• 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:
Simply tax the money as you would any normal money coming in to a persons pocket with the applicable rate.
Click to expand...
Yet you don't want to treat all money coming into someone's pocket the same way, and I don't understand why?
 
TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...
The solution is simple. The father can just give his belongings to his children as birthday presents, and then they're not income, according to haymarket.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
You forgot scenario #4 in which Joe Dude gets $1000 as a birthday present. He should pay 35% tax on that money coming into his pocket too, right?
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, and because Ned Sykes did not earn income. He was given money.
 
Centinel said:
Yet you don't want to treat all money coming into someone's pocket the same way, and I don't understand why?
Click to expand...

Perhaps I understand the difference between a bowl of oatmeal and a million dollars.
 
Centinel said:
You forgot scenario #4 in which Joe Dude gets $1000 as a birthday present. He should pay 35% tax on that money coming into his pocket too, right?
Click to expand...

You create your scenarios. I will create mine.

And yours does NOTHING to negate the real world application of what I created.

But of course, that is not what you are about anyways.
 
Centinel said:
The solution is simple. The father can just give his belongings to his children as birthday presents, and then they're not income, according to haymarket.
Click to expand...

Oh really!?!?!?!? Perhaps you can quote where I said that?

You are hell bent on attacking me because I am seen by you as the enemy of your ideology.
 
Centinel said:
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?
Click to expand...

You really do not see the difference between a ordinary regular run of the mill birthday gift and an inheritance of millions of dollars?

If YOU cannot see the real world difference, I suspect nobody on the planet could explain it to you.
 
Centinel said:
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?
Click to expand...


because even the most hard core socialist left realizes that they would be destroyed if they started taxing birthday gifts. Now I am sure they would if they could but the political price they would pay might involve tarring and feathering. Its the same reason why Haymarket's desire to tax all estates as ordinary income will never be advanced by his Dem bosses. that would kill their chances of every winning another national election.

his dem bosses are smart enough to realize that their disgusting greed for the money of other people cannot be spread too much across the electorate. They must limit it to a voting minority that they can attack with envy
 
Individuals don't pay taxes. Households pay taxes. Families pay taxes, and taxing inheritance is taxing the same family for the same income twice. The estate tax is just one more way that liberals are attempting to replace American families with American government.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Individuals don't pay taxes. Households pay taxes. Families pay taxes, and taxing inheritance is taxing the same family for the same income twice. The estate tax is just one more way that liberals are attempting to replace American families with American government.
Click to expand...
This might be the best post I have seen on this issue
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Individuals don't pay taxes. Households pay taxes. Families pay taxes, and taxing inheritance is taxing the same family for the same income twice. The estate tax is just one more way that liberals are attempting to replace American families with American government.
Click to expand...

Baloney. We don't prosecute or jail households for non payment of taxes. We don't prosecute or jail families for non payment of taxes.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p501/ar02.html

I see where one can file as an individual. I see where a married couple can file a joint return.

Where is the form for filing as a family and paying taxes as a family?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Well it certainly is one of the most false.
Click to expand...

false being something that slaps your desire to bleed more money from people and give it to a wasteful bloated government
 
TurtleDude said:
false being something that slaps your desire to bleed more money from people and give it to a wasteful bloated government
Click to expand...

False being a FALSE statement that does not hold up beyond even a two second google search of the IRS regulations as indicated in the above posts.

Publication 501 (2011), Exemptions, Standard Deduction, and Filing Information

Of course, if one is a fan of the Indiana Jones "I make it up as I go along" method of debate, I can see the appeal to that sort of methodology.
 
haymarket said:
False being a FALSE statement that does not hold up beyond even a two second google search of the IRS regulations as indicated in the above posts.

Publication 501 (2011), Exemptions, Standard Deduction, and Filing Information

Of course, if one is a fan of the Indiana Jones "I make it up as I go along" method of debate, I can see the appeal to that sort of methodology.
Click to expand...

I am remembering what Thrilla said to you. a tax on a man is a tax on his family. the more he pays the less he can spend on his wife and children. the more a parasitic government takes from him at death the less his children have.

tell us Haymarket, why are you so enamored with the government taking so much from some
 
TurtleDude said:
I am remembering what Thrilla said to you. a tax on a man is a tax on his family. the more he pays the less he can spend on his wife and children. the more a parasitic government takes from him at death the less his children have.

tell us Haymarket, why are you so enamored with the government taking so much from some
Click to expand...

Anybody can say anything. The facts and reality says something completely different.

Publication 501 (2011), Exemptions, Standard Deduction, and Filing Information

But feel free to prove me wrong by providing the link to the IRS form on filing as a family. I believe it would be in the Indiana Jones section of the tax code.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
I still await an explanation of why, of all the posters on this board, you are the most animated and active defender of the death tax.
Click to expand...

I know nothing of any death tax in the USA. And you have been informed of that for a time beyond calculation or counting.
 
haymarket said:
I know nothing of any death tax in the USA. And you have been informed of that for a time beyond calculation or counting.
Click to expand...


and you are playing stupid then in that post. . You know what the death tax is-its another name for your cherished estate tax
 
TurtleDude said:
and you are playing stupid then in that post. . You know what the death tax is-its another name for your cherished estate tax
Click to expand...

To accept your false terms would be to acknowledge a partisan neologism that is a falsehood. And to do that would be stupid. To reject it is simply smart.

And I have told you repeatedly now that I have come to agree with you that the estate tax as it is constituted should be abolished - so I will not defend it.
 
haymarket said:
To accept your false terms would be to acknowledge a partisan neologism that is a falsehood. And to do that would be stupid. To reject it is simply smart.
Click to expand...

so tell us Haymarket, what causes an almost cult like devotion to the estate tax that borders on a fetish?
 
TurtleDude said:
so tell us Haymarket, what causes an almost cult like devotion to the estate tax that borders on a fetish?
Click to expand...

Perhaps this has been a tough week for you my friend. I just told you that I favor abolishing the estate tax as it is currently constituted. I will not defend it.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps this has been a tough week for you my friend. I just told you that I favor abolishing the estate tax as it is currently constituted. I will not defend it.
Click to expand...

Yeah you want the government to take tons from the wealthy

Its been a good week-the scummy salamander got tuned up
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom