KaskadskyjKozak

Of course I'm opposed to it - even if I never have a chance in hell of being that rich.

that again would be the misappropriated prescriptive side. see, there is a difference. byenow. yeah, yeah, Marxists had a good idea, it's the application that failed. But Prole wants to try again. Just one more time. The experiment has been tried enough, as documented in the reference above. Only a moron like Prole fails to see that. Unfortunately the world is full of Proles.

wow. harsh. antagonistic. very very angry. I'd say another tragedy is that there are people so stupid that they cannot see that "Marxism" was and is, for the thinking person, mainly descriptive, not prescriptive. it's an immensely rich avenue of inquiry and discourse. where i fall off is when people endorse its barely formed prescriptive theoretics, without acknowledging its tremendous short-comings and misapplications. Don't bother. wouldn't know a marxian analysis from a hole in the ground, much less what you're talking about. Pretend your writing for the History Channel or one of those little evangelical comic books. A little reading for you Prole. Choke on it.

the truth

...an oft quoted "middle passage" number that is utterly ridiculous. Anyone who believes this has big problems with not only math, but truth. Now is the part where you fall back on, "yea man, so what man, are you trying to say that four thousand, or forty thousand, or whatever, man, that that was ok? Is that what you're saying you right-wing bastard!!!!!! Huh???? That quarter-and-a-half you did at Whatcom Community College was just enough to make you a total dipshit without a fucking clue. The real tragedy is that anyone is so fucking stupid in the modern world to turn to Marxism considering the 100 million life body count that that failed philosophy has wrought on humankind in less than 100 years.

I keep looking up and down the posts in the thread. where are the female posters? no glossy photos. airbrushed. nothing. it's false advertising

this is spray. no climbers here

those chix may be able to walk in those shoes but they'd surely have broken ankles or some such w/o the TR they'd be hotter if they gained a few pounds.

maybe we should forciby evict people who live alone in large houses. old grandmas, single folks, etc. the government can pay them a "market price". then young families can take their homes to live in. the government can provide these profligate planet killers some fine high-density living somewhere in the urban center.

I don't understand the problem. Can't we all just get jobs on small farms? edit: I guess not. Then how would we afford our ~5000 sqft homes? You really think 4000+ sq ft homes are causing the urban sprawl in King and Snohomish counties? Try 1700-3000 sq ft homes.

sprawl is increasing because the population is increasing - births + IMMIGRATION. Are you opposed to population growth from these two factors and working against them? Also, as we extend our lifespan, we will have more people alive at the same time.

Regarding the lights at night image. Seems we should all start learning to raise with the sun and sleep at sunset? OK, tough in the winter (unless we want to sleep 14+ hours a day). But perhaps there should be controlled brownouts? No more nightclubs, concerts, and anything that burns/wastes energy at night? NO more street lamps, lights on at the office, etc? I'm sure every environmentally conscious person here would go along with that right? To save the planet. And while we're at it, no more escalators and elevators.

There you go again, with the same BS argument. You work all your life and save your paychecks and amass well over $4 million and therefore your heirs pay an estate tax? Estate tax is overwhelmingly applied to long term capital gains. Furthermore, Gary's argument about double taxation applies: property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, etc. may all be argued to be double taxation. and there YOU go again. we have a fundamental philosophical disagreement. deal with it. grow up for once and acknowledge that.

the problem is that many of us think it is fundamentally unfair, double taxation. and, yes, it is a "death tax" - that's when it's collected. I think the tax system will never be perfect. Instead of worrying about who is "rich" or not - let's take what we have today and work with it. Nobody wants to talk about that, now do they. The reason is simple - that would be hard. A lot harder than arbirtrarily raising taxes, hard because you'd piss off somebody on the federal teat (whether its people taking advantage of transfer payment or corporations on corporate welfare, or the military industrial complex, or...).

You forget that people only obtained such property through help from the very same government! bullshit. actually, in a fundamental sense, it isn't bullshit, since the entire economic system wouldn't exist without a governmental structure of some sort. the game is set up within parameters outlined and enforced through government's reach, and in this game, some are way better than others. i think it's disingenius to suggest that, in this sense, government isn't helping out the successful game-players. Government already got its "share" with the first round of taxation. Look, wealth, in an estate has already been taxed. It's something you work at your whole life, and pass on to your family (or whomever) when you die. Government is stepping in to take a pound of flesh out of *greed* (how's that for a turn about?), because they can, and because we let them. Finally, this country is founded on the principle that we grant rights to the government, not the other way around. It is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. We are not people of the government, by the government, for the government. The government does not own us, and we should not be grateful to it. We create the government FOR US.

You forget that people only obtained such property through help from the very same government! bullshit.

Don't remember. The figure 39.6% comes to mind for the (highest?) marginal rate. It was the largest tax hike in American history. Previously, Bush 41's was the largest hike, if I recall correctly. I just find it ridiculous that everytime the gov't gets into a jam with their budget they raise taxes. And then they want a pat on the back for being fiscally "responsible"?

Yup. The story that I heard was that not long ago some Republicans were arguing in Congress that the Estate Tax was putting family farms out of business and the Democrats challenged them to come up with a single example of where this had happened. As I recall, they could not. This point is made here: link. Irrelevant. It's fundamentally unfair. Period. The estate tax is an example of a tyrannical government confiscating property when it can, because it can, and this "right" is handed over by the willing masses. You guys talk about civil liberties being violated by Gitmo, waterboarding and wire-tapping, while you willingly cede over your property and life to an ever-powerful government. The irony!

LOL. Clinton raised taxes, man! I hardly call that fiscal responsibility. He wanted to spend more, so he taxed more. An analog would be this - you spend too much, and have credit card debt, so you order your employer to give you a raise. How well would that work? And Clinton only balanced the budget with those higher revenues after Newt and the R Revolution took over congress and held him to it. The irony is once an R got in the Whitehouse that supposedly R principle for balanced budgets went down the toilet in the name of pork spending to secure reelection. I've said it before - I think taxes are fair now. Let's not raise or lower them. Let's have government balance the budget using the funds they have today.

It's different man. We're talking about a federal tax, aren't we? If you pay federal income taxes your whole life, it's unfair to pay again on your estate. Sales tax is a local tax. It is in lieu of an income tax. I support separate taxes at the federal versus state and local level, assuming the revenue is used appropriately, efficiently, and within a reasonable budget.

My income is taxed. When I pass my income on to, say, my mechanic he then has to pay income tax on it too. When an estate passes from one person to another its income to the recipient. That's different. This "income" is wealth built up over years on the hard work that has already been taxed.

Rob, lighting your own farts is so 8th grade.

Again, let's come to an agreement on what is "fair", even a "fair range" and then stick within that range. What I perceive from a left is a constant desire to increase taxes, grow government and spend more. Yes, Bush did the latter two, but I don't look to the left for the opposite. We've covered this before. I think the estate tax as double (or triple) taxation and, as such, completely unfair. The person who built up the estate (or couple) paid income, capital gains and real estate taxes their whole life. It should not be taxed again upon that person's death.

I love thread drift