Cut and paste all you want. You know very well you weren’t treating me with respect. You know it, just own it. If not, big deal. I imagine we both still sleep fine.
24 Sex allegations that CNN ignored
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
You are free to reject whatever it is you want about whatever it is I believe boom. Don't you already?
So how is what I believe "forced" into your Life? You reject it, and so therefore to you it is invalid. Does that also mean it has no right to even exist or be followed by others like myself?
That's some tolerance you pretend to believe in boom.
Glory glory.....to you and your many followers. Real humble. I wouldn’t stop anyone from believing what they want, as long as they don’t infringe on my rights. Even my children, it has to be a personal journey, or it really isn’t worth much at all. I don’t want any kool-aid, thanks anyway.
How can you sit there in front of your monitor and type out with a straight face that you were treating me with respect while I was disrespecting you?
I reposted those threads for you to read...and it is beyond comical where you see ANY disrespect from me to you. I guess challenging your thoughts is disrespectful huh boom?
Just like the remark you made when I simply pointed out in a friendly way how much of the wealth question you missed.
Did I also disrespect you when I informed you that the 16th amendment does NOT provide for Death taxes? Did I call you any names...or make fun of your error?
Did I make fun of you when I pointed out your error in who the Founders were referring to by "Creator" in the Constitution? Obviously you have a different interpretation but I also pointed out that does not invalidate who or what they were referring to. Now I guess you know more about what the Founders meant when they put that in there than they did? That's a disrespectful comment to you isn't it boom?
Your thoughts can't be challenged or wrong can they boom?
You said what I believe is "forced" onto you. You are wrong...you reject as much of it as you can whenever you can and no one stops you from doing otherwise. What are you talking about?
1) from where is wealth created?
2) what is the 16th admendment?
3) where in the CONSTITUTION was the word creator used?
Feel free to back out of answering those questions
You two get a room, or two pistols. I can't figure out which it is.
Wealth is defined by personal assets and is created by free people operating in a free enterprise economic system of private transactions which taken together work towards creating value from offering goods, services, talent, or other tangible assets that grow over time as more valuable assets which are held individually or by other investors. It belongs to the all the asset holders in its purest form.
The 16th amendment was added to provide for National defense by a direct taxation on incomes...not personal wealth. It is a tax on incomes as a percentage of the earning population. If a person dies and assigns their wealth to survivors, it is not considered income because it is not earned. It is inherited.
The Constitution does not use the word, but the organizing principle around the Constitution through which the powers vested in the people are provided to the Government is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and in the Preamble. That is, Government is secondary to the rights of the people and those rights Llife, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness) are endowed (like an asset) by our original benefactor...our Creator. It is self evident...since we were first created that the Creator is the source of those inalienable rights. Government cannot take them away because they do not come from Government.
(no Google searches either)
Last edited:
boomer and I are very much alike...I never back down from a good scrum and apparently he doesn't either.
It's all good. But I'm Black...I have more patience than he does because I'm used to waiting.
![[winking]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/wink.r191677.gif "Winking [winking]")
Because you refuse to accept absolutes which is inherent in all Truths.
An immutable fact is Truth. Immutable means there is no other explanation or reality to that fact. When you are dead...you are no longer physically alive. That is an immutable Truth. It is not open to interpretation.
All Democrats are Socialists. That is not an immutable fact, and therefore cannot be said to be Truth. It is open to analysis and interpretation. But a careful review of Democrat voting records in favor of ever expansive Government funded through confiscatory taxation would lead one to conclude based on a preponderance of the evidence that most Democrats do indeed favor a Socialist construct in the Government because they do not favor it ever being or doing less by allowing more people to keep most of what they earn in terms of their personal incomes.
Last edited:
Yet you belittle my “mistakes” when asserting that:
1) wealth can’t be formed without profit derived from transactions
2) estate tax is an excise tax on income - derived from the passing of assets through the estate
3) creator was used in the Declaration specifically to challenge the king’s direct power from the Devine. And it was specifically referred to as “THEIR creator” not THE creator in order to allow for the plurality of spiritual ideology in colonial life. And it was specifically omitted from the CONSTITUTION, because our founders sought to create a government that didn’t alienate any specific religion or people that do not subscribe to a religious doctrine as well.
But thanks for “not making fun of me”, because your answers were so substantially different.
When there is an absolute truth, I accept it. You, once again, make an assumption.
Wealth as I pointed out is not defined by only business or sales transactions. Land holders have wealth and it doesn't matter if the land is for sale or not. It has value as an asset, therefore the holder of that asset owns the wealth it contains.
Estate taxes can be paid by the owner of the Estate, but at the time of Death his/her liability ends. His/her will and what they choose to do with their personal assets at that time are no longer subject to any tax liability unless in the world of income redistributionists who refuse to allow Americans to accumulate personal wealth without confiscating it. The wealth holders can and should be able to leave their assets to their survivors free from revenue enhancers.
You read more into what the Framers meant than they actually put in there and that's fine, but as I said the Creator was mentioned specifically and purposefully put in there by them to delineate where our rights came from and how we got them. They were endowed to us by our Creator who Created us. Now I understand you believe we are energy and weren't created...but that doesn't make what the Founders said and believed wrong nor does it give you license to reinterpret it to fit your beliefs. We were Created... it's self evident...the Founders said that too...deal with it.
Last edited:
Yes that is true...physically that is an immutable fact. However your "energy" as you call it, or your "Spirit" as I call it will live on...it doesn't end..and what comes next after you physically die and where it (energy, Spirit) goes is where we depart regarding immutable fact.
I have Faith that says absent the body present with the Lord. You have a belief that the energy I suppose reconstitutes itself as some other Life force? I'm not sure? But whatever.
I base on my Faith on Almighty God's Holy Word which I believe also to be immutable Truth. You of course reject that and that's fine. Point is, this also is NOT relative! One of us is wrong and one of us is correct because there is Truth in the statement that our essence beyond these physical bodies (what's actually behind them that makes us unique) will live forever.
One is a measure of Faith, the other a matter of belief..but the Truth of either is not relative.
Is the purchase of land NOT a transaction? Even when passed down through an estate, it took an original transaction for the ownership to have occurred.
The people that are for an estate tax, believe it is an income when an estate is passed to another. And that income is taxable. And the tax is Constitutional as outlined by the 16th admendment.
That creation can mean many things. Funny they didn’t use the word God there. Why is that you think?
We are not just flesh and blood. That's absolute too boom.
Dogs are alive, but they're not like us because they don't have outer awareness..... Spirits. They are not aware of existence outside of their known World. They have feelings, they certainly have a measure of intelligence, a will to survive...all of that.However they do not think of their own mortality, they do not place themselves anywhere else than where they are in the present, they don't plan for their future or think about retirement and they do not think about Life beyond this realm...eternity. Such concepts to them are non existent...for us it occupies a great deal of our idle time.
We are above the Animals because we have consciousness...awareness of ourselves beyond ourselves. We have thoughts, and imagination, and we make plans, we question and we explore that which we are unaware of. We have Spirits which animate us and set us apart from the Animals because we can relate to or manipulate our world around us instead of just reacting to it as they do.
Land doesnt have to be sold boom to be considered an asset. Besides, if I die and give land to my kids, why should they have to be taxed on the gift? If they then sell it, or cultivate it, or do something else with it after they own it...then we're talking about something altogether different.
But if I die and just give my kids my house....why should they have to pay income taxes on it? The following year if they want to pay the property tax bill...then fine. But at the time I gift it to them...leave 'em alone with all the taxes you blood thirsty Lefties!
They said we were Created...they didn't say by "God" you are correct, but they said we are endowed by our Creator.
Now I'm going to speculate here but based on the fact the Constitution organized our Government similar to the Bible I suspect they meant "God" as Creator.
The three branches of Government...there are three entities in the God head. Father, Son, Holy Spirit. Executive, Legislative, Judicial.
10 Commandments...Bill of Rights. Individual Liberty...Individual relationship with Almighty God.
Freedom of choice, Freedom of Assembly. Petition of grievances, seeking Grace through Salvation. It's actually quite fascinating how closely the Constitution lines up with how the Bible is structured
https://www.theamericanview.com/the-bible-and-the-constitution/
If land doesn’t have to be sold to be considered an asset, that land is either owned by a government.....or the deed lost in a poker game. Either way a transaction must occur in order for is to be an asset.....that is unless we are talking about wealth as owned by a government? Oh wait.....that wealth wouldn’t be actual wealth either unless a transaction took placeLand doesnt have to be sold boom to be considered an asset. Besides, if I die and give land to my kids, why should they have to be taxed on the gift? If they then sell it, or cultivate it, or do something else with it after they own it...then we're talking about something altogether different.
But if I die and just give my kids my house....why should they have to pay income taxes on it? The following year if they want to pay the property tax bill...then fine. But at the time I gift it to them...leave 'em alone with all the taxes you blood thirsty Lefties!
No not all boom because the land holds value no matter if it is sold or not. Suppose you just own a bunch of farmland with some Horses on it and it's not for sale? You wanna tell me that's not worth some value? Owners of ANY asset, land, intellectual property, titles...anything...hold the value of whatever wealth is contained in the asset and it doesn't have to be for sale or sold at all to maintain its value.
Last edited:
But the holder of that value.....holds the value AFTER they entered into a transaction to purchase the land. Otherwise they don’t hold shit.....even if they literally hold that farmland from others using it...upon that big ole absolute truth known as death....that land was not of their wealth. Transactions are the only thing that creates wealth. I could mine coal, but if I can’t enter into a transaction to create worth from that coal....it’s not different than a pebble I pick up walking down the street. And guess what? Even if the market for coal is raging, I would have had to have completed a transaction in order to hold the rights to the minerals in the land that I found the coal to begin with.....or else it’s not my wealth anyway.
OK so to follow your logic a corporation that holds assets (or an individual) and lists those assets on either a balance sheet or a tax return (like the Left demanded from Trump) doesn't own that wealth unless all of it is sold? The wealth they hold doesn't exist unless it's sold right boom?
Just to tie off this debate boomer because it's not fair to the board (it's between you and me) I'm not going to spend all day today continuing it and no one will read it all anyway. I want to tie this off so you understand EXACTLY what I find irritating and insulting about how you debate. Then I promise I'm going to end it because you are correct it is ultimately pointless. You're not changing my mind, and I know I'll never change yours. So what's the point?
I started out trying to prove one point with my challenge to you. And You proved it. That was, the Left cannot be honest about what they believe, and cannot defend it to win their arguments or their beliefs.
I said they will usually run away, get mad, call names, lie, or simply refuse to engage you when confronted with or asked to defend their ideas. I'll give you credit...you did not run away. I believe you did not because you were determined to prove me wrong but you in fact proved everything else I said you'd do arguing from the Left or running away from it as fast as you could.
When I started asking questions for you to defend Leftist positions, you immediately started doing what ALL Leftists do when confronted with their ideology and asked to defend it. They lie about it, or refuse to answer the questions or claim that's not what they actually believe. You no doubt answered most of my questions, but not as a Leftist. You denied what you typically are. You denied you are a Leftist.
In fact we went through a series of questions fundamental to what the Left believes and advocates and you systematically either denied that's what Leftists believe, or denied YOU believe them. On taxes, affirmative action, Human Life, Supremacy of the State, Income redistribution, America's history in the world fighting for Freedom, even the foundations of the nation itself...on every issue I asked you about that Leftists believe you either denied it or claimed you do not believe that, or tried to argue something else that Leftists do not support.
So when I then tried to pin you down on exactly what you do believe since you denied what Leftists believe...I was treated with your well honed skills of situational relativism. Because obviously if you cannot be pinned down on any one issue you can always argue your positions from whatever side of the debate makes you look best. Do Democrats favor Socialism? Depends on how it's defined. Is an unborn Fetus human? Depends on what Pro choice folks think when Life begins. Do Capitalist economies work best? Depends on what you mean by best or what is Capitalist? Does it include some form of Socialism? On and on it went...issue by issue I asked you about and what Leftists believe and you either denied it or tried to say you don't believe the same thing.
You're smart enough to know that if you argue from the Left, those ideas can be easily discredited...for instance you admitted there is no Socialist command and control economy that works. So you answered the question with a mixed economy like China, and claimed for yourself that you do not believe all Democrats want a Socialist economy for America. However when I asked you to differentiate what they believe that is different from a Socialist command and control economy where the Government does run everything...you simply refused to admit that or explain what the differences are. Nice.
Throughout our exchange, you in fact ran away from almost all solidly held Leftist positions arguing that is not either what Leftists believe or what you personally believe. I pointed out that fact, and you insisted you are not a Leftist! Proving my point. Leftists can't defend what they believe in, lie about it, or run away from defending it. You didn't run away from the actual debate true enough, but you ran away from your ideology by pretending you don't support it, or believe something else.
It's a smart debate tactic, but it's annoying because Leftists are indeed absolutists! They absolutely believe in the Supremacy of the State over Individual Liberty and Freedom, they absolutely believe in income redistribution and destruction of the free enterprise system and removal of personal Wealth, they absolutely do not believe in America's exceptional place in world history, nor its God given foundations. They absolutely do not believe we are Created, or that Human Life is sacred. Neither do you but you won't defend that. So I get the "energy" explanation, and the fact our Founders were speaking of many concepts of the "Creator". Convenient, but not honest debate.
You claim you do not believe any of those things either, but you are smart enough to know that defending them will get your ass handed to you in a debate. So you use situational relativism to hide behind arguing as an absolutist Socialist Leftist atheist (even though there is very little you actually disagree with them on) and you pick and choose certain elements of the Conservative side when it fits your purposes so you can say you support those in a debate so as not to get pinned down as a discredited Leftist.
It's a clever debate tactic, but a poor way to win an argument because you end up being all over the place as you refuse to take a firm stand. Leftists can't win their ideas. You know that, so you don't argue them. You argue something that's not quite Left... but certainly not absolutely on the Right either because you are NOT a Conservative and you can't stand them (especially Christians)... so you argue situational relativism where you can pick and choose what to defend from either side and never claim you are defeated in an argument or got pinned down firmly on the Left. You also get to express outrage over Christians or Conservatives who do stand firmly on their absolutist beliefs.
Then you call names, and tell folks like me that I'm being judgmental because I claim the superiority of my ideas over the Left while accusing me of thinking only my ideas on the Right are acceptable. However I do not hide behind the fact that I'm on the Right. I boldly stand there and defend it. I do argue both from a positional perspective and from an absolutist perspective that Christian Conservatism is my approach to issues. I defend that and I do not shift my positions to fit my arguments. I argue for my firmly held positions on the Right. You however DO NOT do the same for your deeply held positions on the Left, and when you are asked to defend them you shift your positions using your relativistic techniques.
If you weren't such a coward, you'd also argue from the same absolutist positions on the Left. But you won't do that because you know you will loose that debate. No one on the Left argues absolute Socialism, statist collectivism...but this is absolutely what they pursue once they gain power. They know (and you too) they will never be elected by the American people to practice this openly by honestly promising to Socialize America...so they lie and call Socialized medicine the "Affordable care act" even though it is/was a takeover of the American Health care system and is absolutely NOT affordable to cite one example.
So as I predicted, you lied, ran away from, and admitted you couldn't defend Leftist State sponsored Socialism which is what you absolutely believe in. You tried to say that Leftists don't believe in it either (lie) that you don't support it (lie) and that it depends on how it's defined to know what it really is (another lie). You are smart...more clever than informed...but you are smart enough to know if you embrace what you actually believe in its absolutist terms you will be discredited.
So you draw your relativist sword, and slash away...refusing to be pinned down on any absolute terms, beliefs, or Leftist positions lest you become exposed. What you relatively believe can't be categorized, or criticized, or evaluated, or measured, or understood because it's a constantly moving target to avoid being labeled a Leftist. That's fine. But this 10 page thread is proof of all I've ever said about you folks on the Left and how you try to trick Americans into following your discredited ideology.
I know you can't defend your beliefs in the arena of ideas, but I want you to be honest enough about them because you don't fool me and you certainly don't fool the vast majority of the American voters. You and the Left simply frustrate us over your refusal to support or fight for what you absolutely believe in but run away from when forced to defend it.
I started out trying to prove one point with my challenge to you. And You proved it. That was, the Left cannot be honest about what they believe, and cannot defend it to win their arguments or their beliefs.
I said they will usually run away, get mad, call names, lie, or simply refuse to engage you when confronted with or asked to defend their ideas. I'll give you credit...you did not run away. I believe you did not because you were determined to prove me wrong but you in fact proved everything else I said you'd do arguing from the Left or running away from it as fast as you could.
When I started asking questions for you to defend Leftist positions, you immediately started doing what ALL Leftists do when confronted with their ideology and asked to defend it. They lie about it, or refuse to answer the questions or claim that's not what they actually believe. You no doubt answered most of my questions, but not as a Leftist. You denied what you typically are. You denied you are a Leftist.
In fact we went through a series of questions fundamental to what the Left believes and advocates and you systematically either denied that's what Leftists believe, or denied YOU believe them. On taxes, affirmative action, Human Life, Supremacy of the State, Income redistribution, America's history in the world fighting for Freedom, even the foundations of the nation itself...on every issue I asked you about that Leftists believe you either denied it or claimed you do not believe that, or tried to argue something else that Leftists do not support.
So when I then tried to pin you down on exactly what you do believe since you denied what Leftists believe...I was treated with your well honed skills of situational relativism. Because obviously if you cannot be pinned down on any one issue you can always argue your positions from whatever side of the debate makes you look best. Do Democrats favor Socialism? Depends on how it's defined. Is an unborn Fetus human? Depends on what Pro choice folks think when Life begins. Do Capitalist economies work best? Depends on what you mean by best or what is Capitalist? Does it include some form of Socialism? On and on it went...issue by issue I asked you about and what Leftists believe and you either denied it or tried to say you don't believe the same thing.
You're smart enough to know that if you argue from the Left, those ideas can be easily discredited...for instance you admitted there is no Socialist command and control economy that works. So you answered the question with a mixed economy like China, and claimed for yourself that you do not believe all Democrats want a Socialist economy for America. However when I asked you to differentiate what they believe that is different from a Socialist command and control economy where the Government does run everything...you simply refused to admit that or explain what the differences are. Nice.
Throughout our exchange, you in fact ran away from almost all solidly held Leftist positions arguing that is not either what Leftists believe or what you personally believe. I pointed out that fact, and you insisted you are not a Leftist! Proving my point. Leftists can't defend what they believe in, lie about it, or run away from defending it. You didn't run away from the actual debate true enough, but you ran away from your ideology by pretending you don't support it, or believe something else.
It's a smart debate tactic, but it's annoying because Leftists are indeed absolutists! They absolutely believe in the Supremacy of the State over Individual Liberty and Freedom, they absolutely believe in income redistribution and destruction of the free enterprise system and removal of personal Wealth, they absolutely do not believe in America's exceptional place in world history, nor its God given foundations. They absolutely do not believe we are Created, or that Human Life is sacred. Neither do you but you won't defend that. So I get the "energy" explanation, and the fact our Founders were speaking of many concepts of the "Creator". Convenient, but not honest debate.
You claim you do not believe any of those things either, but you are smart enough to know that defending them will get your ass handed to you in a debate. So you use situational relativism to hide behind arguing as an absolutist Socialist Leftist atheist (even though there is very little you actually disagree with them on) and you pick and choose certain elements of the Conservative side when it fits your purposes so you can say you support those in a debate so as not to get pinned down as a discredited Leftist.
It's a clever debate tactic, but a poor way to win an argument because you end up being all over the place as you refuse to take a firm stand. Leftists can't win their ideas. You know that, so you don't argue them. You argue something that's not quite Left... but certainly not absolutely on the Right either because you are NOT a Conservative and you can't stand them (especially Christians)... so you argue situational relativism where you can pick and choose what to defend from either side and never claim you are defeated in an argument or got pinned down firmly on the Left. You also get to express outrage over Christians or Conservatives who do stand firmly on their absolutist beliefs.
Then you call names, and tell folks like me that I'm being judgmental because I claim the superiority of my ideas over the Left while accusing me of thinking only my ideas on the Right are acceptable. However I do not hide behind the fact that I'm on the Right. I boldly stand there and defend it. I do argue both from a positional perspective and from an absolutist perspective that Christian Conservatism is my approach to issues. I defend that and I do not shift my positions to fit my arguments. I argue for my firmly held positions on the Right. You however DO NOT do the same for your deeply held positions on the Left, and when you are asked to defend them you shift your positions using your relativistic techniques.
If you weren't such a coward, you'd also argue from the same absolutist positions on the Left. But you won't do that because you know you will loose that debate. No one on the Left argues absolute Socialism, statist collectivism...but this is absolutely what they pursue once they gain power. They know (and you too) they will never be elected by the American people to practice this openly by honestly promising to Socialize America...so they lie and call Socialized medicine the "Affordable care act" even though it is/was a takeover of the American Health care system and is absolutely NOT affordable to cite one example.
So as I predicted, you lied, ran away from, and admitted you couldn't defend Leftist State sponsored Socialism which is what you absolutely believe in. You tried to say that Leftists don't believe in it either (lie) that you don't support it (lie) and that it depends on how it's defined to know what it really is (another lie). You are smart...more clever than informed...but you are smart enough to know if you embrace what you actually believe in its absolutist terms you will be discredited.
So you draw your relativist sword, and slash away...refusing to be pinned down on any absolute terms, beliefs, or Leftist positions lest you become exposed. What you relatively believe can't be categorized, or criticized, or evaluated, or measured, or understood because it's a constantly moving target to avoid being labeled a Leftist. That's fine. But this 10 page thread is proof of all I've ever said about you folks on the Left and how you try to trick Americans into following your discredited ideology.
I know you can't defend your beliefs in the arena of ideas, but I want you to be honest enough about them because you don't fool me and you certainly don't fool the vast majority of the American voters. You and the Left simply frustrate us over your refusal to support or fight for what you absolutely believe in but run away from when forced to defend it.
Last edited:
Another absolute? I need sleep
no. Your question was “how is wealth created?”.....it can’t be created without a transaction. A transaction occurred to create everything on that balance sheet. Even when worth increases independently of a transaction (a stock’s worth for example) that perceived worth isn’t wealth unless the sell of the stock is made at that price (otherwise the worth could drop at a later date). Wealth is not created without costs being subtracted from revenue in a transaction of goods or services. Otherwise the “wealth” not created by a transaction, is just a “market value”......and could change at any time. Call it wealth if you want to, but without a transaction....
Read boomer...learn.
Economic Warafre/Wealth creation in the United States
http://www.economic-warfare.com/Home/About
excerpt:
Speaking in a Breitbart News interview on Wednesday, Gary falsely claimed that Moore “wanted to keep segregation here in the south.”
She then claimed that Moore “hates Jews. He hates blacks. He hates Muslims. He hates gays.”
When challenged for specifics, Gary conceded that “I don’t know exactly what he said about Jews, but he doesn’t like Muslims. I know he doesn’t like Muslims. It is my personal feeling that he doesn’t like blacks.”
When further petitioned to support her charges, especially her claim that Moore “hates blacks” and supports segregation, Gary further admitted, “I am not sure. That is my feeling.”
The Left NEVER has facts on their side. They lie, distort, use subterfuge, deceit, sleight of hand, dishonesty, disinformation, misinformation, propaganda, slander, and outright smears as in the case of Roy Moore to further their political agenda. In this case stopping Judge Moore from taking a seat in the U.S. Senate. He is Christian, he is also Conservative. He is hated. He must be stopped.
Clarence Thomas, Bush, Herman Cain, Romney, and even Trump...they used the same tactics which in some cases worked. It will not work against Judge Moore...he has a more powerful ally.
Truth.
I was just spending the evenng going back over this thread (wish I wasn't at work when we had tis discussion because in certain places we just missed the context) but I came across this answer you gave and it struck me as running counter to a point you had made earlier about wealth. You said I believe that a transaction had to take place in order for wealth to be created? You stated without a transaction, an asset holds no value.
Then in answering the Death taxes question you stated this:
"Estate taxes are a tax on the transfer of wealth, and constitutional in the sense that they were upheld by the SC several times I believe" I was just wondering how wealth could be transferred without a transaction you said must exist before any wealth is generated?
Take an asset like Land...that is held for decades in a Family and simply willed to survivors. Must it be sold first in order for that land to have value? If it has value, does the wealth only exist once it's sold? If that is the only way to realize it's value, what is being transferred in a will at Death and therefore what is being taxed if no wealth exists prior to a transaction being completed?
Then in answering the Death taxes question you stated this:
"Estate taxes are a tax on the transfer of wealth, and constitutional in the sense that they were upheld by the SC several times I believe" I was just wondering how wealth could be transferred without a transaction you said must exist before any wealth is generated?
Take an asset like Land...that is held for decades in a Family and simply willed to survivors. Must it be sold first in order for that land to have value? If it has value, does the wealth only exist once it's sold? If that is the only way to realize it's value, what is being transferred in a will at Death and therefore what is being taxed if no wealth exists prior to a transaction being completed?
Last edited:
No. I said in my post boom it was inherited. Let's say the land was originally owned by the President of a company that had initially bought it 150 years ago and never developed it. It simply grew as an asset in that former Exec's Family through the years and was passed along from generation to generation to survivors...never sold...but held as an asset. So what was it taxed on at Death each time if a sale had to be consummated before any value on it was realized?
It is still wealth held and given to survivors boom.
It was taxed...taxed on its value at death. You said no value exists unless there is a transaction (sale) where the wealth can be actualized. Transfers of wealth to survivors at death are not sales transactions, and therefore should not be subject to taxation. But setting that argument aside, what is happening to the asset (in this example the land value increasing) happens without the transactions you said must be present in order for there to be any wealth realized.
With all due respect Sir, you are wrong.
Last edited:
You are not entirely wrong boom...wealth indeed can be initiated through a transaction. I'm not arguing that part of your answer as incorrect. I'm simply saying there are other ways it (wealth) is both acquired, and generated as assets in private portfolios that grow in value as they are managed, sold, transferred, invested into other managed assets or simply held for future consideration or wealth accumulation.
Trump is wealthy. He holds tremendous amounts of unsold assets. He doesn't have to sell any of them to understand his net worth or see the value of those assets grow adding increased wealth to his overall personal portfolio.
Last edited:
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
WVSPORTS.COM Frazier drafted by the Pittsburgh Steelers in second round- Latest: brandonjags8