"Amy Guskin"  wrote in message
news:0001HW.C3532F4F013C9F47F0182648{at}news.verizon.net...
> >> On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 08:33:07 -0400, Kurt Ullman wrote
> (in article
> ):
>
> > In article ,
> >  "Dennis \(Icarus\)"  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> Me, I've never quite understood why a rich man shouldn't
be taxed for
> >>> money he receives for doing nothing, while a guy who
works to support
> >>> his family isn't.
> >>
> >> Well, IIRC they're both taxed on income, dividends, capital gains, etc.
> >
> >     I have decided that there needs to be a tax related Godwin rule that
> > states the person who says a rich man does nothing loses the argument.
<<
>
> But that's not what Josh said.  "...a rich man shouldn't be taxed for
money
> he receives for doing nothing" is a subset of "all rich
men."  And in
fact,
> it's a subset of "a rich man's income."  Josh is talking
about inherited
> wealth only.  Surely, if I can understand that -- when most of this
economics
> discussion we invariably get into her makes my eyes glaze over -- you
can?

Hadn't the inherited wealth already been taxed?
the income, the dividents, the capital gains, etc?

On item I came across in my research was that the asset is re-basised at the
time of death. So the gains from the original purchase to that point could
be taxed.
Otherwise when the time came to sell you'd have to track down the orginal
cost basis, which may not be available.

Dennis




.
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32