• 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.
Financial status should be a Federally protected class.
 
I actually addressed that in an earlier post. The first $5 million would be untouched. But 35% after that. It's not that I want to TAX THE RICH!!! out of envy. But I do want to prevent an Aristocracy. That's all.

Then your problem is twofold:

1. the arbitrary "$5 million" line is not a good fit to reality. Someone who farms $6 million worth of land with $2 million worth of equipment is not the same as someone who has an $8 Savings Account.

2. your method (estate tax) actually achieves the exact opposite of what you claim your goal is. by ensconsing the super rich and protecting their position from competition from the newly rich, you ensure that Great Wealth is able to maintain itself against comers in a multi-generational fashion.
 
Your posts have made it abundantly clear that you have reserved a special place in your hate and loathing for anyone who attempts to represent the interests of working people against the elite.

no. we do not agree with (and often do indeed look down upon) those who see the interests of the working class and wealthy as being inherently at odds.
 
I read and reread you post and I have rarely seens such utter contempt for your fellow Americans

yawn. save your demagoguery and shallow pretense at shock for your politicians' press releases. Good night, you sound like Gingrich refusing to believe that Romney would criticize him in a campaign ad.

Low information voters....... really now!?!?

yes. really now. for examples, wonder on over to the "do you pay a higher rate than Mitt Romney" thread and see how many fools thought that they did.

For someone who claims to have taught government to be shocked by the notion of "low information voters" is... well, ridiculous. If you wish to read the scholarly treatment, Google is your friend.

I especially enjoy the last sentence in the introduction here. :)

it would seem to me people who understand that they are getting the short end of the stick by a system which treats the money of wealthy different than it does the money the working class earns are very high information voters.

since they would be wrong to assume that they are paying a higher rate, no, they wouldn't be. Seems to me it is the people who fall for the substitution of nominal for effective tax rates who are the low-information types.

I love it when you and others grab your handy dandy referee suit from the closet and proclaim FAIL because you disagree with somebodys post based on your own peculiar slant. It would be downright hilarious were it not so self serving and disingenuous.

this is a discussion about the estate taxes which destroys businesses, breaks up family farms, destroys middle and lower class jobs, generates little if any net revenue for the government, and protects the uber-rich from competition. you seem to want to talk about Mitt Romney earning capital gains. I'd call the pretense that the one is the other a fail.

The fact is a simple one and all the parsing semantics about what income is or what wealth is or what money is means nothing. The fact that matters is that working people have finally caught on that the game is rigged in the favor of people who get their money through capital gains and inheritance.

if the game is rigged, then those people are idiots because apparently they are still losing. 85% of millionaires are first-generation rich, not squandering heirs, and second-generation millionaires are actually at a disadvantage. heirs that squander typically quickly run through their inheritances, and people that never learned to street-fight typically don't do as well at fisticuffs.

according to the Congressional Budget Office, the total effective Federal Tax rate for the top 1% is around 30%: far higher than the working stiffs you describe (people in the top tenth of the top 1% paid 32%): and the effective income tax rate (to include capital gains) is 19% for the top 1%: again, higher than those of us in the "working" class.

Let me quote directly from the CBO themselves:

...High-income households have a disproportionate share of comprehensive income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes. The half-percent of the population with the highest income received 14.7 percent of total household income before taxes and paid 22.6 percent of total federal taxes in 2005 (see Tables 2 and 3). People at the top 0.01 percent of the income scale received 4.2 percent of total income and paid 6.5 percent of total federal taxes in 2005...

now I was a history major who loathed his "Mathematics For The Non Math Guy Course You Have To Take To Graduate" class, but it seems to me if you are making 14.7% of the income, and paying 22.6% of the taxes, you are paying a higher rate than someone else, who is offsetting you.

Somebody who pockets $800K in wages, pays 35% on it. That is $280,000.00.

as demonstrated by the CBO, this is incorrect. you are either the low-information voter described above who confuses nominal with effective tax rate, or you are willingly blurring the line between the two because you feel the only way you can make your argument is through dishonesty.

Somebody who pockets the same $800K in capital gains pays 15% on it. That is $120,000.00.

that is also (as per the CBO above) incorrect.

Somebody who pockets the same $800K in inheritance pays 0% on it. That is $0.00.

and thank goodness. taxes are necessary evils, not desirable universal principles. we should be looking to tax only as little as absolutely necessary, not asking ourselves what new things we can attach government orifices to.

The warrior of the right through their libertarian and conservative think tanks have tried to brainwash average working people to go against their own economic interests for a long time now. Sadly, this Machiavellian plot has worked with some. But illumination and education is going on all over the land and people are wising up.

not really. alot of charlatans have tried to convince people that they can have something for nothing, and that the economic interests of Americans in general are at odds rather than intertwined.

You want to educate those people you look down your nose upon and label as "low information voters"? Start there.

:) I would be more than happy to go into greater detail with you on the difference between effective and nominal tax rates. We can start there, or anywhere else that I've touched on, as you like.
 
Last edited:
cpwill

how does one thing in your post change the fact that we have a system which hits the wages of people far harder than capital gains income or inheritance income?

How does anything in your post change the fact that on $800,000.00 - a wage earner pays $280,000.00 in federal tax while a capital gains earner pays $120,000.00 in federal tax and someone who inherits the same sum for a different person pays nothing on that same amount?

All the rest is lipstick on a pig.
 
just the opposite

1- the discriminatory preference of taxing your money at 15% because a fancy label is placed on it called 'capital gains' while the same amount of wages is takes at 35%
2- the privilege of being able to exclude millions and millions from the estate tax before a single dollar is taxed

The idea of those discriminatory preferences being extended to you and the wealthy destroy any concept of FAIR SHARE.

your concept of fair share is based on

1) the from each according to their ability mantra

2) an apples to oranges comparison


3) supporting anything that makes other people pay more money to your beloved behemoth government
 
cpwill

how does one thing in your post change the fact that we have a system which hits the wages of people far harder than capital gains income or inheritance income?

well... for one example... you will note that in my post I point out that - according to the CBO - in fact we hit the wealthy and capital gains harder than wages :).



did you even read the thing?
 
Last edited:
Lets cut all the nonsense and get down to the same reason you favor every tax scheme you endorse : it gives you a tax cut.

actually my main reason is to eliminate the ability of people like you to pander to the masses by jacking up my taxes

and I pay far too much taxes based on an objective analysis of

1) what others pay

2) what others use in federal services

3) and its disgusting that the people who pay the most taxes in their lifetime are the only ones taxed upon their deaths
 
I will say that I am immensely enjoying the results of this poll. There is hope for us yet :).
 
Yes, Turtle, how dare you complain when people attempt to take your stuff and give it to others represent the interest of working people against the elite.


Using the power of government to take other people's stuff and give it to others is the epitome of selfishness and greed. Before you go all, "I'm haymarket and I'm righteously indignant" on us, please try to remember who is the one advocating the use of government force to take what belongs to others. Do you really expect your intended victims to smile and thank you? Seriously?

the advocates for looting the wealth of others always pretend its in the interest of "the greater good"
 
cpwill

how does one thing in your post change the fact that we have a system which hits the wages of people far harder than capital gains income or inheritance income?

How does anything in your post change the fact that on $800,000.00 - a wage earner pays $280,000.00 in federal tax while a capital gains earner pays $120,000.00 in federal tax and someone who inherits the same sum for a different person pays nothing on that same amount?

All the rest is lipstick on a pig.
There is no Berlin Wall holding you here. The fact that you continue to live in a nation you loath with every fiber of your being is quite telling.
 
the advocates for looting the wealth of others always pretend its in the interest of "the greater good"
Yep. It's all for the greater good. Now be a good little citizen and hop into this cattle car.
 
I am relieved to see that the majority of pollers, like myself, clicked option #1__To those of you who clicked otherwise, I ask 'do you really believe government has proven itself to be an efficient and provident administrator of your tax dollars'?

And have you forgotten that these assets have already been taxed by an insatiable government that will never be content until it has found a way to tax 100% of everything from everyone and ration back to us what it determines our needs to be?

Back door Communism___Like a thief in the night___Come on people, this isn't rocket surgery!
 
Yep. It's all for the greater good. Now be a good little citizen and hop into this cattle car.

we will teach our twisted speech to the young believers
we will train our blue eyed men to be young believers
 
I am relieved to see that the majority of pollers, like myself, clicked option #1__To those of you who clicked otherwise, I ask 'do you really believe government has proven itself to be an efficient and provident administrator of your tax dollars'?

And have you forgotten that these assets have already been taxed by an insatiable government that will never be content until it has found a way to tax 100% of everything from everyone and ration back to us what it determines our needs to be?

Back door Communism___Like a thief in the night___Come on people, this isn't rocket surgery!

Its amazing some one thinks the government should take everything you have when you die or should take 35% of everything you own

disgusting isn't it

back tonight
 
Perhaps you have heard of The Golden Rule?

That's what I'm using.

I don't want the government to treat me any differently then anyone else, regardless of race, ethnicity, age, religion, sexual orientation, or how much money I've earned.

No one should receive special privileges for being poor, and no one should be penalized for being rich.
 
Last edited:
we will teach our twisted speech to the young believers
we will train our blue eyed men to be young believers
Poetic reality___I love it!

The young are such easy targets for the marxist utopian dream.
 
actually this is incorrect - the uberwealthy are able to protect their money from inheritance taxes. what an inheritance tax does is stop the creation of new multi-generational wealth; protecting the position of the "old money" against competition.
I never considered that. Definitely something for much deeper thought.


The thing is it's not the money in and of itself - it's the non-economic power the money represents that's the sticking point. I could care less if some rich guy wants to spend 330 days a year sunning his ass in the Caribbean and the other 30 days in Aspen, flying back and forth between them at his whim. But when he decides he doesn't want to pay taxes on the jet, then uses his money to lobby in DC to make that happen, yeah - that's a problem. At this point we've gone beyond a representative democracy into an aristocracy with the rich at the top of the food chain dictating to those below. Is it any wonder we would want to limit the size of that ruling class?

But I can possibly see where protecting the existing Aristocracy from New Money may not be in our best interest, either. (I'm a bit of a Darwinist.) Deeper thought, indeed - thanks for pointing this out! :)
 
well the old adage would serve you best there: if you wish to get business out of politics, get the politicians out of business. folks only spend fortunes buying congresscritters because it earns them a decent return. a government so limited as to be incapable of such discrimination in its' treatment of citizens is unable to provide such a return, and thus attracts no investment.
 
point worth making - this is in construction contracting. currently employment and investment in that sector is.... not robust. those blue-collar workers and their families that the death/estate tax will throw onto the street will likely be there for a long time. :(
I don't see that. Either the construction contracts are there or they aren't. Who signs the paycheck for those construction workers is irrelevant to the overall economy. I'm not saying it's "right" that your uncle's company goes out of business (though I can think of a couple of ways it could survive intact) but if it does, the construction contracts it would have won would be won by someone else and those workers would have the job instead of your uncle's workers. No jobs have been lost, they've just shifted from one company's workers to another. Or maybe the other company's owner will see a chance to expand and hire those workers instead. There are many possibilities but none lead to fewer jobs. The work still has to be done by someone.

and many of us-ie most of the GOP and almost all its representatives don't want to tax people more-especially those who are targeted by the parasitic dem politicians

so lets just cut cut cut and see what happens
That's a simple answer - mistreat people enough and they rebel in one way or another. You can laugh at OWS all you want but regardless of your opinion of it, it's a sign of unrest. "The masses" are being pushed and, like any living organism, they push back in kind.


Of course the GOP doesn't want to tax those that feed it. If +$1 in more taxes = -$1 in political slush then the GOP would be losing money. We all know politicians are there first and foremost to line their own pockets. (And that applies to both sides of the aisle.)

well the old adage would serve you best there: if you wish to get business out of politics, get the politicians out of business. folks only spend fortunes buying congresscritters because it earns them a decent return. a government so limited as to be incapable of such discrimination in its' treatment of citizens is unable to provide such a return, and thus attracts no investment.
Or we could just put a stop to campaign contributions?

I remember a world without clean air regulations - I don't want to go back. I grew up less than a mile away from a steel mill and you would not beeelieeeve what kind of crap came out of that place! Ditto for the plating shop just down the road from it. Environmental regulations are just one example, there are many others. The world has moved beyond simplistic answers like yours and mine.
 
Last edited:
your concept of fair share is based on

1) the from each according to their ability mantra

2) an apples to oranges comparison


3) supporting anything that makes other people pay more money to your beloved behemoth government

Actually my concept of FAIR is based on the following reality of living in America and has NOTHING to do with ideology. Its all pragmatic numbers which cannot be denied.

case #1 George Brown. Works as a record producer and has risen up in the ranks due to hard work and his own talent. He made an income of $800,000.00 in 2011. His tax rate is 35%. Without any deductions, his tax bill is $280,000.00 in federal income tax.

case #2 is Susan Green. She does not work at a job. She has a portfolio of investments and lives off that income. In 2011, she earned an income of $800,000.00 in long term capital gains. Her tax rate is 15%. Without any deductions, her tax bill is $120,000.00 in federal income tax.

case #3 is Tom Wallace. He did not work in 2011. He did inherit $800,000.00 from his father who died leaving him the money. Because of the 5 million dollar exemption, his tax rate on the $800,000.00 is zero percent. His tax bill is nothing - zero dollars in federal income tax.

So we have three Americans all who placed $800,000.00 into their pockets in 2011.
One paid $280,000.-- in federal tax upon that sum.
Another paid $120,000.00 in federal tax upon that sum.
A third paid $0.00 in federal tax upon that sum.

Now explain to me, why the American people - the vast vast majority of which get their money from wages and salary, should support this sort of system which discriminates among sources of money and applies discriminatory rates to them?

No apples to oranges.... dollars to dollars ...... tax bill to tax bill ...... rate to rate.
 
You're quite welcome.

Did you have a point you wanted to make, or was this just idle curiosity?

The point was made but if you need be reminded I am happy to do so again.
 
no. we do not agree with (and often do indeed look down upon) those who see the interests of the working class and wealthy as being inherently at odds.

And I am sure that in Fairy Tale Land giants and dwarves are also created equal. ;)
 
well... for one example... you will note that in my post I point out that - according to the CBO - in fact we hit the wealthy and capital gains harder than wages :).



did you even read the thing?


Perhaps you can explain in ordinary everyday English how 35% of an $800,000.00 income in wages is actually LESS than 15% of an $800,000.00 income from capital gains?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom