• 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.
most people haven't a clue

indeed more people are able to tell you who the two finalists of the last AMERICAN IDOL were than name their own state's two senators. That is why the dems spew the crap about the rich not paying their fair share. It enrages the sheeple

Again, your contempt of the American people is only exceeded by your own desire for worshipping Mammon.
 
Stillballin' already spelled out what income is. You are arguing an incompatible definition, what part of my argument are you not understanding?

So Stillballin is the official source of all definitions here?

Simply present his authoritative and undebatable definition along with his official credentials as the Supreme Authority on Defining Debate Terms and I will gladly bow to them.

I will await you doing that. right.
 
Again, your contempt of the American people is only exceeded by your own desire for worshipping Mammon.

I am an agnostic, I don't worship much of anything. I am too intelligent to subordinate my intellect to a myth

and speaking of greed-its you who spend hours justifying your desire for your beloved deity (big government) to take more and more and more from others
 
So Stillabllin is the official source of all definitions here?

Simply present his authoritative and undebatable definition along with his official credentials as the Supreme Authority on Defining Debate Terms and I will gladly bow to them.

I will await you doing that. right.
Hmm. Let's see, he shows an understanding of economics, so yes he does have credibility. Care to adress where you are wrong or do you want to keep dodging?
 
I am an agnostic, I don't worship much of anything. I am too intelligent to subordinate my intellect to a myth

and speaking of greed-its you who spend hours justifying your desire for your beloved deity (big government) to take more and more and more from others

Thousands of your post say otherwise Turtle.

If you need them - yet again for a time beyond counting - I will be happy to reproduce here your contrary and hypocritical positions on taxation in your own words which prove one thing - your desire to a tax cut for more money in your pocket countering all things including logic and consistency.

Would you like to see your own words on that................ yet again?
 
Hmm. Let's see, he shows an understanding of economics, so yes he does have credibility. Care to adress where you are wrong or do you want to keep dodging?

Dodging? You are moving faster than a class of second graders being introduced to dodgeball in a gym class for the first time.

All you need to do is show me how this person you refer to in a post giving his opinion is accepted here as The Official Definer Of All Terms In Debate and Is Above Challenge or Reproach.

Then you may have something more than just your own vendetta against me.

and by the way - I am not the one who cares to address where I am wrong - that is your job by reproducing my posts and showing with verifiable evidence where I am wrong. You would have learned that in debate had you been educated in that art.
 
Last edited:
Dodging? You are moving faster than a class of second graders being introduced to dodgeball in a gym class for the first time.

All you need to do is show me how this person you refer to in a post giving his opinion is accepted here as The Official Definer Of All Terms In Debate and Is Above Challenge or Reproach.

Then you may have something more than just your own vendetta against me.

and by the way - I am not the one who cares to address where I am wrong - that is your job by reproducing my posts and showing with verifiable evidence where I am wrong. You would have learned that in debate had you been educated in that art.
So do you still assert that inheritance is income or not?
 
Thousands of your post say otherwise Turtle.

If you need them - yet again for a time beyond counting - I will be happy to reproduce here your contrary and hypocritical positions on taxation in your own words which prove one thing - your desire to a tax cut for more money in your pocket countering all things including logic and consistency.

Would you like to see your own words on that................ yet again?

Your concept of contradictory is amusing

1) I have said there is an ideal type of taxation

2) I have said there is a workable best system

3) and I have said i support some alternatives over the present system

not a contradiction

Its like saying I'd love to be married to a woman that would look like Say Ana Ivanovich who has an IQ of 200, has the personality and cooking skills of my wife.

while My wife doesn't look like Ana Ivanovich and her IQ is only 145.

hardly a contradiction

but your consistency is obvious. Any thing that justifies looting the most productive members of the citizenry you support

You want fairness in "income taxation" except you want unfairness when it comes to the rates the rich pay in overall effective tax rates compared to anyone else

you want fairness except the rich will pay much more for nothing additional in return

You say the progressive income tax is justified because the masses-through their representatives have so decreed it to be justified but you piss and moan about investment income being taxed less (for everyone) though those two rates are decreed as correct by the same body that imposed the income tax
 
So do you still assert that inheritance is income or not?

its clearly not income but its something the government needs far more than I do according to some
 
I didn't pick an option, because inheritance is income and should be taxed like income.

All income should be taxed identically. And to those who say, "it's been taxed", all income has been taxed. We tax transfers of income when it's paid to workers. We tax income during a purchase as sales tax.

Thus, treat it like everything else.
 
So do you still assert that inheritance is income or not?

My position is that inheritance should NOT be taxed as something special with its own estate tax but rather simply be taxed under the income tax schedules since it is a gain of substantial money to a new person. I came to that position from our fellow poster Turtledude who passionately argued against an estate tax and I came to agree with him that it should be abolished.

One could not be clearer than that.
 
its clearly not income but its something the government needs far more than I do according to some
I remember him stating it is income and should be taxed as such. Of course it isn't but I'm about to drop the hammer.
 
Your concept of contradictory is amusing

Well here it is in your own words from you own posts giving your own positions that you flip on and make a complete reversal on.

Sadly for your Turtle, there is the record to go to of your own posts, in your own words, explaining your beliefs and views. And that speaks louder than any lies you try to tell to cover your tracks or get out of a tight spot.

Here is your position and your reversals on taxes:

Again, first you took the position that taxation must be based on the amount of government services one used. We even had an entire thread for that purpose. Of course, that plan would have given you a tax cut.

Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums (Taxation as Retail Shopping Model)

Turtle makes it very clear what his ultimate idea of a system of taxation would be:

ECONOMICS
Does Anyone Actually Think........ Deficit/Debt
18 #175 6/9/11


My definitions of fair-which reject the From each according to their ability

THE FAIREST

You pay for what you use

just like every other area of human interaction
That is clear and straight forward and unambiguous. The FAIREST tax system he advocates is one in which "you pay for what you use".

He makes this clear again in this post using much the same words:



ECONOMICS
The Truth About Who Can Afford To Pay More Taxes
p. 18 #172 1/21/11


I want people to pay for what they use so when they demand more it costs them more
=================================

Again, his idea of taxation if for people to "pay for what they use".

Yet again, in another discussion of taxation he expresses the same idea

ECONOMICS
Constant References to Billionaires
23 #228 6/23/11


fair would be everyone paying the same tax rate or people paying for what they use
===================================

Here he looks back fondly on the ideal he believes once existed in which people paid for what they used in government services

ECONOMICS
Brief History of the Bush tax Cuts
25 #243 6/2/11


your obsession is that you like the current system and think that it cannot be changed.

and it once was different. people once paid for what they used
=====================================

And once more into the breach

ECONOMICS
Tax Increase On the Table
4 #37 4/14/11


I know how the tax system works and why its ruining this country.

and yes, people should pay for what they use rather than voting themselves the wealth of others
============================================

Here he says that the "standard" used in taxation should be the "value recieved" which is another way of saying what government services you consume

GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION
Flat Tax
7 #66 7/4/11


Given I reject the From each according to their ability argument and note that value received should be the standard, and a flat tax prevents the many from jacking my taxes up what other argument do you have other than you want to keep more of your next dollar than I get to keep

Then, you abandoned not only the plan itself, but you abandoned the principle behind it. Your completely trashed and flushed the idea of connecting taxation to how much consumes in government services in favor of a per capita levy on all persons based on government spending. Your impassioned plea to connect taxation to how much one consumes in government services was trashed and flushed and as gone with the wind. You did a 180 and completely embraced a principle that was opposite of your first. Of course, this new scheme also gave you a personal tax cut.

Then you trashed and flushed the per capita idea in favor of a consumption tax in which the entire idea of how much one consumed or even a per capita levy on it was trashed and flushed altogether in favor of a tax based on consumption.


I have always said a consumption tax is the most desirable practical tax.

I guess , to you, the meaning of the word ALWAYS is interchangeable with "of the moment and what I now have retreated to"?

Of course, you would get a tax cut in that scheme also.

Three different ideas, all very different, some 180 degrees opposite the other, all based on very very different principles.

Or are they?

The one "principle" (if one can call selfishness a principle) in all three is that you get a tax cut.

Now that is the most honest presentation of your taxation positions there is and are completely supported by your own words. If you have a problem with that, state it clearly and I will speak to it.

You reversed, not once but at least twice and that does not even consider any other tax scheme that you signed on to simply because it gave you a selfish tax cut regardless of the principles or methodology behind it.
 
My position is that inheritance should NOT be taxed as something special with its own estate tax but rather simply be taxed under the income tax schedules since it is a gain of substantial money to a new person. I came to that position from our fellow poster Turtledude who passionately argued against an estate tax and I came to agree with him that it should be abolished.

One could not be clearer than that.
So then you consider it income, it isn't. All you are doing is justifying re-taxing already taxed money. Let me help you out;

Economics A-Z terms beginning with I | The Economist

And I quote:
Income


The flow of MONEY to the FACTORS OF PRODUCTION: WAGES to LABOUR; PROFIT to ENTERPRISE and CAPITAL; INTEREST also to capital; RENT to LAND. Wages left for spending after paying taxes is known as disposable INCOME. For countries, see NATIONAL INCOME.

Income Definition | Investopedia
And I quote:
Definition of 'Income'
Economic wealth that is generated in exchange for an individual's performance of agreed upon activities or through investing capital. Income is consumed to fuel day-to-day expenditures.

In businesses, income can refer to a company's remaining revenues after all expenses and taxes have been paid. In this case, it is also known as "earnings".

Read more: Income Definition | Investopedia

So, we have two economic pages at your disposal who say *gasp* the exact same thing. You can look around all OBJECTIVE sites will say the exact same thing. *shocker*
 
I remember him stating it is income and should be taxed as such. Of course it isn't but I'm about to drop the hammer.

Do you understand the difference between the the way INCOME is currently defined in a law and its intention to create a definition which gives discriminatory preferences to certain types of money coming in to a persons pocket and the discussion here of how to tax that same money coming into a persons pocket which many people consider as income regardless of the law?

Is that something you can even understand?

Do you understand that in the writing of law and legislation that terms are carefully defined so as to fit the law being crafted and what it does or does not do and often bear little relationship to certain aspects of life?

Is that something you can even understand?

Do you understand that in America, the Golden Rule is often a powerful instrument in the writing of law and in defining those terms in the law?

Is that something you can even understand?
 
Last edited:
Well here it is in your own words from you own posts giving your own positions that you flip on and make a complete reversal on.

Sadly for your Turtle, there is the record to go to of your own posts, in your own words, explaining your beliefs and views. And that speaks louder than any lies you try to tell to cover your tracks or get out of a tight spot.

Here is your position and your reversals on taxes:

Again, first you took the position that taxation must be based on the amount of government services one used. We even had an entire thread for that purpose. Of course, that plan would have given you a tax cut.

Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums (Taxation as Retail Shopping Model)

Turtle makes it very clear what his ultimate idea of a system of taxation would be:

ECONOMICS
Does Anyone Actually Think........ Deficit/Debt
18 #175 6/9/11




He makes this clear again in this post using much the same words:



ECONOMICS
The Truth About Who Can Afford To Pay More Taxes
p. 18 #172 1/21/11



=================================

Again, his idea of taxation if for people to "pay for what they use".

Yet again, in another discussion of taxation he expresses the same idea

ECONOMICS
Constant References to Billionaires
23 #228 6/23/11



===================================

Here he looks back fondly on the ideal he believes once existed in which people paid for what they used in government services

ECONOMICS
Brief History of the Bush tax Cuts
25 #243 6/2/11



=====================================

And once more into the breach

ECONOMICS
Tax Increase On the Table
4 #37 4/14/11



============================================

Here he says that the "standard" used in taxation should be the "value recieved" which is another way of saying what government services you consume

GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION
Flat Tax
7 #66 7/4/11




Then, you abandoned not only the plan itself, but you abandoned the principle behind it. Your completely trashed and flushed the idea of connecting taxation to how much consumes in government services in favor of a per capita levy on all persons based on government spending. Your impassioned plea to connect taxation to how much one consumes in government services was trashed and flushed and as gone with the wind. You did a 180 and completely embraced a principle that was opposite of your first. Of course, this new scheme also gave you a personal tax cut.

Then you trashed and flushed the per capita idea in favor of a consumption tax in which the entire idea of how much one consumed or even a per capita levy on it was trashed and flushed altogether in favor of a tax based on consumption.




I guess , to you, the meaning of the word ALWAYS is interchangeable with "of the moment and what I now have retreated to"?

Of course, you would get a tax cut in that scheme also.

Three different ideas, all very different, some 180 degrees opposite the other, all based on very very different principles.

Or are they?

The one "principle" (if one can call selfishness a principle) in all three is that you get a tax cut.

Now that is the most honest presentation of your taxation positions there is and are completely supported by your own words. If you have a problem with that, state it clearly and I will speak to it.

You reversed, not once but at least twice and that does not even consider any other tax scheme that you signed on to simply because it gave you a selfish tax cut regardless of the principles or methodology behind it.


:selfish tax cut=me still paying hundreds of thousands more than the average person

I pay too much Haymarket

I pay too much compared to

1) what I get in return

2) compared to others

and you have the nerve to call me selfish when it is you who constantly demands that others pay more and more and more taxes to a government you worship and think needs more and more and more money
 
Do you understand the difference between the the way INCOME is currently defined in a law and its intention to create a definition which gives discriminatory preferences to certain types of money coming in to a persons pocket and the discussion here of how to tax that same money coming into a persons pocket which many people consider as income regardless of the law?

Is that something you can even understand?
So then you are for ending the discrimination against the wealthy in favor of the poor? Why didn't you just say so.
 
Do you understand the difference between the the way INCOME is currently defined in a law and its intention to create a definition which gives discriminatory preferences to certain types of money coming in to a persons pocket and the discussion here of how to tax that same money coming into a persons pocket which many people consider as income regardless of the law?

Is that something you can even understand?

I love this crap about intent and discrimination

the rich are discriminated against

not only do they pay the highest amount of tax dollars they pay the highest effective rates

they pay the surcharge known as the death or estate taxes

Your beloved obama claims that the rich don't sacrifice when government spending is cut-meaning he doesn't see government spending as benefitting the rich

but he sees it as benefitting everyone else because that same Clown claims that others will sacrifice when government spending is cut

that is how that ass justifies demanding the rich pay more because the rich don't suffer when government spending is cut so to offset the sacrifice everyone else makes if spending is cut, the rich-who don't benefit from government spending-have to pay more taxes
 
:selfish tax cut=me still paying hundreds of thousands more than the average person

I pay too much Haymarket

I pay too much compared to

1) what I get in return

2) compared to others

and you have the nerve to call me selfish when it is you who constantly demands that others pay more and more and more taxes to a government you worship and think needs more and more and more money

How much you pay is irrelevant. How much you get back in services is irrelevant. This is NOT a discussion of COSTCO shopping.

The issue here is what motivates you in your positions on the issue of taxation. Your own words in post after post after post show beyond any doubt that you state a principle of belief only to completely reverse that position to its opposite belief and the only common glue holding it together is that in each of your positions - no matter how contradictory they actually are - you get a tax cut.

I do not need NERVE to call your position SELFISH. Your own posts and your own reversals of your own self proclaimed 'principles' provide that characterization of your views for you.
 
Last edited:
I love this crap about intent and discrimination

the rich are discriminated against

not only do they pay the highest amount of tax dollars they pay the highest effective rates

they pay the surcharge known as the death or estate taxes

Your beloved obama claims that the rich don't sacrifice when government spending is cut-meaning he doesn't see government spending as benefitting the rich

but he sees it as benefitting everyone else because that same Clown claims that others will sacrifice when government spending is cut

that is how that ass justifies demanding the rich pay more because the rich don't suffer when government spending is cut so to offset the sacrifice everyone else makes if spending is cut, the rich-who don't benefit from government spending-have to pay more taxes

The discriminatory laws that allow them
1 - to pay 60% lower rates on capital gains compared to normal wages at the same high level, and
2- the healthy and generous exemptions for the estate tax

prove conclusively that the wealthy are the beneficiaries of discriminatory preferences by the current tax code.
 
So then you are for ending the discrimination against the wealthy in favor of the poor? Why didn't you just say so.



I have no idea what you mean by that. Care to actually explain something for once?

The discriminatory laws that allow the wealthy
1 - to pay 60% lower rates on capital gains compared to normal wages at the same high level, and
2- the healthy and generous exemptions for the estate tax

prove conclusively that the wealthy are the beneficiaries of discriminatory preferences by the current tax code.
 
dishonest

Lets review

you want dividends taxed at the same rate as earned income

you want the top bracket to be at least 40%

take one million in corporate profit that is being distributed to me (a top one percenter)

350K is taken from that pool by the federal government in corporate taxes leaving 650K

40% taken from that remaining 650K at the distribution level

that is 260K

leaving 390K for me and the parasitic government takes 610K
Let's break that down a little differently.

"you want dividends taxed at the same rate as earned income" -TD

"you want the top bracket to be at least 40%" -TD

"take one million in corporate profit that is being distributed to me (a top one percenter)" -TD
Whoa - let's make this a little more clear
take one million in corporate income. $350K is taken from that pool by the federal government in corporate taxes leaving $650K

Now, the corporation has $650k that it can do with as it sees fit. It can increase the value of it's stock in various ways or it can give some interest back to the people that have loaned it money (that would be you).

The corporation decides to pay interest on it's loan so it issues dividends for $650k

You pay income tax on your interest income of $650k, which amounts to $260k.

The corporation has paid a tax of 35% on it's income of $1M (which could have come from many sources).
You have paid a 40% tax on your interest income of $650k, which could just as easily have come from a personal loan you made to a buddy.

I'm sorry, I don't see any 61% tax rate here. I see two, distinct financial transactions. One is taxation of income from various sources and one is taxation of interest income.
 
Last edited:
How much you pay is irrelevant. The issue here is what motivates you in your positions on the issue of taxation. Your own words in post after post after post show beyond any doubt that you state a principle of belief only to completely reverse that position to its opposite belief and the only common glue holding it together is that in each of your positions - no matter how contradictory they actually are - you get a tax cut.

I do not need NERVE to call your position SELFISH. Your own posts and your own reversals of your own self proclaimed 'principles' provide that characterization of your views for you.

that is stupendously stupid a comment. what I pay is what motivates my position

and yes you call me selfish because I merely want to pay the same rate as others even if that means more money
 
that is stupendously stupid a comment. what I pay is what motivates my position

and yes you call me selfish because I merely want to pay the same rate as others even if that means more money

What you pay may motivate YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL.

What you pay is irrelevant as far as if it is fair or not.
 
I have no reason to think anything about your silly beliefs about spouses and the estate tax that are false from the get go. I provided you with the information that showed your question was blatantly foolish and without merit and you were ignorant of the reality of the situation.

So now you continue to whine that I have not given my opinion on your delusions? Amazing.

what beliefs of mine are false again?...hell, where, exactly, have i stated these beliefs that you declare to be false.?

... do i need to ask Uncle Sam , are are you capable of handling this one?

I asked for your argument, you provided me with the IRS information....information that I already knew, at that ( some of us here actually have to concern ourselves with the inheritance tax, and educate ourselves accordingly.. you know, us evil 1%ers you loathe so much)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom