• 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:
I was rich when Clinton was president, I was rich when Reagan was president and I was richer when W was president and I am richer now than at any time
Click to expand...

Great, than it won't hurt you to start paying your fair share of taxes again!
 
Last edited:
[h=1]Romney’s Estate Tax Cut Would Save The Koch Brothers Up To $8.7 Billion Each[/h]"Romney has, of late, been trying to claim the economic plan he put forth is meant to aid the middle-class, not those in the Koch brothers’ tax bracket. “I want to focus on where the people are hurting the most, and that’s the middle class. I’m not worried about rich people. They are doing just fine,” Romney said at a GOP debate last month. Yesterday, he even tried to claim “I’m proposing no tax cuts for the rich.”Leaving aside that Romney intends to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, he has proposed a huge giveaway to the very rich by suggesting the complete elimination of the estate tax. Only the very richest households in the country ever have to pay the estate tax, since, right now, an estate must be worth more than $5 million (or $10 million for a couple) to pay any estate tax at all.
Currently, more than half of the estate tax is paid by the richest 0.1 percent of households. And according to a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation, the Koch brothers heirs’ would save a combined $17.4 billion in estate taxes thanks to Romney’s plan."

Romney's Estate Tax Cut Would Save The Koch Brothers Up To $8.7 Billion Each | ThinkProgress
 
TurtleDude said:
so let me understand this rant of yours

you want all wealth to be destroyed after someone dies or just the property of the rich. I have often termed left wing views on wealth as "economic vandalism" and that seems to sure fit my definition. Pest control? I think that term is best reserved for the parasites who want to take the wealth of others and the pimps in political office who pander to them
Click to expand...
Taking money out of circulation is simply a 100% equitable (and extremely cheap!) method to redistribute wealth. When a dollar is destroyed those that are left are worth just a tiny bit more than they used to be. I'm sure you know this, Turtle, don't act so shocked. No, I do not condone burning down a mansion or crushing a 1930 Duesenberg.
 
Let's see, if we follow the lame logic of trickle down economics, low taxes create jobs, so the taxes need to go to zero for all, which will create millions of jobs, and will somehow make the middle class better off, the poor have jobs, etc.
I'm no economist, but my guess is that it won't happen.
Our infrastructure will collapse, the hungry will turn to crime, and the rich will have to hire private security forces to protect them from the masses. Even cops will turn to crime, and they have guns issued to them.
War Lords will pop up, communities will form based on ideology and/or theology, and thousands will die.
Think it can't happen? A lot of countries are already in that condition. Most of the middle east has great wealth concentrated in very few hands, but at least their govt leaders have convinced their poor that it is the fault of the great satan of the USA and other western govts. As long as the poor are unarmed, it works. Wait, Lybia, Syria, have unarmed poor, but they are in open revolt anyway.
If you want to live well and safe in a nice country, pay your taxes. You don't have to stop whining about it....whining isn't being taxed.....not yet, anyway.
 
Empirica said:
Your question inspires me to suggest you as a likely example of the answer__bye-bye!
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I do not want to read in the wrong thing to your reply.

Are you saying that I am a non contributor? And if so, what would make you issue this judgment about me? You do not even know me.
 
Utah, nice strawman. How can I climb it though? I don't happen to have a ladder on hand so can you tax someone so I can get one? Thanks in advance.
 
Lachean said:
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat falsehoods and collectivist tripe, its still wrong.



I am not being obtuse, you are. I am not being absurd, the consequences of not paying your taxes are LAW.



No, its meant to be accurate. Government IS force, and unless you can justify the use of force for the sake of your political agenda, wealth redistribution you are a liar.

I would never support any law that wasn't worth enforcing, you are quick to.



Thats always the answer for your lot, if ya don't like it leave. No, given that your lot doesn't respect state's rights and would have the federal government enforce your redistribution of wealth changing states would make little difference. This is a democracy, its better to try to change bad laws than give up this once great country or states to looters like you.
Click to expand...

Your post does not even make sense given that I have asked you to review the thread and your misinterpretation of my earlier statement was cleared up long ago. But for some reason, and we can only guess what that might be, you insist on pretending that you do not know the reality of what I have said nor do you care to shift gears after you got stuck in the mud.

btw - this IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. Its a democratic republic.
 
Henrin said:
Wrong.

Its a federation of republics. Correct people correctly.
Click to expand...

You might have a case of America circa 1787. However, the last 200 years have seen many changes bringing parts of democracy into our system and changing the fundamental nature of it.

As proof I would advise you to look at hundreds, perhaps thousands of posts from right wingers lamenting this reality. You could also compare the America of 1787 to that of today for an additional dose of reality.
 
iliveonramen said:
So social safety nets for the poor and the elderly are the "law of the jungle"?
Click to expand...
Using force to take what doesn't belong to you is the law of the jungle. What one does with the loot does not justify the initial act of aggression. If you wish to take care of the poor or elderly do it on your own dime, not with other people's property.
 
Centinel said:
Using force to take what doesn't belong to you is the law of the jungle. What one does with the loot does not justify the initial act of aggression. If you wish to take care of the poor or elderly do it on your own dime, not with other people's property.
Click to expand...
Then your only option is to run the US government on donations.
 
haymarket said:
You might have a case of America circa 1787. However, the last 200 years have seen many changes bringing parts of democracy into our system and changing the fundamental nature of it.

As proof I would advise you to look at hundreds, perhaps thousands of posts from right wingers lamenting this reality. You could also compare the America of 1787 to that of today for an additional dose of reality.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware of what people like yourself have attempted to do. That doesn't change what the country actually is.
 
Catawba said:
Great, than it won't hurt you to start paying your fair share of taxes again!
Click to expand...

If that were true I'd be paying about 200K less than I do now. The good news is I will always be rich and you are always going to be upset that you are not
 
MoSurveyor said:
Taking money out of circulation is simply a 100% equitable (and extremely cheap!) method to redistribute wealth. When a dollar is destroyed those that are left are worth just a tiny bit more than they used to be. I'm sure you know this, Turtle, don't act so shocked. No, I do not condone burning down a mansion or crushing a 1930 Duesenberg.
Click to expand...

that sure wasn't the way your rant came off
 
TurtleDude said:
that sure wasn't the way your rant came off
Click to expand...
Just trying to emphasize that giving the money to someone else is not my primary goal. I would prefer it be put to good use by establishing an education fund or something to benefit all but it's not required.

To answer your other question, I still approve a limit but I think that should be tied into the poverty level. At the current time the inheritance "deduction" is about 500 times the poverty level. I'd think living off someone else's work for 50 years at a level 10 times better than poverty is pretty good. I've heard enough people squawking in this thread about people living off someone else for a couple of years AT poverty level so I can't see them objecting to this.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
Just trying to emphasize that giving the money to someone else is not my primary goal. I would prefer it be put to good use by establishing an education fund or something to benefit all but it's not required.

To answer your other question, I still approve a limit but I think that should be tied into the poverty level. At the current time the inheritance "deduction" is about 500 times the poverty level. I'd think living off someone else's work for 50 years at a level 10 times better than poverty is pretty good. I've heard enough people squawking in this thread about people living off someone else for a couple of years AT poverty level so I can't see them objecting to this.
Click to expand...


I would end all taxes on income, estates inheritances etc and tax only consumption

captures far more income and prevents the extra-constitutional power congress gets by playing groups of tax payers against tax consumers etc
 
MoSurveyor said:
Then your only option is to run the US government on donations.
Click to expand...
I'm sure donations would always be welcomed. But as I said above, if people expect their life, liberty, and property to be defended and protected, then they will have to pay for that service. People don't just give you stuff for free, and neither should the government. However, as I also said before, if someone wishes to forego having any particular government protect them, then that's their business.
 
Henrin said:
I'm well aware of what people like yourself have attempted to do. That doesn't change what the country actually is.
Click to expand...

Actually, reality changes everything. You can cling to your own beliefs - but in the end reality always turns them to compost.
 
TurtleDude said:
I would end all taxes on income, estates inheritances etc and tax only consumption

captures far more income and prevents the extra-constitutional power congress gets by playing groups of tax payers against tax consumers etc
Click to expand...

and gives Turtle one hell of a tax cut.

Which is consistent with every one of the tax positions you have ever advanced here. Even the schemes which contradict your previous positions. They all have the same result - a big tax cut for Turtle.
 
haymarket said:
and gives Turtle one hell of a tax cut.

Which is consistent with every one of the tax positions you have ever advanced here. Even the schemes which contradict your previous positions. They all have the same result - a big tax cut for Turtle.
Click to expand...

YOu seem to think there is something wrong with that-I would still pay more than my share of what I use and people like you couldn't get power for your masters as they do now by telling the masses that a vote for democrats means more goodies given to them paid for by the rich
 
haymarket said:
Actually, reality changes everything. You can cling to your own beliefs - but in the end reality always turns them to compost.
Click to expand...

The country is a federation of republics and has been since its founding. Trying to claim a different reality changes nothing.
 
TurtleDude said:
I would end all taxes on income, estates inheritances etc and tax only consumption

captures far more income and prevents the extra-constitutional power congress gets by playing groups of tax payers against tax consumers etc
Click to expand...
I think we all know what you want. It's too bad it won't work.

I hear what you've been saying. I don't like the Welfare State any more than you do, maybe even less. But that's part of what happens when you dump on the people at the bottom. A pile of poop grows things and it will most likely be flies. But if you process the poop you get rid of the flies and increase crop yields, which is a more productive use of resources. Unfortunately, too many people are stuck on the idea that it's poop, so they add more poop and make things worse.

Centinel said:
I'm sure donations would always be welcomed. But as I said above, if people expect their life, liberty, and property to be defended and protected, then they will have to pay for that service. People don't just give you stuff for free, and neither should the government. However, as I also said before, if someone wishes to forego having any particular government protect them, then that's their business.
Click to expand...
Who the hell is going to invade Missouri? And if my State can't be invaded then why bother to pay for protective services from Uncle Sam? In fact, that brings up another point. What if Alaska or Maine preferred paying Canada for protection, would that be OK? It's not like the US military is going to be the super-mean fighting machine it is now because no one will want to pay for that much firepower. Corporations might be willing to pay for protection of shipping lanes, though, you can give that a shot.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom