Based on your 2nd and 4th questions, there appears to be a lot not understood. Things like: “what form of government does the United States have?” and “how does the United States government work?”
ETA: May be even including “what is government?”
It is a death tax and why should wealth that has been taxed as income be taxed again when transferred to an heir?
The poor mob who are pandered to with promises of other people’s time and wealth.
The only reason you have wealth at all is because of the government, because otherwise some warlord would have taken it at gunpoint and you’d be a slave on that warlord’s land. Paying to prevent that from happening is hardly giving out free stuff, it’s creating a system where the majority doesn’t see your stuff as free for the taking because they outnumber your bodyguards.
If you insist on living in a society without paying for its upkeep, you have to expect others to call you a freeloader.
Why shouldn’t it? If I use some of my income to hire someone else to clean my house, they still have to pay taxes on the money I pay them – the fact that I already paid income tax before I transferred it to them is irrelevant. If I use it to buy something at a store, I don’t get to say “hey, I already paid income tax on this, so you can’t charge me sales tax because that would be taxing it twice.” Nor is the owner of the store excused from paying tax because I already did. Why should inheritances be any different?
Personally, I find it utterly ass-backwards that the only income I’ve had in my life that I didn’t have to pay taxes on is money that I did nothing to earn other than being born to the right grandparents.
Sounds like the government is a fancy name for the Mafia.
Because inheritance isn’t considered income. Thankfully. Should my kids have to declare a trip to Europe that we paid for as income? How about private school tuition? How about adult children still getting family insurance benefits?
When the Mafia lets you vote and allows peaceful protests, let me know.
If you build a house of cards in a house in a thunderstorm, what’s keeping the house of cards up: Your skill with stacking or the real house’s walls and ceiling? Could you build the house of cards outside in good weather? What would happen to that house of cards the moment it began to hail outside?
Conservatives always go on about how reality doesn’t care about your feelings. Well, I can guarantee that roving gangs and would-be warlords don’t care about your inalienable rights, and everyone is equal in a mass grave. We have an institution which keeps those nutballs from destroying everything, and you think you have a right to not pay for it? Sure. Go out to Bir Tawil and see how much you get when you refuse to pay. See how much you can earn when there’s nobody to provide you the infrastructure to earn anything.
Funny thing is that governments have been the ones responsible for the largest mass graves. So yes, a government can be mafia like. Or much worse. Now our government is not so bad. One reason is that it has constraints such as can’t take all your stuff.
Because it’s income to that heir.
Why should they not have to pay tax on their income to help pay for the military just like you and I do? Why should they get a free ride? Aren’t freeloaders bad?
That’s because a Mafia big enough to make a really big mass grave is called a government. Legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder.
OK, I agree with this. I do. I would expand it, though: It can only be effective at doing what it does if the people who live under it support it, as opposed to trying to saw down the supports.
I also notice you didn’t respond to my points about how government enables people to earn what they earn.
That’s not true, of course. If the only reason I have wealth to leave to my wife and children is the government, then why aren’t the people the government wants to give my money to just as rich as me? They have the same government.
So you are calling the people who the government wants to give my money to, freeloaders. Got it.
Regards,
Shodan
Because it is income to that heir?
Yeah a lot of misconceptions on wealth in general but also in this thread, including I think the OP.
Basically the liberal position is just that:
- Corporations should pay taxes, particularly successful companies like Amazon
- Society needs a certain amount of taxation to function, and it makes sense to take proportionally more of that from the rich; they can afford to contribute more without it affecting their lifestyle significantly.
The above two concepts are extremely popular among the general public, so that’s why the liberal position has to be misrepresented as an attack on success or whatever.
(As an aside, it was surreal to me when a news story was made of the fact that Bernie Sanders is a dollar millionaire…and of course many on the right tried to charge him with hypocrisy. But firstly, I would have been shocked if a public figure as well known as him, at his age, would not have accrued $1 million in assets. But secondly, importantly, he’s *never *said people should not be rich or successful. He just wants them to contribute more and/or not dodge their obligations).
The question in the thread title is, “Do conservatives genuinely not understand the liberal position on wealth?”
The answer is that they do not understand and they put quite a lot of effort into not understanding.
Is the liberal position that companies should pay taxes based on something other than net income? Or put another way, are liberals against the concept of business deductions?
It’s certainly true in CA, where rather than tax a company’s income, the CA legislature wants to tax gross income pre-deductions.
The liberal position, or that of progressive Democrats, is that corporations should pay more taxes. This could involve simplifying the tax code and improved policing; it’s too easy for corporations to dodge their obligations now.
And, yeah, it could involve gross income deductions, because otherwise “Hollywood accounting” allows huge corporations like, again, Amazon to claim that all their money is being reinvested and continue to pay little to no taxes.
There are differences of opinion on whether measures like this are necessary, and exactly how to implement them.
The emotional investment might be quite different, however, depending on how the house was gained. Unless you are just defining the benefits as purely money based.
Pretty much money based here. Too hard to judge otherwise. The destruction of one room containing valued mementos might be more painful than the destruction of an entire house without.
Bloody hell people. Half the posts here are “why should?” JAQs. That’s not debating. If your post ends in a question mark, you’re just asking someone else to make your argument for you.
The OP, of course, hasn’t been back since post #8, and confused income and wealth right off the bat. So I don’t think we’ve even determined what he or she even thinks the “liberal position on wealth” is. There are certainly Dopers who think the wealth “pie” is fixed, and that one person gaining more wealth means that someone else must have less: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=869816
They’re wrong, of course.
Regarding income, I don’t know that I’d even call progressive taxation a “liberal” position. Sure there are some fringe flat-taxers out there but I don’t see them being taken seriously. There are some who see those with high income as some sort of personal affront (this comes up with silly CEO vs janitor comparisons). But I don’t know that it’s The Liberal Position.
Just to make a quick note, income is money that I earned this year. Wealth is the accumulation of money that I earned in the past that I haven’t spent, or that I’ve spent on assets such as shares or property.
Since you’re defining the liberal position, do you agree with the following statements?
• People should be allowed to keep the majority of the income they earn.
• Wealth, which is different than income as noted above, should not be taxed.
• Unrealised gains should not be taxed.
• Some people are good at, and enjoy, making money. Absent other information about wrongdoing, there is nothing inherently wrong with these people.
• The creation of new wealth is chiefly through innovation and not exploitation.
• Corporations should be taxed on their domestic income* and not on revenue.
I define myself as a conservative, or at least centre-right, and I believe in the principles behind each of those statements.
Also, while this is not a principle, I think that a lot of liberals think that taxing the ultra-high income earners a few percentage points more will reap a huge tax bonanza. Any meaningful income tax increase is going to have to hit the upper middle class.
*For global corporations, it probably is necessary for governments to take a restrictive definition of domestic income. For example, licensing software or intellectual property from Barbados in order to avoid taxes should be restricted.