• 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'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.
So would yours. It is only possible to punish people AFTER they have committed a crime.
 
So would yours. It is only possible to punish people AFTER they have committed a crime.
But it is possible by patrolling to reduce crime. Put a speed limit sign in a town with no cop and everyone will ignore the sign. Put a cop by the sign on random days and half the people might follow the law. Your system calls for no oversight, so no one will follow the law as long as they can make money by breaking it.
 
But it is possible by patrolling to reduce crime. Put a speed limit sign in a town with no cop and everyone will ignore the sign. Put a cop by the sign on random days and half the people might follow the law. Your system calls for no oversight, so no one will follow the law as long as they can make money by breaking it.
I've got no problem with patrolling to fight crime. That's what police forces are supposed to do: force people to follow the law.
 
I've got no problem with patrolling to fight crime. That's what police forces are supposed to do: force people to follow the law.
With your limited Federal government I didn't expect there to be an equivalent of the EPA. Sorry I misunderstood you.
 
With your limited Federal government I didn't expect there to be an equivalent of the EPA. Sorry I misunderstood you.
You did not misunderstand me. I don't see much of a role for the federal government when it comes to protecting the environment within any of the states. There may be some limited role the federal government has to play in mediating disputes between states over environmental issues.
 
You did not misunderstand me. I don't see much of a role for the federal government when it comes to protecting the environment within any of the states. There may be some limited role the federal government has to play in mediating disputes between states over environmental issues.
I rest my case.
 
I've got no problem with patrolling to fight crime. That's what police forces are supposed to do: force people to follow the law.

If the police FORCE people to follow the law then they aren't doing a very good job. I don't know how it's possible to FORCE people to follow the law?

Laws are created and people either follow them or not.

The primary job of police is to ENFORCE the law...not FORCE the law...and their is a significant difference.
 
Forget about the source - so you disagree with the statistics? Do you have others to present to counter them?


Yeah its an opinion piece that is based on the attitude that the government needs more money (to waste) and not parasitizing the rich enough will prevent the malignancy known as the federal government from wasting more and more money. That is an agenda that sane people oppose
 
Your usual response when you can't disprove any of the facts presented.



You are often confused on this issue. The problem with the bovine excrement propaganda you cite is not the facts. Its rather the agenda. The BE claims that cutting the looter tax of the wealthy "costs" the government money.

I say while "costing" is a bit specious I couldn't care less. Indeed, that is a good reason to abolish the death tax-to deprive a parasitic government of the wealth of people it already loots too much
 
Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
Your usual response when you can't disprove any of the facts presented.

You are often confused on this issue. The problem with the bovine excrement propaganda you cite is not the facts. Its rather the agenda. The BE claims that cutting the looter tax of the wealthy "costs" the government money.

I say while "costing" is a bit specious I couldn't care less. Indeed, that is a good reason to abolish the death tax-to deprive a parasitic government of the wealth of people it already loots too much


Your usual response when you can't disprove any of the facts presented.
 
Your usual response when you can't disprove any of the facts presented.


You don't understand the disagreement. I couldn't care less if cutting the death tax cuts the amount of money the government gets. There is no dispute of facts

what I reject is the BELIEF, OPINION< feeling, Dream, desire, Hope that the government get more money
 
By all means, present the actual language which supports this allegation. Allow me to assist you

Frequently Asked Questions on Estate Taxes

and



and now, two birds with one stone - both Henrin and Turtle and the transfer of an estate independent of death

from the wikipedia entry on that very topic



So we know two things there
1- the estate tax is imposed on the transfer of the estate
2- should one want to transfer the estate before death occurs, that can be done independent of death and still pay a tax on that transfer


from that propaganda piece Catawba cited crying that the current estate tax rates COSTS the government money (which is a laugh-it assumes that higher rates are proper which of course has no factual support)

In reality, bequests are not subject to the income tax; the entire estate is subject to the estate tax, after which each heir receives his or her share of the estate without paying further taxes on it.
 
Your usual response when you can't disprove any of the facts presented.



Your bovine excrement laden citation assumes

1) the death tax is proper

2) only the rich should pay it

3) the government NEEDS the money and the rates that soak the rich the most are both proper and necessary

4) because only a couple percent of people are parasitized by this tax that makes it fair

5) anything but the highest rates COSTS the government money

all of those are value assumptions that are not provable as Factual

anything less than 100% tax on all estates COSTS the government money using the logic of those disgusting scumbags at that site.
 
I don't know what all the clatter is about. Most all people with sizable estates also have a little thing called a TRUST(S).

A trust can do a number of things a will can't do as well, including:

1) Manage assets efficiently if you should die and your beneficiaries are minor children or others not up to
the responsibility of handling the estate;

2) Protect your privacy (unlike a will, a trust is confidential);

3) Depending on how it is written, and on state law, a trust can protect your assets by reducing taxes;

4) If it is a living trust, the trustee can manage property for you while you're alive, providing a way to care
for you if you should become disabled. A living trust also avoids probate, lowers estate administration
costs, and speeds transfer of your assets to beneficiaries after your death.

So the question might be:

Should you have a trust? It depends on the size of your estate and the purpose of the trust.

For example, if you mainly want a living trust to protect assets from taxes and probate, but your estate is under the current federal tax floor and small enough to qualify for quick and inexpensive probate in your state, some lawyers would tell you it isn't worth the cost.

If, however, you want to avoid a court hearing if you become incompetent or unable to provide for yourself or you want to provide for grandchildren, minor children, or relatives with a disability that makes it difficult for them to manage money, a trust has many advantages.

There's a lot of reasons that people have trusts drawn...to many to list.

Sorry, but this topic is almost a moot issue. People with buckitos...are crazy not to have trusts set up. Most do. If they don't...then maybe the government deserves to get it. Usually complicated estates wind up very closely managed thanks to trust. People that are capable of creating wealth...sustaining wealth are going to have trusts.
 
I couldn't care less if cutting the death tax cuts the amount of money the government gets. There is no dispute of facts


I know this, I just like making you say it openly.

Gets to the heart of the issue for you and so its much more honest than your crass disparagement of the working class in every post.
 
Yeah its an opinion piece that is based on the attitude that the government needs more money (to waste) and not parasitizing the rich enough will prevent the malignancy known as the federal government from wasting more and more money. That is an agenda that sane people oppose

The statistics analyzing the changes in the law state that less than one percent of people are now paying the federal estate tax.

So now anyone who disagrees with your position is no sane. Truly amazing. The ad hominem attacks continue unabated while the actual evidence goes ignored and unrefuted.
 
from that propaganda piece Catawba cited crying that the current estate tax rates COSTS the government money (which is a laugh-it assumes that higher rates are proper which of course has no factual support)

In reality, bequests are not subject to the income tax; the entire estate is subject to the estate tax, after which each heir receives his or her share of the estate without paying further taxes on it.

I give you the law as evidence of reality- you give me pompous pontifications and your beliefs.

Nothing has changed
 
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.

Many small business owners are affected by the tax TODAY so unless they are in the 1% the data in post #1841 is crap.

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.

I explained my reasoning once and you did nothing but repeat yourself AGAIN. I have no reason to say it again.

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

Funny that I never heard of them but you have.
 
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:

Lol, the government and its agencies, the EPA in this case, puts in place its solution after a harm has occurred and deals with future harms of people with punishments and in between that time punishes people that did nothing wrong with regulation. Are you unaware?

Its also idiotic to say that harms would be greater in terms of environmental damage with an accessible court system that didn't excessively harm business in the system in an equal and much more fair fashion to only punish the guilty parties.

But you can believe whatever you want honestly.
 
Many small business owners are affected by the tax TODAY so unless they are in the 1% the data in post #1841 is crap.



I explained my reasoning once and you did nothing but repeat yourself AGAIN. I have no reason to say it again.



Funny that I never heard of them but you have.

You attack the data but fail to present any of your own. That is not debate. It is simple statement of a belief on your part.

Your reasoning is your own belief system and you attempting to justify it. No more and no less.

As to you not knowing Luntz & Faris - your lack of knowledge about the neologism of the 'death tax' and the partisans who promote it - is something that speaks about you and not me.
 
Last edited:
You attack the data but fail to present any of your own. That is not debate. It is simple statement of a belief on your part.

So the 2009 report by the CBO that said some small businesses even under the new rules at the time are affected is what? While I admit the number is small considering it proves just fine its not just the 1% paying.

As to you not knowing Luntz & Faris - your lack of knowledge about the neologism of the 'death tax' and the partisans who promote it - is something that speaks about you and not me.

Lol, I get my idea based on how it functions, not by Luntz and Faris and I could care less what part they played in some sort of movement I care little about.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom