• 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.
TurtleDude said:
then people like you will have a choice-if you want a government that provides everything you cannot do on your own you are going to be paying lots and lots of taxes. and for people like me who don't need a nanny state to wipe my butt and save for my retirement, I will have far more money to invest
Click to expand...
No, I'm sure you hire an actual nanny to wipe your butt, the rest of us have to chip in collectively to afford it. LOL!
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
No, I'm sure you hire an actual nanny to wipe your butt, the rest of it have to chip in collectively to afford it. LOL!
Click to expand...

Being wrong seems to be a constant theme in your posts
 
MoSurveyor said:
Nobody can be as perfect as you.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be perfect. there was a man who was. he had a bad end. he was nailed on a cross after having the holy crap beat out of him then he got stuck with a spear. I saw the movie, it was brutal
 
TurtleDude said:
... to be perfect. there was a man who was. he had a bad end. he was nailed on a cross after having the holy crap beat out of him then he got stuck with a spear. I saw the movie, it was brutal
Click to expand...
There actually are some things we can agree on! You'd better sell your stock in Hell, the weather just took a drastic change.
 
TurtleDude said:
tax lawyers, CPAs and insurance brokers/companies (for example Geico is owned by Buffett's BH) are the ones who lobby the most to keep the death tax
Click to expand...
Yep. I am still a licensed insurance agent about to surrender it for different pastures and I've seen it. We have one guy in town who is a fellow agent and specializes in estate preservation which is a fancy way of saying he isn't really that good at explaining products and uses loss minimization on estate taxes to make the bulk of his living. This guy surprise surprise is in favor of estate taxes, I never was but then again I know other concepts besides fear tactics and didn't need them to talk product with potential clients. CPAs would do well without the tax code but would have to seek employment in private companies which isn't as easy, the IRS and tax lawyers LOVE the way things are now as it is endless work for them.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
There actually are some things we can agree on! You'd better sell your stock in Hell, the weather just took a drastic change.
Click to expand...

why-do you know more than the Columbia B school Summa cum laude who is the head of my investment team?
 
LaMidRighter said:
Yep. I am still a licensed insurance agent about to surrender it for different pastures and I've seen it. We have one guy vate in town who is a fellow agent and specializes in estate preservation which is a fancy way of saying he isn't really that good at explaining products and uses loss minimization on estate taxes to make the bulk of his living. This guy surprise surprise is in favor of estate taxes, I never was but then again I know other concepts besides fear tactics and didn't need them to talk product with potential clients. CPAs would do well without the tax code but would have to seek employment in firms which isn't as easy, the IRS and tax lawyers LOVE the way things are now as it is endless work for them.
Click to expand...

truth, some big charities have lobbied to keep the death tax thinking without it people might not give to them instead of the parasitic government. When I hear of a charity doing that, it gets cut from my list and dropped by the family foundation as a beneficiary
 
TurtleDude said:
the only rich people who whine about increasing the estate tax are either the uber wealthy or those who gain more by having dems win.
Click to expand...

Again - the question which rises from your previous post which you failed to answer here preferring more pompous pontification........

just who is it here who you accuse of failure?
 
TurtleDude said:
why-do you know more than the Columbia B school Summa cum laude who is the head of my investment team?
Click to expand...

Boy oh boy but somebody really sold you a bill of goods that you bought on these school names and titles didn't they?
 
TurtleDude said:
I have a better idea. lets tax people for what they use in government services-that's almost as realistic and far fairer
Click to expand...

Except that you yourself said such a system would not work.
 
TurtleDude said:
truth, some big charities have lobbied to keep the death tax thinking without it people might not give to them instead of the parasitic government. When I hear of a charity doing that, it gets cut from my list and dropped by the family foundation as a beneficiary
Click to expand...
I have severely limited my charitable giving since the Obama inauguration speech in '08. It had nothing to do with who got elected but the obvious attitude change in non-profits follow all the rhetoric from the head idiot. I remember there was a non-profit trying to give advice on how to deal with private employees in for profit firms and her complete lack of knowledge and "gimme" attitude was such a turnoff(nevermind she doesn't have to make money simply ask for more and doesn't pay tax like other businesses). And then I saw one after another charity getting uppity and just said "okay, what little I can afford goes away until people tighten up".
 
haymarket said:
Again - the question which rises from your previous post which you failed to answer here preferring more pompous pontification........

just who is it here who you accuse of failure?
Click to expand...

if the shoe fits------------

there are lots of whiners about the rich who complain in a manner consistent with being failures.
 
haymarket said:
Boy oh boy but somebody really sold you a bill of goods that you bought on these school names and titles didn't they?
Click to expand...

so you are claiming I am not doing well. actually I have doubled my income in less than 5 years. even with the big Pelosi-Reid debacle a few years ago my income on investments went up over 150K that year
 
LaMidRighter said:
Oh Bull ****. If people were truly concerned about a "just" tax policy they would argue for no estate taxes, single taxation, and either a flat or consumption tax and tailor spending accordingly. The fact is that the wealthy are taxed more for no other reason than they have more. If you substituted the reasons for a different tax rate or took from an estate because of the color of skin, religion, or other factors you would be in violation of the equal protections clause of the fourteenth, so substitute rich for any other reason and you would be guilty of bias, the fact is that taxing someone based on an arbitrary amount of wealth you consider "enough" is in fact unjust.
Click to expand...

That does not even make sense. Its really inane to say that the only reason the rich are taxed more is that they have more. Like teenagers would say... "DUH". Let me guess ..... we should tax the people that have LESS MORE? Is that what you want?

Skin color!?!?!?!?! Religion!?!?!?!??! Other factors!?!?!?!?!? Where do you get this nonsense?

Read the US Constitution. Its in there. Amendment XVI - coming up on the 100th Anniversary.
 
haymarket said:
That does not even make sense. Its really inane to say that the only reason the rich are taxed more is that they have more. Like teenagers would say... "DUH". Let me guess ..... we should tax the people that have LESS MORE? Is that what you want?

Skin color!?!?!?!?! Religion!?!?!?!??! Other factors!?!?!?!?!? Where do you get this nonsense?

Read the US Constitution. Its in there. Amendment XVI - coming up on the 100th Anniversary.
Click to expand...


taxing only the rich more increases government spending

taxing everyone else more would help stop that cancer
 
TurtleDude said:
if the shoe fits------------

there are lots of whiners about the rich who complain in a manner consistent with being failures.
Click to expand...

Its your "shoe" Turtle. Who are you accusing of failure when they advocate for a more just tax policy?

Again - and you do this all the time - you make statements with our mouth that the rest of you cannot back up with verifiable proof.
 
haymarket said:
Its your "shoe" Turtle. Who are you accusing of failure when they advocate for a more just tax policy?

Again - and you do this all the time - you make statements with our mouth that the rest of you cannot back up with verifiable proof.
Click to expand...

the vast majority of posts on this board whining about the rich are indicative of people who are upset they aren't rich.
 
TurtleDude said:
taxing only the rich more increases government spending

taxing everyone else more would help stop that cancer
Click to expand...

So why then has government spending increased at the same time taxation on the rich is at modern historical lows? Your theory falls apart like wet toilet paper being flushed away.
 
TurtleDude said:
the vast majority of posts on this board whining about the rich are indicative of people who are upset they aren't rich.
Click to expand...

As I knew all along - you make statements and then fail to back them up.

your statement

what we do see is several people who constantly rant about the rich and want the rich to be taxed more apparently to salve their sense of failure
Click to expand...

Take all night. I will come back in the morning to see the names of these "several people" here who are failures.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
So why then has government spending increased at the same time taxation on the rich is at modern historical lows? Your theory falls apart like wet toilet paper being flushed away.
Click to expand...

I guess you are ignorant of the fact that everyone else pays far less too in terms of federal income tax-both in terms of actual dollars and more importantly, their share of the income tax burden
 
haymarket said:
As I knew all along - you make statements and then fail to back them up.

your statement



Take all night. I will come back in the morning to see the names of these "several people" here who are failures.
Click to expand...


I merely observe the logical reasons behind the constant butt hurt whining from some
 
haymarket said:
That does not even make sense. Its really inane to say that the only reason the rich are taxed more is that they have more. Like teenagers would say... "DUH". Let me guess ..... we should tax the people that have LESS MORE? Is that what you want?

Skin color!?!?!?!?! Religion!?!?!?!??! Other factors!?!?!?!?!? Where do you get this nonsense?

Read the US Constitution. Its in there. Amendment XVI - coming up on the 100th Anniversary.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. And that amendment was passed to nullify a more fair tax system that you for some reason didn't want me to present, wonder why that could be. As well the fourteenth could nullify the sixteenth if someone really wanted to press the issue due to the equal protections clause, you should know that since you have claimed to be a poli-sci professor.

If it doesn't make sense to you then I'll give you a simplified version, a multiple choice:
Billy must pay more in tax because _____________
a) He is black
b) He is Jewish
c) He is Catholic
d) He is gay
e) He makes over 25 thousand dollars a year

Which one is most likely to pass, and after such which one is most likely to have public support.

Bonus question: Of the above, which one follows a normal sense of the proper usage of the word justice.
1) None of the Above
2) None of these fits a proper usage of the word justice
- Feel free to choose one, you may skip this question if you do not understand it with no penalty.
 
Taxing the same money twice? How can it be anything else? Tax what you need from consumption or income, whatever we end up with. Just figure a responsible budget and go from there.

I approved this message.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom