TGP Primary Poll: Republicans

[Thanatos 2,847]

the justification is to limit the development of an aristocracy and concentration of wealth (which admittedly happens anyway, there's only so much you can do to delay that and there are always workarounds) also the heirs did nothing to build that wealth so why should we care if the government takes a cut?

 

The government did nothing either, so why do they get a cut?

 

His money should go to the people he wants it to go to.

 

Like I said, way higher priorities, but the death tax is flat wrong and there is no justification for it. The government has no right to money simply because the person who owns it happens to die.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Thanatos19

[oochymp 2,393]

The government did nothing either, so why do they get a cut?

I think you missed my main point, which is that the government does nothing to 'earn' any of the money it's taking as taxes regardless of what source it's taxing, but we want the government to do stuff so we have to allow the government to tax so that it has money to do stuff

 

I'm not arguing that the death tax is good, just that it's a lesser of evils

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

There's plenty of justification for it. Your cognitive dissonance just doesn't allow you to comprehend it.

 

And again, why would I be concerned about a death tax? Even if I was a billionaire. Why does anyone need to maintain and continue accumulating wealth from the grave?

 

You claim their is justification for it, but just like always... You can't discuss those things. Probably because you can't. You have opinions on matters, which is great. But when it comes to defending those opinions and the underlying for feeling the way you do, you are left befuddled.

 

Just like Blots... "What, you don't like sales tax? *gasp*" ... Respond with why I hate the sales tax... Blots, "Woah. So you don't think government has a right to tax at all then?".

 

An issue is found that we disagree on. Side A questions Side B about how they can believe what they do. Side B explains to Side A why they believe the way they do. Side A pretends to be offended by the answer and asks more questions all the while never defending their stance with anything concrete.

I don't like stereotyping or anything, but does it shock anyone that you two are about as liberal / democratic as this board gets? You fit the mold so perfectly. lol. I don't mean that as an insult necessarily, but maybe you should take it as one.

[blotsfan 2,112]

You said you don't like the death tax. You said you don't like the income tax. You said you don't like the sales tax. So again, what taxes do you feel are justifiable?

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Ferve prolly thinks the luxury tax space on Monopoly is bullshit.

[Cherry 1,302]

Maybe if we'd get to pass go and collect $200

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

You claim their is justification for it, but just like always... You can't discuss those things. Probably because you can't. You have opinions on matters, which is great. But when it comes to defending those opinions and the underlying for feeling the way you do, you are left befuddled.

 

Just like Blots... "What, you don't like sales tax? *gasp*" ... Respond with why I hate the sales tax... Blots, "Woah. So you don't think government has a right to tax at all then?".

 

An issue is found that we disagree on. Side A questions Side B about how they can believe what they do. Side B explains to Side A why they believe the way they do. Side A pretends to be offended by the answer and asks more questions all the while never defending their stance with anything concrete.

I don't like stereotyping or anything, but does it shock anyone that you two are about as liberal / democratic as this board gets? You fit the mold so perfectly. lol. I don't mean that as an insult necessarily, but maybe you should take it as one.

 

You didn't answer my question but instead insulted me and blots...by attacking us for not explaining our positions. That's like textbook pot meet kettle.

 

You want my explanation? This may shock you and Thanatos, but billionaires use all the same public resources the rest of use to live, work, and conduct business--the difference being the rest of us don't have a massive inheritance to leave when we die. Conversely, that billionaire's heirs did nothing to earn the money aside from be good friends with him/her or sharing a last name. Considering that billionaire used public resources to amass his/her wealth and their heirs did literally nothing to earn it, why exactly would their heirs be entitled to the money tax free as opposed to the government taking a cut?

 

Your attacks on mine and blots questioning is a microcosm of pretty much every political position or argument you take - they're all strawman fallacies. I can't speak for Blots but I ask the questions I do because I want to get to the root of your reasoning. The fact that you seem to be totally oblivious to that while simultaneously insulting our intelligence speaks volumes. And I do that because your opinions never seem to be grounded in any sort of coherent political philosophy or reasoning. All due respect, but it seems to me like your opinions stem from whatever the current trending topic is on a Ron Paul forum where you've decided you agree with them if you don't understand why. I'm trying to understand the "why."

Edited October 6, 2015 by Phailadelphia

[RazorStar 4,025]

Just a question then, if the wealthy corpse decides to leave his wealth to someone, what gives the government a right to take a piece of it? I mean, the estate tax only affects 0.2% or so of people of america, but if they've taxed the income while the person is living, is it not theft if the person is dead?

[oochymp 2,393]

Just a question then, if the wealthy corpse decides to leave his wealth to someone, what gives the government a right to take a piece of it? I mean, the estate tax only affects 0.2% or so of people of america, but if they've taxed the income while the person is living, is it not theft if the person is dead?

what gives the government the right to take any money from anyone at any time? as a society we've decided we should give the government money so that we can centralize stuff like road/infrastructure, schools, courts, etc. from there it's just a question of what pots we're willing to let the government take from

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

You didn't answer my question but instead insulted me and blots...by attacking us for not explaining our positions. That's like textbook pot meet kettle.

 

You want my explanation? This may shock you and Thanatos, but billionaires use all the same public resources the rest of use to live, work, and conduct business--the difference being the rest of us don't have a massive inheritance to leave when we die. Conversely, that billionaire's heirs did nothing to earn the money aside from be good friends with him/her or sharing a last name. Considering that billionaire used public resources to amass his/her wealth and their heirs did literally nothing to earn it, why exactly would their heirs be entitled to the money tax free as opposed to the government taking a cut?

 

Your attacks on mine and blots questioning is a microcosm of pretty much every political position or argument you take - they're all strawman fallacies. I can't speak for Blots but I ask the questions I do because I want to get to the root of your reasoning. The fact that you seem to be totally oblivious to that while simultaneously insulting our intelligence speaks volumes. And I do that because your opinions never seem to be grounded in any sort of coherent political philosophy or reasoning. All due respect, but it seems to me like your opinions stem from whatever the current trending topic is on a Ron Paul forum where you've decided you agree with them if you don't understand why. I'm trying to understand the "why."

 

 

All you do is ask questions. You are unable to actually have a discussion. In your last two responses to me, you have posed 6 full sentences and an incomplete sentence. Of those full sentences, 4 were questions and the other two were insults (the same insult, for what it's worth). You actually insulting me in your posts, and then coming at me for insulting you is golden. I mean, like I mentioned in the post.. You very much fit the mold of your typical bleeding heart liberal.

 

(You in a general sense here)

Your political "discussions" revolve around asking questions until you fluster or annoy your opponent into submission. You don't give reasoning for your opinion other than " Just because. " (not literally). You are afraid to make the discussion about the actual issue. Why? Because if you made it about the actual issue, you will lose. And you know you will lose. So you play the victim, you play the victim for others and try manipulating and playing on peoples emotions to evoke the response and opinion you want from them.

 

And that's what's happened here... Even now when you expand on your thoughts more than ever before. The foundation is questions. You start and end the foundation of your argument with questions. Are you unsure of yourself? I don't know. Lol. You want to ask why heirs should feel entitled to an inheritance. Well, if we are playing 20 questions... Why is the government entitled to that persons money more than their heirs? If you were that person.. or if you were the heir... Why does the government deserve your money more than your heirs or your parents / grandparents / whom ever?

 

You want to understand the why? The bigger question is.. How you have been on this forum for as long as you have without knowing the foundation of my political views? As I said earlier... I am pretty damn consistent with what I believe. Buzzwords for you to remember. Constitution. Individual. Limited Government. Libertarian. Amongst many others.

 

If you want to ask questions.. that's great. But one, enter something into the discussion other than just questions and just insults. That feeling you have of "why?".. Maybe the person you are talking to has the same questions to or about your views that you aren't sharing with anyone. Second your questions aren't coming from a place a genuine curiosity. They are coming from a place of privilege. They are condescending... They seem sarcastic as hell... and the motive behind them has to be questioned.

 

Post #1

Why do you always equate taxation to theft?

And why are we concerned that people worth hundreds of millions may lose half their wealth *after they die*?

 

 

Those are douche questions. You are trying to come from a position of power, putting yourself above me and my opinion. It's not innocent inquisitiveness -- it's interrogation.

 

Post #2

 

There's plenty of justification for it. Your cognitive dissonance just doesn't allow you to comprehend it.

 

And again, why would I be concerned about a death tax? Even if I was a billionaire. Why does anyone need to maintain and continue accumulating wealth from the grave?

 

Start with the insult. Then the same thing with the question.. Douchey. Snarky. Conceited. Immutable. Those aren't questions that you are posing because you want to understand me or my opinion. You say that my responses don't offer any political insight. Maybe that's because your questions don't make room for responses of that nature. The questions you pose and how you pose them have a purpose and you are being disingenuous if you claim it is genuine interest.

 

And let's not exchange false pleasantries such as, "With all due respect". It's so fake. Again, disingenuous. Especially when the statements that follow that are nothing but disrespectful. Saying, "With all due respect" in that manner is extremely disrespectful -- and you know that.

[RazorStar 4,025]

what gives the government the right to take any money from anyone at any time? as a society we've decided we should give the government money so that we can centralize stuff like road/infrastructure, schools, courts, etc. from there it's just a question of what pots we're willing to let the government take from

 

Of course, that's the social contract more or less, we provide money to our government in order for them to have the ability and power to make decisions vital for our nations health. But a nation is made of people, and the will of the people needs to be respected, because a nation is not just it's government. Taxing money that has already been taxed once before feels like theft.

 

However I could argue that stealing from the rich is to the net benefit of all, but that's a dark road to travel and has it's own share of troubles.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Can we at least all agree that it is fan-fucking-tastic that Trump's popularity is coming crashing back down to earth where it belongs? He's not gonna win, so his tax plan isn't going to happen anyway.

[oochymp 2,393]

 

Of course, that's the social contract more or less, we provide money to our government in order for them to have the ability and power to make decisions vital for our nations health. But a nation is made of people, and the will of the people needs to be respected, because a nation is not just it's government. Taxing money that has already been taxed once before feels like theft.

 

However I could argue that stealing from the rich is to the net benefit of all, but that's a dark road to travel and has it's own share of troubles.

even if you do consider it taxing the money twice, how is taxing it twice substantially different from tiered tax brackets when applied as the death tax is?

Edited October 6, 2015 by oochymp

[RazorStar 4,025]

The government needs to take money from those who can provide the money, so naturally people who make more money can afford to be taxed more. The working class can literally not afford being taxed at the highest bracket, so it's of no benefit to ask for the standard tax rate from them.

 

My issue more so with the death tax is that as income it has already been taxed, and provided your system works correctly, it'd be taxed at the highest bracket. I know your system doesn't work correctly, so that may be a moot point, but inheritance isn't income to be taxed. It's certainly of benefit to the government to take that money, but it is theft, and when a government steals from the citizenry, they lose public trust, and you can't spend your way to get that back. What this basically says is instead of being taxed a fair rate on your income, we will take your money as we please and as we design and you have no say in it. Which is not how a contract between a government and it's people should be written up. So while the estate tax should probably benefit more people than it hurts, it is still dirty, and feels like stealing, even if it is from the rich.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Well the point I was going to make is that money is taxed plenty of times. If I work and earn a paycheck, that money is taxed. If I turn around and use it to hire a contractor, or buy a television, that money is taxed again. There are taxes for most transactions. The death tax isn't taxing the guy who died. It's taxing the recepeints of the money.

 

So Favre, there is no tax system that doesn't involved getting money "taxed twice" unless your plan is to abolish all taxes. If that's what you believe, then you're living in a fantasy land and aren't worth talking to about this.

[BwareDWare94 723]

I just can't get over the fact that a major talking point in American politics is how the rich are treated when it comes to taxes. Why is it important at all to focus on people who do not need any help whatsoever? The only thing we should be considering from a political standpoint is how to make sure the wealthy pay their goddamn taxes. Why are the working class and the poor not the focal points of political discussion aimed at helping those two classes?

 

Why do we live in a country that allows people to vilify the poor in uneducated and often racist ways but you're a crook if you think the rich don't deserve tax cuts? Everyone is so worried about the "handouts" that the poor get when the incredibly, unfathomably fortunate get loopholes to avoid paying their fair share come April 15th.

 

Just trying to redirect discussion here. I think it's time for JD, Blots, and Phail to put the rulers away.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

 

All you do is ask questions. You are unable to actually have a discussion. In your last two responses to me, you have posed 6 full sentences and an incomplete sentence. Of those full sentences, 4 were questions and the other two were insults (the same insult, for what it's worth). You actually insulting me in your posts, and then coming at me for insulting you is golden. I mean, like I mentioned in the post.. You very much fit the mold of your typical bleeding heart liberal.

 

(You in a general sense here)

Your political "discussions" revolve around asking questions until you fluster or annoy your opponent into submission. You don't give reasoning for your opinion other than " Just because. " (not literally). You are afraid to make the discussion about the actual issue. Why? Because if you made it about the actual issue, you will lose. And you know you will lose. So you play the victim, you play the victim for others and try manipulating and playing on peoples emotions to evoke the response and opinion you want from them.

 

And that's what's happened here... Even now when you expand on your thoughts more than ever before. The foundation is questions. You start and end the foundation of your argument with questions. Are you unsure of yourself? I don't know. Lol. You want to ask why heirs should feel entitled to an inheritance. Well, if we are playing 20 questions... Why is the government entitled to that persons money more than their heirs? If you were that person.. or if you were the heir... Why does the government deserve your money more than your heirs or your parents / grandparents / whom ever?

 

You want to understand the why? The bigger question is.. How you have been on this forum for as long as you have without knowing the foundation of my political views? As I said earlier... I am pretty damn consistent with what I believe. Buzzwords for you to remember. Constitution. Individual. Limited Government. Libertarian. Amongst many others.

 

If you want to ask questions.. that's great. But one, enter something into the discussion other than just questions and just insults. That feeling you have of "why?".. Maybe the person you are talking to has the same questions to or about your views that you aren't sharing with anyone. Second your questions aren't coming from a place a genuine curiosity. They are coming from a place of privilege. They are condescending... They seem sarcastic as hell... and the motive behind them has to be questioned.

 

Post #1

 

Those are douche questions. You are trying to come from a position of power, putting yourself above me and my opinion. It's not innocent inquisitiveness -- it's interrogation.

 

Post #2

 

Start with the insult. Then the same thing with the question.. Douchey. Snarky. Conceited. Immutable. Those aren't questions that you are posing because you want to understand me or my opinion. You say that my responses don't offer any political insight. Maybe that's because your questions don't make room for responses of that nature. The questions you pose and how you pose them have a purpose and you are being disingenuous if you claim it is genuine interest.

 

And let's not exchange false pleasantries such as, "With all due respect". It's so fake. Again, disingenuous. Especially when the statements that follow that are nothing but disrespectful. Saying, "With all due respect" in that manner is extremely disrespectful -- and you know that.

I've had plenty of political debates with folks on here, but that's not the point. I frequently attack your reasoning with my questions because your arguments are consistently fallacious. They can be so easily dissected with basic, fundamental questions that I don't even have to mount an argument. Your opinions crumble with each of your own answers. The fact that you admit to being flustered by my questions indicates your arguments are not truly grounded in anything ("the constitution and liberty" are not political philosophies). They're half-baked opinions.

 

I'm truly not trying to be snarky (although I can see how it comes off that way). We insult each other constantly and I don't care that it happens. I was only pointing out that you're not answering my questions.

 

And really, what is "douchy" about asking why you equate taxation to theft? That's a legit question...

[Guest Phailadelphia]

I just can't get over the fact that a major talking point in American politics is how the rich are treated when it comes to taxes. Why is it important at all to focus on people who do not need any help whatsoever? The only thing we should be considering from a political standpoint is how to make sure the wealthy pay their goddamn taxes. Why are the working class and the poor not the focal points of political discussion aimed at helping those two classes?

 

Why do we live in a country that allows people to vilify the poor in uneducated and often racist ways but you're a crook if you think the rich don't deserve tax cuts? Everyone is so worried about the "handouts" that the poor get when the incredibly, unfathomably fortunate get loopholes to avoid paying their fair share come April 15th.

 

Just trying to redirect discussion here. I think it's time for JD, Blots, and Phail to put the rulers away.

American culture is winners vs losers. The losers are the poor, so they're the ones who get vilified.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Oh I just noticed Favre said one of the defining cores of his political beliefs is the constitution. As in the same document that says:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

So now its ok to try to overrule the constitution? Because if so, I want to remember this the next time the 2nd amendment is brought up.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Oh I just noticed Favre said one of the defining cores of his political beliefs is the constitution. As in the same document that says:

 

So now its ok to try to overrule the constitution? Because if so, I want to remember this the next time the 2nd amendment is brought up.

 

Exactly why I didn't answer your question earlier. It was a trap. Which just proves my earlier post that was more directed at Phail. I am very aware of what the Constitution says.I never said to overrule it. I take great pride in making you respond again on your own, unprovoked by me taking your stupid bait question and putting any real thought into.

 

I also appreciate you proving my point earlier. It feels good to be on the right side of things. (See what I did there?)

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

I just can't get over the fact that a major talking point in American politics is how the rich are treated when it comes to taxes. Why is it important at all to focus on people who do not need any help whatsoever? The only thing we should be considering from a political standpoint is how to make sure the wealthy pay their goddamn taxes. Why are the working class and the poor not the focal points of political discussion aimed at helping those two classes?

 

Why do we live in a country that allows people to vilify the poor in uneducated and often racist ways but you're a crook if you think the rich don't deserve tax cuts? Everyone is so worried about the "handouts" that the poor get when the incredibly, unfathomably fortunate get loopholes to avoid paying their fair share come April 15th.

 

Just trying to redirect discussion here. I think it's time for JD, Blots, and Phail to put the rulers away.

Loopholes need to be closed, 100%. You are acting as if people who don't like government handouts are all for crooked rich people and loopholes in the tax code. The tax system needs completely overhauled, simplified, and a focus must be had to close those types of loopholes.

So often this discussion turns into.. The right hates the poor and caters to the left while the left wants to give handouts to the poor and unjustly attack the rich. The real answer, IMO, lays somewhere in between. I don't like government handouts, I don't think they work (in some cases, yes deserving people get help they need, and that is great to see). On the other hand, the rich abusing those loopholes you mentioned and furthering themselves sat the expense of everyone else isn't right either. But just like the poor who use the system properly, there are also rich people who follow the rules.

 

We need to punish the abusers on both ends of the spectrum-- or create an environment where you either can't abuse the system or it is much harder to do.

[blotsfan 2,112]

 

Exactly why I didn't answer your question earlier. It was a trap. Which just proves my earlier post that was more directed at Phail. I am very aware of what the Constitution says.I never said to overrule it. I take great pride in making you respond again on your own, unprovoked by me taking your stupid bait question and putting any real thought into.

 

I also appreciate you proving my point earlier. It feels good to be on the right side of things. (See what I did there?)

 

Actually the whole "income tax being in the constitution" thing just occurred to me when I posted. I'm still curious about when you think its acceptable for the government to tax people. Because as of now, it still looks like your answer is "never."

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

https://twitter.com/CerromeRussell/status/651489635617611780

[seanbrock 1,684]

Donald Trump is a realm good reason why I'm for the death tax. He was handed EVERYTHING. The best education and 400 million when his dad died. What does he do? File bank ruptsy and screws thousands of employees. It's clear when you listen to him talk that hasn't made money by being smarter or working harder.

 

By allowing companies like McDonald's and Walmart to fuck their employees over the cost of their living and their healthcare is passed off to the ever shrinking middle class. Income inequality is reaching heights we haven't seen since Teddy Roosevelt was trust busting and corporations receive a shit load of handouts and pay their workers as little as possible and hide their money over seas. I just read an article that estimated companies in the fortune 500 have a combined 2.1 TRILLION stashed over seas in tax havens. Fick that. When doesa the 99% catch a break?

 

Oh and it's not the government that's entitled to the tax dollars of the rich. It's the people that make it possible to make those profits. It's the right to do business in the worlds largest economy. It's just ya know...basic human decency.

 

Also demand drives the economy. We ALL do better when the middle class thrives. Trickle down economics is bullshit. If you can't see that you're either delusional, not that well read on the issue or you're just not very smart.

Edited October 13, 2015 by Zack_of_Steel

[Cherry 1,302]

Donald Trump is a realm good reason why I'm for the death tax. He was handed EVERYTHING. The best education and 400 million when his dad died. What does he do? File bank ruptsy and screws thousands of employees. It's clear when you listen to him talk that hasn't made money by being smarter or working harder.

 

By allowing companies like McDonald's and Walmart to fuck their employees over the cost of their living and their healthcare is passed off to the ever shrinking middle class. Income inequality is reaching heights we haven't seen since Teddy Roosevelt was trust busting and corporations receive a shit load of handouts and pay their workers as little as possible and hide their money over seas. I just read an article that estimated companies in the fortune 500 have a combined 2.1 TRILLION stashed over seas in tax havens. Fick that. When doesa the 99% catch a break?

Trump did not inherit his fortune from solely his father. Was he lucky to be able to afford good schooling? Yes. Has he sat on his ass and just let money flow in? No. Trump busted his ass when he was younger. He has made money by being smarter, and if you are being told otherwise you're listening to inaccurate media. Trump gives a fuckton to charity too btw.