• 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.
we went through this weeks ago.
Yes, I remember. But it seemed worth going over again, as you just recently were talking about how all money coming into someone's pocket smells the same, etc.

It's important to reiterate that most people agree that nobody believes such a black and white rule, and that it is reasonable to treat, say, gifts, differently than wage income.

I oppose taxes on inheritance for the same reasons I oppose taxing a father giving money to his children. To me, it just doesn't seem the same as salary income or interest income. I guess everyone sees it differently, but that's why I can't support taxes on inheritance.
 
Yes, I remember. But it seemed worth going over again, as you just recently were talking about how all money coming into someone's pocket smells the same, etc.

It's important to reiterate that most people agree that nobody believes such a black and white rule, and that it is reasonable to treat, say, gifts, differently than wage income.

I oppose taxes on inheritance for the same reasons I oppose taxing a father giving money to his children. To me, it just doesn't seem the same as salary income or interest income. I guess everyone sees it differently, but that's why I can't support taxes on inheritance.

You are simply attempting to go back in the discussion to a point where you believed you had a stronger case. That is understandable. But all that has been clarified and we have moved far beyond it.

When we discuss matters of public policy that are translated into nation laws for 311 million people, ones personal beliefs are of small consequence compared to the impact they results would have upon 311 million. You can cling to professing that you see a difference - even though you cannot intellectually explain it - between income of 5 million and an inheritance of 5 million. However, that makes for a very weak argument in the arena deciding public policy.
 
that the best comeback you got? lol your death is not taxed.....you know it, i know it, so it is time for you to move on

I tire of those who don't pay this tax whining I should pay more of it.

You don't pay, I have no use for what you say
 
Perhaps, Turtle, you would be a lot happier, with less money and lower taxes..
You remind me of a certain character in Mr Dickens " A Christmas Carol".

You as usual post idiotic nonsense. Being opposed to being over taxed has nothing to do with personal charity. Your main failure is that you labor under the delusion that paying taxes is the same as being charitable when they are often diametrically opposed.
 
Living in a society of 311 million people by its very nature limits ones personal freedom.

So what?

that is perhaps the lamest of many arguments you advance in favor of the government taking more money from those who already pay far more than their fair share.
 
Well, we do have an income tax. That could change at some point, but for now it's what we have. So for as long as income tax is the federal government's main way of collecting taxes, why should inherited income be treated differently than earned income?

Uh because income tax results in a transaction that involves an exchange in value. I give labor, you give me salary. I invest in something, I receive investment income

and why does this death tax hit only those who are already huge income tax payers?
 
that is perhaps the lamest of many arguments you advance in favor of the government taking more money from those who already pay far more than their fair share.

Turtle - you are reasonably bright, you are educated and you are legally trained. Please go back and read the posts and you will see that I am NOT arguing that at all. You are intertwining two different points I made on two different issues in two different posts to two different people on two different subjects.

Living is a society of 311 million people by its very nature cause ones personal freedom to be limited so that others can be accommodated both as individuals and as society in a larger sense.

In a representative democracy, the people have a right to elect representatives who will enact a national tax policy and it is up to them to listen to the people to determine such concepts as what is a fair share.

Those are two different things and you are mart enough to know that.
 
Turtle - you are reasonably bright, you are educated and you are legally trained. Please go back and read the posts and you will see that I am NOT arguing that at all. You are intertwining two different points I made on two different issues in two different posts to two different people on two different subjects.

Living is a society of 311 million people by its very nature cause ones personal freedom to be limited so that others can be accommodated both as individuals and as society in a larger sense.

In a representative democracy, the people have a right to elect representatives who will enact a national tax policy and it is up to them to listen to the people to determine such concepts as what is a fair share.

Those are two different things and you are mart enough to know that.

I oppose people who don't pay a tax demanding others pay more of it
 
Uh because income tax results in a transaction that involves an exchange in value. I give labor, you give me salary. I invest in something, I receive investment income

So you're saying that we should tax things that are more beneficial to society (working and investing in businesses) and we shouldn't tax something that is less beneficial to society (giving money to your family when you die). Doesn't that seem a little backwards?

All three are transfers of money from one person to another. To me, it doesn't matter WHY the money is being transferred, only that it is, so it should be taxed equally.

and why does this death tax hit only those who are already huge income tax payers?

Well, if inheritance was simply treated as income, it wouldn't only affect the very rich.
 
So you're saying that we should tax things that are more beneficial to society (working and investing in businesses) and we shouldn't tax something that is less beneficial to society (giving money to your family when you die). Doesn't that seem a little backwards?

All three are transfers of money from one person to another. To me, it doesn't matter WHY the money is being transferred, only that it is, so it should be taxed equally.



Well, if inheritance was simply treated as income, it wouldn't only affect the very rich.

why should only those who are top one percent tax payers be afflicted by the death tax

and why do you insist that a wasteful bloated government have access to even more wealth of citizens?
 
Yes, it certainly is. But in principle, we agree that it's not a black and white rule of "every dollar that enters another person's pocket ought to be taxed as income".
It also comes down to a matter of enforcement. Sure, we can say that giving someone a CD for their birthday is a gift and we can say it should be taxed as income but who's going to enforce it? No one. For an enforcement agent to even pick up the phone a dial a number takes more money than the tax collected on a CD. At some point you have to draw a line between the idealized and the possible - and we do by specifying a limit on tax-free gifts.


To take your example a step farther, are we to dispense with allowances as well? And what if those allowances are only issued if weekly chores are completed? Is that income and should we tax it? Better yet, with or without the allowance, should we throw parents in jail for making their children clean their rooms or do the dishes? Doesn't that violate child labor laws?
 
It also comes down to a matter of enforcement. Sure, we can say that giving someone a CD for their birthday is a gift and we can say it should be taxed as income but who's going to enforce it? No one. For an enforcement agent to even pick up the phone a dial a number takes more money than the tax collected on a CD. At some point you have to draw a line between the idealized and the possible - and we do by specifying a limit on tax-free gifts.


To take your example a step farther, are we to dispense with allowances as well? And what if those allowances are only issued if weekly chores are completed? Is that income and should we tax it? Better yet, with or without the allowance, should we throw parents in jail for making their children clean their rooms or do the dishes? Doesn't that violate child labor laws?


an excellent argument why we should get rid of the income tax and switch to a NST
 
I oppose people who don't pay a tax demanding others pay more of it
I'm sure pimps oppose prostitution laws and dealers oppose drugs laws. We should repeal those laws?
 
an excellent argument why we should get rid of the income tax and switch to a NST
As long as it's understood that buying a share of stock is also a sale and subject to the same tax I might be good with that.
 
I oppose people who don't pay a tax demanding others pay more of it

turtle - why do you post statements like that which have absolutely nothing to do with refuting the substance of what you reprint from others?
 
I'm sure pimps oppose prostitution laws and dealers oppose drugs laws. We should repeal those laws?



wow-talk about non relevant response

actually dealers oppose making drugs legal--that would put them out of business

If you don't pay death taxes your ranting that others should pay more has no merit whatsoever
 
why should only those who are top one percent tax payers be afflicted by the death tax

and why do you insist that a wasteful bloated government have access to even more wealth of citizens?

You miss the point. We tax the money regardless if it came from wages, winnings, capital gains, inheritance or whatever. It applies to EVERYONE. We can make reasonable exclusions for routine gifts and things like that - the same way the current law provides for - but we apply the principle to EVERYONE. Nobody is picking on the rich. It will apply to EVERYONE.
 
an excellent argument why we should get rid of the income tax and switch to a NST

Is that your latest and greatest idea which gives you a personal tax cut?
 
You are simply attempting to go back in the discussion to a point where you believed you had a stronger case. That is understandable. But all that has been clarified and we have moved far beyond it.
I thought that we had agreed that not every dollar that enters someone's pocket ought to be considered taxable income. I just wanted to raise this again, as we have, as you indicate, agreed on this previously. Yet, your recent comments seemed to exhibit a sliding back into the black and white statement once again.

When we discuss matters of public policy that are translated into nation laws for 311 million people, ones personal beliefs are of small consequence compared to the impact they results would have upon 311 million.
I can't say I disagree with this. Your opinion or mine has very little consequence.

You can cling to professing that you see a difference - even though you cannot intellectually explain it - between income of 5 million and an inheritance of 5 million.
Allow me to once again explain the difference, as you seem to have missed it. Salary is payment for a factor of production, while inheritance is not. That is the difference.

However, that makes for a very weak argument in the arena deciding public policy.
I'm not so sure. I think it would be a good public policy to regard an inheritance as nontaxable income. This would reduce the overall tax burden on the American people, which I think would be excellent public policy for a nation of 311 million people.
 
You miss the point. We tax the money regardless if it came from wages, winnings, capital gains, inheritance or whatever. It applies to EVERYONE. We can make reasonable exclusions for routine gifts and things like that - the same way the current law provides for - but we apply the principle to EVERYONE. Nobody is picking on the rich. It will apply to EVERYONE.

NOnsense-you constantly demand the rich pay more and more and more and more and more

and the death tax is not an income tax-its the estate that pays the tax not any of the recipients. So who is getting "income"
 
why should only those who are top one percent tax payers be afflicted by the death tax

I'm not sure why you keep saying this. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing for ANY amount of inherited income to be treated exactly the same as earned income and taxed at the same rates.

and why do you insist that a wasteful bloated government have access to even more wealth of citizens?

I'm not arguing this either. If all inheritance was treated as income, and everyone was paying taxes on it, income tax rates could be reduced slightly to compensate.
 
I'm not sure why you keep saying this. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing for ANY amount of inherited income to be treated exactly the same as earned income and taxed at the same rates.



I'm not arguing this either. If all inheritance was treated as income, and everyone was paying taxes on it, income tax rates could be reduced slightly to compensate.


any politician who tried to tax all inheritances would be voted out of office or shot
 
from Centinel

Allow me to once again explain the difference, as you seem to have missed it. Salary is payment for a factor of production, while inheritance is not. That is the difference.

So what? really - So what? Why is that the crucial and important determinant for you?
 
any politician who tried to tax all inheritances would be voted out of office or shot

As to the allegation that a politician would be voted out of office - by whom exactly?

As to the second - the shooting - is that some sort of half baked threat on behalf of the one-percenters with you as their masked avenger wreaking that penalty yourself?
 
If you don't pay death taxes your ranting that others should pay more has no merit whatsoever
I don't know of anyone that has paid death taxes. Would you care to list a few people who have done this?

actually dealers oppose making drugs legal--that would put them out of business
There are some dealers who would prefer to distribute their drugs legally.

You not knowing this is more evidence that the only color you see is green.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom