Maxprop wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message


A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds.

Oh really??? Did you conveniently omit the capital gains tax, or just
forget about it.

No. The tax on capital gains is lower than the tax on labor. Look it
up in the tax tables. Don't forget to include payroll taxes.


And the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate
than the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune simply
by virtue of outliving their parents.

The heirs don't "earn" anything. They inherit the money their progenitors
have *already paid taxes upon.* So you'd tax that money again? Why?

Every time money changes hands, it's taxed. If I pay a plumber to
unclog my drains, he pays income taxes on it. Yes, I've already paid
income taxes on the money I used to pay him, but that's the way it
works. And if he uses the money to tip a waitress at lunch, she pays
taxes on it. And if she hires a gardener, the gardener pays income
taxes on the money he's paid. And if he hires somebody for something,
that person pays too. etc. etc. etc.

That's the way income taxes work. Why you want to make a special
exemption for the progeny of the idle rich is beyond me. Is it because
they don't "earn" it? Are you really so gullible that you think
you're going to be one of them some day?

Oh wait--you're in favor of punitive taxation. I almost forgot.

WHACK that strawman, Max. WHACK it like you mean it. C'mon, you can
do it.

// Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:
"Walt" wrote in message


A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds.
Oh really??? Did you conveniently omit the capital gains tax, or just
forget about it.

No. The tax on capital gains is lower than the tax on labor. Look it up
in the tax tables. Don't forget to include payroll taxes.


And the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate
than the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune
simply by virtue of outliving their parents.

The heirs don't "earn" anything. They inherit the money their
progenitors have *already paid taxes upon.* So you'd tax that money
again? Why?

Every time money changes hands, it's taxed. If I pay a plumber to unclog
my drains, he pays income taxes on it. Yes, I've already paid income taxes
on the money I used to pay him, but that's the way it works. And if he
uses the money to tip a waitress at lunch, she pays taxes on it. And if
she hires a gardener, the gardener pays income taxes on the money he's
paid. And if he hires somebody for something, that person pays too. etc.
etc. etc.

Are you serious? Do you really fail to see the difference?

That's the way income taxes work. Why you want to make a special
exemption for the progeny of the idle rich is beyond me.

Hmmm. A bit of prejudice showing here, Walt. I seriously doubt that the
wealthy got that way by being idle. Of course anyone with more than you
must be a lazy *******, right?

Is it because they don't "earn" it? Are you really so gullible that you
think you're going to be one of them some day?

Oh wait--you're in favor of punitive taxation. I almost forgot.

WHACK that strawman, Max. WHACK it like you mean it. C'mon, you can do
it.

Take a Prozac and call me in the morning.

Earned income is taxed, and should be. Wealth passed from family member to
family member is an entirely different situation. If it were the same,
inheritance would be taxed at the same rates as earned income, but it is
not. It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%. And it affects the
not-so-rich (struggling small businesses, etc.) as well as the "idle rich."

This is an issue of class warfare, not fiscal policy. 'Screw the rich--who
gave them the right to have more money than I have.'

Max

Maxprop wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message
...

Maxprop wrote:

"Walt" wrote in message


A guy who busts his ass working as a plumber or a ditch digger pays a
higher rate than a guy who makes much more flipping condos or bonds.

Oh really??? Did you conveniently omit the capital gains tax, or just
forget about it.

No. The tax on capital gains is lower than the tax on labor. Look it up
in the tax tables. Don't forget to include payroll taxes.



And the guy who makes money flipping condos in turn pays a higher rate
than the lucky offspring of the well to do who "earn" their fortune
simply by virtue of outliving their parents.

The heirs don't "earn" anything. They inherit the money their
progenitors have *already paid taxes upon.* So you'd tax that money
again? Why?

Every time money changes hands, it's taxed. If I pay a plumber to unclog
my drains, he pays income taxes on it. Yes, I've already paid income taxes
on the money I used to pay him, but that's the way it works. And if he
uses the money to tip a waitress at lunch, she pays taxes on it. And if
she hires a gardener, the gardener pays income taxes on the money he's
paid. And if he hires somebody for something, that person pays too. etc.
etc. etc.


Are you serious? Do you really fail to see the difference?


That's the way income taxes work. Why you want to make a special
exemption for the progeny of the idle rich is beyond me.


Hmmm. A bit of prejudice showing here, Walt. I seriously doubt that the
wealthy got that way by being idle. Of course anyone with more than you
must be a lazy *******, right?


Is it because they don't "earn" it? Are you really so gullible that you
think you're going to be one of them some day?


Oh wait--you're in favor of punitive taxation. I almost forgot.

WHACK that strawman, Max. WHACK it like you mean it. C'mon, you can do
it.


Take a Prozac and call me in the morning.

Earned income is taxed, and should be. Wealth passed from family member to
family member is an entirely different situation. If it were the same,
inheritance would be taxed at the same rates as earned income, but it is
not.

That's a nice circular argument there. Income derived through
inheritance should be taxed at a different rate because the tax code
treats it that way. Nice.


It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%.

Not quite. Currently it is taxed at a maximum rate of 45%, with the
first $2 Million exempt from the tax.

And it will be ZERO in a couple of years. Do you think zero is an
appropriate rate?

See http://beginnersinvest.about.com/od/...atetaxrate.htm

And it affects the
not-so-rich (struggling small businesses, etc.) as well as the "idle
rich."


The struggling family business or family farm that is adversely affected
by due to the estate tax is largely an urban legend.

See http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

//Walt

All this conversation is about is other people's money and what method it is
you find superior to rob them.

"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote in message
...
All this conversation is about is other people's money and what method it
is you find superior to rob them.

Liberal 101: The wise legislator will always fund his pet programs with
other peoples' money.

Max

You mean like the Republican Congress... talk about tax and spend....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote in message
...
All this conversation is about is other people's money and what method it
is you find superior to rob them.

Liberal 101: The wise legislator will always fund his pet programs with
other peoples' money.

Max

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
..sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
news

"Sidney Greenstreet" wrote in message
...
All this conversation is about is other people's money and what method
it is you find superior to rob them.

Liberal 101: The wise legislator will always fund his pet programs with
other peoples' money.

You mean like the Republican Congress... talk about tax and spend....

Sadly, I cannot deny that. They behaved most unwisely.

Max

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%.

Not quite. Currently it is taxed at a maximum rate of 45%, with the first
$2 Million exempt from the tax.

Make me a liar for 5%??

And it will be ZERO in a couple of years. Do you think zero is an
appropriate rate?

I do. Before someone discovered that inheritance was a nice cash cow for
the horribly-managed federal coffers, it was passed on from family member to
family member without notice.

The concept that money *must* be taxed every time it changes hands is
repugnant to me. It would be a far more palatable concept if it were
managed in a halfway responsible manner by the government. Recently I
watched Air Force One fly overhead, carrying W to a political rally here. I
could see the plane while it covered roughly five miles. Based upon the
per-mile expenditure to fly that airplane, I calculated that it had expended
half my annual tax contribution during the period I viewed it. All for a
partisan political trip to stump for a local GOP congressman. Sheesh.


And it affects the
not-so-rich (struggling small businesses, etc.) as well as the "idle
rich."


The struggling family business or family farm that is adversely affected
by due to the estate tax is largely an urban legend.

Mind telling that to the farmers in this area who've been forced to sell
their family farms rather than pass them on to heirs, because the heirs
cannot afford the tax?

See http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html

Yeah. I just love consulting left-wing websites for my "facts."

Max

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Maxprop wrote:

It is taxed exorbitantly, typically at around 50%.

Not quite. Currently it is taxed at a maximum rate of 45%, with the first
$2 Million exempt from the tax.

Make me a liar for 5%??


Actually you're both liars.

Include the tax on the first person who earned it, you're looking at 70%
tax!