• 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:
Perhaps you can explain in ordinary everyday English how 35% of an $800,000.00 income in wages is actually LESS than 15% of an $800,000.00 income from capital gains?

I do not care what words you use as long as it makes sense and is truthful and factual.
Click to expand...

sure. the 15% tax comes after a 35% tax. most of which is borne by the stock owners (according to the CBO). and nominal tax rates are not effective tax rates. which is why Romney's FIT rate of 14% is actually higher than 97% of Americans pay. :)

Again, the CBO says that you are wrong. not cpwill. not turtle.
 
haymarket said:
Not at all.
Click to expand...

yes, "at all". several times you have attempted to divert the discussion on job-killing, business-destroying, family-wrecking, uber-rich-protecting, estate taxes into a discussion on taxes on capital gains and those who make more than $250K a year.

You seem to have issues confusing my position on what needs to be in a national tax policy where the estate tax is abolished and the transfer of that money or wealth is simply taxed as normal income under the applicable rates and schedule.
Click to expand...

no, you don't. you only want specific kinds of wealth transfer to be taxed. there are a thousand and one ways that parents can attempt to help their children do better in life - from hiring tutors, to buying them books as children, to encouraging and funding their computer-building hobbies and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Never have you proposed that a Child's future tax liabilities should go up because his parents sent him to a private high school, or because his mother took productive time to make sure to read him books when he was young. But your logic demands it, and down the path your logic leads lies madness.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
sure. the 15% tax comes after a 35% tax. most of which is borne by the stock owners (according to the CBO). and nominal tax rates are not effective tax rates. which is why Romney's FIT rate of 14% is actually higher than 97% of Americans pay. :)

Again, the CBO says that you are wrong. not cpwill. not turtle.
Click to expand...

I hve no idea what you are talking about when you say the 15% capital gains tax comes after a 35% tax. You then make some vague statements which cannot be verified.

Please be specific here.

Le us go back to my examples that I have been using of three persons making a million dollars. Take us through a step by step process and show us about this 35% then an addition 15% paid by the taxpayer.

again - my three examples

case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00.

case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00.

case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00.

All three DID NOT have the one million at the start of the year. All three got their one million during the year. It all spends the same. If you took each of their money and placed it in three stacks of one million dollars each, nobody on the planet could tell you with any accuracy time after time in a test which pile of money came from which source.

But the government knows whose million belongs to who because they put a big label on each and apply preferences and favoritism towards one over the other.

Now Turtle, La, Centinel, Thrilla, and anyone else who can - tell Richard Dillard why he should be happy to pay a tax bill of $350,000.00 on the same amount of money that Wanda Phillips only pays $150,000.00 on and Ned Sykes pays nothing on. And feel free to use the word FAIR all you want in your explanation.

And that would you too cpwill.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
yes, "at all". several times you have attempted to divert the discussion on job-killing, business-destroying, family-wrecking, uber-rich-protecting, estate taxes into a discussion on taxes on capital gains and those who make more than $250K a year.



no, you don't. you only want specific kinds of wealth transfer to be taxed. there are a thousand and one ways that parents can attempt to help their children do better in life - from hiring tutors, to buying them books as children, to encouraging and funding their computer-building hobbies and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Never have you proposed that a Child's future tax liabilities should go up because his parents sent him to a private high school, or because his mother took productive time to make sure to read him books when he was young. But your logic demands it, and down the path your logic leads lies madness.
Click to expand...

That is absurd and now you are embracing the absurd in a woeful attempt to divert from a rational tax plan.

In the writing of law, what is done is that you accept a basic premise that guides you through the process. In this case we are talking about tax law and meeting the stated desires of the vast majority of Americas who want higher taxes upon the wealthy. I have already provided several national public pinion polls which clearly demonstrate a national support level of between 60% and 70% for this.

If we look at the main ways today that the wealthy have negated or neutralized or have gotten around the true intent and spirit of progressive tax rates, it pretty punch comes down to two factors
1- much of their income comes in capital gains which is taxed at 15%
2- a significant amount of money was transferred to some of them through estate taxes which healthy exemptions built in to that formula

To assure a national system which incorporates tax justice and gets us back to true progressive rates, these two factors have to be dealt with.

So we adopt a guiding principle that we take these two and no longer provide special categories for them since they are enriching a persons pocketbook or accounts exactly the same way that other form of income do such as wages or salary.

So we simply rewrite the tax laws so that capital gains are taxed as normal income according to the applicable schedules. We abolish the current estate tax and simply treat that money and wealth as income and tax it according to the applicable schedules.

We following the guiding rule that money going into a persons pocket or accounts is income.

Now you and others want to trot out the strawman of parents feeding children bowl of oatmeal as income or hiring tutors is income or buying a computer as income or buying a book as income and that reeucing this whole thing to absurdity is suppose to validate your idea and negate mine.

Sorry but that is just nonsense. I strongly suspect that the average American citizens who wants to increase taxes on the wealthy to avoid them getting around the progressive tax schedules knows the difference between
a- a bowl of oatmeal and millions of dollars in inheritance
b- a book and millions of dollars in inheritance
c- a teacher or tutor and millions of dollars in inheritance
d- a computer and million of dollars in inheritance

If you do not, I also strongly suspect that there is not one person on the planet capable of making you understand that difference if it is not already obvious to you.

All those sort of silly objections are easy to deal with in the writing of the law. Todays laws explain what can be taxed and not taxed and any current law can certainly differentiate with normal support for a childs life, gifts than cane be given, and the taxing of true inheritance as income.

You end with a dramatic DOWN THE PATH YOUR LOGIC LEADS TO MADNESS. Truthfully cp - if you cannot see the actual difference in taxing inheritance income and buying a book for a child, you have already gone a long way down the very path you describe.
 
haymarket said:
I hve no idea what you are talking about when you say the 15% capital gains tax comes after a 35% tax. You then make some vague statements which cannot be verified.

Please be specific here.

Le us go back to my examples that I have been using of three persons making a million dollars. Take us through a step by step process and show us about this 35% then an addition 15% paid by the taxpayer.

again - my three examples

case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00.

case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00.

case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00.

All three DID NOT have the one million at the start of the year. All three got their one million during the year. It all spends the same. If you took each of their money and placed it in three stacks of one million dollars each, nobody on the planet could tell you with any accuracy time after time in a test which pile of money came from which source.

But the government knows whose million belongs to who because they put a big label on each and apply preferences and favoritism towards one over the other.

Now Turtle, La, Centinel, Thrilla, and anyone else who can - tell Richard Dillard why he should be happy to pay a tax bill of $350,000.00 on the same amount of money that Wanda Phillips only pays $150,000.00 on and Ned Sykes pays nothing on. And feel free to use the word FAIR all you want in your explanation.

And that would you too cpwill.
Click to expand...

numerous people have explained to you that your repeated nonsense about these "differences" is specious

First of all the first all the first guy will only be paying an effective tax rate of around 24% meaning 240K in taxes
so you are lying when you claim every dollar of his one million is subjected to a 35% tax rate. For someone who is so enamored with the progressive income tax, you don't seem to understand that its only money above around 375K subjected to that rate

and anyone making that much is going to be investing a bunch of it and he certainly doesn't want those investments subjected to the 40% confiscatory rate you want

secondly, he will generally have an estate at the time he dies well over the limits your fellow travelers on the left would want to rape with a death tax.

So your example is both in error patently and in error based on what most people in that group would want
 
haymarket said:
That is absurd and now you are embracing the absurd in a woeful attempt to divert from a rational tax plan.

In the writing of law, what is done is that you accept a basic premise that guides you through the process. In this case we are talking about tax law and meeting the stated desires of the vast majority of Americas who want higher taxes upon the wealthy. I have already provided several national public pinion polls which clearly demonstrate a national support level of between 60% and 70% for this.

If we look at the main ways today that the wealthy have negated or neutralized or have gotten around the true intent and spirit of progressive tax rates, it pretty punch comes down to two factors
1- much of their income comes in capital gains which is taxed at 15%
2- a significant amount of money was transferred to some of them through estate taxes which healthy exemptions built in to that formula

To assure a national system which incorporates tax justice and gets us back to true progressive rates, these two factors have to be dealt with.

So we adopt a guiding principle that we take these two and no longer provide special categories for them since they are enriching a persons pocketbook or accounts exactly the same way that other form of income do such as wages or salary.

So we simply rewrite the tax laws so that capital gains are taxed as normal income according to the applicable schedules. We abolish the current estate tax and simply treat that money and wealth as income and tax it according to the applicable schedules.

We following the guiding rule that money going into a persons pocket or accounts is income.

Now you and others want to trot out the strawman of parents feeding children bowl of oatmeal as income or hiring tutors is income or buying a computer as income or buying a book as income and that reeucing this whole thing to absurdity is suppose to validate your idea and negate mine.

Sorry but that is just nonsense. I strongly suspect that the average American citizens who wants to increase taxes on the wealthy to avoid them getting around the progressive tax schedules knows the difference between
a- a bowl of oatmeal and millions of dollars in inheritance
b- a book and millions of dollars in inheritance
c- a teacher or tutor and millions of dollars in inheritance
d- a computer and million of dollars in inheritance

If you do not, I also strongly suspect that there is not one person on the planet capable of making you understand that difference if it is not already obvious to you.

All those sort of silly objections are easy to deal with in the writing of the law. Todays laws explain what can be taxed and not taxed and any current law can certainly differentiate with normal support for a childs life, gifts than cane be given, and the taxing of true inheritance as income.

You end with a dramatic DOWN THE PATH YOUR LOGIC LEADS TO MADNESS. Truthfully cp - if you cannot see the actual difference in taxing inheritance income and buying a book for a child, you have already gone a long way down the very path you describe.
Click to expand...

the current tax plan is not rational since it only encourages the majority to demand more government and to demand others pay more for what they want.
 
TurtleDude said:
numerous people have explained to you that your repeated nonsense about these "differences" is specious

First of all the first all the first guy will only be paying an effective tax rate of around 24% meaning 240K in taxes
so you are lying when you claim every dollar of his one million is subjected to a 35% tax rate. For someone who is so enamored with the progressive income tax, you don't seem to understand that its only money above around 375K subjected to that rate

and anyone making that much is going to be investing a bunch of it and he certainly doesn't want those investments subjected to the 40% confiscatory rate you want

secondly, he will generally have an estate at the time he dies well over the limits your fellow travelers on the left would want to rape with a death tax.

So your example is both in error patently and in error based on what most people in that group would want
Click to expand...

First, you are wrong. Here are the current tax brackets according to the IRS

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350

My example of the person earning one million would indeed find himself in the 35% bracket.

http://novelinvestor.com/tax-planning/2012-federal-income-tax-brackets-released-by-irs/

Second - your statement about anyone making that amount would be investing is reflective of your own tax strategies and does not apply to all. It is your own opinion based on your own values.

Third - your statement about his estate at death is again you projecting your own tax strategies and values onto others, You have no idea at all what this person may or may not have at the time of death and may in fact end up with nothing in the way of an estate.

My example holds.
 
Last edited:
haymarket? Am I correct in assuming that your solution would not actually be a tax on the deceased estate but, rather, a tax on the person inheriting the money?

If so, that essentially pulls the teeth on the "death tax" misnomer.
 
Centinel said:
Yet you don't want to treat all money coming into someone's pocket the same way, and I don't understand why?
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
Perhaps I understand the difference between a bowl of oatmeal and a million dollars.
Click to expand...

They are different things, obviously. But whenever one thing, be it money or in-kind, is given from one to another, the recipient now has more wealth than before, which you have claimed constitutes income for the recipient.

Now you are refining your original position. Apparently, some forms of wealth transfer are income, while some are not. You keep pointing out that you can distinguish which is which, yet you give us no guideline to help us.

So, your opinion is that receiving a bowl of oatmeal is not income. Okay. This is the first exception to your general rule. You also claim that receiving a million dollars IS income. This adheres to your rule. So your are carving out exceptions to the general rule of "whenever one receives wealth they have made income." You say the difference is obvious, but you give us no criteria by which to distinguish the two.

If you are going to arbitrarily say that receiving some forms of wealth IS income while receiving other forms of wealth is NOT income, then you need to explain why. Otherwise, you are doing the exact same thing that you accuse others of doing, namely arbitrarily discriminating between forms of income.

So, as cpwill has pointed out, either it is legitimate to distinguish between different sorts of wealth transfers (for example distinguishing between wages, gifts, and inheritances) or it is not. Which is it?
 
Centinel said:
Interesting, so you distinguish between a birthday present and an inheritance, despite the fact that both of them result in new money coming into someone's pocket. Can you explain why you see them as different and wish to treat them differently for tax purposes? Who you not simply consider them both income?
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
You really do not see the difference between a ordinary regular run of the mill birthday gift and an inheritance of millions of dollars?
Click to expand...

They are both money coming into someone's pocket, which by your own words is income. You have stated that all money coming into someone's pocket should count as income. Would you like to retract this rule?
 
haymarket said:
Truthfully cp - if you cannot see the actual difference in taxing inheritance income and buying a book for a child, you have already gone a long way down the very path you describe.
Click to expand...
Yet you continue to claim there is a difference, but refuse to tell us exactly why they are different. Why are you afraid to clearly articulate what, in your opinion, makes them different?
 
MoSurveyor said:
haymarket? Am I correct in assuming that your solution would not actually be a tax on the deceased estate but, rather, a tax on the person inheriting the money?

If so, that essentially pulls the teeth on the "death tax" misnomer.
Click to expand...

yes - the person receiving the money would have it taxed as income.
 
Centinel said:
Yet you continue to claim there is a difference, but refuse to tell us exactly why they are different. Why are you afraid to clearly articulate what, in your opinion, makes them different?
Click to expand...

No. What I strong suspect is that if you already do not see it, nobody including myself could explain to you the difference in a parent buying a bowl of oatmeal or a book for their child and an inheritance of millions of dollars.
 
Gifts are tax free up to I THINK $13,999 but after that...the person who receives the gift has to pay taxes on it...
 
Centinel said:
They are both money coming into someone's pocket, which by your own words is income. You have stated that all money coming into someone's pocket should count as income. Would you like to retract this rule?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you an I have different outlooks on how the word RULE is being used? I am using it in the way we do in the state legislature when we write language for legislation. We try to establish the basic principles and rules we want to follow and structure a law which does pretty much that. Along the way you construct practical language which allows for variance and what most would consider practical considerations.

It seems that perhaps you are using the word RULE to mean an hard and fast law which can never allow for any change or variance. Removable Mind just pointed out one such exception that could be implemented with gifts below a certain level.

For example: We have a law which says you cannot take the life of other people. That is the law and rule that was followed is that human life is sacred and nobody can take the life of another. That is the rule. However, the law itself allows for variances and practical considerations that still follow the basic rule but allow for normal exceptions such as the obvious issue of self defense. That is the way laws work and how they are written and the tax changes I am proposing are no different.
 
Centinel said:
You said that there is a difference between inheritance and parents giving things to their children.
Click to expand...

And you yourself do not understand that difference?
 
haymarket said:
And you yourself do not understand that difference?
Click to expand...
The end result is the same, BUT, unless the granter is very careful, all sort of problems can arise..however the problem are soluable..
Its human nature to have "favorite sons" - and creates many problems...worse when the granter no longer has anything to say..
I am with Luna, more or less...Lets have no tax, at all levels on any inheritance.
This is a simpler way of doing things.
 
Centinel said:
Yet you continue to claim there is a difference, but refuse to tell us exactly why they are different. Why are you afraid to clearly articulate what, in your opinion, makes them different?
Click to expand...


haymarket said:
No. What I strong suspect is that if you already do not see it, nobody including myself could explain to you the difference in a parent buying a bowl of oatmeal or a book for their child and an inheritance of millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

If you are incapable of explaining the difference, maybe the difference is not as obvious as you make it out to be. In both cases, a person receives something they didn't have before. So what's the difference?
 
haymarket said:
There is no confusion on my part Turtle. My position is very clear and easy to understand if one wants to approach the subject with an open mind.

Let us take three people all of whom place a nice even ONE MILLION DOLLARS into their pocket during the year.

case #1 is Richard Dillard, a professional record producer. He earned his million in wages and salary and his hard work and talent took him to the upper ranks of his profession. He is in the 35% tax bracket and will pay a federal income tax bill of $350,000.00.

case #2 is Wanda Phillips, an investor. She made her million off long term capital gains. Her tax bracket is the preferential 15%. She will pay a federal income tax bill of $150,000.00.

case #3 is Ned Sykes, who does not work or invest. He got his million through inheritance. Because the first 5 million is exempt, he pays nothing - zero percent. His federal income tax bill is $0.00.

All three DID NOT have the one million at the start of the year. All three got their one million during the year. It all spends the same. If you took each of their money and placed it in three stacks of one million dollars each, nobody on the planet could tell you with any accuracy time after time in a test which pile of money came from which source.

But the government knows whose million belongs to who because they put a big label on each and apply preferences and favoritism towards one over the other.

Now Turtle, La, Centinel, Thrilla, and anyone else who can - tell Richard Dillard why he should be happy to pay a tax bill of $350,000.00 on the same amount of money that Wanda Phillips only pays $150,000.00 on and Ned Sykes pays nothing on. And feel free to use the word FAIR all you want in your explaination.
Click to expand...

No. What I strongly suspect is that if you already do not see it, nobody including myself could explain to you the difference between earning a million dollars and inheriting a million of dollars. Everybody knows there's a big difference between the two.
 
Last edited:
Centinel said:
You said that there is a difference between inheritance and parents giving things to their children.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
And you yourself do not understand that difference?
Click to expand...

No, could you please explain it to me? In both cases the recipient now has wealth that they didn't previously have. That's income, no?
 
Centinel said:
No. What I strong suspect is that if you already do not see it, nobody including myself could explain to you the difference between earning a million dollars and inheriting a million of dollars. Everybody knows there's a big difference between the two.
Click to expand...

Sure I do. The difference is that the person who earns it actually works for it. The person who inherits it simply lucks out from an accident of birth and did nor work for it.

And that is a big difference between the two.

Perhaps understanding that difference, we should then actually tax that sort of inheritance money at a much HIGHER rate than the same amount in wages or salary? Is that the case you are trying to make?

I am happy simply to not have a lower rate or a higher rate on inherited money than compared to wages or salary. I want to keep it equal and the same. But then, that is just the sort of humanitarian that I am. If you want the inheritance rate HIGHER because the person failed to actually work for it, that is an interesting idea and I would welcome reading your case for that change.
 
Centinel said:
If you are incapable of explaining the difference, maybe the difference is not as obvious as you make it out to be. In both cases, a person receives something they didn't have before. So what's the difference?
Click to expand...

I just explained to you how the rule is followed with variances for exceptions. But you ignored that and are now back to your hard and fast RULE AS UNBREAKABLE LAW position which is only designed by you to paint me into a corner.

Your tactic did not work then. It does not work now. It will not work in the future.
 
TurtleDude said:
false being something that slaps your desire to bleed more money from people and give it to a wasteful bloated government
Click to expand...

And you think the "American Public" is not wasteful and bloated ?
Just look around a little, the money for drugs and cigarettes.....
The money to be given and totally wasted to the political PACs.
I feel that our government, in truth, is rather lean and efficient...but ,IMO, not as lean and they should be.
I think that the trouble is, the conservatives do not think, they just accept Limbaugh's propaganda as Gospel.
 
haymarket said:
Sure I do. The difference is that the person who earns it actually works for it. The person who inherits it simply lucks out from an accident of birth and did nor work for it.

And that is a big difference between the two.
Click to expand...
Great. Now we're getting somewhere. So there IS a difference between wages and inheritance. Wages are payments to factors of production, and are counted as income in national accounting. Inheritance is simply a transfer of wealth from parent to child, and is not income. So despite the fact that they both result in the recipient having wealth they did not previously own, we can make a logical distinction between the two things.

The general rule of acquiring wealth one did not previously own CAN have well thought out exceptions. It seems right to make an exception for a parent giving things to their children.

Perhaps understanding that difference, we should then actually tax that sort of inheritance money at a much HIGHER rate than the same amount in wages or salary? Is that the case you are trying to make?
Click to expand...
Not really, because the inheritance is a particular kind of wealth transfer that is an exception to the general rule. It is not considered income in national accounting number, as it is not payment for a factor of production. It is simply a parent giving to his child. Which everybody knows is different than payment for factors of production.

I am happy simply to not have a lower rate or a higher rate on inherited money than compared to wages or salary. I want to keep it equal and the same. But then, that is just the sort of humanitarian that I am. If you want the inheritance rate HIGHER because the person failed to actually work for it, that is an interesting idea and I would welcome reading your case for that change.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that because it is not really income but is an exception to the general rule, that it ought not to be taxed at all as income.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom