"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:00:23 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
What does the State Do to deserve 1/3 to 1/2 of your or my money?????

Hummmmmm????

Keeping me safe, maintaining an army, educating my children, etc

Can you provide a break down for that?

Please do so we can look at it and find out if there is any graft,
corruption or mispending.

Separate issue, really. Are you saying no one should pay taxes because some
of it is wasted?

And check the State for dachas owned by its politburo members....

Ok?

Im curious though..I thought you paid taxes while you were alive to
cover those items..including taxes on the money you owned before you
suddenly became dead.

Can you tell me what happened to the previous taxes on that money?

Gunner

Some money is taxed more than once. When you use your after tax money and
have to pay sales tax, for instance. Value based registration fees, property
taxes, etc.. If you hold the overall levy constant, they're going to get it
one way or the other, if it's only taxed once, it will be at a higher
percentage.

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
Ignoramus18915 wrote:

On 2010-07-30, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Ignoramus18915 fired this volley in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice, fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.

There were no reasons of societal altruism in establishing the estate
tax. It's just another pork pot. Would that it were as you say.

Lloyd, you may be right about the motivations. You may be more of a
realist than I am. It is a great way to grab some money from the
rich, I agree.

But, I think, the question is, is the effect of that positive or
negative? And I think that at some reasonable level of taxation, it is
positive. Keeps the balance a little bit better.

If the level was too high, it would be negative.

The original intent of estate taxes was social engineering in the 18th century
England. The intent was to break up the large estates, thus reducing the
political power of the landed gentry relative to that of the King and of
Parliment, and in this the tax was successful.

Joe Gwinn

It's intent and function are exactly the same in the US.

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus28671 wrote:

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems
to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor
and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the
offspring of a rich corporatist.

I see nothing really wrong with sharing a part of money with the
society.


You did, you were taxed all along the way. The death tax is nothing more
than the tyranny
of the majority and a bit of penis envy. Something that plays well with
people that
believe their position in life is because some fat cat held them down.


People held down by fat cats? You mean, people like Warren Buffet, Robert
Rubin (former Citigroup Chairman), Julian Robertson (hedge fund
billionaire), and Abigail Disney (Walt's grand-neice)? They've all said that
it's not right to have their wealth passed on to heirs -- the children of
wealthy people have done little to deserve it, beyond a modest level of
support until they're self-sufficient.

It isn't "penis envy." It's a case of the right in America casting off all
sense of social responsibility. The anti-tax mantra has been picked up by
mainstream conservatives, as well. Despite the fact that our overall taxes
are the lowest they've been since 1954 (the strongly
libertarian/conservative Tax Foundation agrees) and are the lowest, overall,
of any developed country in the world, they continue to scream that the
problem is taxes that are too high. Compared to what?

This self-justifying, self-centered hyper individualism actually is a fairly
recent phenomenon, and it's not doing the country any favors. It's not a
part of traditional conservative thought. Even Adam Smith, every
conservative's favorite economist, said:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the
individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint
tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion
to their respective interests in the estate."

That's been the predominant philosophy throughout Western history. The
current right-wing thinking about taxes in general is the anomaly, and it's
an ideology carried to its ridiculous extreme in its opposition to estate
taxes -- which have been with us since Roman times.

You can argue with it, but you aren't arguing with Iggy or me when you do.
You're arguing with some of the best conservative thinkers in history. Even
the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, recognized that the real
problem with taxes is that nobody likes them. g


You of all people should know Communism didn't work and Commie lite isn't
going to work
either.

Wes

When the government takes your house and starts paying you a set amount from
a formula set in Washington, you can talk about communism in the US with a
straight face. In the meantime, it's as silly as comparing government
officials with Hitler.

--
In her book "Atlas Shrugged", first published in 1957, Ayn Rand warned us
about the society we find
ourselves in. We were warned.

We were warned about the consequences of taking to heart wacky hypotheticals
cooked up as bad fiction by lousy writers. g

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:53:33 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

On 2010-07-31, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 13:31:24 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
That you don't like inherited wealth doesn't matter. You can give
it all away - and not take the tax deduction.

I would not give anything away until my children are well provided
for.

Bah, you are one of the capitalist running dogs, those who inherit
wealth are the worst of the lot.

I'm sorry citizen, but you are being greedy, by not sharing the
wealth.

Well, I do not ojbect to being taxed. If I die with over 10 mil in
current money (extremely unlikely!) I would leave some to charity.

Those of us on the bottom give small amounts to charities _now_ from
our much smaller incomes, ya big, rich softie.


You live in a Rush Limbaugh fantasy land.

I highly recommend not listening to Rush Limbaugh at all, and trying
to re-establish your grip on reality. I do mean well when I say it, do
not take it as an insult.

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems
to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor
and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the
offspring of a rich corporatist.

I see nothing really wrong with sharing a part of money with the
society.

That's much, much easier to say when you have 3, or even ten, times
the amount of money you need to survive on. Ask the poor kid, living
in an apartment, who just inherited his parents' house (and half acre)
why he has to sell it to pay the estate taxes.

Socialism is a whole lot easier when you can afford it.

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.
-- Confucius

On 7/31/2010 7:43 PM, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh wrote:
fired this volley in news:i329aq$k9f
:

Allowing billionaires to pass on gigantic
sums of money to its offspring is actually harmful to the country and
should not be allowed, and that is what the majority has pretty much
always believed, and still does

And without classifying myself as "the rich", because I'll never be
charged an estate tax -- that's complete bull****.

IF I want to spend my career ensuring that my children never have to work
as hard as I did, then that is my right. _I_ produced the effort. _I_
made the choice to pass it on. _I_ am not "depriving society" of anything
by doing so; in fact, I've enriched society with the jobs I've created,
and the taxes I've paid while doing it.

The estate tax is theft, pure and simple. It is a deliberate attempt by
government to destroy the efforts put forth by people who just happen to
be _more_productive_ than the masses.

All taxes are theft, however we seem to be willing to put up with
taxation in "free societies" that the most deranged despot would never
have _dreamed_ of charging.

The flaw in "democracy" is that it dilutes the blame--there's no one guy
who has to worry about being strung up by a mob if he pushes too hard.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:23:49 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:59:30 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:

Ill buy an adapter to use a more common Bayonet on the Finn 39s if you
make them.

Thats Free Enterprise....

That's what I wanted, to use a spike bayonet on this M39.

Chaarge!

i

Spikes are ok, but they dont have any decent cutting ability and the
blade is far too narrow to break bones, bust ribs and whatnot.

But they do come out easier....

Perhaps something like these would be better?

http://cgi.ebay.com/D2-Steel-Handmad...-/320566969591
http://cgi.ebay.com/K5-BAYONET-AND-S...-/320566968247
http://cgi.ebay.com/D2-Steel-Handmad...-/320567720347

I do not like any of them.

Pity. Obviously you dont have much experience with bayonets and their
practical use...which is a very good thing btw.

Ive got spikes on about 1/3rd of my SMLEs..the rest are good steel
blades sharpened well. And of course..some of my other arms have
bayonets as well.

I really hope that I could never need to be bayonetting anyone, this
is all for appearance only.

Oh! So then one can simply put plastic tools on top of your tool box
for looks only. The real tools would be in the drawers, hidden away.
I got it now!

A blade can be a marvelous impliment in the proper circumstances. And
few people pay a lot of attention to a spike, unless they know what can
be done with one. A nice sharp blade on the other hand...they tend to
instinctivly shy away from.....Which is a good thing. Prevents one from
actually having to use it at times.

Which is a very good thing, no?

Bayonet adds to the length of the rifle and is mostly a disadvantage.

Your opinion is noted with some amusement and a prayer of thanks you
dont know what you are talking about. Trust me..its a good thing.

On the other hand..some bayonets simply arent worth mounting....

http://cgi.ebay.com/German-1898-Kurz...-/260642814936
http://cgi.ebay.com/BRITISH-P-1879-A...-/320568219088
http://cgi.ebay.com/WWI-ORIGINAL-GER...-/290428277793

and so forth....

Now this one..may be of value...

http://cgi.ebay.com/GERMAN-Wire-cutt...-/250672421426

This is an AK bayonet. It is very practical because it can be used to
cut wire and do other things.

Yet nearly all of the first three I presented would do the same thing,
but were made not in Russia. And 2 were made of D2 steel. Which may or
may not be a good thing...shrug. And they all fit on the AK....chuckle

i

You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.

But I still like you.

G


Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:30:29 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:00:23 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
What does the State Do to deserve 1/3 to 1/2 of your or my money?????

Hummmmmm????

Keeping me safe, maintaining an army, educating my children, etc

Can you provide a break down for that?

Please do so we can look at it and find out if there is any graft,
corruption or mispending.

Separate issue, really. Are you saying no one should pay taxes because some
of it is wasted?

Tsk tsk tsk..your attempt to swerve into another direction is noted with
amusement.

And check the State for dachas owned by its politburo members....

Ok?

Im curious though..I thought you paid taxes while you were alive to
cover those items..including taxes on the money you owned before you
suddenly became dead.

Can you tell me what happened to the previous taxes on that money?

Gunner

Some money is taxed more than once. When you use your after tax money and
have to pay sales tax, for instance. Value based registration fees, property
taxes, etc.. If you hold the overall levy constant, they're going to get it
one way or the other, if it's only taxed once, it will be at a higher
percentage.


So you are then approving of double, and triple taxation of a single
dollar, Comrade?

Hummmmmm.....so when did you immigrate to the US, before or after Iggy?

Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.

You too, confuse me at times, a brilliant may with extremely rich
fantasy life and many great project ideas.

i

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:53:33 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

On 2010-07-31, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 13:31:24 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
That you don't like inherited wealth doesn't matter. You can give
it all away - and not take the tax deduction.

I would not give anything away until my children are well provided
for.

Bah, you are one of the capitalist running dogs, those who inherit
wealth are the worst of the lot.

I'm sorry citizen, but you are being greedy, by not sharing the
wealth.

Well, I do not ojbect to being taxed. If I die with over 10 mil in
current money (extremely unlikely!) I would leave some to charity.

Those of us on the bottom give small amounts to charities _now_ from
our much smaller incomes, ya big, rich softie.


You live in a Rush Limbaugh fantasy land.

I highly recommend not listening to Rush Limbaugh at all, and trying
to re-establish your grip on reality. I do mean well when I say it, do
not take it as an insult.

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems
to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor
and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the
offspring of a rich corporatist.

I see nothing really wrong with sharing a part of money with the
society.

That's much, much easier to say when you have 3, or even ten, times
the amount of money you need to survive on. Ask the poor kid, living
in an apartment, who just inherited his parents' house (and half acre)
why he has to sell it to pay the estate taxes.

That kid doesn't have to pay estate taxes, and won't under any proposed tax
plan.


Socialism is a whole lot easier when you can afford it.

It's less likely to happen when you actually understand what you're talking
about.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ignoramus28671" wrote in message
...
On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.

You too, confuse me at times, a brilliant may with extremely rich
fantasy life and many great project ideas.

i

Read the Thurber short story, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty

It will help you understand.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:20:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:59:30 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:

Ill buy an adapter to use a more common Bayonet on the Finn 39s if you
make them.

Thats Free Enterprise....

That's what I wanted, to use a spike bayonet on this M39.

Chaarge!

i

Spikes are ok, but they dont have any decent cutting ability and the
blade is far too narrow to break bones, bust ribs and whatnot.

But they do come out easier....

Perhaps something like these would be better?

http://cgi.ebay.com/D2-Steel-Handmad...-/320566969591

http://cgi.ebay.com/K5-BAYONET-AND-S...-/320566968247

http://cgi.ebay.com/D2-Steel-Handmad...-/320567720347

Ooh, SWEET tanto there. I really like the look and concept of that
style blade.


Ive got spikes on about 1/3rd of my SMLEs..the rest are good steel
blades sharpened well. And of course..some of my other arms have
bayonets as well.

http://fwd4.me/F8c I picked up some of these from (? that place up in
Nevada, 4 initials?) about 5 years ago for $1.99 apiece. They throw
well, too.


A blade can be a marvelous impliment in the proper circumstances. And
few people pay a lot of attention to a spike, unless they know what can
be done with one. A nice sharp blade on the other hand...they tend to
instinctivly shy away from.....Which is a good thing. Prevents one from
actually having to use it at times.

Which is a very good thing, no?

On the other hand..some bayonets simply arent worth mounting....

http://cgi.ebay.com/German-1898-Kurz...-/260642814936
http://cgi.ebay.com/BRITISH-P-1879-A...-/320568219088
http://cgi.ebay.com/WWI-ORIGINAL-GER...-/290428277793

I think I'd prefer a kukri (or 2) on my hip. You?
http://fwd4.me/FA8 (lovely brown vinyl sheath!

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.
-- Confucius

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:24:42 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.

You too, confuse me at times, a brilliant may with extremely rich
fantasy life and many great project ideas.

i

what you may consider to be fantasy..is actually far too often, truth.

And truth is often far far stranger than fiction.

Far stranger.

Sometimes its easier to twist things just a tad to make folks think you
are bull****ting them, then to utter the sole truth and have them think
you are crazy.

Shrug

Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:08:03 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:53:33 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

On 2010-07-31, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 13:31:24 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
That you don't like inherited wealth doesn't matter. You can give
it all away - and not take the tax deduction.

I would not give anything away until my children are well provided
for.

Bah, you are one of the capitalist running dogs, those who inherit
wealth are the worst of the lot.

I'm sorry citizen, but you are being greedy, by not sharing the
wealth.

Well, I do not ojbect to being taxed. If I die with over 10 mil in
current money (extremely unlikely!) I would leave some to charity.

Those of us on the bottom give small amounts to charities _now_ from
our much smaller incomes, ya big, rich softie.


You live in a Rush Limbaugh fantasy land.

I highly recommend not listening to Rush Limbaugh at all, and trying
to re-establish your grip on reality. I do mean well when I say it, do
not take it as an insult.

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems
to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor
and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the
offspring of a rich corporatist.

I see nothing really wrong with sharing a part of money with the
society.

That's much, much easier to say when you have 3, or even ten, times
the amount of money you need to survive on. Ask the poor kid, living
in an apartment, who just inherited his parents' house (and half acre)
why he has to sell it to pay the estate taxes.

Socialism is a whole lot easier when you can afford it.

Or have large rough men with firearms and no concience, enforceing it.

Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:51:10 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

I hope that there is some reasonable point between these two views,
which is to simply charge a modest estate tax, like 35-45%.

Would you favor losing that "modest 45%" of your father's savings to
the gov't, Ig?

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.
-- Confucius

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:02:35 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:20:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:59:30 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:

Ill buy an adapter to use a more common Bayonet on the Finn 39s if you
make them.

Thats Free Enterprise....

That's what I wanted, to use a spike bayonet on this M39.

Chaarge!

i

Spikes are ok, but they dont have any decent cutting ability and the
blade is far too narrow to break bones, bust ribs and whatnot.

But they do come out easier....

Perhaps something like these would be better?

http://cgi.ebay.com/D2-Steel-Handmad...-/320566969591

http://cgi.ebay.com/K5-BAYONET-AND-S...-/320566968247

http://cgi.ebay.com/D2-Steel-Handmad...-/320567720347

Ooh, SWEET tanto there. I really like the look and concept of that
style blade.


Ive got spikes on about 1/3rd of my SMLEs..the rest are good steel
blades sharpened well. And of course..some of my other arms have
bayonets as well.

http://fwd4.me/F8c I picked up some of these from (? that place up in
Nevada, 4 initials?) about 5 years ago for $1.99 apiece. They throw
well, too.

Indeed they do. And they work pretty well on the end of a piece of
Bamboo too.


A blade can be a marvelous impliment in the proper circumstances. And
few people pay a lot of attention to a spike, unless they know what can
be done with one. A nice sharp blade on the other hand...they tend to
instinctivly shy away from.....Which is a good thing. Prevents one from
actually having to use it at times.

Which is a very good thing, no?

On the other hand..some bayonets simply arent worth mounting....

http://cgi.ebay.com/German-1898-Kurz...-/260642814936
http://cgi.ebay.com/BRITISH-P-1879-A...-/320568219088
http://cgi.ebay.com/WWI-ORIGINAL-GER...-/290428277793

I think I'd prefer a kukri (or 2) on my hip. You?
http://fwd4.me/FA8 (lovely brown vinyl sheath!


Hah...I like working ones...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=320568240559

These are actually very well made. At least the 2 examples I saw with
that makers mark, were very good.

But shush..Im bidding on one....G

Gunner



"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Ignoramus28671" wrote in message
...
On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.
You too, confuse me at times, a brilliant may with extremely rich
fantasy life and many great project ideas.

i

Read the Thurber short story, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty

It will help you understand.



Point, Game, Match...

--

Richard Lamb

On 2010-08-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus28671" wrote in message
...
On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.

You too, confuse me at times, a brilliant may with extremely rich
fantasy life and many great project ideas.

i

Read the Thurber short story, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty

It will help you understand.


In some respects, I am a lot like Gunner too. Without my wife's
influence, my backyard would look like his.

In general, I have never been good at bull****ting.

i

On 2010-08-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:51:10 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

I hope that there is some reasonable point between these two views,
which is to simply charge a modest estate tax, like 35-45%.

Would you favor losing that "modest 45%" of your father's savings to
the gov't, Ig?


Yes, I consider it fair. For poor people or even people of modest
wealth, many wealth transfer methods are available, like annual gifts
and such.

i

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:58:54 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:51:10 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

I hope that there is some reasonable point between these two views,
which is to simply charge a modest estate tax, like 35-45%.

Would you favor losing that "modest 45%" of your father's savings to
the gov't, Ig?


Yes, I consider it fair. For poor people or even people of modest
wealth, many wealth transfer methods are available, like annual gifts
and such.

i

Sounds like the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper. The Ant labors
diligently to build an estate, the Grasshopper fritters his earnings
away. When the Grasshopper dies there is nothing; when the Ant dies
the gomment takes 45% of his estate, all of which he previously paid
taxes on.

By the way, people of modest wealth who do end runs around the tax
department often run afoul of the laws.

Cheers,

John D. Slocomb
(jdslocombatgmail)

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus28671 wrote:

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems
to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor
and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the
offspring of a rich corporatist.

I see nothing really wrong with sharing a part of money with the
society.


You did, you were taxed all along the way. The death tax is nothing more
than the tyranny
of the majority and a bit of penis envy. Something that plays well with
people that
believe their position in life is because some fat cat held them down.


People held down by fat cats? You mean, people like Warren Buffet, Robert
Rubin (former Citigroup Chairman), Julian Robertson (hedge fund
billionaire), and Abigail Disney (Walt's grand-neice)? They've all said that
it's not right to have their wealth passed on to heirs -- the children of
wealthy people have done little to deserve it, beyond a modest level of
support until they're self-sufficient.

Well then, those people should give away their wealth on their own if this is what they
believe. Some set up foundations, the most successful was the John M. Olin foundation.
John Olin feared his foundation might drift away from his values so it had a mandate to
spend down the assets in one generation.



It isn't "penis envy." It's a case of the right in America casting off all
sense of social responsibility. The anti-tax mantra has been picked up by
mainstream conservatives, as well. Despite the fact that our overall taxes
are the lowest they've been since 1954 (the strongly
libertarian/conservative Tax Foundation agrees) and are the lowest, overall,
of any developed country in the world, they continue to scream that the
problem is taxes that are too high. Compared to what?

This self-justifying, self-centered hyper individualism actually is a fairly
recent phenomenon, and it's not doing the country any favors. It's not a
part of traditional conservative thought. Even Adam Smith, every
conservative's favorite economist, said:


So the rich left has been sending in extra on their tax returns every year? What is the
effective tax rate the non self centered left is paying? One can send the government
extra money, just send it to the treasury and they will accept it.


"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the
individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the joint
tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion
to their respective interests in the estate."

Proportion not progressive tax rate.

That's been the predominant philosophy throughout Western history. The
current right-wing thinking about taxes in general is the anomaly, and it's
an ideology carried to its ridiculous extreme in its opposition to estate
taxes -- which have been with us since Roman times.

Stealing the pennies off a dead mans eyes. Some have no shame.


You can argue with it, but you aren't arguing with Iggy or me when you do.
You're arguing with some of the best conservative thinkers in history. Even
the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, recognized that the real
problem with taxes is that nobody likes them. g

No chit.



You of all people should know Communism didn't work and Commie lite isn't
going to work
either.

Wes

When the government takes your house and starts paying you a set amount from
a formula set in Washington, you can talk about communism in the US with a
straight face. In the meantime, it's as silly as comparing government
officials with Hitler.

Why is it Hitler gets brought in the conversation so often? But since you brought it up,
I'll play along. I'm sure Obama would like to have his own battalion of Brown shirts.
What was that idea of his, "Civilian National Security Force"?


--
In her book "Atlas Shrugged", first published in 1957, Ayn Rand warned us
about the society we find
ourselves in. We were warned.

We were warned about the consequences of taking to heart wacky hypotheticals
cooked up as bad fiction by lousy writers. g

Orwell and Rand showed us the road ahead. We are well on our way.

Wes

J. D. Slocomb fired this volley in
:

When the Grasshopper dies there is nothing; when the Ant dies
the gomment takes 45% of his estate, all of which he previously paid
taxes on.

You missed the part about them giving it to the grasshopper.

LLoyd

On Jul 31, 11:31*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:53:33 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

On 2010-07-31, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 13:31:24 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking *the following:
That you don't like inherited wealth doesn't matter. *You can give
it all away - and not take the tax deduction.

I would not give anything away until my children are well provided
for.

Bah, you are one of the capitalist running dogs, those who inherit
wealth are the worst of the lot.

I'm sorry citizen, but you are being greedy, by not sharing the
wealth.

Well, I do not ojbect to being taxed. If I die with over 10 mil in
current money (extremely unlikely!) I would leave some to charity.

Those of us on the bottom give small amounts to charities _now_ from
our much smaller incomes, ya big, rich softie.

You live in a Rush Limbaugh fantasy land.

I highly recommend not listening to Rush Limbaugh at all, and trying
to re-establish your grip on reality. I do mean well when I say it, do
not take it as an insult.

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems
to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor
and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the
offspring of a rich corporatist.

I see nothing really wrong with sharing a part of money with the
society.

That's much, much easier to say when you have 3, or even ten, times
the amount of money you need to survive on. Ask the poor kid, living
in an apartment, who just inherited his parents' house (and half acre)
why he has to sell it to pay the estate taxes.

That kid doesn't have to pay estate taxes, and won't under any proposed tax
plan.



Socialism is a whole lot easier when you can afford it.

It's less likely to happen when you actually understand what you're talking
about.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, you're spoiling their fantasies. Again.

On Jul 31, 9:00*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:51:10 -0500, Ignoramus28671





wrote:
On 2010-07-31, Lloyd E. Sponenburgh lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Hawke fired this volley in news:i329aq$k9f
:

Allowing billionaires to pass on gigantic
sums of money to its offspring is actually harmful to the country and
should not be allowed, and that is what the majority has pretty much
always believed, and still does

And without classifying myself as "the rich", because I'll never be
charged an estate tax -- that's complete bull****.

IF I want to spend my career ensuring that my children never have to work
as hard as I did, then that is my right. *_I_ produced the effort. *_I_
made the choice to pass it on. _I_ am not "depriving society" of anything
by doing so; *in fact, I've enriched society with the jobs I've created,
and the taxes I've paid while doing it.

The estate tax is theft, pure and simple. *It is a deliberate attempt by
government to destroy the efforts put forth by people who just happen to
be _more_productive_ than the masses.

I hope that there is some reasonable point between these two views,
which is to simply charge a modest estate tax, like 35-45%.

What does the State Do to deserve 1/3 to 1/2 of your or my money?????

Hummmmmm????

Gunner

i

"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
*a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
*like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
*A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Bobby XD9- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You, ****head, by your own reckoning, have paid zero in taxes over the
past several years. You have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in
"free" health care. Shut the **** up, you pig.

On Jul 31, 9:33*pm, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:
Gunner Asch fired this volley :



What does the State Do to deserve 1/3 to 1/2 of your or my money?????

Hummmmmm????

Gunner

I can take that further, Ig (Gunny).

I live in a rural area where my insurance fees and taxes have quintupled
in eight years. *I don't make enough money to afford this, but on my
relatively modest home and 20 acres of beef cattle, I now pay over $10K
in taxes and insurance every year. *That may be small compared to New
Yawk, but this is scrub-pine, cattle country, woodsy Florida, away from
ALL attractions.

That's _after_ an "agricultural exemption" that allows about a 13%
reduction on the taxes for the _land_ (not the house).

To boot, I asked my county people when A) we will get a paved road, and
B)when we will get a fire department within 20 minutes run of our site.

The answer was (actually and literally) "Don't hold your breath. *There
are NO plans to _ever_ do that."

I also pay (separately) to have my garbage collected -- it's not part of
my "privilege tax" for living here in this county, although other
residents of the county have it included in their ad-velorum taxes. *If I
don't pay the fee (even if I never have any garbage to collect), the
county puts a lien on my property. *I have an elderly neighbor (82) who
lives about 1/2 mile OFF the dirt road we live on. *The garbage
collection company refuses to drive down his private drive to pick up his
trash, because it "disrupts their schedule", so he personally hauls it to
the county dump in his trailer. *

Thus, he didn't feel the need to renew his garbage pickup contract with
the county. *They put a lien on his house, and it grows semi-annually,
because he'll be damned if they're going to get the money.

Here's the rub. *Mine and his tax rate is the same as those in the areas
that receive the benefits. *They have fire protection. *They have tax-
included garbage collection. *They have paved roads. *As a result of the
fire protection, the "protection class" of their homes diminishes to
where their insurance bill is less than 20% of mine. *Yet, we pay for the
same services, and receive them not.

Bottom line? *The "state" (county, district, municipality, whatever
money-sucking entity you want to name) does _nothing_ for the right to
steal my money, but yet they do.

And here's the bad part (like the rest wasn't?): *When I moved here ten
years ago, this was "ag district", so our taxes were less, and insurance
companies loved us, because unlike the stupid city-slickers, we knew
enough not to burn down our own houses.

In eight years, the county commissioners found a "fatted calf", and
screwed us; they re-zoned this area "estate farms" (in their memos) and
"rural residential" in zone name -- although over 90% of this and the
surrounding 4500 acres is in beef cattle and sylviculture. *In the same
time, the insurance companies noticed they weren't earning as much as the
wanted to on the claims they never had to pay, and bumped up our rates
because we have "estate homes" (not farms, anymore).

It's theft. *If I ever get a chance to tweak the money back out of these
robbers, I shall (lawsuit, whatever... and I'm not litigious). *If I ever
find a way to cheat the system by hiding what I have in a loophole they
provided, I shall (and they make a lot of them for themselves).

They have made crooks of honest men. *And that's what the estate tax
does. *It steals from folks until they find a way to hide and sequester
what they've earned, so the government can't pillage it. *The estate tax
makes crooks of honest men.

LLoyd

Run for office.

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:06:16 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:24:42 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.

You too, confuse me at times, a brilliant may with extremely rich
fantasy life and many great project ideas.

i

what you may consider to be fantasy..is actually far too often, truth.

And truth is often far far stranger than fiction.

Far stranger.

Sometimes its easier to twist things just a tad to make folks think you
are bull****ting them, then to utter the sole truth and have them think
you are crazy.

It's absolutely amazing to me that I've built up so many memories of
weird and unbelievable things in just 56 years of existence, and I
haven't had half the experiences you have, Gunner. For people with
low amounts of intelligence and/or curiosity and/or drive, who haven't
had any of the same experiences and can't believe 'em, just let 'em
doubt. It's their loss. shrug

It's too bad you can't just walk up to someone and touch them on the
temple (or telephone handset) to share the actual experience of some
of those memories. People would run away screaming and have nightmares
for years after that. "Doubt me, will ya?" bwahahahahahaha

I'd love for you to be able to share your attempted mugging memories
with folks like Cliffie, Hawke, and pals. They'd **** their pants.

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.
-- Confucius

"Ignoramus28671" wrote in message
...
On 2010-08-01, Ed Huntress wrote:

"Ignoramus28671" wrote in message
...
On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.

You too, confuse me at times, a brilliant may with extremely rich
fantasy life and many great project ideas.

i

Read the Thurber short story, "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty

It will help you understand.


In some respects, I am a lot like Gunner too. Without my wife's
influence, my backyard would look like his.

Oh, yeah. You both walk on your hind legs. You both like machine tools.
'Like two peas in a pod. d8-)


In general, I have never been good at bull****ting.

It's not an admirable talent, so I wouldn't worry about your lack of skill.
Leave that to Gunner. He can cover the necessary output of any ten ordinary
people. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:06:16 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:24:42 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.

You too, confuse me at times, a brilliant may with extremely rich
fantasy life and many great project ideas.

i

what you may consider to be fantasy..is actually far too often, truth.

And truth is often far far stranger than fiction.

Far stranger.

Sometimes its easier to twist things just a tad to make folks think you
are bull****ting them, then to utter the sole truth and have them think
you are crazy.

It's absolutely amazing to me that I've built up so many memories of
weird and unbelievable things in just 56 years of existence, and I
haven't had half the experiences you have, Gunner. For people with
low amounts of intelligence and/or curiosity and/or drive, who haven't
had any of the same experiences and can't believe 'em, just let 'em
doubt. It's their loss. shrug

It's too bad you can't just walk up to someone and touch them on the
temple (or telephone handset) to share the actual experience of some
of those memories. People would run away screaming and have nightmares
for years after that. "Doubt me, will ya?" bwahahahahahaha

I'd love for you to be able to share your attempted mugging memories
with folks like Cliffie, Hawke, and pals. They'd **** their pants.

It would make a curious movie. Are you plugging for the Most Gullible Man in
America award?

--
Ed Huntress

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Jul 31, 11:31 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

...





On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 17:53:33 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

On 2010-07-31, pyotr filipivich wrote:
Ignoramus18915 on Fri, 30 Jul
2010 13:31:24 -0500 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
That you don't like inherited wealth doesn't matter. You can give
it all away - and not take the tax deduction.

I would not give anything away until my children are well provided
for.

Bah, you are one of the capitalist running dogs, those who inherit
wealth are the worst of the lot.

I'm sorry citizen, but you are being greedy, by not sharing the
wealth.

Well, I do not ojbect to being taxed. If I die with over 10 mil in
current money (extremely unlikely!) I would leave some to charity.

Those of us on the bottom give small amounts to charities _now_ from
our much smaller incomes, ya big, rich softie.

You live in a Rush Limbaugh fantasy land.

I highly recommend not listening to Rush Limbaugh at all, and trying
to re-establish your grip on reality. I do mean well when I say it, do
not take it as an insult.

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems
to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor
and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the
offspring of a rich corporatist.

I see nothing really wrong with sharing a part of money with the
society.

That's much, much easier to say when you have 3, or even ten, times
the amount of money you need to survive on. Ask the poor kid, living
in an apartment, who just inherited his parents' house (and half acre)
why he has to sell it to pay the estate taxes.

That kid doesn't have to pay estate taxes, and won't under any proposed
tax
plan.



Socialism is a whole lot easier when you can afford it.

It's less likely to happen when you actually understand what you're
talking
about.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, you're spoiling their fantasies. Again.

Eh, don't worry about it. They have plenty more where those came from. If
you took away *all* of their fantasies, they'd have nothing left but an
empty sack. I wouldn't want to do that to them. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus28671 wrote:

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems
to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor
and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the
offspring of a rich corporatist.

I see nothing really wrong with sharing a part of money with the
society.


You did, you were taxed all along the way. The death tax is nothing
more
than the tyranny
of the majority and a bit of penis envy. Something that plays well with
people that
believe their position in life is because some fat cat held them down.


People held down by fat cats? You mean, people like Warren Buffet, Robert
Rubin (former Citigroup Chairman), Julian Robertson (hedge fund
billionaire), and Abigail Disney (Walt's grand-neice)? They've all said
that
it's not right to have their wealth passed on to heirs -- the children of
wealthy people have done little to deserve it, beyond a modest level of
support until they're self-sufficient.

Well then, those people should give away their wealth on their own if this
is what they
believe. Some set up foundations, the most successful was the John M.
Olin foundation.
John Olin feared his foundation might drift away from his values so it had
a mandate to
spend down the assets in one generation.

Most of them *do* have foundations. But they're talking about taxes. What
are you suggesting, that we make it all voluntary? I'm sure that would work
well, Wes. g




It isn't "penis envy." It's a case of the right in America casting off all
sense of social responsibility. The anti-tax mantra has been picked up by
mainstream conservatives, as well. Despite the fact that our overall taxes
are the lowest they've been since 1954 (the strongly
libertarian/conservative Tax Foundation agrees) and are the lowest,
overall,
of any developed country in the world, they continue to scream that the
problem is taxes that are too high. Compared to what?

This self-justifying, self-centered hyper individualism actually is a
fairly
recent phenomenon, and it's not doing the country any favors. It's not a
part of traditional conservative thought. Even Adam Smith, every
conservative's favorite economist, said:


So the rich left has been sending in extra on their tax returns every
year? What is the
effective tax rate the non self centered left is paying? One can send the
government
extra money, just send it to the treasury and they will accept it.

And I'm sure you'll send your share, right? We'd all be like Gunner, sucking
in free health care while stocking up ammunition to shoot those people
who...provided the free health care. Hmm...is that part of the conservative
platform these days?



"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of
the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the
individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the
joint
tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion
to their respective interests in the estate."

Proportion not progressive tax rate.

He didn't mean a flat percentage -- he was talking about proportions of
available income. For example, here are some more Smith quotes:

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is
made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of
necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the
rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor,
by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different
parts of the country."

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find
it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is
spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the
principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets
off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they
possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest
upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be
anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue,
but something more than in that proportion."

"....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be
to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor
and burdening the rich.'"

His proportion and your proportion are not the same thing.


That's been the predominant philosophy throughout Western history. The
current right-wing thinking about taxes in general is the anomaly, and
it's
an ideology carried to its ridiculous extreme in its opposition to estate
taxes -- which have been with us since Roman times.

Stealing the pennies off a dead mans eyes. Some have no shame.

What's a dead man doing with pennies on his eyes?



You can argue with it, but you aren't arguing with Iggy or me when you do.
You're arguing with some of the best conservative thinkers in history.
Even
the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, recognized that the real
problem with taxes is that nobody likes them. g

No chit.



You of all people should know Communism didn't work and Commie lite
isn't
going to work
either.

Wes

When the government takes your house and starts paying you a set amount
from
a formula set in Washington, you can talk about communism in the US with a
straight face. In the meantime, it's as silly as comparing government
officials with Hitler.

Why is it Hitler gets brought in the conversation so often?

Because communism is brought up so often. g

But since you brought it up,
I'll play along. I'm sure Obama would like to have his own battalion of
Brown shirts.
What was that idea of his, "Civilian National Security Force"?

We have one. It's called the National Guard. No, they are NOT prevented from
acting within the country.

Do you have some objection to the National Guard? See the Militia Act of
1903 and the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and Article
IV, Section 4.

It's amazing what you can learn when you actually read the thing. d8-)



--
In her book "Atlas Shrugged", first published in 1957, Ayn Rand warned
us
about the society we find
ourselves in. We were warned.

We were warned about the consequences of taking to heart wacky
hypotheticals
cooked up as bad fiction by lousy writers. g

Orwell and Rand showed us the road ahead. We are well on our way.

Rand was a little loony. So was Orwell, but he was projecting the
consequences of totalitarianism that was blocked by the Cold War and by the
collapse of the USSR. He wrote in 1948; he couldn't have known at the time
how it would work out. But his essay on political speech could be the model
used by Sarah Palin and some of the Teabaggers -- if she actually read.

Orwell could really write up a storm, too. Rand's writing was amateurish and
pathetic. In each case, it reflected the quality of their thinking. Writing
usually does.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:37:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:02:35 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I think I'd prefer a kukri (or 2) on my hip. You?
http://fwd4.me/FA8 (lovely brown vinyl sheath!


Hah...I like working ones...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=320568240559

These are actually very well made. At least the 2 examples I saw with
that makers mark, were very good.

I like more of a hook in 'em, but never having taken anyone's head off
with one, my preference is more visual than tactical.


But shush..Im bidding on one....G

$0.11 for a $199 knife, eh? The Chinese get good, high retail prices
over there, don't they? I still have Dad's from his Viet/Thai trip so
I'm not looking. I should, however, make a decent sheath for it. The
thin leather over the original wooden sheath is falling apart.

The toggle switch ror nonstop work which, to my surprise, turned on in
early January has just switched off, so I'll have more time for my
things now. Like rebuilding the back porch roof, a new lean-to over my
woodpile (teak decking) & tractor shed, a couch (in Jarrah), and that
sheath.

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.
-- Confucius

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 23:58:54 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

On 2010-08-01, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 18:51:10 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote the following:

I hope that there is some reasonable point between these two views,
which is to simply charge a modest estate tax, like 35-45%.

Would you favor losing that "modest 45%" of your father's savings to
the gov't, Ig?

Yes, I consider it fair.

thud

--
To see what is right, and not to do it, is want of courage or of principle.
-- Confucius

On 7/31/2010 5:18 PM, Wes wrote:
wrote:

I'm sorry, but it does seem to me that you are the one who seems
to feel that I should have a claim to your money, because I am poor
and you are not. And that your children don't need it, being the
offspring of a rich corporatist.

I see nothing really wrong with sharing a part of money with the
society.


You did, you were taxed all along the way. The death tax is nothing more than the tyranny
of the majority and a bit of penis envy. Something that plays well with people that
believe their position in life is because some fat cat held them down.

You of all people should know Communism didn't work and Commie lite isn't going to work
either.

Wes


Why is it that you continue to refer to the estate tax as the death tax?
That implies that when someone dies they owe a tax. But the fact is only
about 1% of all the people that die have an estate subject to a tax.
It's actually an outright lie to call a tax that doesn't affect 99% of
the public a death tax. It's a tax on estates worth more than a million
dollars, not on death or on everyone who dies. Far from it. Understand
that when you call the estate tax the death tax that tells everyone
exactly what you are, a right wing sheep spreading propaganda with the
aim of covering up the truth. It shows real dishonesty on your part too.

Hawke

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 06:46:15 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:06:16 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:24:42 -0500, Ignoramus28671
wrote:

On 2010-08-01, Gunner Asch wrote:
You tend to confuse me at times, a brilliant man with splashes of
astounding ignorance.

You too, confuse me at times, a brilliant may with extremely rich
fantasy life and many great project ideas.

i

what you may consider to be fantasy..is actually far too often, truth.

And truth is often far far stranger than fiction.

Far stranger.

Sometimes its easier to twist things just a tad to make folks think you
are bull****ting them, then to utter the sole truth and have them think
you are crazy.

It's absolutely amazing to me that I've built up so many memories of
weird and unbelievable things in just 56 years of existence, and I
haven't had half the experiences you have, Gunner. For people with
low amounts of intelligence and/or curiosity and/or drive, who haven't
had any of the same experiences and can't believe 'em, just let 'em
doubt. It's their loss. shrug

It's too bad you can't just walk up to someone and touch them on the
temple (or telephone handset) to share the actual experience of some
of those memories. People would run away screaming and have nightmares
for years after that. "Doubt me, will ya?" bwahahahahahaha

I'd love for you to be able to share your attempted mugging memories
with folks like Cliffie, Hawke, and pals. They'd **** their pants.

People need to be able to sleep nights. Its been my experience that most
folks who have seen "Bad ****" have found mental work arounds that
either keep past experiences in a foot locker securely locked in a room
tucked away into their back brain..or use them like extra munitions
hanging out under the wings..sorta as a last resort if all else
fails..Use Plan X.

As for me....shrug...I use the foot locker securely chained and locked
in a very secure room in the back brain method. But I go visit it on a
yearly basis. I go, open the foot locker, sort through the bits and
pieces, review each item, see where I went wrong, where I did right,
mull and ponder on them and then dust them off, put them all back into
the box, rechain, and then leave, locking up after my visit. This all
occurs about 3am in the morning, while staring at the ceiling in a cold
sweat. Usually in April or October..sometimes both.

Then I go to sleep, and wake up non the worse for the experience.

Lots of guys I know do something very similar. Tends to make us all
part of the "club". Some tend to dwell in that room a hell of a lot
longer than is healthy...they are often the drunks, the druggies, the
mental walking wounded. Fortunately they are few and each year that
passes..are fewer and fewer. Some learn to get in, look and get
out..others forget to lock the door and get mobbed at the worst possible
moment. Those guys tend to kill themselves in one fashion or another,
or do something so stupid/grievious that they are killed by others.

Im very concerned about the new crop of guys coming home from the
Sandbox. Weve had troops in harms way for over 12 yrs so far..and like
my little war...it certainly isnt a cut and dried one, where IEDs are
commonly used, and the shot comes out of the blue when you least expect
it.
One of the big differences between this war..and the last bunch...is
that the maimed and badly ****ed up are now kept alive. Guys today have
a far far better chance of living through being blown to **** than at
any other time in human history. Vietnam was notable..the Sandbox is
incredible for its medical life saving abilities. Its the same kids as
every generation before. While the music and world views may have
changed...at the core..they are still the same kids who picked up a
shield and an iron sword and walked out on the line at Agincourt to kill
or be killed..but mostly to try to survive.

We are seeing those kids coming home missing arms, legs and often times
multiple limbs missing. IEDs that blow up a Hummer or a squad tend to
not make pretty messes. In earlier wars without good body armor, .they
died and we didnt see them again after the fact. Today....they are/will
be living among the Clueless around them.

So if you guys see a young man in a wheel chair, or with artificial
limbs...ask if he is a vet and if he says yes...thank him for his
service to his country.

It makes no difference as to whether you are in favor or against the
war. Its only important that when asked to go..that kid went and did
what his nation asked of him. And now he has to live for the rest of
his life with the results of his countries request.


Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

People held down by fat cats? You mean, people like Warren Buffet, Robert
Rubin (former Citigroup Chairman), Julian Robertson (hedge fund
billionaire), and Abigail Disney (Walt's grand-neice)? They've all said
that
it's not right to have their wealth passed on to heirs -- the children of
wealthy people have done little to deserve it, beyond a modest level of
support until they're self-sufficient.

Well then, those people should give away their wealth on their own if this
is what they
believe. Some set up foundations, the most successful was the John M.
Olin foundation.
John Olin feared his foundation might drift away from his values so it had
a mandate to
spend down the assets in one generation.

Most of them *do* have foundations. But they're talking about taxes. What
are you suggesting, that we make it all voluntary? I'm sure that would work
well, Wes. g


I'm just saying those that think we should pay more taxes ought to poney it up on their
own. Lead by example.





It isn't "penis envy." It's a case of the right in America casting off all
sense of social responsibility. The anti-tax mantra has been picked up by
mainstream conservatives, as well. Despite the fact that our overall taxes
are the lowest they've been since 1954 (the strongly
libertarian/conservative Tax Foundation agrees) and are the lowest,
overall,
of any developed country in the world, they continue to scream that the
problem is taxes that are too high. Compared to what?

This self-justifying, self-centered hyper individualism actually is a
fairly
recent phenomenon, and it's not doing the country any favors. It's not a
part of traditional conservative thought. Even Adam Smith, every
conservative's favorite economist, said:


So the rich left has been sending in extra on their tax returns every
year? What is the
effective tax rate the non self centered left is paying? One can send the
government
extra money, just send it to the treasury and they will accept it.

And I'm sure you'll send your share, right? We'd all be like Gunner, sucking
in free health care while stocking up ammunition to shoot those people
who...provided the free health care. Hmm...is that part of the conservative
platform these days?


No I'm not sending in my extra share, that is for those that think we don't pay enough
already.




"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of
the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to the
individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the
joint
tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion
to their respective interests in the estate."

Proportion not progressive tax rate.

He didn't mean a flat percentage -- he was talking about proportions of
available income. For example, here are some more Smith quotes:

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c. is
made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of
necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the
rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the poor,
by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the different
parts of the country."

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find
it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is
spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the
principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets
off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they
possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest
upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be
anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should
contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue,
but something more than in that proportion."


Hey, we got food stamps for that stuff. Even the poor in the USA are fat. I think that
Burke guy is a man for a different time



"....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be
to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor
and burdening the rich.'"

He likely had an awsome tax attorney.


His proportion and your proportion are not the same thing.


That's been the predominant philosophy throughout Western history. The
current right-wing thinking about taxes in general is the anomaly, and
it's
an ideology carried to its ridiculous extreme in its opposition to estate
taxes -- which have been with us since Roman times.

Stealing the pennies off a dead mans eyes. Some have no shame.

What's a dead man doing with pennies on his eyes?

Keeping them closed. No one wants open eyelids during a funeral. It would be a bit
creepy.



You can argue with it, but you aren't arguing with Iggy or me when you do.
You're arguing with some of the best conservative thinkers in history.
Even
the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, recognized that the real
problem with taxes is that nobody likes them. g

No chit.



You of all people should know Communism didn't work and Commie lite
isn't
going to work
either.

Wes

When the government takes your house and starts paying you a set amount
from
a formula set in Washington, you can talk about communism in the US with a
straight face. In the meantime, it's as silly as comparing government
officials with Hitler.

Why is it Hitler gets brought in the conversation so often?

Because communism is brought up so often. g

But since you brought it up,
I'll play along. I'm sure Obama would like to have his own battalion of
Brown shirts.
What was that idea of his, "Civilian National Security Force"?

We have one. It's called the National Guard. No, they are NOT prevented from
acting within the country.

You are dodging. He wanted something else.


Do you have some objection to the National Guard? See the Militia Act of
1903 and the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and Article
IV, Section 4.

I'd have to give it some thought. IIRC the founders didn't like large standing armies.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Which Militia?

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic Violence.

I don't see anything about the National Guard. Johnny come lately things like the Militia
act of 1903 don't count.

The Militia acts of 1792, well I'll count those.


It's amazing what you can learn when you actually read the thing. d8-)






--
In her book "Atlas Shrugged", first published in 1957, Ayn Rand warned
us
about the society we find
ourselves in. We were warned.

We were warned about the consequences of taking to heart wacky
hypotheticals
cooked up as bad fiction by lousy writers. g

Orwell and Rand showed us the road ahead. We are well on our way.

Rand was a little loony. So was Orwell, but he was projecting the
consequences of totalitarianism that was blocked by the Cold War and by the
collapse of the USSR. He wrote in 1948; he couldn't have known at the time
how it would work out. But his essay on political speech could be the model
used by Sarah Palin and some of the Teabaggers -- if she actually read.

Sarah reads rather well. I hear her teleprompter skills are at last as good as the
President.


Orwell could really write up a storm, too. Rand's writing was amateurish and
pathetic. In each case, it reflected the quality of their thinking. Writing
usually does.

I've only read Animal Farm and 1984. That essay on political speech, well, it was giving
me a headache from reading it. Maybe that is why Sarah is so popular, we know what she
said with out having to diagram the sentence.

Rand needed an editor (No, not you ). I could cut 100 pages out of her book and no one
would miss what I cut. Of course English not being her native language, I'm willing to
cut her some slack. It was the ideas that mattered.

Wes

--

You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense. No ordinary man could be such a
fool. George Orwell


Ed Huntress

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 10:13:29 -0700, the renowned Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:37:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:02:35 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I think I'd prefer a kukri (or 2) on my hip. You?
http://fwd4.me/FA8 (lovely brown vinyl sheath!


Hah...I like working ones...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=320568240559

These are actually very well made. At least the 2 examples I saw with
that makers mark, were very good.

I like more of a hook in 'em, but never having taken anyone's head off
with one, my preference is more visual than tactical.


But shush..Im bidding on one....G

$0.11 for a $199 knife, eh? The Chinese get good, high retail prices
over there, don't they?

LOL. Zhe ge dao zi tai gui le!


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:56:57 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 10:13:29 -0700, the renowned Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:37:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote the following:

On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 21:02:35 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
I think I'd prefer a kukri (or 2) on my hip. You?
http://fwd4.me/FA8 (lovely brown vinyl sheath!


Hah...I like working ones...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=320568240559

These are actually very well made. At least the 2 examples I saw with
that makers mark, were very good.

I like more of a hook in 'em, but never having taken anyone's head off
with one, my preference is more visual than tactical.


But shush..Im bidding on one....G

$0.11 for a $199 knife, eh? The Chinese get good, high retail prices
over there, don't they?

LOL. Zhe ge dao zi tai gui le!


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Actually as Ive mentioned..that particular maker does a very nice job on
their blades. They are pretty new on Ebay..and over the past
month..people are discovering them and the bid prices are getting higher
and higher.

Of couse..the $20 shipping charge from China is a killer on top of the
bid price..so the win prices have been pretty small so far.

Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

People held down by fat cats? You mean, people like Warren Buffet,
Robert
Rubin (former Citigroup Chairman), Julian Robertson (hedge fund
billionaire), and Abigail Disney (Walt's grand-neice)? They've all said
that
it's not right to have their wealth passed on to heirs -- the children
of
wealthy people have done little to deserve it, beyond a modest level of
support until they're self-sufficient.

Well then, those people should give away their wealth on their own if
this
is what they
believe. Some set up foundations, the most successful was the John M.
Olin foundation.
John Olin feared his foundation might drift away from his values so it
had
a mandate to
spend down the assets in one generation.

Most of them *do* have foundations. But they're talking about taxes. What
are you suggesting, that we make it all voluntary? I'm sure that would
work
well, Wes. g


I'm just saying those that think we should pay more taxes ought to poney
it up on their
own. Lead by example.

You're being silly. They're talking about taxes. Those are part of the
democratic process.



It isn't "penis envy." It's a case of the right in America casting off
all
sense of social responsibility. The anti-tax mantra has been picked up
by
mainstream conservatives, as well. Despite the fact that our overall
taxes
are the lowest they've been since 1954 (the strongly
libertarian/conservative Tax Foundation agrees) and are the lowest,
overall,
of any developed country in the world, they continue to scream that the
problem is taxes that are too high. Compared to what?

This self-justifying, self-centered hyper individualism actually is a
fairly
recent phenomenon, and it's not doing the country any favors. It's not a
part of traditional conservative thought. Even Adam Smith, every
conservative's favorite economist, said:


So the rich left has been sending in extra on their tax returns every
year? What is the
effective tax rate the non self centered left is paying? One can send
the
government
extra money, just send it to the treasury and they will accept it.

And I'm sure you'll send your share, right? We'd all be like Gunner,
sucking
in free health care while stocking up ammunition to shoot those people
who...provided the free health care. Hmm...is that part of the
conservative
platform these days?


No I'm not sending in my extra share, that is for those that think we
don't pay enough
already.

Again, you're being silly. Vote.






"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of
the
government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective
abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state. The expence of government to
the
individuals of a great nation is like the expence of management to the
joint
tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in
proportion
to their respective interests in the estate."

Proportion not progressive tax rate.

He didn't mean a flat percentage -- he was talking about proportions of
available income. For example, here are some more Smith quotes:

"When the toll upon carriages of luxury, upon coaches, post-chaises, &c.
is
made somewhat higher in proportion to their weight, than upon carriages of
necessary use, such as carts, waggons, &c. the indolence and vanity of the
rich is made to contribute in a very easy manner to the relief of the
poor,
by rendering cheaper the transportation of heavy goods to all the
different
parts of the country."

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find
it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is
spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the
principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and
sets
off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they
possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest
upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be
anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich
should
contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue,
but something more than in that proportion."


Hey, we got food stamps for that stuff. Even the poor in the USA are fat.
I think that
Burke guy is a man for a different time

That wasn't Burke. That was Adam Smith. You know, the conservatives' sacred
economist. d8-)




"....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be
to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the
poor
and burdening the rich.'"

He likely had an awsome tax attorney.

That was Lord Kames he was referring to -- a leader of the Scottish
Enlightenment. You know, the philosophies upon which the US system of
givernment is based. d8-)




His proportion and your proportion are not the same thing.


That's been the predominant philosophy throughout Western history. The
current right-wing thinking about taxes in general is the anomaly, and
it's
an ideology carried to its ridiculous extreme in its opposition to
estate
taxes -- which have been with us since Roman times.

Stealing the pennies off a dead mans eyes. Some have no shame.

What's a dead man doing with pennies on his eyes?

Keeping them closed. No one wants open eyelids during a funeral. It
would be a bit
creepy.



You can argue with it, but you aren't arguing with Iggy or me when you
do.
You're arguing with some of the best conservative thinkers in history.
Even
the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, recognized that the
real
problem with taxes is that nobody likes them. g

No chit.



You of all people should know Communism didn't work and Commie lite
isn't
going to work
either.

Wes

When the government takes your house and starts paying you a set amount
from
a formula set in Washington, you can talk about communism in the US with
a
straight face. In the meantime, it's as silly as comparing government
officials with Hitler.

Why is it Hitler gets brought in the conversation so often?

Because communism is brought up so often. g

But since you brought it up,
I'll play along. I'm sure Obama would like to have his own battalion of
Brown shirts.
What was that idea of his, "Civilian National Security Force"?

We have one. It's called the National Guard. No, they are NOT prevented
from
acting within the country.

You are dodging. He wanted something else.

What did he want, Wes? And how do you know?



Do you have some objection to the National Guard? See the Militia Act of
1903 and the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, and Article
IV, Section 4.

I'd have to give it some thought. IIRC the founders didn't like large
standing armies.

That's why they established a militia system that became the National Guard.


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Which Militia?

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on
Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened)
against
domestic Violence.

I don't see anything about the National Guard. Johnny come lately things
like the Militia
act of 1903 don't count.

"[O]n Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive...against domestic
violence." Those are the Founders' words.


The Militia acts of 1792, well I'll count those.


It's amazing what you can learn when you actually read the thing. d8-)






--
In her book "Atlas Shrugged", first published in 1957, Ayn Rand warned
us
about the society we find
ourselves in. We were warned.

We were warned about the consequences of taking to heart wacky
hypotheticals
cooked up as bad fiction by lousy writers. g

Orwell and Rand showed us the road ahead. We are well on our way.

Rand was a little loony. So was Orwell, but he was projecting the
consequences of totalitarianism that was blocked by the Cold War and by
the
collapse of the USSR. He wrote in 1948; he couldn't have known at the time
how it would work out. But his essay on political speech could be the
model
used by Sarah Palin and some of the Teabaggers -- if she actually read.

Sarah reads rather well. I hear her teleprompter skills are at last as
good as the
President.


Orwell could really write up a storm, too. Rand's writing was amateurish
and
pathetic. In each case, it reflected the quality of their thinking.
Writing
usually does.

I've only read Animal Farm and 1984. That essay on political speech,
well, it was giving
me a headache from reading it. Maybe that is why Sarah is so popular, we
know what she
said with out having to diagram the sentence.

It's easy. She basically says nothing, in simple words. g


Rand needed an editor (No, not you ). I could cut 100 pages out of her
book and no one
would miss what I cut. Of course English not being her native language,
I'm willing to
cut her some slack. It was the ideas that mattered.

What she needed was, first, common sense; and, second, some ability that
extended beyond 19th century melodrama. She was in love with Nietzsche's
concept of the Superman -- just as he conceived it before he went insane.
The most accurate way to think of her is as Nietzsche Lite.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:40:27 -0400, Wes
wrote:


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Which Militia?

Section 4 - Republican government

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against
domestic Violence.

I don't see anything about the National Guard. Johnny come lately things like the Militia
act of 1903 don't count.

The Militia acts of 1792, well I'll count those.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10...1----000-.html

TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title
32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of
intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the
Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the
militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Note Subsection (2)

And since the ADA rulings effect Section (a)....the upper age limit has
been modfied to "unlimited"

Gunner


"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:37:47 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
.3.70...
Ignoramus18915 fired this volley in
:

Estate tax is an attempt to balance the pluses with minuses. Some
amout being taxed, still keeps people interested in becoming wealthy,
but curtails to some extent this resource misallocation.

Ig, the estate tax might have some small effect like that, but that's
hardly its purpose. I would love it if that were actually the case, but
that's a utopian's view.

The real reason for the tax is simply that the government saw a nice, fat
pot to skim from, and decided to take a piece. They new darned well if
they took it from the average working stiff who's widow needs the whole
estate just to buy groceries, they'd have a rebellion.

There were no reasons of societal altruism in establishing the estate
tax. It's just another pork pot. Would that it were as you say.

LLoyd

In terms of why such taxes were enacted, you're quite right. As for why they
have stuck (on and off since 1797 in the US, and much longer in some
European countries), it's been a common sentiment that heirs have no natural
right to a person's wealth after their death, and that society as a whole
has a stronger claim. In other words, like sin taxes, it's been widely
accepted because most people have agreed that it's fair.

That's been the source of the arguments about it, and other types of
transfer taxes, for hundreds of years. As always with taxes that are not
issued strictly per-capita, a nation's tax structure tends to reflect what
the majority thinks is right and wrong. In a democratic society, going
against that popular opinion can result in one losing the next election.

Now it's a highly contested issue, so it's become one more divisive
political point.


Ed,

Did you see the Op-Ed piece that our old Spartan college mate David
Stockman wrote for the NYT? Lists the four things that Republicans
have done to ruin the economy. I can't quite figure out if he's
defending his stance or complaining that no one listened to him

Probably has a book coming out.

Karl Pearson

Gunner Asch wrote:

Note Subsection (2)

And since the ADA rulings effect Section (a)....the upper age limit has
been modfied to "unlimited"


SWWWWEEEEEEETTTTT they will never get my militia guns You made my day Gunner!

Wes

--

What is a militia gun? Anything you can fight with.