The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Retirement Discussions / Retire Well on Less
|Subject: Re: POL: spokesman for the common man||Date: 4/13/2004 11:03 AM|
|Author: zsimpson||Number: 505 of 1751|
Not that I stand to inherit anything because all of my family is dirt poor, but this type of statement has always made me wonder why some people think that inherited wealth is bad, and why it should be taxed so much that the government ends up with most of it. I mean, this is money that has already been taxed as income to the decedent, so why does it somehow belong to the government if that person dies? If that person were alive, he could choose to spend it or give it to charity or give it to anyone he chooses. I wonder what makes it more acceptable to take this money when someone dies and why it is not considered OK for someone to inherit money? I would think that if people could inherit money, they wouldn't need other services from the government like Medicaid because they'd have money to spend on themselves.
Why is it OK to treat inherited money in a socialistic fashion where it is deemed better for it to go to the government than to the intended heirs?
I have absolutely no problem with inheirited wealth. What I have a problem with is someone that has married and inheirited their wealth saying that those that have worked for their wealth have to be taxed out of the world.
That comment was in direct reference to the fact that both he and his wife married and inheirited their money, and are calling for taxes on "the rich" meaning those that earn over 200k a year, never on those that inheirited their money as they did.
The comment refered to their hypocracy with it, not as a smear against those that have inheirited. My apologies if it offended you, 2Gifts.
|Copyright 1996-2016 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|