• 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.
randel said:
it's not..............
Click to expand...

some profound bit of nothingness from the Unionista position? anything for the government to take more money from people who are more successful than the Unionista types?
 
TurtleDude said:
some profound bit of nothingness from the Unionista position? anything for the government to take more money from people who are more successful than the Unionista types?
Click to expand...
that the best comeback you got? lol your death is not taxed.....you know it, i know it, so it is time for you to move on
 
randel said:
that the best comeback you got? lol your death is not taxed.....you know it, i know it, so it is time for you to move on
Click to expand...

Yeah, calling it the death tax is silly, its well known its a tax on inheritance, which is not a big deal since its new money to whoever gets it, like a paycheck, or winning the lottery, or anything else.
 
I think people should analyze the Rockefeller fortune from about 1900 to the present. Then decide if this is a positive or negative impact upon our Nation. I think the Rockefeller Foundation, JPMorgan Chase, Exxon/Mobil, five Federal Reserve banks including the New York Federal Reserve would be a great place to start, but that's just major Corporations. Then there are think tanks, etc.
 
TurtleDude said:
some profound bit of nothingness from the Unionista position? anything for the government to take more money from people who are more successful than the Unionista types?
Click to expand...

People give you facts and reality and you make personal attacks upon them for it. That is not debate.
 
TurtleDude said:
some profound bit of nothingness from the Unionista position? anything for the government to take more money from people who are more successful than the Unionista types?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, Turtle, you would be a lot happier, with less money and lower taxes..
You remind me of a certain character in Mr Dickens " A Christmas Carol".
 
TurtleDude said:
Death should not be a taxable event and wealth in a family should not be taxed when transferred from one family member to another unless clear income from an income generating activity. The government already takes too much from the only people hit with the death tax
Click to expand...
Well said. This is the exact same reason I oppose taxes on inheritance. I don't agree that wealth being transferred from one family member to another is the same as wealth generated from economic activity. They just seem qualitatively different. I would definitely support any move to eliminate inheritance taxes altogether.
 
Centinel said:
Well said. This is the exact same reason I oppose taxes on inheritance. I don't agree that wealth being transferred from one family member to another is the same as wealth generated from economic activity. They just seem qualitatively different. I would definitely support any move to eliminate inheritance taxes altogether.
Click to expand...

So you really believe that a person can die, pass on stocks valued at, say, 6 million dollars, with a basis of 1 million, and then cash those stocks an NO taxes have ever been paid on the 5MM income. That's absolutely not right. Anyone else selling those stocks would be subject to tax on the income. Why sould an heir be exempt?
 
Centinel said:
Well said. This is the exact same reason I oppose taxes on inheritance. I don't agree that wealth being transferred from one family member to another is the same as wealth generated from economic activity. They just seem qualitatively different. I would definitely support any move to eliminate inheritance taxes altogether.
Click to expand...

How so? The money looks the same stacked up in piles of ones or tens. It smells the same. It spends the same. It enriches the owner the same. It adds the same value to the new owner. Just how is it qualitatively different?
 
Centinel said:
Well said. This is the exact same reason I oppose taxes on inheritance. I don't agree that wealth being transferred from one family member to another is the same as wealth generated from economic activity. They just seem qualitatively different. I would definitely support any move to eliminate inheritance taxes altogether.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
How so? The money looks the same stacked up in piles of ones or tens. It smells the same. It spends the same. It enriches the owner the same. It adds the same value to the new owner. Just how is it qualitatively different?
Click to expand...

Oh yes, it's the very same money. But we are not taxing the money, we are taxing the transfer of this money from one person to another. And I just don't think a parent giving money to his children is the same as receiving income through economic activity. The transfers just seem different to me.
 
liblady said:
So you really believe that a person can die, pass on stocks valued at, say, 6 million dollars, with a basis of 1 million, and then cash those stocks an NO taxes have ever been paid on the 5MM income. That's absolutely not right. Anyone else selling those stocks would be subject to tax on the income. Why sould an heir be exempt?
Click to expand...
I was referring to the tax on inheritance, not capital gains taxes. I agree that the basis has to be accurately maintained when the stocks are inherited.
 
Centinel said:
Oh yes, it's the very same money. But we are not taxing the money, we are taxing the transfer of this money from one person to another. And I just don't think a parent giving money to his children is the same as receiving income through economic activity. The transfers just seem different to me.
Click to expand...

We are taxing new money coming into a persons pocket that they did not previously have. The activity behind it is irrelevant and meaningless - unless one is intentionally designing a system to benefit one class of people who disproportionately have a different source of money than most others. Then, it becomes very important and very relevant.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
From way back there in Post-1581...

Once again for the hard of hearing, the bulk of wealth within most estates that actually pay inheritance taxes is comprised of unrealized capital gains that have NEVER been taxed, and because these assets will be passed to heirs at their stepped-up basis, no tax will EVER be paid on such gains if they are not taxed at time of inheritance.

And of course, you'll not find a rule, law, or even suggestion anywhere that money once taxed cannot or should not be taxed again. Everything in fact is taxed over and over and over again. Odd that so many people haven't noticed this.
Click to expand...

No tax should be paid then if it wasn't taxed during the person's life.

Oh we've noticed it, that's why we oppose it. The government takes too much and should live within much tighter means. It's a restriction of financial freedom to tax, double tax, and raise taxes on people.
 
digsbe said:
No tax should be paid then if it wasn't taxed during the person's life.

Oh we've noticed it, that's why we oppose it. The government takes too much and should live within much tighter means. It's a restriction of financial freedom to tax, double tax, and raise taxes on people.
Click to expand...

Living in a society of 311 million people by its very nature limits ones personal freedom.

So what?
 
haymarket said:
Living in a society of 311 million people by its very nature limits ones personal freedom.

So what?
Click to expand...

Maybe so, that's why we should try to maximize.

Also, how does living in a society of 311 million people specifically limit personal freedom in your opinion?
 
digsbe said:
Maybe so, that's why we should try to maximize.

Also, how does living in a society of 311 million people specifically limit personal freedom in your opinion?
Click to expand...

The right of an individual to do as they please no longer exists as the rights of other individuals and the rights of society as a whole come into play. A simple thing like driving a car involves the giving up of all kinds of things that I may want to in the way of personal freedom from where I want to drive upon the road, when I want to stop or not stop, how fast I want to drive, and even the equipment I want on my car. All of those personal freedoms and choices of personal freedom have been taken away from me in my choice to drive upon the public roads established by society. And other than the initial decision to drive or not drive - I never got the chance to say BOO about it.

There are countless other examples as you are no doubt aware.
 
Centinel said:
Oh yes, it's the very same money. But we are not taxing the money, we are taxing the transfer of this money from one person to another. And I just don't think a parent giving money to his children is the same as receiving income through economic activity. The transfers just seem different to me.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
We are taxing new money coming into a persons pocket that they did not previously have. The activity behind it is irrelevant and meaningless - unless one is intentionally designing a system to benefit one class of people who disproportionately have a different source of money than most others. Then, it becomes very important and very relevant.
Click to expand...

I think that it's reasonable to make distinctions between how exactly money comes into someone's pocket. I think, for instance, that a father giving his son $1,000 is very different than that son earning $1,000 as salary. I don't think it's a black and white as you make out, and part of establishing an effective tax policy is to recognized and account for these differences.
 
Centinel said:
I think that it's reasonable to make distinctions between how exactly money comes into someone's pocket. I think, for instance, that a father giving his son $1,000 is very different than that son earning $1,000 as salary. I don't think it's a black and white as you make out, and part of establishing an effective tax policy is to recognized and account for these differences.
Click to expand...


Your point has already been agreed with as far as a $1,000 gift.

Beyond small amounts for protected gifts, there is no reason to distinguish between sources of income unless one is purposely intending to subvert the progressive income tax laws in favor of one small class of people over the vast majority due to their sources of income. Effective and fair tax policy demands that we end the discrimination allowed in favor of he wealthy regarding both capital gains and inheritance protections.
 
haymarket said:
Your point has already been agreed with as far as a $1,000 gift.

Beyond small amounts for protected gifts, there is no reason to distinguish between sources of income unless one is purposely intending to subvert the progressive income tax laws in favor of one small class of people over the vast majority due to their sources of income. Effective and fair tax policy demands that we end the discrimination allowed in favor of he wealthy regarding both capital gains and inheritance protections.
Click to expand...

So yes, we both recognize that not ALL money coming into another's pocket should be treated the same, from a standpoint of income taxes. We differ on the details.
 
TurtleDude said:
You would have to ask someone who justifies a tax on income which I do not so MASSIVE FAIL on your part
Click to expand...

Well, we do have an income tax. That could change at some point, but for now it's what we have. So for as long as income tax is the federal government's main way of collecting taxes, why should inherited income be treated differently than earned income?
 
Centinel said:
So yes, we both recognize that not ALL money coming into another's pocket should be treated the same, from a standpoint of income taxes. We differ on the details.
Click to expand...

Declaring a $1,000 gift not taxable and protecting a five million dollar inheritance is one hell of a huge detail.
 
haymarket said:
Declaring a $1,000 gift not taxable and protecting a five million dollar inheritance is one hell of a huge detail.
Click to expand...
Yes, it certainly is. But in principle, we agree that it's not a black and white rule of "every dollar that enters another person's pocket ought to be taxed as income".
 
Centinel said:
Yes, it certainly is. But in principle, we agree that it's not a black and white rule of "every dollar that enters another person's pocket ought to be taxed as income".
Click to expand...

we went through this weeks ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom