APP - @Rune: Estate taxes should be severely reduced

Rune said:
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.
Click to expand...

i responded to each of your points. stop whining rune. you said you want to tax the wealthy "the best we can hope for is to tax large estates for whatever we can get away with".....for whatever you can get away with....and then you back peddle and claim you never said that. and you have the temerity to talk to me about debate?

get real.
 
Yurt said:
right.....so you run away...and proclaim you're the winner

good one
Click to expand...

Rune said:
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.
Click to expand...

:palm: Please show where I "proclaim" I am the winner. Thank you for proving my point.
 
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...

Rune said:
15% isn't bad as long as it doesn't kick in on estates under at least a couple million. .
.
Click to expand...

My words indicate that I do agree.
 
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%.
 
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...
I think we can get away with 15%. Any more seems like it would engender too much resistance from the wealthy.
 
Rune said:
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.
Click to expand...

wrong about what? you just changed your position to agree with me about 15%. i address this post because you posted it twice and it seems this is what you want me to answer. please clarify.
 
Yurt said:
why didn't you agree with me earlier in the debate? also, we currently tax at a higher rate and are getting away it.
Click to expand...

I did agree. Since the first post I made.

2. I don't think we are really getting away with it.

Citizens United opened the doors and the latest ruling blew away any limits. The richest of the rich (those with the most to lose) are spending buckets full of money to pack Congress with sympathetic republicans. We will be lucky to keep any estate tax at all. 15% would be a lot better than nothing.
 
Yurt said:
wrong about what? you just changed your position to agree with me about 15%. i address this post because you posted it twice and it seems this is what you want me to answer. please clarify.
Click to expand...

I used relatively common words. The subject referred to in the second sentence is the first sentence. Show us all how smart you are and figure out the meaning of a 2 sentence paragraph.
 
Rune said:
I did agree. Since the first post I made.

2. I don't think we are really getting away with it.

Citizens United opened the doors and the latest ruling blew away any limits. The richest of the rich (those with the most to lose) are spending buckets full of money to pack Congress with sympathetic republicans. We will be lucky to keep any estate tax at all. 15% would be a lot better than nothing.
Click to expand...

do we or do we not CURRENTLY have a higher estate tax rate than 15%? yes or no.

and you did not agree. that is a complete lie.
 
Rune said:
I used relatively common words. The subject referred to in the second sentence is the first sentence. Show us all how smart you are and figure out the meaning of a 2 sentence paragraph.
Click to expand...

here we go again. i came back because you said you wouldn't pull this bullshit again. i was polite and asked for clarification and this is the bullshit you spew. you simply can't debate well rune. you have no idea what the heck you were talking about, so you make it out as if i'm stupid. good luck with that.

i'm done here. you can pound sand you lying jerk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top