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 138 of 195 FirstFirst ... 3888128136137138139140148188 ... LastLast
Results 1,371 to 1,380 of 1947

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

  1. #1371
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    But in the USA and other socially liberal (with regards to welfare) countries, we are killing ourselves with social programs at the expense of those who are productive. This is only sustainable for a certain amount of time- that is, until taxation is heavy enough that the working can no longer afford to pay the bill. We are nearing that point right now. We have a population in which almost half is not paying anything in the way of federal income taxes, which is the largest chunk of tax monies that we bring into the federal revenues. We are aging, a higher percent of people are moving onto SS and Medicare, a huge number of people are moving into federally funded disability programs, where they will remain until they die, and now we are looking at a huge federal expenditure on health care that we can't afford.

    When the government keeps taxing those who work, to pay for an ever-expanding number who don't, it is redistribution of wealth that will eventually bring us all down to poverty-level. Our manufacturing base has been diminishing, and our primary economic sector is now service-based.

    Whatever you fund grows. Throw money into welfare, you get more people living on welfare. It doesn't lift them out of poverty, it creates more poverty-minded people. Fund women having illigitimate babies, and you get more illigitimate babies. Fund sickness and disability, and you get more sickness and disability. Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not, we are creating more of the problems we have because we so willingly fund them. Most people are like water. They will take the path of least resistance and settle in where they know they can subsist, because it's easier that way. Life is hard, and when you let people believe that it's not, you are creating an enslavement-minded individual who will willingly let the government take from others to give to them. We are creating a terrible mind-set in the modern American these days, and we will pay dearly for it- all of us.
    I don't know enough about the details of the American welfare systems, so I can't really comment on it. My impression based on what I see in Germany makes me think that abuse of welfare is a problem, so what you describe is one side of the problem.

    On the other side, I believe that is just that: Abuse of a generally good system. Many people *want* to work, try their best to get a job, but there simply are no jobs for them, especially in the current situation. That especially concerns low-skilled and older people. They need support. (And that's not even mentioning people who really are incapable of working, like handicapped or ill people who simply cost more than they can possibly bring in on the free market.) I don't think these people in need should be punished for a few rotten apples abusing the system.

    On the other side, I see there is a class of people which is very wealthy, but refuses to contribute its share. Not really in the productive sector, the middle to upper middle class of hard-working and responsible enterprisers, but in the financial sector. Thanks to 30 years of constant lobby work by the financial "industry", they have to pay fewer taxes than all others and the financial sector has been deregulated more and more. Part of the economic troubles we're in is because of this deregulation (other reasons include irresponsible fiscal policies and spending by the state).

    And we see a degree of irresponsibility in the finance sector that is not just unfair towards the poor, but a slap in the face of free markets standards too: Ideally, on a free market, an enterpriser has the responsibility for his actions. When his company fails, he fails too and gets bankrupt. But in the financial sector, when some broker gambles away billions of euros/dollars which don't even belong to him, he gets fired in the worst case, but gets compensations of millions, more than many workers make in their whole life. Most of the time, they are not even held responsible personally. The market correction mechanism is void, because even losing is no incentive to do better work anymore.

    And the money they are gambling away are often savings and pensions of hard working people who were told their money is safe and who cannot be expected to know much about the financial sector. All they know is their money is gone.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the finance sector is evil, or that that their work is meaningless or unncessary, I'm just saying they should contribute like everybody else does. A financial transaction tax was in the debate here, the German conservatives now support it too (Merkel's Christian Democrats), but their smaller junior coalition partner, the libertarian FDP, is strictly against it -- the lobby work is bearing its fruits. And guess what tax rate is in debate? 0.15%. Zero point one five percent. Tell that an average "plumber Joe" or even a middle class enterpriser running a supermarket, asking him how much he has to pay for taxes, and he'll break out in laughter.
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  2. #1372
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

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

    And those that want to work or are actually working make up the majority of the poor. In return for their continuing efforts to conform we lump them in with the rest that are seen as losers and ridicule them daily, they're social pariahs. Yeah - that's incentive! Pay lousy wages, don't provide enough 40hr/wk jobs for all of us, then make fun of me when I can't get out of poverty.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  3. #1373
    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 German guy View Post
    But that's the job of government: Government has to provide it for everybody equally, rich as well as poor.

    Because if hiring people to protect you was a private matter, those who are rich could hire the larger private army to force down those who are poor, who cannot afford paying a large private army or any army at all.

    That's the idea behind the monopoly of force of government. But you are right, of course, that government can be corrupt. That doesn't mean, though, that privatizing security would be better. It would be "the law of the jungle" you mentioned.
    You know, I think you might have convinced me that it could be government's legitimate role to provide defense services to everyone. I could envision and accept a government whose sole legitimate function was to provide for a military, peace officers, and courts, so that everyone was equally defended and had access to dispute resolution services. As long as the purpose of government was solely to provide this mutual defense, I think I'd support such a system. This way, everyone would pay the same fee for the same protection, and the rich could not hire the larger private army to force down those the poor.

  4. #1374
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:02 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,830

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

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    On the other side, I see there is a class of people which is very wealthy, but refuses to contribute its share. Not really in the productive sector, the middle to upper middle class of hard-working and responsible enterprisers, but in the financial sector. Thanks to 30 years of constant lobby work by the financial "industry", they have to pay fewer taxes than all others and the financial sector has been deregulated more and more. Part of the economic troubles we're in is because of this deregulation (other reasons include irresponsible fiscal policies and spending by the state).

    And we see a degree of irresponsibility in the finance sector that is not just unfair towards the poor, but a slap in the face of free markets standards too: Ideally, on a free market, an enterpriser has the responsibility for his actions. When his company fails, he fails too and gets bankrupt. But in the financial sector, when some broker gambles away billions of euros/dollars which don't even belong to him, he gets fired in the worst case, but gets compensations of millions, more than many workers make in their whole life. Most of the time, they are not even held responsible personally. The market correction mechanism is void, because even losing is no incentive to do better work anymore.

    And the money they are gambling away are often savings and pensions of hard working people who were told their money is safe and who cannot be expected to know much about the financial sector. All they know is their money is gone.

    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the finance sector is evil, or that that their work is meaningless or unncessary, I'm just saying they should contribute like everybody else does. A financial transaction tax was in the debate here, the German conservatives now support it too (Merkel's Christian Democrats), but their smaller junior coalition partner, the libertarian FDP, is strictly against it -- the lobby work is bearing its fruits. And guess what tax rate is in debate? 0.15%. Zero point one five percent. Tell that an average "plumber Joe" or even a middle class enterpriser running a supermarket, asking him how much he has to pay for taxes, and he'll break out in laughter.
    A financial transactions tax on investment purchases and sales of just one percent would be a good start here.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  5. #1375
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    But in the USA and other socially liberal (with regards to welfare) countries, we are killing ourselves with social programs at the expense of those who are productive. This is only sustainable for a certain amount of time- that is, until taxation is heavy enough that the working can no longer afford to pay the bill. We are nearing that point right now.
    How do you reconcile such claims with the simple facts that federal tax burdens are at 60-year lows and there is no such thing as a "social program" that costs half as much as military pay and retirement? Why aren't you whining about how we can't afford to pay the bill for all these frilly benefits to all these soldier-boys?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    We have a population in which almost half is not paying anything in the way of federal income taxes, which is the largest chunk of tax monies that we bring into the federal revenues.
    There are two problems here. First, the half you are talking about doesn't have enough income to pay any federal income taxes anymore, and second, the half you aren't talking about has plenty of income alright, but still doesn't pay enough federal income taxes. Bush sent them all off on a tax holiday, and now they don't want to come back.

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    We are aging, a higher percent of people are moving onto SS and Medicare, a huge number of people are moving into federally funded disability programs, where they will remain until they die, and now we are looking at a huge federal expenditure on health care that we can't afford.
    The huge expenditure on health care that we couldn't have afforded was the one looming in the event that we DIDN'T enact HCR. PPACA will not be a cure-all by any means, but it is a major step in the right driection. SS is meanwhile perfectly well funded for decades even if we do nothing at all to reinforce it. Medicare will start receiving a cash infusion from the 3.8% surtax on unearned income that goes into effect in 2013. That puts it on solid ground through the mid-2020's at least, but it will need further work. It's principal problem of course is the ass-backward for-profit, fee-for-service, private-sector health care system that it is plugged into.

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    When the government keeps taxing those who work, to pay for an ever-expanding number who don't, it is redistribution of wealth that will eventually bring us all down to poverty-level.
    So stop redistributing wealth to the wealthy. Did you see soaring poverty rates during the 1990's? Were there somehow no rich people at that time?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Our manufacturing base has been diminishing...
    LOL! We are by quite a large margin the largest manufacturing economy in the world. What you are whining over this time is that the number of manufacturing JOBS has been declining, and so it has. In fact it has declined in ALL of the top twelve manufacturing economies since the 1990's, and US losses are only about average for the group. Consider poor China. They've lost more than 13 million manufacturing jobs in that time. That's more than the total number that the US has.

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    ...and our primary economic sector is now service-based.
    So? Not much more than a hundred years ago, we went from being an agricultural to an industrial economy. Some people whined about that as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Whatever you fund grows. Throw money into welfare, you get more people living on welfare.
    False premise. Also irrational and counter-factual. Thanks largely to the War on Poverty for instance, poverty rates were effectivley cut in half during the 1960's. Did you take that into account? How about its tendency to climb during Republican administrations and fall during Democratic administrations ever since? Some that of course may well be due just to the general economic ineptitude of Republicans, but still.

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    It doesn't lift them out of poverty, it creates more poverty-minded people. Fund women having illigitimate babies, and you get more illigitimate babies. Fund sickness and disability, and you get more sickness and disability.
    Yes, it's just happeneing left and right -- people infecting themselves, poking their own eyes out, cutting off their own limbs with a chainsaw. Do you expect to be taken seriously with brfainless notions like these? (What happened when we funded "abstinence only" sex ed, by the way? Huge outbreak of abstinence?)

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not, we are creating more of the problems we have because we so willingly fund them. Most people are like water. They will take the path of least resistance and settle in where they know they can subsist, because it's easier that way.
    Speak for yourself, dear, and easier than what? Ever tried living at a susbsistence level? Nobody likes it. We have more people on assistance today because of the economic collapse engineered by a bunch of dingbat Republicans. Had you heard of it? It was in all the papers. And can you believe it, the sponsors of it now try to scapegoat the victims! What a bunch of low-lifes! And of course, if you are able-bodied and not caring for a dependent full-time, there are typically work requirements if you want to continue receiving benefits. Doesn't sound like you've bothered to look into any of that either.

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Life is hard, and when you let people believe that it's not, you are creating an enslavement-minded individual who will willingly let the government take from others to give to them. We are creating a terrible mind-set in the modern American these days, and we will pay dearly for it- all of us.
    That's pure unadulterated right-wing crapola. Why don't you tell us again about all those WMD in Iraq?

  6. #1376
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Lizzie, to add to what you just said, the progressive tax system has never proven itself able to support the welfare state.
    Gibberish. No matter how large hyperallergics imagine it to be, the "welfare state" is and has always been but a small part of overall public spending. Public spending of course depends on two things -- total revenue and total borrowing. The means by which total revenue is derived are not relevant to the equation at all.

  7. #1377
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    Ah yes, the old "all the cool kids are doing it" argument. Sorry but I don't base my ethical behavior on what all the cool kids are doing. My position is that it is unethical for one person to initiate aggression against another. Obviously you disagree. I'm still not going to initiate force against people, just because you think I should.
    Being asked to pay for the things you consume does not represent an initiation of force. Of course, if you selfishly refuse to pay for the things you have consumed, that might be a different story.

  8. #1378
    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 Cardinal Fang View Post
    Being asked to pay for the things you consume does not represent an initiation of force. Of course, if you selfishly refuse to pay for the things you have consumed, that might be a different story.
    I am 100% in agreement with you. Nobody should be forced to give away what is theirs without being paid. To demand otherwise would be selfish on the part of those taking that for which they refuse to pay. If one wants something, one must offer something in exchange and find someone willing to make the desired trade. Otherwise, one is simply stealing.

  9. #1379
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    I am 100% in agreement with you. Nobody should be forced to give away what is theirs without being paid. To demand otherwise would be selfish on the part of those taking that for which they refuse to pay. If one wants something, one must offer something in exchange and find someone willing to make the desired trade. Otherwise, one is simply stealing.
    So quit whining about taxation. Taxes are money one OWES for public goods and services provided on one's behalf or in protection of one's interests.

  10. #1380
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    You know, I think you might have convinced me that it could be government's legitimate role to provide defense services to everyone. I could envision and accept a government whose sole legitimate function was to provide for a military, peace officers, and courts, so that everyone was equally defended and had access to dispute resolution services. As long as the purpose of government was solely to provide this mutual defense, I think I'd support such a system. This way, everyone would pay the same fee for the same protection, and the rich could not hire the larger private army to force down those the poor.
    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    I am 100% in agreement with you. Nobody should be forced to give away what is theirs without being paid. To demand otherwise would be selfish on the part of those taking that for which they refuse to pay. If one wants something, one must offer something in exchange and find someone willing to make the desired trade. Otherwise, one is simply stealing.
    I hope you'll forgive me if I find these contradictory.

    If it's voluntary then the poor, who have less to lose, may decide not to pay and the rich may decide not to pay, either, since they can afford their own superior security services. If it's not voluntary then someone will no doubt be forced to pay. Could you explain?
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

Posting Permissions

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