• 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.
That is your opinion which you have NEVER been able to substantiate with any verifiable evidence.

As Shakespeare said in his play ACCOUNTANTS, LIARS and OTHER ROGUES - "a tax is a tax is a tax".

It is interesting to not that for all your carping and complaining about the nature of the income tax today, your insistence that we go back 150 years gives us a income tax which exempts lower income workers, provides for taxation of higher income workers at a graduated level and hits the rich earner far harder than anyone else.

And 150 years ago was the date YOU selected.

As to a temporary war....... as a nation grows, its standing in the world changes, its agenda changes, its priorities change and its needs and demands change. We no longer wear those stupid tri-cornered hats of the Revolutionary period and few Americans today could cope with life in 1860 America. Ch...ch... cha .... changes. Get used to it.

The point is simply that the income tax you so hate today was structured similarly in the time you chose - 150 years ago.


and as usual you miss the main point-it was a temporary measure to pay for what was an extremely costly war. it was never intended to be permanent.
 
and as usual you miss the main point-it was a temporary measure to pay for what was an extremely costly war. it was never intended to be permanent.

That is irrelevant and something you introduced to cover your own behinds exposure when you made the fatal mistake of challenging me to look at 150 years ago. We did. And we found that there was an income tax and it was structured with many of the features you find so loathsome today.

When the federal government needed money to pay for obligations above and beyond what they had been used to, they went to the same system we had today. And then fifty years after then we repeat it again and have kept at it for the last century. The concept of income tax on those who have the most income while exempting those with the least income is hardly temporary Turtle.

If we did as you suggested, and begin 150 years ago and draw a line through today, over two thirds of that line would be shaded with the income tax system your hate and loathe.

I suppose we should thank you for that start date of 150 years ago.
 
Last edited:
That is irrelevant and something you introduced to cover your own behinds exposure when you made the fatal mistake of challenging me to look at 150 years ago. We did. And we found that there was an income tax and it was structured with many of the features you find so loathsome today.

When the federal government needed money to pay for obligations above and beyond what they had been used to, they went to the same system we had today. And then fifty years after then we repeat it again and have kept at it for the last century. The concept of income tax on those who have the most income while exempting those with the least income is hardly temporary Turtle.

If we did as you suggested, and begin 150 years ago and draw a line through today, over two thirds of that line would be shaded with the income tax system your hate and loathe.

I suppose we should thank you for that start date of 150 years ago.
You fell for the trap. It was temporary and your continued support for the government taking more income from people is all that remains consistent

politicians quickly realized how much extra constitutional power they were able to derive from being able to play tax payers against tax consumers and are never going to give up that power

and in the long run its going to destroy this country because too many people want too much government and because they have never received proper feedback about the cost of government
 
Why do you not understand that a constitutional amendment cannot violate another without repeal. All you do is get into diversion games without actually backing anything up, high school civics classes have more points than you have landed here. Again, why is it not discrimination to tax a persons work?
Try to get the basics straight. People are not taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment. Income is. From whatever source derived. Obviously, inheritance is one of those sources.
 
This may be the stupidest point I've ever seen. "Rich people aren't being taxed more, only higher earners" Do you even realize how ****ing stupid that sounds in playback?
No, it may be a little clumsy, but it is in fact an accurate representation of the fact I just pointed out above. People are not taxed. Income is. In order to press any sort of Constitutional challenge you have to show standing, and that includes a showing that you have personally incurred some sort of qualified injury that some judicially imposed remedy would exist for. Paying taxes according to the same set of rules and regulations as everyone else does isn't going to cut the msutard.
 
Last edited:
I do agree here. As for the discretionary income argument, my goal in debating is to get to a point where people understand that there is a depreciation effect on the dollar right now which is caused by spending and other government induced factors all paid for by unjust taxation.
Taxes are at their lowest levels in decades. Such inflation as can currently be found in the economy is a welcome relief from the deflation and near-deflation of recent years. Indeed, the value of a dollar held has recently increased, even if it was earning no interest at all the entire time.

I personally believe a consumption tax is the best way to go.
This isn't religion. Personal beliefs shouldn't enter into it. It is mathematically correct that over longish periods of time, a consumption tax will be more efficient than an equivalent income tax. That is, GDP at the end of the longish period of time would be slightly higher under the former than under the latter. We could move the current income tax closer to being a consumption tax simply by allowing all deposits to qualified accounts to be counted as deductions, while all withdrawals from those accounts were counted as additions to taxable income.

Sure, being wealthy people can "pay more" at this particular moment, but there is a threshold and frankly the way it's structured now leads to people shutting things down if they are at the borderline between brackets.
There are no brackets above $388K for those married and filing jointly. The "wealthy" as they are talked about here all confront a single-bracket tax structure. You may need to overlay the effects of the AMT, but the same sort of situation will still apply.
 
Last edited:
Try to get the basics straight. People are not taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment. Income is. From whatever source derived. Obviously, inheritance is one of those sources.


massive fail. the estate is taxed as an estate not income
 
I think the progressive income tax is the way to go-- it just needs to be reformed to correct for the undesirable factors, such as negative tax burdens and the ability for people to vote for tax increases that don't affect their tax rates.
There will not be a referendum on changes to the tax code. As always, Congress will decide that on our behalf regardless of how any of us might have voted if given the chance. That is their job, after all -- to represent our INTERESTS, not our OPINIONS.

Negative income tax rates meanwhile exist because of welfare-to-workfare reforms. Two of our larger income support programs -- the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Additional Child Care Credit -- are not administered by some welfare agency, but by the IRS. One must be working, actively looking for work, or training for work in order to be eligible. If one owed say $700 in income taxes but was eligible for $2300 in benefits from one or more of these refundable credits, he or she would receive the difference between the two. The result is the same as if taxes of $700 were paid while getting back a check from HHS for $2300. But because it is all streamlined to happen via W-2's and 1040's, it appears as if these people are not paying income taxes.
 
The reality is a simple one and cannot be denied: The wealthy are not taxed as a class of people. Income is taxed as an amount earned on a schedule and the individual earning it is responsible for making their tax payment.
This is exactly correct.

In fact, to say that the rich are the target is simply not true. One can be rich... very rich.... dripping with wealth in fact ...... but if one has no income for that year, they pay no income tax for that year.
Well they could have some income, as long as it was offset in full by the very same exemptions, deductions, and credits that cause low-income AND low-wealth workers to avoid taxation.

The point you raise here is one that many consider in wondering why we have an income tax rather than a wealth tax. As it happens, income tax burdens have actually tended to follow rather closely the patterns of wealth that exist in the country. Wealth would further be much more difficult to hide than income, so some part of the 15% of income taxes actually owed each year that never gets collected might indeed be recovered, allowing rates to be reduced elsewhere.

A racial minority is a racial minority each and every year and belongs to an identified class over which they have no control. The same with gender and ethnicity (sex change surgery noted but it is statistically insignificant). Age changes with the calendar but one has no control over it. Religion is a protected class as it falls under the first amendment. None of those characteristics apply to a person making money on the income tax schedule.
These classes are a product of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 et seq., so might or might not be relevant. Essentially, what a taxpayer would have to prove against the tax code was that he or she was being treated differently from another similarly situated taxpayer -- that is, one with the same income and expenditure patterns. That would constitute a justiciable injury alright, but under the tax code as it actually exists, it's a pretty much impossible case to make.
 
My problem with consumption taxes is that unless necessary goods are exempted, they disproportionately affect the poor and middle class and have almost no effect at all upon the wealthy-- who largely consume only about as much as the upper middle class, with the bulk of their economic activity being either charitable or investment. We shouldn't discourage investment, but we absolutely cannot afford to discourage consumption, even of luxury goods. Especially luxury goods, considering the role that the various entertainment industries play in our overall economy.

I think the progressive income tax is the way to go-- it just needs to be reformed to correct for the undesirable factors, such as negative tax burdens and the ability for people to vote for tax increases that don't affect their tax rates.
I'm actually okay with a slightly higher luxury goods rate than necessary ones. I'm fine with the full rate taxed on electronics, cars, etc. and a basic rate on food, utilities, basic housing, and other needs. To me the rate discussed in the "fair tax" book seems a little high but it was around 22%, the thing is they proved that we're already paying that along the chain in hidden taxes. So if it's 22% on luxury goods I'd say maybe around 5-10% on necessities depending on the current earnings climate.
 
Try to get the basics straight. People are not taxed under the Sixteenth Amendment. Income is. From whatever source derived. Obviously, inheritance is one of those sources.
Okay. 1) People drive income, there is no income to tax without people so you are wrong. 2) Inheritance is not income. It goes Income, Dividends, Capital Gains, Inheritance and they are all different types of monetary transactions with very specific definitions. Under any honest definition income has already been taxed. For the purposes of today's tax code dividends come from investment and capital gains are a secondary tax, which is fine because there has been a value transaction. The Inheritance is off of the estate which is all monies and items pertaining to the deceased including properties, items of value, investments, and money all of which has been taxed already and is not a value transaction but merely a transferrence. So if you are equating it to income you are wrong.
 
No, it may be a little clumsy, but it is in fact an accurate representation of the fact I just pointed out above. People are not taxed. Income is. In order to press any sort of Constitutional challenge you have to show standing, and that includes a showing that you have personally incurred some sort of qualified injury that some judicially imposed remedy would exist for. Paying taxes according to the same set of rules and regulations as everyone else does isn't going to cut the msutard.
You want to back that? You cannot be in a higher earning bracket without a higher income. So that was in fact a stupid assertion, do you actually want to deny that people with more money are being hijacked by the tax code because they earn more?
 
And THIS point is what makes the Fair Tax a "fair" tax plan. Through the prebate it eliminates the tax on necessary expenses (i.e. the poverty line) and taxes only disposable income.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the so-called Fair Tax is a poorly crafted welfare-for-the-wealthy scheme that is unworkable by its own assumptions and definitions. The proclaimed 23% rate is actually 30%, and that is nowhere near enough to achieve the promised revenue-neutrality. It creates huge incentives for fraud as between what is a "new" and "used" good, and there is nowhere near the claimed collection mechanism already in place to cover 100% of transactions, given that state and local sales tax regimes cover only about 50% of all transactions. If there are some beneficial ideas embedded in the Fair Tax proposal, those will have to be stripped out and housed within an entirely different vehicle in order to make any actual economic sense.
 
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the so-called Fair Tax is a poorly crafted welfare-for-the-wealthy scheme that is unworkable by its own assumptions and definitions. The proclaimed 23% rate is actually 30%, and that is nowhere near enough to achieve the promised revenue-neutrality. It creates huge incentives for fraud as between what is a "new" and "used" good, and there is nowhere near the claimed collection mechanism already in place to cover 100% of transactions, given that state and local sales tax regimes cover only about 50% of all transactions. If there are some beneficial ideas embedded in the Fair Tax proposal, those will have to be stripped out and housed within an entirely different vehicle in order to make any actual economic sense.

what makes sense is a tax system that prevents the masses' votes being bought by a system that allows politicians to promise them more government paid for by tax hikes on others
 
the 5% increase on everyone has some merit but only after the rates are more fair. The rich are paying too much right now and half of America not enough
The rich seem to be paying about 20% LESS per dollar than they were just a decade or so ago. These last years have been like a tax holiday for the wealthy. More and more low-income workers meanwhile fall off the rolls because their incomes are stagnant enough to render them unqualified to pay taxes anymore.
 
what makes sense is a tax system that prevents the masses' votes being bought by a system that allows politicians to promise them more government paid for by tax hikes on others
still waiting on that proof of votes being bought ......
 
and I suspect a review of history finds far more support of use taxes than income taxes
Income taxes were first enacted during the War of 1812. But the war ended before they went into effect, so they were rescinded. Income taxes were both passed and implemented during the Civil War. They were repealed after the conflict was over. They were again passed in the 1890's but the Supreme Court inexplicably ruled against portions of the act, triggering the ensuing stampede to the Sixteenth Amendment.
 
You fell for the trap. It was temporary and your continued support for the government taking more income from people is all that remains consistent

politicians quickly realized how much extra constitutional power they were able to derive from being able to play tax payers against tax consumers and are never going to give up that power

and in the long run its going to destroy this country because too many people want too much government and because they have never received proper feedback about the cost of government

Don't give me your lame attempt at trying to extract your behind from getting caught in your own wringer. Its worse than lame... its a betrayal of both yours and mine intelligence.

This BS about temporary is worth even less than normal manure - at least that helps the garden - this is just a really terrible attempt to save face after YOUR own challenge blew up in your own face Turtle.

Man up for heavens sake. Man up and admit you screwed up.

It is YOU who object to an income tax.
It was YOU who said look 150 years ago and what did we find - an income tax.
It is YOU who objects to lower earners not paying income tax.
It was YOU who said look 150 years ago and what did we find - an income tax where lower earners did not pay just like today that you constantly rail against.
It is YOU who objects to the rich paying more and a higher rate.
It was YOU who said look 150 years ago and what did we find - an income tax where the rate on the wealthy earners was higher and graduated.

And now - when your own challenge blew up in your face and got you all smeared and blackened with the very positions that you hate, loathe and demonize you dare to have the gall to try to pretend that this was some sort of ruse on your part?!?!?!?!? Amazing. Totally - completely - balls to the walls amazing.

here is your post 922

lets go back merely 150 years

and I suspect a review of history finds far more support of use taxes than income taxes

You clearly stated we would find more use taxes and what do we find popping up exactly on the 150 year dateline - THE HATED INCOME TAX that said would not be there. Amazing. If there was no support for income taxes 150 years ago, do you care to take the time how it was passed without any support?

You know Turtle - you are a smart guy. You are an educated guy. But sometimes you just have to admit you were wrong. I do it and its no great sin or shame.

Man up for heavens sake. Man up.
 
Last edited:
what makes sense is a tax system that prevents the masses' votes being bought by a system that allows politicians to promise them more government paid for by tax hikes on others

translation - get rid of our representative democracy where every citizen has the right to vote in elections. We are well aware you support such things when the subject came up in the past and there is no other conclusion other than this one.
 
still waiting on that proof of votes being bought ......

Its been over a year now has it now randel?

We need a birthday cake. Chocolate or yellow batter? ;)
 
Income taxes were first enacted during the War of 1812. But the war ended before they went into effect, so they were rescinded. Income taxes were both passed and implemented during the Civil War. They were repealed after the conflict was over. They were again passed in the 1890's but the Supreme Court inexplicably ruled against portions of the act, triggering the ensuing stampede to the Sixteenth Amendment.

Which clearly demonstrates that the income tax and taxing the wealthy while lower rates on average people is as American as apple pie and dates back a full two centuries.
 
hmmmmm...yellow batter

Okay - yellow batter it is. Can we have chocolate frosting on it? I love chocolate frosting on yellow batter.
 
massive fail. the estate is taxed as an estate not income
You are not your estate. You and your estate do not exist as contemporaries. An estate is an entirely separate legal entity that enters into existence upon your death. It is comprised of assets. Those may include income-earning assets, and if so, the estate (not you) will be liable for any income tax applicable to its earnings under law. Taxes are meanwhile not levied against an estate but against the uses and distributions of the assets contained within it. Using them to build a new surgical unit at your typical local hospital or to endow a new chair at the typical local university will not incur tax. Dumping some mega-windfall profit onto darling Biff and Muffy will incur tax. Consult with a knowledgeable tax advisor or estate attorney in the unlikely event that this would appear to be a problem for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom