Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
It certainly changes the emotional content of the argument. You're implying it's the government taxing you once when making the money, and taxing you again when it is inherited, Instead, there are two different taxes applied at the same time to the same money, which is functionally not at all the same thing - and YOU are not actually paying the capital gains, either.
Stop saying things like "random tax grab", it's nothing of the sort, nor is it "no different than taxing savings at any other time". That's ridiculous hyperbole that makes the rest of your argument look bad by association. Again, I don't know if it's good policy or not, but I do know the argument you're making against it isn't a good one.
|
sigh
When you die, your estate faces a deemed disposition. It is taxed. You, via your estate, pay the piper. Whether one says '
you' are taxed, or '
your estate' is taxed, is mere semantics and is irrelevant to the discussion. But if it makes you feel better, let's go with your estate is taxed.
Then, your (remaining) assets are bequeathed to your heirs. To tax their reception of that bequeathment is a double tax. The fact that your estate pays the first round, and the beneficiaries pay the second round, does not change the duplication of it. And most importantly, it punishes those that made the socially-beneficial decision to save for their family's future.
And as afc suggests, the wealthy can easily avoid it through efficient planning - it's the middle class that would get screwed by this.
Your final comment is amusing, considering the fact that you have made no useful arguments one way or the other, you have simply attacked my post from an angle of semantics.
If you would like to actually post something worth discussing, I would love to see it, but you've done nothing to this conversation other than derail it.