• 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.
what is disgusting is that there are 6 so who thinks the government is entitled to everything you own when you die. If people like that ever got into office and tried to implement such a disgusting theft of private wealth I'd be hoping someone would clone a few hundred Lee Harvey Oswalds:mrgreen:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Oh ****, now I'm on the NDAA list. Don't drone me, bro! See you in Gitmo.
 
1- it proves that there is no death tax since one can suffer death an pay no tax or be subject to no tax.

It doesn't prove that. All it does is say that some people are excluded from it. That is not news and it does not face the reality of the people it affects be it the person that died or the living person that gains the assets.

2- NO. go back and read it again. You can transfer an estate and pay tax while still living and no death has to occur. It death does occur, it is the transfer that is taxed - NOT the act of death.

In the case of death the event of the death, is like I said, what caused the transfer to occur.

As for the other cases, the merits of such a tax on gifts still need to be defended.

3- You miss the point. Wealthy people do not have to transfer an estate. That is a simple fact. It is the transfer that invokes the tax.

You miss the point of the absurdity of your example.
 
I guess the answer really is no

Well its either the IRS FAQ or the Dr. Seuss Guide to the Kama Sutra.... which do you think the title of the article tells us it is? ;)

And have you or Henrin yet met the challenge to tell us of when death was taxed independent of any transfer of wealth? Henrin turned the tables and challenged me to show where the estate was taxed and transferred independent of death. And I did tht with the proper evidence.

Now the turn is yours. Show us where this death tax is applied to anyone independent of any transfer of wealth from one person to another.
 
It doesn't prove that. All it does is say that some people are excluded from it. That is not news and it does not face the reality of the people it affects be it the person that died or the living person that gains the assets.



In the case of death the event of the death is like I said what caused the transfer to occur.

As for the other cases, the merits of such a tax on gifts still need to be defended.

Some people????? Like 99% of people who die in a year who are excluded from it you mean. Look at where your 'logic' takes you. You claim there is a death tax but in a given year only less than 1% of those who die are subject to it. 99% of those who die are not. But what do you and Luntz and Faris and Turtle do in attempting to define the tax? You take the 1% which is the exception and forget about the 99% which is the rule and attempt to place the label on it accordingly.

That is falling down the rabbit hole of absurdity and going all the way to China.

And again, you repeat the same falsehood. I gave you the law which says you can transfer an estate without dying and the tax is then paid. Did you miss that..... several times now?
 
Henrin turned the tables and challenged me to show where the estate was taxed and transferred independent of death. And I did tht with the proper evidence.

Actually you didn't. All you did was show me a ridiculous example that would never occur and a different transfer of wealth that is taxed that we are not talking about.
 
Well its either the IRS FAQ or the Dr. Seuss Guide to the Kama Sutra.... which do you think the title of the article tells us it is? ;)

And have you or Henrin yet met the challenge to tell us of when death was taxed independent of any transfer of wealth? Henrin turned the tables and challenged me to show where the estate was taxed and transferred independent of death. And I did tht with the proper evidence.

Now the turn is yours. Show us where this death tax is applied to anyone independent of any transfer of wealth from one person to another.
Because if you can't....well...obviously the inheritance tax is perfectly fine. Right?

Don't get hung up on a minor detail. Who gives a chit what it's called. Taking a family's wealth is seen as wrong by many, many people, as evidenced by the results of this poll.

Why in God's name does the federal government need to take people's inheritances? Why do federal government "services" cost so much. Maybe if we weren't in so many unconstitutional wars the government wouldn't need to be helping itself to family assets.
 
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Oh ****, now I'm on the NDAA list. Don't drone me, bro! See you in Gitmo.

Ahhhh - you quoted a birth announcement. How terribly cute.
 
Don't get hung up on a minor detail. Who gives a chit what it's called.

Your ally Turtle for one. And apparently his ally Henrin for at least two.
 
Your ally Turtle for one. And apparently his ally Henrin for at least two.

we aren't the ones who have meltdowns over what terms are used. whatever you call it it should be abolished
 
Some people????? Like 99% of people who die in a year who are excluded from it you mean. Look at where your 'logic' takes you. You claim there is a death tax but in a given year only less than 1% of those who die are subject to it. 99% of those who die are not.

1. It affects more than just the top 1% as you claim
2. Transfers of wealth that are not taxed on the event of death are what we call transfers that are excluded from the tax.

But what do you and Luntz and Faris and Turtle do in attempting to define the tax?

Who is Luntz and Faris?

And again, you repeat the same falsehood. I gave you the law which says you can transfer an estate without dying and the tax is then paid. Did you miss that..... several times now?

No, I didn't miss it.
 
we aren't the ones who have meltdowns over what terms are used. whatever you call it it should be abolished

Totally agree. I could never live with myself if I took someone's inheritance. I will never, ever support doing so. It's just wrong.

The federal government does too much, and ought to be pruned back to perform only those tasks that are unable to be performed by any state, such as common defense and regulating commerce among the states. Then, it wouldn't need to take people's inheritances.
 
Your ally Turtle for one. And apparently his ally Henrin for at least two.

Frankly, I don't care what you call it. I have said my stance on "gift" taxes plenty of times.
 
Frankly, I don't care what you call it. I have said my stance on "gift" taxes plenty of times.
Federal taxes ought to be minimized to the greatest extent possible. This can be accomplished by limiting the activities of the federal government. The sovereign states have the power to implement any health/safety/welfare programs they wish. The federal government only needs to provide common defense and to regulate commerce among the states. That doesn't really take a whole lot of money. I have no idea why it is involved in half the shiit it currently undertakes, but it needs to trim down and stop taking people's inheritances.
 
Wealth can save lives.
If you truly believe that then you're already too far gone. People save lives. What you're spouting amounts to the same idiocy as the gun control nuts who say guns kill people.


I can also assume from your stance that you wouldn't mind having a neighbor in possession of a tank?
 
Last edited:
New Estate Tax Rules Should Expire After 2012
Shrinking the Tax Beyond the 2009 Level Is Unaffordable and Unnecessary


"The tax-cut compromise enacted in December established estate tax rules for 2011 and 2012 that are considerably weaker than those in effect in 2009, the last year before the tax temporarily expired in 2010. The new rules will cost about $23 billion more than reinstating the 2009 rules over the same two years, yet will benefit only the largest one-quarter of 1 percent of estates, since they are the only ones that that would owe any estate tax under the 2009 rules.

Taxable estates will receive more than $1 million apiece in tax breaks this year from the new rules, on average, and estates worth more than $20 million will receive an average of nearly $3.8 million apiece. In light of the nation’s serious long-term budget problems — and proposals to slash a wide range of government services, particularly Medicare, Medicaid, and programs for low-income Americans — it would be irresponsible to extend these new rules beyond 2012."


Tax Had Already Weakened Considerably Under 2001 Law

"The 2001 tax legislation phased down the estate tax considerably. By 2009, the value of estates exempt from taxation had risen to $3.5 million for individuals (effectively $7 million for couples), up from $1 million for individuals ($2 million for couples) scheduled under prior law, and the marginal tax rate on the value of an estate above these thresholds fell from 55 percent to 45 percent. As a result, a tax that affected only the country’s largest 2 percent of estates in 2001 touched only the largest one-quarter of 1 percent of estates by 2009."

New Estate Tax Rules Should Expire After 2012 — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 
we aren't the ones who have meltdowns over what terms are used. whatever you call it it should be abolished

Meltdowns?!?!?! You confuse your own feelings with the effort of others to keep this discussion factually oriented.
 
1. It affects more than just the top 1% as you claim
2. Transfers of wealth that are not taxed on the event of death are what we call transfers that are excluded from the tax.



Who is Luntz and Faris?



No, I didn't miss it.

Present your data. See the post on this very page above this one 1841 - one-quarter of one percent in 2009. But you would have the name of the tax defined by how it impacts less than one percent of the public rather than how it impacts 99% of the American public. Not only is that a gross intellectual fraud, it is an absurdity of the worst sort. It makes The Mad Hatter look like a sane and calm counsellor.

Who are Luntz & Faris? The people who gave folks on he right their marching orders regarding the neologism. Its right here in the thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estate_tax_in_the_United_States
 
Last edited:
Federal taxes ought to be minimized to the greatest extent possible. This can be accomplished by limiting the activities of the federal government. The sovereign states have the power to implement any health/safety/welfare programs they wish. The federal government only needs to provide common defense and to regulate commerce among the states. That doesn't really take a whole lot of money. I have no idea why it is involved in half the shiit it currently undertakes, but it needs to trim down and stop taking people's inheritances.
So if a factory in Kansas starts dumping crap into the Missouri river upstream of our drinking water supply inlet then we have a choice to die from poison or die from thirst. Nice world you have there.

Oh, that's right, we take them court and wait for the court to somehow force the factory to stop dumping poison in the river. In the meantime our citizens are dying. Well, that's OK because in the end we'll get to sell a useless factory and distribute what few funds we can get from it to the families of the dead so that maybe they won't have to be buried in a mass grave. :roll:


I think I'll stick to the blue sky world.
 
Last edited:
If you truly believe that then you're already too far gone. People save lives. What you're spouting amounts to the same idiocy as the gun control nuts who say guns kill people.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "too far gone", but I am certainly not picking up your point at all. Earlier, you said:
Wealth, on the other hand, is man made, created by the community itself. I have no compunction about reducing the destructive impact of wealth. Just like predators, wealth's presence in the community needs to be reduced as needed.

Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be saying that wealth is a bad thing. If that's your stance, then I'm afraid you're going to have to explain why this is so.

I can also assume from your stance that you wouldn't mind having a neighbor in possession of a tank?
Is that a question or a statement?
 
By itself, wealth is neither good nor bad. It is all of the human activity associated with it - from its accumulation to its spending- that take on a value of judgment.
 
So if a factory in Kansas starts dumping crap into the Missouri river upstream of our drinking water supply inlet then we have a choice to die from poison or die from thirst. Nice world you have there.

Oh, that's right, we take them court and wait for the court to somehow force the factory to stop dumping poison in the river. In the meantime our citizens are dying. Well, that's OK because in the end we'll get to sell a useless factory and distribute what few funds we can get from it to the families of the dead so that maybe they won't have to be buried in a mass grave. :roll:
I'm unclear why you provided this in response to my statement on federal responsibilities.
 
New Estate Tax Rules Should Expire After 2012
Shrinking the Tax Beyond the 2009 Level Is Unaffordable and Unnecessary


"The tax-cut compromise enacted in December established estate tax rules for 2011 and 2012 that are considerably weaker than those in effect in 2009, the last year before the tax temporarily expired in 2010. The new rules will cost about $23 billion more than reinstating the 2009 rules over the same two years, yet will benefit only the largest one-quarter of 1 percent of estates, since they are the only ones that that would owe any estate tax under the 2009 rules.

Taxable estates will receive more than $1 million apiece in tax breaks this year from the new rules, on average, and estates worth more than $20 million will receive an average of nearly $3.8 million apiece. In light of the nation’s serious long-term budget problems — and proposals to slash a wide range of government services, particularly Medicare, Medicaid, and programs for low-income Americans — it would be irresponsible to extend these new rules beyond 2012."


Tax Had Already Weakened Considerably Under 2001 Law

"The 2001 tax legislation phased down the estate tax considerably. By 2009, the value of estates exempt from taxation had risen to $3.5 million for individuals (effectively $7 million for couples), up from $1 million for individuals ($2 million for couples) scheduled under prior law, and the marginal tax rate on the value of an estate above these thresholds fell from 55 percent to 45 percent. As a result, a tax that affected only the country’s largest 2 percent of estates in 2001 touched only the largest one-quarter of 1 percent of estates by 2009."

New Estate Tax Rules Should Expire After 2012 — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Leftwing advocacy site-Bravo Foxtrot Delta
 
I'm unclear why you provided this in response to my statement on federal responsibilities.
We've already been through that discussion. Your worldview would allow an entity to use another entity in a damaging fashion, or cause another entity intentional harm, and then maybe put a price on this use or harm after the fact.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom