KaskadskyjKozak

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

Well, yes, if you cut marginal rates by 1%, then those who make 10 times as much, can get 10 times the "cut". I'd like to see us all agree on what is a fair rate, and not exceed it - force the government to actually budget, which involves tough decisions and cuts. In times of prosperity it'd be nice to see accumulation of some surplus for use in harder times. yeah, like that ever happens.

Ok, let's leave it as being a dick, i.e. considering yourself entirely over the common good. The book does a good job of defining what the authors feel American patriotism is: I agree with the goals above; it's the means to achieve them, especially when government becomes overly involved that I will disagree with.

I've been sick 11 days. Finally went to Doc, who even took chest X-Rays. I'm on antibiotics now. Hope you get better and don't go down the road I did.

People have a different notion of what it means to be patriotic and how to manifest it. I will not second guess them. The only point I concede is when politicians and news "analysts" use patriotism to achieve their ends. Naming of bills and wars/military operations has indeed become very Machiavellian. BOTH SIDES DO IT. I agree that the "Patriot Act" is a ridiculous, manipulative name for this legislation, but I think some like the "Patient's Bill of Rights" is JUST AS ridiculous and manipulative. No Child Left Behind, Operation Enduring Freedom - the list goes on. Both sides do this. From the left it is "you support this legislation or you hate children, want to kill the elderly, are cruel greed bastards, are racist, etc etc etc". There is no room from either side to disagree without heaping accusations on the other. We needed the initial tax cuts and military spending (say first 2-3 years). At this point, I agree with you. It's well past time to think about how to pay for this and not continue ridiculous deficits. There was a 1% cut in the marginal rate for everyone who PAYS taxes. It benefited me and I am nowhere near the 99 %-ile. Sorry, but I disagree with this.

You are attributing a motive and characterization of individuals rather than identifying concrete problems and how you desire they be redressed. When you say "greed" I can interpret that many ways. Wanting a good life? Wanting a good salary? What exactly is this "greed"? One could view the left as greedy - greedy for power. Or those who desire handouts as "greedy" - give me more, for doing nothing. Bad choice of words. Not productive.

The colonial populace was split roughly 50/50, as I recall. Brits were commandeering the homes of revolutionary/sympathizers for garrisoning officers and soldiers, etc. It's not as simple as you paint it. Your example is poorly chosen.

I agree with this statement. I don't believe it's the government's job to fund health care. Transportation and education are a mixed bag. Effective, appropriate spending, I agree with; social engineering I disagree with. I disagree with the term "greed". It's inflammatory and unnecessary. What exactly is this greed, anyways? Class warfare has become tiresome and ridiculous. I don't think many CEO's are motivated by greed as much as by other measures of success (performance in the market, growth, market share, etc). Driven people living in a competitive environment trying to excel according to the measures they are given. I agree that we should not fuck the future over for the next generation through huge deficits and destruction of the environment. I'll stop here on the point by point. The deal here is that lefties constantly broad-brush stroke the right, and manufacture positions that we/they currently hold, and use language that is bound to divide and bring conflict rather than find common ground. And few are willing to compromise. I can agree with some points above. So can many "conservatives", so instead of attacking them, think of a way to work together.

Hmm. Interesting. Terrorists: and how did the Boston Tea Party instill terror into the populace? I used to work in Biotech, and there were days where we were on alert because of groups like ELF. There was a threat of being bombed or attacked because we "experimented on animals". Yes, we had some fucking mice on the facility. If this incident was indeed conducted by ELF, and there are more bombings like it, then there will be a feeling of fear amongst those who are building these homes, considering buying them, or who already live in them.

terrorists try to instill terror into the populace, in the hopes of preventing people from doing what they are, using violence and threats. arson (and bombing) meets this definition. they do not have to kill people or try to. And in any case the *threat* is there. They may not have planned to kill anyone, but just as easily could have.

Using the word "True" was a bad choice. I read part of it. A bit long winded. What I read was interesting.

I really take offense to these comments. I support the ultimate goal of limited rural development and "urban sprawl." That makes me a terrorist? Contrariwise, that must make you a developer. Dude, your reaction to this story was "hurrah, fuck the developers". You definitely sympathize with the goals of ELF (the ends) - if they were responsible for this, and you didn't condemn the means to their ends.

OK, I'll admit I am uncouth. :-)))

I don't have time to read the whole thing. What I protest about the piece the most is the use of the term "true patriot". This is alienating, and attacks everyone who has already defined or thought about what patriotism means to them. A better title might have been "Rethinking Patriotism" or "Revisiting Patriotism" or something like that.

Vitriolic hatred? Sorry, but your attempts at slanderous mischaracterization (for what end? rhetorical? blindness?). Outrage is not hatred, my friend. My outrage as expressed in this thread is more towards the reaction of those who actually applaud this type of misdeed, gleefully, joyfully, probably with a hard-on - "yeah yeah, burn it down, destroy, that's the way". This attitude threatens civilization. It's dangerous. Just because you disagree with the way others live, and can not effect change as you want does not justify throwing rule of law out the window. It's exactly what we've seen in all violent revolutions, and totalitarian regimes. And BTW, this is exactly what Islam - you know moderate Islam - is accused of regarding terrorist acts. Tacit support. Support. At least sympathizing with the goals. It is extremely discomforting knowing we have the same types of folks in our midst.