inquiry; it is the beginning of the inquiry. Where is it written that
it is somehow unconstitutional to tax a dollar earned in 1969 under the
income tax, and then forty years later tax the house that was purchased
with that money (and that THEN APPRECIATED SIX-FOLD OVER THE DURATION).
We double tax lots of things: corporate dividends are double taxed;
that income was taxed to the corporation first, and later as a dividend
to the shareholder. We've only done that for about 80 years.
So the question may be fairness; it may be the amount that is
appropriate; it may be FROM WHOM should we collect revenues. But there
are no apriori rules (e.g. this double taxation hoax) that somehow
ANSWERS the question of what taxes are we going to permit.
--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, Edward Hochman <eah01@...> wrote:
>
> My basic point was that he was taxed yearly on that wealth already and
now you want to tax him again on that same same property before his
beneficiaries receive it. That to me seems a bit unfair and amounts to
double taxation. I am not making comparisons re: people or how many
people it took to produce a profit. I object to double taxation.
>
> ed
>
>
> To: Dems2008@...: citation502@...: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 03:27:05
+0000Subject: [Dems2008] Re: Why Obama
>
>
>
>
>
> You're making no sense Ed. You have a major ASSUMPTION in your
analysis, and that is that the "dead guy" worked harder to amass his
wealth than the person who income is being taxed this year. There is no
empirical basis for your assumption.
> Quite the contrary: a business owner with a successful business may
have made that wealth on the sweat of underpaid workers, and the person
with the $5 million estate in the Hamptons may have inherited it from a
relative.
> So your tax preferences based on "the amount of work devoted to the
accretion of wealth" is probably standing directly on its head. The
marginal tax on the 40 yr old father's 50,000th dollar this year
probably reflects an even more direct tax on "work"
> --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, Edward Hochman eah01@ wrote:>> > The
estate tax is just another revenue source for the govt; and so the
question is not whether the revenue should be collected from us, but
from whom and via which vehicle should it be collected. In my view (and
these are policy questions on which we can all differ) I would rather
take a dollar of tax from a dead guy's estate (before the balance passes
as a pure windfall to a child or others) than I would take that dollar
from a working person trying to raise and educate his or her children.
So the estate tax (which hits a very small percentage of folks in this
country) is a better more preferred source (in my view) than the same
dollar coming via the income tax.> Why should a dollar of a dead man's
estate go to the government. He worked hard for that money during his
life and he has the right to see that it goes to where he wants, be it
to his descendents, per stirpes, a favorite charity, or wherever. The
government taxes him during his lifetime on that income and then wants
to tax him one last time so not all he wants to give will get to his
desired beneficiaries. Not very fair.> > > second, the step-up in asset
basis is always ignored in these discussions: if I buy a house for 100K
and it's worth $2 million when I die, my devisee takes the date of death
fair market value as a stepped up basis. Seems only fair that since
ASSETS (not cash) are the bulk of the estate of a person subject to
estate tax, a fair tradeoff for the windfall from the basis step-up is
to tax that asset at death. The earner is DEAD; the legatee or devisee
is a windfall beneficiary.So the beneficiary should have to pay out the
trust or the property a tax equivelant to the difference between the
original cost of the home and the increased market value? We really need
more equitable financial intake than that since the beneficiaries or the
new residents of that home are still greiving over the deceased. and you
would stick them with another financial burden. Sometimes the home is
the only thing of material growth in a trust and there are no other real
assets. where is the equity there. let us not tax each other to death
after death.Ed> > > To: Dems2008@: citation502@: Sun, 9 Mar 2008
02:14:54 +0000Subject: [Dems2008] Re: Why Obama> > > > > > Carol, there
is a lot of demgaguery about the federal estate tax, and its repeal is
sold to folks with less than the full truth of the matter.> > The estate
tax is just another revenue source for the govt; and so the question is
not whether the revenue should be collected from us, but from whom and
via which vehicle should it be collected. In my view (and these are
policy questions on which we can all differ) I would rather take a
dollar of tax from a dead guy's estate (before the balance passes as a
pure windfall to a child or others) than I would take that dollar from a
working person trying to raise and educate his or her children. So the
estate tax (which hits a very small percentage of folks in this country)
is a better more preferred source (in my view) than the same dollar
coming via the income tax> second, the step-up in asset basis is always
ignored in these discussions: if I buy a house for 100K and it's worth
$2 million when I die, my devisee takes the date of death fair market
value as a stepped up basis. Seems only fair that since ASSETS (not
cash) are the bulk of the estate of a person subject to estate tax, a
fair tradeoff for the windfall from the basis step-up is to tax that
asset at death. The earner is DEAD; the legatee or devisee is a windfall
beneficiary.> --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, Carol Roberts
carolroberts1@ wrote:>> Wow, I mostly agree with your positions on
things, except for the estate > tax. It taxes after-tax money. I know
the threshold has been set very > high, but I remember the days when I
represented widows who had to sell > their houses in order to pay the
estate tax. I don't care that the > people who now pay estate tax have
several houses, its not right.> > Carol> > citation502 wrote:> > > > > *
I support huge tax cuts for those earnings less than 100K, and a> >
repeal of the suspension of the estate tax>>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder