• 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.
According to the sixteenth it does. As I said earlier economic discrimination is still discrimination and if someone wanted to press the issue using the equal protections clause they would have a decent case.
They would have no case at all. There is no relevant injury to claim unless your million dollars is taxed differently from the million dollars of someone else similarly situated. Keep in mind that you pay the same taxes on your first $100K of income that someone who only makes $100K does. No case to be made there either.
 
same with everyone else-especially the 50% or so who pay NO INCOME TAX. Guess what, the rich pay a higher percentage of the income tax now than at any time in the last 60 years.
More third-grade thinking. First of all, the number you cite is the percentage of 1040's filed showing a positive AGI but no NET tax owed. If that wasn't enough to lose you, consider that better than 20% of them are from full-time students who file a 1040 just to get back the taxes that were withheld while they worked summer or other part-time jobs. Did you ever do that? Further, the bottom 20% actually pays an average of 16.3% of their income in federal, state and local taxes, despite the fact that their federal income tax rates become negative due to the EITC and ACCC WORKFARE programs that we administer through the IRS.

The wealthy pay such a high share of all taxes because they have such a high share of all income. Indeed under Bush their effective tax rates were sinking like a stone, but their income share was increasing so rapidly that their share of taxes went up anyway.
 
are you unaware of the fact that the income tax structure is a main reason why we have a deficit?
Yes, if we had left income taxes the way they were under Clinton, a lot of these problems could have been avoided.

As a matter of fact, the largest bank in America Golman Sachs paid almost nothing as well as General Electric and both contribute enormous sums of money exclusively to Democrat candidates.
Another ridiculous claim. A great many corporations end up owing no income tax, but not continuously. Zero tax this year, lots next year. Do some research. Corporations are not stupid. They contribute to both sides while leaning toward candidates who appear likely to win. That may indeed stand to hurt Republicans a good bit.
 
Last edited:
only spending and much of that spending is because those who demand it aren't taxed to pay for it
I guess you would support a system under which everyone paid taxes, but then the government turned around and sent everyone a check for the exact same amount. That would be "fair" in your eyes, but anything else it seems would not.
 
your opinions I call psychobabble along with your claims that "we the people"=a justification for income redistribution
The two basic functions of any society are risk-sharing and redistribution of income. Can't handle it? Don't live in a society.
 
More psychobabble. Nothing in the constitution, its preamble etc suggests that income redistribution is a proper function of the federal government. The only thing I am unhappy with is the amount of parasites who think they have a claim to the wealth of others
The Constitution in Article I-Section 8 calls on the new federal government to establish post offices and post roads. These enable mail to move efficiently around the new country. The bulk of the new country's residents are illiterate and have no use for mail. This is a transfer of wealth to the purposes of the already wealthy and well-educated.
 
the whining left complains that Mitt only pays 14% (and millions) while being mum about the millions who pay nothing
They don't OWE anything. Most of them make less than $20 THOUSAND per year. These are the big horses you think should be carrying the load??? That's a crackpot notion.
 
The Constitution in Article I-Section 8 calls on the new federal government to establish post offices and post roads. These enable mail to move efficiently around the new country. The bulk of the new country's residents are illiterate and have no use for mail. This is a transfer of wealth to the purposes of the already wealthy and well-educated.

The two basic functions of any society are risk-sharing and redistribution of income. Can't handle it? Don't live in a society.

I'm always fascinated by what people invent when they're grasping at straws. Must admit, this is very entertaining bull****.
 
You haven't discredited anything, all you have done is presented an appeal to authority. You haven't even satisfactorily countered how wealth based taxation and taxation on earnings isn't discrimination. Later.
There are permissible and impermissible forms of discrimination. You don't seem hep to the differences.
 
The fulfillment of a contract by both sides is rather dependent upon a) the continued existence of either party, and b) the ability of either party to fulfill the contract. If the company goes under and no longer exists then where is that pension money supposed to come from? Pensions, unlike IRA's, are paid out of a company's income. No income means no pension payments. Secondly if the money is not there, well then the money is not there.
The hypothetical implies myriad possible criminal indictments against past or present officers of this corporation. Tampering with corporate pension funds is no more permissible than tampering with union pension funds.

I agree that the number in and of itself can be misleading IF one does not explain where it comes from. You cannot effectively compare an inclusive tax (income tax) to and exclusive tax (sales tax) unless you convert one to the other. It's the same as comparing miles to KM. You need to convert one to the other to see the real difference. So if you want to go with the 30% tax rate (which is the exclusive rate) then you need to convert all the income tax rates (which are inclusive) to exclusive and they will all jump up similarly.
How long have you been in this country? We talk by convention here of income tax rates on an inclusive basis and sales tax rates on an exclusive basis. Nobody gets confused. That is, until the Fair Tax people come along and deliberately state what is actually a 30% sales tax at its inclusive rate of 23.08%. This was an act of deliberate deception undertaken after focus groups showed massive resistance to such flat-tax schemes once the rate went above 25%.

The current system has huge incentives for fraud and under the table wages are a lot easier to hide.
Well, we lose about 15% of federal income taxes actually owed each year to fraud, the largest shares of that through the shady returns of small businesses. This is why expansion of the 1099 regime was proposed in the health care bill. Also why there was opposition to that. These people do not want to stop cheating the taxman.

Right now the government has to track all citizens AND all business. Under Fair Tax, they only have to track business.
Try again. How is the big, new super-bureaucracy going to send you your monthy prebate check unless they know where you are at all times? And how are they going to know if you are really eligible to receive a check unless they pry into every detail of your personal life. Warrantless wiretapping will seem a lesser intrusion than what the Fair Tax will produce.

However, we may want to be careful not to go off topic too fully here as this really ends up not dealing with inheritance taxes save that under Fair Tax such a tax would not exist.
It doesn't exist now unless you somehow manage to die still owning an estate worth many millions of dollars.

NOw clear this up for those who may not be clear on this. Does the estate get taxed for giving the money to Biff and Muffy and THEN Biff and Muffy have to pay income tax on that or is it just one or the other?
The estate files its own tax return. Some forms of bequest will be reportable on an heir's tax return. In competent hands, an estate can also be used to generate deductions that will be reportable on an heir's return. So it's all of the above.
 
Last edited:
I'm always fascinated by what people invent when they're grasping at straws. Must admit, this is very entertaining bull****.
Well, after the entertainment value wears off, see if you can uncover a way to counter the actual substance of those posts. These little quippies aren't going to get the job done.
 
Last edited:
Well, after the entertainment value wears off, see if you can uncover a way to counter the actual substance of those posts. These little quippies aren't going to get the job done.

There is a type of poster who can best be described as a drive-by poster. They enter quickly, say something fast and seemingly pithy, and get the hell out as fast as they can. The whole idea is to let others know they disagreee and feel strongly but to give little than can actually be debated with. It is the antithesis of actual debate.
 
Last edited:
There is a type of poster who can best be described as a drive-by poster. They enter quickly, say something fast and seemingly pithy, and get the hell out as fast as they can. The whole idea is to let others know they disagreee and feel strongly but to give little than can actually be debated with. It is the antithesis of actual debate.
Yes, I'm familair with the breed. Also with the one that ought be drive-by's, but whose cars seem to break down, causing them to become stuck in some thread or other endlessly looking like fools. Have you ever come across any of those?
 
Yes, I'm familair with the breed. Also with the one that ought be drive-by's, but whose cars seem to break down, causing them to become stuck in some thread or other endlessly looking like fools. Have you ever come across any of those?

sadly, they are far too plentiful. You can spot them a mile away when you take the time to explain reality to them, provide proof from real life examples using data, statistics or the historical record, and it goes a mile over their head and they keep repeating the same beliefs over and over and over again.

One of my favorites is the myth of DOUBLE TAXATION. How dare the mean old government tax inheritance money since the folks already paid income taxes on it when they were alive. And then you point out that it is a completely DIFFERENT INDIVIDUAL who is paying the tax on new money to them but they ignore it and just get even more worked up yelling about DOUBLE TAXATION.

Sadly, it is the price we all pay of living in a time where ideology has trumped facts and reality for far too many.
 
your opinions I call psychobabble along with your claims that "we the people"=a justification for income redistribution

Strange, I thought "WE THE PEOPLE" was the first words of the preamble to the Contitution of the United States.

Guess I better check my history.....I did it is.:peace
 
More psychobabble. Nothing in the constitution, its preamble etc suggests that income redistribution is a proper function of the federal government. The only thing I am unhappy with is the amount of parasites who think they have a claim to the wealth of others

Not to put you or the rightwingers down on this forum, but more negative adjectives can not you rightwingers post anything else.
Say maybe a new idea???:peace
 
Let's just face it, folks. The system we have now sucks a lot of ass. I hope we can all agree on that much. So the question remains: do we really need a system where the US tax code has over 71,000 pages? Why not simply tax everyone exactly the same regardless of income? No deductions, no loopholes, nothing. The exact same across the board. Then no one can bitch about people paying more or less than others. The states themselves can collect the income tax reducing our need for federal bureaucracy. Billions are spent each year by the IRS simply collecting the taxes because of unnecessary bureaucracy. Just consider it. :shrug:
 
Let's just face it, folks. The system we have now sucks a lot of ass. I hope we can all agree on that much. So the question remains: do we really need a system where the US tax code has over 71,000 pages? Why not simply tax everyone exactly the same regardless of income? No deductions, no loopholes, nothing. The exact same across the board. Then no one can bitch about people paying more or less than others. The states themselves can collect the income tax reducing our need for federal bureaucracy. Billions are spent each year by the IRS simply collecting the taxes because of unnecessary bureaucracy. Just consider it. :shrug:
I've said before that I think the simplest solution would be for the feds to issue 50 tax bills, one to each state. Each state gets billed for their share (apportioned by population) of the federal tax burden. Done. No IRS, no tax law, no deductions. Just 50 tax bills.
 
I've said before that I think the simplest solution would be for the feds to issue 50 tax bills, one to each state. Each state gets billed for their share (apportioned by population) of the federal tax burden. Done. No IRS, no tax law, no deductions. Just 50 tax bills.
That could work. Then again the states would find a way to make their own taxes ridiculous and then we're essentially back at square one.
 
That could work. Then again the states would find a way to make their own taxes ridiculous and then we're essentially back at square one.
You have a point. But one could always leave a ridiculous state for a less ridiculous state.
 
You have a point. But one could always leave a ridiculous state for a less ridiculous state.
True. To play devil's advocate though, at some point the federal could jack the rates up to a point that the other states may not have a choice but to get every dollar they can. Some sort of maximum would have to be set nationally.
 
That could work. Then again the states would find a way to make their own taxes ridiculous and then we're essentially back at square one.

well yeah, there's that. But that seems to be the nature of everything in life. Every solution creates another problem. Even still, I'd rather have a state tax problem than a federal one. It's easier to deal with on a state level.

And while we're at it, let's eliminate the Fed. :mrgreen:
 
True. To play devil's advocate though, at some point the federal could jack the rates up to a point that the other states may not have a choice but to get every dollar they can. Some sort of maximum would have to be set nationally.

Good point. Setting a maximum sounds like a reasonable idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom