• 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!

Should Jim DeMints proposed amendment, removing the estate tax have failed?

Should Jim DeMints proposed amendment removing the estate tax have failed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 41.7%

  • No

    Votes: 14 58.3%
  • Total voters
    24
TurtleDude said:
more ASSumptions on your part

stop lying
Click to expand...

So IRC §1014(a) is an assumption?

(a) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, the basis of property in the hands of a person acquiring the property from a decedent or to whom the property passed from a decedent shall, if not sold, exchanged, or otherwise disposed of before the decedent’s death by such person, be—
(1) the fair market value of the property at the date of the decedent’s death,
Click to expand...

United States Code: Title 26,1014. Basis of property acquired from a decedent | LII / Legal Information Institute

FAIL.

Turtledude, wrong as usual.
 
obvious Child said:
So IRC §1014(a) is an assumption?



United States Code: Title 26,1014. Basis of property acquired from a decedent | LII / Legal Information Institute

FAIL.

Turtledude, wrong as usual.
Click to expand...

the ASSUmption was directed to what you do concerning what I know

and you constantly make claims about me you cannot back up

so you are the wrong one

and tell me why are you humping my leg all over this board

are you mad that your parents weren't industrious?

are you mad that someone else is better off than you are?

lets face it-those who push for the death confiscation tax do so out of envy
 
TurtleDude said:
the ASSUmption was directed to what you do concerning what I know
Click to expand...

How convenient. I point out how you should not be taken seriously on the estate tax due to your demonstrated ignorance of it, to which you insult me and call my arguments about stepped up basis "ASSumptions" to which I prove myself completely true...and you change your argument entirely.

and you constantly make claims about me you cannot back up
Click to expand...

Such as? I pointed out in post #32 you are entirely wrong about how the estate tax functions.

Post #43, which entirely is about your understanding of the estate tax as demonstrated in your posts was called "an opinion" by you in post #44.

Part of that post was about stepped up basis. Therefore, you have called the stepped up basis of inheritance assets "an opinion." The IRC code I posted shows it is indeed a fact. You are wrong.

so you are the wrong one
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who called stepped up basis "an ASSumption." You did.

and tell me why are you humping my leg all over this board

are you mad that your parents weren't industrious?

are you mad that someone else is better off than you are?
Click to expand...

And you are about to be in violation of the basement rule. Stick to the subject here. You called my argument, which was partially about the stepped up basis "an opinion." You are wrong about this entirely.

lets face it-those who push for the death confiscation tax do so out of envy
Click to expand...

And once again, you can't admit you are wrong or admit you don't understand the subject.
 
The_Patriot said:
Sounds like you have class envy. It's their property and the government wasn't there when the person earned it. In fact, the government made it difficult for that person to earn it to begin with. Are you implying that the ultra-wealthy don't have a right to have their views represented?
Click to expand...

And the government wasn’t there when they earned it??!? What the **** do you call the roads that let them and their customers drive to work, the government subsidies that prevent violent price fluctuations, the foreign policies that keep trade routes open and maintain conditions that favor the US, the public education that lets their customers read their ads, the police that keep people from breaking into their business, the tax breaks that ease the pains of starting a business, the financial regulation that prevents banks from ganking them, and the zoning regulations that prevents a coal factory from opening up next door?

The government was there every step of the way and the people that are wealthier stand to loose more money than anybody else if the government stopped spending tax dollars on that ****.
 
obvious Child said:
How convenient. I point out how you should not be taken seriously on the estate tax due to your demonstrated ignorance of it, to which you insult me and call my arguments about stepped up basis "ASSumptions" to which I prove myself completely true...and you change your argument entirely.



Such as? I pointed out in post #32 you are entirely wrong about how the estate tax functions.

Post #43, which entirely is about your understanding of the estate tax as demonstrated in your posts was called "an opinion" by you in post #44.

Part of that post was about stepped up basis. Therefore, you have called the stepped up basis of inheritance assets "an opinion." The IRC code I posted shows it is indeed a fact. You are wrong.



I'm not the one who called stepped up basis "an ASSumption." You did.



And you are about to be in violation of the basement rule. Stick to the subject here. You called my argument, which was partially about the stepped up basis "an opinion." You are wrong about this entirely.



And once again, you can't admit you are wrong or admit you don't understand the subject.
Click to expand...

What is wrong is people like you demanding that the government take more and more wealth of its citizens to grow the government more and more.

And you again mischaracterize my point

and btw I said all over the board, nothing more nothing less and I was referencing this sesction and well as two others that are in the General Politics Section
 
Last edited:
fiscalini-purple-moon.jpg
 
earthworm said:
The estate tax primarily affects the ultra wealthy - they can afford it.
This character is a conservative, and we know who they serve.
Click to expand...
Who has the constitutional right to determine who is wealthy and who is not, not to mention what constitutional right do we have to double tax a individual becasue we assume they are wealthy. Estate tax doesn't only affect the wealthy, it affects everyone and IMO it is unconstitutional.
 
TurtleDude said:
What is wrong is people like you demanding that the government take more and more wealth of its citizens to grow the government more and more.
Click to expand...

Once again you prove you are incapable of addressing what you quote.

And you again mischaracterize my point
Click to expand...

PROVE IT.

Look, I posted the link to the post which you called wrong. That post was about step up basis. You then kept arguing my position on step up was "an opinion" and "an ASSumption." I then cited the actual tax code proving as usual, I'm correct. You now then are lying about what you said. Pity you can't go back and change your posts. Anyone can read how you called my argument based on the tax code "an opinion" and "an ASSumption."

How about you man up and admit you are wrong for once?

and btw I said all over the board, nothing more nothing less and I was referencing this sesction and well as two others that are in the General Politics Section
Click to expand...

Sure you were. Nice way to avoid admitting you are 100% wrong here.
 
obvious Child said:
Once again you prove you are incapable of addressing what you quote.



PROVE IT.

Look, I posted the link to the post which you called wrong. That post was about step up basis. You then kept arguing my position on step up was "an opinion" and "an ASSumption." I then cited the actual tax code proving as usual, I'm correct. You now then are lying about what you said. Pity you can't go back and change your posts. Anyone can read how you called my argument based on the tax code "an opinion" and "an ASSumption."

How about you man up and admit you are wrong for once?



Sure you were. Nice way to avoid admitting you are 100% wrong here.
Click to expand...

Yawn-YOu want the government to take more wealth, I want the government to be placed on the mother of all diets. And everyone knows what you have done.
 
So, anyone care to explain what TurtleDude and obvious Child are discussing?

I can't seem to figure it out.
 
The Mark said:
So, anyone care to explain what TurtleDude and obvious Child are discussing?

I can't seem to figure it out.
Click to expand...

its simple

I oppose the government taxing estates

OC is a big fan of the government taking more and more wealth from those who already were being taxed at the top rate.

I oppose taxes on income etc. If there is to be a tax on income it should be at the same rate so politicians cannot buy the votes of people like OC by promising them that everything they want will be paid by "the rich" being taxed at higher and higher rates.
 
The Mark said:
So, anyone care to explain what TurtleDude and obvious Child are discussing?

I can't seem to figure it out.
Click to expand...

I pointed out in post #32 how Turtledude's understanding of the estate tax was horribly flawed, namely how assets receive stepped up basis. Turtle believes (wrongly) that assets do not receive stepped up basis are taxed when the inheritor sells the asset. I then pointed out how that leads to very perverse incentives meant to bypass the tax code by abusing the 501(c) section of the tax code.

He then spent a couple posts saying all my argument was, was an opinion and as I quote "an ASSumption." I then cited the actual tax code and he's spent the rest couple of posts lying about what he said. I don't expect him to admit he's wrong. Hell, I gave up expecting him to even reply with relevant comments.

As for Turtledude's warped version of reality, merely reading the posts shows he is once again, lying.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
I pointed out in post #32 how Turtledude's understanding of the estate tax was horribly flawed, namely how assets receive stepped up basis. Turtle believes (wrongly) that assets do not receive stepped up basis are taxed when the inheritor sells the asset. I then pointed out how that leads to very perverse incentives meant to bypass the tax code by abusing the 501(c) section of the tax code.

He then spent a couple posts saying all my argument was, was an opinion and as I quote "an ASSumption." I then cited the actual tax code and he's spent the rest couple of posts lying about what he said. I don't expect him to admit he's wrong. Hell, I gave up expecting him to even reply with relevant comments.

As for Turtledude's warped version of reality, merely reading the posts shows he is once again, lying.
Click to expand...

wrong again

I mentioned what I thought the law should be

you wrongly assumed that I was confusing what is with what should be.

and you have lied about me constantly
 
obvious Child said:
I pointed out in post #32 how Turtledude's understanding of the estate tax was horribly flawed, namely how assets receive stepped up basis. Turtle believes (wrongly) that assets do not receive stepped up basis are taxed when the inheritor sells the asset. I then pointed out how that leads to very perverse incentives meant to bypass the tax code by abusing the 501(c) section of the tax code.

He then spent a couple posts saying all my argument was, was an opinion and as I quote "an ASSumption." I then cited the actual tax code and he's spent the rest couple of posts lying about what he said. I don't expect him to admit he's wrong. Hell, I gave up expecting him to even reply with relevant comments.

As for Turtledude's warped version of reality, merely reading the posts shows he is once again, lying.
Click to expand...
Bottom line is there shouldn't be a estate tax period, for anyone on any income level. When one is earning their way through life they are already being taxed from their income and purchases, so what constitutional right does the government have to tax again what one has already paid taxes on.
 
TurtleDude said:
its simple

I oppose the government taxing estates

OC is a big fan of the government taking more and more wealth from those who already were being taxed at the top rate.

I oppose taxes on income etc. If there is to be a tax on income it should be at the same rate so politicians cannot buy the votes of people like OC by promising them that everything they want will be paid by "the rich" being taxed at higher and higher rates.
Click to expand...
Ok.

obvious Child said:
I pointed out in post #32 how Turtledude's understanding of the estate tax was horribly flawed, namely how assets receive stepped up basis. Turtle believes (wrongly) that assets do not receive stepped up basis are taxed when the inheritor sells the asset. I then pointed out how that leads to very perverse incentives meant to bypass the tax code by abusing the 501(c) section of the tax code.

He then spent a couple posts saying all my argument was, was an opinion and as I quote "an ASSumption." I then cited the actual tax code and he's spent the rest couple of posts lying about what he said. I don't expect him to admit he's wrong. Hell, I gave up expecting him to even reply with relevant comments.

As for Turtledude's warped version of reality, merely reading the posts shows he is once again, lying.
Click to expand...
So, basically, you disagree with TD's description of how a portion of the estate tax's function(s) work, at some point in past posts (I apparently missed it).

And he has yet to say he was incorrect in that description?

Or provide a counterpoint if he thinks that he is correct?

It appears to me that he simply doesn't care, as despite you being correct or incorrect, he would still oppose the estate tax.
 
The Mark said:
Ok.

So, basically, you disagree with TD's description of how a portion of the estate tax's function(s) work, at some point in past posts (I apparently missed it).
Click to expand...

Technically, the tax code itself as demonstrated in my posts disagrees with TD's description of how the estate tax works.

And he has yet to say he was incorrect in that description?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Despite me asking him exactly that.

Or provide a counterpoint if he thinks that he is correct?
Click to expand...

All I've gotten is partisan vomit about why liberals are bad and why estate tax is evil. As TD has demonstrated an sizable amount of ignorance as to how the estate tax works, why should we listen to anything he says about it? If you cannot even understand the most basic aspect of the estate tax, saying it's evil doesn't carry much weight.

It appears to me that he simply doesn't care, as despite you being correct or incorrect, he would still oppose the estate tax.
Click to expand...

That much is absolutely certain.
 
deltabtry said:
Bottom line is there shouldn't be a estate tax period, for anyone on any income level. When one is earning their way through life they are already being taxed from their income and purchases, so what constitutional right does the government have to tax again what one has already paid taxes on.
Click to expand...

Okay, why should untaxed gains in estates be free from taxation but all other gains be taxed?

Fundmentally, what is different from a stock in an estate with $10 in untaxed gain from a stock in a regular portfolio with an untaxed $10 gain? Why should the untaxed gain on the estate tax escape taxation but the non-estate stock gain get taxed?

Turtledude refused to answer this. Maybe you can take a try on it?

Both you and him seem to think that estates are only made up of post tax items. This suggests large amounts of ignorance regarding the estate tax.
 
The Mark said:
Ok.

So, basically, you disagree with TD's description of how a portion of the estate tax's function(s) work, at some point in past posts (I apparently missed it).

And he has yet to say he was incorrect in that description?

Or provide a counterpoint if he thinks that he is correct?

It appears to me that he simply doesn't care, as despite you being correct or incorrect, he would still oppose the estate tax.
Click to expand...

I was suggesting the following

your father has a painting-he bought it for 20K. If he were to sell it before he dies for 100K he pays capital gains on the 80 grand increase. Now some claim that if there is no estate tax, and you were to receive that painting and you were later to sell it for 100K you wouldn't have to pay any tax. I was suggesting that if you sell something the basis should be the original cost as if the death never would have happened.

now I oppose all taxes on income or wealth for the reasons I have stated over 100 times. Progressive income taxes or estate taxes are used by the politicians who represent income redistributionists (as oppose to wealth creators or wealth owners) to gain power by promising people like obvious child more and more government handouts that he won't have to pay. A politician who told every person on the dole that they will have to face increased taxes for their increased benefits would never win their votes.

someone who tells obvious child that his entitlements will only be paid for by "the rich" getting hit with more and more taxes will earn his vote.

and in the long run, the whole system collapses when those pandering to the tax consumers run out of other peoples' money needed to buy the votes of their followers.
 
Anything the eliminates the grave-robbing evil of the estate tax is a good thing.

Why shouldn't something that helps the economy be piggy-backed on something as wasteful as more unemployment handouts that do nothing for the economy?
 
TurtleDude said:
I was suggesting the following

your father has a painting-he bought it for 20K. If he were to sell it before he dies for 100K he pays capital gains on the 80 grand increase. Now some claim that if there is no estate tax, and you were to receive that painting and you were later to sell it for 100K you wouldn't have to pay any tax. I was suggesting that if you sell something the basis should be the original cost as if the death never would have happened.

now I oppose all taxes on income or wealth for the reasons I have stated over 100 times. Progressive income taxes or estate taxes are used by the politicians who represent income redistributionists (as oppose to wealth creators or wealth owners) to gain power by promising people like obvious child more and more government handouts that he won't have to pay. A politician who told every person on the dole that they will have to face increased taxes for their increased benefits would never win their votes.

someone who tells obvious child that his entitlements will only be paid for by "the rich" getting hit with more and more taxes will earn his vote.

and in the long run, the whole system collapses when those pandering to the tax consumers run out of other peoples' money needed to buy the votes of their followers.
Click to expand...

I suggest the following:

If there's no estate tax, there's no reason the government should have to know what the estate contains, outside of registered transferrables such as stocks, bonds, and titled property.

Thus, if a painting is handed down, and the heir sells it for a mega buck or two, there's no reason the government has to be bothered about it. The government didn't do anything to create the art, the government didn't have an interest in the art before, the government didn't take any risk in the ownership of the art, and the government didn't have any emotional attachment to it. Thus, if an heir sells an inheritance as a private party, the government gets nothing, because it's none of the government's business in the first place.


The fact that a valuable property exists is not sufficient reason for the government to steal part of it.
 
The_Patriot said:
I just thought of something... the colonies went to war with one of the reasons being taxation without representation. Since the property belongs to a dead person wouldn't that be taxation without representation?
Click to expand...

The property doesn't belong to a dead person.

The property belongs to his heirs the moment he dies. The issues involving inheritance are what property goes to which heirs, and what outstanding debt existed for the deceased when he died that has to be paid before the estate is settled?

Ain't no reason any government agency should be lining up with their guns and hands out demanding a cut of something they did nothing to help earn.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I suggest the following:

If there's no estate tax, there's no reason the government should have to know what the estate contains, outside of registered transferrables such as stocks, bonds, and titled property.

Thus, if a painting is handed down, and the heir sells it for a mega buck or two, there's no reason the government has to be bothered about it. The government didn't do anything to create the art, the government didn't have an interest in the art before, the government didn't take any risk in the ownership of the art, and the government didn't have any emotional attachment to it. Thus, if an heir sells an inheritance as a private party, the government gets nothing, because it's none of the government's business in the first place.


The fact that a valuable property exists is not sufficient reason for the government to steal part of it.
Click to expand...

I like that thinking-I agree completely
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom