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 65 of 195 FirstFirst ... 1555636465666775115165 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 650 of 1947

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

  1. #641
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Thrilla View Post
    wierd.. that's exactly what i said... you repeatedly called it a "false belief".. and delusional...etc... imagine that.

    but it's nice to see that there are exception to your argument of new ownership of money when it changes hands from person to person is always taxed..

    soo.. why do you support the wife not getting taxed, but feel it's more than fine to tax the children?... no love for the nuclear family or something?.. don't like kids?... what's the deal?


    ya see, i'm fine with taxing an inheritance.... as long as it goes to someone or something that is not immediate family.
    wife and kids get off tax free.... leave money to some feel good charitable foundation, and uncle sam gets a cut.

    end result is that my kids won't pay a red cent on their inheritance... i'll make sure of it, despite the many liberals who covet that money.
    No, The way you presented the idea, it seemed that you were raising the spectre that the wife was subject to the inheritance tax.

    you from 532

    ..and if the inheritance goes to the wife?... you want that taxed again too?.. even though it's basically hers through common law?

    I clearly stated that this was false and presented verifiable information that such a belief was false. A wife is already co-owner so she does not 'inherit' in the legal sense that we were discussing. She cannot be given what she already has.

    A wife or husband is a co-owner while a child is not. That simple distinction is everything in determining who is taxed and who is not. Your distinction about "immediate family" may be yours - but it is NOT the traditional one used in the law on such matters.

    So the real question then becomes this: if you are going to pretend that you also knew the wife was not taxed and I presented the law that the wife was not taxed soon after you floated your post, why oh why would you go on for page after page after page about it if you seemingly knew that my position was the proper one?

    Can you answer that?
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-03-12 at 07:46 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  2. #642
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Centinel View Post
    So what exactly is the difference between a birthday present and an inheritance? They both end up with the recipient having money come into his pocket. Are you suggesting we discriminate between them somehow by treating one form of income differently from another?
    I am suggesting you stop playing semantic games and understand that we as a people in a society with a government are perfectly able to distinguish the difference between an inheritance and a birthday present.

    At least most of us can.

    Part of my job is helping to write proposed legislation. We do things like this all the time in writing law.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #643
    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 haymarket View Post
    So tell us all straight and clear then: what is your question about spouses and the estate tax that you so badly beg my opinion on?
    Yes, Thrilla, ask your question again, so haymarket can once against give you a non-answer.

  4. #644
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,793

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I am suggesting you stop playing semantic games and understand that we as a people in a society with a government are perfectly able to distinguish the difference between an inheritance and a birthday present.

    At least most of us can.

    Part of my job is helping to write proposed legislation. We do things like this all the time in writing law.

    tell us why only those who already pay more income taxes than any other group is the only group subject to the estate tax?

  5. #645
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    tell us why only those who already pay more income taxes than any other group is the only group subject to the estate tax?
    It probably has something to do with having an estate in the first place. But as I have said - I agree with you that the separate estate tax should be abolished. Simply tax the money as you would any normal money coming in to a persons pocket with the applicable rate.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  6. #646
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,793

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    It probably has something to do with having an estate in the first place. But as I have said - I agree with you that the separate estate tax should be abolished. Simply tax the money as you would any normal money coming in to a persons pocket with the applicable rate.
    so an estate is only what the death tax says it is.

    Look we have seen your confused bit that gifts and inheritances-which are very different than income ought to be taxed

    why cannot you keep your hands off of that sort of transfer?

    but hey I want you to tell all your dem fellow travelers that the dem plan is that everyone's inheritance be taxed like income. that means lots of union types etc are going to have to pay the taxman when their parents die

    good idea

  7. #647
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so an estate is only what the death tax says it is.

    Look we have seen your confused bit that gifts and inheritances-which are very different than income ought to be taxed

    why cannot you keep your hands off of that sort of transfer?

    but hey I want you to tell all your dem fellow travelers that the dem plan is that everyone's inheritance be taxed like income. that means lots of union types etc are going to have to pay the taxman when their parents die

    good idea
    There is no confusion on my part Turtle. My position is very clear and easy to understand if one wants to approach the subject with an open mind.

    Let us take three people all of whom place a nice even ONE MILLION DOLLARS into their pocket during the year.

    case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00.

    case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00.

    case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00.

    All three DID NOT have the one million at the start of the year. All three got their one million during the year. It all spends the same. If you took each of their money and placed it in three stacks of one million dollars each, nobody on the planet could tell you with any accuracy time after time in a test which pile of money came from which source.

    But the government knows whose million belongs to who because they put a big label on each and apply preferences and favoritism towards one over the other.

    Now Turtle, La, Centinel, Thrilla, and anyone else who can - tell Richard Dillard why he should be happy to pay a tax bill of $350,000.00 on the same amount of money that Wanda Phillips only pays $150,000.00 on and Ned Sykes pays nothing on. And feel free to use the word FAIR all you want in your explaination.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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

  8. #648
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,793

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    There is no confusion on my part Turtle. My position is very clear and easy to understand if one wants to approach the subject with an open mind.

    Let us take three people all of whom place a nice even ONE MILLION DOLLARS into their pocket during the year.

    case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00.

    case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00.

    case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00.

    All three DID NOT have the one million at the start of the year. All three got their one million during the year. It all spends the same. If you took each of their money and placed it in three stacks of one million dollars each, nobody on the planet could tell you with any accuracy time after time in a test which pile of money came from which source.

    But the government knows whose million belongs to who because they put a big label on each and apply preferences and favoritism towards one over the other.

    Now Turtle, La, Centinel, Thrilla, and anyone else who can - tell Richard Dillard why he should be happy to pay a tax bill of $350,000.00 on the same amount of money that Wanda Phillips only pays $150,000.00 on and Ned Sykes pays nothing on. And feel free to use the word FAIR all you want in your explaination.
    more horsepoop that dishonestly ignores the costs of obtaining each form of revenue. and it ignores how much money the parasitic government has derived from it. wages, last i checked are a deduction for a corporation. Ned's family paid tons on the estate.

    but you are fine with someone who earns a million not only paying several hundred K more in taxes than half of the USA combined, you think he ought to pay higher rates

    as several have noted-your concept of FAIR always involves wealthy people being taxed even more.

    and what you are clear about is that you think the government NEEDS more of our money
    and your example is beetle dung. the first guy isn't paying 35% on all of his income. he is paying a bit less

    hate is a bad thing Haymarket. and spending so much time trying to justify why the government should take more is pretty sad IMHO
    Last edited by TurtleDude; 02-03-12 at 04:26 PM.

  9. #649
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,076

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

    from Turtle


    more horsepoop that dishonestly ignores the costs of obtaining each form of revenue.
    Well feel free to present your verifiable data making a case that such a consideration is important. One cannot but notice that you presented NOTHING other than the simple statement. And I have no idea how that would mitigate the situation or why the government would need to subsidize that or reward it. It is irrelevant to tax policy. And if you want to talk about the cost of obtaining each revenue please consider this:

    case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00. What are the costs in obtaining this income? They could be substantial. Education for one could eat up tens of thousands of dollars, maybe even six figures of educational expenses and years of time invested into learning that profession.. There may be a substantial investment in equipment. The costs of obtaining that cool million could have been substantial.

    case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00. What are the costs in obtaining this income? Ms. Phillips had to first come up with the million to invest. Did she work for it? Possibly. Was she given the money without working for it? Possibly.

    case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00. What was the cost of Mr. Sykes in obtaining that one million in inheritance. Zero. Nothing. Zilch. He merely benefitted from an accident of birth and lived long enough to collect itl

    Ned's family paid tons on the estate.
    And Ned paid ZERO - NOTHING - NADA - ZILCH.

    but you are fine with someone who earns a million not only paying several hundred K more in taxes than half of the USA combined, you think he ought to pay higher rates
    I have repeatedly informed you that I believe ALL Americans earning as little as one dollar should pay 5 point more onto their tax bracket. Why do you ignore that?

    as several have noted-your concept of FAIR always involves wealthy people being taxed even more.
    My concept of FAIR involves all people getting money paying more in federal income tax by the same five points. Why do you ignore that?

    and what you are clear about is that you think the government NEEDS more of our money
    Obviously with the deficit and debt at such high levels - and we have you righties to thank for hourly reminders of the soaring figures - the government does indeed need the revenue. Thank you for underlining that need.


    and your example is beetle dung. the first guy isn't paying 35% on all of his income. he is paying a bit less
    WOW! horsepoop and beetledung in the same post!!! You would make a fourth grader proud Turtle.

    I just rechecked my IRS site and my calculation was spot on. A million dollar income warrants a tax rate of 35% for a tax bill of $350.000.00. I figured ALL THREE with no deductions applied for the sake of fairness and equality.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-03-12 at 05:36 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

  10. #650
    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 Centinel View Post
    So what exactly is the difference between a birthday present and an inheritance? They both end up with the recipient having money come into his pocket. Are you suggesting we discriminate between them somehow by treating one form of income differently from another?
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I am suggesting you stop playing semantic games and understand that we as a people in a society with a government are perfectly able to distinguish the difference between an inheritance and a birthday present.
    Interesting, so you distinguish between a birthday present and an inheritance, despite the fact that both of them result in new money coming into someone's pocket. Can you explain why you see them as different and wish to treat them differently for tax purposes? Who you not simply consider them both income?

Posting Permissions

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