• 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.
Catawba said:
I think the rule of law is more than enough legal position on the matter. Let us know when your case has been successful in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Which "law" shows that "We the People" in the Preamble refers to income redistribution?

No, really. Cite it.
 
evanescence said:
Let's just face it, folks. The system we have now sucks a lot of ass. I hope we can all agree on that much. So the question remains: do we really need a system where the US tax code has over 71,000 pages?
Click to expand...
The system itself actually seems capable on the basis of observations made as recently as the 1990's of being operated to broadly beneficial effect. There came a point there where we changed operators and things the seemed to go straight into the tank in record time. We probably shouldn't have given that guy even one, much less two chances at it, but having got rid of him at last, things do seem to be slowly returning into positive territory.

By the way, it's a good bet that no more than 50 of the supposed 71,000 pages of the tax code actually apply to you. Taxes in this country are in reality so simple that we allow people themselves to figure out how much they owe and then pay it. The tax code as a whole is meanwhile so complex and broadranging because the economy is that complex and broadranging. There are no pages among the 71,000 that describe the proper tax treatment of a situation that does not at least implicitly exist. Since they simply don't apply to you, the only way these 71,000 pages can be any burden is if you were for some reason looking to purchase a published copy of the entire thing. Otherwise, what's your actual beef?
 
Last edited:
evanescence said:
Why not simply tax everyone exactly the same regardless of income? No deductions, no loopholes, nothing. The exact same across the board. Then no one can bitch about people paying more or less than others.
Click to expand...
The reason that no one seriously even proposes such schemes is that they result in taxes that are not the same at all. Low-income families asked to give up 20% of their income would be sacrificing basics and necessities. High-income families would be sacrificing luxury items or another few thousand dollars parked outside the real economy in some investment account. What actual tax policy people try to do is recognize the concept of tax burden while still appreciating the notion of incentives. Each of these is a complex subject in its own right, but you will never come to an equitable system of any sort as long as you think taking 20% from a low-income family is the same thinsg as taking 20% from a high-income family.
 
Harshaw said:
Which "law" shows that "We the People" in the Preamble refers to income redistribution?

No, really. Cite it.
Click to expand...

LOL! I can't cite a figment of the imagination that you and Turtledude happen to share.

What tax law has been found to be unconstitutional under the rule of law in this country???
 
Harshaw said:
Here's two from recent days.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...18925-tea-party-delima-10.html#post1060198901

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...8549-obama-v-catholics-45.html#post1060194792

Oh, I'm sure you'll go answer them now . . .

In any case, you were referring to me as a "drive by." "My posting sytle," indeed. :roll:
Click to expand...

As to the first - the tea party thread post #100 - I see nothing in there calling for any refutation by myself.

As to the second - post #447 what I see there from you - is the exact thing that you are criticized of - making a broad and sweeping statement - in this case ALL OF OBAMA CARE IS IDEOLOGICAL - when you were totally impotent in actually dealing with the substance of it and pointing out one specific thing and demonstrating the supposed ideology that it was derived from. You did not provide what was requested for you so there was nothing to reply to since you did not give a proper reply to the question. I still await a proper answer and would welcome one.

Perhaps you would like to try again?
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
As to the first - the tea party thread post #100 - I see nothing in there calling for any refutation by myself.

As to the second - post #447 what I see there from you - is the exact thing that you are criticized of - making a broad and sweeping statement - in this case ALL OF OBAMA CARE IS IDEOLOGICAL - when you were totally impotent in actually dealing with the substance of it and pointing out one specific thing and demonstrating the supposed ideology that it was derived from. You did not provide what was requested for you so there was nothing to reply to since you did not give a proper reply to the question. I still await a proper answer and would welcome one.

Perhaps you would like to try again?
Click to expand...

:shrug: Of course you say now they didn't warrant response.
 
Centinel said:
I've said before that I think the simplest solution would be for the feds to issue 50 tax bills, one to each state. Each state gets billed for their share (apportioned by population) of the federal tax burden. Done. No IRS, no tax law, no deductions. Just 50 tax bills.
Click to expand...
Deck chairs on the Titanic. Plus most state governments do not have the cushion of deficit-financing. The federal government (obviously) does.
 
Harshaw said:
:shrug: Of course you say now they didn't warrant response.
Click to expand...



If something does not warrant a response - then there is no response.

Is that not clear to you? The fact that you and the other poster did not get a response was self evident. Perhaps next time you should look over your own post to see where it defects and liabilities lie before you go criticizing others?

And even after this was made clear to you regarding your Obama care post - you still have neglected to provide any explaination with details. Instead, you prefer the fast drive-by supposedly pithy remark that is intended to leave the other side with nothing to actually respond to other than exposing your tacitc.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
psychobabble. right now more people are net takers than producers when it comes to the government.
Click to expand...
If so, it's very significantly because of just the sort of lame-brained laissez-faire free-market economics that various pseudo-rich people and assorted FOX News watchers tend mindlessly to exalt and venerate.

TurtleDude said:
More people are getting more from the federal government than they pay in taxes.
Click to expand...
That's true for most people. Value-added in the public sector that's made available to everybody else free of charge.

TurtleDude said:
And the main issue you ignore (because it is uncomfortable to your welfare-socialist yearnings) is that what people like me have problems with is not that the poor don't pay enough taxes but they demand stuff they are unwilling or unable to pay for and this tax scheme encourages that.
Click to expand...
A progressive tax system takes relatively LESS from the poor. They are therefore relatively MORE able to pay for their own stuff. They'd do even better at it if a certain stripe didn't go around trying to undercut their incomes and opportunties all the time.
 
haymarket said:
If something does not warrant a response - then there is no response.

Is that not clear to you? The fact that you and the other poster did not get a response was self evident. Perhaps next time you should look over your own post to see where it defects and liabilities lie before you go criticizing others?

And even after this was made clear to you regarding your Obama care post - you still have neglected to provide any explaination with details. Instead, you prefer the fast drive-by supposedly pithy remark that is intended to leave the other side with nothing to actually respond to other than exposing your tacitc.
Click to expand...

Funny how you're proving in this thread you don't let something go if you think you can post a winner, yet you were silent elsewhere.

Funnier still that hey, now you suddenly DO have the responses you said weren't necessary. So why didn't you say it then, and why aren't you saying it there now?

So go do it if you think you can. My point HERE is made, in spades. :lamo
 
TurtleDude said:
More illogical drivel. For the clinton tax system to work we'd need another huge dot com bubble that meant those being taxed more were actually getting more net income. Nice try but your claim is bogus
Click to expand...
There was no dot-com bubble. It's a myth. Like Paul Bunyan. It's an attempt to put lipstick on another pig of corporate and financial fraud and malfeasance. All you had in this era was a rash of rigged IPO's (particularly on the NASDAQ) that ensued almost immediately upon the passage of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, a series of Enron-style accounting frauds and scandals at a handful of well-known firms, some of which were in telecommunications, and a spate of (also NASDAQ-oriented) complete idiots egged on by cable business channels who came to believe that they could actually make their living as "day traders". Meanwhile, Moore's Law continued to operate, the internet continued to mushroom in terms of both breadth and depth, business and personal investment in IT hardware and software continued to explode, and the burgeoning industries of IT maintenance and security continued to create thousands upon thousands of new jobs. The actual dot-com world in fact simply sailed on through the supposed crisis following along the same path it had been on for at least one decade and would continue along for at least another.
 
Harshaw said:
Funny how you're proving in this thread you don't let something go if you think you can post a winner, yet you were silent elsewhere.

Funnier still that hey, now you suddenly DO have the responses you said weren't necessary. So why didn't you say it then, and why aren't you saying it there now?

So go do it if you think you can. My point HERE is made, in spades. :lamo
Click to expand...

Funny? - Funny like a clown? Funny as in I amuse you?

What amuses me is that even now, after several back and forth clarifications, you are still impotent to answer the original challenge about ideology and Obama Care. Instead you prefer to engage in silly nonsense taking umbrage that your comments were not clear enought to continue a debate.

So now, by all means step up to the plate and show us what you got.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
It was your claim, dude.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-view-inheritance-tax-105.html#post1060200068

If it's a figment of imagination, well, I could have told you that.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in my post about redistribution of wealth, that's Turtledude's claim, dude!



Where did I say anything about tax law? Why do you constantly make things up?
Click to expand...

Tax law is what we are discussing. Its what the Turtledude refers to as redistribution of wealth.
 
Catawba said:
There is nothing in my post about redistribution of wealth, that's Turtledude's claim, dude!
Click to expand...

You are a highly, highly, highly confused individual.
 
Catawba said:
Sorry, not interested in trading insults with you. :2wave:
Click to expand...

It's not an insult. It's a just a description. To wit, presluc said:

presluc said:
Strange, I thought "WE THE PEOPLE" was the first words of the preamble to the Contitution of the United States.
Click to expand...

TD's response was:

TurtleDude said:
It is-cite me the law review article that claims such a phrase is a code for income redistribution
Click to expand...

To which you answered:

Catawba said:
I think the rule of law is more than enough legal position on the matter. Let us know when your case has been successful in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Thus, you said "the rule of law" establishes that "we the people" refers to wealth redistribution.

My guess is you don't even know this, and you don't have any idea WHAT you responded to. Thus, my description.
 
Cardinal Fang said:
The system itself actually seems capable on the basis of observations made as recently as the 1990's of being operated to broadly beneficial effect. There came a point there where we changed operators and things the seemed to go straight into the tank in record time. We probably shouldn't have given that guy even one, much less two chances at it, but having got rid of him at last, things do seem to be slowly returning into positive territory.

By the way, it's a good bet that no more than 50 of the supposed 71,000 pages of the tax code actually apply to you. Taxes in this country are in reality so simple that we allow people themselves to figure out how much they owe and then pay it. The tax code as a whole is meanwhile so complex and broadranging because the economy is that complex and broadranging. There are no pages among the 71,000 that describe the proper tax treatment of a situation that does not at least implicitly exist. Since they simply don't apply to you, the only way these 71,000 pages can be any burden is if you were for some reason looking to purchase a published copy of the entire thing. Otherwise, what's your actual beef?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously defending this System? The tax system doesn't need to be complex.

Cardinal Fang said:
The reason that no one seriously even proposes such schemes is that they result in taxes that are not the same at all. Low-income families asked to give up 20% of their income would be sacrificing basics and necessities. High-income families would be sacrificing luxury items or another few thousand dollars parked outside the real economy in some investment account. What actual tax policy people try to do is recognize the concept of tax burden while still appreciating the notion of incentives. Each of these is a complex subject in its own right, but you will never come to an equitable system of any sort as long as you think taking 20% from a low-income family is the same thinsg as taking 20% from a high-income family.
Click to expand...

Those below the poverty level wouldn't be paying taxes, any more than they are currently. Right now, people making less than $50,000 (approximately) have zero liability. And the fact is, any taxes the wealthy pay will always come out of their plenty, while the poor struggle. You haven't noticed anything new at all.
 
Harshaw said:
It's not an insult. It's a just a description. To wit, presluc said:



TD's response was:



To which you answered:



Thus, you said "the rule of law" establishes that "we the people" refers to wealth redistribution.

My guess is you don't even know this, and you don't have any idea WHAT you responded to. Thus, my description.
Click to expand...



Do you see "redistribution" in my quote, anywhere at all? No, you do not. Redistribution of wealth is what the Turtledude refers to as taxation.

My quote was to indicate the rule of law in this country confirms that taxation is indeed constitutional.


Glad I could clear up your confusion.
 
Catawba said:
Do you see "redistribution" in my quote, anywhere at all? No, you do not. Redistribution of wealth is what the Turtledude refers to as taxation.

My quote was to indicate the rule of law in this country confirms that taxation is indeed constitutional.


Glad I could clear up your confusion.
Click to expand...

Cat - to an extent, all taxation has always been a redistribution of wealth in that it takes from one and gives to the many. One cannot have taxes without that feature. So why fight it, why deny it, why pretend that it is wrong when it is one of the fundamental qualities of taxation. And our government could not exist without taxation.
 
Catawba said:
Do you see "redistribution" in my quote, anywhere at all? No, you do not. Redistribution of wealth is what the Turtledude refers to as taxation.

My quote was to indicate the rule of law in this country confirms that taxation is indeed constitutional.


Glad I could clear up your confusion.
Click to expand...

Dude. It's not my "confusion." I don't know how anyone level-headed wouldn't read posts 1067 and 1070 together and not shake their heads in pity for you.
 
haymarket said:
Funny? - Funny like a clown? Funny as in I amuse you?

What amuses me is that even now, after several back and forth clarifications, you are still impotent to answer the original challenge about ideology and Obama Care. Instead you prefer to engage in silly nonsense taking umbrage that your comments were not clear enought to continue a debate.

So now, by all means step up to the plate and show us what you got.
Click to expand...

:rofl

Go back to the thread you bailed from and answer there, and I'll be more than happy to (not that I hadn't already when you fled).
 
TurtleDude said:
another complete failure and an idiotic assumption on your part. what I want is a system that those who cannot afford what they want don't have the ability to make others pay for their needs without them also paying more
Click to expand...
So you feel you are being held down under the thumb of a bunch of really poor people??? The government provides services that it believes will be of benefit to all sorts of people. I doubt that you get anything less out of a weather report than a family on food stamps, and you probably get more (sort of) out of all these economic numbers that you then confuse into such a bunch of mish-mash ideas and beliefs.

In any case, we split the tab for all of it, whether we support it all or not. The fact that you seem so resentful of this suggests that if you had back whatever taxes you pay, there are things you need or want that you could spend them on. I'm not in that situation. If there were things I needed or wanted, I would simply go get them, or at least have them brought to me. Taxes are not a part of the picture. They don't impinge on my lifestyle at all.
 
haymarket said:
Cat - to an extent, all taxation has always been a redistribution of wealth in that it takes from one and gives to the many. One cannot have taxes without that feature. So why fight it, why deny it, why pretend that it is wrong when it is one of the fundamental qualities of taxation. And our government could not exist without taxation.
Click to expand...


That's one way of looking at it.

The way I look at it, is that a progressive tax system (authorized under our rule of law) was made less progressive over the last 30 years.
Some argue that restoring the progressiveness that was cut away over the last 30 years is somehow socialist.

I maintain that is absurd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom