• 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.
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 profit. 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 profit 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.


talk about completely changing the facts to suit your agenda

of course you don't see it-you have been blinded by your agenda and you didn't even really read what i wrote
 
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.
I've been explaining things to you, not my fault you aren't keeping up.

Okay. As Turtledude and others have explained to you, income taxes were paid on earned money, then disposable income was sent to investments, dividends taxed at 30%, THEN an additional 15% was taken from capital gains. So that is X% tax rate plus 30% on dividends PLUS 15% while some earners pay a total under 15% and most pay NOTHING. On top of that after the person who paid all those taxes cannot leave a hefty portion of what's left to their heirs because an ADDITIONAL TAX is assessed upon the estate, while the less wealthy pay little or nothing in comparison. Therefore taxation is preferential treatment towards lower earners, so I'm guessing since you want to end discrimination then you must be for eliminating excessive taxation based upon higher earnings and wealth accumulation right? Or, you just want to discriminate against the wealthy.
 
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)

So tell us all straight and clear then: what is your question about spouses and the estate tax that you so badly beg my opinion on?
 
I've been explaining things to you, not my fault you aren't keeping up.

Okay. As Turtledude and others have explained to you, income taxes were paid on earned money, then disposable income was sent to investments, dividends taxed at 30%, THEN an additional 15% was taken from capital gains. So that is X% tax rate plus 30% on dividends PLUS 15% while some earners pay a total under 15% and most pay NOTHING. On top of that after the person who paid all those taxes cannot leave a hefty portion of what's left to their heirs because an ADDITIONAL TAX is assessed upon the estate, while the less wealthy pay little or nothing in comparison. Therefore taxation is preferential treatment towards lower earners, so I'm guessing since you want to end discrimination then you must be for eliminating excessive taxation based upon higher earnings and wealth accumulation right? Or, you just want to discriminate against the wealthy.

That is not the case. Long term capital gains are taxed once at 15%.

You cannot add different taxes on different things all together and get a number and claim it is accurate.
 
Last edited:
talk about completely changing the facts to suit your agenda

of course you don't see it-you have been blinded by your agenda and you didn't even really read what i wrote
The only "facts" I changed were a couple of simple words. "Profit" was changed to "income". Is profit not the same as income?

"Dividends" was changed to "interest". Dividends are a return on an investment. Interest is usually used to describe a return on a specific investment, a loan. Other than trying to garble the facts with econ-speak I'm not sure there really is a difference between dividends and interest.
 
are you in favor of taxing the inheritance if it goes to the wife (spouse)?

She already co owns the property. There is no new money to tax on a new owner.
 
The only "facts" I changed were a couple of simple words. "Profit" was changed to "income". Is profit not the same as income?

"Dividends" was changed to "interest". Dividends are a return on an investment. Interest is usually used to describe a return on a specific investment, a loan. Other than trying to garble the facts with econ-speak I'm not sure there really is a difference between dividends and interest.

In other words you have nothing relevant to say about my post
 
A good night to all. I will be happy to resume discussion in the morning. :2wave:
 
She already co owns the property. There is no new money to tax on a new owner.


wierd.. that's exactly what i said... you repeatedly called it a "false belief".. and delusional...etc... imagine that.:roll:

but it's nice to see that there are exception to your argument of new ownership of money when it changes hands from person to person is always taxed..

soo.. why do you support the wife not getting taxed, but feel it's more than fine to tax the children?... no love for the nuclear family or something?.. don't like kids?... what's the deal?


ya see, i'm fine with taxing an inheritance.... as long as it goes to someone or something that is not immediate family.
wife and kids get off tax free.... leave money to some feel good charitable foundation, and uncle sam gets a cut.

end result is that my kids won't pay a red cent on their inheritance... i'll make sure of it, despite the many liberals who covet that money.
 
In other words you have nothing relevant to say about my post
The 20+ line post with double spacing? I thought I did address that. But, let's go back to the idea in post #575, since you didn't respond to that.


Let's say I get a car loan at the local credit union for $20k @ 10% (just to make calculations easier). I earn my pittance of $50k for the year, which gets taxed at (say) 12%.

Very simple interest on that $20k is $2k, which I pay to the CU.

35% of that $2k is paid by the CU to Uncle Sam as taxes on profit.

So, according to your argument, the $2k in interest I paid to the credit union is being taxed at 47%.
(from the perspective of the credit union)
 
Last edited:
That factual reality is good enough for 311 million Americans who know the difference between a birthday present and an inheritance of $800,000.00.
So what exactly is the difference between a birthday present and an inheritance? They both end up with the recipient having money come into his pocket. Are you suggesting we discriminate between them somehow by treating one form of income differently from another?
 
wierd.. that's exactly what i said... you repeatedly called it a "false belief".. and delusional...etc... imagine that.:roll:

but it's nice to see that there are exception to your argument of new ownership of money when it changes hands from person to person is always taxed..

soo.. why do you support the wife not getting taxed, but feel it's more than fine to tax the children?... no love for the nuclear family or something?.. don't like kids?... what's the deal?


ya see, i'm fine with taxing an inheritance.... as long as it goes to someone or something that is not immediate family.
wife and kids get off tax free.... leave money to some feel good charitable foundation, and uncle sam gets a cut.

end result is that my kids won't pay a red cent on their inheritance... i'll make sure of it, despite the many liberals who covet that money.

No, The way you presented the idea, it seemed that you were raising the spectre that the wife was subject to the inheritance tax.

you from 532

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


I clearly stated that this was false and presented verifiable information that such a belief was false. A wife is already co-owner so she does not 'inherit' in the legal sense that we were discussing. She cannot be given what she already has.

A wife or husband is a co-owner while a child is not. That simple distinction is everything in determining who is taxed and who is not. Your distinction about "immediate family" may be yours - but it is NOT the traditional one used in the law on such matters.

So the real question then becomes this: if you are going to pretend that you also knew the wife was not taxed and I presented the law that the wife was not taxed soon after you floated your post, why oh why would you go on for page after page after page about it if you seemingly knew that my position was the proper one?

Can you answer that?
 
Last edited:
So what exactly is the difference between a birthday present and an inheritance? They both end up with the recipient having money come into his pocket. Are you suggesting we discriminate between them somehow by treating one form of income differently from another?

I am suggesting you stop playing semantic games and understand that we as a people in a society with a government are perfectly able to distinguish the difference between an inheritance and a birthday present.

At least most of us can.

Part of my job is helping to write proposed legislation. We do things like this all the time in writing law.
 
So tell us all straight and clear then: what is your question about spouses and the estate tax that you so badly beg my opinion on?
Yes, Thrilla, ask your question again, so haymarket can once against give you a non-answer.
 
I am suggesting you stop playing semantic games and understand that we as a people in a society with a government are perfectly able to distinguish the difference between an inheritance and a birthday present.

At least most of us can.

Part of my job is helping to write proposed legislation. We do things like this all the time in writing law.


tell us why only those who already pay more income taxes than any other group is the only group subject to the estate tax?
 
tell us why only those who already pay more income taxes than any other group is the only group subject to the estate tax?

It probably has something to do with having an estate in the first place. But as I have said - I agree with you that the separate estate tax should be abolished. Simply tax the money as you would any normal money coming in to a persons pocket with the applicable rate.
 
It probably has something to do with having an estate in the first place. But as I have said - I agree with you that the separate estate tax should be abolished. Simply tax the money as you would any normal money coming in to a persons pocket with the applicable rate.

so an estate is only what the death tax says it is.

Look we have seen your confused bit that gifts and inheritances-which are very different than income ought to be taxed

why cannot you keep your hands off of that sort of transfer?

but hey I want you to tell all your dem fellow travelers that the dem plan is that everyone's inheritance be taxed like income. that means lots of union types etc are going to have to pay the taxman when their parents die

good idea
 
so an estate is only what the death tax says it is.

Look we have seen your confused bit that gifts and inheritances-which are very different than income ought to be taxed

why cannot you keep your hands off of that sort of transfer?

but hey I want you to tell all your dem fellow travelers that the dem plan is that everyone's inheritance be taxed like income. that means lots of union types etc are going to have to pay the taxman when their parents die

good idea

There is no confusion on my part Turtle. My position is very clear and easy to understand if one wants to approach the subject with an open mind.

Let us take three people all of whom place a nice even ONE MILLION DOLLARS into their pocket during the year.

case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00.

case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00.

case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00.

All three DID NOT have the one million at the start of the year. All three got their one million during the year. It all spends the same. If you took each of their money and placed it in three stacks of one million dollars each, nobody on the planet could tell you with any accuracy time after time in a test which pile of money came from which source.

But the government knows whose million belongs to who because they put a big label on each and apply preferences and favoritism towards one over the other.

Now Turtle, La, Centinel, Thrilla, and anyone else who can - tell Richard Dillard why he should be happy to pay a tax bill of $350,000.00 on the same amount of money that Wanda Phillips only pays $150,000.00 on and Ned Sykes pays nothing on. And feel free to use the word FAIR all you want in your explaination.
 
There is no confusion on my part Turtle. My position is very clear and easy to understand if one wants to approach the subject with an open mind.

Let us take three people all of whom place a nice even ONE MILLION DOLLARS into their pocket during the year.

case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00.

case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00.

case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00.

All three DID NOT have the one million at the start of the year. All three got their one million during the year. It all spends the same. If you took each of their money and placed it in three stacks of one million dollars each, nobody on the planet could tell you with any accuracy time after time in a test which pile of money came from which source.

But the government knows whose million belongs to who because they put a big label on each and apply preferences and favoritism towards one over the other.

Now Turtle, La, Centinel, Thrilla, and anyone else who can - tell Richard Dillard why he should be happy to pay a tax bill of $350,000.00 on the same amount of money that Wanda Phillips only pays $150,000.00 on and Ned Sykes pays nothing on. And feel free to use the word FAIR all you want in your explaination.

more horsepoop that dishonestly ignores the costs of obtaining each form of revenue. and it ignores how much money the parasitic government has derived from it. wages, last i checked are a deduction for a corporation. Ned's family paid tons on the estate.

but you are fine with someone who earns a million not only paying several hundred K more in taxes than half of the USA combined, you think he ought to pay higher rates

as several have noted-your concept of FAIR always involves wealthy people being taxed even more.

and what you are clear about is that you think the government NEEDS more of our money
and your example is beetle dung. the first guy isn't paying 35% on all of his income. he is paying a bit less

hate is a bad thing Haymarket. and spending so much time trying to justify why the government should take more is pretty sad IMHO
 
Last edited:
from Turtle


more horsepoop that dishonestly ignores the costs of obtaining each form of revenue.

Well feel free to present your verifiable data making a case that such a consideration is important. One cannot but notice that you presented NOTHING other than the simple statement. And I have no idea how that would mitigate the situation or why the government would need to subsidize that or reward it. It is irrelevant to tax policy. And if you want to talk about the cost of obtaining each revenue please consider this:

case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00. What are the costs in obtaining this income? They could be substantial. Education for one could eat up tens of thousands of dollars, maybe even six figures of educational expenses and years of time invested into learning that profession.. There may be a substantial investment in equipment. The costs of obtaining that cool million could have been substantial.

case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00. What are the costs in obtaining this income? Ms. Phillips had to first come up with the million to invest. Did she work for it? Possibly. Was she given the money without working for it? Possibly.

case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00. What was the cost of Mr. Sykes in obtaining that one million in inheritance. Zero. Nothing. Zilch. He merely benefitted from an accident of birth and lived long enough to collect itl

Ned's family paid tons on the estate.

And Ned paid ZERO - NOTHING - NADA - ZILCH.

but you are fine with someone who earns a million not only paying several hundred K more in taxes than half of the USA combined, you think he ought to pay higher rates

I have repeatedly informed you that I believe ALL Americans earning as little as one dollar should pay 5 point more onto their tax bracket. Why do you ignore that?

as several have noted-your concept of FAIR always involves wealthy people being taxed even more.

My concept of FAIR involves all people getting money paying more in federal income tax by the same five points. Why do you ignore that?

and what you are clear about is that you think the government NEEDS more of our money

Obviously with the deficit and debt at such high levels - and we have you righties to thank for hourly reminders of the soaring figures - the government does indeed need the revenue. Thank you for underlining that need.


and your example is beetle dung. the first guy isn't paying 35% on all of his income. he is paying a bit less

WOW! horsepoop and beetledung in the same post!!! You would make a fourth grader proud Turtle. ;)

I just rechecked my IRS site and my calculation was spot on. A million dollar income warrants a tax rate of 35% for a tax bill of $350.000.00. I figured ALL THREE with no deductions applied for the sake of fairness and equality.
 
Last edited:
So what exactly is the difference between a birthday present and an inheritance? They both end up with the recipient having money come into his pocket. Are you suggesting we discriminate between them somehow by treating one form of income differently from another?

I am suggesting you stop playing semantic games and understand that we as a people in a society with a government are perfectly able to distinguish the difference between an inheritance and a birthday present.

Interesting, so you distinguish between a birthday present and an inheritance, despite the fact that both of them result in new money coming into someone's pocket. Can you explain why you see them as different and wish to treat them differently for tax purposes? Who you not simply consider them both income?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom