Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (320182)	1/11/2007 3:42:58 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575765

re: Imposing some level of taxation in response to that requirement has next to nothing to do with a hypothetical "policy to discourage the creation of dilettantes". But isn't it more healthy to tax inheritance than earnings? Inheritance is putting money in the hands of people whose only qualification is an accident of birth. Taxing earnings is penalizing a presumably positive social action. Especially with large estates, it's not really in societies best interest to concentrate wealth in the hands of people who haven't demonstrated any skill at using it productively. I'm presuming that a higher inheritance tax would allow a lower income tax. John

To: TimF who wrote (320182)	1/12/2007 2:48:19 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575765

No, it isn't........you're mixing governance and economics. Imposing a government policy to "discourage the creation of dilettantes", is governance, severely misguided governance, but my supposed "mixing governance and economics" has nothing to do with the issue. Discouraging the creation of dilettantes is a side benefit of raising the inheritance tax. The primary focus is to raise revenue to operate the gov't. So they try to find ways to avoid it.......the gov't will fill the loopholes. Its too bad gov't has to play that game with its citizens. It doesn't have to. It might want to. That makes no sense. It could just make taxes as simple and low as possible, and let people make most of their own decisions as to how they will live, what they will buy, and how they will invest. Like I said, you don't want to accept that there is a certain cost to living in a democracy. You say you do but all your actions and comments say otherwise. Whatever your ideology is......conservatism, libertarianism or whatever ~ism you are calling yourself this month.......its does not do much for the common good, and in fact, is rather narcissitic. I believe we need less of it in this society.