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. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Ah yes, re-distribution of wealth. How socialist of you.

    Skyboss, you quoted my reply when you stated this. I take it you find fault with this statement?

    Where does this state I favor redistribution of wealth?

    Simple fact of the matter is that I don't favor taxing people beyond their means. The rich can afford to have a higher tax bracket than the poor, because they have the means to pay it (they have money far beyond their basic needs) and the poor don't.

    The simple fact of the matter is that creating a flat tax of say 25% for every social class would put a huge strain on the poor and middle class, forcing them to pay much more. I know I couldn't afford such a tax burden.

    Eliminating the inheritance tax altogether would have a devastating effect on charitable foundations and the good work they do.

    I'm not certain I totally agree with this. The money has to be transfered upon the death of the owner to someone. Charitable giving will take place irregardless.
     
  2. pmichael

    pmichael Legend

    111
    0
    Mar 25, 2002
    Conservative guidelines:

    1) Life should be protected. But only until birth.
    2) The top 1% should have 99% of the wealth.
    3) Guns in everyone's hands is a great idea
    4) Don't tax the superrich at all. Let them hide their money in elaborate tax shelters
    5) Let's spur huge deficits, so the rich can have more yachts
    6) There is no reason for the IRS to investigate elaborate partnerships that allow the hiding of wealth, but let's shame any of the working poor who have the gall to apply for the Earned Income Tax Credit
    7) As long as the needs of the affluent are met, there is no other suitable role for government.
    8) Redistribution of wealth to the poor is bad policy, but a tax system favoring the affluent is a fantastic idea
    9) Let's create a permanent aristocracy that will have no incentive to do anything
    10) Be overly arrogant in international affairs, so everyone stops liking us
    11) There is nothing wrong with a company headquartering in Bermuda to reduce or eliminate its tax burden.

    And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
     
  3. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,025
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    Is there anyone in this discussion with enough assets to trigger any inheritance tax at all? The inheritance tax applies to only a small fraction of all the estates passed on the US, only the very largest.

    Maybe you all think that someday you might have enough wealth to need to worry about this?

    I'm with the earlier poster who questioned why people who will never pay any inheritance tax are worried about poor multibillionaires who might be impacted by this (only if they have a poorly planned succession, otherwise, they won't pay a dime). The US market operates on a fundamental principle of self interest. When you start lobbying for the ultra rich to get a tax break, you as amember of the middle class are going to end up picking up the slack.

    The Man is going to get his money one or another.
     
  4. Skyboss

    Skyboss Icon

    606
    4
    Jan 22, 2004
    $17.2 Million. Several of us in the Family would like to work together to keep it going, he has no children to pass it to. We are all fifth generation Americans and it would have been a combined effort to keep it going. It would cost us $7 million of the value to keep it per the tax code, in other words, liquidation of several thousand acres which would make it unprofitable.

    Inheritence taxes in action. Your Great Grandfather a janitor, your Grandfather (who went to college on inheritance) a Supervisor, your Father a manager, and you a CEO. Thanks to taxes, your kid a janitor.
     
  5. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,025
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    There are very adept succession planners who can help you with this. Check with your commercial banker who can put you in touch with someone who specializes in this.


     
  6. Skyboss

    Skyboss Icon

    606
    4
    Jan 22, 2004
    So why is John Kerry a Democrat???
     
  7. Skyboss

    Skyboss Icon

    606
    4
    Jan 22, 2004
    You think we haven't???
     
  8. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    "I'm not certain I totally agree with this. The money has to be transfered upon the death of the owner to someone. Charitable giving will take place irregardless.'

    Trust me! (pun intended). There is a lot of money given to charities in an effort to avoid inheritance tax. Our 4 billion dollar trust fund to give free medical care to kids owes its existance to this tax exemption. A lot of our fundraising is aimed at our folks who hate giveing money to the gubbamint and find solace in giving to a private charity they agree with.
     
  9. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I'm not really sure how a thread on the electoral college evolves to a discussion of the inheritance tax, but....

    My primary problem with the inheritance tax is that its a double tax. Everything has already been taxed and its inherently unfair to tax it just because someone still lives to receive it. And a good planner can help reduce/elliminate that tax, but there are families out there who don't understand the law and get caught unawares. I'm not personnally up on the exact features of the current law, but a couple of years ago it was possible for a widow (who most people would not call "rich") to end up with a sizable tax by not proper estate planning. Factor life insurance, IRA, ... Still the tax itself is unfair and should be repealed. If the government needs money, there are more honest ways of taxation.
     
  10. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    pjmrt,

    Are you sure you are not confusing probate cost with the federal inheritance tax. Probate is the thing that sucks most people dry if they don't do the correct estate planning. It is essentially a state tax. That widow in your example probably got hit by proobate costs.

    Also you are wrong when you say "everything has already been taxed". Most likely the assets in a large estate consist primarily of unrealized capital gains on which no tax has been collected. In fact there used to be a way for heirs to actually make money (through tax deductions) by donating these capital assets at market value.
     
  11. lee635

    lee635 Hall Of Fame

    2,025
    2
    Apr 17, 2002
    Stop it Rich. You're contaminating Rush's brainwashing.... ;)


     
  12. cicijay

    cicijay AllStar

    97
    0
    Jan 6, 2003
    Just think, when the constitution was drafted they decided to represent each state proportionally by population in the House and have two representatives from each state for the Senate.

    The electoral college mimicks the way representation was set up for the
    House, Imagine if the electoral college was set up to mimick the Senate.

    Just a thought!
     
  13. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    Actually, you are wrong, the college mimics both the house AND the Senate. This actually gives some small states a greater voice than large ones. For example, one electoral vote in Wyoming represents far fewer people than an electoral vote from California.
     
  14. RichW

    RichW Hall Of Fame/Supporter DBSTalk Gold Club

    6,526
    0
    Mar 29, 2002
    To give you the numbers to support my last statement

    Wyoming has a population of around 494,000 people and 3 electoral votes.
    Califronia has around 33,871,000 people and 55 electoral votes.

    When you do the math this means that 1 electoral vote in WY represents less than 165,000 people whereas 1 electoral vote in CA represents more than 615,000 people, so. theorectically at least, a voter of Wyoming has more than triple the influence on presidential election than does a voter in California.

    If we allocated electoral votes strictly on population (House seats) then WY would get 1 vote and CA would get 53 which would make it a closer match. Of course working counter to this is that in a winner-take-all electoral allocation, more voters per elector are disenfranchised in the larger states if they supported the loser.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall