• 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.
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, and amen to eliminating the Fed. They have done nothing but devalue the dollar since we got off the gold standard.
 
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:

You mean the Federal Reserve? Or the federal government? :twisted:
 
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.

psychobabble. right now more people are net takers than producers when it comes to the government. More people are getting more from the federal government than they pay in taxes. And the main issue you ignore (because it is uncomfortable to your welfare-socialist yearnings) is that what people like me have problems with is not that the poor don't pay enough taxes but they demand stuff they are unwilling or unable to pay for and this tax scheme encourages that.
 
Yes, if we had left income taxes the way they were under Clinton, a lot of these problems could have been avoided.


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.

More illogical drivel. For the clinton tax system to work we'd need another huge dot com bubble that meant those being taxed more were actually getting more net income. Nice try but your claim is bogus
 
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.

another complete failure and an idiotic assumption on your part. what I want is a system that those who cannot afford what they want don't have the ability to make others pay for their needs without them also paying more
 
The two basic functions of any society are risk-sharing and redistribution of income. Can't handle it? Don't live in a society.

from what source did you get this from. I deny that. the main functions of society are protection from external threats and creating a market system
 
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.

More speculation on your part.
 
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.

and that is one of the major reasons why this country is going down the toilet. representation without taxation-people who are net tax consumers have absolutely no incentive to either cut spending or hold down taxes on those of us who actually do pay
 
LOL! It seems that more than one lily has been gilded around here!


every couple of months some newbie comes along and makes that claim and then one of the mods schools him or her on their error. yet they never seem to learn from their mistakes
 
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

It is-cite me the law review article that claims such a phrase is a code for income redistribution
 
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:

do you understand how drastic a castration of politicians' powers such a change would create?
 
You have a point. But one could always leave a ridiculous state for a less ridiculous state.


that is how it should be. If I don't want to live in a state where gays cannot marry, I can move. If I don't want to live in a state where honest people cannot own machine guns or use medicinal marijuana I could move. If my state became a paradise for parasites so that my state filled up with those suckling on the public teat thereby increasing my taxes, net tax payers could move and that would sort of take care of the problem. Liberals hate that idea
 
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.

Yeah, and that's CF, for the most part. Funny thing, though, haymarket, is that you tend to disappear when you get a substantial response.
 
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.

Neither one requires a substantive response; they're incandescently inane. Post roads do not show "wealth redistribution" as a constitutional function of government, and society's two functions are not "risk-sharing" and "wealth redistribution."

Seeing as you made these claims, it would be nice if you provided something to back them up. I know they're superlatively silly arguments, but why not give it a shot? You know, documentation, history, that sort of thing.
 
It is-cite me the law review article that claims such a phrase is a code for income redistribution

I think the rule of law is more than enough legal position on the matter. Let us know when your case has been successful in the Supreme Court.
 
I think the rule of law is more than enough legal position on the matter. Let us know when your case has been successful in the Supreme Court.

More appeals to idiotic and irrelevant authority

where has "we the people" been used to justify income redistribution by any legislative body?
 
More illogical drivel. For the clinton tax system to work we'd need another huge dot com bubble that meant those being taxed more were actually getting more net income. Nice try but your claim is bogus
You mean like the housing bubble? Followed by the commodities bubble? Not one but two bubbles in eight years. Seems like that would have been more than enough if what you say is true.
 
More appeals to idiotic and irrelevant authority


Its hilarious hearing someone that has claimed to be a "lawyer" calling the rule of law an irrelevant authority. :lamo:mrgreen::lamo
 
The two basic functions of any society are risk-sharing and redistribution of income. Can't handle it? Don't live in a society.

Those are the two basic functions of society? Care to prove it?
 
Yeah, and that's CF, for the most part. Funny thing, though, haymarket, is that you tend to disappear when you get a substantial response.

Just provide the threads, post numbers and quotes and show me where this happened. Do that. Do it today. I challenge you to back this up with evidence.

Seems to me that you are trying to hide your own faults and lack of substance by using the school yard "I know you are but what am I" when somebody correctly identifies your own posting style.

But do please step up and support your silly charge.
 
Its hilarious hearing someone that has claimed to be a "lawyer" calling the rule of law an irrelevant authority. :lamo:mrgreen::lamo

and if the only proper discussion was limited to what the current law says you libs wouldn't have much to talk about when it comes to much of creeping socialist nonsense you want to apply to this nation
 
Those are the two basic functions of society? Care to prove it?

He pulled that out of his six. That is the most idiotic claim I have seen in weeks.
 
Its hilarious hearing someone that has claimed to be a "lawyer" calling the rule of law an irrelevant authority. :lamo:mrgreen::lamo
He believes in proper law, not the convoluted interpretest crap that a bunch of jackasses have been foisting on us.
 
Just provide the threads, post numbers and quotes and show me where this happened. Do that. Do it today. I challenge you to back this up with evidence.

Seems to me that you are trying to hide your own faults and lack of substance by using the school yard "I know you are but what am I" when somebody correctly identifies your own posting style.

But do please step up and support your silly charge.

Here's two from recent days.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...18925-tea-party-delima-10.html#post1060198901

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...8549-obama-v-catholics-45.html#post1060194792

Oh, I'm sure you'll go answer them now . . .

In any case, you were referring to me as a "drive by." "My posting sytle," indeed. :roll:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom