Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Work visas

Expand Messages
  • Martin Votruba
    ... An opinion on whether inheritance should or should should not be taxed has nothing to do with the argument ... because it s already been taxed. That it
    Message 1 of 32 , Jul 1, 2009
      > Nah, I disagree with grouping in-family inheritance with

      An opinion on whether inheritance should or should should not be taxed has nothing to do with the argument "... because it's already been taxed." That it has been taxed just as other sources of income have been taxed is a fact.

      The other issue, "should/not be taxed" is a matter of opinion, what's fallacious is the fictitious supporting argument ... because it's already been taxed." The opinion can be supported, e.g., with the argument that "it's in the family/blood/genes..." or other arguments, but not with "... because it's already been taxed," since other sources of income have been taxed before too.

      What's taxed in each instance is the transfer of money from one person to another person. The question is what transfers of money should/not be taxed -- the US tax law contains a multitude of exceptions to taxing transfers of money, so does the Slovak law.

      The Slovak law lists inheritance among the exceptions, the US law does not.

      > that's why there's different parties

      It doesn't have as much to do with parties as one might imagine. Washington didn't change its tax law in this respect under Bush's rightist government. Bratislava hasn't changed its law under Fico's leftist government.


      Martin
    • Martin Votruba
      ... An opinion on whether inheritance should or should should not be taxed has nothing to do with the argument ... because it s already been taxed. That it
      Message 32 of 32 , Jul 1, 2009
        > Nah, I disagree with grouping in-family inheritance with

        An opinion on whether inheritance should or should should not be taxed has nothing to do with the argument "... because it's already been taxed." That it has been taxed just as other sources of income have been taxed is a fact.

        The other issue, "should/not be taxed" is a matter of opinion, what's fallacious is the fictitious supporting argument ... because it's already been taxed." The opinion can be supported, e.g., with the argument that "it's in the family/blood/genes..." or other arguments, but not with "... because it's already been taxed," since other sources of income have been taxed before too.

        What's taxed in each instance is the transfer of money from one person to another person. The question is what transfers of money should/not be taxed -- the US tax law contains a multitude of exceptions to taxing transfers of money, so does the Slovak law.

        The Slovak law lists inheritance among the exceptions, the US law does not.

        > that's why there's different parties

        It doesn't have as much to do with parties as one might imagine. Washington didn't change its tax law in this respect under Bush's rightist government. Bratislava hasn't changed its law under Fico's leftist government.


        Martin
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.