TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The Death Tax
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what i find most amusing about libertarian theory is that it doesn't appreciate it possesses the seeds for its own demise. who was it that said modern societies are "only 3 meals away from revolution"? if we had a truly libertarian society, the polarisation of classes would be stark/complete and all that would happen is that huge throngs of the disenfranchised would just take what they wanted by force. how do you organise a response to rioting, looting and violence when your privatised police force is fractured and only protecting certain areas they've been paid to protect? as much as libertarians hate the welfare state, ive always been of the opinion that it has functioned as a form of social control, which is why you'll find lots of the radical left that have a problem with it too.

In a true libertarian state, the general level of prosperity would be much higher than it is now...so I think the chance of "class polarization" would be minimal. Even if it were to occur, I don't think many libertarians are against the idea of government providing police and military forces. According to the libertarian philosophy, protecting people from physical violence is one of the only (if not THE only) legitimate function of government. I'm a hardcore libertarian on most issues and think the idea of privatized police is just plain stupid.

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The problem is, for me anyway, is not the tax system we use. If you could convince me that whatever tax system would provide adequite revenues to pay for public resources then fine. However, when tax systems are introduced to favour rich people, that is only going to lead to an overall decrease in the amount of revenue collected by government. Therefore, you'd have to make huge cut backs in public spending, which I would be against anyway, but assuming you don't care much for public spending, you CANNOT propose less taxes unless that goes in tandem with an explanation of which public services you will cut back on (and even then you need to make sure your figures tally up)

Please explain to me how our current progressive tax code in the states favors rich people?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Please explain to me how our current progressive tax code in the states favors rich people?

Don't recall saying it did?

Why don't you answer the points in my quote instead of inventing yet more strawmen to argue against?

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt In a true libertarian state, the general level of prosperity would be much higher than it is now...

i dont have the time or inclination to get into a big argument now (it IS friday night after all!) but i just wanna say that's complete nonsense.

the best form of society (read: highest level of prosperity) is generated from a mixed economy, which is why all the western democracies have one

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Don't recall saying it did? Why don't you answer the points in my quote instead of inventing yet more strawmen to argue against?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The problem is, for me anyway, is not the tax system we use. If you could convince me that whatever tax system would provide adequite revenues to pay for public resources then fine. However, when tax systems are introduced to favour rich people, that is only going to lead to an overall decrease in the amount of revenue collected by government. Therefore, you'd have to make huge cut backs in public spending, which I would be against anyway, but assuming you don't care much for public spending, you CANNOT propose less taxes unless that goes in tandem with an explanation of which public services you will cut back on (and even then you need to make sure your figures tally up)

Jesus Christ George, it's not a strawman. I'm responding to specific things that you have said. If you don't mean to imply that my country's tax code favors the rich then why would you even say something like the above quote and why are you even participating in this debate? For the last time, the topic of this thread is the death tax (and more specifically the death tax in the U.S.). Fuck-n-a dude.

Were you ever...correction: How many times did your mommy drop you on your head when you were a baby?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Jesus Christ George, it's not a strawman. I'm responding to specific things that you have said. If you don't mean to imply that my country's tax code favors the rich then why would you even say something like the above quote and why are you even participating in this debate? For the last time, the topic of this thread is the death tax (and more specifically the death tax in the U.S.). Fuck-n-a dude. Were you ever...correction: How many times did your mommy drop you on your head when you were a baby?

Because me and Capitalizt weren't dicussing the current American tax system but a hypothetical tax system that Capitalizt would like to see introduced. See this is exactly what I'm talking about. If the government invested heavily in people's education then we wouldn't have to put up with the levels of illiteracy as demostrated by Shakka!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Because me and Capitalizt weren't dicussing the current American tax system but a hypothetical tax system that Capitalizt would like to see introduced. See this is exactly what I'm talking about. If the government invested heavily in people's education then we wouldn't have to put up with the levels of illiteracy as demostrated by Shakka!

So then you're completely fine with the U.S. tax code and all of your whining and carrying on for the last 4 pages has been for naught?

p.s. My education didn't cost taxpayers a single dime (in fact I'm still paying for it

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka So then you're completely fine with the U.S. tax code and all of your whining and carrying on for the last 4 pages has been for naught?

Yawn, stop putting words in my mouth cos you've done that every post and I don't think anyone's falling for it

I don't know what the specific rates of tax are in America other than that it is a progressive system. IMO taxes should be higher across the board but progressively higher the richer people are. But to be honest, my gripe isn't too much with individual tax, but with low corporate taxes. I think corporate tax should be higher for the massive corporations (this could give smaller businesses a break giving all the benefis you like to harp on about)

Basically, if the government cannot afford to pay for the necessary public services then taxes are not high enough

quote:

p.s. My education didn't cost taxpayers a single dime (in fact I'm still paying for it

Here's 2p, go get your sen a new degree!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Yawn, stop putting words in my mouth cos you've done that every post and I don't think anyone's falling for it I don't know what the specific rates of tax are in America other than that it is a progressive system. IMO taxes should be higher across the board but progressively higher the richer people are. But to be honest, my gripe isn't too much with individual tax, but with low corporate taxes. I think corporate tax should be higher for the massive corporations (this could give smaller businesses a break giving all the benefis you like to harp on about)

Forgive me then, George, but for the life of me I can't figure out why you threw your hat into the ring on this topic if you have no problem with the progressive system we have in my country. It would appear that you've attempted to hijack this thread and make it about something else.

And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm attempting to draw rational conclusions based on your constant verbal diarreah.

quote:

Basically, if the government cannot afford to pay for the necessary public services then taxes are not high enough

Certainly even you can acknowledge that the government takes in more than enough revenues to accomplish all of the social programs you desire and more, however spendthrift politicians continue to waste those revenues on boondoggles and special interests and the result is a massive budget deficit and de-prioritization of programs that you think have more merit. Don't blame the tax code George--blame the government that you love so much and want to make so much bigger (by increasing taxes).

quote:

Here's 2p, go get your sen a new degree!

It's serving me just fine, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Forgive me then, George, but for the life of me I can't figure out why you threw your hat into the ring on this topic if you have no problem with the progressive system we have in my country. It would appear that you've attempted to hijack this thread and make it about something else.

FFS! I said I don't know what the specific tax rates are in America! Not that I agree with them!

Who the fuck gives you the right to dictate that this thread is about America? All our countries have inheritance tax so why don't you try being a little less of a stereotypical ignorant American?

quote:

And I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm attempting to draw rational conclusions based on your constant verbal diarreah.

Sorry but you've done it with every post you've written in this thread

quote:

Certainly even you can acknowledge that the government takes in more than enough revenues to accomplish all of the social programs you desire and more, however spendthrift politicians continue to waste those revenues on boondoggles and special interests and the result is a massive budget deficit and de-prioritization of programs that you think have more merit. Don't blame the tax code George--blame the government that you love so much and want to make so much bigger (by increasing taxes).

Well if you wanna talk specifically about America then no, I don't love them and they certainly do NOT provide anywhere near the basic services that I think a government should provide to their citizens. So nice try, but again, you putting words in my mouth and creating straw men...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley FFS! I said I don't know what the specific tax rates are in America! Not that I agree with them! Who the fuck gives you the right to dictate that this thread is about America? All our countries have inheritance tax so why don't you try being a little less of a stereotypical ignorant American?

George, I'm not dictating anything (you're the fan of dictators, remember?)

The title of the thread is "The Death Tax." The title obviously doesn't specify which country the author is talking about but the author (Donnybrasco) was quite specific in his opening remarks that he was talking SPECIFICALLY about the current tax in the U.S.

quote:

originally posted by Donnybrasco So the Death Tax (which sunsets in 2010 but will be up for potential renewal by the time our new President is in office) is one of my personal major concerns for this election year...and yet ANOTHER reason that I will once again, not be voting Democrat.

Quit being so fucking obtuse.

And for what it's worth, I provided a simple argument against a death tax in any society but you felt the need to delve into your personal tirade of incoherent nonsense. My original argument on the death tax (any death tax in any fucking nation in the fucking known universe) stands.

quote:

The government did not create the wealth, it should not be the government's place to arbitrarily take possession of that wealth just because someone has passed on. The rights of the creator to pass the fruits of his/her labor on to those of his/her choosing should always supercede the will of the government to attempt to forcibly steal that wealth for its own coffers in any true democracy based on individual rights and justice. Furthermore, the amount of wealth is irrelevant in this argument as it is the principle of the "death tax" that is being debated, not how it should be applied to those in the highest income brackets.

quote:

Sorry but you've done it with every post you've written in this thread

I disagree. Quit playing bait-and-switch.

Inheritance tax is no different to income tax

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Inheritance tax is no different to income tax

Well thank god we got that sorted out. I mean if only you'd made such a comprehensive, thoughtful and rational argument 5 pages ago we could've saved plenty of time.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I don't think many libertarians are against the idea of government providing police and military forces. According to the libertarian philosophy, protecting people from physical violence is one of the only (if not THE only) legitimate function of government.

+1!

I would even go so far that I would pay a 5% salestax for that to exist and function! There would be no other taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN ...CEOs et al. dont make this money all by themselves.

??? What is that supposed to mean?

Really Raisin, sometimes you say things that just leave me wondering if you ever went to school and learned anything.

You guys have this view that a CEO "seizes" power by force then proceeds to rape the company he works for for all it's worth, whilst the poor, poor employees (or "slaves" as you guys like to think of them) suffer as the CEO plays golf and gets fat on free corporate lunches all day long.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ??? What is that supposed to mean? Really Raisin, sometimes you say things that just leave me wondering if you ever went to school and learned anything. You guys have this view that a CEO "seizes" power by force then proceeds to rape the company he works for for all it's worth, whilst the poor, poor employees (or "slaves" as you guys like to think of them) suffer as the CEO plays golf and gets fat on free corporate lunches all day long.

no, you just have a funny way of choosing to interpret what people say, because you are just THAT one-sided.

what i was saying is that the majority of money made by any corporation is made by the workers, the CEOs etc dictate the structure and direction of the company, but the goods and/or services provided by any company are generated by those at the bottom, not at the top of the corporate ladder.

Re: The Death Tax

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco So the Death Tax (which sunsets in 2010 but will be up for potential renewal by the time our new President is in office) is one of my personal major concerns for this election year...and yet ANOTHER reason that I will once again, not be voting Democrat. I don't know how anyone can justify stepping in at possibly the worst time in a person's life, and essentially stealing half of what your close relative owned (after the deductible, of course). It's basically a socialist tax...and a Democrat notion that somehow, it's ok to diffuse wealth and punish people for being too successful in life. It's a sickening, unfair, ruinous tax that every time I see some Politician defending, I want to kick my T.V. in.

and you are concerned because someone you know has 2 million waiting for you? plus, with a crafty tax attorney rich people avoid far more than that; a common saying is that you only pay an estate tax if you want to. furthermore, you can easily avoid the estate tax by giving the property to a spouse (there are tons of other ways to avoid it and that's why estate planners make $$$).

one benefit that you will lose because of the repeal is what is called a "stepped up" basis in the assets you receive from the person who died. Essentially, that means when you get property from someone who died you get to treat the property like you just bought it at the current fair market value so that when you sell it in the future you don't have to pay as much tax on the sale (you are normally taxed on the difference in purchase price and sales price - it's more complicated than that, but you get the point). You get this benefit even if there is no estate tax. And since most people don't pay estate tax this is a huge benefit for everyone. With the repeal of the estate tax this benefit is gone. Therefore, someone who would have received a house from their father who died, which would have had a stepped up basis (even though no estate tax was paid) and a resulting lower tax on the eventual sale of the house, will now have to treat the house as if he purchased the house at the same price his father did, and the tax will be much higher. The loss of the stepped up basis affect far more people than the repeal of a tax that applies to very few rich people.

It's uninformed people like you don't even pay the tax, who rally for the cause of a few rich people, that cause the masses to lose this important benefit. do some research first!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Bottom line: The government did not create the wealth, it should not be the government's place to arbitrarily take possession of that wealth just because someone has passed on.

Really....so the infrastructure created by the government played no role in the creation of the wealth. The market regulations that allowed that person the fair opportunity to earn that money had no role. PLEASE!!!

Even if you won't say that much, i'm sure you would agree that the government assisted in the preservation of the wealth by maintaining a police force that prevented people from forcibly stealing that wealth.

Re: Re: The Death Tax

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 and you are concerned because someone you know has 2 million waiting for you?

Nope. Are your presumptions always this trite?

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 plus, with a crafty tax attorney rich people avoid far more than that; a common saying is that you only pay an estate tax if you want to.

PLEASE explain to me how ANYONE has EVER gotten out of paying estate tax on a taxable inheritance? You're pulling crap out of your ass and holding it up as fact, when it is nothing but bad gossip.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 furthermore, you can easily avoid the estate tax by giving the property to a spouse (there are tons of other ways to avoid it and that's why estate planners make $$$).

Are you saying that if I get an inheritance from a relative, and I don't want to pay tax on it, I can turn it over to my spouse and pay no tax?

Answer this question clearly first, and then I'll address the rest of your sophomoric post

Re: Re: Re: The Death Tax

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Are you saying that if I get an inheritance from a relative, and I don't want to pay tax on it, I can turn it over to my spouse and pay no tax?

Don't know the rules in America (I'm sure you can look it up) but in the UK here's one exception to inheritance tax:

quote:

if your estate passes to your husband, wife or civil partner and you are both domiciled in the UK there is no Inheritance Tax to pay even if it's above the �300,000 nil rate band http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTa...usts/DG_4016736

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 Really....so the infrastructure created by the government played no role in the creation of the wealth. The market regulations that allowed that person the fair opportunity to earn that money had no role. PLEASE!!!

I fail to see how this is really relevant. These are all things that have been bought and paid for in the past with taxpayer funds.

quote:

Even if you won't say that much, i'm sure you would agree that the government assisted in the preservation of the wealth by maintaining a police force that prevented people from forcibly stealing that wealth.

Well that is (or at least should be) a government's primary function (protecting the rights of its citizens). I'm not sure where you're trying to go with any of this.

It's a bit outside of the fray of this thread, but I'd like to point out that there has been plenty of criticism lobbed against CEOs that get paid millions yet I have not heard a single mention of anyone like the Hollywood elite or athletes who are both paid as much if not significantly more than the corporate brass that get so much criticism. Is that because most of Hollywood is extremely liberal and more supportive of socialist leaning viewpoints and therefore beyond reproach from some of the critics? I mean, what say you about Jennifer Lopez being paid $4M just for letting someone take "Exclusive first pictures" of her babies? That to me is a lot more offensive than a CEO getting paid a few million dollars for actually doing something to manage a company that produces goods and services that people actually use and/or need.

Re: Re: Re: The Death Tax

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco PLEASE explain to me how ANYONE has EVER gotten out of paying estate tax on a taxable inheritance? You're pulling crap out of your ass and holding it up as fact, when it is nothing but bad gossip.

first of all, you don't pay taxes on your inheritance; the estate of the person who died pays the estate tax. when you understand the basic underpinnings of estate tax then come talk to me about it.

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Are you saying that if I get an inheritance from a relative, and I don't want to pay tax on it, I can turn it over to my spouse and pay no tax?

with an emphatic yes, i am saying that if you give your wealth to a spouse it is not taxed under the estate tax. there are other techniques to limit estate tax exposure by taking giving away your wealth to your beneficiaries before you die. there are tons of techniques; you would be amazed at how little rich people can pay with the right legal advice. i see it all the time because this is what i do to earn my living.

More importantly, you saying that you will reply to my 'sophmoric post' after I answer that question shows you truly don't have a full understanding of the impact of a repeal. the loss of the 'stepped up' basis in property received from a decedent is far more damaging to the average person. now, most people who don't have to pay tax after selling property received from a decedent will have to pay tax after the repeal. furthermore, if the property was purchased at a really low price by the decedent and the price has appreciated significantly, that sale will result in a huge gain to the beneficiary. under the current system if you immediately sell property you receive from a decedent you owe no tax on the sale. the repeal is actually supposed to create a revenue increase because of this little known feature. for all you republicans, that amounts to, yes, a tax increase.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka It's a bit outside of the fray of this thread, but I'd like to point out that there has been plenty of criticism lobbed against CEOs that get paid millions yet I have not heard a single mention of anyone like the Hollywood elite or athletes who are both paid as much if not significantly more than the corporate brass that get so much criticism. Is that because most of Hollywood is extremely liberal and more supportive of socialist leaning viewpoints and therefore beyond reproach from some of the critics? I mean, what say you about Jennifer Lopez being paid $4M just for letting someone take "Exclusive first pictures" of her babies? That to me is a lot more offensive than a CEO getting paid a few million dollars for actually doing something to manage a company that produces goods and services that people actually use and/or need.

Ha! Socialist my arse!

Liberalism does NOT equal socialism!

And my views on tax payers in the highest wage bracket also include Hollywood stars and athletes.

But to answer your question, CEOs are a different kettle of fish because the wealth to pay for their wage/bonus/earnings has been created by workers at the bottom of the company, the other professions you mention are in effect their own company. Of course, their earnings are also created by workers at the bottom of other companies but those workers do not work directly for the actor/athlete/etc

Anyway, you are right, it is irrelevant and as usual, you are completely wrong in trying to determine the reasoning behind people's opinions (again reeling out the tired "you're jealous" falso argument)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I fail to see how this is really relevant. These are all things that have been bought and paid for in the past with taxpayer funds.

it has everything to do with it. without the infrastructure put into place by the government, private citizens don't have the ability to deliver products, services, etc.... the government fosters the environment that enables people to make money. if the government had no role (or an insignificant one) in fostering this ability then the people of north korea, mali, cameroon, libya, ecuador, etc.... should on the same playing field. clearly, that is not the case. the main difference is that those governments have not created an infrastructure (roads, trains, ports, telephone services, universities, etc...) that fosters the creation of wealth.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka These are all things that have been bought and paid for in the past with taxpayer funds.

That's kind of the point. To ensure that we have these things to foster economic prosperity, we need a well funded government (funded by all the people) that can ensure that the proper infrasture is in place. And rich people should rightly bear a greater percentage of the economic burden of the cost of the government because they utilize government resources (for the creation of their wealth) more than poor/middle class people. If you don't believe that comment just think about a the owner of a trucking company. The owner of that company gets to use the interstate highway system for his business, largely for free, at the expense of taxpayer dollars (to repair the road, etc...).

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Well that is (or at least should be) a government's primary function (protecting the rights of its citizens). I'm not sure where you're trying to go with any of this.

the point is that without that function, people would just steal your shit. the only thing that stops people is the police force and the judicial system. It would be disingenuous to say that the police force and judicial system (and therefore the government) don't play a role in wealth preservation of every individual by conducting their principal function, and wealth preservation is just as important as wealth creation. you can twist your logic any way you want, but without the police force and the threat of jail (again - and therefore the government), you would be much more concerned about the preservation of your own wealth.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.