Should the Electoral College be abolished?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Neutron, Jul 2, 2004.

Should the Electoral College stay or be abolished?

  1. It should stay like it is

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. It needs to be abolished

    24 vote(s)
    50.0%
  3. I don't care either way

    24 vote(s)
    50.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. pmichael

    pmichael Legend

    111
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    What is wrong with the 'death tax'?. By the way, the term 'death tax' invented by Conservatives to make it sound more onerous than it is. It used to be called the 'inheritance tax'.

    Whatever it is called, the tax is levied against those who materially gain from inheriting wealth. What is wrong from collecting a part of a large fortune being passed on to people who may ultimately waste it? By the way, the argument that the tax represents double taxation may or may not be true. The wealthy are far more able to hide their assets in tax shelters, so the large estate being left may have large portions never taxed once(or at a lower rate than the law specifies). It is foolish to remove this tax, because whatever revenue shortfall it causes will be need to be recouped somehow, and the burden will fall on the ordinary tax payer, who can hardly afford it.
     
  2. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    What is wrong from collecting a part of a large fortune being passed on to people who may ultimately waste it?

    A "part" wouldn't necessarily be so bad in my opinion. The first federal estate tax was only 5%. The 55% rate that will bump back into effect if the current law isn't renewed however is ridiculous. Its a huge disincentive for our capitalist economy.

    As for possibly wasting it, how they use the money shouldn't be the governments business.

    The wealthy are far more able to hide their assets in tax shelters

    Thats a different issue entirely and one that needs to be separately fixed.

    It is foolish to remove this tax, because whatever revenue shortfall it causes will be need to be recouped somehow, and the burden will fall on the ordinary tax payer, who can hardly afford it.

    Closing the tax loopholes you mentioned above could easily pay the difference.
     
  3. pmichael

    pmichael Legend

    111
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Another reason to favor the 'death tax' is to prevent wealth from becoming too concentrated. The country is not served well by having large fortunes passed on without some redistribution(after all, the tax system does redistribute wealth and these days seems to be mostly redistributing from the middle class to the wealthy).

    Another side benefit of the tax is it provides some incentive for wealthy people to donate some of their estate to charitable causes which helps the society as a whole(while reducing the need for government intervention).

    This may come as a surprise. But they are some very wealthy people who think a final and complete repeal of the 'death tax' is not a good idea.
     
  4. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    This may come as a surprise. But they are some very wealthy people who think a final and complete repeal of the 'death tax' is not a good idea.

    No surprise to me. Both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have argued against getting rid of the estate tax. I believe both plan to give most of their wealth to charity and not their kids upon their deaths however, and thus the estate tax won't really touch them in any case.
     
  5. SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Ahhh, and all this time I thought we were a Democracy, where we were in favor of people being rewarded. Where you can "do anything" if you sent your mind to it. Not a socialist country that caps the acceptable limit of wealth.
     
  6. FritzM

    FritzM Legend

    120
    0
    Feb 2, 2004
    I really don't see why the Waltons, the Duponts, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, et al should live off the $$ their forebears made. Screw 'em, take it all. 100% inheritance tax. Doesn't matter to the "inheritor," he's dead.

    This country doesn't need a perpetual aristocracy. The rest of us come into this world with nothing, and go out the same way.

    I know, it's unfeasible, totally unviable. Just my 2 cents.

    But I also don't like the grand old estates to crumble because no one can afford the upkeep. Not being a lawyer I can only guess that there are trust vehicles that could take care of this maintenance issue. If the owners really cared.
     
  7. SAEMike

    SAEMike Banned User

    2,596
    0
    May 29, 2004
    Wow, lets just get rid of property all together I see. Why should you benefit from my Christmas gift, maybe the government should come in and take it from you.

    Lets look at this from a practical prospective. What happens to all the employees of Dupont when you come in and take the company from the family after the matron dies? What happens to the adult children and the wife who probably struggled and helped build that company to what it was?
     
  8. pmichael

    pmichael Legend

    111
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    It is amazing that people who don't have a ghost of a chance of ever being affected by the inheritance tax are so willing to fight for the affluent's rights to keep all of it after they are gone.

    And that is the point. The government isn't taking all of it, just a percentage. There will still be a sizeable amount left for the heirs to split amongst themselves(heirs that have realistically not earned any of it).

    I have to agree with a sentiment already remarked here that the best reason for not revoking the inheritance tax is the heirs never earned a dime of it, and there is no justification for passing the whole amount to the next generation gradually creating a permanent aristocracy. Guess what? Even with the "dreaded" inheritance tax, the heirs of wealthy people will not be having to look in garbage cans for their next meal, they just might have to make do with a smaller third house.
     
  9. Skyboss

    Skyboss Icon

    606
    4
    Jan 22, 2004
    The reason the electoral college, was chosen, instead of the popular vote, was not a fear fear of the 'mob', it was because of a lack of information. Because of communications, in that time it was felt that most voters would vote for favorite sons, as they had no knowledge of choices outside their own state.

    Even with improved communications, the lack of information remains prevalent and stupidity runs rampat. Do you know how few voters actually take time to be informed rather than follow the heard? About 10% of all voters.

    It is amazing that people who don't have a ghost of a chance of ever being affected by the inheritance tax are so willing to fight for the affluent's rights to keep all of it after they are gone.

    I'm not affluent, but I'm affected by it. We face losing the family farm if/when my uncle who is 73 passes. The farm has been in the family for over 100 years. It's amazing how ignorant Liberals are on this issue.
     
  10. Skyboss

    Skyboss Icon

    606
    4
    Jan 22, 2004
    Wow, a Russian history buff. That got them far. Viva le revolution! Destroy capitalism in favor of the working party! Join the Union! Take the rich man's things! He deserves them not!

    Man oh man, you kids are learning loads from those liberal ********* teachers these days.
     
  11. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    It is amazing that people who don't have a ghost of a chance of ever being affected by the inheritance tax are so willing to fight for the affluent's rights to keep all of it after they are gone.

    The only reason why this law is in effect is because it IS the rich that are the ones who have to pay it.

    Imagine how quickly this law would be repealed if, after the average guy's parents died, he had to pay 55% of the value of all property and money the parents had. That would in all likelyhood force the children to immediately sell the parent's house and other properties just to keep a fraction of it.

    I'm in favor of the rich paying more, and paying a larger share as well. I think if our income tax could have the loopholes closed, it would be a better system. However there is a big difference between a yearly income tax one might pay, and then taking a huge cut of everything the person owned.
     
  12. Skyboss

    Skyboss Icon

    606
    4
    Jan 22, 2004
    What an incredible load of crap.
     
  13. Skyboss

    Skyboss Icon

    606
    4
    Jan 22, 2004
    Ah yes, re-distribution of wealth. How socialist of you.
     
  14. pmichael

    pmichael Legend

    111
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    I knew it, I'm now being called a Socialist.

    The tax system is already redistributing wealth, from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. Why no one has a problem with that is hard to understand.

    If being Socialist means a person is concerned that too much wealth and power is being concentrated in too few people, then I guess I am a Socialist. If being Socialist means a person is concerned the government has been hijacked by corporations to benefit them, then again I am a Socialist. But at least, I'm against the lurking danger of corporate elites taking complete control of the government.
     
  15. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    New national motto: In Halliburton We Trust

    :p
     
  16. TNGTony

    TNGTony Hall Of Fame

    5,345
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Average liberal dictionary:

    "The Rich" n derogatory 1) An evil group of people who got their money by ill gains taking it from unsuspecting people. ie. People who worked their tails off all their life and were rewarded for it.
    2) Anyone who earns a nickel more than I you do
    3) Anyone who owns something you cannot afford regardless of other personal choices. ie kids, wife house vs dump of an apartment, single with no social life and Ferrari.
    4) Any successful corporation, business owner or entrepreneur who risked his life's savings and reaps the rewards of his labor.

    Socialism
    1) When money is taken from "the rich" by the government and given to you.

    Unfair
    1) when money is taken from you by the government and given to some one else

    Death Tax
    1) Money taken for "The Rich" by the government when they die since they don't need it any more and to hell with the family "The Rich" worked to give the money to.

    Unnecessary tax
    1) Money taken from you by the government when you die because you wanted it to go to your spouse or children to make their lives easier. ...just like you planned
     
  17. markh

    markh Hall Of Fame

    1,036
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    What's the farm worth? As far as inheritance taxes go, there was a $1.3 million exemption for a couple, that is $650,000. per spouse before any inheritance tax kicks in. The 55% mentioned is the highest rate. You say it's the family farm, are you working on it? If your Uncle has any kids that want to farm there are many ways they can go about transferring the farm without being hit with inheritance taxes or capital gains taxes even if it's worth more than $1.3 million.

    We should keep the inheritance tax with higher exemptions before it starts being applied, $1.3 million doesn't go as far as it used to.
     
  18. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    How about the "average conservative dictionary" which reads:

    Fair (adj.)
    1) describing anything the conservatives want.
    2) knowing you are taken care of and protected without regard to anyone else's benefit or detriment.

    Unfair (adj.)
    1) describing anything a non-conservative wants.
    2) having to abide by any humane ordinance.
    3) being forced to be "equal" to anyone else.
    4) having to share.
    5) having to admit anyone else has rights, too.

    Freedom (n.)
    1) I am free to do whatever I want.
    2) you are free to do whatever I allow.



    :rolleyes:
     
  19. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    I agree with that strategy.
    Eliminating the inheritance tax altogether would have a devastating effect on charitable foundations and the good work they do. That would create a double whammy on the middle class and under class. Those federal revenues would have to be made up (or services cut) plus the private charities would not be able to function as well, putting even more stree on public social services, especially health care.
     
  20. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,305
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Quite a morph in the topic of the thread.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall