• 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.
LaMidRighter said:
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. :roll:
Click to expand...

My oh my! Such drama!

It seems you are more than happy to have government step into the lives of folks and give them breaks through discriminatory preferences as long as it aids in the quest for your money.

When you are doing using substitutes for profanity, perhaps you can tell me what you find factually wrong with this

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.

I imagine some would find it amusing to see imitation profanities in every line as see it as an expression of your emotional feelings on this topic. But it hardly addresses the actual substance of my point - which is that the government should have no power to provide discriminatory rates as to source of income.

So La - tell me what is factually wrong with the statement I made.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
Do you not even realize by penalizing earners for making more you are engaging in preferential treatment? You are giving 47% of Americans a total tax break, and another 50% nearly no taxing while punishing incentive under the statist plan. Guess that kind of shoots down your theory.
 
haymarket said:
My oh my! Such drama!

It seems you are more than happy to have government step into the lives of folks and give them breaks through discriminatory preferences as long as it aids in the quest for your money.

When you are doing using substitutes for profanity, perhaps you can tell me what you find factually wrong with this

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.

I imagine some would find it amusing to see imitation profanities in every line as see it as an expression of your emotional feelings on this topic. But it hardly addresses the actual substance of my point - which is that the government should have no power to provide discriminatory rates as to source of income.

So La - tell me what is factually wrong with the statement I made.
Click to expand...
Start with everything if you want to know what's factually wrong. You haven't said one thing that stands up to scrutiny.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Do you not even realize by penalizing earners for making more you are engaging in preferential treatment? You are giving 47% of Americans a total tax break, and another 50% nearly no taxing while punishing incentive under the statist plan. Guess that kind of shoots down your theory.
Click to expand...

Penalizing?!?!?!?!? My position is clear and is based on the equality of money regardless of its source.

A wage earner putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
An investor putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
A recipient of an inheritance putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%

All three would pay the same percentage and the same amount of tax on the same amout of money going into their pockets. That is the essence of fairness and equality.

That is no theory. It is a system of tax equality where all sources of income are treated equally and nobody there is given any preference or break.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Start with everything if you want to know what's factually wrong. You haven't said one thing that stands up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

That does not even make any sense as a reply to my points. You said nothing of substance and were powerless and impotent to respond to the actual substance of my post.
 
haymarket said:
That does not even make any sense as a reply to my points. You said nothing of substance and were powerless and impotent to respond to the actual substance of my post.
Click to expand...
Powerless huh? So you regurgitate the same old left talking points and expect me to go into great analysis, aint gonna happen as I have dealt with all that stuff in the past and get tired of it.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Powerless huh? So you regurgitate the same old left talking points and expect me to go into great analysis, aint gonna happen as I have dealt with all that stuff in the past and get tired of it.
Click to expand...

I had no leftist talking points in my post. I was pointing out that it would be fair and just to reduce the power of the government to discriminate based on source of income and apply the appropriate tax rate to ALL monies without preferences.

A wage earner putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
An investor putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
A recipient of an inheritance putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%
Click to expand...

All three would pay the same percentage and the same amount of tax on the same amout of money going into their pockets. That is the essence of fairness and equality.

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.
Click to expand...

Somehow, someway, you saw fit to attack me on it instead of speaking to the points raised in my post.

This is not the first time this has happened. The question then becomes why do you repeatedly do this?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Penalizing?!?!?!?!? My position is clear and is based on the equality of money regardless of its source.
Click to expand...
In other words redistribute from it's owners to others who have contributed nothing to the funds taken.

A wage earner putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
An investor putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%.
A recipient of an inheritance putting $800,000.00 in his or her pocket would have a federal income tax rate rate of 35%
Click to expand...
You have lost this one already in the thread, I have no use for you repeating it.

All three would pay the same percentage and the same amount of tax on the same amout of money going into their pockets. That is the essence of fairness and equality.
Click to expand...
Actually, "fairness" as you put it would require money already taxed to be taxed, so I really don't care about your idea of fairness and frankly you haven't even justified double taxation so.......go ahead and do that before you continue.
That is no theory. It is a system of tax equality where all sources of income are treated equally and nobody there is given any preference or break.
Click to expand...
More garbage. If a person must pay 35% for making more money while some pay less than 15% and some pay NOTHING the people on the low end are getting preferential treatment. If that ALREADY TAXED MONEY that is intended to be passed down is TAXED AGAIN then you are giving preferential treatment to inherited income LESS THAN WHAT YOU think is "acceptible". So again what is fair about that?
 
Apparently, you either do not understand the basics of both taxation and a civilized society supported by taxation or you are against taxation to support a civilized society.

Could you please identify which it is?

ps - on your sham argument of "already taxed money" .... it has been posted over and over and over in thread after thread after thread - almost all money is taxed many times again and again and again when it changes owners.

What is it about that basic reality that you do not understand?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Apparently, you either do not understand the basics of both taxation and a civilized society supported by taxation or you are against taxation to support a civilized society.

Could you please identify which it is?
Click to expand...
I understand both, I also know when one is engaging in class envy which I do not agree with. I also know that to justify an income tax that preferentially treats mid and low income earners while penalizing the "wealthy" heavily is an impossible goal without great mental gymnastics. I also understand that there are people who don't respect the accumulation of wealth based on merit and want to bleed every dollar they can from people based on weak premises such as "they can afford it" or "because society has needs" or "how much does one need". Last time I checked this is the U.S. a country based upon maximizing liberty, to TAKE ones property without due cause is a statist concept that goes back to despotism and the monarchy and always follows the premise that "we all own a piece". So don't confuse calling bull**** with "not understanding".
 
LaMidRighter said:
More garbage. If a person must pay 35% for making more money while some pay less than 15% and some pay NOTHING the people on the low end are getting preferential treatment. If that ALREADY TAXED MONEY that is intended to be passed down is TAXED AGAIN then you are giving preferential treatment to inherited income LESS THAN WHAT YOU think is "acceptible". So again what is fair about that?
Click to expand...
So I'm curious. If you could, how would you modify federal spending and federal taxes?

Me, I'd aim for a drastically less intrusive federal government, firing it from most of the jobs it has taken upon itself in the last 100 years or so. With less to do, I would fund it with a small (1% or so) general excise tax and a small (1%) import tariff. If that weren't enough to provide the necessary revenue, I would make requisitions from the states, apportioned by population.

No income tax. No inheritance tax. No capital gains tax.

How about you?
 
Centinel said:
So I'm curious. If you could, how would you modify federal spending and federal taxes?
Click to expand...
First step is spending: 1) Freeze all budget increases and audit all federal bodies including the IRS, Federal reserve, all boards, departments etc. 2) Use a basic business model, after audits all duplicate duties are to be consolidated appropriately to the proper departments. 3) Minimize the authority of extra constitutional bodies. 4) Hold all those commiting unethical monetary abuses using taxpayer dollars to the fullest legal accountability. 5) All spending must be justified, no more "stealth boats", no more automatic budget raises, baseline budgeting(cutting from the increase to call a cut) would be illegal. 6) No spending directed towards the market. 7) All social programs MUST get lean and with a margin of error(fraud, mistakes, duplicate payouts) no greater then 3%.

Second is taxation: I am in favor of either a flat or consumption tax but no hybrids. The government would repeal the sixteenth and dissolve the IRS(with consumption tax) and be held to financial account within funds collected. Adjustments may be made after the debt becomes manageable or in financial crisis.

Me, I'd aim for a drastically less intrusive federal government, firing it from most of the jobs it has taken upon itself in the last 100 years or so. With less to do, I would fund it with a small (1% or so) general excise tax and a small (1%) import tariff. If that weren't enough to provide the necessary revenue, I would make requisitions from the states, apportioned by population.
Click to expand...
I agree, I don't think it is rationally possible to get rid of everything quickly, but am in favor of a peel back of the least justifyable government bodies as a first step.
No income tax. No inheritance tax. No capital gains tax.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.
 
Well, well if i go according to this poll's stats, there must be quite a few people here just waiting for someone to drop dead and leave them a bucket of dough.
 
LaMidRighter said:
First step is spending: 1) Freeze all budget increases and audit all federal bodies including the IRS, Federal reserve, all boards, departments etc. 2) Use a basic business model, after audits all duplicate duties are to be consolidated appropriately to the proper departments. 3) Minimize the authority of extra constitutional bodies. 4) Hold all those commiting unethical monetary abuses using taxpayer dollars to the fullest legal accountability. 5) All spending must be justified, no more "stealth boats", no more automatic budget raises, baseline budgeting(cutting from the increase to call a cut) would be illegal. 6) No spending directed towards the market. 7) All social programs MUST get lean and with a margin of error(fraud, mistakes, duplicate payouts) no greater then 3%.
Click to expand...
These all sound like steps in the right direction.

Philosophically, the law of subsidiarity makes sense to me: Every task should be handled by the smallest, lowest, and least centralized competent authority. There is a reason that the american states formed the union to which each of our states belong. They saw it as having a legitimate purpose, and I agree that there are tasks that are best handled by the federation: coordination of mutual defense, for instance, or resolving trade disputes among the member states.

However, there are many, many tasks currently performed by the federation that need not be, and in fact would be better handled by the states, or even lower authorities. In fact, almost everything that the federal government currently does could be done by states, counties, municipalities, or groups of individuals.

Second is taxation: I am in favor of either a flat or consumption tax but no hybrids. The government would repeal the sixteenth and dissolve the IRS(with consumption tax) and be held to financial account within funds collected. Adjustments may be made after the debt becomes manageable or in financial crisis.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. It would be a HUGE mistake to allow both an income and a consumption tax.

I agree, I don't think it is rationally possible to get rid of everything quickly, but am in favor of a peel back of the least justifyable government bodies as a first step. Completely agree.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you can't go from our current situation back to a constitutional federal government overnight. The idea is to continually be moving in the right direction.
 
Uzidoesit said:
Well, well if i go according to this poll's stats, there must be quite a few people here just waiting for someone to drop dead and leave them a bucket of dough.
Click to expand...

Not really. In fact, when my parents leave this world i'll probably sell off all my inheritance and donate it to charity.
 
Centinel said:
These all sound like steps in the right direction.

Philosophically, the law of subsidiarity makes sense to me: Every task should be handled by the smallest, lowest, and least centralized competent authority. There is a reason that the american states formed the union to which each of our states belong. They saw it as having a legitimate purpose, and I agree that there are tasks that are best handled by the federation: coordination of mutual defense, for instance, or resolving trade disputes among the member states.

However, there are many, many tasks currently performed by the federation that need not be, and in fact would be better handled by the states, or even lower authorities. In fact, almost everything that the federal government currently does could be done by states, counties, municipalities, or groups of individuals.
Click to expand...
Ideally I'd like to see the states proper powers returned immediately to them but I am a realist. I realize that the economy is as natural as breathing and no matter how much intervention it will go in it's natural path, however like anything else natural a huge shock would decimate it, too much internal fighting, too many people scared out of the consumption/investment side. As well the internal strife could lead to social unrest that would invalidate any good from defederalization so a slow, steady, and agreeable pace would be best. I think if we at least could manage the beast in the meantime things would improve.

Totally agree. It would be a HUGE mistake to allow both an income and a consumption tax.
Click to expand...
Too much tax along with too many variables. Either would sufficiently fund a properly run government.

Yeah, you can't go from our current situation back to a constitutional federal government overnight. The idea is to continually be moving in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Sure, everyone starts out altruistic. When the money becomes to be apparently yours, everyone will fight over everything, up to and including the collapsible dip stick.
 
Uzidoesit said:
Sure, everyone starts out altruistic. When the money becomes to be apparently yours, everyone will fight over everything, up to and including the collapsible dip stick.
Click to expand...

The point of a will is to make it so that people won't fight over everything :shrug:
 
StillBallin75 said:
The point of a will is to make it so that people won't fight over everything :shrug:
Click to expand...
Half of it anyway. The other is legal to insure that your last wishes are fully carried out, which leads to an elimination of the other half.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Ideally I'd like to see the states proper powers returned immediately to them but I am a realist.
Click to expand...
Good point. It's taken a very long time to arrive at our current state. It's not going to be fixed in the next 6 months, or even 6 years. It's going to take time.

I realize that the economy is as natural as breathing and no matter how much intervention it will go in it's natural path, however like anything else natural a huge shock would decimate it, too much internal fighting, too many people scared out of the consumption/investment side. As well the internal strife could lead to social unrest that would invalidate any good from defederalization so a slow, steady, and agreeable pace would be best.
Click to expand...
I agree that abrupt change is always disruptive. The only thing to keep in mind is that a collapse of the government is also an abrupt change, which would lead to untold misery. I think it is beholden on the states to look at what the federal government is doing and begin to make contingency plans for a possible federal collapse. The states, not the federation, are ultimate responsible for the well-being of their citizens.

I think if we at least could manage the beast in the meantime things would improve.
Click to expand...
Yes, slowing the rate at which we are driving toward the cliff would be a good first step.
 
Centinel said:
Good point. It's taken a very long time to arrive at our current state. It's not going to be fixed in the next 6 months, or even 6 years. It's going to take time.


I agree that abrupt change is always disruptive. The only thing to keep in mind is that a collapse of the government is also an abrupt change, which would lead to untold misery. I think it is beholden on the states to look at what the federal government is doing and begin to make contingency plans for a possible federal collapse. The states, not the federation, are ultimate responsible for the well-being of their citizens.


Yes, slowing the rate at which we are driving toward the cliff would be a good first step.
Click to expand...
I would like to see the federal preserved at all costs as long as we can ultimately get closer to a return to the founder's vision of what we can be. There have been good changes over the years from all idealogical sides, but the problem has become an authoritarian mindset which is fueled by the ability to take more property than is necessary for a proper government and the power that comes with it. In all of it the federal and many states act as if they are unaccountable to the people, we have to figure out what works and what never will, then we will have a better union.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I would like to see the federal preserved at all costs as long as we can ultimately get closer to a return to the founder's vision of what we can be. There have been good changes over the years from all idealogical sides, but the problem has become an authoritarian mindset which is fueled by the ability to take more property than is necessary for a proper government and the power that comes with it. In all of it the federal and many states act as if they are unaccountable to the people, we have to figure out what works and what never will, then we will have a better union.
Click to expand...

I think you are forgetting alot. Most people just don't even really care and don't even bother to vote.
 
winston53660 said:
I think you are forgetting alot. Most people just don't even really care and don't even bother to vote.
Click to expand...
This is true, I think it's a catch 22 in that people don't vote because they don't care but it's because you get an idiot either way you vote so "why care?".
 
LaMidRighter said:
I would like to see the federal preserved at all costs as long as we can ultimately get closer to a return to the founder's vision of what we can be. There have been good changes over the years from all idealogical sides, but the problem has become an authoritarian mindset which is fueled by the ability to take more property than is necessary for a proper government and the power that comes with it. In all of it the federal and many states act as if they are unaccountable to the people, we have to figure out what works and what never will, then we will have a better union.
Click to expand...
I agree that there is a good reason for a state to belong to a federation. It affords much more military security than a small state on its own could possible have. The elimination of inter-state trade barriers is also beneficial to the citizens of all the member states.

Like you, I'd rather fix it than abandon it, if that is possible.
 
Centinel said:
I agree that there is a good reason for a state to belong to a federation. It affords much more military security than a small state on its own could possible have. The elimination of inter-state trade barriers is also beneficial to the citizens of all the member states.

Like you, I'd rather fix it than abandon it, if that is possible.
Click to expand...
Yep. As well the reason we work better than the EU or smaller countries is because we as a nation do have a sense of identity, we disagree on the details as a people but at the end of the day there is a singular goal(for the most part) preserving our country to the best of our ability. This keeps us usually at an advantage economically and politically whereas many less tight-knit nations have had to abandon their politics or folded. Our binding is our federation, unfortunately it's at a point where the binding has gotten a little too tight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom