Yes you did. You tried to say that assets are tied up somehow...but the entire point of assets is to increase their value over time.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
trump Loses more than any other American
- Thread starter katzgar
- Start date
Yes you did. You tried to say that assets are tied up somehow...but the entire point of assets is to increase their value over time.
That was an example
A poor example that you conjured out of your ass.
A hyperbolic example to try and make a point.
A deliberate act of sophistry to spike the debate because you know where it's headed, and it's not a place you can legitimately defend.
STOP.
You get taxed on what you earn relative to how much you earn.
So, again, who earns $1B one year and $10 the next?
Your style seems to be to create weird, outrageous scenarios, then represent those scenarios as a standard example, but the reality is that you're using that hyperbole because you cannot debate along normal terms.
For many people in the upper reaches of the wealthy end their incomes often fluctuate widely.
Not really. I've never heard of someone making $1B one year and then $10 the next, like you said.
Part Multi 313
Verified User
So did the heirs pay the taxes before, or did the person who died pay those taxes before?
They heirs didn't pay any tax on it before they inherited it.
Hypothetically, most inheritance is passed one generation, and most often resold by the inheritor. Some large estates stay within a family's possession for many generations. Fact is, the estate was already paid for, already taxed and in possesion for years before given off in the will. To instate a re-taxation of a house and property to be paid once again when it is given to the original owners children is redundant and insulting. If we used smaller property for an example like say, a table, you can see the redundancy. The table paid for, used for years, given to the original owners children and then the government comes in and says "we will confiscate this table unless you pay tax on it before you give it to your children." The table was already taxed when bought new.
Hypothetically, most inheritance is passed one generation, and most often resold by the inheritor.
Hypothetically?
So...the people inheriting the wealth didn't earn it, and didn't pay taxes on it prior to inheriting it.
That's the point.
You screech and screech and screech about "earning", but inheriting wealth isn't earning it.
Fact is, the estate was already paid fo
NOT BY THE PERSON INHERITING IT.
They didn't earn the money to pay for it.
They just were born lucky.
That's not "earning" anything.
To instate a re-taxation of a house and property to be paid once again when it is given to the original owners children is redundant and insulting.
Why? Those kids didn't earn it. They didn't pay any taxes on it before. Now you want them to get money they didn't earn, and not pay taxes on that which they didn't earn?
You seem very confused about your own position.
The table paid for, used for years, given to the original owners childre
They children didn't pay for it, though.
They didn't earn it.
They didn't pay taxes on it before.
So why shouldn't they pay taxes on it, since they didn't earn it?
"we will confiscate this table unless you pay tax on it before you give it to your children." The table was already taxed when bought new.
Right, it was bought by the person who died...not the people inheriting it.
The people inheriting it didn't pay any of the taxes on it before.
In fact, they didn't even earn that table. They just inherited it with no work.
Getin the ring
Verified User
Hypothetically?
So...the people inheriting the wealth didn't earn it, and didn't pay taxes on it prior to inheriting it.
That's the point.
You screech and screech and screech about "earning", but inheriting wealth isn't earning it.
but your parents earned it, and passed it down to you,
WELL
not YOU necessarily, something tells me your parents are losers like you are,
but hypothetically citing the people to whom you refer, saying the government is more deserving of my money than my children makes you not only a lunatic, but an idiot
but your parents earned it, and passed it down to you
So how is that you earning it?
but your parents earned it, and passed it down to you
So you didn't earn it, your parents did.
So since you didn't earn it, why should you get to keep any of it?
not YOU necessarily, something tells me your parents are losers like you are,
You're the one so fucking stupid, you got conned by Donald Trump.
but hypothetically citing the people to whom you refer, saying the government is more deserving of my money than my children makes you not only a lunatic, but an idiot
You just said yourself that the kids didn't earn it, their parents did.
So since the kids didn't earn it, why should they get to keep any of it?
but your parents earned it, and passed it down to you,
WELL
not YOU necessarily, something tells me your parents are losers like you are,
but hypothetically citing the people to whom you refer, saying the government is more deserving of my money than my children makes you not only a lunatic, but an idiot
But you're dead at that point, so your say as to who gets the money you earned is moot.
Your kids didn't earn that money.
You even said so yourself.
So if they didn't earn it, why should they get to keep any of it?
Part Multi 313
Verified User
but your parents earned it, and passed it down to you,
WELL
not YOU necessarily, something tells me your parents are losers like you are,
but hypothetically citing the people to whom you refer, saying the government is more deserving of my money than my children makes you not only a lunatic, but an idiot
I would say LV426 is taking my words and slanting his interpretation to up his post count through argument.