Thanks, believer. You write much better than I do.

Paladin;451025 wrote:I chuckle. S.S. will be fixed. Medicare is the real problem. Watch the Rs join the Ds to fix S.S. as Granny won't be denied, lol. I'd like a reasonable response from some of you Right wingers -- what would happen to the millions & millions & MILLIONS of old people when S.S. is eliminated and why would you expect the country to agree with it ?

Investments ?? Everyone has seen what the market can do to investments. Or bad investments.

Old & infirmed ? Poor health & inability to work comes with old age.


How sad that you believe that S.S. can be "fixed". It's a big ponzi/pyramid scheme you idiot. Right or Left wingers doesn't matter, you can't have a few paying for the many, it doesn't add up.

Math doesn't lie.

Ghmothwdwhso;478194 wrote:How sad that you believe that S.S. can be "fixed". It's a big ponzi/pyramid scheme you idiot. Right or Left wingers doesn't matter, you can't have a few paying for the many, it doesn't add up.

Math doesn't lie.

Figures don't lie but liars figure.

believer;477628 wrote:If I choose to purchase a lottery ticket and I hit the lottery, then by all mean tax me. I never had that income before I bought the ticket so that makes good sense.

If I bust my ass to leave my family (IE: my own flesh and blood) a good nest egg when I die - and assuming I paid all my taxes on that nest egg while I'm alive - then it is simply wrong and flat out immoral of you, the government, or anyone else to take a cut of that already taxed income from my family via a clever euphemism called "realization." I should have a right to insure that my family is cared for when I die without the Feds taxing my income while I'm alive and then re-taxing it because I had the audacity of dying.



They got it from me the FIRST time.

The people aren't taxing YOU a second time...they're taxing your heir on her windfall gain just they would tax your heir on any other windfall gain. A receipt of wealth upon the death of someone is a windfall gain and ought to be taxed just like all other windfall gains are taxed...are their reforms that could be done sure...might you lower the tax? Sure...but for there to be no tax at all is inconsistent with the rest of the income tax....why don't you agree that it's not a tax to you...by definition, you can't pay the tax because you are dead.

Since Eisner v. Macomber, the I.R.C. has been codified the general economic principle that the Supreme Court finally endorsed at the admonition of economists....that any accession to wealth clearly realized over which the taxpayer has complete dominion should be taxed....it makes no difference where this accession to wealth comes from...a transfer at death, a sale of stock, etc.

Your heir...a taxpayer presumably, has clearly realized an accession to wealth when they receive a pile of cash that was bequeathed to them upon your death. Under an income tax...which we are under...any wealth transfer is (our ought to be if we're under proper income tax norms) taxed....it's the nature of an income tax.

If you don't want us to have an income tax...that is totally fine...many people don't agree with income taxation....but if we're going to have one...why should some windfall gains be taxed and others not? There is no eternal consistency in that.

Because you plan and hope to leave a nest egg for an heir does not mean they should be able to get a windfall gain tax free....All investors manage and hope to create nest eggs with their portfolios they hope to earn gains on...when these gains are realized they are taxed And then if he wants to pass this to his heir...eagerly seeking a windfall, he is rightfully taxed on this income because the income tax should tax gains to all individual people one time...it is not a tax to you again...you are dead....just because you were planning and hoping and the realization event of your death must eventually come because of your mortality does not mean the tax must escape the fundamental principles encapsulating the income tax.

BoatShoes;479526 wrote:If you don't want us to have an income tax...that is totally fine...many people don't agree with income taxation....

That would be me. I find the claiming of a share of an individuals income before one has a chance to chose how to spend it unjust. Then the garnishing of an individuals paycheck most times withholding more tax than will be owed. Not printing the other half of payroll taxes that the employer is matching (you would be surprised how many individuals don't realize the employer matches).

Most Americans will never get the distinct pleasure of penning a check to the federal government. Instead they get a check returning the interest free loan the individual gave the government for the year. Or in some cases a check for taxes they never paid.

BoatShoes;479526 wrote:but if we're going to have one...why should some windfall gains be taxed and others not? There is no eternal consistency in that.

I agree with you that inheritance taxes are technically income taxes. But since when has our income tax been applied equally or consistently? Some pay higher rates, some don't pay at all, some get credits for engaging in certain activities, we could go on and on......

All these differences in applying the income tax are supposedly done in order to make the tax burden more fair and just. Some have made some good arguments as to why in cases this tax on income can be applied unjustly. Or that the tax itself is unjust. So to answer your question, I guess some just see a big difference in windfall income coming from lottery winnings and windfall income coming from a father's life long labor.

majorspark;479631 wrote:Some have made some good arguments as to why in cases this tax on income can be applied unjustly. Or that the tax itself is unjust. So to answer your question, I guess some just see a big difference in windfall income coming from lottery winnings and windfall income coming from a father's life long labor.

This except you need to add, "....father's life long labor that's already been taxed."

I dunno....every fiber of my being says it's simply immoral to tax wealth twice after it has been created. YES...I'll grudgingly admit that in the very strictest sense that wealth was created by person (A) and as it is passed on to person (B), it is "income realized" by the recipient.

But in my naive world, familial wealth is sacred...it's flesh & blood wealth intended for the financial security and future of the family unit. I have a very, very difficult time understanding why government taxation guru's cannot fathom that concept.

Again, if I earn additional income (IE: profits, interests, etc.) off the already-taxed inherited wealth that is fair game. But for the government to tax my income while I'm alive and then tax that wealth again after it's handed off to my family in my death it's just plain wrong.

believer;479637 wrote:But in my naive world, familial wealth is sacred...it's flesh & blood wealth intended for the financial security and future of the family unit. I have a very, very difficult time understanding why government taxation guru's cannot fathom that concept.

I agree. I would also add that this is one of the driving forces that has made capitalism and the free market so successful. It is the fuel that lights the fire under our asses to get out there and work as hard as we do and take the risks that we do. The desire to provide financial security to those that I love is a major driving force in what I have accomplished in life. I would not have made the sacrifices I have just for myself.

majorspark;480587 wrote:I agree. I would also add that this is one of the driving forces that has made capitalism and the free market so successful. It is the fuel that lights the fire under our asses to get out there and work as hard as we do and take the risks that we do. The desire to provide financial security to those that I love is a major driving force in what I have accomplished in life. I would not have made the sacrifices I have just for myself.

But therein lies the rub.

There's alot of folks out there who want the government to take theirs, so that American can move just that little bit closer to communual living.