• 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.
liblady said:
However, if all that he owned was that painting, there would be no tax. I have no problem with property being passed on at the REAL basis. Do you?
Click to expand...

I oppose all taxes on income or wealth so I don't agree with you. I believe the death tax should be abolished and the income tax abolished or modified to where it is a flat rate with some exemptions-to prevent the many from demanding their political representatives jack up our taxes without facing any cost to themselves
 
I'm in favor of not treating inheritance specially. Just tax it the same as you would any other source of income.
 
StillBallin75 said:
I didn't craft it. This is Econ 101, **** I learned in high school.
Click to expand...

It was the same in the class I had. A gift was regarded differently than income. I think if I want to give you any amount of money, I should be able to with no taxes involved. I should be able to in life or in death.

TurtleDude said:
He opposes it-he believes it should be taxed the same as income meaning it is the amount of the heirs' wealth rather than the size of the estate that determines the tax rate. Just click on the poll

one person-not an American-believes the government should take everything you own upon your death. Someone who advocated that as a US Politician would have a most brief political careeer
Click to expand...

Brief indeed. He would likely be recalled if that's available as an option. The people I knew who were for a 100% inheritance tax were communists. That's not hyperbole. They literally were members of a communist party. It would be interesting to see how the USSR handled inheritance. Did the Soviet government snatch every cent when a person died?

TurtleDude said:
its a good thing if you think that the government ought to have more and more and more money. suppose My grandfather owned a painting worth 100K that does not appreciate. My father inherits it and paid 55000 on it because when my grandfather died, one million was the limit and 55% was taxed on all wealth above that. and then when my parents died my brother took it and more taxes were paid on it

that is ludicrous
Click to expand...

That's an interesting topic. If someone bequeathed a painting worth 80 million (and there are paintings worth that much), the recipient wouldn't be able to keep it unless he were already rich enough to pay the taxes. If the person who died wanted him to have it and the recipient wanted it and not money for it, they're out of luck. The wishes of the deceased person are overridden by the government. That's just wrong.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm in favor of not treating inheritance specially. Just tax it the same as you would any other source of income.
Click to expand...


so the income of the heirs rather than the size of the estate is what matters to you?

and would you have all gifts taxed the same way?
 
Luna Tick said:
It was the same in the class I had. A gift was regarded differently than income. I think if I want to give you any amount of money, I should be able to with no taxes involved. I should be able to in life or in death.



Brief indeed. He would likely be recalled if that's available as an option. The people I knew who were for a 100% inheritance tax were communists. That's not hyperbole. They literally were members of a communist party. It would be interesting to see how the USSR handled inheritance. Did the Soviet government snatch every cent when a person died?



That's an interesting topic. If someone bequeathed a painting worth 80 million (and there are paintings worth that much), the recipient wouldn't be able to keep it unless he were already rich enough to pay the taxes. If the person who died wanted him to have it and the recipient wanted it and not money for it, they're out of luck. The wishes of the deceased person are overridden by the government. That's just wrong.
Click to expand...

two interesting points

i recall reading about a game show winner who won a car but had to sell it because he couldn't afford the income taxes on it

and one of the main reasons why the Catholic church didn't want its priest to marry was because in the feudal ages, churchmen especially bishops were often the second or third son of a noble. Men without children would not have an estate to pass on and the church would take it

it was far more about the church getting wealth rather than some bs rule that priests ought to be celibate (or I should say unmarried)
 
Sir Turtle,

Sorry for the delayed response. The answer is no - I disclosed this in my original posting and indeed, it was part of my point. I consider myself to be very well off, I own my house, my car and even a few rental properties outright. My net worth is over 1.5 million and I'm in no danger of paying this tax. So, this tax is only for people who have an awful lot of money. If my estate was, say $5 million, the tax exposure would still be only 1.1 million at worst (assuming no clever generation skipping or other tricks) and I would still have $3.9 million to pass along. So it's NOT 55% of everything. Just 55% of the amount that exceeds $3 million.

My other point was why do people feel so much passion about this rare tax instead of all the really annoying taxes. Look at property tax, punishment for owning a home.

TurtleDude said:
so you think that perhaps half of what you earn and pay taxes on along the way should be taken by the government? sorry, the "it only applies to some" is not a valid argument to me.

are you in any danger of paying a death tax?
Click to expand...

Originally Posted by specklebang
All taxes are offensive. However, it seems to be what is. We could just be tax-free and allow the Government to print up what they need. But for some reason, that doesn't seem to be the reality of our present universe.

So, if we accept that taxes are necessary, or not necessary but a fact of life, this discussion is on a very specific portion of taxation, i.e. The Inheritance Tax.

To me, it's bizarre that this is an emotional issue for so many people. This tax only affects those with large estates. The IRS has provisions for payoff on farm and business inheritances. Personally, I think it's a perfectly acceptable tax and it won't affect me at all: a) I'll be dead and b) my estate will maybe be valued at $1.5M so no tax will be due. If the Inheritance Tax were eliminated tomorrow I would still be dead.

We used to have, and still do, have an aristocracy in America. Despite these high taxes, the heirs of the uber-rich still get plenty of free money and/or the uber-rich use generation skipping techniques', charitable donations and gifting to minimize this tax.

There are a lot of other taxes that should really upset people, like sales tax, phone tax etc. and nobody ever mentions them. Why do you suppose that is? These taxes claw at you every day, even if you're dead broke.
 
TurtleDude said:
btw it was never designed to raise revenue but to engage in social engineering which is really not a proper role of the federal tax system
Click to expand...

It is in fact social engineering. It's meant to prevent stagnation.
 
TurtleDude said:
take it up with the website I cited.

but I know for a fact that my father in law, who has had a place in Florida for decades switched his tax residence to Florida to avoid the taxes. He keeps a calendar to make sure he spends the requisite number of days in Florida so as to not run afoul of the law. which means he spends maybe two weeks more in florida than he has in the past.
Click to expand...

So now you are hiding behind some entity which cannot communicate while you can? There are words for such things. You are extremely judgmental about things which lots of people do and nobody raises as much as an eyebrow about. Florida is the elephant graveyard of America. Johnny Weismuller could have told you that.
 
Centinel said:
So now I'm confused. Earlier you said that any time money goes into someone's pocket, that is income. Is that not true?
Click to expand...

YOu seem to inhabit a reality (if that is the correct term) where everything is 100% black or white, good or evil, one way or the other way and there is nothing in between the extremes. Do you understand that one can make a basic distinction between the money that a parent spends to feed their family and the millions of dollars a parent gives to their progeny in inheritance?

Or is that distinction too confusing for you?
 
specklebang said:
Sir Turtle,

Sorry for the delayed response. The answer is no - I disclosed this in my original posting and indeed, it was part of my point. I consider myself to be very well off, I own my house, my car and even a few rental properties outright. My net worth is over 1.5 million and I'm in no danger of paying this tax. So, this tax is only for people who have an awful lot of money. If my estate was, say $5 million, the tax exposure would still be only 1.1 million at worst (assuming no clever generation skipping or other tricks) and I would still have $3.9 million to pass along. So it's NOT 55% of everything. Just 55% of the amount that exceeds $3 million.

My other point was why do people feel so much passion about this rare tax instead of all the really annoying taxes. Look at property tax, punishment for owning a home.



Originally Posted by specklebang
All taxes are offensive. However, it seems to be what is. We could just be tax-free and allow the Government to print up what they need. But for some reason, that doesn't seem to be the reality of our present universe.

So, if we accept that taxes are necessary, or not necessary but a fact of life, this discussion is on a very specific portion of taxation, i.e. The Inheritance Tax.

To me, it's bizarre that this is an emotional issue for so many people. This tax only affects those with large estates. The IRS has provisions for payoff on farm and business inheritances. Personally, I think it's a perfectly acceptable tax and it won't affect me at all: a) I'll be dead and b) my estate will maybe be valued at $1.5M so no tax will be due. If the Inheritance Tax were eliminated tomorrow I would still be dead.

We used to have, and still do, have an aristocracy in America. Despite these high taxes, the heirs of the uber-rich still get plenty of free money and/or the uber-rich use generation skipping techniques', charitable donations and gifting to minimize this tax.

There are a lot of other taxes that should really upset people, like sales tax, phone tax etc. and nobody ever mentions them. Why do you suppose that is? These taxes claw at you every day, even if you're dead broke.
Click to expand...



so lets get rid of this surcharge on high tax payers and then deal with the ones that annoy everyone


"free money" LOL
 
TurtleDude said:
No I tire of people who think that they are entitled to the wealth of others because they exist in the same geopolitical boundaries as the wealthy do
Click to expand...

Why would you reproduce the post about the founding fathers being against inherited wealth and then completely ignore it in favor of making one of your personal pompous political pontifications?

Yeah... I know .... silly question.

But it must grind you up into pieces to know that both Jefferson and Franklin are against your position.
 
TurtleDude said:
so lets get rid of this surcharge on high tax payers and then deal with the ones that annoy everyone
Click to expand...

When we discuss the wealthy who have gotten things their way the last few decades we are talking about those who do indeed annoy almost everyone..... except themselves that is.
 
Haymarket, you've mainly focused on definitions of income. What about the examples in this thread of people inheriting a business and having to sell it or struggle to come up with the taxes or maybe lay people off? There was the example of the people who inherited the Miami Dolphins, but not being able to keep the team. There was the example of the people inheriting the chain of restaurants.

Don't you want the people who inherit a business to be able to keep it?
 
haymarket said:
Why would you reproduce the post about the founding fathers being against inherited wealth and then completely ignore it in favor of making one of your personal pompous political pontifications?

Yeah... I know .... silly question.

But it must grind you up into pieces to know that both Jefferson and Franklin are against your position.
Click to expand...

remind me where something the founders wrote that actually impacts on the law has such sentiments in it

what do you think the founders thought of leaches who suck wealth from others? well we know they only wanted landed freemen voting.
 
haymarket said:
When we discuss the wealthy who have gotten things their way the last few decades we are talking about those who do indeed annoy almost everyone..... except themselves that is.
Click to expand...

If we had things our way there would be no death tax and you and I would be paying the same rate or same amount of taxes or I would have more votes than you since I pay more taxes

and your RICH liberal masters in the dem party want more taxes-its how they get power from the votes of people who feel like you
 
haymarket said:
I did answer you.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I must have missed where you answered whether you supported or opposed the exemptions on inheritance taxes you cited earlier. Could you either restate, or provide a link?
 
Centinel said:
Sorry, I must have missed where you answered whether you supported or opposed the exemptions on inheritance taxes you cited earlier. Could you either restate, or provide a link?
Click to expand...

just look at everyone's answers to the poll. Haymarket had the guts to vote, got to give credit where credit is due
 
haymarket said:
YOu seem to inhabit a reality (if that is the correct term) where everything is 100% black or white, good or evil, one way or the other way and there is nothing in between the extremes. Do you understand that one can make a basic distinction between the money that a parent spends to feed their family and the millions of dollars a parent gives to their progeny in inheritance?

Or is that distinction too confusing for you?
Click to expand...
No, it's not confusing at all. In fact, I do make such distinctions. I have been trying to point out the absurdity of NOT recognizing them. You are the one who want to apply a hard and fast, black and white rule.

haymarket said:
Actually not. We can define what it income any way we want to define it as long as it involves money or wealth being acquired by a person that they did not previously have as their own. There are no hard and fast rules for the acquisition of money or wealth and a fine line between what is income and what is not. This equal exchange of value nonsense is but one example of making crap up as you go along to fit what you want the definition to say. Last night one poster went on and on and on about it until he finally had to admit it was simply his own personal belief and not a law or a principle.

INCOME - money COMES IN to a persons pocket or account. INCOME/ COME IN/ INCOME/ COME IN. Get it now? Its not that hard to see.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with this blanket statement of yours that whenever money moves from one person to another that the recipient has received income. For example, I don't believe that when a parent gives money to a child this is income. However, your black and white rule clearly states that money being transferred from one person to another is income.

So which is it? Does your 100% black and white rule apply all the time, or are there exceptions? If I send my adult child a couple hundred bucks so he can take his wife to dinner and a show, is that income or not?
 
I prefer to get rid of the taxes that annoy me and let the people who are inheriting over 3 million dollars fend for themselves. They can just vote Republican since eliminating and/or mitigation of taxes on the "over 3 million" set is their number one priority.

BTW, if you send me a check for say, $100K, I'll consider it "free money". Delicious!

TurtleDude said:
so lets get rid of this surcharge on high tax payers and then deal with the ones that annoy everyone


"free money" LOL
Click to expand...
 
Luna Tick said:
Haymarket, you've mainly focused on definitions of income. What about the examples in this thread of people inheriting a business and having to sell it or struggle to come up with the taxes or maybe lay people off? There was the example of the people who inherited the Miami Dolphins, but not being able to keep the team. There was the example of the people inheriting the chain of restaurants.

Don't you want the people who inherit a business to be able to keep it?
Click to expand...

There are first healthy exemptions.
Second, the top tax is 35%. That leaves a whole helluva lot left.

I would very much like to know the details about the case of the Dolphins before I pass judgment.
 
specklebang said:
I prefer to get rid of the taxes that annoy me and let the people who are inheriting over 3 million dollars fend for themselves. They can just vote Republican since eliminating and/or mitigation of taxes on the "over 3 million" set is their number one priority.

BTW, if you send me a check for say, $100K, I'll consider it "free money". Delicious!
Click to expand...

that is pretty stupid a comment.
 
Centinel said:
No, it's not confusing at all. In fact, I do make such distinctions. I have been trying to point out the absurdity of NOT recognizing them. You are the one who want to apply a hard and fast, black and white rule.



I totally disagree with this blanket statement of yours that whenever money moves from one person to another that the recipient has received income. For example, I don't believe that when a parent gives money to a child this is income. However, your black and white rule clearly states that money being transferred from one person to another is income.

So which is it? Does your 100% black and white rule apply all the time, or are there exceptions? If I send my adult child a couple hundred bucks so he can take his wife to dinner and a show, is that income or not?
Click to expand...

We have been through this and I have told you that is not my view about a parent and a child and his oatmeal. Why do you dishonestly keep beating that same phony drum?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom