[ExI] The Dogs of Immortality

[Kevin Freels]

> 
> My Response:
> 
> The person who dies is not stuck with the taxes.  They are dead.


Sorry. The family of the deceased.
> 
> Their heirs are the ones who are taxed on their windfall.  
> If they won $3.5
> million in the lottery they would be taxed just the same. 

You and are are simply not going to agree. To me, what I own, my kids also own. What I save is as much for my children as for myself. Just because you take the money after I die rather than before doesn't change the fact that you are taking money that I saved for my children on the justification that you are entitled to it.

> 
> What does it matter that the money used to create that wealth 
> was already
> taxed?
> 
No response here will be satisfactory to you. To you it appears that no tax is enough as long as the person being taxed has more than you.

> Your employer is taxed on the profits he makes that pays your 
> salary.  You
> are taxed again, and the people you spend it with are taxed again.

Correct. And I have problems with this as well. 
> 
> It is that chain of taxation that pays for our civilization.

I disagree. That chain of taxation is a barrier. I'm not one who believes that we could do away with taxes, but at some point you have to draw the line and this is where I draw mine.


> 
> If you object to it there are other countries such as the United Arab
> Emirates which claims a true 0% tax rate, where you can choose 
> to die in
> which do not have inheritance taxes. Of course they might not 
> provide the
> same opportunities to create wealth or the standard of living 
> which you
> enjoy in such a heavily taxed country.

Do you honestly believe that my standard of living is based on the taxes I pay? Are you kidding? It's just money. It moves around. People create things of value. This is what creates wealth. Taxation just moves it around differently. There is no net benefit. 


> 
> Also if I understand it correctly, if the inheritance is in the 
> form of
> investments then they are inherited at face value thus avoiding 
> the capital
> gains taxes which the government would have realized if the self-
> disciplinedinvestor (miser) had spent most of that money and 
> created good paying jobs
> and wealth for others who he lives in the same economy with.
> 
I am sorry you feel that somehow you are entitled to the wealth that others create. A person who saves is a "miser" and it's their responsibility to spend their money to keep the economy moving to create jobs? That's insane. Savings is not a bad thing and this feeling that everyone should spend what they have - and keep spending when they don't even have money is what has this economy messed up as it is. If what you say is true then we should promptly create a bunch of BS jobs with no value to prop up the failing auto industry. 

> Or you could take the Extropian alternative choosing not to die 
> and donating
> most of your money to antiaging research throughout your life in 
> the hopes
> of surviving until the singularity and thus achieving a vastly 
> extended life
> span. 
> 
Which I plan to do. 


> And if you do manage to find a way to leave all that money to 
> your children
> and trophy wife, they will just end up with their own reality TV 
> show like
> "Keeping up with the Kardashians" and marry an over the hill 
> Olympic Star,
> star in internet porn with rap musicians, and teach the next 
> generation of
> American girls the merits of pole dancing or maybe do like Lisa Marie
> Presley marry Michael Jackson and give most of it to 
> Scientology.  And let
> us not forget Anna Nicole who never really got to cash in on her 
> beloved'sinheritance thanks to the Texas judicial system and a 
> jealous step son.
> 
Where did this come from and what exactly do trophy wives have to do with savings and taxation?