• 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.
Again, you make hollow pontifications based on absolutes. Reality is not what you dream of.

And still you have no response to the argument that the government's duty is to protect the life, liberty, and property of all people, and that if it robs from peter to pay paul, it is actually violating its duty to protect all people. They are contradictory acts. You be protecting someone's property while you are simultaneously taking their property.
 
which Constitution-the correctly interpreted one based on the founders' intent or the one that FDR's lapdog Justices made up and cemented into the jurisprudential fabric of this nation

The United States of America has but one Constitution.
 
So you have no problem violating the life, liberty, and property of some in order to grant benefits to others?

I have no idea what you are talking about when you speak in such vague generalities.
 
translation-if you have something that others want they can vote what you have away from you and you should bend over and not complain

No. I said it right the first time.

Get your own island.

Then pontificate.

Other than that, learn to live with other people in a cooperative society where you are not a god.
 
And still you have no response to the argument that the government's duty is to protect the life, liberty, and property of all people, and that if it robs from peter to pay paul, it is actually violating its duty to protect all people. They are contradictory acts. You be protecting someone's property while you are simultaneously taking their property.

And you still insist on presenting an argument that is better made by a high school sophomore who has discovered his older brothers textbook to the introductory logic class he is taking at the local community college. Get off the obsession with these absolutes and wisdom may open up for you.
 
You are promoting a compulsory society, not a cooperative society. Folks like Lizzie and I are the ones promoting a cooperative society.

Your attendance here is NOT AT ALL COMPULSORY. You operate from a false premise.
 
No no no sweetie. I'm far from a God. I am among the peons who work my ass off for the median income in our society, it's just that I don't believe in theft as a way of survival.

Great. We have much in common then. I also work very hard for what I have and I do not believe in theft either.

But those statements only place us in the vast vast majority of Americans - perhaps as much as 80 to 90%. It means little.
 
You are promoting a compulsory society, not a cooperative society. Folks like Lizzie and I are the ones promoting a cooperative society.
And when they don't cooperate your answer is to talk nice to them and impose a paper penalty. I'm sure that piece of paper from the court will make the victims feel better.
 
Last edited:
And when they don't cooperate your answer is to talk nice to them and impose a paper penalty if someone else decides they've been bad.
No, my answer is that they are brought before a judge who determines whether or not they are guilty and imposes a punishment if they are.
 
And still you have no response to the argument that the government's duty is to protect the life, liberty, and property of all people, and that if it robs from peter to pay paul, it is actually violating its duty to protect all people. They are contradictory acts. You be protecting someone's property while you are simultaneously taking their property.

And you still insist on presenting an argument that is better made by a high school sophomore who has discovered his older brothers textbook to the introductory logic class he is taking at the local community college. Get off the obsession with these absolutes and wisdom may open up for you.

Hm, I present an argument that you claim is better made by a high school sophomore, yet you assiduously avoid even attempting to refute it. Fascinating.
 
No, my answer is that they are brought before a judge who determines whether or not they are guilty and imposes a punishment if they are.
Exactly. If they are guilty then the victim gets a piece of paper saying he was wronged - and the "criminal" gets what, for example?

Ed:
Since it seems like 99% of your society hinges on judges I think it's kind of important expand on what you see as possible outcomes to trial - and how the court system itself works, for that matter. Is this all just civil court or are there actual laws that can be broken (aka criminal court)?
 
Last edited:
Exactly. If they are guilty then the victim gets a piece of paper and the "criminal" gets what - for example?
What piece of paper are you talking about?

The criminal could receive any of a number of punishments, from the death penalty, to jail, to a fine. It depends on the facts of the case and precedent.
 
What piece of paper are you talking about?

The criminal could receive any of a number of punishments, from the death penalty, to jail, to a fine. It depends on the facts of the case and precedent.
So you're saying a legal system more or less like we have now?
 
If $5,000,000 + 65% of everything over that can't buy a future for you then you probably don't deserve one.

$5M comes out to a little over $170 a day, 365 days a year, for 80 years - not counting interest. If you can get a lowly 2% interest rate that's $100k a year and you never touch the $5M.
As I said earlier, they can take the money out of circulation for all I care. It's not the taxes I'm after.

It isn't the governments money, they didn't earn squat, it was taxed by the government as they earned it. Then when that person dies, it shouldn't be taxed because that is called double taxation, which is illegal I do believe. Also, again, this still brings up the question of, again, the parents built the future for the child, who is the government to take any of that away? Although, I kind of see a point, an 18 year old getting 10 million dollars is probably not healthy for our society because he will just sit in a house and never put that money into the economy, but that still doesn't address the question of how the government should dictate morals on him and strip it away so he has to get a job. I might see a tax on like Bill Gates' estate because he has SOOOO much and ten bucks says he wants it to be taxed. Personally, I think if you want some of your money to go to the government when you die, that is a good reason why you write a will.
 
It isn't the governments money, they didn't earn squat, it was taxed by the government as they earned it. Then when that person dies, it shouldn't be taxed because that is called double taxation, which is illegal I do believe. Also, again, this still brings up the question of, again, the parents built the future for the child, who is the government to take any of that away? Although, I kind of see a point, an 18 year old getting 10 million dollars is probably not healthy for our society because he will just sit in a house and never put that money into the economy, but that still doesn't address the question of how the government should dictate morals on him and strip it away so he has to get a job. I might see a tax on like Bill Gates' estate because he has SOOOO much and ten bucks says he wants it to be taxed. Personally, I think if you want some of your money to go to the government when you die, that is a good reason why you write a will.
If I knew for sure he was just going to lay around the house and spend money on gourmet pizza, personal chefs, maids, butlers, drivers, and companionship it wouldn't bother me at all. I also don't see anyone with $5M+ having to get a job if they don't want to.

I think they should tie the inheritance limit into the poverty line. If rich people want to leave their heirs more money then they can handle their businesses better to make sure the economy is ticking along so everybody has a good life - not handouts but jobs where people can work and be proud. Welfare sucks but having America business rig the game to exclude Americans sucks even more.
 
Hm, I present an argument that you claim is better made by a high school sophomore, yet you assiduously avoid even attempting to refute it. Fascinating.

Your premise is a false one as has been pointed out. As such, there is nothing of substance to refute as it falls on its face.

Taxation brought about through a law passed by the duly elected representatives of the American people as authorized by the United States Constitution is NOT a denial of any property rights that a citizen may have.

Protections of the rights of citizens through a law passed by the duly elected representatives of the American people as authorized by the United States Constitution is NOT a denial of any property rights that a citizen may have.
 
Last edited:
It isn't the governments money, they didn't earn squat, it was taxed by the government as they earned it. Then when that person dies, it shouldn't be taxed because that is called double taxation, which is illegal I do believe. Also, again, this still brings up the question of, again, the parents built the future for the child, who is the government to take any of that away? Although, I kind of see a point, an 18 year old getting 10 million dollars is probably not healthy for our society because he will just sit in a house and never put that money into the economy, but that still doesn't address the question of how the government should dictate morals on him and strip it away so he has to get a job. I might see a tax on like Bill Gates' estate because he has SOOOO much and ten bucks says he wants it to be taxed. Personally, I think if you want some of your money to go to the government when you die, that is a good reason why you write a will.

Why are a self-described socialist if these things are what you really believe?
 
Welfare sucks but having America business rig the game to exclude Americans sucks even more.

Ditto, Mo, Ditto!

Back to inheritance. Most people don't get huge inheritances. The generational poor...inherit....?

IMO, giving legally earned, legitimate gifts, of any amount, to immediate family members while living...should never be taxed. Legally earned or inherited money that was bequeathed to those of a person's choosing, in any amount , the recipients should never be taxed. Those who have significant sums...usually have that money working and those who inherit that money - normally grow up with money people and usually want that money to continue to work and make them more money.
 
Your premise is a false one as has been pointed out. As such, there is nothing of substance to refute as it falls on its face.

Taxation brought about through a law passed by the duly elected representatives of the American people as authorized by the United States Constitution is NOT a denial of any property rights that a citizen may have.

Protections of the rights of citizens through a law passed by the duly elected representatives of the American people as authorized by the United States Constitution is NOT a denial of any property rights that a citizen may have.

Yes, I completely understand that taxes enacted by the government are perfectly legal. I am not arguing otherwise. I am not arguing whether they are legal, I am arguing that the legislation be changed.

I am pointing out that those who are interested in ethics might not wish to support legislation that collects taxes for purposes other than property protection. If taxes are collected for any purpose other than the protection of property, then the government is acting as a plunderer, not a defender. And anyone who votes for such taxes is an accessory to the plunder.

For example, if the government collects tax money and then uses that money not for the military, police protection, or the courts, then the government is taking property. By taking property it is violating its mission to protect property.

I guess it all depends on what one regards as the legitimate purpose of government. I see it as a tool for the protection of property. You seem to think that it is a tool for taking the property of some in order to give it to others. I have serious ethical problems with using the government to that end, while you seem to think it's fine. I will never support the government using coercion to take from one in order to give to another.

Taxes for any purpose other than the military, police, or courts make the government an attacker of property rather than a defender of property.
 
Yes, I completely understand that taxes enacted by the government are perfectly legal. I am not arguing otherwise. I am not arguing whether they are legal, I am arguing that the legislation be changed.

I am pointing out that those who are interested in ethics might not wish to support legislation that collects taxes for purposes other than property protection. If taxes are collected for any purpose other than the protection of property, then the government is acting as a plunderer, not a defender. And anyone who votes for such taxes is an accessory to the plunder.

For example, if the government collects tax money and then uses that money not for the military, police protection, or the courts, then the government is taking property. By taking property it is violating its mission to protect property.

I guess it all depends on what one regards as the legitimate purpose of government. I see it as a tool for the protection of property. You seem to think that it is a tool for taking the property of some in order to give it to others. I have serious ethical problems with using the government to that end, while you seem to think it's fine. I will never support the government using coercion to take from one in order to give to another.

Taxes for any purpose other than the military, police, or courts make the government an attacker of property rather than a defender of property.
It's interesting that you have used coercion in this as it is exactly how the federal has come to trump the states. Since the last century the federal has created boards and administrations dealing with whatever pet issues it has adopted, they pass regulations on states who are on the hook for enforcement which eats into budgets forcing them to collect more in taxes but it still falls short meaning they must accept federal monies to make up for shortfalls, once the federal becomes a paying party they coerce the states to follow federal mandates or else lose funding meaning many states must adopt conditions they are diametrically opposed to and the federal does an end around on state's rights.

I know this is about the inheritance tax but it is the same principle, we have a government that takes property to use against the state and the individual. And then those who support this inanity of course like to say "rights are not absolute" towards everything from attaining as much property as possible to what property can be attained(guns, cars, homes) and every other aspect they can crap on of American individualism. Rights are in fact absolute however they are limited properly in their effect, much like the doctor "do no harm" applies to every natural right, they naturally end where harm to another occurs but in benign exercise they are in fact absolute regardless of any judicial theory(according to the founding fathers and U.S.C.).
 
Last edited:
And here I thought you were a capitalist! Obviously you're not - or you haven't been following the tech industry's patent wars very closely. I don't consider $5M "misery" in any way, shape, or form. I could be wrong, though, Turtle certainly whines enough but you wouldn't think he'd be so keen to keep something that hurts so much.

You don't have to have alot of money to think that capitalism is the most successful and workable economic model going. If I wanted to, I could make much more money than I do, however my priorities in life don't dictate that I do this. I am not materialistic, but I do think that materialism is as valid as my own priorities. We are each individuals, with different interests and capabilities. If someone wants to use his industry and energy to build a financial empire, he/she has my full support, as long as he's not stepping on my toes. There's not a zero-sum game of money. Those who generate alot of money are not taking it from the poor or from anyone else. Those who buy goods and services which make someone wealthy are willingly paying for those goods and services, and are not being coerced by anyone else.

I don't consider $5M "misery" in any way, shape, or form. I could be wrong, though, Turtle certainly whines enough but you wouldn't think he'd be so keen to keep something that hurts so much

If you are envious of those who have more than you, it reflects on your own character, and not that of those you envy.
 
Last edited:
Exactly none.

None voted against the Iraq war, or none got elected in order to be able to vote against it?

Which Libertarians voted against the Iraq war?
 
None voted against the Iraq war, or none got elected in order to be able to vote against it?

Which Libertarians voted against the Iraq war?

There are no Libertarians in congress (afaik), and the only one I know of who describes himself as libertarian is Ron Paul, who did not vote for the Iraq war.
 
from Centinel

Yes, I completely understand that taxes enacted by the government are perfectly legal. I am not arguing otherwise. I am not arguing whether they are legal, I am arguing that the legislation be changed.

As as your right.

I am pointing out that those who are interested in ethics might not wish to support legislation that collects taxes for purposes other than property protection.

Changes in the law require new legislation passed by a majority of the peoples elected representatives. I see precious little impetus for such an idea.

If taxes are collected for any purpose other than the protection of property, then the government is acting as a plunderer, not a defender.

Your opinion. To get a new law passed you are going to have to show most people and their representatives would agree with you. I see nothing of the kind.



And anyone who votes for such taxes is an accessory to the plunder.

Again, your opinion and I see little to no practical public sentiment agreeing with you.

For example, if the government collects tax money and then uses that money not for the military, police protection, or the courts, then the government is taking property. By taking property it is violating its mission to protect property.

Again you have a right to your opinion. In a representative democracy you are going to have to convince a majority of the peoples representatives to share that opinion. I see no such support. can you point to any survey or poll which demonstrates support for this idea?

I guess it all depends on what one regards as the legitimate purpose of government.

Exactly.

I see it as a tool for the protection of property. You seem to think that it is a tool for taking the property of some in order to give it to others.

NO. I see taxation passed by the peoples government as the price we all pay to live in civilized society with certain programs and services and functions we want as a people.


I have serious ethical problems with using the government to that end, while you seem to think it's fine. I will never support the government using coercion to take from one in order to give to another.

Since I do not support what you claim I do, your premise for it is false.

Taxes for any purpose other than the military, police, or courts make the government an attacker of property rather than a defender of property.

Again - your opinion. And an opinion which ignores the very Constitution of the United States which in great detail lists many many more powers and functions of government that just defense or the police. Ignoring that basic reality dooms your opinion to remaining only that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom