• 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!

Pelosi pledges to win changes as House Dems reject tax-cut deal

Kandahar said:
Because the death of the property owner is one of the least disruptive times (for both the estate and the economy as a whole) for the government to tax property. It prevents property from concentrating too heavily and reduces wealth disparity.
Click to expand...

Socialism..
 
Barbbtx said:
Demint and the Tea Party Patriots are outraged about them. That's all I know. They didn't want any spending and they wanted the death tax at 0%
Click to expand...

Right, he's outraged about the unemployment benefits and the fact that Obama only MOSTLY capitulated instead of ENTIRELY capitulated on the estate tax (despite the fact that no one in the press or the Democratic Congress seemed to know that estate tax cuts were even on the table before the deal was announced).

But as far as I can tell, he's not pissed off about those other tax cuts you mentioned. Therefore they aren't concessions that Obama extracted for the Republicans, they're just common-sense ideas that EVERYONE supported. By my count, the only thing that might actually qualify as a Republican concession is the extension of unemployment benefits...and this was pretty minor compared to the extension of the Bush tax cuts and the lower estate tax that they got.
 
Ockham said:
This assumes that spending continues the way it is, with the standard spending increases year over year. I've gotta say, let the taxes go up, and let the unemployment run out. It's time people started tightening their belts and taking jobs that paid less so they can get employed and off the government cheese.
Click to expand...

A poll showed that a good number of people want to do just that. Doubt it'll happen though. We're too soft.
 
Kandahar said:
Well if you accept the premise that the government has SOME legitimate interest in taxing someone at some point in their lives, then it's just a question of where is the best time to do it. And the death of the property-owner makes logical sense.



This is just a moral argument that you've accepted as an article of faith. Since I simply disagree, there's really not much debate to be had. Which is why I generally focus on pragmatic arguments instead of moralistic arguments.

High levels of wealth disparity create all sorts of other economic problems which society ends up paying for (e.g. crime, poverty, unhealthy and poorly educated work forces). Additionally, more concentrated wealth tends to reduce consumer purchasing power, which hurts the economy.
Click to expand...

it's not a matter of 'when', it's a matter of 'how much'. taking more than half of everything my father slaved his whole life for, is simply unfair, regardless of your opinions on the morality involved in taking from Peter to give to Paul.
 
Barbbtx said:
A poll showed that a good number of people want to do just that. Doubt it'll happen though. We're too soft.
Click to expand...

Yeah and it's because of all that cheese.
 
Whovian said:
it's not a matter of 'when', it's a matter of 'how much'. taking more than half of everything my father slaved his whole life for, is simply unfair, regardless of your opinions on the morality involved in taking from Peter to give to Paul.
Click to expand...

I don't see what's so unfair about that. Once he's dead, he no longer needs that property anymore, and his descendents didn't earn it themselves so they don't have a particularly strong claim to make the "slaved his whole life for it" argument. That's not to say that the state should take EVERYTHING; I recognize that people have legitimate interests in providing for their children, and the state should be cognizant of that.

But at some point, the motivation to provide for one's children stops being an incentive to produce more. I find it difficult to believe that people are going to be less motivated to produce, if they can only leave their kids $10 million instead of $20 million. Therefore estates seem to be an ideal place for the government to tax wealth: the old owner doesn't need it anymore, the new owner didn't do anything to earn it, it's progressive, it's easy, and it's unlikely to significantly change people's economic motivations.
 
Ockham said:
This assumes that spending continues the way it is, with the standard spending increases year over year. I've gotta say, let the taxes go up, and let the unemployment run out. It's time people started tightening their belts and taking jobs that paid less so they can get employed and off the government cheese.
Click to expand...

Hell to the yes.
 
Kandahar said:
I don't see what's so unfair about that. Once he's dead, he no longer needs that property anymore, and his descendents didn't earn it themselves so they don't have a particularly strong claim to make the "slaved his whole life for it" argument. That's not to say that the state should take EVERYTHING; I recognize that people have legitimate interests in providing for their children, and the state should be cognizant of that.

But at some point, the motivation to provide for one's children stops being an incentive to produce more. I find it difficult to believe that people are going to be less motivated to produce, if they can only leave their kids $10 million instead of $20 million. Therefore estates seem to be an ideal place for the government to tax wealth: the old owner doesn't need it anymore, the new owner didn't do anything to earn it, it's progressive, it's easy, and it's unlikely to significantly change people's economic motivations.
Click to expand...

So, because he's dead, he's not allowed to give it to his own children instead of yours?
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Oh. My. Should we stock up on popcorn, The Prof?
Click to expand...
Yes you should stock up on popcorn , save every penny you can and hide it in a safety box under the mattress...
Do all the above, before the Repubs and Dems start stealing from the poor to give to the rich, (Robin Hood Style)...

God Bless America, Land OF The Greedy, Because Politics Doesn't Care About the Poor And The Needy !!!
 
Whovian said:
So, because he's dead, he's not allowed to give it to his own children instead of yours?
Click to expand...

I explained the practical justification for the estate tax. I'm not going to debate your morality because there's really nothing to debate; you've just decided that it's "unfair" and there's not much I can say to get you to change your opinion. If you want to discuss it from a practical/pragmatic/economic standpoint, let me know.
 
Kandahar said:
I explained the practical justification for the estate tax. I'm not going to debate your morality because there's really nothing to debate; you've just decided that it's "unfair" and there's not much I can say to get you to change your opinion. If you want to discuss it from a practical/pragmatic/economic standpoint, let me know.
Click to expand...

Look, it's government theft okay? Just call it what it is.
 
Ockham said:
Look, it's government theft okay? Just call it what it is.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You say it's "government theft," I say "nuh-uh." You say it's "unfair," I say "nuh-uh." That's why I generally avoid these childish moralistic debates about fiscal policy, as they ultimately just boil down to your opinion rather than any critical thinking about the policy in question. The economic debate is much more interesting: I show you why I think the estate tax is beneficial, you show me why you don't, and we discuss it.

But I guess just stamping your feet and crying about government theft is easier than actually examining the policy in question, and whether or not the economic rationale for it makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Catz Part Deux said:
Hell to the yes.
Click to expand...

Hell Yes, But where are the Jobs, Are they planning to ship them back to America from Over Seas ???
We all know by now that Jobs do not Fall from the Sky like Rain !!! And when a Job by chance falls an updated Robot Machine has a better chance of getting it then any Human Being !!!
 
Barbbtx said:
A poll showed that a good number of people want to do just that. Doubt it'll happen though. We're too soft.
Click to expand...
Ah Yeah, we are too soft, but not in the right places, Too Soft on the Rich and Greedy. Too Hard on the Poor and Needy !!!
 
Erod... and you see this as important?
 
Kandahar said:
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You say it's "government theft," I say "nuh-uh." You say it's "unfair," I say "nuh-uh." That's why I generally avoid these childish moralistic debates about fiscal policy, as they ultimately just boil down to your opinion rather than any critical thinking about the policy in question. The economic debate is much more interesting: I show you why I think the estate tax is beneficial, you show me why you don't, and we discuss it.

But I guess just stamping your feet and crying about government theft is easier than actually examining the policy in question, and whether or not the economic rationale for it makes sense.
Click to expand...

It does seem like "confiscation" would be a more appropriate word here than theft. They have a law wrapped around it so it is at least officially legal.

One of the problems with the estate tax is that for the most part the taxes have already been paid on those assets. (property tax, income tax, capital gains tax). How many times is morally acceptable for the taxman to keep dipping in the same pot??

On the other hand there is an element of the issue that this really isn't a "death tax". The tax is actually being absorbed by the heir (not the deceased), more in the realm of a "gift tax". A little different but still a tax to be exploited and abused by the insatiable government appetite for money.

Anyway you look at it. Governments as a whole are tax crazy. They get their piece of every touchpoint of every payment/purchase/transaction/transfer/consumption we do anywhere/everywhere in our existance. Morbidly pathetic....


.
 
Cole said:
It does seem like "confiscation" would be a more appropriate word here than theft. They have a law wrapped around it so it is at least officially legal.

One of the problems with the estate tax is that for the most part the taxes have already been paid on those assets. (property tax, income tax, capital gains tax). How many times is morally acceptable for the taxman to keep dipping in the same pot??

On the other hand there is an element of the issue that this really isn't a "death tax". The tax is actually being absorbed by the heir (not the deceased), more in the realm of a "gift tax". A little different but still a tax to be exploited and abused by the insatiable government appetite for money.

Anyway you look at it. Governments as a whole are tax crazy. They get their piece of every touchpoint of every payment/purchase/transaction/transfer/consumption we do anywhere/everywhere in our existance. Morbidly pathetic....
Click to expand...

I agree that the tax code should be simplified and there should be fewer different types of taxes. But the estate tax is not one of them that needs to be eliminated. I would support eliminating payroll taxes and increasing income taxes accordingly. I would support eliminating corporate taxes and treating capital gains as normal income. And I would support eliminating most income tax deductions and reducing income taxes accordingly.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
You say it's "government theft," I say "nuh-uh." You say it's "unfair," I say "nuh-uh." That's why I generally avoid these childish moralistic debates about fiscal policy, as they ultimately just boil down to your opinion rather than any critical thinking about the policy in question. The economic debate is much more interesting: I show you why I think the estate tax is beneficial, you show me why you don't, and we discuss it.

But I guess just stamping your feet and crying about government theft is easier than actually examining the policy in question, and whether or not the economic rationale for it makes sense.
Click to expand...

By what right does the government take 35% or the proposed 45% due to the death of a person? When you cite the law, I'll still call it theft. There's nothing that a person did in their life to justify the government coming in and for the sole reason the person died, to steal 35% or 45% or whatever percentage it turns out to be. It would be just as ludicrous for say a fart tax. Everyone dies everyone farts. So the government comes in and says, Mr. Ockham, were installing a sensor on your body such that it senses when you fart and you'll be charged $2 each time. "Why?" I ask. "Because we want to and because it's your duty to pay taxes - ANY tax we want, no matter how stupid or idiotic". That's how I see the death tax. I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with the government stealing ANY amount of money from anyone as long as it's not you. That's the way progressives are.

So you cry and moan and pitch fits when money people earn is kept, instead of going into one big nice socialist slush fund where all the good big government boys and girls get to roll around and bask in the glory that is big government. What makes econonic sense is STOP ****ING SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T ****ING HAVE. But no, instead of that, you'd rather tax people because they died and for no other reason.

That is theft - stealing - robbery. You call it crying, I call it the truth.
 
Ockham said:
By what right does the government take 35% or the proposed 45% due to the death of a person? When you cite the law, I'll still call it theft. There's nothing that a person did in their life to justify the government coming in and for the sole reason the person died, to steal 35% or 45% or whatever percentage it turns out to be. It would be just as ludicrous for say a fart tax. Everyone dies everyone farts. So the government comes in and says, Mr. Ockham, were installing a sensor on your body such that it senses when you fart and you'll be charged $2 each time. "Why?" I ask. "Because we want to and because it's your duty to pay taxes - ANY tax we want, no matter how stupid or idiotic". That's how I see the death tax. I'm sure you'd be perfectly fine with the government stealing ANY amount of money from anyone as long as it's not you. That's the way progressives are.

So you cry and moan and pitch fits when money people earn is kept, instead of going into one big nice socialist slush fund where all the good big government boys and girls get to roll around and bask in the glory that is big government. What makes econonic sense is STOP ****ING SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T ****ING HAVE. But no, instead of that, you'd rather tax people because they died and for no other reason.

That is theft - stealing - robbery. You call it crying, I call it the truth.
Click to expand...

We don't pay taxes because the government wants us to. We pay taxes because the founders kept bitching about no taxation without representation. Maybe you should take it up with them. I doubt however you'll go on a long rant about Jefferson and Washington being theives.
 
Kandahar said:
I don't see what's so unfair about that. Once he's dead, he no longer needs that property anymore, and his descendents didn't earn it themselves so they don't have a particularly strong claim to make the "slaved his whole life for it" argument. That's not to say that the state should take EVERYTHING; I recognize that people have legitimate interests in providing for their children, and the state should be cognizant of that.

But at some point, the motivation to provide for one's children stops being an incentive to produce more. I find it difficult to believe that people are going to be less motivated to produce, if they can only leave their kids $10 million instead of $20 million. Therefore estates seem to be an ideal place for the government to tax wealth: the old owner doesn't need it anymore, the new owner didn't do anything to earn it, it's progressive, it's easy, and it's unlikely to significantly change people's economic motivations.
Click to expand...


Utter nonsense. Suppose you tell me if the wealth that a man produces throughout his life is already taxed while amassing it?

I explained the practical justification for the estate tax. I'm not going to debate your morality because there's really nothing to debate
Click to expand...

You won't discuss the morality of it because you can not. In that argument you lose everytime.

j-mac
 
Hatuey said:
We don't pay taxes because the government wants us to. We pay taxes because the founders kept bitching about no taxation without representation. Maybe you should take it up with them. I doubt however you'll go on a long rant about Jefferson and Washington being theives.
Click to expand...

Your utter lack of historical accuracy or knowledge is staggering. Washington passed taxes on good and merchandise. They did not pass a tax on people who died just BECAUSE they died and then scooped up the remenants before their body's were cold. Yes, that would be theft whether no matter who does it. And to correct you - the founders were being taxed by King George without having a SAY in those taxes. I mean, we learned that in like 2nd grade Hatuey. Didn't you ever watch "Schoolhouse Rock" for crying out loud?

Here's what you missed maybe it'll help your understanding:

 
Kandahar said:
I don't see what's so unfair about that. Once he's dead, he no longer needs that property anymore, and his descendents didn't earn it themselves so they don't have a particularly strong claim to make the "slaved his whole life for it" argument. That's not to say that the state should take EVERYTHING; I recognize that people have legitimate interests in providing for their children, and the state should be cognizant of that.

But at some point, the motivation to provide for one's children stops being an incentive to produce more. I find it difficult to believe that people are going to be less motivated to produce, if they can only leave their kids $10 million instead of $20 million. Therefore estates seem to be an ideal place for the government to tax wealth: the old owner doesn't need it anymore, the new owner didn't do anything to earn it, it's progressive, it's easy, and it's unlikely to significantly change people's economic motivations.
Click to expand...

Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous to say what is the proper use of an estate established whatever the purpose. It could be charity or it could be to provide a better life for ones children.

I know a bunch of people who have continued to work to save enough so their children would be fine. In one instance the person has a child is autistic. He and his wife have been thinking about the well being of their child for much of their adult life, sad. He can stop working when he has enough money not only for his savings but also to insure his child will have somewhere to libe and pay for whomever will take care of him.

You should also know that what this does is create a sort of full employment deal for tax accountants and lawyers. People who have saved any real money will find ways to legally skip generations through trusts etc.

The people who usually really get screwed by this type of tax is someone who has most of his/her assets in a profitable small business. Oftentimes those businesses have to be sold off because of the tax.

It would be great if people thought through real issues versus spewing slanted dogma when talking about things that impact people's lives.
 
washunut said:
Don't you think it is a bit presumptuous to say what is the proper use of an estate established whatever the purpose. It could be charity or it could be to provide a better life for ones children.
Click to expand...

I'm against taxing donations to charity upon one's death. And I'm against taxing inheritances that provide a better life for one's children. But after you have a few million in inheritance, it's no longer providing a better life for one's children. Then it's time to provide a better life for society.

washunut said:
I know a bunch of people who have continued to work to save enough so their children would be fine. In one instance the person has a child is autistic. He and his wife have been thinking about the well being of their child for much of their adult life, sad. He can stop working when he has enough money not only for his savings but also to insure his child will have somewhere to libe and pay for whomever will take care of him.
Click to expand...

As I said, I think the floor should be high enough that it won't negatively impact anyone who is seeking to provide for their offspring. You don't need to leave them a hundred million dollars to do that.

washunut said:
You should also know that what this does is create a sort of full employment deal for tax accountants and lawyers. People who have saved any real money will find ways to legally skip generations through trusts etc.
Click to expand...

Then those loopholes should be eliminated.

washunut said:
The people who usually really get screwed by this type of tax is someone who has most of his/her assets in a profitable small business. Oftentimes those businesses have to be sold off because of the tax.
Click to expand...

The Tax Policy Center estimates that only 1.3% of all estates subject to the estate tax are small businesses and/or farms. And of that small number, they only pay one-seventh of the value of the estate on average. And of those, all but a handful have sufficient liquidity that they don't need to sell off the business or farm.

Impact of Estate Tax on Small Businesses and Farms Is Minimal — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

washunut said:
It would be great if people thought through real issues versus spewing slanted dogma when talking about things that impact people's lives.
Click to expand...

It certainly would.
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
it does not appear to me that forums membership fully appreciates what this bombshell development exactly portends

all will, however, very soon

stay up
Click to expand...

You write in

like Haikus

but not really

sort of
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom