Therajraj: How Do You Anti Government

True, but this: “I am arguing that one is not the sole owner of the pre-tax value that accrues from one’s labor” is still nonsense…in any discussion.

@oldstyle00 Now I see why you hate Trump

Holy Shit!

My g.f.'s step-brother just got a job with the US Department of Agriculture within the last 2 weeks. He and his wife are in the middle of a to Wa. right now.

Timing is everything, I guess

If a tax wasn’t theft, it would be called a payment.*

Three schoolyard bullies threaten to take your lunch money. One of those bullies realizes that he will either have to fight the other two for your money, or that money will have to be split into thirds. He offers you protection from the other two if you give him half of your money. You give him half of your money, and the other two bullies go off to take money from other classmates. Did you pay the bully for a service, or did you pay a tax? I would say you paid a tax, but I can see where either could be argued.

*I understand that your typical Republican is wildly inconsistent here, when arguing that paying taxes for something like the military or roads is totally different from the ACA.

Why on earth would you want to discourage work by preferentially taxing it?

You think Reagan would tolerate ya boy’s buddy-buddy relationship with Russia? Do you think he would have tolerated referring to the American intelligence community as being akin to Nazis? Do you think he would accept mindless ‘no new taxes’ attitudes? These would be dealbreakers for him. Reagan would be a conservative Dem, akin to Joe Manchin.

Did you forget that he also raised taxes on a number of occasions?

Anyway, you are proving my point. You are essentially equating being a Republican with mindless devotion to tax cuts. Reagan would reject that mindset.

You are making this assertion out of ignorance regarding the substance of the argument. That is distinctly bad form when it comes to sincere discussion. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the substance of the argument so that you can counter it, or alternatively, refrain from making blanket statements such as Nonsense!

1 Like

[quote=“EyeDentist, post:367, topic:225456, full:true”]

Why on earth would you want to discourage work by preferentially taxing it? [/quote]

Because it’s double and sometimes triple taxation, which is ridiculous.

Edit:

Yall are literally talking about nothing anyway:

I agree that it’s absurd to tax the person who is the source of the inheritance. And I know inheritance is legally considered not taxable income. But I am making a common-sense argument here, not a legal one. If my Uncle Richie Rich gives me a cool mill, by what logic has my income this year not gone up by a mill? If I pay tax on the rest of my income, why should I not pay taxes on this portion?

That’s what happens, though. The estate (after death) or the earner/gifter (during life obviously) pays the estate or gift tax.

By the fact that you didn’t earn it. Income is defined as a gain derived from labor or capital denoted in a currency. You neither earned it via labor nor capital investment. It was gifted to you by uncle Richie who has already paid earned income or capital gains tax on said col mil.

Then why are lottery winnings taxed?

1 Like

Lol, how did I know you’d go here…

Those are considered gambling earnings. Gambling can be classified as earned income or a hobby depending on how good you are at it. But, more importantly to this discussion, there’s no way the state is going to pay the gift tax, lol…

You’re right. I misread the argument. However, the two issues are still closely related(without overstepping the boundaries of powers given it, much less money could be taken under the pretense of providing needed/wanted services).

Perhaps because it’s such an obvious inconsistency in the definition of ‘income’?

Again, from a common-sense perspective, it seems to me that if unearned lottery winnings can be considered income, there’s no reason unearned inherited ‘winnings’ shouldn’t be as well.

They’re not, if you win enough to fund a force powerful enough to defend you from the U.S. That’s where all tax legitimacy questions should end.

Aren’t you the guy they warned me about? :grinning:

Lol, you haven’t spent much time with the tax code, have you…?

You forget that the tax code is written by members of Congress…

They aren’t considered “unearned” for a couple of reasons:

First off, you’re investing your capital into playing the lottery. You actually spend your own money to buy a ticket. That doesn’t happen when you’re being gifted something from Uncle Richie.

Secondly, as I pointed out, they fall under IRC that deals specifically with gambling. I.e. it is treated differently than capital gains, earned income, or an estate/gift.

Finally, its entire purpose is revenue generation for whatever institution created it. The MD lottery, for example, isn’t “gifting” you tax winnings.

Like I said, the state isn’t going to pay a gift tax on their lottery payouts. That would partially defeat the purpose.

Guilty as charged.

So the common-sense hill you’ve staked out in order to defend this is that the lottery is actually an investment? That’s the common-sense reason lottery income should be taxed, but inherited income shouldn’t?

My view is that gambling =/= investment =/= a gift.

However, if you want to try and draw a parallel between different sources of wealth then gambling is closer to an investment than it is to a gift.

Investment: (A transaction occurs)
Person A buys an investment vehicle. It appreciates by 10%. Person A pays Cap Gains tax on the 10% gain.

Lottery Winnings: (A transaction occurs)
Person A buys a lottery ticket for $5. Person A wins $1,000 dollars. Person A pays income tax on winnings.

Professional Gambler: Gambler A pays $50,000 entry fee to Las Vegas Texas Hold 'Em Tournament. Gambler A wins (earns) $1,000,000 1st place prize. Person A pays income tax on $1,000,000 (maybe even gets to deduct the entrance fee).

All of the above require an action on the part of the person that increase their wealth and pays the tax.

Gift: Person A receives $1,000,000 from Uncle Richie for being his nephew. He has done nothing to earn this and Uncle Richie pays the gift tax (if he if above the the life-time gift exemption).

IMO, that is quite different than the others.

Edited.

OK, please explain to me why it makes more sense for Uncle Richie’s estate to pay a tax on this transaction, as opposed to his nephew. (Not a snarky comment; I’m genuinely seeking an explanation that will help me understand the law.)

Because that’s how Congress wrote the law… :pokerface:

I don’t mean to be snarky either, but I have no idea why. I guess because it’s Uncle Richie’s money and he gets to do with it as he please, but the government, for whatever reason, doesn’t like the idea of intergenerational wealth flowing downstream without another cut. Honestly, I think it’s just so they get another piece of uncle Richie’s pie…

There are a lot of code sections where a requirement or a filing date or whatever make absolutely no sense unless you remember it’s Congress and not accountants that write the code. I honestly have no idea how guys like Beans or my wife deal with it year after year.

OK thanks; I feel a little vindicated now (with regard to my inability to understand the logic underlying the tax code in this regard).