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 73 of 195 FirstFirst ... 2363717273747583123173 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 730 of 1947

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

  1. #721
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,125

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

    and again, I would like to say, it's gratifying to see the results of this poll. I guess even across ideological lines, the thought of going after grieving families has an "ick" factor.

  2. #722
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

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

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I think it’s fair to allow Wanda to keep a greater return given her greater risk.
    You could apply the same logic to winnings from gambling but as far as I know those winnings are taxed as normal income. One has to assume - and it's evident in the way people buy different stocks - that stocks at greater risk have a higher return. If Wanda really wants more money she should invest in higher risk stocks, not IBM (or whatever the current "sure bet" is). This is the biggest issue I have with the capital gains tax. Either way you slice it, as a winning bet or interest on uninsured savings, Joe Schmoe has to count it as normal income but Wanda doesn't.

    I'm still thinking about the inheritance tax - you made a good point earlier (and repeated it here) about it also being protectionism.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 02-05-12 at 07:43 AM.

  3. #723
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,982

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

    from cpwill

    Obviously I am discussing the nominal capital gains and corporate income tax rates. You are going to insist (I know because we have debated this before, though I shall take at face value your implicit claim to have forgotten) that it is incorrect to count the corporate tax as falling on those who receive capital gains; forgetting that stock owners own the company, and that it’s taxes are therefore money out of their collective pool of funds.
    As you well know, and your post clearly indicates this, these are two separate taxes paid by two separate entities. A corporation is a legal entity with its own obligations and responsibilities of taxation. A shareholder is a different entity with its own obligations and responsibilities of taxation. To attempt to add both as if they both are paid by the same entity is factually wrong and intellectually fraudulent.

    from the wikipedia entry on corporations previously cited here many times in many threads

    A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members
    We have been through this time and time and time again in thread after thread after thread. The right will will not give up its false claim to this myth of double taxation no matter how many times reality is pointed out to them. You, attempting to add numbers together in this way, underlines that point yet again.

    but it seems to me if you are making 14.7% of the income, and paying 22.6% of the taxes, you are paying a higher rate than someone else, who is offsetting you.

    that “someone” is the 97% of Americans who are paying less than the capital gains rate.
    And I have repeatedly said that I want ALL Americans to pay 5 points more on their federal income tax and that includes the demonized 47% created by the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the Republicans in both houses of Congress who provided 93% of the YES votes to create these non taxpayers.

    As to your Greater Risk- Greater Reward..... in a word sir - BALONEY. Explain to the millions of people who have lost their employment over the last few years how

    but he is guaranteed an income from his labor.
    Risk is there for many workers and evidence of losing jobs, reductions in salary, and reductions in benefits shows that precious little is "guaranteed" to use your word. Workers have not only lost all that but pensions also that they counted on. They took a RISK with a particular employer and they lost.

    I think it’s fair to allow Wanda to keep a greater return given her greater risk.
    So if we take your belief and follow it , should we then also apply discriminatory and preferential tax rates to Americans who also take huge risks in the investment they made in their careers? Should we give a preferential and discriminatory tax rate to the fire fighter because RISK is a greater part of their job than that a grocery clerk?
    Should we give a preferential and discriminatory tax rate to the police officer because RISK is a greater part of their job than that of a grade school teacher?

    Where does this public subsidizing of private RISK stop? Or are you unfairly limiting your concept of RISK to only money from investors and ignoring the real RISK many take constantly in their choice of careers and in the daily performance of their jobs?

    Where is the conservative love for "small government" that stays out of the lives of American citizens? You clearly want the government to subsidize the investor by giving them preferential and discriminatory rates which subsidize their risk and investment. Its about time the conservative live up to their mantra of getting government out of the lives of citizens and this is a place to begin. You talk about FAIR and FAIRNESS but subsidizing the investor and their risk is hardly FAIR when we do not subsidize the worker and the risk they take with their employment and jobs. That is not FAIRNESS - it is discrimination based on a source of income which we know disproportionately benefits the upper tier earner over average working people. That is the opposite of FAIR. It is clear and obvious DISCRIMINATION and the awarding of PREFERENCES and a perfect example of the Golden Rule as in those with the gold make the rules.

    Your case 4 with Joe seems to have placed you on the same road to fantasy land that others have attempted to travel down complaining about bowls of oatmeal and gifts of books. Parents educating children, feeding children, raising children - the law deals with that in the current tax laws. Gifts are deal with also.

    So Joe and his educational investment were worth more than community college costs. That is simply one of the variances of life and we accept that. Again, we know the difference between an outright inheritance and tranfer of wealth in millions of dollars from one person to another and that of a gift of paying for education. Lets not pretend we don't. That sort of things is easy to deal with in legislation and I do it all the time.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-05-12 at 08:45 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

  4. #724
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

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

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    You could apply the same logic to winnings from gambling but as far as I know those winnings are taxed as normal income. One has to assume - and it's evident in the way people buy different stocks - that stocks at greater risk have a higher return. If Wanda really wants more money she should invest in higher risk stocks, not IBM (or whatever the current "sure bet" is). This is the biggest issue I have with the capital gains tax. Either way you slice it, as a winning bet or interest on uninsured savings, Joe Schmoe has to count it as normal income but Wanda doesn't.

    I'm still thinking about the inheritance tax - you made a good point earlier (and repeated it here) about it also being protectionism.
    gambling doesn't create anything of value nor does it benefit society as a whole as investment does

  5. #725
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,723

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

    Lost in all the diversion about taxes on dividends is an undeniable fact

    the same entity (federal government) gets two cuts at the same pot of money and there is no transfers of that money that involve any additional exchange of value

    Haymarket-tell us why the government is entitled to 61% of that money

  6. #726
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    So the definition of income doesn't fit your premise and you want to change it? Could that be because there exists no logical premise to unfairly treat differing levels of accumulation with punitive taxes? Methinks so. In other words you are fine with preferential treatment as long as it is punitive toward people who you think "have too much".
    The few having excessive wealth is not good, not in the eyes of the masses...this must be respected...
    IMO, the excessive wealth is caused by overcharging for goods and services , again, not good.
    I favor a reasonable tax on capital gains (30% above $100000; 15% below the arbitrary 100K $) and NO tax on an inheritance.

  7. #727
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Goldsboro,PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    5,596
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You can stop the elitism at any time. I worked in radio and got to know many lawmakers both state and national. I do know what I am talking about.
    As I see it, Haymarket expresses facts. Others, including me, express opinions (there is a difference).
    "Knowing people" is not enough, what counts is doing, as Haymarket does (and I do not agree with him 100%).

  8. #728
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,125

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    from cpwill

    As you well know, and your post clearly indicates this, these are two separate taxes paid by two separate entities. A corporation is a legal entity with its own obligations and responsibilities of taxation. A shareholder is a different entity with its own obligations and responsibilities of taxation. To attempt to add both as if they both are paid by the same entity is factually wrong and intellectually fraudulent.

    from the wikipedia entry on corporations previously cited here many times in many threads



    We have been through this time and time and time again in thread after thread after thread. The right will will not give up its false claim to this myth of double taxation no matter how many times reality is pointed out to them. You, attempting to add numbers together in this way, underlines that point yet again.



    And I have repeatedly said that I want ALL Americans to pay 5 points more on their federal income tax and that includes the demonized 47% created by the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts and the Republicans in both houses of Congress who provided 93% of the YES votes to create these non taxpayers.

    As to your Greater Risk- Greater Reward..... in a word sir - BALONEY. Explain to the millions of people who have lost their employment over the last few years how



    Risk is there for many workers and evidence of losing jobs, reductions in salary, and reductions in benefits shows that precious little is "guaranteed" to use your word. Workers have not only lost all that but pensions also that they counted on. They took a RISK with a particular employer and they lost.



    So if we take your belief and follow it , should we then also apply discriminatory and preferential tax rates to Americans who also take huge risks in the investment they made in their careers? Should we give a preferential and discriminatory tax rate to the fire fighter because RISK is a greater part of their job than that a grocery clerk?
    Should we give a preferential and discriminatory tax rate to the police officer because RISK is a greater part of their job than that of a grade school teacher?

    Where does this public subsidizing of private RISK stop? Or are you unfairly limiting your concept of RISK to only money from investors and ignoring the real RISK many take constantly in their choice of careers and in the daily performance of their jobs?

    Where is the conservative love for "small government" that stays out of the lives of American citizens? You clearly want the government to subsidize the investor by giving them preferential and discriminatory rates which subsidize their risk and investment. Its about time the conservative live up to their mantra of getting government out of the lives of citizens and this is a place to begin. You talk about FAIR and FAIRNESS but subsidizing the investor and their risk is hardly FAIR when we do not subsidize the worker and the risk they take with their employment and jobs. That is not FAIRNESS - it is discrimination based on a source of income which we know disproportionately benefits the upper tier earner over average working people. That is the opposite of FAIR. It is clear and obvious DISCRIMINATION and the awarding of PREFERENCES and a perfect example of the Golden Rule as in those with the gold make the rules.

    Your case 4 with Joe seems to have placed you on the same road to fantasy land that others have attempted to travel down complaining about bowls of oatmeal and gifts of books. Parents educating children, feeding children, raising children - the law deals with that in the current tax laws. Gifts are deal with also.

    So Joe and his educational investment were worth more than community college costs. That is simply one of the variances of life and we accept that. Again, we know the difference between an outright inheritance and tranfer of wealth in millions of dollars from one person to another and that of a gift of paying for education. Lets not pretend we don't. That sort of things is easy to deal with in legislation and I do it all the time.
    yawn. since you decided to start cutting out great swathes of the evidence arrayed against you, I've decided to simplify down to what seem to be the basic key points and answer them.

    1. You claim that we are currently subsidizing the wealthy rather than the general lower-and-middle-income earners by taxing capital gains less. Your claim is demonstrated false by the IRS and the CBO, both of whom agree that in fact lower and middle income earners pay tax rates that are below the capital gains rate.

    2. You claim that we should tax all transfers of wealth as income... except for the transfers of wealth which you find obviously not right to tax. The dividing line appears to be magical, arbitrary, and exist only in your head. Certainly you have been unable thus far to logically describe it other than to allude to things which "should be obvious." I would say it should be obvious that you don't tax in-family transfers, to include (for example) family owned businesses. That's a "dividing line". It provides a rule (don't tax inter-family transfers) that can be established, followed, and used as logical guidance for revision of the tax code. But simply saying "well, don't tax the stuff that you obviously shouldn't tax" is not logical guidance that can be clearly followed. Instead it is entirely arbitrary and utterly subjective.



    Addendum: the stuff about the FIT rates and capital gains v "labor" income etc isn't really part of the thread, and merely a continuing divergence from the topic at hand, which is the estate/death/inheritance/etc tax. And the more you pretend to not know the difference between nominal and effective tax rates, the more you appear to be willing to place politically advantageous demagoguery ahead of legitimate policy discussion.

  9. #729
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,982

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    Lost in all the diversion about taxes on dividends is an undeniable fact

    the same entity (federal government) gets two cuts at the same pot of money and there is no transfers of that money that involve any additional exchange of value
    If I explain it to you for the twenty-second time, will it then sink in? How about the fifty-fifth time? Do you think that would make the difference?

    There are only three entities who can tax - federal government, state government and local government. When money changes ownership it is taxed over and over and over and over and over by government. The same money is taxed again and again and again and again when it changes owners. This is then nature of the game. This is simply the way it is. This is reality.

    You brought up this so called "exchange of value" a few days ago and I repeatedly challenged you to tell us where this rule was coming from that you could only tax if you had some sort of "exchange of value" whatever that means to you in the first place. Despite request after request you were impotent to explain it but simply went on using it like repeating a mantra that you had memorized by rote.

    Will today be the day when you finally reveal where this law of exchange of value comes from and why we should all defer to 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

  10. #730
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,985

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

    I don't think that there should be an inheritance tax. That money was already taxed by the government at the normal rate while the wealthy person was alive. It's wrong to double tax the same wealth because it's transferring hands.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

Posting Permissions

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