• 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.
What part are you not following on? If money is worth less and paychecks don't increase then it is a government caused issue. I'm not going through the whole process for you but what part specifically doesn't resonate with you?

NO, that isn't true of course. If paychecks don't increase that is most likely a problem caused by the private sector. Inflation is more controllable by the government. Not sure how you think inflation fits into our discussion though. It's pretty pretty mild for a very long time, so inflation isn't really a huge factor in anything.

Deficit and debt are not the same thing. We are in a debt crisis, the deficit is a smaller part of the problem. Try to keep up.

Kiddo. That makes no sense. Seriously, you need to focus up. Think things through before you say them. The deficit is how much more we add to the debt each year. You can't address one without addressing the other. Obviously.

No, we are talking about spending, not simple budgets. Spending in general is the problem and you want more taxes to cover the problem. THAT is what the discussion has involved.

You are not following the conversation. Go back to the start and try reading through it again maybe.

Dude, don't even try. Obamacare already has outlays being provided for and the total cost expectations first year are around 10 trillion, this is on top of current debt. There is no need for party apologism here, these are facts.

Kiddo, again, my figures were total outlays so your claims about Obamacare aren't relevant. But, no, very few of the provisions have kicked in so far.

Besides, while Obamacare will increase spending, it will increase revenues by more, so it reduces the deficit.
 
NO, that isn't true of course. If paychecks don't increase that is most likely a problem caused by the private sector. Inflation is more controllable by the government. Not sure how you think inflation fits into our discussion though. It's pretty pretty mild for a very long time, so inflation isn't really a huge factor in anything.



Kiddo. That makes no sense. Seriously, you need to focus up. Think things through before you say them. The deficit is how much more we add to the debt each year. You can't address one without addressing the other. Obviously.



You are not following the conversation. Go back to the start and try reading through it again maybe.



Kiddo, again, my figures were total outlays so your claims about Obamacare aren't relevant. But, no, very few of the provisions have kicked in so far.

Besides, while Obamacare will increase spending, it will increase revenues by more, so it reduces the deficit.
Oh whatever. You want the wealthy to pay more, and you are using random arguments to do so. That you dismiss the fact that debt is a larger problem tells me all I need to know. Before I dismiss you I'll leave you with this, deficit adds to the debt, it is the money short on spending, if the deficit is zero there is no new interest however old interest on the DEBT is still accruing. If you really think that letting old interest fester while concentrating on sending more money with no spending accountability is a good idea I really don't know what else to tell you. The fact is that when there is no more available money the government is FORCED to spend wisely. Increasing taxes TAKES money out of the private sector which SHRINKS available revenues to the government due to stagnation and shrinkage in not only wealthy americans incomes but loss of JOBS. Less JOBS means less TAXPAYERS which means LESS revenue. Dismissed.
 
holy ****- i didn't know this thread was about Obamacare. partisan politics blow.
It's not, the problem is people are throwing out random numbers to justify their stances, this requires full analysis to go on.
 
That you dismiss the fact that debt is a larger problem tells me all I need to know. Before I dismiss you I'll leave you with this, deficit adds to the debt, it is the money short on spending, if the deficit is zero there is no new interest however old interest on the DEBT is still accruing. If you really think that letting old interest fester while concentrating on sending more money with no spending accountability is a good idea I really don't know what else to tell you.

The words you're saying are true- we need to reduce the deficit and then go further and pay down the debt- but that doesn't have any relation to anything we're talking about... Are you under the impression that I was arguing that we should not pay down the debt or something?

The fact is that when there is no more available money the government is FORCED to spend wisely.

Again, obviously that is false. That is what the debt is- money we borrowed because we didn't have enough revenues to cover our spending... Are you saying that when nobody will loan them anymore money they will be forced to cut spending? By the time we reach that point we would owe at least $100 trillion. Probably more like $200 trillion or more. Even if we cut spending to zero at that point we wouldn't even be able to pay the interest. The US would become insolvent. Is that really where you want to intentionally push the country? Uh....
 
I have not read thread and don't plan on it: there should not be a tax on this as the people that are DEAD (read DEAD!!) have already paid taxes. Oh and the IRS suxs and should be done away with.
 
I have not read thread and don't plan on it: there should not be a tax on this as the people that are DEAD (read DEAD!!) have already paid taxes. Oh and the IRS suxs and should be done away with.
Absolutely. That's the point many of us have made, that all monies and assets were already taxed and mere transference as a last will is in fact double or triple taxation. You go Kali!
 
The government needs money to function, it gets that money through taxes, and taxes are a necessary evil that nobody likes. Any money changing hands should be taxed, regardless of any value exchanged, because not taxing one type of money transfer shifts the burden of supporting the government onto other forms of money transfer. When we don't tax inheritance, we have to tax working people that much more to make up the difference. Society as a whole benefits the most if we tax the working man as little as possible, thus we should not shift the non-working man's tax burden onto him.



Centinel,

A child under 18 is the responsibility of their parents/guardians, and they legally have control over that kid's money/finances until they hit 18. A parent giving their kid $10 should not be taxed because legal responsibility for it still ultimately belongs to the parent. It has not legally changed hands any more so than if dad moved it from checking to savings or his left pocket to his right pocket or if his wife takes his wallet and goes on a shopping spree.
(This is also part of why i think gays should be allowed to get married, to be legally considered a partnership with dual control over their money.)

A parent giving their adult child money should be taxed as income for the child, with minimal thresholds (probably around a few thousand a year) before the government starts giving a ****. Nobody should care if you're constantly give your boomerang kid a $20 every week for gas.
 
Last edited:
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how it is "fair" for all my uncle's employees to lose their jobs so that the government can "get something" from his daughters.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how it is "fair" for all my uncle's employees to lose their jobs so that the government can "get something" from his daughters.
I don't think you'll get an honest answer to that on the pro side. I'll tell you that I think it's absolutely unfair to all parties involved in your example.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how it is "fair" for all my uncle's employees to lose their jobs so that the government can "get something" from his daughters.

Are you saying there was nobody that would buy a share in the business? Why not? What was wrong with it?
 
Are you saying there was nobody that would buy a share in the business? Why not? What was wrong with it?
And dishonest swing and a miss one. Why should they have to sell to someone to keep a portion of a family business? Care to address the fairness of government inheritance taxes GUTTING it?
 
And dishonest swing and a miss one. Why should they have to sell to someone to keep a portion of a family business? Care to address the fairness of government inheritance taxes GUTTING it?

He was saying that people lost their jobs. That is a bit surprising, so I'm interested in knowing why that happened.

As for why they should only inherit the majority of the business rather than all of it, it's the same reason as people who work only get some of their paycheck, the same reason as why people who invest have to give up some of their investment income and the reason that people who buy things have to pay a little extra- because it would be stupid not to re-invest some of our money in keeping society strong for the future.
 
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how it is "fair" for all my uncle's employees to lose their jobs so that the government can "get something" from his daughters.

Life isn't fair. The employees will only loose their jobs if the new owners fire them. Since your example is made up no one will lose any jobs, and the non existant employees have nothing to worry about.
 
He was saying that people lost their jobs. That is a bit surprising, so I'm interested in knowing why that happened.
He already told you they couldn't retain due to the tax loss.

As for why they should only inherit the majority of the business rather than all of it, it's the same reason as people who work only get some of their paycheck, the same reason as why people who invest have to give up some of their investment income and the reason that people who buy things have to pay a little extra- because it would be stupid not to re-invest some of our money in keeping society strong for the future.
It's really no one else's business BUT the family's, so the rest of your analysis is dismissed.
 
Life isn't fair. The employees will only loose their jobs if the new owners fire them. Since your example is made up no one will lose any jobs, and the non existant employees have nothing to worry about.
I thought your side was arguing for fairness. So it's fair as long as the wealthy get screwed? Middle class paychecks were LOST due to the inheritance tax loss. So it's fair as long as government gets to take whatever they want?
 
I thought your side was arguing for fairness. So it's fair as long as the wealthy get screwed? Middle class paychecks were LOST due to the inheritance tax loss. So it's fair as long as government gets to take whatever they want?

My side? If jobs were indeed lost it is because of poor planning. Also, why dis the new owners if indeed there were any close the business?
 
He already told you they couldn't retain due to the tax loss.

It's really no one else's business BUT the family's, so the rest of your analysis is dismissed.

Ok, LA, so we write an exemption for small businesses. Put it at a $1m or so. If the business is worth millions, **** the family for wanting to keep it all; let them sell shares to pay for the taxes. Nobody gets to inherit Microsoft without having to pay taxes on it.
 
My side? If jobs were indeed lost it is because of poor planning. Also, why dis the new owners if indeed there were any close the business?
How do you expect people to plan for that? The rate is constantly changing and short of being a psychic people don't tend to know when they are going to die.
 
Ok, LA, so we write an exemption for small businesses. Put it at a $1m or so. If the business is worth millions, **** the family for wanting to keep it all; let them sell shares to pay for the taxes. Nobody gets to inherit Microsoft without having to pay taxes on it.
No exemptions are needed if you don't tax inheritance. And I could care less about people who "want a taste" of others wealth without contributing a thing to the business. No, not **** the family, **** the people who engage in post mortem theft.
 
He already told you they couldn't retain due to the tax loss.

... You aren't paying attention LaMidRighter. I asked why they couldn't get somebody to buy a share in the company. They should normally be able to sell off a share of the company and keep it in operation.

It's really no one else's business BUT the family's, so the rest of your analysis is dismissed.

Your same argument would apply equally to any other type of income. But nonetheless, we need tax revenues if we're going to remain a first world country.
 
No exemptions are needed if you don't tax inheritance. And I could care less about people who "want a taste" of others wealth without contributing a thing to the business. No, not **** the family, **** the people who engage in post mortem theft.

As I already said in post #309:
Befuddled_Stoner said:
The government needs money to function, it gets that money through taxes, and taxes are a necessary evil that nobody likes. Any money changing hands should be taxed, regardless of any value exchanged, because not taxing one type of money transfer shifts the burden of supporting the government onto other forms of money transfer. When we don't tax inheritance, we have to tax working people that much more to make up the difference. Society as a whole benefits the most if we tax the working man as little as possible, thus we should not shift the non-working man's tax burden onto him.
 
As I already said in post #309:
Yeah, you sure did say the government needs money to function. You left out the part where it assumes responsibilities it is barred from and wastes money it already gets. How about you solve that before asking for more?
 
... You aren't paying attention LaMidRighter. I asked why they couldn't get somebody to buy a share in the company. They should normally be able to sell off a share of the company and keep it in operation.



Your same argument would apply equally to any other type of income. But nonetheless, we need tax revenues if we're going to remain a first world country.
I am paying attention. You aren't making your case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom