Inheritance Tax

[Nym90]

Yes, for now.

But, I do think that eventually all taxes and fees except for income taxes should be eliminated, with income taxes being raised by a sufficient amount to compensate for the loss of revenue. The only exceptions would be user fees in areas in which demand would otherwise far outstrip supply (for an example, parking meters in Manhattan shouldn't be free, because otherwise there would be an even more tremendous shortage of it than there is already).

[Nym90]

As I stated earlier, I feel that we should eliminate all taxes EXCEPT income tax (property tax, sales tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, tolls and all other user fees, the only exceptions being user fees for goods or services for which demand would far outstrip supply if the user fee wasn't in place), and fund everything off of that instead. Given some of the opinions that have been presented, I'd expect to have gotten more of a negative reaction than I did.

[Nym90]

I feel that it is the fairest possible tax, as it recognizes the basic fact that society helps contribute to one's income through the services that are provided, therefore those who earn the money have an obligation to give a portion of it back to help the less fortunate. You wouldn't have earned as much money if you didn't have government services helping to provide an environment in which earning could be possible.

A sales tax is much more unfair as it is highly regressive, hurting poor people more because poor people spend a much larger percentage of their income than do the rich, thus the poor would actually pay a much higher rate. The sales tax also hurts the economy by artficially raising prices.

If the government truly has no constitutional authority to do the things that it is doing, then get them declared as such by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, if the Court refuses to agree, this argument fails to hold much water.

[Nym90]

Well, I completely respect the Libertarian position, if you are saying that you want a small government with few services, that's fine. It's a philosophical difference that I have, that I view we have an obligation to provide for others less fortunate than ourselves, and that government programs are the most effective way to do this, plus all of the individuals in society benefit from the increased fortunes of others. I feel that society as a whole is a lot more productive and better off now as a result of more social programs.

I see the difference you are drawing between individuals vs. society, but society is composed of individuals as you say, they are not seperable, and I feel that we should try to benefit the largest number of individuals possible. Society is merely a group of individuals. I don't believe in the philosophy of every man for himself, I believe that we all have an obligation to help each other, and that in the long run we will all be better off if people followed this philosophy towards each other. But that's just my philosophical view, I know others may differ.

As a government bureaucrat myself, I can attest to the fact that, at least in my experience, it's a complete lie to say that government workers are lazy and wasteful with money. They are fine, hard-working indivdiuals who deserve at least our respect. Ad hominem attacks against people who you've never met and know little about works fine as a sound bite, but it does little to contribute to a constructive debate about the proper role and function of government.

It's true that entrepreneurs are needed for increased productivity, but they also must have workers to work under them to help them out. The fact of the matter is that no one can get rich without the help of other hard working individuals. No one can get rich by themselves. That's why I feel we need taxation, to ensure that those less fortunate are better off. In the long run everyone benefits more if those on the bottom are given a hand up.

Yes, society is indebted to individuals as well, that's why I don't support communism or a purely socialistic state in which everyone is equal. Rich people should be allowed to keep enough money to ensure that they remain quite wealthy and well rewarded for their work. But as a whole, I think we'd be better off as a nation if the wealthy paid a little more in taxes (still remaining very wealthy, just not quite as wealthy) and those on the bottom were propped up. I believe that the nation is only as strong as its weakest link, and that our country will be healthier and stronger economically if we eliminated or at least greatly reduced poverty. It would benefit not only the poor but in the long run the wealthy as well, to have the poor have more money so that they could spend more money on products and services provided by the rich.