• 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.
Me too. Me too.

God bless the consitution.
Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Removable Mind
The debt/income ratio created by government is beyond our (We The People) capability to overcome such indebtedness.
It was 20% higher at the end of WWII. What did We the People do about that?


It was 20% higher at the end of WWII. What did We the People do about that?


One of the things we did, was increase the tax rates on the wealthy, just as we need to do now to reduce our war debt. We have Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for and we still haven't finished paying for Vietnam.
 
You are guilty of doing what you constantly whine about your enemies doing - wanting somebody else to pay the bill other than you.

We ALL need to pay more. Starting today.

when everyone else catches up to the top one percent than you might have a point about the rich

one percent of the population is paying 40% of the income tax burden

No I don't know that actual number in terms of dollars but its safe to say no other 1 percent of the population pays anywhere NEAR that much money.
 
You babble on and on for yourself alone. You have no license to speak for anyone else at all. I pay more in taxes than you do and find your antisocial commentary to be completely opprobrious. Of course, I also have not just years but decades worth of training and professional experience in relevant fields whereas you have none, so that might contribute as well to a general perception that your posts are just another aspect of the persistent, snot-nosed, ignorance that so permeates and corrupts the right-wing as represented on this board.

In 2007, the top 1% paid $115 billion less in federal income tax than they would have had the Clinton tax rates from a decade earlier still been in effect. That's $115 billion in a single year. Money that was imply handed to the already wealthy free of charge. It was plain old vote-buying Republican welfare-for-the-rich who -- thanks to Bush -- were able to cut in line to feed from the public trough and suck from the public teat. What a disgusting display.

the idiocy of your post is that it assumes that the clinton tax rates and money was proper. that is something you cannot prove so the rest of your psychobabble fails as well
 
Imagine the good that could have been done with that $115 billion just from that one year? We could have lowered the deficit, decreased the debt and passed less in bills onto our children.



Imagine what good (in your mind) could be done if every penny over 200K was confiscated by the government

I prefer to imagine what good we could promote if government spending was slashed to only paying for constitutional programs and that is a far better way to not stick our children (I should say my child-since he is going to be the target of your soak the rich with a death tax scheme) with massive debt
 
You babble on and on for yourself alone. You have no license to speak for anyone else at all. I pay more in taxes than you do and find your antisocial commentary to be completely opprobrious. Of course, I also have not just years but decades worth of training and professional experience in relevant fields whereas you have none, so that might contribute as well to a general perception that your posts are just another aspect of the persistent, snot-nosed, ignorance that so permeates and corrupts the right-wing as represented on this board.

I buy that TD is rich and earned it, but you? Not a chance. You disprove such a claim every time you say bull**** like the following..


Money that was imply handed to the already wealthy free of charge.

Lol. Still going on with this? No one handed them money by lowering their taxes. Didn't we go over this already?
 
the idiocy of your post is that it assumes that the clinton tax rates and money was proper. that is something you cannot prove so the rest of your psychobabble fails as well
All this sort of non-responsive nonsense does is confirm everyone's expectation that you will in fact have no actual response to make. $115 billion worth of welfare-for-the-rich Republican vote-buying and feeding at the public trough. Just to the top !%. Just in 2007.
 
All this sort of non-responsive nonsense does is confirm everyone's expectation that you will in fact have no actual response to make. $115 billion worth of welfare-for-the-rich Republican vote-buying and feeding at the public trough. Just to the top !%. Just in 2007.

Are you even aware of what libertarians think of corporate welfare? I would think not since you just assumed TD actually supported such a thing.
 
Are you even aware of what libertarians think of corporate welfare? I would think not since you just assumed TD actually supported such a thing.
I may be mistaken, but I actually think that Fang is referring to tax cuts.
 
I buy that TD is rich and earned it, but you? Not a chance. You disprove such a claim every time you say bull**** like the following..
Even HE doesn't claim that he earned any of it. Meanwhile, he carries none of the trappings, bearings, or markers typical of a person of actual wealth. You can buy his schtick if you want, but it rings as phony as a three-dollar bill to someone who actually lives there.

Meanwhile, I've experienced seeing my tax bill plummet by five-figures from one year to the next. And it doesn't go back up the next year either. That's just free money being passed out that neither I nor any wealthy person actually earned or needed. It's simply been handed to us year after year after year after year. While the median family has struggled just to get by. Whatever it is you think you went over before, you messed it up.
 
Are you even aware of what libertarians think of corporate welfare? I would think not since you just assumed TD actually supported such a thing.
Corporate welfare? This has been about personal income taxes. I see all this howling over peanuts being given to people, even those with plainly evident needs. Where is the outrage over billions upon billions being heaped with no accountabilkity at all onto the rich and the filthy rich, people who essentially have no wants or needs at all?
 
Last edited:
All this sort of non-responsive nonsense does is confirm everyone's expectation that you will in fact have no actual response to make. $115 billion worth of welfare-for-the-rich Republican vote-buying and feeding at the public trough. Just to the top !%. Just in 2007.

MOre whining based on the flawed assumption that the richest 1-2%, (the only cohort that pays MORE of the income tax share than their share of the income) are not paying enough

only a hard core statist can claim tax cuts-that resulted in the richest one percent PAYING EVEN A HIGHER SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX Burden-could call such stuff welfare for the rich

when the top one percent start paying less than one percent of the taxes than you might have an argument. Being charitable, when the rich pay less of the income tax burden than their share of the income, then your babbling can be seen as someithing other than blatantly dishonest nonsense. But that is no where near happening
 
Even HE doesn't claim that he earned any of it. Meanwhile, he carries none of the trappings, bearings, or markers typical of a person of actual wealth. You can buy his schtick if you want, but it rings as phony as a three-dollar bill to someone who actually lives there.

Meanwhile, I've experienced seeing my tax bill plummet by five-figures from one year to the next. And it doesn't go back up the next year either. That's just free money being passed out that neither I nor any wealthy person actually earned or needed. It's simply been handed to us year after year after year after year. While the median family has struggled just to get by. Whatever it is you think you went over before, you messed it up.

LOL-a far left mercedes marxist pretending what the "trappings of the rich are"

priceless
 
I may be mistaken, but I actually think that Fang is referring to tax cuts.


He thinks the government is the primary owner and stakeholder of all wealth-hence his idiotic claims that tax cuts are welfare even though those receiving the tax cuts now pay an even higher share of the tax burden
 
He thinks the government is the primary owner and stakeholder of all wealth-hence his idiotic claims that tax cuts are welfare even though those receiving the tax cuts now pay an even higher share of the tax burden

The government says to the citizen: "Your earnings are not exclusively your own; we have a claim on them, and our claim precedes yours; we will allow you to keep some of it, because we recognize your need, not your right; but whatever we grant you for yourself is for us to decide." ~ Frank Chodorov, The Income Tax: Root of all Evil
 
Even HE doesn't claim that he earned any of it. Meanwhile, he carries none of the trappings, bearings, or markers typical of a person of actual wealth. You can buy his schtick if you want, but it rings as phony as a three-dollar bill to someone who actually lives there.

Meanwhile, I've experienced seeing my tax bill plummet by five-figures from one year to the next. And it doesn't go back up the next year either. That's just free money being passed out that neither I nor any wealthy person actually earned or needed. It's simply been handed to us year after year after year after year. While the median family has struggled just to get by. Whatever it is you think you went over before, you messed it up.

WTF are you talking about? How did you get the money that wasn't taxed? Was it given to you? If so, by whom? All I see is a person that either has no grasp of reality, or you has no grasp of taxes. You can pick.
 
Corporate welfare? This has been about personal income taxes. I see all this howling over peanuts being given to people, even those with plainly evident needs. Where is the outrage over billions upon billions being heaped with no accountabilkity at all onto the rich and the filthy rich, people who essentially have no wants or needs at all?

Well if its not about corporate welfare, which I hoped was the case to save you some face you have nothing of substance to say.
 
Why should the government be able to tax money inherited by someone? It doesn't matter the amount.
 
Why should the government be able to tax money inherited by someone? It doesn't matter the amount.
Because they have lots of guns, and have armed thugs working for them. They are able to do whatever they want.
 
MOre whining based on the flawed assumption that the richest 1-2%, (the only cohort that pays MORE of the income tax share than their share of the income) are not paying enough
More attempts to appoint yourself chief cook and bottle washer, positions for which you are not well trained, equipped, or qualified. If you would open a book sometime, you would learn that taxes in flat dollar amounts are discriminatory against the poor, and so are taxes that are in flat percentages. Only progressive tax rates are capable of equalizing the burden of taxation, and you might be able to console yourself in the fact that while shares of income taxes paid aren't congruent to shares of income received, they ARE quite close to congruent to shares of wealth actually held. Maybe you have some argument as to why tax-shares should be apportioned to match income-shares rather than wealth-shares, but I doubt it.

only a hard core statist can claim tax cuts-that resulted in the richest one percent PAYING EVEN A HIGHER SHARE OF THE INCOME TAX Burden-could call such stuff welfare for the rich
Another contender for the Bad-At-Math Award. The only reason that tax-share increased for the wealthy under Bush was that despite the large and rapid declines in their tax rates, their incomes were going up so fast that they ended up owing more taxes anyway. How awful for them to have that happen!
 
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.

What I wonder is this : why do the wealthy conservatives find it necessary to lie so much.
There is a three million dollar exemption involved, and then there is a percentage.
The federal government is not actually/truthfully taking ones inheritance !
1....the inheritance tax must go, to be replaced by higher capital gains taxes
2.... we must learn that our ways cannot be forced on others, we must have no more wars....and our great "constitution" says nothing about this !!
We need people who can think for themselves without having to lean so much on the Bible and the Constitution ..
 
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.
Your ideas make a lot of sense, for the year 1800...
 
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.
Absolutely
IMO, the police of the 21st century will spend more time in educating the public rather than applying 19th century "force".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom