• 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!

120 Days to Go Until the Largest Tax Hikes in History.

sheesh, Conservatives give us a $3,000,000,000,000 war then complain about tax increases. Did you not realize this was going to happen? How else would we ever pay of all the debt we have incurred.
 
BCR said:
sheesh, Conservatives give us a $3,000,000,000,000 war then complain about tax increases. Did you not realize this was going to happen? How else would we ever pay of all the debt we have incurred.
Click to expand...

most conservatives would happily pay for the war and other legitimate government functions leaving you libs and socialists to pay for the entitlements that the Libs pushed through

our taxes would go way down and you would be bankrupt
 
TurtleDude said:
its disgusting the amount of spite and envy we see from the class warfare types.

There never should have been a tax on income to start with. any sort of income tax is essentially a tax hike on what was the normal situation for this country. BUt you are right, the GOP wanted permanency and the party that gets its power through progressive income tax wouldn't allow that
Click to expand...

Your the one who keeps on bringing up class warefare. Somehow I get this feeling that if you had a different background, like if you had been born to a poor familiy, that you would have a totally different outlook on things.
 
TurtleDude said:
THis is pure Nonsense

tell me what did the government and voters do to earn the wealth more than the heirs? ANd YOU IGNORE the fact that the person who owns it ought to be able to determine where it goes. The heirs expect nothing-its the donor who makes the decision and you appear to be upset that your ancestors didn't give you enough. This hangup on heirs not earning it is specious given that the government and the politicians didn't either nor did the donor want them to have it.

I agree, there should be no taxes on income or wealth at al

being rich doesn't hurt the middle class. Find a better argument to justify the death confiscation tax than saying because YOU feel someone needs the money more, the heirs must be soaked
Click to expand...

Again, you have a particular agenda which just happens to benefits you. What a coincidence
 
MrVicchio said:
I'm well aware of that. I support the Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation plan. I believe it's the most fair way to go.
Click to expand...

I used to believe in the fair tax, until I actually thought through it. It is filled full of issues. One of my largest issues with it is that it has a HUGE welfare entitlement program built into it (the prebate). Fully 1/3rd of the sales tax goes to the prebate. Why would we want to INCREASE our welfare state? Why would we want to incourage people to make less than the poverty rate? Why would we want to force business underground to avoid the huge 30% sales tax? Why would we want to increase taxes on the middle class while reducing taxes on the poor and the rich? Why would we want to increase the cost of the goods and services that we purchase? Why would we want to establish barriers to trade with a 30% tax on every retail transaction? The truth is that the Fairtax was invented by the rich to benefit the rich.
 
TurtleDude said:
most conservatives would happily pay for the war and other legitimate government functions leaving you libs and socialists to pay for the entitlements that the Libs pushed through

our taxes would go way down and you would be bankrupt
Click to expand...


Finally, a point from Turtledude which I agree with. Kudos.

It's actually quite an attractive idea. Let everyone sign up to be either a liberal or a conservative and only pay for the policies that apply to that particular ideology. I bet this nation would be 99% conservative in a month or less (at least if our conservative leaders actually started voting conservative instead of outspending liberals as they consistantly have done for decades).
 
MrVicchio said:
Why do you care how they got their money? Does the fact their family earned it mean you have some right to call for their wealth to be taken away?
Click to expand...

Why do you care that I care how they got their money? It's none of your effen business.

:laughat:
 
imagep said:
Your the one who keeps on bringing up class warefare. Somehow I get this feeling that if you had a different background, like if you had been born to a poor familiy, that you would have a totally different outlook on things.
Click to expand...

If I a 12" JOhnson I might be Ron Jeremy and if I had a 55" verticle Jump I might be Doctor Jay and if I had wheels I could be a trolley car,

my grandfather was born poor-started working at 6, worked his way through college and died holding dozens of machine tool patents and a millionaire. He used to refer to FDR as the "antichrist" and had no use for welfare socialism
 
TurtleDude said:
If I a 12" JOhnson I might be Ron Jeremy and if I had a 55" verticle Jump I might be Doctor Jay and if I had wheels I could be a trolley car,

my grandfather was born poor-started working at 6, worked his way through college and died holding dozens of machine tool patents and a millionaire. He used to refer to FDR as the "antichrist" and had no use for welfare socialism
Click to expand...

Great for him, thats certainly something to be proud of. But what does it have to do with you? Do you have dozens of patents? Did you start working at 6? Did you put your way through college?

If we all sat back and did nothing because are grandfathers were very sucessful, our world would be hurting in a big way. We all need to achieve on our own and not suck off the laurels of our grandparents accomplishments.
 
imagep said:
I used to believe in the fair tax, until I actually thought through it. It is filled full of issues. One of my largest issues with it is that it has a HUGE welfare entitlement program built into it (the prebate). Fully 1/3rd of the sales tax goes to the prebate. Why would we want to INCREASE our welfare state? Why would we want to incourage people to make less than the poverty rate? Why would we want to force business underground to avoid the huge 30% sales tax? Why would we want to increase taxes on the middle class while reducing taxes on the poor and the rich? Why would we want to increase the cost of the goods and services that we purchase? Why would we want to establish barriers to trade with a 30% tax on every retail transaction? The truth is that the Fairtax was invented by the rich to benefit the rich.
Click to expand...

Guy, you think that a death tax should fund the country, that tells me a lot.
 
MrVicchio said:
Guy, you think that a death tax should fund the country, that tells me a lot.
Click to expand...

Sure. That tells you that I believe in a very small government. They tells you that I believe that people should be able to keep what they work for. That tells you that I believe that individuals are not entitled (tax free) to wealth that other people created. It tells you that I am against the trade barriers that sales tax creates. It tells you that I am against the government infringing our our rights to own property that we worked for and paid for (property tax). It tells you that I believe that government should be so small that it should not subsidize individuals (welfare) at all or companies (corporate welfare) at all. I do not believe in "saftey nets". I believe that capitalism (almost always) solves our economic distribution delimas. I don't believe that I should have to pay a (sales tax) penalty for purchasing a car or for purchasing a new pair of jeans - I EARNED THE MONEY I SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP WHAT I EARNED. I believe that I am not entitled to anything that I did not work for. I believe that I should succeed in life or fail in life based on my own merit - not based on my grandparents merit. I believe that this country has an issue with people feeling entitled to something that they did not earn - whether it be welfare or inheritance there is no difference. I believe that I should be able to spend the money that I earn on my family, to provide my children with educational opportunities and a good quality of life without having to pay a penality to the government for doing so. I believe that I should be able to invest any money that I happen to earn which is above the baseline standard of living that I choose, and that my personal wealth should be able to grow without being penalized by taxes, until the time in which I no longer need such wealth. I believe that if I choose to spend my money on my children/family/friends/church/charity that I should be able to do it during my lifetime without financial penalty to myself. I believe that if I recieve some sort of windfall of wealth that I did not work for that it is fair to pay a percentage of that windfall as a fee to the government who established such a socio/political/economic system as to which allowed me to reap the reward of that windfall. I am greatfull to this country and to God that I have the mental and physical capacity to be fairly successful on my own and according to my own merit. I expect nothing from others, but when I recieve from others due to no effort of my own, I am willing to pay my fair share of the cost of our government from-and-according-to the value of what I recieve.

All-in-all, that tells you that I am a true conservative and espouse the values that most fake conservatives CLAIM they believe in. Now since you are obviously a communist, I can understand how you would object to my true-conservative values.
 
imagep said:
Sure. That tells you that I believe in a very small government. They tells you that I believe that people should be able to keep what they work for. That tells you that I believe that individuals are not entitled (tax free) to wealth that other people created. It tells you that I am against the trade barriers that sales tax creates. It tells you that I am against the government infringing our our rights to own property that we worked for and paid for (property tax). It tells you that I believe that government should be so small that it should not subsidize individuals (welfare) at all or companies (corporate welfare) at all. I do not believe in "saftey nets". I believe that capitalism (almost always) solves our economic distribution delimas. I don't believe that I should have to pay a (sales tax) penalty for purchasing a car or for purchasing a new pair of jeans - I EARNED THE MONEY I SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP WHAT I EARNED. I believe that I am not entitled to anything that I did not work for. I believe that I should succeed in life or fail in life based on my own merit - not based on my grandparents merit. I believe that this country has an issue with people feeling entitled to something that they did not earn - whether it be welfare or inheritance there is no difference. I believe that I should be able to spend the money that I earn on my family, to provide my children with educational opportunities and a good quality of life without having to pay a penality to the government for doing so. I believe that I should be able to invest any money that I happen to earn which is above the baseline standard of living that I choose, and that my personal wealth should be able to grow without being penalized by taxes, until the time in which I no longer need such wealth. I believe that if I choose to spend my money on my children/family/friends/church/charity that I should be able to do it during my lifetime without financial penalty to myself. I believe that if I recieve some sort of windfall of wealth that I did not work for that it is fair to pay a percentage of that windfall as a fee to the government who established such a socio/political/economic system as to which allowed me to reap the reward of that windfall. I am greatfull to this country and to God that I have the mental and physical capacity to be fairly successful on my own and according to my own merit. I expect nothing from others, but when I recieve from others due to no effort of my own, I am willing to pay my fair share of the cost of our government from-and-according-to the value of what I recieve.

All-in-all, that tells you that I am a true conservative and espouse the values that most fake conservatives CLAIM they believe in. Now since you are obviously a communist, I can understand how you would object to my true-conservative values.
Click to expand...

You're irrational sir. There isn't enough wealth from death to fund the Gov't. It won't work. Sorry.

I'm all for smaller gov't, but I'm not for stealing from people to fund it. YOU ARE.

See, Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation has the advantage of letting people choose how much to be taxed. Spend more, you're taxed more. Invest, save, give to your family... all good.

You however would destroy small businesses, and families to reach your "true conservative" values. I think that is, horrible. Yes, small businesses get shut down when the owner dies and the kids gotta pay the death tax, and families suffer when they have to sell off estates to pay the taxes.

I cannot support such, and a long block of snide text isn't required to reject you out right.

It's quite obvious you believe other peoples wealth belongs to the Gov't I believe it belongs to the person and whom they choose to leave it too when they pass away.
 
Last edited:
MrVicchio said:
You're irrational sir. There isn't enough wealth from death to fund the Gov't. It won't work. Sorry.

I'm all for smaller gov't, but I'm not for stealing from people to fund it. YOU ARE.

See, Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation has the advantage of letting people choose how much to be taxed. Spend more, you're taxed more. Invest, save, give to your family... all good.

You however would destroy small businesses, and families to reach your "true conservative" values. I think that is, horrible. Yes, small businesses get shut down when the owner dies and the kids gotta pay the death tax, and families suffer when they have to sell off estates to pay the taxes.

I cannot support such, and a long block of snide text isn't required to reject you out right.

It's quite obvious you believe other peoples wealth belongs to the Gov't I believe it belongs to the person and whom they choose to leave it too when they pass away.
Click to expand...

You are assuming that wealth would not grow if we eleminated all federal taxes other than the death tax. I know that MY wealth would grow if I didn't have to pay so much income tax. I would have more to save, more to invest, and more to buy long term stuff with. I thought that conservatives believed that lower taxes results in greater wealth. Is that not correct? You are also assuming that we can't reduce government spending. What if we eleminated ALL entitlements? What if we eleminated all subsidies? What if we stopped spending money on turtle tunnels and roads to nowhere? We could easily reduce our government spending needs by 70-80% without eleminating our basic government services such as the military. I thought that people who are "very conservitive" believed in smaller government. Is that not correct?

Somehow the conservative platform latched onto the idea that death taxes are bad, but that is actually a LIBERAL viewpoint. A lot of liberals and conservatives have distorted their ideologies to fit their personal situation and not the logic behind the ideologies.

Regardless of all that, lets just pretend for just one minute that we could significantly reduce the size of government and that individual wealth would grow if we eleminated taxes and reduced barriers to capitalism. Would it not make sense to tax what we get through luck and eleminate tax on what we work for?
 
Why do you keep harping on income taxes dude? I'm for the Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation plan. Do you KNOW what that is? No you obviously don't. You're thinking this is the flat income tax, it's NOT.


Sheesh.

Also, my problem with the death tax is that it's WRONG. Period.

Imagine, you get your way, dath taxes only. Of course, that would mean 75% or higher DT but hey! No other taxes right?

So family of 4, Dad earns, mom stays home, takes care of the kiddos. Dad dies suddenly.

Oh, ****, the family just lost 75% of everything to pay HIS taxes. Oops.


Vs.

Fair Tax plan...

Dad dies, family loses NOTHING.

I like that idea.



OH YEAH, smaller gov't, well see, under the fair tax plan, the Gov't couldn't raise taxes without affecting EVERYONE Wanna see tax hikes become very very very hard to do, there you go.
 
imagep said:
Great for him, thats certainly something to be proud of. But what does it have to do with you? Do you have dozens of patents? Did you start working at 6? Did you put your way through college?

If we all sat back and did nothing because are grandfathers were very sucessful, our world would be hurting in a big way. We all need to achieve on our own and not suck off the laurels of our grandparents accomplishments.
Click to expand...

nah, I could have sat back and been a party boy. Instead I busted my butt, made top grades, went to a top college, went to a top law school and in addition to holding a position as a trial attorney I spend about 20 hours a week running a local youth and adult sports club and a state organization on a volunteer basis. Being wealthy allows me to engage in massive amounts of volunteer activities and to sponsor a dozen young athletes, one of whom was a world champion, and three others national champions.

I certainly don't need someone like you telling me that the wealth I have should be confiscated so you can claim it will help my son. I tire of others pretending to know what is best for me when their "advice" is generally motivated by far less altruistic reasons-reasons that would come off as fascist or malignant if expressed.

The death tax advocates pretend that the reason they support wealth confiscation is so that the heirs of the industrious will be forced to make it on their own yet these same social engineers forget that government handouts have created a mass of dependent voters whose children are raised by leeches and sloths.

I grew up in a home where my grandfathers were successful engineers and businessmen, my father was the same, my mother was a summa cum laude from the best women's college in the USA circa 1950 and both of them worked hard. All of my siblings went to top schools for both college and graduate studies and all are successful leaders in their fields. What family wealth meant was that I could attend whatever college or law school I wanted without worrying about saddling myself with 100K in debt. It also meant I could take jobs that paid a little less rather than grubbing for the last dollar

I realize that upsets some but I don't care. But lets stop the crap that those who push for inheritance taxes do it out of some concern for my children. spite envy and greed is the motivation
 
MrVicchio said:
Why do you keep harping on income taxes dude? I'm for the Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans For Fair Taxation plan. Do you KNOW what that is? No you obviously don't. You're thinking this is the flat income tax, it's NOT.


Sheesh.

Also, my problem with the death tax is that it's WRONG. Period.

Imagine, you get your way, dath taxes only. Of course, that would mean 75% or higher DT but hey! No other taxes right?

So family of 4, Dad earns, mom stays home, takes care of the kiddos. Dad dies suddenly.

Oh, ****, the family just lost 75% of everything to pay HIS taxes. Oops.


Vs.

Fair Tax plan...

Dad dies, family loses NOTHING.

I like that idea.



OH YEAH, smaller gov't, well see, under the fair tax plan, the Gov't couldn't raise taxes without affecting EVERYONE Wanna see tax hikes become very very very hard to do, there you go.
Click to expand...

or in a case I know well, a girl I grew up with lost her grandparents as a teenager and 2 months after the wealthy set of grandparents died, Mom and Dad were wiped out by a suicidal drunk driver who was going 100 MPH wrong way on a local highway-he lived but her parents in their porche were DOA. so the family fortune was hit with the massive death tax twice in a short period of time. 42 year olds don't expect to die at that age and hadn't set up some sophisticated trusts to safeguard against the two grandparents dying within a week of each other (GM died of cancer and GD died of a heart attack shortly thereafter) and then their son getting wasted shortly thereafter.

10 or so million got chopped up pretty fast--the theory behind the death confiscation tax was to whittle an estate away to the point that when Heir one dies, the estate wasn't much bigger than what it was when he got it from his parents. If people live a normal lifespan (I won't get into the fact that estates covered by the death confiscation tax are in real dollars, far smaller than what they were when this nonsense started) the estate they take will normally grow to the point that with the second cut of the death tax, they will leave to the grand kids about the same their parents left to them.

if two generations die shortly appart the death confiscation tax is incredibly punitive
 
TurtleDude said:
or in a case I know well, a girl I grew up with lost her grandparents as a teenager and 2 months after the wealthy set of grandparents died, Mom and Dad were wiped out by a suicidal drunk driver who was going 100 MPH wrong way on a local highway-he lived but her parents in their porche were DOA. so the family fortune was hit with the massive death tax twice in a short period of time. 42 year olds don't expect to die at that age and hadn't set up some sophisticated trusts to safeguard against the two grandparents dying within a week of each other (GM died of cancer and GD died of a heart attack shortly thereafter) and then their son getting wasted shortly thereafter.

10 or so million got chopped up pretty fast--the theory behind the death confiscation tax was to whittle an estate away to the point that when Heir one dies, the estate wasn't much bigger than what it was when he got it from his parents. If people live a normal lifespan (I won't get into the fact that estates covered by the death confiscation tax are in real dollars, far smaller than what they were when this nonsense started) the estate they take will normally grow to the point that with the second cut of the death tax, they will leave to the grand kids about the same their parents left to them.

if two generations die shortly appart the death confiscation tax is incredibly punitive
Click to expand...

I really don't know what is punitive about the death tax - punitive to who, the dead people? Yes, it may be unfortunant, but so what. It's not my responsibility to insure the good fortune of someone else, especially if they have not earned that good fortune. Bad things happen to everyone, suck it up and go forward.

I've suggested a non-taxable base inheritance of something in the neighborhood of half a milion dollars, and a tax of 50% above that. It's not like I have suggested that we sieze all inheritance from little kids. It's ashamed that little kids loose their parents, but are the children of rich people who die any more deserving of great fortunes than the children of poor people who die? The death or lack of one or both parents is a tragedy for both rich and poor kids. One former socio-economic class does is not entitled to more than another.

What is incredibly punitive is having to pay tax on money that you work your rear off to make. I dont see that "not getting lucky" is punitive at all.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Ok....so that explains why I'm taxed on income I didn't work for, so why exactly am I paying income tax? By your logic I shouldn't have to.

You're not just making excuses on why daddy gov't can tax me on money given to me by a dead person, are you?
Click to expand...

There is nothing in my logic that suggests that you should pay no income tax.

You and I and the fella leaning against the lamppost pay taxes, whatever KIND of taxes we pay, NOT to DADDY GUMMINT, but to each other, because in THIS country, we ARE the government.

and the reason we pay taxes at all, if you will forgive the condescending tone, is that we share lots of stuff, like roads, and parks and schools and soldiers and, well, as i say, lots of stuff and all that stuff has to be paid for. it would be impractical for you to be required to figger out how much each one gets on your own, so we agree (sorta) on how to pool monies and redistribute (EEK!) them.

which of YOUR revenue streams that money comes from really doesn't matter as long as some degree of fairness is involved... fairness defined NOT by DADDY GUMMINT but by you and me and the fella leaning against the lamppost. Income seems a reasonable resource to tax because it seems fair to most folks to tax their fellows on what they have. taxing folks for what the do not have is, aside from not very nice, impractical because one of the things they likely DO NOT have is the money to pay tax on what they do not have.

now, you have logic to criticize. knock yerself out.
geo.
 
TurtleDude said:
social engineering is not constitutionally proper basis for tax schemes
Click to expand...
and vague phrases make for bad argument.
the death tax discourages thrift
Click to expand...
firstly, that is not true. secondly it is irrelevant. thrift is a personal virtue and as such, not for you or me to consider as a predicate to policy. in fact, its social merits are definitely debatable - spending fuels economic growth... or haven't you been reading the papers? so... if yer on the short list, burn them jacksons on whiskey and bimbos... let the kids earn their own dissolution.
the death tax appeals to class envy and props up those politicians who push for class warfare
Click to expand...
firstly, there is not such thing as a tax on dying. the assertion has pretty much no meaning. do you mean to suggest that if we STOP taxing inherited wealth poor people will stop wanting to be rich. sorry, that is asinine.

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with class warfare... get ya out in fresh air.. a littel exercise... because if you think only the poor engage in it, you should get a clue.
the heirs certainly did more to earn it than a greedy government and envious voters
Click to expand...
if it can be demonstrated that the heirs did ANYTHING to earn it, it will not be inheritance, but income. and we will tax that at a greater rate. so, what is there to bitch about?
Thosee who support this tax never address the fact that those who earn wealth have a right to determine its disposition
Click to expand...
no we do not. they have the right to determine its disposition just as they have the rght free speech! in this nation YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE YER OWN CHOICES (as long as you are alive to execute those choices). Dead folks cannot determine anything.

geo.
 
imagep said:
I really don't know what is punitive about the death tax - punitive to who, the dead people? Yes, it may be unfortunant, but so what. It's not my responsibility to insure the good fortune of someone else, especially if they have not earned that good fortune. Bad things happen to everyone, suck it up and go forward.

I've suggested a non-taxable base inheritance of something in the neighborhood of half a milion dollars, and a tax of 50% above that. It's not like I have suggested that we sieze all inheritance from little kids. It's ashamed that little kids loose their parents, but are the children of rich people who die any more deserving of great fortunes than the children of poor people who die? The death or lack of one or both parents is a tragedy for both rich and poor kids. One former socio-economic class does is not entitled to more than another.

What is incredibly punitive is having to pay tax on money that you work your rear off to make. I dont see that "not getting lucky" is punitive at all.
Click to expand...

I don't support either an income tax or a death tax so there is no conflict in my position. I support only use taxes and consumption taxes. And a death tax is punitive. It punishes the families of those who are frugal and industrious. and it is motivated by envy and spite

why do you always talk about the heirs as deserving or undeserving. Its the parasitic voters and politicians who are the least deserving. When you make comments like that it is obvious to me that envy is motivating at least part of your position.

I am entitled to more than you if my father wished me to have his wealth and your father had less to give to you or gave less to you

end of story
 
Last edited:
Geo Patric said:
and vague phrases make for bad argument.

firstly, that is not true. secondly it is irrelevant. thrift is a personal virtue and as such, not for you or me to consider as a predicate to policy. in fact, its social merits are definitely debatable - spending fuels economic growth... or haven't you been reading the papers? so... if yer on the short list, burn them jacksons on whiskey and bimbos... let the kids earn their own dissolution.

firstly, there is not such thing as a tax on dying. the assertion has pretty much no meaning. do you mean to suggest that if we STOP taxing inherited wealth poor people will stop wanting to be rich. sorry, that is asinine.

and there is absolutely nothing wrong with class warfare... get ya out in fresh air.. a littel exercise... because if you think only the poor engage in it, you should get a clue.

if it can be demonstrated that the heirs did ANYTHING to earn it, it will not be inheritance, but income. and we will tax that at a greater rate. so, what is there to bitch about?

no we do not. they have the right to determine its disposition just as they have the rght free speech! in this nation YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE YER OWN CHOICES (as long as you are alive to execute those choices). Dead folks cannot determine anything.

geo.
Click to expand...

semantic games serving as a facade to hide your envy and spite
 
Geo Patric said:
There is nothing in my logic that suggests that you should pay no income tax.

You and I and the fella leaning against the lamppost pay taxes, whatever KIND of taxes we pay, NOT to DADDY GUMMINT, but to each other, because in THIS country, we ARE the government.

and the reason we pay taxes at all, if you will forgive the condescending tone, is that we share lots of stuff, like roads, and parks and schools and soldiers and, well, as i say, lots of stuff and all that stuff has to be paid for. it would be impractical for you to be required to figger out how much each one gets on your own, so we agree (sorta) on how to pool monies and redistribute (EEK!) them.

which of YOUR revenue streams that money comes from really doesn't matter as long as some degree of fairness is involved... fairness defined NOT by DADDY GUMMINT but by you and me and the fella leaning against the lamppost. Income seems a reasonable resource to tax because it seems fair to most folks to tax their fellows on what they have. taxing folks for what the do not have is, aside from not very nice, impractical because one of the things they likely DO NOT have is the money to pay tax on what they do not have.

now, you have logic to criticize. knock yerself out.
geo.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I actually agree with your logic. There is a lot of practicality in income taxes and income taxe makes a lot more sense than some of the other taxes that have been proposed (like sales tax).

It just seems to me that defering taxes until death is less economically harmful. Essentially the "death tax" is a tax on the "excess" wealth that one has aquired during life. By "excess" I mean it is the wealth that is more than what one consumed. When we tax income we are very likely not taxing "excess", we may be or we may not be, can't know for sure until ones life is over. Income tax may very well be siezing money that one may need to invest. How many people have a great business idea but don't have the money to make it happen because they are not allowed to keep all the money that they make when they make it? Income tax may be siezing money that someone needs for healthcare or food or for shelter. We have no way of knowing until death - the bottom line accounting happens at death.

If someone does not get as much inheritance due to the death tax, then that is sad, but it is no more sad than the heir of a poor person not getting any money. In both cases neither heir earned the money, why should anyone feel "cheated" out of something that was not theirs to begin with and that they did not earn? It's just as sad that I will never inherit any of Bill Gates money as it is his children never inheriting 100% of his money. Me not getting rich from something that I did not earn sucks and it sucks no more than someone else nt getting rich from something that they did not earn.

It also evens out the playing field so that we can all keep more of what we work for at the expense of keeping less of what we don't work for. It's a tradeoff, everything in life is a tradeoff, it's really no different, but I believe it is a good tradeoff. Lets say that Pops never had to pay income tax. Don't you think that his estate would be worth much more than if he was taxed out the arse while he was alive? I would be just as greatful to recieve half of a $2 million estate as I would all of a $1 million estate. It's all the same to me.
 
TurtleDude said:
THis is pure Nonsense

tell me what did the government and voters do to earn the wealth more than the heirs?
Click to expand...
built roads, educated the populace, preserved wilderness, fought wars... and so on.
ANd YOU IGNORE the fact that the person who owns it ought to be able to determine where it goes.
Click to expand...
yup. she does. and as soon as she does the recipient pays taxes on the generous boost to their income.
The heirs expect nothing
Click to expand...
wow... you have amazing insights. you not only read minds but whole groups of minds at once!
you think there should be no taxes at all.

yer gonna have to move somewhere else to realize that. and yer gonna have a hell of a time finding that somewhere else because no such place exists. of course, you could have a REVOLUTION! yeah, baby.... tear down the damned gummint... you and all yer pals (i am sure there are sufficient) can get guns and... um... well... whose gonna pay fer em? I KNOW!

you could tax each other.

this is the most idiotic argument radical right wing nuts make.

geo.
Click to expand...
 
Geo Patric said:
built roads, educated the populace, preserved wilderness, fought wars... and so on.

yup. she does. and as soon as she does the recipient pays taxes on the generous boost to their income.
wow... you have amazing insights. you not only read minds but whole groups of minds at once!
you think there should be no taxes at all.

yer gonna have to move somewhere else to realize that. and yer gonna have a hell of a time finding that somewhere else because no such place exists. of course, you could have a REVOLUTION! yeah, baby.... tear down the damned gummint... you and all yer pals (i am sure there are sufficient) can get guns and... um... well... whose gonna pay fer em? I KNOW!

you could tax each other.

this is the most idiotic argument radical right wing nuts make.

geo.
Click to expand...

I understand your need to hide envy with arguments that soaking the rich is good for the country. Your greed for the money of others is obvious and your attempts to provde a facade to disguise it do not work with me

its time for people like you to pay more taxes if you want more government rather than scheming to deprive others of their wealth given those you target already pay far more than their fair share
Click to expand...
 
imagep said:
Thanks. I actually agree with your logic. There is a lot of practicality in income taxes and income taxe makes a lot more sense than some of the other taxes that have been proposed (like sales tax).

It just seems to me that defering taxes until death is less economically harmful. Essentially the "death tax" is a tax on the "excess" wealth that one has aquired during life. By "excess" I mean it is the wealth that is more than what one consumed. When we tax income we are very likely not taxing "excess", we may be or we may not be, can't know for sure until ones life is over. Income tax may very well be siezing money that one may need to invest. How many people have a great business idea but don't have the money to make it happen because they are not allowed to keep all the money that they make when they make it? Income tax may be siezing money that someone needs for healthcare or food or for shelter. We have no way of knowing until death - the bottom line accounting happens at death.

If someone does not get as much inheritance due to the death tax, then that is sad, but it is no more sad than the heir of a poor person not getting any money. In both cases neither heir earned the money, why should anyone feel "cheated" out of something that was not theirs to begin with and that they did not earn? It's just as sad that I will never inherit any of Bill Gates money as it is his children never inheriting 100% of his money. Me not getting rich from something that I did not earn sucks and it sucks no more than someone else nt getting rich from something that they did not earn.

It also evens out the playing field so that we can all keep more of what we work for at the expense of keeping less of what we don't work for. It's a tradeoff, everything in life is a tradeoff, it's really no different, but I believe it is a good tradeoff. Lets say that Pops never had to pay income tax. Don't you think that his estate would be worth much more than if he was taxed out the arse while he was alive? I would be just as greatful to recieve half of a $2 million estate as I would all of a $1 million estate. It's all the same to me.
Click to expand...

you try to compare a natural misfortune with a government imposed confiscation

that is pathetic

its like saying its as bad that Joe Public cannot win the olympics because he is slow as it is that the government shot Tyson Gay in his leg so he couldn't compete
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom