Tax political campaign contributions?

[bilby]

Because they could in principle exist independently.

The existence of deductions does not render two taxes one.

They could be independent. However, since they share the same deduction I see them as simply two facets of the same thing.

Since it's my original statement that the estate tax is the only tax that applies to the giver I think I get to decide if they are one or two by my meaning--you guys are trying to argue a total technicality.

Sure, if you redefine your terms until you are right, then you are right.

But that does mean you are also only able to effectively communicate with yourself; which seems rather futile.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They could be independent. However, since they share the same deduction I see them as simply two facets of the same thing.

Since it's my original statement that the estate tax is the only tax that applies to the giver I think I get to decide if they are one or two by my meaning--you guys are trying to argue a total technicality.

Sure, if you redefine your terms until you are right, then you are right.

But that does mean you are also only able to effectively communicate with yourself; which seems rather futile.

I'm the one that used it in the first place and I see them as two facets of the same thing. Thus the supposed mistake does not exist.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure, if you redefine your terms until you are right, then you are right.

But that does mean you are also only able to effectively communicate with yourself; which seems rather futile.

I'm the one that used it in the first place and I see them as two facets of the same thing. Thus the supposed mistake does not exist.

Except that you are the one who entered the derail in this thread.

 

[Bomb#20]

Because they could in principle exist independently.

The existence of deductions does not render two taxes one.

They could be independent. However, since they share the same deduction I see them as simply two facets of the same thing.

Since it's my original statement that the estate tax is the only tax that applies to the giver I think I get to decide if they are one or two by my meaning--you guys are trying to argue a total technicality.

Sure, if you redefine your terms until you are right, then you are right.

But that does mean you are also only able to effectively communicate with yourself; which seems rather futile.

It's not a matter of "in principle". It's not a matter of X does not render Y. It's not a matter of "I see them as" or "I think I get to decide". It's not a matter of redefining terms until you are right or a matter of whom you are able to communicate with. It's a matter of what bills got passed.

"In 1976, Congress unified the gift and estate taxes limiting the giver’s ability to circumvent the estate tax by giving during his or her lifetime." (Source)

This would be a good time for the derail to end; but if you two want to keep bickering about it, please bicker with less philosophy and more references to the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

 

[Bomb#20]

Approximately a bazillion million dollars are spent in campaigns in the US. I'm wondering whether it is time to start taxing that ... with a sales tax. It can be progressively increased based on the ridiculous amounts of money being donated. Normal sales tax at $1 to $1000, 3x Sales tax $1001 to $10000, 5x Sales tax above $10k.

Money to Super PACs and other more secret groups could be taxed at 10x Sales tax.

Given the logic of Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (1983), there's a fair chance that taxing contributions to campaigns and Super PACs at the normal sales tax rate could be upheld; but there's no way your proposed multipliers would be tolerated by the SCOTUS. "...differential treatment, unless justified by some special characteristic of the press, suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression".