A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Didn't we just have this conversation with me saying exactly this and you saying, "no, satellite is different?"

Do you have evidence of this, or can you just imagine how it could be true?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
It is welfare, and they didn't "earn" it.

You seem to have missed the fact that the money that will trickle down will be some subset of my the taxes I paid.

Of course, I also believe in inheritence taxes....

1. They paid into it, no?

2. ...and the taxes the recipients paid.

3. Morally and legally, I can't justify inheritence tax. Practically and pragmatically, it seems sensible for the truly insanely rich to return a portion of their estate. I say that for two reasons: (1) they don't need the money, and (2) their massive wealth has allowed them to utilize tax avoidance mechanisms not available to the average Joe, so an inheritence tax works as a sort of catch-all to grab the taxes they avoided for so m,any years. I am uncomfortable with both of these weak justifications, but can't come up with any others. The truth is that it really is an unfair tax.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• The FCC declined to open a proceeding on whether satellite radio is indecent, saying that it is a subscription service and that the agency has already ruled that such services "do not call into play the issue of indecency."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA488198.html

That is encouraging, but I'm concerned that the FCC chose to state that it only regulates indecency on mediums "indiscriminately available to children". There's enough wiggle room in that statement of jurisdiction to allow some fucking Jesus Freak lawyer to argue that satellite radio is indiscriminately available to children once the medium becomes widespread a few years from now.

That said, I don't think the FCC can ever get its claws into a subscription service, but in a few years you will see some pack of assholes in some backwater make the argument that satellite radio is everywhere, and therefore children are indiscriminately exposed to it.

The censors' biggest problem, however, is technology itself. There is no way to stop people from getting what they want 24/7 as new varieties of delivery mechanisms pop up every year. We'll be watching perfectly pixilated porn on our wristwatches during meetings in 2010.

[baltassoc]

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
(a) update martindale. (b) if you are solo, to whom are you saying "fuck you"? your clients? nice.

Actually, according to everyone I know sho's made it, the beauty of haing fuck you money is that it largely eliminates the urge to say it to anyone.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
1. They paid into it, no?

2. ...and the taxes the recipients paid.

3. Morally and legally, I can't justify inheritence tax. Practically and pragmatically, it seems sensible for the truly insanely rich to return a portion of their estate. I say that for two reasons: (1) they don't need the money, and (2) their massive wealth has allowed them to utilize tax avoidance mechanisms not available to the average Joe, so an inheritence tax works as a sort of catch-all to grab the taxes they avoided for so m,any years. I am uncomfortable with both of these weak justifications, but can't come up with any others. The truth is that it really is an unfair tax.

Once you're dead, you have no rights. No one -- especially not rich people -- likes the idea that you can't go on controlling things after your death, but that's the way it is.

The inheritance tax is about the rights of the children of rich people to collect their parents' wealth after their parents die.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Once you're dead, you have no rights. No one -- especially not rich people -- likes the idea that you can't go on controlling things after your death, but that's the way it is.

The inheritance tax is about the rights of the children of rich people to collect their parents' wealth after their parents die.

Your kids, or whomever you bequeath it to - not the government - have the equitable, legal* and moral right to your money.

I trust you're not suggesting a policy whereby once a person dies, his money, or any part of his money, reverts to the state's ownership. Thats a scary fucking concept right there.

* Well, I guess this is according to how the intestacy statutes in your state work.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Once you're dead, you have no rights. No one -- especially not rich people -- likes the idea that you can't go on controlling things after your death, but that's the way it is.

Than why do we enforce wills?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Your kids, or whomever you bequeath it to - not the government - have the equitable, legal* and moral right to your money.

I trust you're not suggesting a policy whereby once a person dies, his money, or any part of his money, reverts to the state's ownership. Thats a scary fucking concept right there.

* Well, I guess this is according to how the intestacy statutes in your state work.

You have a moral issue with the government imposing any kind of a tax on the guy who gets a bunch of money free because he won the genetic lottery, but you don't have a moral issue with the government imposing a tax on the income earned by a guy who spends 8 hours a day digging a ditch? That is seriously fucked up.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
You have a moral issue with the government imposing any kind of a tax on the guy who gets a bunch of money free because he won the genetic lottery, but you don't have a moral issue with the government imposing a tax on the income earned by a guy who spends 8 hours a day digging a ditch? That is seriously fucked up.

Bob, are you a communist?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I trust you're not suggesting a policy whereby once a person dies, his money, or any part of his money, reverts to the state's ownership. Thats a scary fucking concept right there.

Well, until about the 12th Century, that's the system that existed. Furthermore, as long as their has been a common law, it has provided that property belongs to the individual only during life, and the state can place imposts or restrictions upon its transfer.

I'm not suggesting that we return to the 12th Century. But it is worth remembering that the right to pass one's property to one's heirs is a relatively recent development, and it there is no natural inherent right to receive the property of your ancestors.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk

I'm not suggesting that we return to the 12th Century. But it is worth remembering that the right to pass one's property to one's heirs is a relatively recent development, and it there is no natural inherent right to receive the property of your ancestors.

Well than we really don't own our property outright, do we. There is always a reversionary interest to the state.

ETA: and if we don't own it outright, shouldn't the taxes we pay on it be discounted to reflect that?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Well than we really don't own our property outright, do we. There is always a reversionary interest to the state.

ETA: and if we don't own it outright, shouldn't the taxes we pay on it be discounted to reflect that?

Well, actually, there is always a reversionary interest to the state. Look up "escheat" in your Black's. As to your point re: discounting, it's generally very difficult to accurately discount for a contnigent future interest. Where the contingency is highly remote, as it is with respect to the state, that vaulation would be nearly de minimis.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk

I'm not suggesting that we return to the 12th Century.

But it is worth remembering that the right to pass one's property to one's heirs is a relatively recent development, and it there is no natural inherent right to receive the property of your ancestors.

Exactly.

Let me guess... back in the pre-12th century days, the "state" (royalty) took the assets of the dead?

I'd say its a natural right that what was your fathers becomes yours, unless he bequeaths it to someone else.

To whoever said "you have no rights when you're dead", the right to inherit doesn't belong to the dead, but the living. Intestacy statutes don't aid the dead - they aid the survivors. The dead guy's got no rights, but the law protects his heirs.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
You have a moral issue with the government imposing any kind of a tax on the guy who gets a bunch of money free because he won the genetic lottery, but you don't have a moral issue with the government imposing a tax on the income earned by a guy who spends 8 hours a day digging a ditch? That is seriously fucked up.

The money the heir receives has already been taxed when it was income to the deceased.* It is a double taxation.

The money I get in wages has not been previously taxed.

Yeh, it sounds terribly unfair. So does abortion and at will employment to some people.

* Yes, I appreciate the fact the argument that because it is now going to the heir, it should therefore be taxed again.