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 49 of 195 FirstFirst ... 3947484950515999149 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 490 of 1947

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

  1. #481
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    That does not even make any sense as a reply to my points. You said nothing of substance and were powerless and impotent to respond to the actual substance of my post.
    Powerless huh? So you regurgitate the same old left talking points and expect me to go into great analysis, aint gonna happen as I have dealt with all that stuff in the past and get tired of it.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #482
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,860

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Powerless huh? So you regurgitate the same old left talking points and expect me to go into great analysis, aint gonna happen as I have dealt with all that stuff in the past and get tired of it.
    I had no leftist talking points in my post. I was pointing out that it would be fair and just to reduce the power of the government to discriminate based on source of income and apply the appropriate tax rate to ALL monies without preferences.

    A wage earner putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
    An investor putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
    A recipient of an inheritance putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%
    All three would pay the same percentage and the same amount of tax on the same amout of money going into their pockets. That is the essence of fairness and equality.

    Actually it means LESS government. LESS government discrimination over sources of income as they do today. LESS government interfering in manipulating how people spend and obtain their money. LESS government in "encouraging" behaviors and habits that somebody thinks need nudging and pushing from government. LESS government subsidizing investment and risk.
    Somehow, someway, you saw fit to attack me on it instead of speaking to the points raised in my post.

    This is not the first time this has happened. The question then becomes why do you repeatedly do this?
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-01-12 at 06:43 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #483
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Penalizing?!?!?!?!? My position is clear and is based on the equality of money regardless of its source.
    In other words redistribute from it's owners to others who have contributed nothing to the funds taken.

    A wage earner putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
    An investor putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
    A recipient of an inheritance putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%
    You have lost this one already in the thread, I have no use for you repeating it.

    All three would pay the same percentage and the same amount of tax on the same amout of money going into their pockets. That is the essence of fairness and equality.
    Actually, "fairness" as you put it would require money already taxed to be taxed, so I really don't care about your idea of fairness and frankly you haven't even justified double taxation so.......go ahead and do that before you continue.
    That is no theory. It is a system of tax equality where all sources of income are treated equally and nobody there is given any preference or break.
    More garbage. If a person must pay 35% for making more money while some pay less than 15% and some pay NOTHING the people on the low end are getting preferential treatment. If that ALREADY TAXED MONEY that is intended to be passed down is TAXED AGAIN then you are giving preferential treatment to inherited income LESS THAN WHAT YOU think is "acceptible". So again what is fair about that?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #484
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:10 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,860

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

    Apparently, you either do not understand the basics of both taxation and a civilized society supported by taxation or you are against taxation to support a civilized society.

    Could you please identify which it is?

    ps - on your sham argument of "already taxed money" .... it has been posted over and over and over in thread after thread after thread - almost all money is taxed many times again and again and again when it changes owners.

    What is it about that basic reality that you do not understand?
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-01-12 at 06:47 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #485
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Apparently, you either do not understand the basics of both taxation and a civilized society supported by taxation or you are against taxation to support a civilized society.

    Could you please identify which it is?
    I understand both, I also know when one is engaging in class envy which I do not agree with. I also know that to justify an income tax that preferentially treats mid and low income earners while penalizing the "wealthy" heavily is an impossible goal without great mental gymnastics. I also understand that there are people who don't respect the accumulation of wealth based on merit and want to bleed every dollar they can from people based on weak premises such as "they can afford it" or "because society has needs" or "how much does one need". Last time I checked this is the U.S. a country based upon maximizing liberty, to TAKE ones property without due cause is a statist concept that goes back to despotism and the monarchy and always follows the premise that "we all own a piece". So don't confuse calling bull**** with "not understanding".
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #486
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    More garbage. If a person must pay 35% for making more money while some pay less than 15% and some pay NOTHING the people on the low end are getting preferential treatment. If that ALREADY TAXED MONEY that is intended to be passed down is TAXED AGAIN then you are giving preferential treatment to inherited income LESS THAN WHAT YOU think is "acceptible". So again what is fair about that?
    So I'm curious. If you could, how would you modify federal spending and federal taxes?

    Me, I'd aim for a drastically less intrusive federal government, firing it from most of the jobs it has taken upon itself in the last 100 years or so. With less to do, I would fund it with a small (1% or so) general excise tax and a small (1%) import tariff. If that weren't enough to provide the necessary revenue, I would make requisitions from the states, apportioned by population.

    No income tax. No inheritance tax. No capital gains tax.

    How about you?

  7. #487
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    So I'm curious. If you could, how would you modify federal spending and federal taxes?
    First step is spending: 1) Freeze all budget increases and audit all federal bodies including the IRS, Federal reserve, all boards, departments etc. 2) Use a basic business model, after audits all duplicate duties are to be consolidated appropriately to the proper departments. 3) Minimize the authority of extra constitutional bodies. 4) Hold all those commiting unethical monetary abuses using taxpayer dollars to the fullest legal accountability. 5) All spending must be justified, no more "stealth boats", no more automatic budget raises, baseline budgeting(cutting from the increase to call a cut) would be illegal. 6) No spending directed towards the market. 7) All social programs MUST get lean and with a margin of error(fraud, mistakes, duplicate payouts) no greater then 3%.

    Second is taxation: I am in favor of either a flat or consumption tax but no hybrids. The government would repeal the sixteenth and dissolve the IRS(with consumption tax) and be held to financial account within funds collected. Adjustments may be made after the debt becomes manageable or in financial crisis.

    Me, I'd aim for a drastically less intrusive federal government, firing it from most of the jobs it has taken upon itself in the last 100 years or so. With less to do, I would fund it with a small (1% or so) general excise tax and a small (1%) import tariff. If that weren't enough to provide the necessary revenue, I would make requisitions from the states, apportioned by population.
    I agree, I don't think it is rationally possible to get rid of everything quickly, but am in favor of a peel back of the least justifyable government bodies as a first step.
    No income tax. No inheritance tax. No capital gains tax.
    Completely agree.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #488
    Educator Uzidoesit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    somewhere in the swamps of Jersey
    Last Seen
    05-04-13 @ 10:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    820

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

    Well, well if i go according to this poll's stats, there must be quite a few people here just waiting for someone to drop dead and leave them a bucket of dough.

    I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. Voltaire

    When you make your peace with authority, you become an authority.- Jim Morrison

  9. #489
    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 LaMidRighter View Post
    First step is spending: 1) Freeze all budget increases and audit all federal bodies including the IRS, Federal reserve, all boards, departments etc. 2) Use a basic business model, after audits all duplicate duties are to be consolidated appropriately to the proper departments. 3) Minimize the authority of extra constitutional bodies. 4) Hold all those commiting unethical monetary abuses using taxpayer dollars to the fullest legal accountability. 5) All spending must be justified, no more "stealth boats", no more automatic budget raises, baseline budgeting(cutting from the increase to call a cut) would be illegal. 6) No spending directed towards the market. 7) All social programs MUST get lean and with a margin of error(fraud, mistakes, duplicate payouts) no greater then 3%.
    These all sound like steps in the right direction.

    Philosophically, the law of subsidiarity makes sense to me: Every task should be handled by the smallest, lowest, and least centralized competent authority. There is a reason that the american states formed the union to which each of our states belong. They saw it as having a legitimate purpose, and I agree that there are tasks that are best handled by the federation: coordination of mutual defense, for instance, or resolving trade disputes among the member states.

    However, there are many, many tasks currently performed by the federation that need not be, and in fact would be better handled by the states, or even lower authorities. In fact, almost everything that the federal government currently does could be done by states, counties, municipalities, or groups of individuals.

    Second is taxation: I am in favor of either a flat or consumption tax but no hybrids. The government would repeal the sixteenth and dissolve the IRS(with consumption tax) and be held to financial account within funds collected. Adjustments may be made after the debt becomes manageable or in financial crisis.
    Totally agree. It would be a HUGE mistake to allow both an income and a consumption tax.

    I agree, I don't think it is rationally possible to get rid of everything quickly, but am in favor of a peel back of the least justifyable government bodies as a first step. Completely agree.
    Yeah, you can't go from our current situation back to a constitutional federal government overnight. The idea is to continually be moving in the right direction.

  10. #490
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Uzidoesit View Post
    Well, well if i go according to this poll's stats, there must be quite a few people here just waiting for someone to drop dead and leave them a bucket of dough.
    Not really. In fact, when my parents leave this world i'll probably sell off all my inheritance and donate it to charity.

Posting Permissions

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