• 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!

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?

which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?


  • Total voters
    126
Status
Not open for further replies.
I merely observe the logical reasons behind the constant butt hurt whining from some

NO. What you are doing is attempting to tar peoples actual posts with a phone and false motive - namely that they only pursue a certain tax policy because they are failures. So just who is it who posts here who are trying to mask their actual motives about raising taxes due ot their own personal failures? Who is it?

This is just more nonsense from you where you attempt to demonize anyone who disagrees with you on this particular issue. It should not be tolerated and will not be tolerated. This gets to the very heart of why you post here and your tactics that you employ here.

This sort of thing must stop.

Either that or have the honestly to come forth and put names and quotes to your charges.

again - your own statement making this charge

what we do see is several people who constantly rant about the rich and want the rich to be taxed more apparently to salve their sense of failure
 
Last edited:
Uh huh. And that amendment was passed to nullify a more fair tax system that you for some reason didn't want me to present, wonder why that could be. As well the fourteenth could nullify the sixteenth if someone really wanted to press the issue due to the equal protections clause, you should know that since you have claimed to be a poli-sci professor.

If it doesn't make sense to you then I'll give you a simplified version, a multiple choice:
Billy must pay more in tax because _____________
a) He is black
b) He is Jewish
c) He is Catholic
d) He is gay
e) He makes over 25 thousand dollars a year

Which one is most likely to pass, and after such which one is most likely to have public support.

Bonus question: Of the above, which one follows a normal sense of the proper usage of the word justice.
1) None of the Above
2) None of these fits a proper usage of the word justice
- Feel free to choose one, you may skip this question if you do not understand it with no penalty.

The answer is F.

And F. is simple: because it is authorized by the United States Constitution in an amendment which pas passed by at least 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and ratified by the state legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

You really have no understanding of how our government works or why we have some of the laws we do have. Your own silly question proves that on top of all the other things you have said going back to the Constitution promising and guaranteeing language that is not in it but is actually found in the nations birth announcement. This is just the latest example. Or how about last weeks claim about government and how legislation is passed which you claimed was supported because you once interviewed somebody on the radio who was a legislator. Amazing stuff.
 
Last edited:
The answer is F.

And F. is simple: because it is authorized by the United States Constitution in an amendment which pas passed by at least 2/3 of bout Houses of Congress and ratified by the state legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

You really have no understanding of how our government works or why we have some of the laws we do have.
So.......instead of adressing income discrimination you are hiding behind an amendment nullifying another amendment that does not hold up to the fourteenth amendment. Noted, and F isn't an option.
 
So.......instead of adressing income discrimination you are hiding behind an amendment nullifying another amendment that does not hold up to the fourteenth amendment. Noted, and F isn't an option.

Do you realize that the language amending the Constitution itself CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT CHANGED PREVIOUS LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION?

My heavens. This is truly amazing.
 
Do you realize that the language amending the Constitution itself CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT CHANGED PREVIOUS LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION?

My heavens. This is truly amazing.
Do you not realize that constitutional amendments MAY NOT violate rights held under other parts? So do you care to answer the question of how the government may discriminate against people for what they have versus other factors or not? And if you truly feel that way do you care to answer how that is any less amoral than the latter?
 
Do you not realize that constitutional amendments MAY NOT violate rights held under other parts? So do you care to answer the question of how the government may discriminate against people for what they have versus other factors or not? And if you truly feel that way do you care to answer how that is any less amoral than the latter?

Is this another thing you learned interviewing people for radio? Because it certainly is NOT something you learned in any class on American Government? A persons income- is subject to taxation as authorized by Amendment XVI. Why is that not something you can understand?
 
Last edited:
"Lowest top rate in decades:

The maximum estate tax rate is currently 35 percent, the lowest top rate in 80 years, according to an IRS publication (“The Estate Tax: Ninety Years and Counting”) on the history of the tax. It’s also a big drop from the 55 percent rate that would have automatically gone into effect if Congress hadn’t acted. (Earlier legislation eliminated the federal estate tax in 2010 but had called for it to be reinstated with a $1 million exemption and a top rate of 55 percent in 2011.)"

https://www.wfconversations.com/transfer_wealth/family_wealth/article/lowest_top_tax_rate_in_decades_6_planning_tips/
 
The equal protection clause was never intended to apply to taxes. Even the Tax Protester FAQ (Tax Protester FAQ) doesn't need to demolish these arguments because nobody ever seems to try to make an equal protection case.

The Minnesota House research department (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clsstxep.htm) has this to say:
Most tax laws are subject to “rational basis” review under the Equal Protection Clause; to be constitutional they must simply have a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose.

The Equal Protection Clause was initially adopted primarily to limit or prohibit racial discrimination by the states. The courts have also applied it to proscribe other forms of invidious discrimination (e.g., based on religion, ethnicity, etc.). However, legislation often necessarily involves “discrimination” in the broader sense that groups of individuals or businesses are treated differently based on particular characteristics (e.g., amounts of income, type of business, uses of property, etc.) that in the abstract are unobjectionable. The clause was not intended to restrict legislation that imposed different tax or regulatory rules, for example, on retailers than on manufacturers. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed a stricter standard of review for laws that create “suspect classifications” or deprive someone of a “fundamental right” as a compared with more benign legislative classifications. The lines between the two categories (perhaps inevitably) blur at the edges. At times the Court has explicitly talked about a middle level of review.

Very few tax statutes have been struck down under the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally given states wide latitude to fashion tax classifications, perhaps more than in any other area of law. See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 41 (1973), where the Court noted: “[T]hat in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification.”
You also need to remember that the income tax amendment was passed at the height of the Progressive movement, which called for a progressive tax system (a coincidence using two different meanings of the word). Legislative intent again comes into play. If there had been any thought that unequal tax rates on income would have violated any constitutional principles the amendment could have specifically said so. It didn't then, and not even tax cranks have tried to make the case in the near 100 years since.

In addition, the line of argument of LaMid is based on a false premise, in that the higher tax rate is not on rich people, as asserted, but on higher income. Said higher income is potentially attainable by any person, and the tax is not on the person per se but on the income itself.

The argument is a non-starter.
 
Last edited:
Is this another thing you learned interviewing people for radio? Because it certainly is NOT something you learned in any class on American Government? A persons income- is subject to taxation as authorized by Amendment XVI. Why is that not something you can understand?
Why do you not understand that a constitutional amendment cannot violate another without repeal. All you do is get into diversion games without actually backing anything up, high school civics classes have more points than you have landed here. Again, why is it not discrimination to tax a persons work?
 
The equal protection clause was never intended to apply to taxes. Even the Tax Protester FAQ (Tax Protester FAQ) doesn't need to demolish these arguments because nobody ever seems to try to make an equal protection case.

The Minnesota House research department (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clsstxep.htm) has this to say:
Most tax laws are subject to “rational basis” review under the Equal Protection Clause; to be constitutional they must simply have a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose.

The Equal Protection Clause was initially adopted primarily to limit or prohibit racial discrimination by the states. The courts have also applied it to proscribe other forms of invidious discrimination (e.g., based on religion, ethnicity, etc.). However, legislation often necessarily involves “discrimination” in the broader sense that groups of individuals or businesses are treated differently based on particular characteristics (e.g., amounts of income, type of business, uses of property, etc.) that in the abstract are unobjectionable. The clause was not intended to restrict legislation that imposed different tax or regulatory rules, for example, on retailers than on manufacturers. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed a stricter standard of review for laws that create “suspect classifications” or deprive someone of a “fundamental right” as a compared with more benign legislative classifications. The lines between the two categories (perhaps inevitably) blur at the edges. At times the Court has explicitly talked about a middle level of review.

Very few tax statutes have been struck down under the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally given states wide latitude to fashion tax classifications, perhaps more than in any other area of law. See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 41 (1973), where the Court noted: “[T]hat in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification.”
You also need to remember that the income tax amendment was passed at the height of the Progressive movement, which called for a progressive tax system (a coincidence using two different meanings of the word). Legislative intent again comes into play. If there had been any thought that unequal tax rates on income would have violated any constitutional principles the amendment could have specifically said so. It didn't then, and not even tax cranks have tried to make the case in the near 100 years since.

In addition, the line of argument of LaMid is based on a false premise, in that the higher tax rate is not on rich people, as asserted, but on higher income. Said higher income is potentially attainable by any person, and the tax is not on the person per se but on the income itself.

The argument is a non-starter.
This may be the stupidest point I've ever seen. "Rich people aren't being taxed more, only higher earners" Do you even realize how ****ing stupid that sounds in playback?
 
Oh Bull ****. If people were truly concerned about a "just" tax policy they would argue for no estate taxes, single taxation, and either a flat or consumption tax and tailor spending accordingly.

Well, I will agree with you that people with a concern for "just" taxation will argue for no estate taxes and single taxation-- which is itself somewhat redundant, since estate taxes are inherently a form of double taxation-- but arguing that either a flat tax or a consumption tax are "just" is based on the economically flawed assumption that a person's last dollar of income, in terms of utility, is worth as much to them as their first dollar. This simply isn't true. The dollars that a person must earn to pay their necessary expenses have a much higher utility value than their disposable income, and each dollar of disposable income provides a correspondingly smaller utility to its owner up to a point-- should someone be so lucky!-- that more dollars simply do not and could not improve their standard of living at all.

It's only in investing that later dollars are worth more than earlier dollars-- and then, the purpose of those investments is to provide either more disposable income now or to provide for one's income in the future, when those dollars will exhibit the same diminishing returns of utility.

That's why flat income taxes are typically only supported by conservative and libertarian politicians; even the economists favored by flat-taxers generally shy away from endorsing such proposals, because they know that they are fundamentally unjust and more importantly, economically destructive. Flat tax schemes cannot support even just the weight of the few government programs that hardline conservatives favor, much less the weight of the programs favored by moderate conservatives and centrists.

The fact is that the wealthy are taxed more for no other reason than they have more. If you substituted the reasons for a different tax rate or took from an estate because of the color of skin, religion, or other factors you would be in violation of the equal protections clause of the fourteenth, so substitute rich for any other reason and you would be guilty of bias, the fact is that taxing someone based on an arbitrary amount of wealth you consider "enough" is in fact unjust.

Yes. The difference between being "wealthy", though, and being "black" or "gay" or "catholic" is that there is a qualitative difference in being wealthy as pertains to taxation: they can afford to pay more. Or to put it in blunt terms: all taxation hurts, but it hurts rich people less. Economic justice isn't-- and shouldn't-- be about spreading the wealth to people who haven't earned it, but it absolutely should include spreading the pain around to the people who feel it least.

The problem with the tax structure the way it is constructed now is that it allows the people with the least tax burden-- or even a negative tax burden, which is morally anathema-- is to increase the burden on the people bearing the most of it without increasing the portion of the burden they carry themselves. It creates a massive perverse incentive to create more and more government programs without considering how to pay for them; since normal people don't pay for them, the only way to encourage them to restrain spending is to make irrational and emotionally-laden appeals to notions of justice we all know are logically faulty at best and morally dubious at worst.

It has essentially reduced our political process to two camps of slavering beasts: one camp demanding unlimited bread and circuses for welfare parasites at the expense of productive citizens, and one camp demanding regressive taxation schemes and government cuts for rent-seeking parasites at the expense of productive citizens. The only hope that productive citizens have in this system of political insanity is to attach themselves to one camp or the other regardless of its incompatibility with their own best interests.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Also, this thread is still Upstairs. I would caution other posters to keep that in mind and start acting like it.
 
Well, I will agree with you that people with a concern for "just" taxation will argue for no estate taxes and single taxation-- which is itself somewhat redundant, since estate taxes are inherently a form of double taxation-- but arguing that either a flat tax or a consumption tax are "just" is based on the economically flawed assumption that a person's last dollar of income, in terms of utility, is worth as much to them as their first dollar. This simply isn't true. The dollars that a person must earn to pay their necessary expenses have a much higher utility value than their disposable income, and each dollar of disposable income provides a correspondingly smaller utility to its owner up to a point-- should someone be so lucky!-- that more dollars simply do not and could not improve their standard of living at all.
I do agree here. As for the discretionary income argument, my goal in debating is to get to a point where people understand that there is a depreciation effect on the dollar right now which is caused by spending and other government induced factors all paid for by unjust taxation. The ultimate goal of all of us should be to bring the utility aspect to a smaller ratio allowing more dollars to be free for investment or play rather than bleeding them out due to taxation and hidden taxes.

It's only in investing that later dollars are worth more than earlier dollars-- and then, the purpose of those investments is to provide either more disposable income now or to provide for one's income in the future, when those dollars will exhibit the same diminishing returns of utility.
Very true.

That's why flat income taxes are typically only supported by conservative and libertarian politicians; even the economists favored by flat-taxers generally shy away from endorsing such proposals, because they know that they are fundamentally unjust and more importantly, economically destructive. Flat tax schemes cannot support even just the weight of the few government programs that hardline conservatives favor, much less the weight of the programs favored by moderate conservatives and centrists.
I use flat taxes more as a last resort. I personally believe a consumption tax is the best way to go. It is more of a value on purchase rather than taxing on labor and investment, it's easier to simplify, and most importantly is the most predictable. People who want the rich to pay more don't realize that with a larger disposable income and a predictable tax base they would buy more and invest more which would still lead to more taxes paid but there would be more value to the taxes so the payment is by choice. The counter argument is on labor and gains, which to me is a punitive stance.


Yes. The difference between being "wealthy", though, and being "black" or "gay" or "catholic" is that there is a qualitative difference in being wealthy as pertains to taxation: they can afford to pay more. Or to put it in blunt terms: all taxation hurts, but it hurts rich people less. Economic justice isn't-- and shouldn't-- be about spreading the wealth to people who haven't earned it, but it absolutely should include spreading the pain around to the people who feel it least.
Sure, being wealthy people can "pay more" at this particular moment, but there is a threshold and frankly the way it's structured now leads to people shutting things down if they are at the borderline between brackets. If one is ridiculously wealthy they can pay more, but then again that is also less investment and purchasing money and that means less in the private sector. If for instance we freed up more money then more taxpayers can be created and thus we can lessen the tax burden by increasing the pool of tax payers.
The problem with the tax structure the way it is constructed now is that it allows the people with the least tax burden-- or even a negative tax burden, which is morally anathema-- is to increase the burden on the people bearing the most of it without increasing the portion of the burden they carry themselves. It creates a massive perverse incentive to create more and more government programs without considering how to pay for them; since normal people don't pay for them, the only way to encourage them to restrain spending is to make irrational and emotionally-laden appeals to notions of justice we all know are logically faulty at best and morally dubious at worst.
Completely agree.
It has essentially reduced our political process to two camps of slavering beasts: one camp demanding unlimited bread and circuses for welfare parasites at the expense of productive citizens, and one camp demanding regressive taxation schemes and government cuts for rent-seeking parasites at the expense of productive citizens. The only hope that productive citizens have in this system of political insanity is to attach themselves to one camp or the other regardless of its incompatibility with their own best interests.
I agree here as well. Then again you are addressing a guy who wants both of the current parties to die out and leave room for new blood that will be honest about our current state of the Union.
 
My problem with consumption taxes is that unless necessary goods are exempted, they disproportionately affect the poor and middle class and have almost no effect at all upon the wealthy-- who largely consume only about as much as the upper middle class, with the bulk of their economic activity being either charitable or investment. We shouldn't discourage investment, but we absolutely cannot afford to discourage consumption, even of luxury goods. Especially luxury goods, considering the role that the various entertainment industries play in our overall economy.

I think the progressive income tax is the way to go-- it just needs to be reformed to correct for the undesirable factors, such as negative tax burdens and the ability for people to vote for tax increases that don't affect their tax rates.
 
This may be the stupidest point I've ever seen. "Rich people aren't being taxed more, only higher earners" Do you even realize how ****ing stupid that sounds in playback?

The reality is a simple one and cannot be denied: The wealthy are not taxed as a class of people. Income is taxed as an amount earned on a schedule and the individual earning it is responsible for making their tax payment. In fact, to say that the rich are the target is simply not true. One can be rich... very rich.... dripping with wealth in fact ...... but if one has no income for that year, they pay no income tax for that year. It is not the wealthy or the rich who are the target of the tax but it is individuals earning a certain income. And the income tax does not target merely the wealthy - it applies to middle income earners as well. So it clearly is not targeting a class of people simply for their wealth. A very wealthy person can avoid the income tax by simply not having income in that particular year.

On the flip side, one can have a very good year placing them in the top bracket of 35% but still not posses the assets or collected wealth to make them rich or wealthy. Somebody who had been earning 35K$ every year can go to the casino, hit it for $400,000.00 and they do not suddenly move to the upper tier of Americans as wealthy. They can pay some bills, buy a new car or two, maybe pay off the house and put something aside if they are prudent, but they are not suddenly going to the country club and rubbing shoulders with cream of the social register. It just does not happen that way even thought you are in the top bracket for that year.



A racial minority is a racial minority each and every year and belongs to an identified class over which they have no control. The same with gender and ethnicity (sex change surgery noted but it is statistically insignificant). Age changes with the calendar but one has no control over it. Religion is a protected class as it falls under the first amendment.

None of those characteristics apply to a person making money on the income tax schedule.
 
Last edited:
I do not see how you made that jump. My pojnt is the opposite of that assertion.

Your point was, but your statement implied otherwise when you brought up the fact that jobs have other risks besides financial.

To adopt the restrictive rules of an academic debate and pretend that there is only one type of risk - FINANCIAL RISK - that is important is going to give us a false picture of the citizens concerns.

That statement implies that one would base taxes on some factor other than financial.

No. My point is that risk is risk is risk an d it comes in all shapes and sizes and forms. And I do not want the government subsidizing risk.

Risk is not all the same any more that people are all the same. How the various types of risk are treated is a separate issue. To parallel: People are people are people and come in all shapes and sizes and colors. And I do not want the government subsidizing any one type.

Your personal views on investment and retirement are your personal views on investment and retirement. How can you put yourself in some lofty position of looking down upon others and pass judgment about company retirement programs that people entered decades ago before we had a spat of pension problems? When a person honored their end of the agreement, and then were screwed by a company who reneged on their obligations, that risk was never something that was foreseen or anticipated but ended up being there just the same.

Both my father and grandfather recognized the risk of relying on a retirement plan that assumed that a company was still in business and still making a profit enough to support a pension plan. If the business goes under then so does the pension. That is why IMHO relying on them is foolish. Even if they are still in operation, if the company is struggling, then who should get the priority; Current worker, or retiree?

The point here is the same one - government should NOT be in the business of subsidizing risk and that is what they are doing - by your own admission - with preferential and discriminatory rates favoring the wealthy who benefit from generous inheritance exemptions and favorable tax rates on capital gains.

What gets taxed and how and if the different types of income are treated the same or different was never my argument to you. My argument to you is that you cannot call them all the same. They are not. Why don't you call a Navy SEAL the same as a football player? After all they both work hard and run a risk of injury and/or death.

They don't.
By their own admission, I pay a higher rate than some millionaires do.

Some. Not all or even most.

why should any of it be taxed?

Because tax is a necessary evil of having a government which is a necessary evil of having a society. Now whether that tax is income or sale can be argued as can the level, but a person's money is going to get taxed one way or another.

uh pushing for states to recognize gay marriage is hardly less government and the fact is its the dems who need people to be dependent on government.

Actually it can be argued that it is less government as it then takes AWAY regulation on who is allowed and not allowed. Any time you restrict something, it requires more government to ensure the restrictions are met.

That does not even make sense. Its really inane to say that the only reason the rich are taxed more is that they have more. Like teenagers would say... "DUH". Let me guess ..... we should tax the people that have LESS MORE? Is that what you want?
Skin color!?!?!?!?! Religion!?!?!?!??! Other factors!?!?!?!?!? Where do you get this nonsense?
Read the US Constitution. Its in there. Amendment XVI - coming up on the 100th Anniversary.

Here's your "DUH". If you are to treat skin color the same and religion the same and other factors the same then you treat income the same. Does a black person whose skin is really dark get a preferential treatment over one whose skin is only a light brown when it comes to the government mandated percentage of African-American people who need to be in qualifying businesses? No. The same principle applies to income. One rate. And like I said before you try to call hypocrisy, I've only made the claim that there are different types of income that hold different risk so considering whether or not they should be taxed differently is sensible and logical, not that I think they should.

So why then has government spending increased at the same time taxation on the rich is at modern historical lows? Your theory falls apart like wet toilet paper being flushed away.

Probably because the taxation on the low income workers has not increased. If the lower class doesn't feel the pain of increased spending then why should they push harder for more spending cuts? That is not a support for such taxation, simply an observation.

This may be the stupidest point I've ever seen. "Rich people aren't being taxed more, only higher earners" Do you even realize how ****ing stupid that sounds in playback?

No it makes absolute sense. In other words, a rich person, i.e. one who has a high net worth, is not necessarily getting a high tax rate, where as a high income earner, who may throw away most of his earnings, does get the high tax rate. His net worth is lower and thus he may not be technically rich. Of course some people can't get past the idea that income is the only measure of rich.

Well, I will agree with you that people with a concern for "just" taxation will argue for no estate taxes and single taxation-- which is itself somewhat redundant, since estate taxes are inherently a form of double taxation-- but arguing that either a flat tax or a consumption tax are "just" is based on the economically flawed assumption that a person's last dollar of income, in terms of utility, is worth as much to them as their first dollar. This simply isn't true. The dollars that a person must earn to pay their necessary expenses have a much higher utility value than their disposable income, and each dollar of disposable income provides a correspondingly smaller utility to its owner up to a point-- should someone be so lucky!-- that more dollars simply do not and could not improve their standard of living at all.

And THIS point is what makes the Fair Tax a "fair" tax plan. Through the prebate it eliminates the tax on necessary expenses (i.e. the poverty line) and taxes only disposable income.

Now due to time constraints I need to get to work but I will try to pick this up later tonight.
 
from maquiscat


That statement implies that one would base taxes on some factor other than financial.

Of course you do. There is no doubt about that. Taxes are public policy issues and as such take in many considerations including the political, the social and other areas besides the financial. That is simply the way of the world.


Risk is not all the same any more that people are all the same. How the various types of risk are treated is a separate issue. To parallel: People are people are people and come in all shapes and sizes and colors. And I do not want the government subsidizing any one type.

Of course there are types of risk. Nobody is taking issue with that. I simply do not want the government subsidizing investment risk with discriminatory and preferential tax rates while it ignores other areas of risk.

on pensions

Both my father and grandfather recognized the risk of relying on a retirement plan that assumed that a company was still in business and still making a profit enough to support a pension plan. If the business goes under then so does the pension. That is why IMHO relying on them is foolish. Even if they are still in operation, if the company is struggling, then who should get the priority; Current worker, or retiree?

Foolish!?!?!?!? It is foolish to uphold your end of the contract for thirty or more years and then expect the other party to uphold their end of the same contract? That in your judgment is foolish? Hardly. I was under the impression, perhaps a false one, that libertarians placed great worth on contracts. Was I mislead?

As far as who shall be paid the retiree or the current worker ..... one should not take on new contractual burdens until one satisfies and honors the contractual burdens they have already negotiated and to which the other party has satisfied and completed their obligation to you.

If you are to treat skin color the same and religion the same and other factors the same then you treat income the same.

Skin color is something that one is born with and is a permanent condition of life (save Michael Jackson and rare exceptions).
Ethnicity is the same.
Gender is the same.
While religion can be changed, and many do change that, it is a protected right under the First Amendment.

Income is not like any of those. It is not something you are born with. It is not something which is permanent and you can do nothing about. It is not something which is even stable or a characteristic from year to year for the same person. As such, income does not identify a class of people but only the yearly level to which one earns and does not mark a person in the way race or ethnicity or gender or even religion does.

I posed this in a reply to Turtle on spending and tax rates


So why then has government spending increased at the same time taxation on the rich is at modern historical lows? Your theory falls apart like wet toilet paper being flushed away.

the reply from Maquiscat


Probably because the taxation on the low income workers has not increased. If the lower class doesn't feel the pain of increased spending then why should they push harder for more spending cuts? That is not a support for such taxation, simply an observation.

I have long supported an across the board five point increase for ALL people who earn dollar one.
 
Last edited:
the 5% increase on everyone has some merit but only after the rates are more fair. The rich are paying too much right now and half of America not enough
 
the 5% increase on everyone has some merit but only after the rates are more fair. The rich are paying too much right now and half of America not enough

And I have also proposed changes which would make the rates more fair and prevent the current gaming of the system and the bypassing of the intended progressive nature of the federal income tax by abolishing the estate tax and abolishing capital gains and simply taxing the money as income according to the schedules.

We preserve the intended progressive and graduated nature of the federal income tax, we have all earning Americans paying something into the system, we remove the discriminatory preferences for both inheritance and capital gains and we achieve greater fairness overall.
 
And I have also proposed changes which would make the rates more fair and prevent the current gaming of the system and the bypassing of the intended progressive nature of the federal income tax by abolishing the estate tax and abolishing capital gains and simply taxing the money as income according to the schedules.

We preserve the intended progressive and graduated nature of the federal income tax, we have all earning Americans paying something into the system, we remove the discriminatory preferences for both inheritance and capital gains and we achieve greater fairness overall.

you merely want the inherent unfairness of the rich not only paying more actual dollars but paying at much higher rates
 
you merely want the inherent unfairness of the rich not only paying more actual dollars but paying at much higher rates

My position is consistent with taxation going back thousands of years in many different civilizations as well as the opinions of some of our Founders and tax efforts in our past.

Under my proposals, YES the wealthy person with great income will pay more. And YES, the working class will pay more also. And YES, even the working poor will pay more also. Every earner will pay more.

I have three grandkids and I very selfishly do not think they should work their entire lives to pay off the debts incurred by adults today. Yes, that also means cutting federal spending. But it also means working with both sides of the ledger - decrease spending and increase revenues.
 
Last edited:
My position is consistent with taxation going back thousands of years in many different civilizations as well as the opinions of some of our Founders and tax efforts in our past.


lets go back merely 150 years

and I suspect a review of history finds far more support of use taxes than income taxes
 
lets go back merely 150 years

and I suspect a review of history finds far more support of use taxes than income taxes

Okay. Lets go back a century and a half.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation's first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation's 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com

There it is Turtle. Very consistent with the income tax of today.
 
Okay. Lets go back a century and a half.



There it is Turtle. Very consistent with the income tax of today.

a temporary tax to pay for a war-not a permanent malignancy to support dems winning elections
 
a temporary tax to pay for a war-not a permanent malignancy to support dems winning elections

That is your opinion which you have NEVER been able to substantiate with any verifiable evidence.

As Shakespeare said in his play ACCOUNTANTS, LIARS and OTHER ROGUES - "a tax is a tax is a tax".

It is interesting to not that for all your carping and complaining about the nature of the income tax today, your insistence that we go back 150 years gives us a income tax which exempts lower income workers, provides for taxation of higher income workers at a graduated level and hits the rich earner far harder than anyone else.

And 150 years ago was the date YOU selected.

As to a temporary war....... as a nation grows, its standing in the world changes, its agenda changes, its priorities change and its needs and demands change. We no longer wear those stupid tri-cornered hats of the Revolutionary period and few Americans today could cope with life in 1860 America. Ch...ch... cha .... changes. Get used to it.

The point is simply that the income tax you so hate today was structured similarly in the time you chose - 150 years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom