If it is taxation that allows civilization to exist, then civilization should be abolished. Civil by it's very definition (of or relating to ordinary citizens and their concerns, as distinct from military or ecclesiastical) has nothing to do with a standing Army that needs to be paid for. Taxation is theft, period. Taxation, an idea so great it needs to be enforced by coercion. It is not like rent, rent is paying for the use of another's property. You do not pay rent for use of your own property unless some taxing authority has decided they can rob you. And thanks for that same old tired ending, ..."if you don't like it, move somewhere else...". Gee never heard that before but still not going anywhere. I'll be right here when this whole circus collapses like Barnum and Bailey. Oh, and by the way I do live somewhere with a different tax system and didn't even have to move.
90% of Americans will never pay the estate tax as it only applies to those over 5.5 million it's better then the alternative which would be a gift tax as it's a gift
So if you steal from the dead guy how is that not taxing the person receiving the estate does not get all the estate. And I would be fine with a doubling of the rate for everyone that is fine with the tax with exemptions for all that are not fine with the tax. Now sir, that would be a fair tax.
if I gave you 5 million today, there would be a tax for that gift.... when one dies, we say that 5 million is tax free... with the death tax all Americans benefit from the death tax by getting the first 5.5 million of the gift tax free I sure wish the right fought for the working class as hard as they do the rich
Wrong again, everyone pays, some more transparently than others but all pay. It is inherent in the system. Good old aunt Sally gives you some money to start a savings account that pays 0.8% interest in a world with 2% inflation, estate tax. Consent is consent even when one little understands the implications of that consent.
I agree with what you say about the term 'fair'. Your 4 defined methods of taxation appear to cover the possible methods fairly well, and if we were talking only about State and local government I would agree that a combination of #2, #3, and #4 would comprise the only rational and reasonable choices. However at the Federal level of government I would strongly support the method originally provided by our Constitution which could be described as somewhat a combination of #1 and #2. States would be taxed the same dollar amount for each member of its population, regardless of each persons income or wealth which would amount to the same percent per population member relative to the revenue being produced. And by taxing States directly and not individuals, methods #2, #3, and #4 remain available to each State to select from. This would be no tax monies returned from the Federal government to the States, or for redistribution to the people in the States, other than what the Federal government needs to spend in each State for its operation. I'm trying to confine the discussion of taxation to that done at the Federal level of government , NOT State and/or local, which is where I feel any variation of how differences are applied to taxation based upon whatever differences exist, allowing the inhabitants of each State a much stronger voice on how they consent to being taxed and the freedom to escape from where they feel they are/would be treated unfairly. I had to put AlNewman on my ignore list due to an inordinate number of nonsense posts. And now Vegas giants too.
5 million today would be spent and gone by tomorrow, nothing left to tax. Lot better than dying with 5 million that goes to someone you may not even like. And how can you say that it is tax free when every government that can makes a claim and tears off hunks on a consistent basis, probably could have been 10 million, possibly even 20 million or more. Gift tax, sort of reminds me of the mafia. Know the difference between the Treasury and the mafia? One of them can run a brothel successfully, and to think the other handles the nations finances. That little working class thing, I am positive that those on either the right or left considers themselves as candidates for prosperity rather than the job down the block that cleans toilets. So just who are you trying to impress?
That list does not even start to list the possibilities that are already employed. But I love being put on ignore, but I ignore no one, my ignore list remains totally blank. Is it that to answer those questions you deem nonsense would be to admit the fallacy of your position. This is not about you at all, it is your argument that is open to discussion to all.
Perhaps looking up the definition of "estate" would shed some light on that matter. I guess I'm not on ignore after all, another little fable, eh?
maybe you need to research what the estate tax is another alternative fact, I never said you were on ignore
yes, I prefer to live in a society with a strong government and a strong citizenry, some want a weak government and a week citizenry putting the power in the hands of a few families for an eternity doesn't make us strong
I am fully aware of what the estate tax encompasses, it is yourself that seems confused. As I posted previously, if you were to understand the word, then perhaps you could understand the topic so let's start here with the basics. So those capable of reason can understand that when Aunt Sally gives you $10, it becomes part of your estate. So when over time the government steals little chunks, it then becomes pert of the governments estate. Now being you want to change the parameters of the discussion on defining estate to estate taxes could be the reason for the confusion, one needs to learn to walk before they can run. As to estate tax, why not ask the master crooks about the level at which they steal: Imagine, the thieves include cash. But the good news is that if stolen by another government entity in a little funding scheme called asset forfeiture, then it doesn't count as your estate. Or does it? Oh, and I love the use of the word "right". My apology, it was not you that put me on ignore, I stand corrected.
Can't seem to make up your mind can you. You can either have a strong government or strong citizenry as they are opposing attributes. Strong government would be a Hitler, a Stalin or Hitlerly that feel free to murder any strong citizen that opposes them. Strong government demands a more effeminate population. And now you retract and don't want a strong government after all.
People today in the lower and middle classes have shelter, food, transportation, jobs, discretionary funds, health care, and retirement. It's all for the taking in the US and just depends on each person how they place their priorities. The 100 million Americans are working class earning from about $40-45K/year and less...this group pays very little federal taxation...
Boy you got that right, it's all for the taking and many do. They take anything they can get their hands on. But that isn't the sad part, the sad part is they believe they are entitled to take from another. But that still did not answer the question, you have just restated what generated the question in the first place. Now using 330 million as a nice round number for the population, then nearly 13 percent results in 42.9 million with an earning span of $35,000 to $49,999, much larger than the numbers you used but a much lower resultant than you claimed. So again, what are those 100 million Americans?
