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 92 of 195 FirstFirst ... 42829091929394102142192 ... LastLast
Results 911 to 920 of 1947

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

  1. #911
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Oh Bull ****. If people were truly concerned about a "just" tax policy they would argue for no estate taxes, single taxation, and either a flat or consumption tax and tailor spending accordingly.
    Well, I will agree with you that people with a concern for "just" taxation will argue for no estate taxes and single taxation-- which is itself somewhat redundant, since estate taxes are inherently a form of double taxation-- but arguing that either a flat tax or a consumption tax are "just" is based on the economically flawed assumption that a person's last dollar of income, in terms of utility, is worth as much to them as their first dollar. This simply isn't true. The dollars that a person must earn to pay their necessary expenses have a much higher utility value than their disposable income, and each dollar of disposable income provides a correspondingly smaller utility to its owner up to a point-- should someone be so lucky!-- that more dollars simply do not and could not improve their standard of living at all.

    It's only in investing that later dollars are worth more than earlier dollars-- and then, the purpose of those investments is to provide either more disposable income now or to provide for one's income in the future, when those dollars will exhibit the same diminishing returns of utility.

    That's why flat income taxes are typically only supported by conservative and libertarian politicians; even the economists favored by flat-taxers generally shy away from endorsing such proposals, because they know that they are fundamentally unjust and more importantly, economically destructive. Flat tax schemes cannot support even just the weight of the few government programs that hardline conservatives favor, much less the weight of the programs favored by moderate conservatives and centrists.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The fact is that the wealthy are taxed more for no other reason than they have more. If you substituted the reasons for a different tax rate or took from an estate because of the color of skin, religion, or other factors you would be in violation of the equal protections clause of the fourteenth, so substitute rich for any other reason and you would be guilty of bias, the fact is that taxing someone based on an arbitrary amount of wealth you consider "enough" is in fact unjust.
    Yes. The difference between being "wealthy", though, and being "black" or "gay" or "catholic" is that there is a qualitative difference in being wealthy as pertains to taxation: they can afford to pay more. Or to put it in blunt terms: all taxation hurts, but it hurts rich people less. Economic justice isn't-- and shouldn't-- be about spreading the wealth to people who haven't earned it, but it absolutely should include spreading the pain around to the people who feel it least.

    The problem with the tax structure the way it is constructed now is that it allows the people with the least tax burden-- or even a negative tax burden, which is morally anathema-- is to increase the burden on the people bearing the most of it without increasing the portion of the burden they carry themselves. It creates a massive perverse incentive to create more and more government programs without considering how to pay for them; since normal people don't pay for them, the only way to encourage them to restrain spending is to make irrational and emotionally-laden appeals to notions of justice we all know are logically faulty at best and morally dubious at worst.

    It has essentially reduced our political process to two camps of slavering beasts: one camp demanding unlimited bread and circuses for welfare parasites at the expense of productive citizens, and one camp demanding regressive taxation schemes and government cuts for rent-seeking parasites at the expense of productive citizens. The only hope that productive citizens have in this system of political insanity is to attach themselves to one camp or the other regardless of its incompatibility with their own best interests.

  2. #912
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Moderator's Warning:
    which best describes your view of the inheritance tax?Also, this thread is still Upstairs. I would caution other posters to keep that in mind and start acting like it.

  3. #913
    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 Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Well, I will agree with you that people with a concern for "just" taxation will argue for no estate taxes and single taxation-- which is itself somewhat redundant, since estate taxes are inherently a form of double taxation-- but arguing that either a flat tax or a consumption tax are "just" is based on the economically flawed assumption that a person's last dollar of income, in terms of utility, is worth as much to them as their first dollar. This simply isn't true. The dollars that a person must earn to pay their necessary expenses have a much higher utility value than their disposable income, and each dollar of disposable income provides a correspondingly smaller utility to its owner up to a point-- should someone be so lucky!-- that more dollars simply do not and could not improve their standard of living at all.
    I do agree here. As for the discretionary income argument, my goal in debating is to get to a point where people understand that there is a depreciation effect on the dollar right now which is caused by spending and other government induced factors all paid for by unjust taxation. The ultimate goal of all of us should be to bring the utility aspect to a smaller ratio allowing more dollars to be free for investment or play rather than bleeding them out due to taxation and hidden taxes.

    It's only in investing that later dollars are worth more than earlier dollars-- and then, the purpose of those investments is to provide either more disposable income now or to provide for one's income in the future, when those dollars will exhibit the same diminishing returns of utility.
    Very true.

    That's why flat income taxes are typically only supported by conservative and libertarian politicians; even the economists favored by flat-taxers generally shy away from endorsing such proposals, because they know that they are fundamentally unjust and more importantly, economically destructive. Flat tax schemes cannot support even just the weight of the few government programs that hardline conservatives favor, much less the weight of the programs favored by moderate conservatives and centrists.
    I use flat taxes more as a last resort. I personally believe a consumption tax is the best way to go. It is more of a value on purchase rather than taxing on labor and investment, it's easier to simplify, and most importantly is the most predictable. People who want the rich to pay more don't realize that with a larger disposable income and a predictable tax base they would buy more and invest more which would still lead to more taxes paid but there would be more value to the taxes so the payment is by choice. The counter argument is on labor and gains, which to me is a punitive stance.


    Yes. The difference between being "wealthy", though, and being "black" or "gay" or "catholic" is that there is a qualitative difference in being wealthy as pertains to taxation: they can afford to pay more. Or to put it in blunt terms: all taxation hurts, but it hurts rich people less. Economic justice isn't-- and shouldn't-- be about spreading the wealth to people who haven't earned it, but it absolutely should include spreading the pain around to the people who feel it least.
    Sure, being wealthy people can "pay more" at this particular moment, but there is a threshold and frankly the way it's structured now leads to people shutting things down if they are at the borderline between brackets. If one is ridiculously wealthy they can pay more, but then again that is also less investment and purchasing money and that means less in the private sector. If for instance we freed up more money then more taxpayers can be created and thus we can lessen the tax burden by increasing the pool of tax payers.
    The problem with the tax structure the way it is constructed now is that it allows the people with the least tax burden-- or even a negative tax burden, which is morally anathema-- is to increase the burden on the people bearing the most of it without increasing the portion of the burden they carry themselves. It creates a massive perverse incentive to create more and more government programs without considering how to pay for them; since normal people don't pay for them, the only way to encourage them to restrain spending is to make irrational and emotionally-laden appeals to notions of justice we all know are logically faulty at best and morally dubious at worst.
    Completely agree.
    It has essentially reduced our political process to two camps of slavering beasts: one camp demanding unlimited bread and circuses for welfare parasites at the expense of productive citizens, and one camp demanding regressive taxation schemes and government cuts for rent-seeking parasites at the expense of productive citizens. The only hope that productive citizens have in this system of political insanity is to attach themselves to one camp or the other regardless of its incompatibility with their own best interests.
    I agree here as well. Then again you are addressing a guy who wants both of the current parties to die out and leave room for new blood that will be honest about our current state of the Union.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #914
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    My problem with consumption taxes is that unless necessary goods are exempted, they disproportionately affect the poor and middle class and have almost no effect at all upon the wealthy-- who largely consume only about as much as the upper middle class, with the bulk of their economic activity being either charitable or investment. We shouldn't discourage investment, but we absolutely cannot afford to discourage consumption, even of luxury goods. Especially luxury goods, considering the role that the various entertainment industries play in our overall economy.

    I think the progressive income tax is the way to go-- it just needs to be reformed to correct for the undesirable factors, such as negative tax burdens and the ability for people to vote for tax increases that don't affect their tax rates.

  5. #915
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    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?
    The reality is a simple one and cannot be denied: The wealthy are not taxed as a class of people. Income is taxed as an amount earned on a schedule and the individual earning it is responsible for making their tax payment. In fact, to say that the rich are the target is simply not true. One can be rich... very rich.... dripping with wealth in fact ...... but if one has no income for that year, they pay no income tax for that year. It is not the wealthy or the rich who are the target of the tax but it is individuals earning a certain income. And the income tax does not target merely the wealthy - it applies to middle income earners as well. So it clearly is not targeting a class of people simply for their wealth. A very wealthy person can avoid the income tax by simply not having income in that particular year.

    On the flip side, one can have a very good year placing them in the top bracket of 35% but still not posses the assets or collected wealth to make them rich or wealthy. Somebody who had been earning 35K$ every year can go to the casino, hit it for $400,000.00 and they do not suddenly move to the upper tier of Americans as wealthy. They can pay some bills, buy a new car or two, maybe pay off the house and put something aside if they are prudent, but they are not suddenly going to the country club and rubbing shoulders with cream of the social register. It just does not happen that way even thought you are in the top bracket for that year.



    A racial minority is a racial minority each and every year and belongs to an identified class over which they have no control. The same with gender and ethnicity (sex change surgery noted but it is statistically insignificant). Age changes with the calendar but one has no control over it. Religion is a protected class as it falls under the first amendment.

    None of those characteristics apply to a person making money on the income tax schedule.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-12-12 at 08:47 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

  6. #916
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I do not see how you made that jump. My pojnt is the opposite of that assertion.
    Your point was, but your statement implied otherwise when you brought up the fact that jobs have other risks besides financial.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    To adopt the restrictive rules of an academic debate and pretend that there is only one type of risk - FINANCIAL RISK - that is important is going to give us a false picture of the citizens concerns.
    That statement implies that one would base taxes on some factor other than financial.

    No. My point is that risk is risk is risk an d it comes in all shapes and sizes and forms. And I do not want the government subsidizing risk.
    Risk is not all the same any more that people are all the same. How the various types of risk are treated is a separate issue. To parallel: People are people are people and come in all shapes and sizes and colors. And I do not want the government subsidizing any one type.

    Your personal views on investment and retirement are your personal views on investment and retirement. How can you put yourself in some lofty position of looking down upon others and pass judgment about company retirement programs that people entered decades ago before we had a spat of pension problems? When a person honored their end of the agreement, and then were screwed by a company who reneged on their obligations, that risk was never something that was foreseen or anticipated but ended up being there just the same.
    Both my father and grandfather recognized the risk of relying on a retirement plan that assumed that a company was still in business and still making a profit enough to support a pension plan. If the business goes under then so does the pension. That is why IMHO relying on them is foolish. Even if they are still in operation, if the company is struggling, then who should get the priority; Current worker, or retiree?

    The point here is the same one - government should NOT be in the business of subsidizing risk and that is what they are doing - by your own admission - with preferential and discriminatory rates favoring the wealthy who benefit from generous inheritance exemptions and favorable tax rates on capital gains.
    What gets taxed and how and if the different types of income are treated the same or different was never my argument to you. My argument to you is that you cannot call them all the same. They are not. Why don't you call a Navy SEAL the same as a football player? After all they both work hard and run a risk of injury and/or death.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    They don't.
    By their own admission, I pay a higher rate than some millionaires do.
    Some. Not all or even most.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    why should any of it be taxed?
    Because tax is a necessary evil of having a government which is a necessary evil of having a society. Now whether that tax is income or sale can be argued as can the level, but a person's money is going to get taxed one way or another.

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh pushing for states to recognize gay marriage is hardly less government and the fact is its the dems who need people to be dependent on government.
    Actually it can be argued that it is less government as it then takes AWAY regulation on who is allowed and not allowed. Any time you restrict something, it requires more government to ensure the restrictions are met.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    That does not even make sense. Its really inane to say that the only reason the rich are taxed more is that they have more. Like teenagers would say... "DUH". Let me guess ..... we should tax the people that have LESS MORE? Is that what you want?
    Skin color!?!?!?!?! Religion!?!?!?!??! Other factors!?!?!?!?!? Where do you get this nonsense?
    Read the US Constitution. Its in there. Amendment XVI - coming up on the 100th Anniversary.
    Here's your "DUH". If you are to treat skin color the same and religion the same and other factors the same then you treat income the same. Does a black person whose skin is really dark get a preferential treatment over one whose skin is only a light brown when it comes to the government mandated percentage of African-American people who need to be in qualifying businesses? No. The same principle applies to income. One rate. And like I said before you try to call hypocrisy, I've only made the claim that there are different types of income that hold different risk so considering whether or not they should be taxed differently is sensible and logical, not that I think they should.

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    So why then has government spending increased at the same time taxation on the rich is at modern historical lows? Your theory falls apart like wet toilet paper being flushed away.
    Probably because the taxation on the low income workers has not increased. If the lower class doesn't feel the pain of increased spending then why should they push harder for more spending cuts? That is not a support for such taxation, simply an observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    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?
    No it makes absolute sense. In other words, a rich person, i.e. one who has a high net worth, is not necessarily getting a high tax rate, where as a high income earner, who may throw away most of his earnings, does get the high tax rate. His net worth is lower and thus he may not be technically rich. Of course some people can't get past the idea that income is the only measure of rich.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    Well, I will agree with you that people with a concern for "just" taxation will argue for no estate taxes and single taxation-- which is itself somewhat redundant, since estate taxes are inherently a form of double taxation-- but arguing that either a flat tax or a consumption tax are "just" is based on the economically flawed assumption that a person's last dollar of income, in terms of utility, is worth as much to them as their first dollar. This simply isn't true. The dollars that a person must earn to pay their necessary expenses have a much higher utility value than their disposable income, and each dollar of disposable income provides a correspondingly smaller utility to its owner up to a point-- should someone be so lucky!-- that more dollars simply do not and could not improve their standard of living at all.
    And THIS point is what makes the Fair Tax a "fair" tax plan. Through the prebate it eliminates the tax on necessary expenses (i.e. the poverty line) and taxes only disposable income.

    Now due to time constraints I need to get to work but I will try to pick this up later tonight.

  7. #917
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

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

    from maquiscat


    That statement implies that one would base taxes on some factor other than financial.
    Of course you do. There is no doubt about that. Taxes are public policy issues and as such take in many considerations including the political, the social and other areas besides the financial. That is simply the way of the world.


    Risk is not all the same any more that people are all the same. How the various types of risk are treated is a separate issue. To parallel: People are people are people and come in all shapes and sizes and colors. And I do not want the government subsidizing any one type.
    Of course there are types of risk. Nobody is taking issue with that. I simply do not want the government subsidizing investment risk with discriminatory and preferential tax rates while it ignores other areas of risk.

    on pensions

    Both my father and grandfather recognized the risk of relying on a retirement plan that assumed that a company was still in business and still making a profit enough to support a pension plan. If the business goes under then so does the pension. That is why IMHO relying on them is foolish. Even if they are still in operation, if the company is struggling, then who should get the priority; Current worker, or retiree?
    Foolish!?!?!?!? It is foolish to uphold your end of the contract for thirty or more years and then expect the other party to uphold their end of the same contract? That in your judgment is foolish? Hardly. I was under the impression, perhaps a false one, that libertarians placed great worth on contracts. Was I mislead?

    As far as who shall be paid the retiree or the current worker ..... one should not take on new contractual burdens until one satisfies and honors the contractual burdens they have already negotiated and to which the other party has satisfied and completed their obligation to you.

    If you are to treat skin color the same and religion the same and other factors the same then you treat income the same.
    Skin color is something that one is born with and is a permanent condition of life (save Michael Jackson and rare exceptions).
    Ethnicity is the same.
    Gender is the same.
    While religion can be changed, and many do change that, it is a protected right under the First Amendment.

    Income is not like any of those. It is not something you are born with. It is not something which is permanent and you can do nothing about. It is not something which is even stable or a characteristic from year to year for the same person. As such, income does not identify a class of people but only the yearly level to which one earns and does not mark a person in the way race or ethnicity or gender or even religion does.

    I posed this in a reply to Turtle on spending and tax rates


    So why then has government spending increased at the same time taxation on the rich is at modern historical lows? Your theory falls apart like wet toilet paper being flushed away.
    the reply from Maquiscat


    Probably because the taxation on the low income workers has not increased. If the lower class doesn't feel the pain of increased spending then why should they push harder for more spending cuts? That is not a support for such taxation, simply an observation.
    I have long supported an across the board five point increase for ALL people who earn dollar one.
    Last edited by haymarket; 02-12-12 at 11:58 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

  8. #918
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

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

    the 5% increase on everyone has some merit but only after the rates are more fair. The rich are paying too much right now and half of America not enough

  9. #919
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:42 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,877

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    the 5% increase on everyone has some merit but only after the rates are more fair. The rich are paying too much right now and half of America not enough
    And I have also proposed changes which would make the rates more fair and prevent the current gaming of the system and the bypassing of the intended progressive nature of the federal income tax by abolishing the estate tax and abolishing capital gains and simply taxing the money as income according to the schedules.

    We preserve the intended progressive and graduated nature of the federal income tax, we have all earning Americans paying something into the system, we remove the discriminatory preferences for both inheritance and capital gains and we achieve greater fairness overall.
    __________________________________________________ _
    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. #920
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    And I have also proposed changes which would make the rates more fair and prevent the current gaming of the system and the bypassing of the intended progressive nature of the federal income tax by abolishing the estate tax and abolishing capital gains and simply taxing the money as income according to the schedules.

    We preserve the intended progressive and graduated nature of the federal income tax, we have all earning Americans paying something into the system, we remove the discriminatory preferences for both inheritance and capital gains and we achieve greater fairness overall.
    you merely want the inherent unfairness of the rich not only paying more actual dollars but paying at much higher rates

Posting Permissions

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