• 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.
haymarket said:
FALSE.

Many take the position that BOTH SIDES OF THE LEDGER MUST BE DEALT WITH AT THE SAME TIME.
Click to expand...

MOre horsecrap--spending cuts do not require more revenue in the minds of any rational person. what you are saying is that the dems will lose votes from spending cuts so they have to make that up by jacking up the taxes on the wealthy to buy back those votes

repeat again

SPENDING CUTS DO NOT REQUIRE TAX HIKES

SPENDING CUTS DO NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVENUE
 
LaMidRighter said:
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?
Click to expand...

some people think fairness means screwing the rich as much as possible even if that hurts everyone else in the long run. The death tax is an example of that
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Moderator's Warning:
What we have here... is a failure to communicate.

You two play nice or I'll take your balls and go home.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the kind you store in a jar of alcohol?
 
molten_dragon said:
Yes. Gifts, inheritance, income, capital gains, I think it should all be taxed the same way. I don't see a need for having all these special cases. They're basically all the same thing (money passing from one person to another) just for different reasons.

I'm a big fan of simplifying tax laws as much as possible.
Click to expand...

good, support a consumption tax which would allow us to get rid of the IRS and all the time we spend meeting the idiotic requirements of the IRS
 
haymarket said:
There is an old expression that one cannot see the forest for the trees. When I see the labored mental processes that some are putting themselves through to show problems with estate taxes - invoking the memories of relatives who could not manage a business and pay their tax - and other such examples, the expression is crystal clear.

The fact is this and it must be dealt with: Most people in this country make their money from working for it. Their income comes in the form of wages... salary ... a paycheck. And on that income they pay a tax which can be as high as 35%. That is the rule for the vast vast majority of people in America. These are the hard working people that keep America going and are the backbone of society.

Then we have a much smaller group who make their money from their investments -capital gains. For the most part, they are a different group of people who have lots of extra income that they do not need for food or shelter or housing or clothing or medical expenses or anything else associated with the daily struggle just to keep body and soul together. They take this extra money and invest in and then pay 15% on the income derived from those investments. For a variety of reasons, political, economic and social - the government extends them a discriminatory and preferential tax rate of 15%.

Then we have people who, through the good fortune of the lottery of birth, were born into a family of means and wealth and at some point they inherit a large amount of money. For a variety of reasons political, economic and social - they get healthy exemptions against paying any tax on it for the first 5 million dollars. In addition, one can use the assistance of professionals to lower the expected tax bill of 35% upon the remaining portion. Some even point out that more is spent fighting to lower the actual tax paid than is collected.

What we end up with is an American society where the vast majority of people are paying taxes on their source of money while others are earning far more and paying far less of a percentage on their source of money.

TAX FAIRNESS. That is the issue which angers so many Americans.

When we see the details of a Mitt Romney - to use the obvious example in the news - it angers people because they view it as a violation of basic justice.

And all the individual stories about hard working uncles do not speak to the dissatisfaction that Americans have about this lack of basic justice when it comes to discriminatory government laws favoring one source of money over others.
Click to expand...


why should Romney pay both the highest rates and then a SURCHARGE on that wealth after he dies

Most americans aren't angry at the rich despite your party's efforts to stir up such anger
 
evanescence said:
Who else is being hurt?
Click to expand...
cpwill laid out an example earlier about his uncle's business. The family will have to lay off workers just to free up money to pay the taxes on the business after he passes. In that real scenario not only will the uncle be deprived of fully executing his will to leave the estate to his heirs but middle class jobs will instantly vanish, those people will be hurt.
 
haymarket said:
Public opinion polls say otherwise. And it is not hard to find them and I am sure you have seen them. The overwhelming majority of people want taxes increased upon the wealthy. The obvious way to do that is to see what discriminatory practices have allowed the rich to get preferential treatment and change that so all sources of income are taxed according to the same schedule.

Polls show most Americans support raising taxes on wealthy - Political Hotsheet - CBS News



Americans Favor Jobs Plan Proposals, Including Taxing Rich

66% favor tax increases on upper earners.

Poll: Most back raising taxes on millionaires - Political Hotsheet - CBS News



New CNN Poll: Majority want tax increase for wealthy and deep spending cuts – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



Daily Kos: Marist/McClatchy poll: Raise taxes on the rich, preserve social insurance program


Independents supported higher taxes on the wealthy by 63-34 percent; Democrats by 83-15 percent; and Republicans opposed by 43-54 percent....

Most Americans DO NOT agree with you. They DO NOT share your opinion.

So now convince them they are wrong and they should support a system which rewards others and hits them harder for making the same amount of money.
Click to expand...


10,000 fleas all agree that the dog should not wear a flea collar. The dog and his owner disagree
 
LaMidRighter said:
Whatever. I really stopped taking you seriously ages ago and don't really care what you think or what you think your rights or your business is. Dismissed.
Click to expand...

He's appealing to the parasitic envy he hopes exists in the masses. THe dem party spends a great deal of effort trying to convince people that the rich are screwing them over and if they vote for the dems, the dems will punish these evil greedy rich people and give the oppressed masses some of the wealth.

its the mindset that spurred the income tax and the death tax and is ruining this country
 
evanescence said:
Who else is being hurt?
Click to expand...

In the direct sense, people who do the right thing and save for retirement, small businesses, family farms, employees, and the like. In the indirect sense, all of the rest of us who live in a less competitive, efficient economy due to the government subsidy of the uber-rich inherent in the estate tax.
 
LaMidRighter said:
cpwill laid out an example earlier about his uncle's business. The family will have to lay off workers just to free up money to pay the taxes on the business after he passes. In that real scenario not only will the uncle be deprived of fully executing his will to leave the estate to his heirs but middle class jobs will instantly vanish, those people will be hurt.
Click to expand...

point worth making - this is in construction contracting. currently employment and investment in that sector is.... not robust. those blue-collar workers and their families that the death/estate tax will throw onto the street will likely be there for a long time. :(
 
evanescence said:
Who else is being hurt?
Click to expand...

lots of people

1) those who are convinced that the government exists to give them the wealth of others
2) businesses that are ruined by the death tax
3) the billions that are spent avoiding or minimizing the death tax
4) the wealth that is secreted away or taken offshore is no longer being spent in the USA
 
TurtleDude said:
MOre horsecrap--spending cuts do not require more revenue in the minds of any rational person. what you are saying is that the dems will lose votes from spending cuts so they have to make that up by jacking up the taxes on the wealthy to buy back those votes
Click to expand...

Or maybe he's saying that we could not possibly cut enough spending to balance the budget without finding a way to generate a whole lot of additional revenue-- and especially not while trying to pass the kinds of massive tax cuts that the Republicans are clamoring for.
 
cpwill said:
In the direct sense, people who do the right thing and save for retirement, small businesses, family farms, employees, and the like. In the indirect sense, all of the rest of us who live in a less competitive, efficient economy due to the government subsidy of the uber-rich inherent in the estate tax.
Click to expand...

I actually addressed that in an earlier post. The first $5 million would be untouched. But 35% after that. It's not that I want to TAX THE RICH!!! out of envy. But I do want to prevent an Aristocracy. That's all.
 
cpwill said:
point worth making - this is in construction contracting. currently employment and investment in that sector is.... not robust. those blue-collar workers and their families that the death/estate tax will throw onto the street will likely be there for a long time. :(
Click to expand...
Yeah. I hadn't even considered that because Louisiana, especially the oil cities like mine tend to be on the reverse end of downturn, we aren't hurting badly though our housing and construction sectors are starting to show signs of slowing. Construction is an all or nothing field and when it's nothing it hurts, it tends to be a national cycle too which means relocating to a construction rich sector is not always an option. Your point is well taken.
 
evanescence said:
I actually addressed that in an earlier post. The first $5 million would be untouched. But 35% after that. It's not that I want to TAX THE RICH!!! out of envy. But I do want to prevent an Aristocracy. That's all.
Click to expand...
Point to ponder for you. Aristocracies are typically politically protected noble classes, they tend to have wealth through government mandate and offer no real value to people. If an estate survives to create wealth for heirs and they choose a passive role in maintaining the business it still has the capacity to provide value to others even if they are of suspect value themselves. As long as they are consuming however based on earnings from a trust or estate they are still creating a need for other's work in the form of products and services so it can be argued their value is in spending.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
Or maybe he's saying that we could not possibly cut enough spending to balance the budget without finding a way to generate a whole lot of additional revenue-- and especially not while trying to pass the kinds of massive tax cuts that the Republicans are clamoring for.
Click to expand...

oh there are tons of things to cut-that it might hurt one or both parties ability to pander to the voters is not something to get worried about
 
LaMidRighter said:
Point to ponder for you. Aristocracies are typically politically protected noble classes, they tend to have wealth through government mandate and offer no real value to people. If an estate survives to create wealth for heirs and they choose a passive role in maintaining the business it still has the capacity to provide value to others even if they are of suspect value themselves. As long as they are consuming however based on earnings from a trust or estate they are still creating a need for other's work in the form of products and services so it can be argued their value is in spending.
Click to expand...

death taxes do protect the uber wealthys' position on top the pyramid
 
TurtleDude said:
MOre horsecrap--spending cuts do not require more revenue in the minds of any rational person. what you are saying is that the dems will lose votes from spending cuts so they have to make that up by jacking up the taxes on the wealthy to buy back those votes

repeat again

SPENDING CUTS DO NOT REQUIRE TAX HIKES

SPENDING CUTS DO NOT REQUIRE ADDITIONAL REVENUE
Click to expand...

Do you even bother to actually READ the post that you reproduce before you issue standard statement #165?

Go back and read it this time. I said that there are those of us who want BOTH sides of the ledger dealt with. I never thought I would live long enough when the notion that there are two sides to an accounting ledger was considered as "horsecrap". It shows just how far down the rabbit hole some extremists have fallen.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Point to ponder for you. Aristocracies are typically politically protected noble classes, they tend to have wealth through government mandate and offer no real value to people. If an estate survives to create wealth for heirs and they choose a passive role in maintaining the business it still has the capacity to provide value to others even if they are of suspect value themselves. As long as they are consuming however based on earnings from a trust or estate they are still creating a need for other's work in the form of products and services so it can be argued their value is in spending.
Click to expand...

It is my belief that the ultra rich are useless individuals who are more parasitic than any poor person could ever be. Those people shouldn't be allowed to exist in their current state of uselessness. Simply accumulating money/resources while being idle is unnatural.
 
TurtleDude said:
death taxes do protect the uber wealthys' position on top the pyramid
Click to expand...
Pretty much. For all the lip service Buffet and Gates give to the pro tax side those two are so sheltered from paying any sum that would hurt them fiscally, they will trade off a few mil. here or there and then kick a little to charity while hiding behind cap gains and telling everyone else they feel guilty about paying "too low a rate". All the while they say this they are politically protected from exactly what they advocate because they have enough money and influence to pretty much buy whatever outcomes they want.
 
haymarket said:
Do you even bother to actually READ the post that you reproduce before you issue standard statement #165?

Go back and read it this time. I said that there are those of us who want BOTH sides of the ledger dealt with. I never thought I would live long enough when the notion that there are two sides to an accounting ledger was considered as "horsecrap". It shows just how far down the rabbit hole some extremists have fallen.
Click to expand...

and many of us-ie most of the GOP and almost all its representatives don't want to tax people more-especially those who are targeted by the parasitic dem politicians

so lets just cut cut cut and see what happens
 
TurtleDude said:
why should Romney pay both the highest rates and then a SURCHARGE on that wealth after he dies

Most americans aren't angry at the rich despite your party's efforts to stir up such anger
Click to expand...

FALSE.

Romney pays NOTHING after he dies. New owners of new wealth to them pay the estate tax.

Go back and read my post from this morning where I provided poll after poll describing how the public felt about taxing the wealthy. It is called providing EVIDENCE to build a CASE.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom