Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

heterocephalusgabler.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 90 posts

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#61

Post by gambiting »

ForHackernews wrote: post #59
gambiting wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them. This literally does not make any sense. I paid tax on all those things. My children are using the benefits of my work, that is correct - but I paid my duties for the money I made. >> without having the benefit of having worked for…

Wow, talk about black-and-white thinking. Consider: There may be other alternatives that fall between the extremes of "My kids get all the free money I can give them!" and "The government should confiscate all possessions and give everyone a state-sponsored apartment."

Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Anything in between doesn't make sense as it it completely arbitrary. Why 10%? Or 60%? Or 85%? If you support the notion that children should work for themselves, then don't let them inherit anything from their parents - in which case, the government has to provide at least a place to live in. If you don't support the notion of taxing inheritance(like I do) then you should support the idea of inheritance tax being 0. Again - no tax is being evaded here. A person who made that money/bought those things already paid the tax on them. The government got their share in this already.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#62

Post by gambiting »

JasonFruit wrote: post #57
jessaustin wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be fair and it might be progressive, but how is it "democratic"?

Because it takes from a few people and gives to many. More people would vote for it than not.

Ah, Robin Hood democracy. Of course villagers would vote to take away from the king and give to themselves. It all depends on the perspective - if a regular Joe Smith realized that his child will not be able to keep his house because they would never afford to pay 85% of its value in tax, they might not vote for such a law.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#65

Post by gambiting »

ForHackernews wrote: post #60
acheron wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

f I, as a parent, worked hard enough to make life easy for my child, who are you to tell me that I can't do it? The point is to increase your children's (that is, everyone's) reliance on the government, of course. The ideal for statists would be to remove parents from the equation completely. You've read Brave New World , right?

Is this a parody of a libertarian comment? The point is that people should stand on their own two feet, and not coast through life on daddy's money (or government largesse, for that matter).

But you are talking about extreme cases, where people inherit millions of dollars, and that's probably 0.1% of all inheritance cases. I am arguing that this would hit regular people with regular incomes. You save up $100,000 for your child to go to collage over 25 years of your career, and then happen to die? Well, shit son, your child only gets $15,000, rest is taken by the government to make life more fair. But hey, at least they are not coasting through life on their daddy's money, right?

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#66

Post by JasonFruit »

gambiting wrote: post #62
JasonFruit wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it takes from a few people and gives to many. More people would vote for it than not.

Ah, Robin Hood democracy. Of course villagers would vote to take away from the king and give to themselves. It all depends on the perspective - if a regular Joe Smith realized that his child will not be able to keep his house because they would never afford to pay 85% of its value in tax, they might not vote for such a law.

Mere details. Certainly one could devise a tax code complex enough that Joe Smith couldn't hope to judge its effect on him.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#67

Post by ForHackernews »

gambiting wrote: post #65
ForHackernews wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a parody of a libertarian comment? The point is that people should stand on their own two feet, and not coast through life on daddy's money (or government largesse, for that matter).

But you are talking about extreme cases, where people inherit millions of dollars, and that's probably 0.1% of all inheritance cases. I am arguing that this would hit regular people with regular incomes. You save up $100,000 for your child to go to collage over 25 years of your career, and then happen to die? Well, shit son, your child only gets $15,000, rest is taken by the government to make life more fair. But hey…

> I am arguing that this would hit regular people with regular incomes.

It won't, and it doesn't. You're misinformed on this topic.

There's a blanket exemption for estates up to $5,000,000: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ...

Nobody is interested in taxing your kid's college fund--we just don't want the Waltons running our country for the next 100 years: http://walmart1percent.org/family/

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#68

Post by ForHackernews »

gambiting wrote: post #61
ForHackernews wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, talk about black-and-white thinking. Consider: There may be other alternatives that fall between the extremes of "My kids get all the free money I can give them!" and "The government should confiscate all possessions and give everyone a state-sponsored apartment."

Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Anything in between doesn't make sense as it it completely arbitrary. Why 10%? Or 60%? Or 85%? If you support the notion that children should work for themselves, then don't let them inherit anything from their parents - in which case, the government has to provide at least a place to live in. If you don't support the notion of taxing inheritance(li…

> Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax

Ok, well, I think that's a ludicrous position to take, and your views on this topic are unreasonable. All taxes are "completely arbitrary" in some sense. They're the result of compromises, political and economic pressures, and expressions of the values of a society.

I agree with the parent comment that estates in excess of some amount (maybe one or two million dollars, inflation-indexed) should be taxed at an extremely high rate to discourage the development of aristocratic dynasties.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#69

Post by gnaritas »

gambiting wrote: post #54
gnaritas wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but why would my children have to pay 85% on things that I want to leave them?? It's idiotic. No, it's not idiotic. It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them. > I worked hard to earn those things,why would the government want 85% of their value?? Yes, and that's yours, not…

>>It's income to them they receive without working, it should be taxed higher because those who work for their money should not be taxed higher than those who simply have it given to them. This literally does not make any sense. I paid tax on all those things. My children are using the benefits of my work, that is correct - but I paid my duties for the money I made. >> without having the benefit of having worked for…

> This literally does not make any sense. I paid tax on all those things.

It makes perfect sense. You paid tax on your income, but when you give them money, that's their income, and they need to pay taxes on it.

This notion that you pay tax and then can do anything you want with the money is your not understanding how taxes work. If you give your kids money, that's income for them, they owe taxes on it. Everyone is taxed on their income, you don't get to bypass tax laws because they're your family.

> Since when is it the governments job to make people " understand what it means to not be wealthy."?

You're not paying attention, I didn't say it was to tech them a lesson, I said it was to protect society from them.

> So why don't we ban it altogether?

Because small amounts aren't bad, large amounts are, and that's why we have the inheritance tax.

> Once you hit 18 years of age, you are given a government-built apartament, $1000 pocket money, and off you go, enjoy democracy.

Now you're just being childish. Show me anywhere I said or implied such nonsense.

> Meanwhile, if you die, all your possessions can go to the government who will make sure that your wealth is redistributed to the greatest benefit of the society.

Above a certain amount, that's exactly what should happen.

Re: I got invited to write for the Huffington Post today

#70

Post by gnaritas »

gambiting wrote: post #61
ForHackernews wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, talk about black-and-white thinking. Consider: There may be other alternatives that fall between the extremes of "My kids get all the free money I can give them!" and "The government should confiscate all possessions and give everyone a state-sponsored apartment."

Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax. Anything in between doesn't make sense as it it completely arbitrary. Why 10%? Or 60%? Or 85%? If you support the notion that children should work for themselves, then don't let them inherit anything from their parents - in which case, the government has to provide at least a place to live in. If you don't support the notion of taxing inheritance(li…

> Yes, for me it's either no inheritance tax, or 100% inheritance tax.

Then you need to mature your point of view because the world isn't so absurdly simple and black and white.

No thinking person can look at this country (U.S.) today and say accumulated wealth isn't causing a whole host of problems. The wealth inequality in this country is bad and needs to be addressed. The rich are out of control.

Post reply on HN