• 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.
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.
All of which can be simplified with a better tax system based off of purchases or a flat rate. You still are not differentiating the fact that money in an estate is being taxed for the simple transference to it's new owners, this is what a will is for, to designate already paid on money to it's destination. Face it, re taxing is BS.
 
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

Where are you getting this exchange of value stuff from? can you cite the law on that for us? And in the detailed example I gave you the exchange of value is obvious and repeated over and over again.
 
Where are you getting this exchange of value stuff from? can you cite the law on that for us? And in the detailed example I gave you the exchange of value is obvious and repeated over and over again.

why is there an estate and gift tax rather than it being in the income tax? because even a parasitic congress that wanted both such taxes realized they are different transactions

and tell us again why the government needs all this money. and why don't people like you start paying more if you think this is a good idea and stop demanding people like me who already pay tons pay even more

THIS GOVERNMENT HAS PLENTY OF MONEY TO DO ITS PROPER JOB
 
Which has absolutely nothing to do with multiple taxation. Try again.

Your comment makes no sense. I showed you a detailed example where the same $100 bill was taxed again and again and again in just one days time. That is exactly multiple taxation on the same money. But then again, that is the way it works and that is the way it is suppose to work.

This right wing meme of "double taxation" of capital gains or inheritance is simply nonsense that scares nobody but themselves since they believe what they opt to believe even though it is fantasy.
 
why is there an estate and gift tax rather than it being in the income tax? because even a parasitic congress that wanted both such taxes realized they are different transactions

and tell us again why the government needs all this money. and why don't people like you start paying more if you think this is a good idea and stop demanding people like me who already pay tons pay even more

THIS GOVERNMENT HAS PLENTY OF MONEY TO DO ITS PROPER JOB

Sorry Turtle but I answered your question of me straight out and direct. Please do the same before you ask more of your own.

Where in the law are you getting this stuff about exchange of value from as a necessary part of taxation?
 
Your comment makes no sense. I showed you a detailed example where the same $100 bill was taxed again and again and again in just one days time. That is exactly multiple taxation on the same money. But then again, that is the way it works and that is the way it is suppose to work.

This right wing meme of "double taxation" of capital gains or inheritance is simply nonsense that scares nobody but themselves since they believe what they opt to believe even though it is fantasy.

the fantasy is the love for a wasteful government and the unending attempts to justify the government should take more and more wealth from us
 
the fantasy is the love for a wasteful government and the unending attempts to justify the government should take more and more wealth from us

Why are you unable to defend your own argument? Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.

And please do not reply with more pontificating statements of belief that fail to answer the question about your own previous claims. Lets dot this letter i before we move on to new words or claims.
 
Sorry Turtle but I answered your question of me straight out and direct. Please do the same before you ask more of your own.

Where in the law are you getting this stuff about exchange of value from as a necessary part of taxation?

It has nothing to do with the law, and everything to do with simple economics.

Income in the form of personal consumption or business investment is included under what economists term "national income." That is, the national economy as a whole receives a flow of income whenever an employer pays his employee, AND whenever that employee goes down the street to the convenience store to buy some gum or chips or beef jerky. These transactions happen when there is an equal exchange of value - an employer paying a worker for his labor, a consumer going down the street to the store to buy something for his personal consumption, etc. All these are included under "national income," of which GDP or GNI are rough equivalents. GDP and GNI are numbers that represent the flow of income for a country's economy on an annual basis, as I'm sure you already know.

Transfer payments of liquid wealth DO NOT fall under the same category. The are simply handing money from one party to another. In other words, inheritance is NOT INCOME.
 
Last edited:
Why are you unable to defend your own argument? Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.

And please do not reply with more pontificating statements of belief that fail to answer the question about your own previous claims. Lets dot this letter i before we move on to new words or claims.
its easy to defend

inheritance is not INCOME and the INCOME TAX proves that

and again what justifies this unbelievable desire for the government to take more and more?
 
its easy to defend

inheritance is not INCOME and the INCOME TAX proves that

and again what justifies this unbelievable desire for the government to take more and more?

All money coming into a persons pocket or account should be taxed as income..... MONEY coming IN. Get it Turtle?

And quit moving the goal posts and answer the question that you have been impotent to speak to so far.

Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.

Show us all that you are not yet again simply making it up as you go along ala Indiana Jones in RAIDERS.
 
its easy to defend

inheritance is not INCOME and the INCOME TAX proves that

and again what justifies this unbelievable desire for the government to take more and more?

So now you are a statist using the states law to justify your own position? Amazing.
 
All money coming into a persons pocket or account should be taxed as income..... MONEY coming IN. Get it Turtle?

And quit moving the goal posts and answer the question that you have been impotent to speak to so far.

Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.

Show us all that you are not yet again simply making it up as you go along ala Indiana Jones in RAIDERS.

tell me where your attitude that an inheritance is income is found in the federal law. If that were true there would be no death tax or estate tax.

and tell me why you want the government to take even more money from people who already pay the top rates and pay the most actual federal tax dollars
 
So now you are a statist using the states law to justify your own position? Amazing.

you are the one who loves government not me. I want to put that hog on a serious diet so it looks like the chicken as the founders intended
 
you are the one who loves government not me. I want to put that hog on a serious diet so it looks like the chicken as the founders intended

Then why are you using the statist argument to defend your position?

Why are you impotent to defend your own previous claims and allegations: Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.
 
I am NOT a fan of the Miami Dolphins, but I think that is was so unfair that several years ago when the owner of the team died, his heirs had to sell the team to pay the death tax.
 
tell me where your attitude that an inheritance is income is found in the federal law. If that were true there would be no death tax or estate tax.

and tell me why you want the government to take even more money from people who already pay the top rates and pay the most actual federal tax dollars

I never said inheritance was part of the definition of income IN THE LAW. It is clearly handled under the estate tax laws. I was agreeing with you that we should abolish estate taxes and I said the way to handle this would be to simply classify it as income and tax it accordingly. Are we clear on that now Turtle?

Again with the statist argument of using the definition in the law to excuse your own position.

You keep asking question after question after question in a desperate attempt to get yourself out of the tight corner that you painted yourself into.

Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.



Why are you powerless to do this?
 
Last edited:
  • The person who has died has already paid tax on that money when alive.
This is where I fall on the issue.


It's not always liquid cash. In the example of the chain of restaurants worth 20 million, 35% tax on that is 7 million dollars. If someone inherits those restaurants, but not much cash, he or she has to come up with that 7 mil somehow or sell some of the restaurants or close some down and lay people off. To me that makes no sense. It seems better for jobs and the economy to just leave them alone and let the restaurants continue as they did before the death.
I pretty much agree with all your points but think Jobs/economy would at least theoretically continue on even if sold.
 
Again with the statist argument of using the definition in the law to excuse your own position.

You keep asking question after question after question in a desperate attempt to get yourself out of the tight corner that you painted yourself into.

Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.



Why are you powerless to do this?

where in the law does it say that inheritance is income

and I guess if this board were limited to discussions where the law is all that matters, it would be rather dead

we are making a just argument why transactions that merely involve a transfer of money rather than an exchange of value are not income generating and the tax code tends to agree with us rather than you

but what is really disturbing is your desire that more and more money be taken by a government that has proven to be wasteful and dishonest (remember the promise of spending cuts if GHWB agreed to dem tax hikes)
 
where in the law does it say that inheritance is income

and I guess if this board were limited to discussions where the law is all that matters, it would be rather dead

we are making a just argument why transactions that merely involve a transfer of money rather than an exchange of value are not income generating and the tax code tends to agree with us rather than you

Your first line contradicts the position of the second line. You cannot make a statist argument in your first statement and then decry the position of the law in your second statement.

Where does this exchange of value stuff come from as a necessary component for taxation?

again from my post 66

I never said inheritance was part of the definition of income IN THE LAW. It is clearly handled under the estate tax laws. I was agreeing with you that we should abolish estate taxes and I said the way to handle this would be to simply classify it as income and tax it accordingly. Are we clear on that now Turtle?
 
Your first line contradicts the position of the second line. You cannot make a statist argument in your first statement and then decry the position of the law in your second statement.

Where does this exchange of value stuff come from as a necessary component for taxation?

again from my post 66

I never said inheritance was part of the definition of income IN THE LAW. It is clearly handled under the estate tax laws. I was agreeing with you that we should abolish estate taxes and I said the way to handle this would be to simply classify it as income and tax it accordingly. Are we clear on that now Turtle?

using that "logic" you could justify taxing wealth every month even if it does not create income
 
I never said inheritance was part of the definition of income IN THE LAW. It is clearly handled under the estate tax laws. I was agreeing with you that we should abolish estate taxes and I said the way to handle this would be to simply classify it as income and tax it accordingly. Are we clear on that now Turtle?

Again with the statist argument of using the definition in the law to excuse your own position.

You keep asking question after question after question in a desperate attempt to get yourself out of the tight corner that you painted yourself into.

Tell us where this allegation of yours about exchange of value for taxation is found in the law.



Why are you powerless to do this?

Once again, this has nothing to do with the law. The law is irrelevant to this discussion. What I and TD (and I usually HATE agreeing with TD and other assorted righties) are arguing is that INHERITANCE IS NOT INCOME. Meanwhile, the examples you listed a few pages back of your $100 being taxed more than once IS an example of income, and in each instance you gave it was appropriately taxed as such.

I don't believe that it's appropriate or makes much economic sense for the government to assess a tax on WEALTH - which is exactly what the estate tax is. It is a tax on a stock, rather than a flow.
 
Once again, this has nothing to do with the law. The law is irrelevant to this discussion. What I and TD (and I usually HATE agreeing with TD and other assorted righties) are arguing is that INHERITANCE IS NOT INCOME. Meanwhile, the examples you listed a few pages back of your $100 being taxed more than once IS an example of income, and in each instance you gave it was appropriately taxed as such.

I don't believe that it's appropriate or makes much economic sense for the government to assess a tax on WEALTH - which is exactly what the estate tax is. It is a tax on a stock, rather than a flow.

that pretty much is a perfect summation of our arguments.
 
No inheritance tax of any ****ing amount of money or assets. Period
 
I'm not in favor of the estate tax.

In general terms, I am against taxes on wealth in general. I just think it makes more sense for the government to tax income (a flow) rather than wealth (a stock) in the form of estate taxes, property taxes, and whatnot, and this includes transfers of wealth from one person to another.

Ok, it's not tax on wealth. It's tax on unrealized appreciation. If you inherit 5 million in stocks, you have to pay taxes on the amount of appreciation from the basis of the stock until the time of inheritance. If this did not occur, wealth could be passed from generation to generation without ever being taxed, which would result in an aristocracy.
 
Last edited:
Ok, it's not tax on wealth. It's tax on unrealized unrealized appreciation. If you inherit 5 million in stocks, you have to pay taxes on the amount of appreciation from the basis of the stock until the time of inheritance. If this did not occur, wealth could be passed from generation to generation without ever being taxed, which would result in an aristocracy.

that doesn't apply to stuff like land or art work etc.

especially stuff that was taxed before when the bequeather received it in the past-its the present value and if that didn't go up there is double, triple, quadruple taxation on the same piece of property
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom