2007-09-24 17:43:51 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
But of course they should pay taxes. Just like a kept shark should! :)
2007-09-24 17:48:20 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ ~Sigy the Arctic Kitty~♥ 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Those poor little gold diggers have to pay inheritance taxes (which are rather steep), and go up against their darling husband’s children in probate court who have the audacity to think they should get anything out of the geezer passing away.
And if they’re not married to the old coot when he showers her with Mercedes, etc., she has to pay gift tax on any gifts received over $10,000 per calendar year.
2007-09-25 09:40:55 · answer #2 · answered by Rainbow 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why does everyone love to hate on gold diggers so much? It's not like they're totally scam artists, men and women should both know that with any relationship there is a chance of abuse: be it physical, emotional or ummm... financial? Be careful who you invest emotions in, and get out of any abusuve relationship ASAP.
2007-09-25 03:13:48 · answer #3 · answered by pignumber6707 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Several mentions of double taxation above, but dividend and inheritance taxes are currently levied on previously taxed income.
2007-09-25 03:07:39 · answer #4 · answered by G-zilla 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
not to sound like a broken record but I agree that inheritance and death taxes are already instated... why not a gift tax for the ladies?
but i would only vote for said tax if they came up with a really good name for it like "momma's broke" tax or "hot damn" tax or maybe even "gotta do whatcha gotta do" tax... no too wordy?
2007-09-25 09:50:34 · answer #5 · answered by kub2 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Rich men marry these gold diggers for a reason- sex, beauty or maybe to feel young- so each time the rich old man tourtures the gold-digger with his body, he should pay her and maybe these can be used as taxes later. thats as much sense as this question makes- the gander cannot have it all- he must share with the goose- his needs fulfilled- hers the money
2007-09-25 00:50:15 · answer #6 · answered by sassy 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
They are not receiving pay and are therefor not taxed accordingly. If given large monetary gifts they would be eligible for taxation, but not if the money is given in the form of access to credit accounts.
2007-09-25 00:52:44 · answer #7 · answered by ArLorax 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It's funny how most women say that they aren't interested in money yet we have the women who answered above me defending the golddigger and using words like torture when they know that the golddigger wasn't forced into anything so it isn't torture.
And yes legally the should I believe we have a gift tax in this country so the diggers should pony up the dough.
2007-09-25 00:56:28 · answer #8 · answered by Chevalier 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
It would make an interesting new stanza to the Kanye West song.
2007-09-25 01:56:42 · answer #9 · answered by Steve-O 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I suppose you could consider it a capital gain on an individual tax return or perhaps passive income from an investment. You could call it the sugar daddy tax.
2007-09-25 00:56:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
No, because those are presents. Do you pay taxes on your presents? The sugar Daddy's have already paid taxes on that money, so why double tax?
2007-09-25 02:14:33 · answer #11 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋