• 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?

  • There should be no inheritance tax of any amount of money or assets.

    Votes: 64 50.8%

  • The first 5 million dollars should be exempt. After that the tax rate should be 35%.

    Votes: 20 15.9%

  • The first 5 million dollars should be exempt. After that the tax rate should be 50%.

    Votes: 10 7.9%

  • The first 1 million should be exempt. After that the rate should be 50%.

    Votes: 18 14.3%

  • No exempt amount. Tax at 35% from the get-go.

    Votes: 7 5.6%

  • No exempt amount. Tax at 50% from the get-go.

    Votes: 1 0.8%

  • Abolish all inheritance. In other words, tax 100%.

    Votes: 6 4.8%
  • Total voters
    126
Status
Not open for further replies.
LaMidRighter said:
I'm surprised that came from the WaPo. They are almost left of the NYT. Good one though.
Click to expand...

Yeah I did a double take thinking it was the Moon Unit Paper the WT
 
Any transfer of money should simply be considered as income and taxed at the appropriate rate. On millions of dollars that would be 35%.

Nothing could be fairer.
 
haymarket said:
Any transfer of money should simply be considered as income and taxed at the appropriate rate. On millions of dollars that would be 35%.

Nothing could be fairer.
Click to expand...

NO what would be fairer is that if you crave the government take more wealth from people the taking is at the same rate for everyone
 
haymarket said:
Any transfer of money should simply be considered as income and taxed at the appropriate rate. On millions of dollars that would be 35%.

Nothing could be fairer.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to do so. Transfer payments from one individual to another don't fall under "national income,' and moreover, the wealth in that transfer has at one time or another already been taxed as income. That is my argument for why they should not be taxed.

If you give a friend $5 bucks for losing a bet, should that be taxed? Or simply considered a transfer of wealth between two individuals and left alone?
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
why does the government have such a need? why give an irresponsible spending entity more money to waste?
Click to expand...

Government runs on taxes. I see no reason a chemist or Dr. Should pay more on the money they recieve than someone who didn't even earn it.
 
TurtleDude said:
NO what would be fairer is that if you crave the government take more wealth from people the taking is at the same rate for everyone
Click to expand...

Again, you confuse apples and cinderblocks and wonder how you chipped your teeth on that hard grey pie filling.
 
kenvin said:
Government runs on taxes. I see no reason a chemist or Dr. Should pay more on the money they recieve than someone who didn't even earn it.
Click to expand...
Because they pay as they earn it, the money you are laying claim to has been taxed at least once and sometimes more than twice. You are talking about further taxing already taxed money with no actual justification other than empty emotion. That is why.
 
kenvin said:
Government runs on taxes. I see no reason a chemist or Dr. Should pay more on the money they recieve than someone who didn't even earn it.
Click to expand...

so what did you or the government do that more entitles you to the money than the person who earned it and bequeaths it?

this government has far too much money and wastes far too much money. It has expanded beyond any reasonable boundary
 
StillBallin75 said:
It makes no sense to do so. Transfer payments from one individual to another don't fall under "national income,' and moreover, that wealth in transfer has at one time or another already been taxed as income. That is my argument for why they should not be taxed.

If you give a friend $5 bucks for losing a bet, should that be taxed? Or simply considered a transfer of wealth between two individuals and left alone?
Click to expand...

News flash for you: virtually all money has been axed previously in one form or another before it gets in your pocket and is taxed again and will be taxed again down the road many times.

And that money has NEVER been taxed by the new owner of it - and that who is responsible for the tax. It works the same with income.... of which this is no different.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Because they pay as they earn it, the money you are laying claim to has been taxed at least once and sometimes more than twice. You are talking about further taxing already taxed money with no actual justification other than empty emotion. That is why.
Click to expand...

The reality is that almost all money is taxed repeatedly from new owner to new owner. That is the nature of the beast.
 
haymarket said:
Again, you confuse apples and cinderblocks and wonder how you chipped your teeth on that hard grey pie filling.
Click to expand...

You need to find another analogy to justify your desire for the government to take yet more money from people

you obviously believe that the government needs more money and those who earn it don't have a right to control what is done with it even after paying massive taxes on it
 
haymarket said:
The reality is that almost all money is taxed repeatedly from new owner to new owner. That is the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

More lies-as I have illustrated. If you work for me I pay you money I was taxed on and then you are taxed on it

If I buy something the seller will be taxed on it as income

but in both cases there is an exchange of value. I guess you want to tax loans as well

In fact I suspect you want to tax tax tax tax because you clearly indicate that the government is more entitled to peoples' wealth than they are and you operate under the belief that the government truly needs MORE money which of course will cause it to NEED even more money down the road
 
haymarket said:
News flash for you: virtually all money has been axed previously in one form or another before it gets in your pocket and is taxed again and will be taxed again down the road many times.

And that money has NEVER been taxed by the new owner of it - and that who is responsible for the tax. It works the same with income.... of which this is no different.
Click to expand...
Newsflash for YOU. Taxing money more than once is supposed to be ILLEGAL, your type has ignored that over the years to the detriment of American tax contributors and businesses.
 
TurtleDude said:
You need to find another analogy to justify your desire for the government to take yet more money from people

you obviously believe that the government needs more money and those who earn it don't have a right to control what is done with it even after paying massive taxes on it
Click to expand...

You badly misread the analogy. It is for you and your inability to keep two different things separate in your mind and in your arguments.

Apples and cinderblocks - your confusion with a progressive tax rate and taxing capital gains as regular income like everything else... or in this case inheritance wealth being taxed as normal income.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Newsflash for YOU. Taxing money more than once is supposed to be ILLEGAL, your type has ignored that over the years to the detriment of American tax contributors and businesses.
Click to expand...

this constant desire for the government to have more of our money to waste is really disgusting in my mind.

Is there anyone who can honestly say that the government is lean mean efficient and frugal with our tax dollars

and why are some people so willing to make OTHERS pay more even if those OTHERS already pay far more than those who are so generous with the wealth they had no part in earning?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Newsflash for YOU. Taxing money more than once is supposed to be ILLEGAL, your type has ignored that over the years to the detriment of American tax contributors and businesses.
Click to expand...

Really!??!?!?! You need a lesson in economics.

Money is taxed over and over and over again. I get paid and pay tax on that money - all of my salary is taxed. So I take $100 dollars of it - write HAYMARKET on it and go to the store with it. I buy something for $100 and hand my bill with my name on it to the cashier who charges me 6% tax on that purchase. My $100 dollar bill - of which I was already taxed in income tax from my salary - is now subject to another tax. It is taxed twice.

So the cashier turns it over to the store. Later, a supplier who insists on being paid in cash, makes a delivery and part of his payment is my $100 bill. He signs a receipt and acknowledges that he is responsible for his own taxes on the money. So he pays tax on my $100 bill also. He goes to the gas station and fills up his truck and the cost is $100.00 which he pays for with my bill with my name on it. Some 15 to 20% of what he paid for is tax.

The gas station owner takes the bill and pays a snow plow driver the next day to plow out the station after five inches of snow. He pays income tax on his income of the $100 bill.

And on and on and on it goes. And that is just day one. Each day that same money changes owners and is taxed again and again and again.

Welcome to the real world of low finance.
 
haymarket said:
Really!??!?!?! You need a lesson in economics.

Money is taxed over and over and over again. I get paid and pay tax on that money - all of my salary is taxed. So I take $100 dollars of it - write HAYMARKET on it and go to the store with it. I buy something for $100 and hand my bill with my name on it to the cashier who charges me 6% tax on that purchase. My $100 dollar bill - of which I was already taxed in income tax from my salary - is now subject to another tax. It is taxed twice.

So the cashier turns it over to the store. Later, a supplier who insists on being paid in cash, makes a delivery and part of his payment is my $100 bill. He signs a receipt and acknowledges that he is responsible for his own taxes on the money. So he pays tax on my $100 bill also. He goes to the gas station and fills up his truck and the cost is $100.00 which he pays for with my bill with my name on it. Some 15 to 20% of what he paid for is tax.

The gas station owner takes the bill and pays a snow plow driver the next day to plow out the station after five inches of snow. He pays income tax on his income of the $100 bill.

And on and on and on it goes. And that is just day one. Each day that same money changes owners and is taxed again and again and again.

Welcome to the real world of low finance.
Click to expand...

You seem to ignore the difference between properly taxed transactions that result in income exchanged for value be it goods or services vs gifts which were never seen as taxable transactions until the greedy parasites in government decided they needed more money to waste

this sort of madness is why there should only be a consumption tax. lefties have proven that they want to get their paws on any activity that they can use to justify taking more money from the citizens. why aren't loans taxed? wait I suspect those who worship the government and want it to have more money will try to do that
 
LaMidRighter said:
Because they pay as they earn it, the money you are laying claim to has been taxed at least once and sometimes more than twice. You are talking about further taxing already taxed money with no actual justification other than empty emotion. That is why.
Click to expand...

All money is in circulation. My boss paid taxes on profits. Our customers paid taxes in their pay before that. When you recieve money you didn't have before that is income and should be subject to appropriate tax.
 
To rehash my own beliefs in simpler terms:

I believe only national income should be taxable (essentially anything included under Y = C+I+G+(N-X)). Transfers of wealth do not fall under that category.
 
kenvin said:
All money is in circulation. My boss paid taxes on profits. Our customers paid taxes in their pay before that. When you recieve money you didn't have before that is income and should be subject to appropriate tax.
Click to expand...

so a loan should be taxed?
 
haymarket said:
Really!??!?!?! You need a lesson in economics.

Money is taxed over and over and over again. I get paid and pay tax on that money - all of my salary is taxed. So I take $100 dollars of it - write HAYMARKET on it and go to the store with it. I buy something for $100 and hand my bill with my name on it to the cashier who charges me 6% tax on that purchase. My $100 dollar bill - of which I was already taxed in income tax from my salary - is now subject to another tax. It is taxed twice.

So the cashier turns it over to the store. Later, a supplier who insists on being paid in cash, makes a delivery and part of his payment is my $100 bill. He signs a receipt and acknowledges that he is responsible for his own taxes on the money. So he pays tax on my $100 bill also. He goes to the gas station and fills up his truck and the cost is $100.00 which he pays for with my bill with my name on it. Some 15 to 20% of what he paid for is tax.

The gas station owner takes the bill and pays a snow plow driver the next day to plow out the station after five inches of snow. He pays income tax on his income of the $100 bill.

And on and on and on it goes. And that is just day one. Each day that same money changes owners and is taxed again and again and again.

Welcome to the real world of low finance.
Click to expand...
Which has absolutely nothing to do with multiple taxation. Try again.
 
haymarket said:
Really!??!?!?! You need a lesson in economics.

Money is taxed over and over and over again. I get paid and pay tax on that money - all of my salary is taxed. So I take $100 dollars of it - write HAYMARKET on it and go to the store with it. I buy something for $100 and hand my bill with my name on it to the cashier who charges me 6% tax on that purchase. My $100 dollar bill - of which I was already taxed in income tax from my salary - is now subject to another tax. It is taxed twice.

So the cashier turns it over to the store. Later, a supplier who insists on being paid in cash, makes a delivery and part of his payment is my $100 bill. He signs a receipt and acknowledges that he is responsible for his own taxes on the money. So he pays tax on my $100 bill also. He goes to the gas station and fills up his truck and the cost is $100.00 which he pays for with my bill with my name on it. Some 15 to 20% of what he paid for is tax.

The gas station owner takes the bill and pays a snow plow driver the next day to plow out the station after five inches of snow. He pays income tax on his income of the $100 bill.

And on and on and on it goes. And that is just day one. Each day that same money changes owners and is taxed again and again and again.

Welcome to the real world of low finance.
Click to expand...

You're not making the distinction between payments for goods and services and labor, which is consumption/investment that can and SHOULD be taxed as income, and simple transfer payments. One involves an equal exchange of value, the other does not.
 
Last edited:
StillBallin75 said:
To rehash my own beliefs in simpler terms:

I believe only national income should be taxable (essentially anything included under Y = C+I+G+(N-X)). Transfers of wealth do not fall under that category.
Click to expand...

I don't believe any income should be taxed. this would get rid of the class envy we see, it would get rid of punishing the frugal and it would capture tons of unreported or illegal income

most importantly, it will castrate a far too powerful federal government from playing the different tax brackets against each other (or the current rage among the left-those with investment income vs those with earned income)
 
StillBallin75 said:
You're not making the distinction between payments for goods and consumption which can and SHOULD be taxed as income, and simple transfer payments. One involves an equal exchange of value, the other does not.
Click to expand...

Of course not-such a distinction would prevent justifying the government getting more money
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom