U.S. House passes estate tax repeal despite veto threat

Discussion in 'Blazers OT Forum' started by SlyPokerDog, Apr 18, 2015.

Moderators: 6

Moderators

  1. BrianFromWA
  2. Chris Craig
  3. Darkwebs
  4. Ed O
  5. PtldPlatypus
  6. SlyPokerDog
Page 3 of 5
  1. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Only 5400. LOL.

    That's 108,000 over 20 years.

    "Only."
     
    Denny Crane, Apr 20, 2015
    #41
  2. lawai'a

    lawai'a Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    2,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you like to quote the founding fathers' intent often enough so here are a couple of quotes concerning estates and inherited wealth by Thomas Jefferson and adams and their intent concerning estate taxes
    http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers
     
    lawai'a, Apr 20, 2015
    #42
  3. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    Denny Crane, Apr 20, 2015
    #43
  4. lawai'a

    lawai'a Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    2,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    so we should only follow their intent when it suits your position?
     
    lawai'a, Apr 20, 2015
    #44
  5. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    When it's not crystal clear in the Constitution, you can look to period writings to get some sense of what they were thinking.

    No direct taxes means no direct taxes. And just because SOME of the founders felt one way doesn't speak for them all.

    When it comes to what they were thinking when the constitution was written, the Federalist Papers provide a record of the debate that was going on.

    What is certain is the constitution said "no direct taxes" period. So those who may have favored an inheritance tax were the minority.

    I can't wait to see what your talking point sources figure out to counter the facts as they are.
     
    Denny Crane, Apr 20, 2015
    #45
  6. MarAzul

    MarAzul LongShip

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    21,370
    Likes Received:
    7,281
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Life is good!
    Location:
    Near Bandon Oregon
    The quote by Jefferson in the article you reference is taken out of context. He certainly is not speaking about an inheritance tax. The first inheritance tax was imposed in 1797 of .025%.
    Jefferson signed the law repealing the tax in 1802. He is speaking about his generation passing laws the bind future generations to the use of the land. The author of the article needs to study
    history a bit more. Well perhaps he already knows, but is counting on the reader not knowing. Agendas are polished often by the left with these tactics.

    The current form of the tax was first implemented in 1916 by the first President that openly voiced disdain for the Constitution and implemented the income tax before it was ever ratified by the states. Both the inheritance tax and the income tax are direct taxes prohibited in the Constitution. The income tax did squeak through the state ratification process but the inheritance tax has never been through the amendment process. I sure isn't logical to bundle it as income.
     
    MarAzul, Apr 20, 2015
    #46
  7. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    125,703
    Likes Received:
    145,960
    Trophy Points:
    115
     
    SlyPokerDog, Apr 20, 2015
    #47
  8. lawai'a

    lawai'a Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    2,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed12.asp
    I find Hamilton's position here supporting excise taxes and duties incongruious with free markets and free trade of this century. also he argues in favor of taxation on superior wealth as in Britain, when we can no longer rely on indirect taxation. please help me if I have miss read his intent.
     
    lawai'a, Apr 20, 2015
    #48
  9. speeds

    speeds $2.50 highball, $1.50 beer Staff Member Administrator GFX Team

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2007
    Messages:
    39,366
    Likes Received:
    3,383
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Calgary, AB
    Radical

    Actually that guy is getting hammered on social media. Dick move = dick move whether it is to a 1%er or a pleb.
     
    speeds, Apr 20, 2015
    #49
  10. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    125,703
    Likes Received:
    145,960
    Trophy Points:
    115
    That happened here in Portland. That guy is a douche.
     
    SlyPokerDog, Apr 20, 2015
    #50
  11. SlyPokerDog

    SlyPokerDog Woof! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2008
    Messages:
    125,703
    Likes Received:
    145,960
    Trophy Points:
    115
    SlyPokerDog, Apr 20, 2015
    #51
  12. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    "It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation."

    No income tax. Are you on board with that? That's the entire gist of Federalist #12, along with the advocacy of duties as the means to generate revenues for the government.

    "personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption."

    Exactly the opposite of what you read into it. In plain english.
     
    Denny Crane, Apr 20, 2015
    #52
  13. lawai'a

    lawai'a Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    2,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    yet to quote the paper "in so opulent a nation as that of Britain, where direct taxes from superior wealth must be much more tolerable, and, from the vigor of the government, much more practicle, than America, for the greatest part of the national revenues is derived from taxes of the indirect kind"
    seems he left open the need to directly tax as an "opulent" nation those of superior wealth.
    I contend that we have far surpassed the opulence of 1800's Britain and that our present government has expanded to be far more "vigorious" than Britain of the times.
    "must be more tolerable" is where I garner this, doesn't say you will like it but if conditions became similar, this position of indirect only taxation would need modification to include the taxation of superior wealth. would you argue against the position that the 1% controlling superior income or that indirect taxation only would be fairer. seems the estate tax leads to a more level playing field and directly impacts the notion "that all men are created equal"
     
    lawai'a, Apr 20, 2015
    #53
  14. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    The nation has superior wealth. The whole point is to tax some % of the money in circulation.

    "The ability of a country to pay taxes must always be proportioned, in a great degree, to the quantity of money in circulation, and to the celerity with which it circulates."

    Nowhere does it say there should be an inheritance tax, or even to tax the rich.
     
    Denny Crane, Apr 20, 2015
    #54
  15. lawai'a

    lawai'a Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    2,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no it does not , but it does seem to leave open direct taxation of "superior wealth.
     
    lawai'a, Apr 20, 2015
    #55
  16. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    It consistently says direct taxation is not the way to go.

    It does not mention wealthy individuals, inheritance, etc.

    "personal property is too precarious and invisible a fund to be laid hold of in any other way than by the inperceptible agency of taxes on consumption."

    Slam dunk.

    CONSUMPTION. Sales Tax. Duties.
     
    Denny Crane, Apr 20, 2015
    #56
  17. lawai'a

    lawai'a Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    2,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    maybe not the way to go ,or even preferral, but, still not forbidden and if the need arose, a mechanism to fund that "vigorous government" in the future.
    ""direct tax from superior wealth must be much more tolerable". hardly a slam dunk
     
    lawai'a, Apr 20, 2015
    #57
  18. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    He doesn't argue for a direct tax. NOT AT ALL.

    The entire document describes how to tax commerce.

    Slam dunk.

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    I bet you interpret the red text to mean "build a giant welfare state."

    LOL
     
    Denny Crane, Apr 20, 2015
    #58
    MarAzul likes this.
  19. lawai'a

    lawai'a Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    2,815
    Likes Received:
    2,902
    Trophy Points:
    113
    do you deny any of the facts that I have presented? part of the quoted document describes the necessity of an opulent nation to tax "superior wealth". do you deny that America has achieved a level of opulence for greater than that of the time of the writing? the document as I have put forth allows for the evolution of the mechanisms for funding the government of today.
     
    lawai'a, Apr 20, 2015
    #59
  20. Denny Crane

    Denny Crane It's not even loaded! Staff Member Administrator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    72,978
    Likes Received:
    10,673
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Never lost a case
    Location:
    Boston Legal
    I think you see the word "welfare" out of context. That's why I brought it up. Fed 12 describes how to not direct tax. To use import duties, and how to deal with the black market.

    The founders were unlikely to emulate much of what the British did, or we'd have a king, land grants, taxation to fund crusades, quartering of troops in our homes, a state religion forced upon us, and on and on.
     
    Denny Crane, Apr 20, 2015
    #60
Page 3 of 5

Share This Page