• 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.
All violations of other's property have effects than cannot be reversed. That's why it is beneficial to reduce violations of others' property to the greatest extent possible. Nor can one stop a crime before it happens. All that can be done is to ensure that when a crime is committed, the perpetrator is punished. Catching an punishing a single murderer will not bring the victim back to life. But we do it anyway, because others who might do the same thing need to understand that they will also be punished. Likewise, yes you are right. I could pull up to your yard and dump a barrel of used motor oil on your front yard. Maybe I don't get caught, but if I do, I will be hauled before a judge and punished. This hopefully stops others from doing the same thing.

I admit you are right that no crime can actually be punished until after it is committed, but we still have to at least attempt to establish laws of justice in which judges can adjudicate the case and mete out the appropriate punishment. It is only the disincentive provided by the fear of punishment that keeps people from infringing on the property of others.
You just haven't taken this to the next step. You're still thinking in terms of middle-class people in a nice quite neighborhood. Life isn't so simple. Go talk to the people in Ecuador and ask them about Rights vs the Corporation (in this case Texaco/Chevron). They've been in court since 1993 and have seen no money while living in an oily mess that continues to plague them. People have taken companies to court, too many times to count, over health and safety problems - whole communities have done this - and got nowhere because Big Business can outspend almost anybody on the planet with two exceptions, another Big Business and Uncle Sam. Now you would take away Uncle Sam leaving no one to protect the people.
 
Last edited:
I just don't understand this argument. My parents worked hard so I could have a future. Why should the government strip that away?
 
I spoke an equal truth.

If you have your own island nation - then you have absolute rights. If you do not - then you do not have absolute rights. This is not a new or revolutionary concept.
Why have you introduced the term absolute rights? I have no idea what the term absolute rights means.

My prior statement was that it is the job of government to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. If the government itself violates the life, liberty, and property of the citizens, then it is not doing its job of protecting them.

I have no idea what the notion of absolute rights has to do with that.
 
I just don't understand this argument. My parents worked hard so I could have a future. Why should the government strip that away?

apparently some people think the government ought to punish you for that in order to make those whose parents were spendthrifts feel better
 
Why have you introduced the term absolute rights? I have no idea what the term absolute rights means.

My prior statement was that it is the job of government to protect the life, liberty, and property of the citizens. If the government itself violates the life, liberty, and property of the citizens, then it is not doing its job of protecting them.

I have no idea what the notion of absolute rights has to do with that.

Again, you make hollow pontifications based on absolutes. Reality is not what you dream of.
 
I just don't understand this argument. My parents worked hard so I could have a future. Why should the government strip that away?

Because other people need that money. ;)

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
 
Last edited:
Because other people need that money. ;)

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."

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.
 
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.

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
 
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.

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.
 
I just don't understand this argument. My parents worked hard so I could have a future. Why should the government strip that away?
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.
Because other people need that money. ;)

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his need."
As I said earlier, they can take the money out of circulation for all I care. It's not the taxes I'm after.
 
Last edited:
If $5,000,000 + 65% of everything over that can't buy a future for you then you probably don't deserve one. As I said earlier, they can take the money out of circulation for all I care. It's not the taxes I'm after.
imposing equal status of misery then?
 
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.

imposing equal status of misery then?

Yeah, spoken like a good communist, eh? :D
 
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.
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.
Yeah, spoken like a good communist, eh? :D
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.
 
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.
I find it funny that those who think they are entitled to take what others have consider it whining to oppose such actions but its not whining to complain that some are rich and the government needs to get even for that
 
I find it funny that those who think they are entitled to take what others have consider it whining to oppose such actions but its not whining to complain that some are rich and the government needs to get even for that
It's not a matter of "getting even" and it's sad you can't see beyond that.


If my neighbor had a tank I'd be comfortable if the government took that away from him.

I believe we are in a tense diplomatic situation with Iran over nuclear weapons. They earned them so, by your logic, why can't they have them?
 
Last edited:
It's not a matter of "getting even" and it's sad you can't see beyond that.


If my neighbor had a tank I'd be comfortable if the government took that away from him.

I believe we are in a tense diplomatic situation with Iran over nuclear weapons. They earned them so, by your logic, why can't they have them?
silly analogy unless you think your life is threatened by someone else inheriting money
 
silly analogy unless you think your life is threatened by someone else inheriting money
I think many people's lives are threatened by other people with too much money. Money is more lethal than a machine gun. With enough of it you can kill a hundred people and never be accused of a crime.
 
Yes, I find that offensive as well. I wish you would stop doing that. It's wrong.

The majority of Democrats voted against the GOP war in Iraq. How did the people you support vote on the Iraq war?
 
A bit polemic, maybe, as I believe there are many libertarians who don't sell out their values for tax cuts.

But I'm afraid there is more than just a kernel of truth in it, considering quite a few people who call themselves "libertarian".

Yes, I have seen a small number of left leaning Libertarians, but the great majority vote Republican because they promise low taxes for the rich. I see it in thread after thread on this forum and in my own state.
 
well I disagree to some extent.

national defense is the sine qua non of a national government. It is also specifically delegated to the Federal government in the Constitution.

Defense is in the Constitution, yes. World hegemony by military force is not. And promoting the welfare of we the people is also in the Constitution. It is funny to hear you, and and few others of the extreme right, continue to cry about the lowest inheritance tax rate in 80 years!
 
Its actually the most important government function and the function that the federal government is best able to handle above all other functions or issues

I prefer the Libertarian position on defense:

3.1. National Defense

"We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service."

Some Proposed Changes for the 2012 LP Platform - Libertarian Majority
 
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.

How does the inheritance tax steal from your median income???
 
I could be wrong but it's my understanding that all estates must go through court, with or without a will. That makes me wonder who actually owns the property in the mean 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.
You are promoting a compulsory society, not a cooperative society. Folks like Lizzie and I are the ones promoting a cooperative society.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom