Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Why can't you explain it's function?

I believe it has many functions. I'm not sure where to start. Why don't you read the UN Charter?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I believe it has many functions. I'm not sure where to start. Why don't you read the UN Charter?

Do you have a job?

I posted a story about a UN action. In detail, I point out why that action seems of little help to the world. I ask those present can you please point to something worthwhile the UN has done- in context you've been hammering a man tapped to represent the US before the UN for asking similar questions- I thought, since you can ridicule this man you must be prepared to answer my question. Do you feel the "support Islam/fuck Israel" declarations are a benefit to the world, or is there something else?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you have a job?

I posted a story about a UN action. In detail, I point out why that action seems of little help to the world. I ask those present can you please point to something worthwhile the UN has done- in context you've been hammering a man tapped to represent the US before the UN for asking similar questions- I thought, since you can ridicule this man you must be prepared to answer my question. Do you feel the "support Islam/fuck Israel" declarations are a benefit to the world, or is there something else?

I think that by giving countries like Pakistan an outlet for their "All we are saying/is give Islam a chance" sentiments, the UN serves a useful role. Nor is that the only thing the UN does. Based on your description, I don't think I would have voted for the resolution myself, but that's a different question.

eta:

And I do have a job, but I'm always willing to entertain other offers.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No doubt I am merely expressing my middle-class prejudices, but it seems to me that a $1 million exemption lets anyone get a pretty substantial inheritance. Isn't $1 million enough? Why cry for the Paris Hiltons of the world?

See, I was spotting you teh $1m exemption. If the tax is an efficient one, and you make a cogent argument that it is (indeed, it is unavoidable and therefore does not create inefficiency, other than the timing of spending). So, I'd say no exemption, 50% all around. Drop the income tax accordingly.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Do you have a job?

I posted a story about a UN action. In detail, I point out why that action seems of little help to the world. I ask those present can you please point to something worthwhile the UN has done- in context you've been hammering a man tapped to represent the US before the UN for asking similar questions- I thought, since you can ridicule this man you must be prepared to answer my question. Do you feel the "support Islam/fuck Israel" declarations are a benefit to the world, or is there something else?

You ridicule people who respond to you by asking if they have a job, then you effectively ask them to take time from their jobs to answer your questions. Nicely played!

"Point to something worthwhile the UN has done." Google provides one advocate for them in the San Diego Tribune:

• The problem is that we tend to remember failures and discount success. We remember Rwanda and forget successful operations in El Salvador, Mozambique and Nambia. We focus on Kosovo, where the U.N. mission met stiff resistance, and forget Cyprus, where the United Nations has preserved the peace since 1964. We remember the disaster in Somalia and forget the mission in Kashmir, where the "blue hats" of the United Nations have played a role in keeping the peace between the nuclear powers of India and Pakistan since 1949. Today, there are 18 peacekeeping missions in the world with more requests for new missions than the United Nations can handle. If U.N. peacekeeping has failed, why does this demand exist?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No doubt I am merely expressing my middle-class prejudices, but it seems to me that a $1 million exemption lets anyone get a pretty substantial inheritance. Isn't $1 million enough? Why cry for the Paris Hiltons of the world?

Depends how many people that $1 million is split among. You have four kids and ten grandkids, and it isn't so much.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
See, I was spotting you teh $1m exemption. If the tax is an efficient one, and you make a cogent argument that it is (indeed, it is unavoidable and therefore does not create inefficiency, other than the timing of spending). So, I'd say no exemption, 50% all around. Drop the income tax accordingly.

There's that intuition that children should get to receive some inheritance from their parents. It's hard to justify from an efficiency standpoint, unless you think that most of us will work harder if we know we can leave something to our kids. We know this intuition is a powerful one, because it's what the GOP is using to sell a plan to make rich people much richer.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
San Antonio is slightly bigger than Dallas, though I think that the Metoplex is larger than the surrounding area around SA.

Dallasist Fuck.

[Apparently, according to one source, the Metroplex is larger population-wise than your beloved Houston - http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionar...n%20%282000%29]

[I know; who cares.]

[Other than RT and me.]

[Hell, I don't even live there anymore.]

[Anyone have any interesting links to pass on? I'm kinda bored.]

[Carry on.]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
[Anyone have any interesting links to pass on? I'm kinda bored.]

Some Norwegian environmentalists are thinking outside the box -- or rather about the box, outside -- to further the cause. Go them.

(spree: initial link is work-safe; from there, caveat emptor)

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's true. But I also think that the calculus of what's fairly progressive with respect to income tax and estate tax are different. Kind of like how property tax is not progressive (other than possibly some exemptions for homesteads, etc.)

If you read the WaPo article you posted a link to, less than 5% (or 3%) of the people who die have to do estate tax returns. That seems pretty progressive to me.

ETA oh, you don't want any progressivity in the estate tax? Huh. The homestead exemption is not unlike the estate tax exemption (or whatever that's called); and, while not as many people are exempt from property taxes, the tax rate is quite low.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you read the WaPo article you posted a link to, less than 5% (or 3%) of the people who die have to do estate tax returns. That seems pretty progressive to me.

Sure, but as I replied to Ty my point relates to what should be not what is.

If it's morally acceptable to tax estates because, hey, the person is dead, then why is it morally not acceptable to tax small estates? Since we're not worried about efficiency, why draw the line at $1m? Why not $10m? Why not $100k?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but as I replied to Ty my point relates to what should be not what is.

If it's morally acceptable to tax estates because, hey, the person is dead, then why is it morally not acceptable to tax small estates? Since we're not worried about efficiency, why draw the line at $1m? Why not $10m? Why not $100k?

Because in general, estates of that size contain little more than the family home. A mere $100k exemption would require a forced sale of the family home in order to pay the estate taxes, and forced sales driven by tax needs often result in fire sale prices.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but as I replied to Ty my point relates to what should be not what is.

If it's morally acceptable to tax estates because, hey, the person is dead, then why is it morally not acceptable to tax small estates? Since we're not worried about efficiency, why draw the line at $1m? Why not $10m? Why not $100k?

Well, at a certain point, it's not efficient to administer the estate tax -- the transaction costs outweigh the benefits of the revenue. Like, a lot of states have ways to handle property post-death without going through probate, if the estate is small enough.

I could go for your $100k, though, that's harder if it's a younger person dying and they have little kids who need to be provided for. And if we do a broad exemption for life insurance, that's a huge loophole that people will start to use all their assets on.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If it's morally acceptable to tax estates because, hey, the person is dead, then why is it morally not acceptable to tax small estates? Since we're not worried about efficiency, why draw the line at $1m? Why not $10m? Why not $100k?

Because we all have a powerful psychological need to deny the permanence and inevitability of death by thinking that our works will continue in the world after we leave, and that these works will continue to benefit those whom we love.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Because we all have a powerful psychological need to deny the permanence and inevitability of death by thinking that our works will continue in the world after we leave, and that these works will continue to benefit those whom we love.

But not over a certain amount?