• 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!

Unions threaten Business

Conservative said:
LOL, yeah, right, Detroit is a model city, the auto industry is in shambles, you have 10.4% unemployment and continue to lose population each year. That is a liberal success story.
Click to expand...

another victim of Dem unions, dem teachers and black gangster politicians (dems of course)
 
TurtleDude said:
remind me of how many cases you have argued to federal appellate courts.

We know how you operate-you already admitted to being a paid dem hack. we get your position-if it helps the dems its good, if it helps America its bad
Click to expand...

You show no evidence in these threads that you know a lawyer let alone are one. Of course, I imagine that family money and legacy does get the whelps of the rich certain benefits apart from merit or intelligence so anything is possible.

You are the same guy in the TAXATION thread who keeps maintaining that there is a tax on death when you have failed for weeks to find anything in the actual law to support you despite being challenged time and time and time again. You are the same guy who ignores the actual language in the federal statute. You are the same guy who ignores the language from his own state government on the estate tax. I have asked you over and over and over again this same question

Can you show us where in the law, it is the act of DEATH that is taxed independent and apart from any transfer of wealth to another person?

Should be easy for somebody who claims to be a fancy Ivy League educated hot shot attorney. But you have stayed away from it like a vampire from a garlic salesman at high noon.


When you finally cash that check that your mouth has already written and back it up with solid legal evidence, come on back to discuss the law. Until that time your credibility - what ever there may have been of it - is gone with the wind on legal matters.
 
what causes the death tax to come into play

1) amassing a fortune after paying huge amounts of taxes on it

2) writing a will

3) dying

and Haymarket, anytime you want to compare academic resumes I would be happy to oblige you. I don't have a single attorney in my family and thus I had no "legacy" advantages in getting into places such as Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, Duke, Cornell, NYU, etc
 
TurtleDude said:
what causes the death tax to come into play

1) amassing a fortune after paying huge amounts of taxes on it

2) writing a will

3) dying

and Haymarket, anytime you want to compare academic resumes I would be happy to oblige you. I don't have a single attorney in my family and thus I had no "legacy" advantages in getting into places such as Columbia, Stanford, Chicago, Duke, Cornell, NYU, etc
Click to expand...

Sure thing. Send me your resume and I will be happy to compare it to mine.

You keep avoiding this like the plague and you cling to the hope that your mouth can get you out of this simply by making excuses. You are the fancy attorney with the education. This should be easy for you:

Can you show us where in the law, it is the act of DEATH that is taxed independent and apart from any transfer of wealth to another person?
 
haymarket said:
Sure thing. Send me your resume and I will be happy to compare it to mine.

You keep avoiding this like the plague and you cling to the hope that your mouth can get you out of this simply by making excuses. You are the fancy attorney with the education. This should be easy for you:

Can you show us where in the law, it is the act of DEATH that is taxed independent and apart from any transfer of wealth to another person?
Click to expand...

you frame the issue dishonestly

no one said death is taxed-we said death causes the tax to become an issue

thus death tax is more a valid description than "estate Tax'

your defense of calling that abomination a less negative term is touching

but the act of creating an estate has already been taxed and your beloved death tax does not vest until its owner DIES
 
haymarket said:
Can you show us where in the law, it is the act of DEATH that is taxed independent and apart from any transfer of wealth to another person?
Click to expand...

The act of death is not taxed independent and apart from any transfer of wealth to another person. One cannot argue that. And you've worded it perfectly. You're right. The inheritance/estate tax is often referred to pejoratively as the death tax. And you know that. ;)
 
haymarket said:
Again, you post things that do not even come within a mile of what you were actually challenged to do. But what else is new? Oh yeah, the sun rises in the east tomorrow.

this was your boast



now prove that.
Click to expand...

Is Detroit a success? Is the auto industry doing well? Is the unemployment rate below the national average? What do you call a disaster if not the answers to those questions?
 
Prove me wrong simply by demonstrating your lawyering skills out on this one: show us independent verifiable evidence where in the law, it is the act of DEATH that is taxed independent and apart from any transfer of wealth to another person.


I have not framed anything any differently than the very defintiion the government uses. If you have a problem with honesty , take it up with the Feds or your own state. Again, that nasty and uncomfortable question about acceptance of reality comes into play yet one more time.

Tell you what I am going to do for you dude. Take the whole night to find the answer. I dare you. I know you can never find what does not exist.

Tomorrow I will be on a plane for the warmth and sunshine of the Keys. I will check in on the plane to see what you came up with. And I bet you two margaritas at Jimmy Buffets place that you come up with nothing.
 
MaggieD said:
The act of death is not taxed independent and apart from any transfer of wealth to another person. One cannot argue that. And you've worded it perfectly. You're right. The inheritance/estate tax is often referred to pejoratively as the death tax. And you know that. ;)
Click to expand...

Maggie - you are the smartest girl in class. You win the prize and another for honesty. I suspect they are the only two handed out tonight since others here avoid honesty in this matter like the plague.
 
MaggieD said:
The act of death is not taxed independent and apart from any transfer of wealth to another person. One cannot argue that. And you've worded it perfectly. You're right. The inheritance/estate tax is often referred to pejoratively as the death tax. And you know that. ;)
Click to expand...

no one ever said the act of dying was taxed. and Haymarket knows that. He s the one who wets himself over many of us calling it a death tax which is far more accurate than calling it an estate tax because most estates are never taxed and death has to occur before the tax occurs
 
MaggieD said:
The act of death is not taxed independent and apart from any transfer of wealth to another person. One cannot argue that. And you've worded it perfectly. You're right. The inheritance/estate tax is often referred to pejoratively as the death tax. And you know that. ;)
Click to expand...

the tax occurs before any transfer of wealth happens. and if you transfer wealth before death its another form of tax
 
TurtleDude said:
you frame the issue dishonestly

no one said death is taxed-we said death causes the tax to become an issue

thus death tax is more a valid description than "estate Tax'

your defense of calling that abomination a less negative term is touching

but the act of creating an estate has already been taxed and your beloved death tax does not vest until its owner DIES
Click to expand...

Yes, yes, but as it only applies to those who leave large estates and not to everyone who dies, it is not accurately descriptive at all.

In fact its deliberately deceptive, as it leads those it does not apply to to believe that it does.
 
What if...? said:
Yes, yes, but as it only applies to those who leave large estates and not to everyone who dies, it is not accurately descriptive at all.

In fact its deliberately deceptive, as it leads those it does not apply to to believe that it does.
Click to expand...


those who support it realize that the only way it survives is if they can sell it based on envy and class warfare.
if every death resulted in the deceased's family having to deal with the death tax, the politicians who supported such a law would be toast
 
TurtleDude said:
those who support it realize that the only way it survives is if they can sell it based on envy and class warfare.
if every death resulted in the deceased's family having to deal with the death tax, the politicians who supported such a law would be toast
Click to expand...

Again, you ignore the role estate taxes have played historically.

As a counter to the over-concentration of wealth through inheritance.

As much as it sucks for the wealthy, the simple finite nature of money requires some mechanism to prevent too much of the available money supply being owned by too few individuals.

Again, no poor tyrants.
 
What if...? said:
Again, you ignore the role estate taxes have played historically.

As a counter to the over-concentration of wealth through inheritance.

As much as it sucks for the wealthy, the simple finite nature of money requires some mechanism to prevent too much of the available money supply being owned by too few individuals.

Again, no poor tyrants.
Click to expand...


your envy is obvious but the death tax was a bit of social engineering that was not proper constitutionally and devised before massive progressive income taxes took place

and contrary to your leftist dreams-death taxes actually maintain the positions of the uber rich while retarding and preventing others from reaching that position.

and estate of 500 million will regenerate what is taking during an average lifespan and then some but a 4-5 million dollar estate rarely will

the uber wealthy often support the death tax

the small business owners and those who own appreciated real estate that doesn't earn much income do not

the uber wealthy also love the death tax because it forces the owners of expensive but non-income generating property to sell it upon death. examples-paintings
 
TurtleDude said:
your envy is obvious but the death tax was a bit of social engineering that was not proper constitutionally and devised before massive progressive income taxes took place

and contrary to your leftist dreams-death taxes actually maintain the positions of the uber rich while retarding and preventing others from reaching that position.

and estate of 500 million will regenerate what is taking during an average lifespan and then some but a 4-5 million dollar estate rarely will

the uber wealthy often support the death tax

the small business owners and those who own appreciated real estate that doesn't earn much income do not

the uber wealthy also love the death tax because it forces the owners of expensive but non-income generating property to sell it upon death. examples-paintings
Click to expand...

I'm not in the slightest envious. I've always managed to get as much as I feel like getting.

I just lack the gene or whatever that makes some people need way more than they actually need. To the extent they willfully take it out of someone else's mouth.

Now say only liberals want to take the truffles from the mouths of those who simply earned their fine wine. Or whatever. And don't forget the envy part, and never for a moment acknowledge any point made by anyone that differs from your point of view. You got it from God, or something.

I still disrespect you for having the life you claim and wasting it bitching at lefties on this forum.

You have a life.

You should act like it.
 
haymarket said:
I have a serious problem with a law that violates the US Constitution - Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1.

The real question here is why don't you?
Click to expand...

see, i would suggest that you should explain why you are good with Article I Section 10.... but not Article I Section 8.
 
People such as turtle who pretend that there is a 'death tax' are only following the dictates of their right wing masters are only following orders from the top of the right wing food chain. (or would that be the bottom?) This on the origins of the term in modern political life from Wikipedia
The term "death tax" is a neologism used by policy makers and critics to describe the tax in a way that conveys additional meaning. Political use of "death tax" as a synonym for "estate tax" was encouraged by Jack Faris of the National Federation of Independent Business[42] during the Speakership of Newt Gingrich. Well-known Republican pollster Frank Luntz wrote that the term "death tax" "kindled voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' do not".[43] Linguist George Lakoff asserts that the term "death tax" is a deliberate and carefully calculated neologism used as a propaganda tactic to aid in efforts to repeal estate taxes. The use of "death tax" rather than "estate tax" in the wording of questions in the 2002 National Election Survey increased support for estate tax repeal by only a few percentage points.[44]
Click to expand...

Rich folks on the far right, and the sycophants who kowtow to them hoping to get some crumbs off their banquet table, know that average hard working people do not sympathize with their woes about the Estate Tax so they attempt to play magician and fool us into thinking it is something else entirely. They then hope the great unwashed will embrace the concept that "death should not be a taxable event". And they have suckered enough chumps to come over to their side and can get the law repealed.

Sorry, but its not working.

And that is why it is important what we call the tax. It is an Estate Tax and not the neologism "death tax". To this date neither Turtle nor any of his support on this board can come up with any instance of where there is a tax on the act of death that is separate and distinct from the transfer of wealth. Not one in real life or the law.

There is no death tax and anyone who uses the term is only doing the bidding of the right wing thought police who wish to enlist you in their Caviar Crusade.
 
cpwill said:
see, i would suggest that you should explain why you are good with Article I Section 10.... but not Article I Section 8.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
As far as I can tell, the letter doesn't go far enough....not by a mile.
 
haymarket said:
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Article I Section 8 lists the things that Congress can spend money doing.

US Constitution said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Click to expand...

IE, if it's not on that list (say, if it's Medicaid), then the government isn't supposed to be doing it.
 
cpwill said:
Article I Section 8 lists the things that Congress can spend money doing.



IE, if it's not on that list (say, if it's Medicaid), then the government isn't supposed to be doing it.
Click to expand...

So...according to this the Federal Reserve and the standing Army must be dissolved?

That's what it SAYS.

Or are we cherrypicking again?
 
What if...? said:
So...according to this the Federal Reserve and the standing Army must be dissolved?

That's what it SAYS.

Or are we cherrypicking again?
Click to expand...


the military is clearly a proper federal function

health care
education
welfare (ie income redistribution)
social security
the war on drugs
gun control and bans

are clearly not
 
Please tell me the death tax vs. inheritance tax debate did not ooze into this thread. It's wealth redistribution. Love it or hate it, but take it to the other thread please. I was trying to learn more reasons to scorn unions than I already do, thank you :)
 
Mach said:
Please tell me the death tax vs. inheritance tax debate did not ooze into this thread. It's wealth redistribution. Love it or hate it, but take it to the other thread please. I was trying to learn more reasons to scorn unions than I already do, thank you :)
Click to expand...

Let's see how the people of Wisconsin like getting more in their paychecks since mandatory union dues are no longer being deducted and sent to the unions. Let's see how the union employees like sending checks into the unions or do they prefer getting more in their paychecks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom