SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Freedom Fighter who wrote (109121)9/14/2007 12:16:35 PM
From: Skeeter Bug  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 132070
 
>> About the only thing I stand to inherit is a bunch of liabilities associated with my brother that my parents now cope with. ;-( <<

we must have the same brother. ugggh!

>>Regardless, it's still a tax on capital which I think is a bad idea.<<

all taxes are a bad idea for the person being taxed. ;-)

ultimately, though. wealth benefits from the services of this nation, regardless of income. for example, if joe owned half of the united states, yet didn't pull an income, is it fair and just for joe not to pay federal taxes when fully 50% of all federal military expenditures protects his assets and interests?

i think you touched on the answer in that it is probably a little mix of taxing different things, although i wouldn't exclude wealth primarily because i don't think poor folk should subsidize things that benefit the asset wealthy (such as military). that sounds like a reverse robin hood scheme to me.

yes, the example is extreme, but extreme examples often bring out points that are too subtle to "ring the bell" otherwise.

we haven't even gotten into the idea that the wealthy will find ways to turn income into assets and, therefore, shift even more of their tax burden on the less fortunate. consider that reverse robin hood on steroids.

at the end of the day, though, they will tax what is easiest to collect and control - and that's income.