealth.

You accuse me of being jealous, but of what? My proposal would hit my estate hard and pass over almost everyone else’s who is reading this.

---

Dude, even though your entire ides is ridiculous (a person should be able to decide what to do with their money, no question)...

You are targeting a set of people, who with limitless income already skirt every rule imagined, hide money in every offshore account, in every stock holding, in every sort of venture to skirt rules, and pay less taxes than most.

As an earner in a high bracket, it infuriates that no matter what the government does, those people will always pay less effective taxes than i do. And there's just no way around it. I don't have the resources to do the things they do with non-profits, donations, etc. It sucks.

But this would also never impact them in any sense, even if it were implemented. Anything keeping rich people from their money is a lost cause, they have too many resources to maneuver around every rule imaginable.

The best way is a consumption tax, period.

quote:

---

Dude, even though your entire ides is ridiculous (a person should be able to decide what to do with their money, no question)...

---

I got this far before your post ran afoul of logic. How does the income tax comport with your view that a person should be able to do what they want with their money, and that anyone who proposes otherwise is ridiculous?

We are already taking people’s money from them. I propose taking it from those who haven’t earned it and restoring it to those who ARE earning it.

Also, you greatly overstate the tax avoidance that the super wealthy get away with. If it was as you say the wealthiest 1% would not be paying 40% of all income taxes. But they do.

"A hallmark of fascist governments is less government regs."

Reid is a DEI hire, for sure. Dumb as a rock.

quote:

---

The question is should it be showered on someone who did nothing to earn it

---

if i want to give what I paid for (with money I earned and paid tax on) to my kids, I should be able to without them getting screwed over by even more taxes. Aren't we working to make a better life for them?

quote:

---

My recommendation is that the government take more of inherited money

---

Think about what this would look like in practice.

1. You, as a private citizen, are welcome to donate all of your wealth. Lots of wealthy people donate huge sums of money to museums, preservation efforts, maybe a symphony or two. You could start the Penrod Philharmonic! Anything is better than gifting this money directly to our moronic government. Put it directly into the hands of people who will use your money effectively.

2. With forced government confiscation of inheritance, wealthy individuals will just shovel their money into myriad other projects, naming their beneficiaries as "board members" or throw their money into real estate held by, again, their heirs.

So are you saying that after million in cash per child, you're cool with the government confiscating our family home? What about jewelry? Fine art? Antiques? A gun collection? Boats? Where does this end for you?

quote:

---

Think about what this would look like in practice. 1. You, as a private citizen, are welcome to donate all of your wealth. Lots of wealthy people donate huge sums of money to museums, preservation efforts, maybe a symphony or two. You could start the Penrod Philharmonic! Anything is better than gifting this money directly to our moronic government. Put it directly into the hands of people who will use your money effectively. 2. With forced government confiscation of inheritance, wealthy individuals will just shovel their money into myriad other projects, naming their beneficiaries as "board members" or throw their money into real estate held by, again, their heirs.

---

This is the first legit response to that suggestion. You make solid points. Under current law it would work just as you say. Because of that we would not be able to take 100% of the taxable part. You'd have to take maybe 75% so that the remaining 25% was inducement enough to avoid that.

quote:

---

No it isn’t. At this point, you are dead. It is NOT your money anymore. The question is should it be showered on someone who did nothing to earn it, or shall it go to the public treasury so that productive people get to keep more of what they earn.

---

I disagree w/ so much of this. The house you own isn't yours after your dead either. Should government confiscate that?

Second, who gets to be the arbiter of what is "earned"? Politicians?

Lastly, how about just massive tax cuts, not MORE taxation in order for people to keep more of what they've earned? How about some real massive cuts to government.

The idea that people still believe society will be better if government takes more money out of society is fricking mind blowing to me.

quote:

---

Lastly, how about just massive tax cuts, not MORE taxation in order for people to keep more of what they've earned? How about some real massive cuts to government.

---

You’re preaching to the choir on smaller government. That’s not what the thread is about but I support that. Given that the government needs some finite amount of money, I’d prefer that they take it after I’m dead than when I’m living. Additionally, that would incentivize producing instead of inheriting.