• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Romney reveals he pays about 15% in taxes(edited)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Romney's tax rate is only half as high as the middle class pays

TurtleDude said:
Yeah but greedy wealth stealers want it to go back to one million.
your position is obvious and I doubt you would object to the threshold being 1 million or the rate being 90%
Click to expand...

I give you reality and you try to scare the world with your own fantasy demon boggeyman. Amazing.

Actually, I would be happy without any estate tax at all and we simply tax that movement of money from one person to the other at the applicable rate. Today that would be 35%. So your 90% figure is simply another fantasy boggeyman.
 
AdamT said:
So there are exceptions to every rule.
Click to expand...

Elvis
Janice Joplin
John Lennon
George Harrison
Randi Rhodes
Jerry Garcia
Buddy Holly
SR Vaughn
Tommy Bolan
Sandy Denny
Patsy Cline
Marvin Gaye
Johnny, DeeDee and Joey Ramone
Pete Farndon
James Honeyman-Scott
Joe Strummer
Jim Croce

Among others whose estates continued to generate tons of money after they died
 
Blue_State said:
Sorry I read your comments this way, so I want to clarify your position. If given the means, you wouldn't want to provide for your children and their children? You don't want them to have the means for the best after you busted your ass for x amount of years?
Click to expand...

I don't have children. If I did I'm sure I would probably want to do whatever I could for them. But looking at it objectively, I think I would be doing them more harm than good by taking away the motivation to succeed on their own merits.
 
AdamT said:
I don't have children. If I did I'm sure I would probably want to do whatever I could for them. But looking at it objectively, I think I would be doing them more harm than good by taking away the motivation to succeed on their own merits.
Click to expand...

God forbid you provide them with the means.
 
TurtleDude said:
Elvis
Janice Joplin
John Lennon
Dave Mason
Jerry Garcia
Buddy Holly
SR Vaughn
Tommy Bolan
Sandy Denny
Patsy Cline
Marvin Gaye
Johnny, DeeDee and Joey Ramone
Pete Farndon
James Honeyman-Scott
Joe Strummer
Jim Croce

Among others whose estates continued to generate tons of money after they died
Click to expand...

Musicians, in other words. They aren't actually producing anything when they're dead.
 
AdamT said:
I don't have children. If I did I'm sure I would probably want to do whatever I could for them. But looking at it objectively, I think I would be doing them more harm than good by taking away the motivation to succeed on their own merits.
Click to expand...

and that is your choice but one of the most specious arguments the estate stealers use is to claim that its "bad" for children to be given wealth when these same wealth stealers are big fans of the welfare state that encourages people to suck on the public teat and raise children who have never seen a parent be productive
 
TurtleDude said:
Elvis
Janice Joplin
John Lennon
George Harrison
Randi Rhodes
Jerry Garcia
Buddy Holly
SR Vaughn
Tommy Bolan
Sandy Denny
Patsy Cline
Marvin Gaye
Johnny, DeeDee and Joey Ramone
Pete Farndon
James Honeyman-Scott
Joe Strummer
Jim Croce

Among others whose estates continued to generate tons of money after they died
Click to expand...

Can't give that enough likes.
 
AdamT said:
Musicians, in other words. They aren't actually producing anything when they're dead.
Click to expand...

their estates are generating income
 
Blue_State said:
God forbid you provide them with the means.
Click to expand...

I would certainly do my best to provide them the means ... or the tools necessary to make it on their own. Education, values, a work ethic. Just dumping a load of cash on someone tends to detract from the work ethic thing.
 
AdamT said:
So what? A lump of gold generates income.
Click to expand...

NO it doesn't, it has to be sold and after that one transfer it no longer does
 
AdamT said:
I would certainly do my best to provide them the means ... or the tools necessary to make it on their own. Education, values, a work ethic. Just dumping a load of cash on someone tends to detract from the work ethic thing.
Click to expand...

not nearly as much as looking to the government or the rich to feed you does
 
TurtleDude said:
and that is your choice but one of the most specious arguments the estate stealers use is to claim that its "bad" for children to be given wealth when these same wealth stealers are big fans of the welfare state that encourages people to suck on the public teat and raise children who have never seen a parent be productive
Click to expand...

There's a difference between providing the basic necessities of life to someone who can't, for whatever reason, provide them for themselves, and dumping a ton of cash on a kid who's already had every advantage provided to him.
 
TurtleDude said:
NO it doesn't, it has to be sold and after that one transfer it no longer does
Click to expand...

It can appreciate without being sold. Or if you prefer, let's say that a mutual fund, or some shares of stock produce value all by themselves. Same thing.
 
AdamT said:
There's a difference between providing the basic necessities of life to someone who can't, for whatever reason, provide them for themselves, and dumping a ton of cash on a kid who's already had every advantage provided to him.
Click to expand...

yeah one is done by government coercion with the threat of imprisonment or death and the other is purely voluntary.
 
TurtleDude said:
yeah one is done by government coercion with the threat of imprisonment or death and the other is purely voluntary.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? :lol:
 
TurtleDude said:
and that is your choice but one of the most specious arguments the estate stealers use is to claim that its "bad" for children to be given wealth when these same wealth stealers are big fans of the welfare state that encourages people to suck on the public teat and raise children who have never seen a parent be productive
Click to expand...

I believe you are again distorting and perverting the actual argument preferring to present a frankenstein monster version of the actual case. America is a great country where people can make it and soar to great heights. When a child is given a fortune to support themselves for the rest of their lives, it effectively provides an excuse to not develop oneself. It provides an excuse to avoid hard work. It provides an excuse to take the easy road as opposed to the necessary road which might and probably is a more difficult one. It denies them the obvious ways to build a strong moral character and a strong work ethic.

Does this apply to all? O course not. But it is there just the same.

The argument is not that it simply hurts the one who inherits but also hurts the rest of society because it denies the rest of us the fruits of labors that are never to be for many. Society is poorer for it even though the individual may be richer.

It is simply NOT a recipe for a society like American which thrives on the self made person who excels and soars high due to their own hard work, intelligence and creativity. It provides a disincentive to do those things that made America great.

Besides all the moral stuff and philosophical reasons, there is a even more simple and pure one. In America, we pay tax on the money we get which adds to our financial situation. This also applies to inheritance.

So please, get the story straight.
 
AdamT said:
WTF are you talking about? :lol:
Click to expand...

inheritance is purely voluntary and is based on only the choice of the estate owner

the stuff you were talking about is based on government coercion
 
haymarket said:
I believe you are again distorting and perverting the actual argument preferring to present a frankenstein monster version of the actual case. America is a great country where people can make it and soar to great heights. When a child is given a fortune to support themselves for the rest of their lives, it effectively provides an excuse to not develop oneself. It provides an excuse to avoid hard work. It provides an excuse to take the easy road as opposed to the necessary road which might and probably is a more difficult one. It denies them the obvious ways to build a strong moral character and a strong work ethic.

Does this apply to all? O course not. But it is there just the same.

The argument is not that it simply hurts the one who inherits but also hurts the rest of society because it denies the rest of us the fruits of labors that are never to be for many. Society is poorer for it even though the individual may be richer.

It is simply NOT a recipe for a society like American which thrives on the self made person who excels and soars high due to their own hard work, intelligence and creativity. It provides a disincentive to do those things that made America great.

Besides all the moral stuff and philosophical reasons, there is a even more simple and pure one. In America, we pay tax on the money we get which adds to our financial situation. This also applies to inheritance.

So please, get the story straight.
Click to expand...

I call BS on that. lots of people get handouts from the government and they aren't taxed on that

and your social darwinistic rantings aside, I bet kids who inherited "fortunes" for the most part have done far more for society than those who come from a parent who spends most of her life sucking on the public tit
 
TurtleDude said:
I call BS on that. lots of people get handouts from the government and they aren't taxed on that

and your social darwinistic rantings aside, I bet kids who inherited "fortunes" for the most part have done far more for society than those who come from a parent who spends most of her life sucking on the public tit
Click to expand...

You calling BS is you calling BS which has the effect you you calling BS which in debate means........... BS. By all means, present your data and I will examine it. Until then - its just............ what is the word I am looking for????

BS.
 
haymarket said:
You calling BS is you calling BS which has the effect you you calling BS which in debate means........... BS. By all means, present your data and I will examine it. Until then - its just............ what is the word I am looking for????

BS.
Click to expand...

BS is someone trying t apply his guess about a group of people he really has no clue about
 
TurtleDude said:
inheritance is purely voluntary and is based on only the choice of the estate owner

the stuff you were talking about is based on government coercion
Click to expand...

The government is putting people to death for not providing food stamps? Wow.
 
AdamT said:
The government is putting people to death for not providing food stamps? Wow.
Click to expand...

the government has killed and jailed people who refused to pay taxes.
 
AdamT said:
The government is putting people to death for not providing food stamps? Wow.
Click to expand...

Or the government is not putting people to death who committed violent crimes and the money from our penal system could go to support our aging population.
 
TurtleDude said:
BS is someone trying t apply his guess about a group of people he really has no clue about
Click to expand...

On the contrary. I have degrees in political science with a minor in sociology. I studied this academically. Then there are years of observation, study, reading, associating with my fellow Americans of all classes and incomes.

So you stand corrected Turtle. I know well of what I speak.

And even if I did not, as an American citizen, I as all American citizens have a perfect right to assert my views in order to impact public policy. No matter how much some wish it were otherwise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom