• 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.
Henrin said:
Lizzie, to add to what you just said, the progressive tax system has never proven itself able to support the welfare state.
Click to expand...
Gibberish. No matter how large hyperallergics imagine it to be, the "welfare state" is and has always been but a small part of overall public spending. Public spending of course depends on two things -- total revenue and total borrowing. The means by which total revenue is derived are not relevant to the equation at all.
 
Centinel said:
Ah yes, the old "all the cool kids are doing it" argument. Sorry but I don't base my ethical behavior on what all the cool kids are doing. My position is that it is unethical for one person to initiate aggression against another. Obviously you disagree. I'm still not going to initiate force against people, just because you think I should.
Click to expand...
Being asked to pay for the things you consume does not represent an initiation of force. Of course, if you selfishly refuse to pay for the things you have consumed, that might be a different story.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
Being asked to pay for the things you consume does not represent an initiation of force. Of course, if you selfishly refuse to pay for the things you have consumed, that might be a different story.
Click to expand...
I am 100% in agreement with you. Nobody should be forced to give away what is theirs without being paid. To demand otherwise would be selfish on the part of those taking that for which they refuse to pay. If one wants something, one must offer something in exchange and find someone willing to make the desired trade. Otherwise, one is simply stealing.
 
Centinel said:
I am 100% in agreement with you. Nobody should be forced to give away what is theirs without being paid. To demand otherwise would be selfish on the part of those taking that for which they refuse to pay. If one wants something, one must offer something in exchange and find someone willing to make the desired trade. Otherwise, one is simply stealing.
Click to expand...
So quit whining about taxation. Taxes are money one OWES for public goods and services provided on one's behalf or in protection of one's interests.
 
Centinel said:
You know, I think you might have convinced me that it could be government's legitimate role to provide defense services to everyone. I could envision and accept a government whose sole legitimate function was to provide for a military, peace officers, and courts, so that everyone was equally defended and had access to dispute resolution services. As long as the purpose of government was solely to provide this mutual defense, I think I'd support such a system. This way, everyone would pay the same fee for the same protection, and the rich could not hire the larger private army to force down those the poor.
Click to expand...
Centinel said:
I am 100% in agreement with you. Nobody should be forced to give away what is theirs without being paid. To demand otherwise would be selfish on the part of those taking that for which they refuse to pay. If one wants something, one must offer something in exchange and find someone willing to make the desired trade. Otherwise, one is simply stealing.
Click to expand...
I hope you'll forgive me if I find these contradictory.

If it's voluntary then the poor, who have less to lose, may decide not to pay and the rich may decide not to pay, either, since they can afford their own superior security services. If it's not voluntary then someone will no doubt be forced to pay. Could you explain?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I hope you'll forgive me if I find these contradictory.

If it's voluntary then the poor, who have less to lose, may decide not to pay and the rich may decide not to pay, either, since they can afford their own superior security services. If it's not voluntary then someone will no doubt be forced to pay. Could you explain?
Click to expand...

As German Guy pointed out, having multiple competing defense agencies could lead to chaos, so I have agreed with him that it is the legitimate role of government to provide this service universally. Thus, I agree that the government should provide a military, a police force, and courts. As these have to be paid for, then it is legitimate for the government to exact taxes to fulfill its responsibility to provide universal defense services. Thus, rather than each person paying the defense agency of his choice, each person would pay the government to provide these services, and the government would charge a fee for defense and police service, and would also charge court fees to pay for dispute resolution services.
 
Centinel said:
As German Guy pointed out, having multiple competing defense agencies could lead to chaos, so I have agreed with him that it is the legitimate role of government to provide this service universally. Thus, I agree that the government should provide a military, a police force, and courts. As these have to be paid for, then it is legitimate for the government to exact taxes to fulfill its responsibility to provide universal defense services. Thus, rather than each person paying the defense agency of his choice, each person would pay the government to provide these services, and the government would charge a fee for defense and police service, and would also charge court fees to pay for dispute resolution services.
Click to expand...
I understood that part of your previous posts. What I am still unsure of is, will this "fee" be voluntary or mandatory? If it's mandatory aren't you then taking money from people who may not want to give it?
 
MoSurveyor said:
I understood that part of your previous posts. What I am still unsure of is, will this "fee" be voluntary or mandatory? If it's mandatory aren't you then taking money from people who may not want to give it?
Click to expand...
Mandatory, and yes, I am.

I am compromising and allowing that, because the state is responsible for defending people's property, and because we are stipulating that ONLY the state may perform this function, then the state must be allowed to collect a mandatory fee from all citizens in order to fund this service.

I still see no reason why individuals cannot arrange these services privately on their own, but since so many seem opposed to the idea and fear that it would lead to chaos and warlordism, I am willing to compromise and say that this will be the reason for the existence of a government, and that defense of property will be its only purpose.
 
Centinel said:
Mandatory, and yes, I am.

I am compromising and allowing that, because the state is responsible for defending people's property, and because we are stipulating that ONLY the state may perform this function, then the state must be allowed to collect a mandatory fee from all citizens in order to fund this service.

I still see no reason why individuals cannot arrange these services privately on their own, but since so many seem opposed to the idea and fear that it would lead to chaos and warlordism, I am willing to compromise and say that this will be the reason for the existence of a government, and that defense of property will be its only purpose.
Click to expand...

What if this mandatory fee was not enough to defend people's paroperty?

Should we abolish the inheirtance tax to get more , should we stop the tax cuts to the rich to get more?

Or which one would you abolish, the Military, the CIA, THE FBI, THE DEA THE ATF THE NSA, THE LOCAL POLICE or perhaps another??:peace
 
presluc said:
What if this mandatory fee was not enough to defend people's paroperty?
Click to expand...
The government would have to charge people the costs of covering the service. The expense of the service would determine the fee.

Should we abolish the inheirtance tax to get more , should we stop the tax cuts to the rich to get more?
Click to expand...
There would be no inheritance tax. The rich and poor would each pay the same fee for the same defense service.

Or which one would you abolish, the Military, the CIA, THE FBI, THE DEA THE ATF THE NSA, THE LOCAL POLICE or perhaps another??:peace
Click to expand...
My suggestion would be to put the government in charge of both the military and the police force. They mission of the military would be to defend the territory of the country, and the mission of the police would be to defend property rights. Certainly there would be nothing like the DEA, as there would be no reason for the DEA to exist. It neither defends the territory of the country, nor does it defend property rights.
 
The above post makes me very thankful we live in a democratic republic under a Constitution.
 
I ain't payin' no taxes to no damn revenuers! Let them Commie bastards try to git me! I gots me guns and I gots me wife to reload 'em fur me and I'll take a few o' them scum-suckers out befur' I go! I'm comin' home, Mama!

:gunsmilie :shoot


Seriously, though, why would I pay $1000/yr to protect almost nothing while others pay the same to protect millions?
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
I ain't payin' no taxes to no damn revenuers! Let them Commie bastards try to git me! I gots me guns and I gots me wife to reload 'em fur me and I'll take a few o' them scum-suckers out befur' I go! I'm comin' home, Mama!

:gunsmilie :shoot
Click to expand...

massive fail
 
MoSurveyor said:
I ain't payin' no taxes to no damn revenuers! Let them Commie bastards try to git me! I gots me guns and I gots me wife to reload 'em fur me and I'll take a few o' them scum-suckers out befur' I go! I'm comin' home, Mama!

:gunsmilie :shoot


Seriously, though, why would I pay $1000/yr to protect almost nothing while others pay the same to protect millions?
Click to expand...


mainly because people who have millions tend to have the resources to deal with bandits-you do not--and violent crime tends to target poor people not wealthy ones
 
haymarket said:
The above post makes me very thankful we live in a democratic republic under a Constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to why. What about the government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens do you find offensive?
 
MoSurveyor said:
Seriously, though, why would I pay $1000/yr to protect almost nothing while others pay the same to protect millions?
Click to expand...
Would you rather that the government charged based upon the amount you wished to have protected? Something along the line of a life insurance policy? I have no objection to such a policy.
 
Centinel said:
I'm curious as to why. What about the government protecting the life, liberty, and property of its citizens do you find offensive?
Click to expand...

What I find offensive is people who do not appreciate the land we live in and its people and their duly elected government. But they still remain put while moaning, whining and bitching about free choice.
 
haymarket said:
What I find offensive is people who do not appreciate the land we live in and its people and their duly elected government. But they still remain put while moaning, whining and bitching about free choice.
Click to expand...


This sort of sounds like a dog that lives in a nice neighborhood complaining about the fleas that bite him
 
haymarket said:
Ah , well and good.

I, on the other hand, have never had one come near. Its my cleanliness that drives them off.
Click to expand...
maybe that or a lack of blood to feast upon:mrgreen:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom