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 91 of 195 FirstFirst ... 41818990919293101141191 ... LastLast
Results 901 to 910 of 1947

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

  1. #901
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    I merely observe the logical reasons behind the constant butt hurt whining from some
    NO. What you are doing is attempting to tar peoples actual posts with a phone and false motive - namely that they only pursue a certain tax policy because they are failures. So just who is it who posts here who are trying to mask their actual motives about raising taxes due ot their own personal failures? Who is it?

    This is just more nonsense from you where you attempt to demonize anyone who disagrees with you on this particular issue. It should not be tolerated and will not be tolerated. This gets to the very heart of why you post here and your tactics that you employ here.

    This sort of thing must stop.

    Either that or have the honestly to come forth and put names and quotes to your charges.

    again - your own statement making this charge

    what we do see is several people who constantly rant about the rich and want the rich to be taxed more apparently to salve their sense of failure
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-12-12 at 03:11 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

  2. #902
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Uh huh. And that amendment was passed to nullify a more fair tax system that you for some reason didn't want me to present, wonder why that could be. As well the fourteenth could nullify the sixteenth if someone really wanted to press the issue due to the equal protections clause, you should know that since you have claimed to be a poli-sci professor.

    If it doesn't make sense to you then I'll give you a simplified version, a multiple choice:
    Billy must pay more in tax because _____________
    a) He is black
    b) He is Jewish
    c) He is Catholic
    d) He is gay
    e) He makes over 25 thousand dollars a year

    Which one is most likely to pass, and after such which one is most likely to have public support.

    Bonus question: Of the above, which one follows a normal sense of the proper usage of the word justice.
    1) None of the Above
    2) None of these fits a proper usage of the word justice
    - Feel free to choose one, you may skip this question if you do not understand it with no penalty.
    The answer is F.

    And F. is simple: because it is authorized by the United States Constitution in an amendment which pas passed by at least 2/3 of both Houses of Congress and ratified by the state legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

    You really have no understanding of how our government works or why we have some of the laws we do have. Your own silly question proves that on top of all the other things you have said going back to the Constitution promising and guaranteeing language that is not in it but is actually found in the nations birth announcement. This is just the latest example. Or how about last weeks claim about government and how legislation is passed which you claimed was supported because you once interviewed somebody on the radio who was a legislator. Amazing stuff.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-12-12 at 03:16 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

  3. #903
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The answer is F.

    And F. is simple: because it is authorized by the United States Constitution in an amendment which pas passed by at least 2/3 of bout Houses of Congress and ratified by the state legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

    You really have no understanding of how our government works or why we have some of the laws we do have.
    So.......instead of adressing income discrimination you are hiding behind an amendment nullifying another amendment that does not hold up to the fourteenth amendment. Noted, and F isn't an option.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #904
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    So.......instead of adressing income discrimination you are hiding behind an amendment nullifying another amendment that does not hold up to the fourteenth amendment. Noted, and F isn't an option.
    Do you realize that the language amending the Constitution itself CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT CHANGED PREVIOUS LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION?

    My heavens. This is truly amazing.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #905
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Do you realize that the language amending the Constitution itself CANNOT BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT CHANGED PREVIOUS LANGUAGE IN THE CONSTITUTION?

    My heavens. This is truly amazing.
    Do you not realize that constitutional amendments MAY NOT violate rights held under other parts? So do you care to answer the question of how the government may discriminate against people for what they have versus other factors or not? And if you truly feel that way do you care to answer how that is any less amoral than the latter?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #906
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Do you not realize that constitutional amendments MAY NOT violate rights held under other parts? So do you care to answer the question of how the government may discriminate against people for what they have versus other factors or not? And if you truly feel that way do you care to answer how that is any less amoral than the latter?
    Is this another thing you learned interviewing people for radio? Because it certainly is NOT something you learned in any class on American Government? A persons income- is subject to taxation as authorized by Amendment XVI. Why is that not something you can understand?
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-12-12 at 03:32 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

  7. #907
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

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

    "Lowest top rate in decades:

    The maximum estate tax rate is currently 35 percent, the lowest top rate in 80 years, according to an IRS publication (“The Estate Tax: Ninety Years and Counting”) on the history of the tax. It’s also a big drop from the 55 percent rate that would have automatically gone into effect if Congress hadn’t acted. (Earlier legislation eliminated the federal estate tax in 2010 but had called for it to be reinstated with a $1 million exemption and a top rate of 55 percent in 2011.)"

    https://www.wfconversations.com/tran...planning_tips/
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  8. #908
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,000

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

    The equal protection clause was never intended to apply to taxes. Even the Tax Protester FAQ (Tax Protester FAQ) doesn't need to demolish these arguments because nobody ever seems to try to make an equal protection case.

    The Minnesota House research department (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd...s/clsstxep.htm) has this to say:
    Most tax laws are subject to “rational basis” review under the Equal Protection Clause; to be constitutional they must simply have a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose.

    The Equal Protection Clause was initially adopted primarily to limit or prohibit racial discrimination by the states. The courts have also applied it to proscribe other forms of invidious discrimination (e.g., based on religion, ethnicity, etc.). However, legislation often necessarily involves “discrimination” in the broader sense that groups of individuals or businesses are treated differently based on particular characteristics (e.g., amounts of income, type of business, uses of property, etc.) that in the abstract are unobjectionable. The clause was not intended to restrict legislation that imposed different tax or regulatory rules, for example, on retailers than on manufacturers. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed a stricter standard of review for laws that create “suspect classifications” or deprive someone of a “fundamental right” as a compared with more benign legislative classifications. The lines between the two categories (perhaps inevitably) blur at the edges. At times the Court has explicitly talked about a middle level of review.

    Very few tax statutes have been struck down under the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally given states wide latitude to fashion tax classifications, perhaps more than in any other area of law. See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 41 (1973), where the Court noted: “[T]hat in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification.”
    You also need to remember that the income tax amendment was passed at the height of the Progressive movement, which called for a progressive tax system (a coincidence using two different meanings of the word). Legislative intent again comes into play. If there had been any thought that unequal tax rates on income would have violated any constitutional principles the amendment could have specifically said so. It didn't then, and not even tax cranks have tried to make the case in the near 100 years since.

    In addition, the line of argument of LaMid is based on a false premise, in that the higher tax rate is not on rich people, as asserted, but on higher income. Said higher income is potentially attainable by any person, and the tax is not on the person per se but on the income itself.

    The argument is a non-starter.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-12-12 at 04:02 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. #909
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Is this another thing you learned interviewing people for radio? Because it certainly is NOT something you learned in any class on American Government? A persons income- is subject to taxation as authorized by Amendment XVI. Why is that not something you can understand?
    Why do you not understand that a constitutional amendment cannot violate another without repeal. All you do is get into diversion games without actually backing anything up, high school civics classes have more points than you have landed here. Again, why is it not discrimination to tax a persons work?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  10. #910
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    The equal protection clause was never intended to apply to taxes. Even the Tax Protester FAQ (Tax Protester FAQ) doesn't need to demolish these arguments because nobody ever seems to try to make an equal protection case.

    The Minnesota House research department (http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd...s/clsstxep.htm) has this to say:
    Most tax laws are subject to “rational basis” review under the Equal Protection Clause; to be constitutional they must simply have a rational relationship to a legitimate legislative purpose.

    The Equal Protection Clause was initially adopted primarily to limit or prohibit racial discrimination by the states. The courts have also applied it to proscribe other forms of invidious discrimination (e.g., based on religion, ethnicity, etc.). However, legislation often necessarily involves “discrimination” in the broader sense that groups of individuals or businesses are treated differently based on particular characteristics (e.g., amounts of income, type of business, uses of property, etc.) that in the abstract are unobjectionable. The clause was not intended to restrict legislation that imposed different tax or regulatory rules, for example, on retailers than on manufacturers. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court has developed a stricter standard of review for laws that create “suspect classifications” or deprive someone of a “fundamental right” as a compared with more benign legislative classifications. The lines between the two categories (perhaps inevitably) blur at the edges. At times the Court has explicitly talked about a middle level of review.

    Very few tax statutes have been struck down under the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally given states wide latitude to fashion tax classifications, perhaps more than in any other area of law. See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriquez, 411 U.S. 1, 41 (1973), where the Court noted: “[T]hat in taxation, even more than in other fields, legislatures possess the greatest freedom in classification.”
    You also need to remember that the income tax amendment was passed at the height of the Progressive movement, which called for a progressive tax system (a coincidence using two different meanings of the word). Legislative intent again comes into play. If there had been any thought that unequal tax rates on income would have violated any constitutional principles the amendment could have specifically said so. It didn't then, and not even tax cranks have tried to make the case in the near 100 years since.

    In addition, the line of argument of LaMid is based on a false premise, in that the higher tax rate is not on rich people, as asserted, but on higher income. Said higher income is potentially attainable by any person, and the tax is not on the person per se but on the income itself.

    The argument is a non-starter.
    This may be the stupidest point I've ever seen. "Rich people aren't being taxed more, only higher earners" Do you even realize how ****ing stupid that sounds in playback?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

Posting Permissions

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