• 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.
haymarket said:
It is NOT the job of the government to subsidize risk by private individuals in private ventures investing their own private money.

When money changes hands from one owner to a new owner, it is normal for it to be taxed. My wages work like that - your salary works like that... money is taxed over and over and over again when it changes hands from one owner to another.
Click to expand...

giving people money because they are too stupid, too lazy or too untalented to earn it on their own is subsidizing sloth

no its not normal for gifts to be taxed and its not normal for most estates to be taxed so cut the crap. you are not being truthful on that count
 
haymarket said:
Again, you confuse apples with cinderblocks.

Everyone making a certain income should pay the same rate for that income level. Agreed. and good night to all. :2wave:
Click to expand...


the same rate period. Your concept of fairness always has a carve out to allow you to pimp the industrious
 
haymarket said:
and I gave you the answer and if you read it you would learn that your premise was a FALSE ONE.
Click to expand...


I didn't ask haymarket what the IRS or wiki says.. i asked Haymarket a question... a question i guess i'm not getting an answer to. <shrugs>
 
i'll wager some in here wants to tax the allowance people give to their kids too.... as it "changes owners" and it's "income"
 
Thrilla said:
I didn't ask haymarket what the IRS or wiki says.. i asked Haymarket a question... a question i guess i'm not getting an answer to. <shrugs>
Click to expand...

Here are a couple questions I haven't had answered from Haymarket

why should someone who say lives off a lifetime of savings (through investments) have his tax go from 15% (on top of corporate profit taxes) to 40% as you want

why should a million dollars made by a corporation be taxed TWICE by the greedy government so they get 35% at the first cut (leaving 650K) and then 40% when it is distributed to the owners meaning of the 1 million earned by the corporation only 390K makes it into the pockets of the citizens
 
Thrilla said:
i'll wager some in here wants to tax the allowance people give to their kids too.... as it "changes owners" and it's "income"
Click to expand...


three people want the government to take everything you own when you die. someone like that gets in office its time to start the revolution
 
haymarket said:
New owner of the money since it changed hands. New tax on it with the new owner. Thus, it has not already been taxed on current owner.

That is the way money works. The same money is taxed again and again and again when it changes hands - just like an inheritance.
Click to expand...
So just to be clear, your position is that any time money changes hands, that money represents income to the receiver and ought to be taxed? Does this also apply to goods such as land, factories, boats, cars, livestock, etc?
 
TurtleDude said:
Yeah I am a statist-I want the beast to go on a diet and Haymarket figures the way to cure its diabetes is to give it a sugar cane plantation
Click to expand...
LOL. Statist. He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
 
Centinel said:
LOL. Statist. He keeps using that word. I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Click to expand...

The Dude knows a statist is someone who states things, so he ain't going to let people with a Commie/Socialist agenda keep a statist from being a statist. Don't let them tell you you're not a statist, Dude!
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
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?
Click to expand...

you wish for me to break the CBO report down for you in small, easy to read words? :)
 
haymarket said:
A tiny poll on a website dominated by rightists and right libertarians is hardly significant in a nation of 311 million citizens.
Click to expand...

:lol: you think this is a rightist site?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...58-503544.html

Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing Rich

66% favor tax increases on upper earners.
Click to expand...

income tax. you seem to have issues confusing income taxes with estate taxes.


irrespective, it's not terribly surprising. roughly the same amount of Americans "think they pay about the right amount of taxes" as pay no federal income tax at all. of course people will often poll in favor of goodies paid for by someone else.

The main two ways that the wealthy are gaming the system is through
1) capital gains rates which are discriminatory and preferential
Click to expand...

:) and yet Romney's 14% rate is higher than 97% of Americans, and the CBO says that your claim here is false. funny, that.

2) exemptions on the first $5,100,000.00 of inheritance
Click to expand...

which is indeed unfortunate. there should be no tax on any inheritance, as the real wealthy don't pay the estate tax anyway. they do what Buffet does, which is to hide their wealth in foundations, trusts, and the like.

reform those and the anger goes away as tax justice is restored..
Click to expand...

:( I wish you were right. but the desire for others' stuff is sadly insatiable, and those who become accustomed to the belief that they are morally justified and entitled to it can never be satisfied (see sig).
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
you wish for me to break the CBO report down for you in small, easy to read words? :)
Click to expand...

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?

I do not care what words you use as long as it makes sense and is truthful and factual.
 
Thrilla said:
I didn't ask haymarket what the IRS or wiki says.. i asked Haymarket a question... a question i guess i'm not getting an answer to. <shrugs>
Click to expand...

Your question was about a spouse inheriting. The premise you were operating under was a false one. I gave you both the law and an explanation of the terms in the law.

You were operating under a false premise. What more do you require that you do not already have?
 
Thrilla said:
i'll wager some in here wants to tax the allowance people give to their kids too.... as it "changes owners" and it's "income"
Click to expand...

This red herring was brought up earlier and a different poster provided the law on children and parents. Again, another false premise on your part.
 
TurtleDude said:
Here are a couple questions I haven't had answered from Haymarket

why should someone who say lives off a lifetime of savings (through investments) have his tax go from 15% (on top of corporate profit taxes) to 40% as you want

why should a million dollars made by a corporation be taxed TWICE by the greedy government so they get 35% at the first cut (leaving 650K) and then 40% when it is distributed to the owners meaning of the 1 million earned by the corporation only 390K makes it into the pockets of the citizens
Click to expand...

You have been answered repeatedly. For someone who evades questions like dodge balls in gym class you seem pretty insistent. But I will oblige you in the hopes of getting straight answers out of you for a change.

1 - if the rate on income is set at 35% for the top bracket, it is discriminatory and an unfair preference to knowingly allow one source of income to avoid that taxation by as much as 60%. In addition, we know from both experience and the historical record from past years that the discriminatory benefit is enjoyed and employed largely by the very wealthy and are using that capital gains preference to effectively gut the intent of the progressive income tax. The issue then becomes one of fairness and equality before the law.

2- a corporation is not taxed twice. A corporation is taxed once. They then distribute profits to shareholders and they are taxed once. The corporation and the shareholder are two different legal entities with different sets of responsibilities and legal obligations.

A corporation is created under the laws of a state as a separate legal entity that has privileges and liabilities that are distinct from those of its members.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

But then, you have been given the law and all this time after time after time before in thread after thread after thread.
 
Last edited:
from cpwill

you seem to have issues confusing income taxes with estate taxes.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

You seem to have issues confusing my position on what needs to be in a national tax policy where the estate tax is abolished and the transfer of that money or wealth is simply taxed as normal income under the applicable rates and schedule.

Now why would you intentionally misrepresent what I have posted here time and time and time again using the sham and ruse that I am confused when you know perfectly well that I am advocating changes in the law?
 
haymarket said:
I would strongly urge you to get a book on debate. I would further urge you to look up what a false premise is.
Click to expand...

False premise? A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of a logical syllogism. What incorrect proposition did Thrilla make that formed the basis of a logical syllogism? What logical syllogism is he making?

Thrilla said:
..and if the inheritance goes to the wife?... you want that taxed again too?.. even though it's basically hers through common law?
Click to expand...

Please note that he is not putting forth an argument, but is asking you a question regarding your opinion. He is asking you, haymarket, whether you would like an inheritance to a wife to be taxed.

And of course, you have not given your opinion, but simply cited current law. I thought you were opposed to the current law. Weird.
 
haymarket said:
New owner of the money since it changed hands. New tax on it with the new owner. Thus, it has not already been taxed on current owner.

That is the way money works. The same money is taxed again and again and again when it changes hands - just like an inheritance.
Click to expand...

So just to be clear, your position is that any time money changes hands, that money represents income to the new owner and ought to be taxed?
 
haymarket said:
You have been answered repeatedly. For someone who evades questions like dodge balls in gym class you seem pretty insistent. But I will oblige you in the hopes of getting straight answers out of you for a change.

1 - if the rate on income is set at 35% for the top bracket, it is discriminatory and an unfair preference to knowingly allow one source of income to avoid that taxation by as much as 60%. In addition, we know from both experience and the historical record from past years that the discriminatory benefit is enjoyed and employed largely by the very wealthy and are using that capital gains preference to effectively gut the intent of the progressive income tax. The issue then becomes one of fairness and equality before the law.

2- a corporation is not taxed twice. A corporation is taxed once. They then distribute profits to shareholders and they are taxed once. The corporation and the shareholder are two different legal entities with different sets of responsibilities and legal obligations.



Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But then, you have been given the law and all this time after time after time before in thread after thread after thread.
Click to expand...

more evasions-the same entity taxes the same amount of money which has not been used in any exchange of value twice, twice. you rely on formalistic nonsense while avoiding the obvious

you also assume that having progressive brackets for one kind of income is "fair" and anything else is UNFAIR

the unfairness is the income tax
 
TurtleDude said:
more evasions-the same entity taxes the same amount of money which has not been used in any exchange of value twice, twice.
Click to expand...

NEWS BULLETIN: THIS JUST IN...........

The government - entity you are referring to - taxes the same amount of money over and over and over and over an over and over and over and over and over an over and over and over and over and over an over and over and over and over and over an over and over and over and over and over an over and over and over and over and over an over and over and over and over and over an over and over and over and over and over an over and over when it changes ownership.

To pretend that it is otherwise is intellectual fraud of the worst sort.

And again you invent this nonsense about "exchange of value" as if it is some sort of rule or law of precept that determines taxation. Just where are you getting this stuff from Turtle? Are you doing the Indiana Jones thing again and making it up as you go along?
 
Centinel said:
So just to be clear, your position is that any time money changes hands, that money represents income to the new owner and ought to be taxed?
Click to expand...

My position is that $800,000.-- earned in wages should be taxed on the same schedule as $800,000.00 in capital gains or $800,000.00 in inheritance money.
 
I'm not defending haymarket's position but there are some interesting observations to be made:

TurtleDude said:
a rational tax policy would prevent politicians from using the tax code to pander to voters or to punish those who vote against them
Click to expand...
You''re going to have to change more than tax policy to accomplish that!

TurtleDude said:
the fact is those who have dividend income tax are already paying far higher than 30% effective tax rates on their income
Click to expand...
???

Thrilla said:
horsehockey... you government employees and your bosses are responsible for the spending.
Click to expand...
And who has by far the biggest influence on political decisions, including spending? PACs and their ilk. Who funds those?

TurtleDude said:
and you ignore that the person with capital gains is risking the money and paid massive taxes getting the money to invest.
Click to expand...
Let's reverse this, then. I pay interest to the credit union on a car loan. The interest money I pay to the CU is taxed when I earn it. By your reasoning the CU should not be taxed on that interest. I don't think that's gonna' fly. The same would apply if it's Joe Nextdoor that loans me the money.

Companies are basically paying interest when they hand out dividends regardless of what label you want to put on it. Capital gains are similar except the company, instead of issuing dividends, decides to keep the money for other uses, thereby increasing it's assets and (usually) increasing the value of it's stock. The part of capital gains that isn't from an increase in assets is, in essence, gambling. If you have a capital gain, as opposed to a loss, then you won the bet!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom