APP - @Rune: Estate taxes should be severely reduced

Celticguy said:
There are a number of ways to legally protect assets, size is not a concern. You can believe wealthy people have no trouble finding professionals to make this happen. Whale hunting isnt just something Japanese whalers do.
Click to expand...

Please. Seriously.
 
Rune said:
Are you drunk? I didn't claim a win, I said you didn't win yet. Please, if you are inebriated, start over tomorrow. I am leaving to travel in the morning very early so I am pretty much done for the night. Have a good evening.
Click to expand...

and still no debate, on the topic....your preoccupation with alcohol....makes one wonder.

care to get back to the debate? or are you going to drunk post:

You didn't win yet.
Click to expand...
 
Rune said:
No dude, I was posting from my phone, the screen is shattered, it is a wicked pain in the ass, AND your comment wasn't relevant. Try to keep your personality judgements out of this please.
Click to expand...

your technical issues have nothing to do with me. keep your sorry issues out of this debate please.
 
Yurt said:
estate taxes in the US are ridiculously high. the theory behind this is that we should not allow the rich to continue to propagate their wealth and that we should spread the money around to other citizens.

this is not what this country was founded on, nor should any country embrace this. if you worked your life and earned X, it should not be taxed at a higher rate than Y upon death. further, you have already been taxed on that money. death taxes are mostly absurd, but there is some logic in it. i will live the logic part up to rune to debate.

i propose a flat 15% estate tax.
Click to expand...

if you want to control your estate tax, create a living will and/or a foundation
 
Yurt said:
that doesn't stop the high rate of estate taxes don. you can only do so much with a will or trust, there are monetary limits.

rune ran away as usual.
Click to expand...

Rune said:
Good night Yurt. Tomorrow is another day. Maybe you will have an argument put together by then.
Click to expand...

I assume you have something to debate, some proof or disproof to offer, another theory to propose? I certainly answered everything you have posited so far.
 
Rune said:
I assume you have something to debate, some proof or disproof to offer, another theory to propose? I certainly answered everything you have posited so far.
Click to expand...

that is a lie rune. darla and i debated more than you and i did. you can't debate. not sure what your problem is....but it is a problem.

everytime you get cornered you claim the other person is not debating. you can do that in non APP forums, but you can't pull that off here. debate or leave rune. really that simple. and the very fact i had a better debate with darla than you....speaks volumes.
 
Celticguy said:
I gather you dont know any rich people. Its ok, google Sam Walton estate tax. Rich people pay only as much tax as they feel like paying. They can afford much better lawyers than the government.
Click to expand...

You have absolutely no clue who I am do you? Not even a hint. Suffice it to say, for the sake of this argument you are woefully uninformed.
 
Yurt said:
that is a lie rune. darla and i debated more than you and i did. you can't debate. not sure what your problem is....but it is a problem.

everytime you get cornered you claim the other person is not debating. you can do that in non APP forums, but you can't pull that off here. debate or leave rune. really that simple. and the very fact i had a better debate with darla than you....speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

.
 
Yurt said:
that is a lie rune. darla and i debated more than you and i did. you can't debate. not sure what your problem is....but it is a problem.

everytime you get cornered you claim the other person is not debating. you can do that in non APP forums, but you can't pull that off here. debate or leave rune. really that simple. and the very fact i had a better debate with darla than you....speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

The ball is in your court Yurt. I answered your post, your turn. Post something other than character judgements, if you are capable. By the way, I wouldn't attempt to compare my debating skills to those of Darla, the site champion. That doesn't make me a bad guy though. By the way, who appointed you judge of what I can do, and where? LOL

I pointed out an inconsistency in your claim Yurt. It is now up to you to prove me wrong or explain yourself.
 
Here is where the debate was left off yesterday. Clearly it is up to you to respond now;

Rune said:
I understand it perfectly well. First you want to tax estates at 15% then you don't want to because they have already been taxed. Didn't say it isn't true, just that you are being inconsistent. You didn't have to, it was implied. Let's recap;

essentially want to use taxes to punish a political party. if you want to lower the national debt, how about cutting spending, cutting waste etc?

Furthermore, though I ignored it the first time, no, it isn't at all about punishing a party, it is about preserving social services.
Tea Party idiots managed to end extended unemployment benefits AND cut food stamps at the same time. Who is getting punished? Not the GOP. They can only justify this crap though, because of the huge national debt, and you know it. Don't try to twist my words into something I didn't say.
Click to expand...
 
Rune said:
The ball is in your court Yurt. I answered your post, your turn. Post something other than character judgements, if you are capable. By the way, I wouldn't attempt to compare my debating skills to those of Darla, the site champion. That doesn't make me a bad guy though. By the way, who appointed you judge of what I can do, and where? LOL

I pointed out an inconsistency in your claim Yurt. It is now up to you to prove me wrong or explain yourself.
Click to expand...

the irony of this post cannot be understated.
 
Rune said:
Here is where the debate was left off yesterday. Clearly it is up to you to respond now;
Click to expand...

you want to tax wealthy people, to the maximum, in order to punish the GOP.

the best we can hope for is to tax large estates for whatever we can get away with and attempt to pay down the national debt so the GOP can no longer use is as an excuse to cut social services.
Click to expand...

if you can't be honest about this debate, go away. i'm glad darla did a better job than you.
 
Yurt said:
you want to tax wealthy people, to the maximum, in order to punish the GOP. (
Click to expand...

No, I agree that 15% is fair.
if you can't be honest about this debate, go away. i'm glad darla did a better job than you.
Click to expand...
Darla is a better debater than either of us. I am man enough to admit this. Are you?
 
Rune said:
No, I agree that 15% is fair. Darla is a better debater than either of us. I am man enough to admit this. Are you?
Click to expand...

so "the best we can hope for is to tax large estates for whatever we can get away with" is agreeing with me? do explain. whatever we can get away with is NOT, i repeat NOT, agreeing to 15%.

darla is a good debater, much better than you. though i believe her and i could hold our own and i will not say whether she is better than me...as i've never had a formal debate with her. i'm happy that you can admit your weakness. maybe someday you will grow up.
 
Yurt said:
so "the best we can hope for is to tax large estates for whatever we can get away with" is agreeing with me? do explain. whatever we can get away with is NOT, i repeat NOT, agreeing to 15%.

darla is a good debater, much better than you. though i believe her and i could hold our own and i will not say whether she is better than me...as i've never had a formal debate with her. i'm happy that you can admit your weakness. maybe someday you will grow up.
Click to expand...

I knew you wouldn't man up.
 
Yurt said:
so "the best we can hope for is to tax large estates for whatever we can get away with" is agreeing with me? do explain. whatever we can get away with is NOT, i repeat NOT, agreeing to 15%.

.
Click to expand...

Considering that those who make the laws are the ones that these laws will apply to or their supporters, it is completely unrealistic to think that an actually effective tax, such as 50% or more, with the effect of preventing dynastic fortunes is even possible. I have already stated that I think huge personal fortunes threaten democracy but that we are helpless to change that at this point. You twist this into my wanting to punish the GOP, simply not true. You did not respond to several of my points, as I said the ball is in your court. You will not win this by default. If you want to claim a legitimate victory, assemble an argument without the flaws and conflicts I have pointed out, and if I can't disprove you, then you may claim a win.
 
Last edited:
From what I can determine, you are past any serious effort at debating and have regressed into your former style of pedantic semantics.

If I am wrong, proceed with a reasonable response, free from value judgements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top