• 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.
Who the hell is going to invade Missouri? And if my State can't be invaded then why bother to pay for protective services from Uncle Sam?
You make a good point.

In fact, that brings up another point. What if Alaska or Maine preferred paying Canada for protection, would that be OK?
Would that be okay with who? Me, I have not problem with it. I am not the boss of them.

It's not like the US military is going to be the super-mean fighting machine it is now because no one will want to pay for that much firepower. Corporations might be willing to pay for protection of shipping lanes, though, you can give that a shot.
I agree. Those who wish to keep shipping lanes open must pay someone to do that job.
 
YOu seem to think there is something wrong with that-I would still pay more than my share of what I use and people like you couldn't get power for your masters as they do now by telling the masses that a vote for democrats means more goodies given to them paid for by the rich

First, your share of what you use is irrelevant and you know that based on countless past discussions. Taxation is not like shopping at Costco where you fill your cart with only what you want and ignore what you do not want and then you pay for only what you want at the checkout. That model may work well for retail shopping but it is irrelevant for taxation. In the past, even you admitted such system could not work and was impractical and impossible to administrate.

Second, I have no masters no more than you yourself do and for you to use that pejorative term is an insult intended to sidetrack discussion. You should refrain from continuing in that negative direction.

Third, I do think that there is indeed something wrong with jumping from one tax plan to the next when the premise behind one contradicts the premise behind the other and the only common element element is a personal tax cut for yourself. Yes Turtle, I do think there is something very wrong with that. I would hope principle is the factor behind public policy and not individual greed or personal gain. We cannot have a nation where greed and personal consideration matters more than the collective good of 311 million Americans.
 
The country is a federation of republics and has been since its founding. Trying to claim a different reality changes nothing.

You may have a point if we were posting this in 1787. My calendar now says it is 2012. 225 years have passed and so many changes that it would take an entire book to discuss them.

Perhaps you have heard of the term "Jacksonian Democracy"? It refers to the democratization of voting that happened in the 1820's where the land owner requirement was eliminated as a qualification for voting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacksonian_democracy

Perhaps you have heard of various Constitutional Amendments which expanded the franchise to other groups not permitted to vote in 1787? There are several and can be found in a copy of the Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Perhaps you have heard of other Amendments like the one that took power away from state legislatures and placed the power to elect US Senators in the hands of the people?
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

Perhaps you have heard about the one man one vote decision which democratized the drawing of districts for the House?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man_one_vote

Perhaps you have heard about direct democratization in the early 20th Century Progressive Movement through things such as recall, initiative and referendum placing more direct power into the hands of actual citizens and voters and less in government representatives themselves.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Initiative_and_referendum

If you are not aware of these and their impact helping to change the nations basic political structure, a good American history text can do the job. Of course, these that I mentioned are just skimming the surface.

As a result of all these things and more, we are no longer what we were in 1787. Its a whole different world out there, a whole different nation, and the Founders indeed would need some time to get used to the fundamental changes that have democratized America.

Because of all that we are now a democratic republic under a Constitution.

All of that evidence from the historical record can be quickly verified in any decent book on US History or US Government.

Look up the article on the United States on Wikipedia.
United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy, "in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law".[SUP][56
][/SUP]

This article gives you a good explanation

http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html


More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today's commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy. Fortunately (for the democrats), the early federal government was not very powerful. In state after state it became easier for white males to qualify to vote. And slowly, decade after decade, our republic became a democratic republic. At the national level the major steps toward democracy can be marked by amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guaranteed limits to the power of the federal government. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment effectively extended the vote to all adult male citizens, including ex-slaves, by penalizing states that did not allow for universal male suffrage. The Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave the right to vote to former slaves. After the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments did not extend suffrage to women, a vigorous campaign for the vote was launched by women, who received the vote through the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920.

But the main Amendment that tipped the scales from the national government of the United States being a mere republic to being a true representative democracy was the often-overlooked Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913. Since 1913 the U.S. Senate has been elected directly by the voters, rather than being appointed by the state legislatures. That makes the national government democratic in form, as well as being a republic.

I would be happy to offer more if you require it.
 
Last edited:
First, your share of what you use is irrelevant and you know that based on countless past discussions. Taxation is not like shopping at Costco where you fill your cart with only what you want and ignore what you do not want and then you pay for only what you want at the checkout. That model may work well for retail shopping but it is irrelevant for taxation. In the past, even you admitted such system could not work and was impractical and impossible to administrate.

Second, I have no masters no more than you yourself do and for you to use that pejorative term is an insult intended to sidetrack discussion. You should refrain from continuing in that negative direction.

Third, I do think that there is indeed something wrong with jumping from one tax plan to the next when the premise behind one contradicts the premise behind the other and the only common element element is a personal tax cut for yourself. Yes Turtle, I do think there is something very wrong with that. I would hope principle is the factor behind public policy and not individual greed or personal gain. We cannot have a nation where greed and personal consideration matters more than the collective good of 311 million Americans.

well then any concept of fair share is worthless and all we are left with is mob rule which you seem to support.

A consumption tax is the best workable solution mainly because it

a) prevents pandering to the many: such pandering leads to too much government and ultimately drives away productive people

b) does not deter saving and investment as the current system does

c) eliminates billions wasted in compliance costs

d) increases freedom

e) decreases government control
 
well then any concept of fair share is worthless and all we are left with is mob rule which you seem to support.

We do not have mob rule in the USA. We have a democratic republic under a Constitution.

Your basic error renders your post irrelevant based on a false premise.

And, of course, a consumption tax gives you a big tax cut Turtle.
 
We do not have mob rule in the USA. We have a democratic republic under a Constitution.

Your basic error renders your post irrelevant based on a false premise.

And, of course, a consumption tax gives you a big tax cut Turtle.

you don't know that but what it does do is causes a major POWER CUT for your party and that alone is worth supporting it for

later
 
you don't know that but what it does do is causes a major POWER CUT for your party and that alone is worth supporting it for

later

I do indeed know that. Every single contradictory tax scheme you have ever supported on this site gives you a tax cut. Would you like the history of your positions in your own words? I can post it for you.

As to the charge of a power cut for my party - I would be happy to examine your verifiable evidence which substantiates such an allegation of fact. By all means do present it.
 
Last edited:
If that were true I'd be paying about 200K less than I do now. The good news is I will always be rich and you are always going to be upset that you are not

I'm doing fine, its the working poor that are suffering under the economy and debt brought about by 30 years of excessive military spending and taxing the rich too little. This needs to be corrected just as it was after the last depression.
 
Why the wealthy with business savy support tax increases:

"In a lot of ways, Nick Hanauer is just like many Americans. He lives in Seattle with his wife and two children, and he grew up working in the family business, manufacturing pillows and comforters.

But recently, Hanauer wrote an opinion piece for Bloomberg News that was a plea to the government: "Please tax me more."

These days, Hanauer is a venture capitalist who was one of the first big investors in Amazon. He's not quite a billionaire, but not that far off, either, and he insists his plea is all about self-interest.

"I reject the idea that I am advocating higher taxes for myself and other wealthy people because I'm a good person or because I love you," Hanauer tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz. "Let me just be very clear: I do not love you. I value you as a potential customer, and we have rigged the economic system in a way to destroy my customer base."

The top income tax rate in America is 35 percent. If you earn $380,000 or more a year, that is, in theory, what you pay in federal income taxes. Many taxpayers in this category do, in fact, pay that rate, but some do not.

The richest of us, billionaires, derive the bulk of their wealth from stock appreciation. Their income strategies often reap hundreds of millions of dollars from those valuable shares in ways the IRS doesn't always classify as taxable income."

Just What Do The Rich Have That's Taxable? : NPR
 
I do indeed know that. Every single contradictory tax scheme you have ever supported on this site gives you a tax cut. Would you like the history of your positions in your own words? I can post it for you.

As to the charge of a power cut for my party - I would be happy to examine your verifiable evidence which substantiates such an allegation of fact. By all means do present it.

Contradictory? we are both consistent

You want the government to take more and more money from people and I want to limit what the government can take-indeed put it on a crash diet

You want a system that allows the many to continually demand and vote for more and more and more spending by electing those who promise them more and more and more spending to be paid for by the overtaxed top 5% while I want a system that imposes pain on everyone when the government spends more which would destroy the pandering tactics of your party's leaders and some of the GOP to win votes by promising more government goodies that OTHERS have to pay for
 
I'm doing fine, its the working poor that are suffering under the economy and debt brought about by 30 years of excessive military spending and taxing the rich too little. This needs to be corrected just as it was after the last depression.

when You claim the poor are suffering due to military spending what you are saying is that the poor are suffering because not enough of the government spending is directed to them. That needs to be corrected?

what needs to be corrected is the concept that the rich have a duty to fund people who are unwilling to fund themselves MAINLY due to their own poor choices
 
Why the wealthy with business savy support tax increases:

"In a lot of ways, Nick Hanauer is just like many Americans. He lives in Seattle with his wife and two children, and he grew up working in the family business, manufacturing pillows and comforters.

But recently, Hanauer wrote an opinion piece for Bloomberg News that was a plea to the government: "Please tax me more."

These days, Hanauer is a venture capitalist who was one of the first big investors in Amazon. He's not quite a billionaire, but not that far off, either, and he insists his plea is all about self-interest.

"I reject the idea that I am advocating higher taxes for myself and other wealthy people because I'm a good person or because I love you," Hanauer tells weekends on All Things Considered host Guy Raz. "Let me just be very clear: I do not love you. I value you as a potential customer, and we have rigged the economic system in a way to destroy my customer base."

The top income tax rate in America is 35 percent. If you earn $380,000 or more a year, that is, in theory, what you pay in federal income taxes. Many taxpayers in this category do, in fact, pay that rate, but some do not.

The richest of us, billionaires, derive the bulk of their wealth from stock appreciation. Their income strategies often reap hundreds of millions of dollars from those valuable shares in ways the IRS doesn't always classify as taxable income."

Just What Do The Rich Have That's Taxable? : NPR


what party does that guy support ? Well guess--he labels himself as a left wing progressive.
 
when You claim the poor are suffering due to military spending what you are saying is that the poor are suffering because not enough of the government spending is directed to them. That needs to be corrected?

what needs to be corrected is the concept that the rich have a duty to fund people who are unwilling to fund themselves MAINLY due to their own poor choices

As the facts show us, it was not the poor that caused or profited from the debt created by deregulation and supply side economics.

It appears the shell game that you and the GOP have used for the last 30 years is no longer fooling the majority. Too bad, so sad! :lol:
 
As the facts show us, it was not the poor that caused or profited from the debt created by deregulation and supply side economics.

It appears the shell game that you and the GOP have used for the last 30 years is no longer fooling the majority. Too bad, so sad! :lol:

you miss the entire point-you claim the poor have problems because the GOVERNMENT doesn't do enough for them

that is the problem-they rely on the government too much
 
Contradictory? we are both consistent

You want the government to take more and more money from people and I want to limit what the government can take-indeed put it on a crash diet

You want a system that allows the many to continually demand and vote for more and more and more spending by electing those who promise them more and more and more spending to be paid for by the overtaxed top 5% while I want a system that imposes pain on everyone when the government spends more which would destroy the pandering tactics of your party's leaders and some of the GOP to win votes by promising more government goodies that OTHERS have to pay for

Okay. You leave me no other choice than to post your previous positions on taxes. I am going to run and when I return I shall post them for you with ample evidence of your own contradictory stances.
 
Sadly for your Turtle, there is the record to go to of your own posts, in your own words, explaining your beliefs and views. And that speaks louder than any lies you try to tell to cover your tracks or get out of a tight spot.

Here is your position and your reversals on taxes:

Again, first you took the position that taxation must be based on the amount of government services one used. We even had an entire thread for that purpose. Of course, that plan would have given you a tax cut.

Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums (Taxation as Retail Shopping Model)

Turtle makes it very clear what his ultimate idea of a system of taxation would be:

ECONOMICS
Does Anyone Actually Think........ Deficit/Debt
18 #175 6/9/11


My definitions of fair-which reject the From each according to their ability

THE FAIREST

You pay for what you use

just like every other area of human interaction

That is clear and straight forward and unambiguous. The FAIREST tax system he advocates is one in which "you pay for what you use".

You make this clear again in this post using much the same words:



ECONOMICS
The Truth About Who Can Afford To Pay More Taxes
p. 18 #172 1/21/11


I want people to pay for what they use so when they demand more it costs them more
=================================

Again, his idea of taxation if for people to "pay for what they use".

Yet again, in another discussion of taxation he expresses the same idea

ECONOMICS
Constant References to Billionaires
23 #228 6/23/11


fair would be everyone paying the same tax rate or people paying for what they use
===================================

Here he looks back fondly on the ideal he believes once existed in which people paid for what they used in government services

ECONOMICS
Brief History of the Bush tax Cuts
25 #243 6/2/11


your obsession is that you like the current system and think that it cannot be changed.

and it once was different. people once paid for what they used
=====================================

And once more into the breach

ECONOMICS
Tax Increase On the Table
4 #37 4/14/11


I know how the tax system works and why its ruining this country.

and yes, people should pay for what they use rather than voting themselves the wealth of others
============================================

Here he says that the "standard" used in taxation should be the "value recieved" which is another way of saying what government services you consume

GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION
Flat Tax
7 #66 7/4/11


Given I reject the From each according to their ability argument and note that value received should be the standard, and a flat tax prevents the many from jacking my taxes up what other argument do you have other than you want to keep more of your next dollar than I get to keep

Then, you abandoned not only the plan itself, but you abandoned the principle behind it. Your completely trashed and flushed the idea of connecting taxation to how much consumes in government services in favor of a per capita levy on all persons based on government spending. Your impassioned plea to connect taxation to how much one consumes in government services was trashed and flushed and as gone with the wind. You did a 180 and completely embraced a principle that was opposite of your first. Of course, this new scheme also gave you a personal tax cut.

Then you trashed and flushed the per capita idea in favor of a consumption tax in which the entire idea of how much one consumed or even a per capita levy on it was trashed and flushed altogether in favor of a tax based on consumption.


I have always said a consumption tax is the most desirable practical tax.

I guess , to you, the meaning of the word ALWAYS is interchangeable with "of the moment and what I now have retreated to"?

Of course, you would get a tax cut in that scheme also.

Three different ideas, all very different, some 180 degrees opposite the other, all based on very very different principles.

Or are they?

The one "principle" (if one can call selfishness a principle) in all three is that you get a tax cut.

Now that is the most honest presentation of your taxation positions there is and are completely supported by your own words. If you have a problem with that, state it clearly and I will speak to it.

You reversed, not once but at least twice and that does not even consider any other tax scheme that you signed on to simply because it gave you a selfish tax cut regardless of the principles or methodology behind it.
 
Using force to take what doesn't belong to you is the law of the jungle. What one does with the loot does not justify the initial act of aggression. If you wish to take care of the poor or elderly do it on your own dime, not with other people's property.

So you don't believe in the concept of taxation at all then...but a governmentless system or a government based on the charity of it's citizens.
 
Okay. You leave me no other choice than to post your previous positions on taxes. I am going to run and when I return I shall post them for you with ample evidence of your own contradictory stances.

there is no contradiction to anyone but you

I stated

1) the ideal tax system in a perfect world-pay for what you use

2) since that is not possible to accurately track in a nation of 300+ million the next best thing would be

to divide government costs by the number of citizens for an appropriate share

3) but you would note many could not pay their share which is true given how many bogus government spending programs have become entrenched

4) so the best PRACTICAL system is first a consumption tax and in the secondary alternative a flat tax

all of those prevent the politicians from pandering to the many by promising them stuff paid for by more taxes on the few
 
The dishonesty of constantly repeating one thousandth of what I have said on taxes is that I clearly have constantly made the same arguments and there is no contradiction between proffering an IDEAL system with a realistic compromise as an alternative
 
there is no contradiction to anyone but you

I stated

1) the ideal tax system in a perfect world-pay for what you use

2) since that is not possible to accurately track in a nation of 300+ million the next best thing would be

to divide government costs by the number of citizens for an appropriate share

3) but you would note many could not pay their share which is true given how many bogus government spending programs have become entrenched

4) so the best PRACTICAL system is first a consumption tax and in the secondary alternative a flat tax

all of those prevent the politicians from pandering to the many by promising them stuff paid for by more taxes on the few

Sorry Turtle , but your own words hang you upon the noose they weave themselves into.

First you want people to only pay for the government services they use and not a penny more.

Then you do a 180 and spin in completely different direction and say everybody should pay the same which means it is regardless of how much the use or do not use.

Then you take a completely different position and exclude both of those principles in favor of the flavor of the month - the consumption tax.

The only consistent in the three is that you end up with a tax cut.
 
The dishonesty of constantly repeating one thousandth of what I have said on taxes is that I clearly have constantly made the same arguments and there is no contradiction between proffering an IDEAL system with a realistic compromise as an alternative

The ultimate dishonesty....... repeating your own words right back to you in the very posts in which you made them.

As it was Turtle, the post was rather long. I tried to work in as much as I could. It is fair since they are your own words made in your own posts on this very site.
 
Last edited:
Using force to take what doesn't belong to you is the law of the jungle. What one does with the loot does not justify the initial act of aggression. If you wish to take care of the poor or elderly do it on your own dime, not with other people's property.

So you don't believe in the concept of taxation at all then...but a governmentless system or a government based on the charity of it's citizens.

The concept of taxation, in which some people forcibly take money from other people strikes me as completely immoral. I don't see what gives one person or one group of people the moral authority to declare that they are going to rule over others and take their property. I mean, we're all supposed to be equals, so we ought to work out our social arrangements through voluntary cooperation, not the law of the jungle.

That being said, if people want services from a government, such as policing, dispute resolution, and defense, well then they ought to pay for those services. One can't expect people to just give these services away for nothing. So I think I have to say that a government should be able to charge its subscribers for its services, just like anyone can charge for services people buy. If you want the services, you pay the fee, otherwise you get nothing.
 
The concept of taxation, in which some people forcibly take money from other people strikes me as completely immoral. I don't see what gives one person or one group of people the moral authority to declare that they are going to rule over others and take their property. I mean, we're all supposed to be equals, so we ought to work out our social arrangements through voluntary cooperation, not the law of the jungle.

That being said, if people want services from a government, such as policing, dispute resolution, and defense, well then they ought to pay for those services. One can't expect people to just give these services away for nothing. So I think I have to say that a government should be able to charge its subscribers for its services, just like anyone can charge for services people buy. If you want the services, you pay the fee, otherwise you get nothing.

You confuse the relationship of a citizen and his or her government via taxation with the retail shopping experience. They are apples and cinderblocks. When you shop at Costco you have the luxury of selecting only what you want and placing it in your cart and paying for that at the checkout. Government does not work that way and even a tax hater like my friend Turtle has admitted such a scheme would not work.
 
One of my favorite lies from the far left is that tax cuts GAVE the rich money
Yet another indication of non-wealth. Actually wealthy people were at first agog over the amounts of money that those tax cuts had GIVEN them in exchange for doing absolutely nothing. I mean, we read about it in the papers and all, but it really didn't hit home until you first ran the actual numbers and saw the actual bottom line.
 
what party does that guy support ? Well guess--he labels himself as a left wing progressive.

Most with business savy understand you need consumers in a consumer economy. Even 4 out of 10 Republicans think the tax rates for the most wealthy need to be increased.

"Support for the "millionaire's tax" rises as high as 83 percent among Democrats, and while 54 percent of Republicans oppose it, four in ten think tax increases for these upper income households are a good idea."

There is simply no reason for the working class to continue to vote for your tax cuts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom