Huh? If not estate taxes then how should taxes be levied to fund things (like a 25bn wall). Taxiation: will probably be our future as autonomous driving becomes a reality.[/QUOTE] Here is a concept for you to understand - as clearly you do not: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double_taxation.asp
Ok, and what is to stop the government from continuing to use Social Security as a piggy bank to borrow against? I am OK with raising it if the government couldn't borrow against it and bankrupt it.
Oh yeah? What about a son who works his whole life for his father building a business and when the father passes on, the son takes over. The son didn't earn it? You need to think beyond the talking points your left wing folks give you to read.
Raising rates applies the cost of capital appropriately. It doesn't misallocate based on debt gorging. Companies, people, everyone has to live within their means. Savers get rewarded. Over abundance of debt is punished. Or we can do things the way we've done them the last 30 years and end up being stupid, with a butcher bill to pay at the end.
That is not my point, raising rates is not just an simple fix. All companies borrow money, many within their means. Raising rates too far pulls a lot of capital out of the economy and raises the cost of doing business across the board. People don't understand that even usccessful businesses do not have adequate cash flow/working capital due to the illiquid nature of many businesses (A/R and inventory). Savers rejoince but that is dead money. So I repeat what I said, rates should be higher, but finding the magic middle ground is often difficult and the pendulum often overswings the other way. The Fed pussied out because Trump cried like a bitch because his manhood is defined by the stock market I guess and God forbid it drops a little (he will blame everyone else as he only takes credit for when it goes up). I think general rates in the 4-6% range has been a sweet spot in past 25 years.
Can't argue with any of that, except maybe that savers money is dead money. They often deploy other assets when they know they are getting good, safe interest returns on other investments.
The son gets a market wage for his contributions just like any other employee would. There are actually rules about paying above market wages to family members to circumvent gift tax laws. If the equity the son inherits is above what non-family employee would receive for comparable contribution to the company then it would be hard to argue that was earned.
Here is a concept for you to understand - as clearly you do not: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double_taxation.asp[/QUOTE] Your analogy made no sense. Either you knew there was a second fee or you didn’t. If not, that’s your fault. If you did, you should plan accordingly. Or if the second fee changed (and you couldn’t have known) that’s the unfortunate reality of life. I’m well aware of what double taxation is. As you pointed out earlier the concept of double taxation is not an issue of right or wrong. So I don’t know why you keep bringing that up implying that double taxation is wrong. what is the difference between passing money to your kids and spending it at a store and paying sales tax?
You can know about the second fee, and it can still be unfair. You get the concept of mutual exclusivity, don't you? When I decide to employ money I have made (which has already been taxed) the manner in which I employ this money often comes with expense/risk/cost. For example, choosing to purchase a car is a decision to buy the car for the offered price and sales tax. I see the car, calculate the cost and make the decision. If I don't want to pay the tax or the tax is too much, I don't buy it. Maybe I pay cash to someone on Craigslist for a car. Choosing to invest in the stock market with my money (which has already been taxed) comes with risk of loss. If I make money on that investment, the money I make is taxed via capital gains. That is the price to pay. At the end of my life, when I wish to bequeath my wealth to my family, I don't have a choice. Sure, I can give it away to charity at no cost, but the choice of giving it to my family or someone else I am not related to is not really a choice (unless I don't want them to have it, in which case I suppose I could set fire to the money in a parking lot or something). All the dollars that I made, and previously paid tax on, have to now be taxed again because I am gifting them to my family. The fact that you cannot see the difference in this is extremely telling. It speaks to either one of two possibilities, both extremely disconcerting. Either you can't grasp it mentally, or you choose not to. Either you can't recognize the difference because of faulty wiring, or you simply can't bring yourself to say "I see your point, there is a difference." because you believe it gives up the right to be pro the estate tax. I'm here to tell you. You can recognize the difference and still be for the tax.