Why do you have more of a right to my money when I die than my kids do? Answer this simple question or all of the rest of your crap is meaningless.
Sinsear
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2007
- 6,439
- 80
- 91
Speaking of meaningless crap
....What gives someone the right to transfer assets, the basis of which in many cases has never been taxed at its current value, "tax free" to their heirs?
and LOL @ Pulsar
You can't "...have your cake and eat it, too".
Either your grand parents had a working family farm, or they didn't. Either their heirs (your parents and you) had the plethora of options (under local, state and federal tax provisions) for protecting the property as a farm (or timber land, open space or conservation, preservation and/or scenic easement/property) or, they elected to "cash-out".
You can't have it both ways. Either the heirs wanted to protect the property, or, they chose not to protect the property.
You are not telling us the whole story.
--
No, you have it wrong. I've never heard anyone say that, by the way, and it's not the reason.
You, like so many on the right, have no clue about 'society', and so you make bad policies preferences.
It's not about 'shaping society', which is a right-wing misguided cultish frame for the topic.
Do you want a strong middle class, or an oligarchy? *Either* choice is 'shaping society' by your warped frame. The taxes are going to get taxed - either from middle class or estate.
You like to pretend that you are not 'choosing' - contradicting Rush (if you don't get the reference, it's ok).
The point isn't to 'shape society', it's to pick the best place to burden society, for the good of society, and you are picking that frame, not your imaginary 'do nothing' frame.
So is shifting this tax onto the rest of the society, which is your choice. Your hands aren't clean, they're smeared in green, but more than his. You're the ideologue here.
Let's ask you the same question, since you are saying you are better to decide than the people who get the tax if it doesn't get taxes on estates.
As I said before, you name the people you want the tax to go on instead, and why you are so great to take their money.
Because it's their damn property and they can do whatever the hell they want with it. What gives you the right to tax it or tell them otherwise?Speaking of meaningless crap
What gives someone the right to transfer assets, the basis of which in many cases has never been taxed at its current value, "tax free" to their heirs?
Your blinders must keep you from realizing there is *another option*.
Wow. Referring to a song penned by someone who has widely been panned as one of the worst lyricists of all time in his genre. That's a good way to get your point across.
The US Constitution.
So, you are not even close. Answer the question:
What gives someone the right to transfer assets, the basis of which in many cases has never been taxed at its current value, "tax free" to their heirs?
--
Speaking of meaningless crap
What gives someone the right to transfer assets, the basis of which in many cases has never been taxed at its current value, "tax free" to their heirs?
Can I slightly shift your answer?
The fundamental problem with the right here is that they have no clue about society or taxes.
This is why to them, *every* tax is 'theft', with melodramatic rhetoric 'at the point of a gun'.
What they're really arguing for, but don't have the guts or honesty to admit, is not to have taxes. That's the argument they use - but when called on it, they run away, saying "oh we don't mean that, we're ok with defending the country, we're not really for anarchy', whether anarchy happens out of their policies, well, 'sorry we weren't for it'.
They'll say they just want LOWER taxes - but are clueless about drawing the lines, or perhaps more importantly, the proper democratic system for deciding where to draw them.
The basic idea of 'the public' voting for representatives who make those choices is beyond them - it's all criminal theft if they don't personally approve every dollar.
What they're crying for is totally unworkable, but it lets them 'play politics' and get their little friends to play with them, waving 'Obama is Stalin' signed when they play at the park.
I don't have a problem with their starting out wanting to keep all their money - they'd respond to your post that saying you need a 'right' to want that is backwards.
The 'right' is needed to tax you, not to keep your own money, and saying otherwise is 'Statism' like in Stalinist USSR when your money is the state's.
Of course this is their deluded idiocy about a nugget of truth.
The answer isn't that they don't have a valid starting point, but that there's an answer to their question.
As Oliver Wendell Holmes said IIRC, 'taxes are the price we pay for society', and democracy is the process for setting them. The answer to the question what right there is to take their money is that they get the benefit of civilization, and the public has the right to tax some of their money, through our democratic process. That's the constitution we passed in 1789, before which people owed taxes because the King (and a parliament representing the English rich and not them) said so.
That's the answer to his ignorant, childish 'hooked on civics' question.
Last edited:
A rational person would lay out the 'third option' you claim and argue for it. You aren't that.
The point did not rest on him, a rational person would get that it was a quip. No other response?
Wow, Craig. Just when I think you've reached the pinnacle of your stupidity, you find another apex to climb.
Would you please find anyone here who thinks that there should be no taxes at all?
What's funny is that people like Craig are too childish and lack the testicular fortitude to say "no" when people hold out their hand to the government. It's much easier to just continue to take more and more from the "haves" to give to the "have nots" (or, should I say, to pet projects / companies of individual members of our government). Where does it stop?
Face it, Craig, you've been played by the left that has formed your idea of "society".
Would you please find anyone here who thinks that there should be no taxes at all?
What's funny is that people like Craig are too childish and lack the testicular fortitude to say "no" when people hold out their hand to the government. It's much easier to just continue to take more and more from the "haves" to give to the "have nots" (or, should I say, to pet projects / companies of individual members of our government). Where does it stop?
Face it, Craig, you've been played by the left that has formed your idea of "society".
An intelligent person (heck - anybody that's not borderline deficient) wouldn't be too ignorant to see that there are more options than "raise more taxes" and "raise more taxes". *You* aren't that.
Yeah - rock on :rolleyes
The Constitution says, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers..." That does not supply any logical justification for an estate tax - it simply says that it is within the bounds of the Constitution. I asked you for a logical justification as to why you have as much or more of a right to my money when I die than my own children.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,405
- 8,585
- 126
A Senator proposes a tax on the estates of the top 0.3% and you turn it into a proposal to create a communist society. Who can argue with that!
That's referring to federal taxes on the sale of goods between states, not with foreign nations. Most of the federal income came from trade tariffs before the income tax.
Patranus
Diamond Member
- Apr 15, 2007
- 9,280
- 0
- 0
All of those sounds like really really really (really, really, really) bad ideas.
Yes, lets tax investment when we are trying to encourage it.....right.
(unless by means testing you mean opt out of SS at a certain income level)
Yes, who needs pesky things like logical justification? You want to impose your will on me and will use any means you can to do so. You are a tyrant. The difference between corporations and the government is simply that no one has to treat with a corporation, but I have no choice but to treat with the government. If I don't like how a corporation works, I simply won't do business with them. If I don't like how the government works and try not to do business with them, they will imprison or kill me. Even if I bought land far outside of any city so that I had no property taxes to pay and had no income, used no public utilities, roads, or services, and lived off my own land, and willed everything to my children who were living there with me doing the same thing, you would still feel justified taking a cut when I died. You are an evil bastard who uses the Constitution as a weapon against logic rather than as a guide to what is logical.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,405
- 8,585
- 126
those were import tariffs. export duties on goods to foreign countries are unconstitutional. exports means to foreign countries, not amongst the states or territories.
No, I didn't. Read it again. If you can't understand simple sentences have someone explain them to you. Nothing you quoted suggests "a communist society", not that there's anything wrong with that, but that isn't what I suggested.
And if you don't understand my post, my entire post as you only quoted a portion, you can always ask.
As far as I'm concerned Senator Sanders isn't being noble, or compassionate, but a selfish little prick. What he's proposing is that we, that being the generic we, steal from the super rich in order to reduce the tax burden on the moderately rich and upper middle class. The Senator's proposal doesn't do shit for the poor or lower middle class who don't make enough to pay ferderal taxes, they wouldn't see any benefit, but it would make it possible to lower the tax burden for a certain class of people.
I was simply pointing out that if you're going to steal from certain people in the name of the people you should share with the people. They do want to call it a fair tax, right?
The notion that it's basically OK to steal from some folks because they make up such a small percentage of the population is wrong and un-American. You hear socialists like Sanders say things like "we'll take it from the wealthiest 0.3%". The percentage of people that are in that category should have nothing to do with the policy. Using his logic, it's perfectly OK to steal from black people since they only make up 12% of the population. Sanders is the very model of failure.
kranky
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 21,019
- 156
- 106
Speaking for myself, I have a problem with increased taxes when at the same time:
- Congress hands out billions to favored causes via pork projects
- They pay for billions in construction projects which are stuffed with wasted money and effort
- They pass laws influenced by lobbyists that are not in the public interest, and either cost the public money or result in higher government spending
- They keep increasing the percentage of people on the government payroll
Government spending is now almost 45% of the entire GDP and still increasing! It's never been higher in the history of the US.
So being against higher taxes while the government has not addressed their spending problem doesn't make me a right winger. I only want accountability.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter