• 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.
actually my main reason is to eliminate the ability of people like you to pander to the masses by jacking up my taxes

and I pay far too much taxes based on an objective analysis of

1) what others pay

2) what others use in federal services

3) and its disgusting that the people who pay the most taxes in their lifetime are the only ones taxed upon their deaths

1) only because you obsess about mostly one tax - the federal income tax and are willing to exclude other more regressive taxes from the discussion

2) you yourself have admitted we cannot have a tax system based on service usage because it is not possible to calculate that amount. you are now arguing against your own past admissions.

3) There is not tax that people pay upon their death. That is a lie. The tax is paid on the transfer of an estate to a living person who comes into money new to them.
 
I will say that I am immensely enjoying the results of this poll. There is hope for us yet :).

A tiny poll on a website dominated by rightists and right libertarians is hardly significant in a nation of 311 million citizens.

Now these are


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...58-503544.html

Fifty-six percent of Americans think taxes should be increased on households earning $250,000 a year or higher to help lower the deficit, while 37 percent say taxes should not be raised on those households.
Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing Rich

66% favor tax increases on upper earners.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...-millionaires/


Six in ten Americans believe Congress should raise taxes on Americans earning more than $1 million per year, according to a new CBS News poll, while only 35 percent oppose such an increase.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...spending-cuts/

According to the poll, 63 percent say the super committee should call for increased taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses, with 36 percent disagreeing
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...suranceprogram


On tackling the deficit, voters by a margin of 2-to-1 support raising taxes on incomes above $250,000, with 64 percent in favor and 33 percent opposed.
Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent....

The main two ways that the wealthy are gaming the system is through
1) capital gains rates which are discriminatory and preferential
2) exemptions on the first $5,100,000.00 of inheritance

reform those and the anger goes away as tax justice is restored..
 
There is no Berlin Wall holding you here. The fact that you continue to live in a nation you loath with every fiber of your being is quite telling.

What in the name of all that is holy does that have to do with my question about taxation?

I do not have any objections to representative democracy, taxation through government power, or any of the things which separate folks like yourself from the American system of government.

The first time you attempted to flip the script upon me I thought it was simply because you did not follow the argument. Now I realize its just a lame effort to appear clever when you have no basis to make such a comment.
 
Last edited:
What in the name of all that is holy does that have to do with my question about taxation?
Well, you oppose the current system here in the US. I am merely pointing out that there are many other countries in which to live that might suit you better, and that it is very telling that you choose to stay here and bitch. There is no Berlin wall keeping you here, you know.
 
Well, you oppose the current system here in the US. I am merely pointing out that there are many other countries in which to live that might suit you better, and that it is very telling that you choose to stay here and bitch. There is no Berlin wall keeping you here, you know.

Not at all. I do NOT oppose the system of taxation we have in the USA. I support it. I simply want to eliminate some elements of outright preference and discrimination in that same system. keep the progressive tax system that I know and support. Just fine tune it so that the federal income tax lives up to its progressive name. And the way to do that is to get rid of the two things that have neutralized it for the wealthy - capital gains preferences and protections for so much of the inheritance tax.

I have no basic disagreement or dispute with the fundamental governmental system or tax system.

Again, you attempting to equate my pointing out the inequities of some details of the tax law with your basic dismissal of large portions of our system is like comparing a brick to a wall.

And now we are back to the Berlin Wall..... that is not keeping you in.;)
 
Well, you oppose the current system here in the US. I am merely pointing out that there are many other countries in which to live that might suit you better...

How charmingly libertarian of you. Why do you always assume that when people make suggestions about what's best for this country, they would want to live in some other country?

Do you think that there is nothing special or unique about living in America and being an American that people should just leave the country any time that they disagree with policy?
 
How charmingly libertarian of you. Why do you always assume that when people make suggestions about what's best for this country, they would want to live in some other country?

Do you think that there is nothing special or unique about living in America and being an American that people should just leave the country any time that they disagree with policy?
He is making a valid point though. There is a mindset in this country that it has to be a certain way by any given political minority or we aren't "doing things correctly" some minority opinions would endanger the rights and liberties we enjoy while some do harm to our economy and others are mildly amusing. Many of the people who want their agenda adopted could easily move to other countries that already do what they propose yet they stay here and try to change our way of life, some even go further and accuse those who want to preserve our way of doing things as being "unamerican" which is frustrating when the logic follows that having a differing opinion is fine, but trying to disbar us of liberties not agreed with is not.
 
I don't see that. Either the construction contracts are there or they aren't. Who signs the paycheck for those construction workers is irrelevant to the overall economy. I'm not saying it's "right" that your uncle's company goes out of business (though I can think of a couple of ways it could survive intact) but if it does, the construction contracts it would have won would be won by someone else and those workers would have the job instead of your uncle's workers. No jobs have been lost, they've just shifted from one company's workers to another. Or maybe the other company's owner will see a chance to expand and hire those workers instead. There are many possibilities but none lead to fewer jobs. The work still has to be done by someone.

no - that's the zero sum fallacy. having more efficient and effective companies increases production.

That's a simple answer - mistreat people enough and they rebel in one way or another. You can laugh at OWS all you want but regardless of your opinion of it, it's a sign of unrest. "The masses" are being pushed and, like any living organism, they push back in kind.

those masses weren't "pushed". they were raised to think that they were special, that life owed them a trophy just for showing up, and then told that they should all incur massive student debt to spend a leisurely half-decade pretending to focus in "University Studies" only to find out that the real world won't reward them for it.

Of course the GOP doesn't want to tax those that feed it. If +$1 in more taxes = -$1 in political slush then the GOP would be losing money. We all know politicians are there first and foremost to line their own pockets. (And that applies to both sides of the aisle.)

well that last point is certainly well taken. but if you think that the wealthy Wall Streeters are the GOP feeders, then you haven't been paying attention.

Or we could just put a stop to campaign contributions?

sure. then we'll make it illegal to immigrate here without going through the proper channels. that way, no one will do it.

You can't "put a stop" to campaign contributions. Didn't we learn that with McCain-Feingold? Besides First Amendment concerns, there is simply too much incentive. So long as politics interferes with business, business will find it necessary (and profitable) to interfere in politics.
 
How charmingly libertarian of you. Why do you always assume that when people make suggestions about what's best for this country, they would want to live in some other country?

Do you think that there is nothing special or unique about living in America and being an American that people should just leave the country any time that they disagree with policy?
Yeah, you're right. Only a dickhead would suggest such a thing. I'll refrain from doing so in future.
 
Actually my concept of FAIR is based on the following reality of living in America and has NOTHING to do with ideology. Its all pragmatic numbers which cannot be denied.

case #1 George Brown. Works as a record producer and has risen up in the ranks due to hard work and his own talent. He made an income of $800,000.00 in 2011. His tax rate is 35%. Without any deductions, his tax bill is $280,000.00 in federal income tax.

case #2 is Susan Green. She does not work at a job. She has a portfolio of investments and lives off that income. In 2011, she earned an income of $800,000.00 in long term capital gains. Her tax rate is 15%. Without any deductions, her tax bill is $120,000.00 in federal income tax.

case #3 is Tom Wallace. He did not work in 2011. He did inherit $800,000.00 from his father who died leaving him the money. Because of the 5 million dollar exemption, his tax rate on the $800,000.00 is zero percent. His tax bill is nothing - zero dollars in federal income tax.

So we have three Americans all who placed $800,000.00 into their pockets in 2011.
One paid $280,000.-- in federal tax upon that sum.
Another paid $120,000.00 in federal tax upon that sum.
A third paid $0.00 in federal tax upon that sum.

Now explain to me, why the American people - the vast vast majority of which get their money from wages and salary, should support this sort of system which discriminates among sources of money and applies discriminatory rates to them?

No apples to oranges.... dollars to dollars ...... tax bill to tax bill ...... rate to rate.


Yeah we have seen that nonsense before but it is quite dishonest

The third guy, the money was massively taxed during its accumulation and no properly taxable transaction took place

the second person: the money is subject to massive risk and inflation and if its dividends it has already been massively taxed

the first person-if he makes that much he is most likely saving and investing and sure doesn't want to pay 35% on his investment income

three different sources of revenue
 
1) only because you obsess about mostly one tax - the federal income tax and are willing to exclude other more regressive taxes from the discussion

2) you yourself have admitted we cannot have a tax system based on service usage because it is not possible to calculate that amount. you are now arguing against your own past admissions.

3) There is not tax that people pay upon their death. That is a lie. The tax is paid on the transfer of an estate to a living person who comes into money new to them.

I 'obsess' with the two taxes that your dem masters try to jack up on me to buy the votes of people who agree with your mindset.
 
I 'obsess' with the two taxes that your dem masters try to jack up on me to buy the votes of people who agree with your mindset.

I have asked you nicely to please deep six this nonsense that I have masters. If I called you a serf or a slave and your master was Money you would be offended as I am from the implications. Please stop.
 
Yeah we have seen that nonsense before but it is quite dishonest

The third guy, the money was massively taxed during its accumulation and no properly taxable transaction took place

the second person: the money is subject to massive risk and inflation and if its dividends it has already been massively taxed

the first person-if he makes that much he is most likely saving and investing and sure doesn't want to pay 35% on his investment income

three different sources of revenue

Where do you get this fairy tale nonsense???? no properly taxable transaction took place ... amazing!!! the transaction that takes place in estate taxes is that the money changes hands from one owner to another. Somebody gets handed a freakin fortune for heavens sake. It matters not what taxes were paid in the past years by the precious owner when he or she earned the money as it is NO LONGER THEIR MONEY. When the money changes to a new owner and the new owner receives it, they pay tax on it as new money coming into their pocket just like money transferring in salary or wages from one person to a new person.

As to risk and inflation - its your choice to play that game and wear that uniform so don't expect the nation to subsidize the risk you are taking in your investment. Be a big boy and make it on your own without the nation having to subsidize your risk through discriminatory tax rates.

And it is NOT your place to say what the wage earner is doing with his money. Keep your nose out of his spending habits and do NOT jump to conclusions about his spending habits based on your personal value system.

Yup - they are three different sources of revenue. And the discriminatory rates applied to each because the source changes while the money stays the same is what the American people are getting very angry about as in the polls that I presented here which show that about 60% or more of average Americans want to increase taxes on the wealthy.
 
Last edited:
I 'obsess' with the two taxes that your dem masters try to jack up on me to buy the votes of people who agree with your mindset.

I think that TD obsesses over making as much capital gains and qualified dividends income as possible. Less of a tax burden...ya know? The 15% rate isn't great, but better than ordinary. But we all know that's not even a problem for TD.

Capital gain income from assets held longer than one year are generally taxed at a special long-term capital gains rate.

The rate that applies depends on which ordinary income tax bracket you fall under.

So think about it...if you don't make much ORDINARY income...then LOOKY....

Zero percent rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the ten or fifteen percent tax brackets.
15% rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the twenty-five percent tax bracket or higher.

Tax Rate on Dividend Income

Dividends are classified either as ordinary dividends or as qualified dividends.

Ordinary dividends are taxed at your ordinary tax rates for whatever tax bracket you are in. These petty dividends...pain in the ass, but sometimes...you do what ya gotta do.

Qualified dividends are taxed at a 15% percent rate. To be eligible as a qualified dividend, the dividends must be from a domestic corporation or a qualifying foreign corporation and you must hold the stock "for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date." - These dividends...pure love. Hit and run income...that you don't tie up forever. And it doesn't stick you with "Ordinary Income"...YUCK!

Of course...there aren't many people who earn large sums off of capital gains and qualified dividends....like TD does.

These are the two taxes that TD obsesses over....

There ya have it...its how the rich and famous do it. They don't give a rats ass about the Federal Income Tax Rate....just like Corporations don't give a rats ass about 35% corporate tax rate.
 
no - that's the zero sum fallacy. having more efficient and effective companies increases production.
I'm going by what I've observed over 25 years around construction (civil projects). I've seen const companies go under and those workers are hired by someone else in a relatively short period of time. Projects that are already started are completed with money from the bonding company using the exact same people and equipment. At most it's a two-month delay. Existing contracts not under const are re-bid and someone else builds them instead. Sometimes these companies expand to take on the new contracts. Other times roving companies (out-of-towners) will fill in the gap until someone invests in a new company or the existing companies expand. There's no loss of efficiency because it's the same guys doing the same job with the same equipment and, often, the same foreman. By the time the job is over someone else is ready to hire those men - whether it's the new investor or an established company that took the opportunity to add a new crew. Const men are (mostly) highly skilled workers who know what they're doing. If the const contracts are available then they'll have a job. If there are no contract available then they would have been out of work anyway.

Maybe other industries are different, I don't know, but I do know construction - surveying in particular. (see user name)

those masses weren't "pushed". they were raised to think that they were special, that life owed them a trophy just for showing up, and then told that they should all incur massive student debt to spend a leisurely half-decade pretending to focus in "University Studies" only to find out that the real world won't reward them for it.
I only mentioned OWS because it's the most obvious sign of unrest, not out of any fondness for it. (Those guys are amateurs compared to the anti-war and civil rights rallies I grew up watching.) It's not their direct message that's important - whatever it is, do they even know? - it's the fact it exists at all that's important. Not counting that small anit-Iraq blip, when was the last time something like this happened to this broad of an extent in the US?

I'm not saying things can't change, I know all too well that they CAN change - and hope they do. But if you blind-side the populace into a position they can't see coming you're just asking for trouble. Maybe Joe would be doing better if the school system he was in was better - and we need better education in this country, Asia is killing us in that regard. Maybe Carl who was part of a down-size could be re-trained as a mechanic but he can't go to mechanic's school and still support a family - Catch 22. A little money in the right places (and some big money in those we've neglected far too long) can go a long way to making things better in the future. I hate welfare and I keep hoping people will move in the right direction to get rid of it without ruining the country in the process.

sure. then we'll make it illegal to immigrate here without going through the proper channels. that way, no one will do it.

You can't "put a stop" to campaign contributions. Didn't we learn that with McCain-Feingold? Besides First Amendment concerns, there is simply too much incentive. So long as politics interferes with business, business will find it necessary (and profitable) to interfere in politics.
Like I said:
The world has moved beyond simplistic answers like yours and mine.
In other words, I don't believe either idea will work.

Government will always be required to regulate business to some extent because business will not regulate itself. It's always cheaper to be unsafe. It's always cheaper to pollute. It's always cheaper to throw away humans than maintain them - unless they're highly trained or have a very rare skill or trait (and by definition, few in the population meet these requirements). Business is there to make money. To business the environment's only role is to provide raw materials. To business humans are just another resource and a renewable one at that. Business has no conscious.
 
I think that TD obsesses over making as much capital gains and qualified dividends income as possible. Less of a tax burden...ya know? The 15% rate isn't great, but better than ordinary. But we all know that's not even a problem for TD.

Capital gain income from assets held longer than one year are generally taxed at a special long-term capital gains rate.

The rate that applies depends on which ordinary income tax bracket you fall under.

So think about it...if you don't make much ORDINARY income...then LOOKY....

Zero percent rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the ten or fifteen percent tax brackets.
15% rate if your total income (including capital gain income) places you in the twenty-five percent tax bracket or higher.

Tax Rate on Dividend Income

Dividends are classified either as ordinary dividends or as qualified dividends.

Ordinary dividends are taxed at your ordinary tax rates for whatever tax bracket you are in. These petty dividends...pain in the ass, but sometimes...you do what ya gotta do.

Qualified dividends are taxed at a 15% percent rate. To be eligible as a qualified dividend, the dividends must be from a domestic corporation or a qualifying foreign corporation and you must hold the stock "for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date." - These dividends...pure love. Hit and run income...that you don't tie up forever. And it doesn't stick you with "Ordinary Income"...YUCK!

Of course...there aren't many people who earn large sums off of capital gains and qualified dividends....like TD does.

These are the two taxes that TD obsesses over....

There ya have it...its how the rich and famous do it. They don't give a rats ass about the Federal Income Tax Rate....just like Corporations don't give a rats ass about 35% corporate tax rate.

why do you worry so much what others pay-and I mean those who pay a ton of taxes while not being concerned about the half of america that are paying no income taxes.

Now I heard an interesting statistic today-right now there are as many or more people who get more from the government than they pay in taxes. the way things are going, there will be 60% getting and 40% paying for that. Does anyone believe that those 60% will want to CUT government spending? OF COURSE NOT

and you are part of that group that wants to keep that sort of problem going
 
why do you worry so much what others pay-and I mean those who pay a ton of taxes while not being concerned about the half of america that are paying no income taxes.

1 - I am an American citizen
2- I love and care about this nation and its people
3- I desire economic and tax justice for its people
4- please do not lie about my position when it know it is otherwise. You know darn well that I have stated that ALL Americans who earn dollar one should pay federal income tax. I have repeatedly advocated that ALL people pay at least 5%. So this nonsense about me not caring about those who do not pay federal income tax is a falsehood and you knew it to be so when you typed those words.
5- It matters NOT how much any individual pay as long as he or she is gaming the system by paying far less what other American pay on the same income. Capital gains and the high exclusions for inheritance are two such examples of the Golden Rule in place where the rules were written for the wealthy and they are doing a great job of taking advantage of them.
6- I am part of the group that is advocating for changes - one of which is that ALL Americans with income pay at least 5% and discriminatory preferences be stricken from the law.
 
1 - I am an American citizen
2- I love and care about this nation and its people
3- I desire economic and tax justice for its people
4- please do not lie about my position when it know it is otherwise. You know darn well that I have stated that ALL Americans who earn dollar one should pay federal income tax. I have repeatedly advocated that ALL people pay at least 5%. So this nonsense about me not caring about those who do not pay federal income tax is a falsehood and you knew it to be so when you typed those words.
5- It matters NOT how much any individual pay as long as he or she is gaming the system by paying far less what other American pay on the same income. Capital gains and the high exclusions for inheritance are two such examples of the Golden Rule in place where the rules were written for the wealthy and they are doing a great job of taking advantage of them.
6- I am part of the group that is advocating for changes - one of which is that ALL Americans with income pay at least 5% and discriminatory preferences be stricken from the law.

economic justice=more government, more control over private property, more feeding the bloated beast
 
economic justice=more government, more control over private property, more feeding the bloated beast

Actually it means LESS government. LESS government discrimination over sources of income as they do today. LESS government interfering in manipulating how people spend and obtain their money. LESS government in "encouraging" behaviors and habits that somebody thinks need nudging and pushing from government. LESS government subsidizing investment and risk.

But that was never the issue really cared about anyways. Its merely a right wing meme which is used to get lower taxes for the wealthy and anything which services that is employed in the crusade including the phony LESS government meme.
 
Actually it means LESS government. LESS government discrimination over sources of income as they do today. LESS government interfering in manipulating how people spend and obtain their money. LESS government in "encouraging" behaviors and habits that somebody thinks need nudging and pushing from government. LESS government subsidizing investment and risk.
LOL. To haymarket, less truly is more.
 
LOL. To haymarket, less truly is more.

How so? I gave you specific analysis as to how this would give us less government. Unless of course the entire "small government" mantra is just a form of three card montie and its not about getting government out of your decisions in the first place.
 
How so? I gave you specific analysis as to how this would give us less government.
So you can take more from people unwilling to give it without more government? That's crap and you know it, you'd have to expand just the tax collectors to take more and you need more enforcement to keep them alive. So that's bull**** right there. As well everyone knows that the government has always expanded it's powers when it has too much money. So that's bull**** 2. Try selling the snake oil somewhere else.
Unless of course the entire "small government" mantra is just a form of three card montie and its not about getting government out of your decisions in the first place.
:roll:
 
How so? I gave you specific analysis as to how this would give us less government. Unless of course the entire "small government" mantra is just a form of three card montie and its not about getting government out of your decisions in the first place.
So raising taxes gives us less government?

That's just precious.
 
So raising taxes gives us less government?

That's just precious.

getting government out of the business of handing out preferences, subsidizing risk and investment, and "motivating" or "encouraging" spending habits is of course lessening the power of government. The reaction of yourself, Turtle and LaMid tells me that this IS NOT about small government, never was about small government and never actually will be about small government.

This is about one thing and only one thing - money.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom