View Poll Results: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

Voters
153. You may not vote on this poll
  • There should be no inheritance tax of any amount of money or assets.

    84 54.90%
  • The first 5 million dollars should be exempt. After that the tax rate should be 35%.

    21 13.73%
  • The first 5 million dollars should be exempt. After that the tax rate should be 50%.

    12 7.84%
  • The first 1 million should be exempt. After that the rate should be 50%.

    19 12.42%
  • No exempt amount. Tax at 35% from the get-go.

    9 5.88%
  • No exempt amount. Tax at 50% from the get-go.

    1 0.65%
  • Abolish all inheritance. In other words, tax 100%.

    7 4.58%
Page 115 of 195 FirstFirst ... 1565105113114115116117125165 ... LastLast
Results 1,141 to 1,150 of 1947

Thread: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

  1. #1141
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Your posts are self evident that you do need lecturing about patriotism. It is sad to read about the greed of more more more for me me me when you already proclaim riches and bounty beyond 99% of the nation. it is sad and pathetic. Patriotism is wanting what is best for the nation - and that means 311 million Americans almost all who have little or nothing in common with those who worship Mammon.

    Turtle - I want nothing of anyones wealth. I am doing very well on my own thank you. I do want a more just and fair tax system for the entire nation - but that has nothing to do with my own personal gain. In fact, I expect to lose and pay more as an individual.
    you constantly bray that others need to pay more taxes

    we don't NEED to pay more taxes

    we NEED the government to SPEND LESS even if that costs YOUR party VOTES

    and I really tire of your posts pretending that your motivations are noble and mine are based on greed. I don't impose costs on other people. YOU DO

  2. #1142
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,827

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you constantly bray that others need to pay more taxes

    we don't NEED to pay more taxes

    we NEED the government to SPEND LESS even if that costs YOUR party VOTES

    and I really tire of your posts pretending that your motivations are noble and mine are based on greed. I don't impose costs on other people. YOU DO
    If you are that tired, perhaps I can recommend some therapy to ease your pain? A long vacation in the tropics away from computers would be a start.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #1143
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    If you are that tired, perhaps I can recommend some therapy to ease your pain? A long vacation in the tropics away from computers would be a start.

    maybe a world without those who want to take from others what they are unable to earn on their own

  4. #1144
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Penn's Woods
    Last Seen
    09-01-12 @ 09:09 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,984

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    maybe a world without those who want to take from others what they are unable to earn on their own
    This side of the Garden of Eden, I just don't see such a state of affairs existing. The best that can be hoped for is to convince enough people that taking other people's stuff is wrong that they can prevail against those predisposed to loot for a living. It's a tough battle, as looting always has a certain appeal to certain people.

  5. #1145
    Guru
    Jryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    01-12-16 @ 09:07 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,987
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you constantly bray that others need to pay more taxes

    we don't NEED to pay more taxes

    we NEED the government to SPEND LESS even if that costs YOUR party VOTES

    and I really tire of your posts pretending that your motivations are noble and mine are based on greed. I don't impose costs on other people. YOU DO
    Christ, his argument is sound logic. Whether subliminally or not I can almost bet you want lower taxes for personal profit. You feel entitled to every $ you earn, as does everyone else, so I actually don't blame you for wanting lower profits for personal gain, its just human nature...
    I'm coming to see that no matter what law we regulate, be it the stand your ground act, there is never an objective morally right answer to any morale question; in fact, since there are multiple objectively right answers to every moral question that leaves us with a lot of grey area and a lot of black area (not in the racial since).
    -Jryan

  6. #1146
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jryan View Post
    Christ, his argument is sound logic. Whether subliminally or not I can almost bet you want lower taxes for personal profit. You feel entitled to every $ you earn, as does everyone else, so I actually don't blame you for wanting lower profits for personal gain, its just human nature...
    we have too much government and too many people who want others to pay for the massive government they want

  7. #1147
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Your NewsMax pedigree is betraying you. It may take many hundreds of poor people to define a group that has control over as much money as a single rich person, but all of those poor people spend all of the money they get very quickly. They have pressing and immediate needs on a continual basis
    That doesn't mean ****. If we are talking about maximizing growth taxing the rich greater to cover the poor does not maximize potential, something you are trying to walk around with this obvious crap.

    Rich people have no such needs. The rich already have everything they need plus everything they want, and they still have large piles of money sitting around. If you give them more money, they have to sit around and think what to do with it.
    Rich people when they spend money even for their wants supply people with more jobs than the poor do with their needs alone if they do in fact cover those needs with the money they have that is. It hardly matters what money they have left over for other ventures as they have already done more than the all the poor combined.

    And it's quite likely that what they will eventually decide to do is pull that money right out of the real economy and send it off to the financial economy, where it will spend its time chasing after little pieces of paper while producing exactly no new demand and no new jobs at all. Giving money to rich people is a way to slow down the economy. Giving money to poor people is a way to speed it up.
    The financial economy isn't' just pushing money around but a way to make money and grow the economy. Giving poor people money can cause advancement if the poor people use the money correctly, but usually speaking they do not. Rich people are much the same, giving them money does not drive the economy forward. The fact giving people money DOES not grow the economy. However, no one is getting money from lower taxes so the premise of the idea is actually talking about a different subject but you clearly aren't aware of it.

    The Tax Cuts for the Rich did indeed do exactly what Bush intended them to do. They gave a whole pile of money to people who were already wealthy. In economic terms however, this was a disastrous event and the start of a headlong national decline from one of the all-time high points in our economic history to one of the all-time low points. This astonishing turn-around could not have been accomplished without Bush's idiotic reliance on policies drawn from laissez-faire free-market capitalism as part of an effort to enrich the wealthy and give trickle-down economics a chance to work. The fact that none of this had ever worked in the past simply didn't bother him. Hence, we ended up with a total trainwreck.
    First off, Bush was not laissez-faire believer nor did he practice such things. Second, the bush tax cuts are not connected to a type of crisis that occurred later on as all of that was due to policies that occurred before he become a president. Your claim it is the bush recession is not supported by any sort of timeline of policies.

    In a contrast that could hardly be any more stark, the targeted stimulus programs contained in ARRA worked alsmot exactly as had been planned and projected for them. Tax cuts and credits were targeted to small businesses and those earning less than $75K per year. Income support in the form of food stamps, UI benefits, and subsidies for COBRA health insurance premiums went to those most affected by the calamity of the Great Bush Recession and hence to those who would spend the funds quickly. (The alternative plan touted by Republicans was more tax cuts for the rich and mega-corporations. I wonder how that would have worked out.) In addiiton to short-term economic stimulus, ARRA provided medium-term support for jobs and incomes by funding more than 90,000 infrastructure jobs all across the country. There were some near you. There was also up-front funding for long-term programs in such areas as communications, health care, energy, and transportation. In combination with efforts to rebalance the financial system, this focused, targeted approach to economic stimulus ended in five months a recession that Bush had not put a dent in in fourteen months and sowed the seeds for the slow but steady recovery that Republicans have been trying to kill ever since.
    I guessing you can tell me again since you have been proven full of **** on this before by Cpwill what the projection of the growth of the economy was again?

    That's an interesting theory. What's the rationale behind that? Back in the real world meanwhile, because of the progressive income tax structure, tax dollars are withdrawn on average from a relatively high point on the income scale, then exactly the same dollars are immediately spent on average at a relatively lower point on the income scale. Government operations even in ordinary times are therefore mildly redistributive and mildly stimulative. For an average person, some 20-25% of what a few boneheads think of as their own "hard-earned money" comes directly or indirectly from government spending. It doesn't take very many degrees of Kevin Bacon to turn everybody (including TurtleDude) into just another pig feeding at the public trough.
    Sounds like an interesting theory you have there. Now if it was true.

    There are almost thirty million small busineses in the US but only about 750K large enough to be affected by increasing taxes on the top two brackets. About half of those are the LLC's that medical doctors have set up for themselves. Most of the rest are similar structures established by successful veterinarians, lawyers, accountants, actors, authors, athletes, hedge fund managers, and even a few economists. These are paper constructs set up for tax and liability purposes. They are not economic engines.
    Clearly, I realize that the term small business covers in shop one guy working all alone, all the way to a business employing many people. You can guess which I was talking about and you did, kinda. I do enjoy how you just frame your argument to be an insult on 750,000 businesses though.


    I don't think you have the first notion of how it is "dealt out". I bet for instance you wouldn't have had the first clue that ALL of the following combined -- SSI, the EITC, Section 8 housing, the Additional Child Care Credit, TANF, WIC, and S-CHIP -- cost about $15 billion less per year than Military Personnel & Retirement. Oh well.
    Comparing one over priced government service to a long list of services that all cost a great deal to make what you desire sound cheap? Great way to make a point.

    I'll send this off to the Nobel committee right away. Perhaps discovery of the Theory of Overall Want to Move Forward will seem significant in their eyes. Or not. What you are trying to get at I suppose is incentives, so to test those I'll make you a deal -- I'll give you peanuts per month, but you have to live like a pauper. Sound good? Ready to jump at that? People take that deal only when all the alternatives they have are worse. And as soon as they have better ones again, they back out of the deal. That's how incentives work.

    Nice way to avoid what I said. However, I'm interested why you would think I would care what the nobel committee thinks of just about anything? I was unaware they had any sort of creditability, relevance, or knowledge to speak of.

    No, this is basic made-up poppycock.
    Counter argument not found.

    Well, I'm glad you're here. After all, what fun is shooting fish in a barrel if there aren't any fish.
    Now if the guy shooting could hit the fish waiting to get shoot.
    Last edited by Henrin; 02-15-12 at 10:08 PM.

  8. #1148
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    LOWEST TAXES IN MORE THAN A HALF-CENTURY.... Confused far-right activists chose an odd time to launch a "Taxed Enough Already" revolt.

    Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

    Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

    Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

    "The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

    Of course, one of the driving factors for these low tax rates was last year's stimulus bill -- which included one of the largest middle-class tax breaks in U.S. history, which Republicans staunchly opposed, and which apparently inspired throngs of misguided conservatives to complain bitterly that they're "taxed enough already."

    Looking ahead, tax rates more in line with the recent norm -- say, tax rates of the 1990s, when the economy was strong and the budget was balanced -- would do wonders to reduce the deficit the right pretends to care about.

    The Washington Monthly
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #1149
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,634

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    LOWEST TAXES IN MORE THAN A HALF-CENTURY.... Confused far-right activists chose an odd time to launch a "Taxed Enough Already" revolt.

    Amid complaints about high taxes and calls for a smaller government, Americans paid their lowest level of taxes last year since Harry Truman's presidency, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data found.

    Some conservative political movements such as the "Tea Party" have criticized federal spending as being out of control. While spending is up, taxes have fallen to exceptionally low levels.

    Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8.% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010.

    "The idea that taxes are high right now is pretty much nuts," says Michael Ettlinger, head of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress.

    Of course, one of the driving factors for these low tax rates was last year's stimulus bill -- which included one of the largest middle-class tax breaks in U.S. history, which Republicans staunchly opposed, and which apparently inspired throngs of misguided conservatives to complain bitterly that they're "taxed enough already."

    Looking ahead, tax rates more in line with the recent norm -- say, tax rates of the 1990s, when the economy was strong and the budget was balanced -- would do wonders to reduce the deficit the right pretends to care about.

    The Washington Monthly
    when you start paying the same rates I do and when you start coughing up as much money as I do maybe you will have some standing to tell me how LOW rates are.

  10. #1150
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Wrong argument. There were low- and high-wage workers in 1960, and in 1970, and in 1980. The story is over what has been accidentally and deliberately done to the distribution of them from one end to the other since. This has been an era of ever-tightening concentrations of wealth and power among smaller and smaller circles with more an more people being excluded from either one. That's the issue. Smart and talented people have not gotten any smarter or more talented. Just wealthier and more powerful as members of a smaller and smaller club. Others need not apply.
    And..? What does that have to do with what I said? Oh right, nothing.

    LOL! The point was over what would happen if the OUTPUTS of those low-income jobs weren't provided, not what if it was different people doing them.
    His point was invalid. His point was hinting at the idea that low wage earners have power and can use this power to cause change if they left those jobs. The problem is as I explained, they have no power so practicing a nonexistent power will fail and those jobs they left would simply be filled very quickly.

    You uppity and unappreciative types fail to understand just whose shoulders it is that you are standing on. This is one reason why garbage strikes tend to be so effective. They start to drive the message home pretty quickly. Maybe we should cause nothing to happen when you flush the toilet for the next couple of weeks. I bet that would bring a few things to your early attention as well.
    Nope, I would wonder what is taking so long for the jobs to be replaced. Oh wait, I already know, government. Never mind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •