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 68 of 195 FirstFirst ... 1858666768697078118168 ... LastLast
Results 671 to 680 of 1947

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

  1. #671
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I know nothing of any death tax in the USA. And you have been informed of that for a time beyond calculation or counting.

    and you are playing stupid then in that post. . You know what the death tax is-its another name for your cherished estate tax

  2. #672
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,757

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    and you are playing stupid then in that post. . You know what the death tax is-its another name for your cherished estate tax
    To accept your false terms would be to acknowledge a partisan neologism that is a falsehood. And to do that would be stupid. To reject it is simply smart.

    And I have told you repeatedly now that I have come to agree with you that the estate tax as it is constituted should be abolished - so I will not defend it.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #673
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    To accept your false terms would be to acknowledge a partisan neologism that is a falsehood. And to do that would be stupid. To reject it is simply smart.
    so tell us Haymarket, what causes an almost cult like devotion to the estate tax that borders on a fetish?

  4. #674
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,757

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    so tell us Haymarket, what causes an almost cult like devotion to the estate tax that borders on a fetish?
    Perhaps this has been a tough week for you my friend. I just told you that I favor abolishing the estate tax as it is currently constituted. I will not defend it.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #675
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Perhaps this has been a tough week for you my friend. I just told you that I favor abolishing the estate tax as it is currently constituted. I will not defend it.
    Yeah you want the government to take tons from the wealthy

    Its been a good week-the scummy salamander got tuned up

  6. #676
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Perhaps you can explain in ordinary everyday English how 35% of an $800,000.00 income in wages is actually LESS than 15% of an $800,000.00 income from capital gains?

    I do not care what words you use as long as it makes sense and is truthful and factual.
    sure. the 15% tax comes after a 35% tax. most of which is borne by the stock owners (according to the CBO). and nominal tax rates are not effective tax rates. which is why Romney's FIT rate of 14% is actually higher than 97% of Americans pay.

    Again, the CBO says that you are wrong. not cpwill. not turtle.

  7. #677
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,082

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Not at all.
    yes, "at all". several times you have attempted to divert the discussion on job-killing, business-destroying, family-wrecking, uber-rich-protecting, estate taxes into a discussion on taxes on capital gains and those who make more than $250K a year.

    You seem to have issues confusing my position on what needs to be in a national tax policy where the estate tax is abolished and the transfer of that money or wealth is simply taxed as normal income under the applicable rates and schedule.
    no, you don't. you only want specific kinds of wealth transfer to be taxed. there are a thousand and one ways that parents can attempt to help their children do better in life - from hiring tutors, to buying them books as children, to encouraging and funding their computer-building hobbies and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Never have you proposed that a Child's future tax liabilities should go up because his parents sent him to a private high school, or because his mother took productive time to make sure to read him books when he was young. But your logic demands it, and down the path your logic leads lies madness.
    Last edited by cpwill; 02-04-12 at 12:11 AM.

  8. #678
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,757

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    sure. the 15% tax comes after a 35% tax. most of which is borne by the stock owners (according to the CBO). and nominal tax rates are not effective tax rates. which is why Romney's FIT rate of 14% is actually higher than 97% of Americans pay.

    Again, the CBO says that you are wrong. not cpwill. not turtle.
    I hve no idea what you are talking about when you say the 15% capital gains tax comes after a 35% tax. You then make some vague statements which cannot be verified.

    Please be specific here.

    Le us go back to my examples that I have been using of three persons making a million dollars. Take us through a step by step process and show us about this 35% then an addition 15% paid by the taxpayer.

    again - my three examples

    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 explanation.

    And that would you too cpwill.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-04-12 at 08:42 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

  9. #679
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,757

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    yes, "at all". several times you have attempted to divert the discussion on job-killing, business-destroying, family-wrecking, uber-rich-protecting, estate taxes into a discussion on taxes on capital gains and those who make more than $250K a year.



    no, you don't. you only want specific kinds of wealth transfer to be taxed. there are a thousand and one ways that parents can attempt to help their children do better in life - from hiring tutors, to buying them books as children, to encouraging and funding their computer-building hobbies and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Never have you proposed that a Child's future tax liabilities should go up because his parents sent him to a private high school, or because his mother took productive time to make sure to read him books when he was young. But your logic demands it, and down the path your logic leads lies madness.
    That is absurd and now you are embracing the absurd in a woeful attempt to divert from a rational tax plan.

    In the writing of law, what is done is that you accept a basic premise that guides you through the process. In this case we are talking about tax law and meeting the stated desires of the vast majority of Americas who want higher taxes upon the wealthy. I have already provided several national public pinion polls which clearly demonstrate a national support level of between 60% and 70% for this.

    If we look at the main ways today that the wealthy have negated or neutralized or have gotten around the true intent and spirit of progressive tax rates, it pretty punch comes down to two factors
    1- much of their income comes in capital gains which is taxed at 15%
    2- a significant amount of money was transferred to some of them through estate taxes which healthy exemptions built in to that formula

    To assure a national system which incorporates tax justice and gets us back to true progressive rates, these two factors have to be dealt with.

    So we adopt a guiding principle that we take these two and no longer provide special categories for them since they are enriching a persons pocketbook or accounts exactly the same way that other form of income do such as wages or salary.

    So we simply rewrite the tax laws so that capital gains are taxed as normal income according to the applicable schedules. We abolish the current estate tax and simply treat that money and wealth as income and tax it according to the applicable schedules.

    We following the guiding rule that money going into a persons pocket or accounts is income.

    Now you and others want to trot out the strawman of parents feeding children bowl of oatmeal as income or hiring tutors is income or buying a computer as income or buying a book as income and that reeucing this whole thing to absurdity is suppose to validate your idea and negate mine.

    Sorry but that is just nonsense. I strongly suspect that the average American citizens who wants to increase taxes on the wealthy to avoid them getting around the progressive tax schedules knows the difference between
    a- a bowl of oatmeal and millions of dollars in inheritance
    b- a book and millions of dollars in inheritance
    c- a teacher or tutor and millions of dollars in inheritance
    d- a computer and million of dollars in inheritance

    If you do not, I also strongly suspect that there is not one person on the planet capable of making you understand that difference if it is not already obvious to you.

    All those sort of silly objections are easy to deal with in the writing of the law. Todays laws explain what can be taxed and not taxed and any current law can certainly differentiate with normal support for a childs life, gifts than cane be given, and the taxing of true inheritance as income.

    You end with a dramatic DOWN THE PATH YOUR LOGIC LEADS TO MADNESS. Truthfully cp - if you cannot see the actual difference in taxing inheritance income and buying a book for a child, you have already gone a long way down the very path you describe.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #680
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,606

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I hve no idea what you are talking about when you say the 15% capital gains tax comes after a 35% tax. You then make some vague statements which cannot be verified.

    Please be specific here.

    Le us go back to my examples that I have been using of three persons making a million dollars. Take us through a step by step process and show us about this 35% then an addition 15% paid by the taxpayer.

    again - my three examples

    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 explanation.

    And that would you too cpwill.
    numerous people have explained to you that your repeated nonsense about these "differences" is specious

    First of all the first all the first guy will only be paying an effective tax rate of around 24% meaning 240K in taxes
    so you are lying when you claim every dollar of his one million is subjected to a 35% tax rate. For someone who is so enamored with the progressive income tax, you don't seem to understand that its only money above around 375K subjected to that rate

    and anyone making that much is going to be investing a bunch of it and he certainly doesn't want those investments subjected to the 40% confiscatory rate you want

    secondly, he will generally have an estate at the time he dies well over the limits your fellow travelers on the left would want to rape with a death tax.

    So your example is both in error patently and in error based on what most people in that group would want

Posting Permissions

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