“You never answered my other question”
Sorry, I guess I missed that post. If he made the fortune within his lifetime then he paid the income taxes on it. So, you’re wondering if I would support taking money out of his savings account every year? No, I don’t see how that could work. I’m not entirely sure that that’s the “wealth tax” that Elizabeth Warren just got into the news for proposing, but I didn’t really look into that much I admit; I have no plans on even considering voting for her. Anyway, no offense, but I’m not sure how much longer I can respond to the legitimate parts of your posts while ignoring the incomprehensible, seemingly tipsy parts. Whatever point you’re trying to make with the check-writing analogy is lost; I don’t think anyone here understands it.
“We just don’t think the government should be taxing more than necessary just because they can.”
Nor are we suggesting they should. Not overall anyway. Any tax hike on the rich or on inheritance would be balanced by a tax break for everyone else. I don’t think anyone here is supporting raising everyone’s taxes.
“Income taxes were already paid in that money.”
I thought you’d say that. I’m not sure if taxes paid 50+ years ago were still enough to pay off an heir’s burden today considering inflation and differing tax rates. Also, you could almost always say “taxes were already paid on that money.” The business pays taxes when it makes the money, then it gets taxed again when dispersed to it’s employees. If it gets taxed every time it changes hands, why should inheritance be any different?
“If the heir buys taxable goods or owns property, he will be paying taxes for that.”
Not federal, if I understand correctly, just state. I guess it causes someone else to pay income taxes when he spends it, so that’s a valid point.