Politics: A new beginning - Page 57

notcasesensitive · 10-22-2003, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yeah, well I was sick of him always spouting off about his hippie days. Jeez, he was always like "oh yeah, and the 30th time I tried heroin, on St. Patrick's day in 1952", or "oh yeah, 1971 was the best year!!... it was like a 24/7 pill party!".

Seriously though, I think a lot of us would like to see at least a brief interview with the Niagara guy.

He was on at least one radio show this morning. I would google it for you, but frankly I don't really care enough. I'll be impressed when he survives an American side plunge. Until then, eh...

Also his so-called friend reported that he had been contemplating it for some time and was interested in money to be made from surviving, so I'm sure your wishes for a media whore will be fulfilled.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-22-2003, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
media whore

Yeah, cuz its not like he coulda been killed doing that or anything.

notcasesensitive · 10-22-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yeah, cuz its not like he coulda been killed doing that or anything.

Sure he coulda been killed. But he thought he had an inside line on where to plunge to avoid death. And he thought he could do it for fun and profit. Hopefully he'll make more from interviews than the $10,000 (not sure if that is American or Canadian) that he will be fined. He probably will.

At least this is what has been reported to date.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-22-2003, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
No no no, I visit because of the tax posts. Now I know why he's "Mmmmmmm" Burger. Mmmmmmmmm.

Clean your panties. Or at least resolve for us whether the estate tax inherently imposes a greater paperwork burden than other taxes. Please. CtD can't be right.

ltl/fb · 10-22-2003, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Clean your panties. Or at least resolve for us whether the estate tax inherently imposes a greater paperwork burden than other taxes. Please. CtD can't be right.

I do find your obsession with pristine panties a little disturbing. That stuff is there for reasons, one of which is to keep things from being painful for me.

CtD is wrong. I can say that with confidence even though I do not read his posts. The paperwork is likely not that much worse, and if you have all that money you should be spending a chunk of it on lawyers anyway. It's good to give lawyers money.

I don't do estate tax stuff, though.

Shape Shifter · 10-22-2003, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Yeah, cuz its not like he coulda been killed doing that or anything.

Check your sig line.

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 10-22-2003, 06:19 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...310221599db056

Article against preemptive war.

Connect_the_Dots · 10-22-2003, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Clean your panties. Or at least resolve for us whether the estate tax inherently imposes a greater paperwork burden than other taxes. Please. CtD can't be right.

I don't think the actual form is any more complicated (but I am not a tax attorney). I do remember from my estate tax class in LS that a lot of the ways to get hit with death taxes (generation skipping transfer taxes, IRD, etc.) require a lot of lawyering to avoid (charitible remainder trusts, etc.).

As a corporate lawyer, I remember doing some fancy footwork to avoid (not evade) taxes for my clients (1031 asset exchanges, IRU swaps etc.) but there the players were big boys who could afford to pay what was a small amount in relation to the taxes that they avoided. As a percentage, an estate of 1-2 million or so will have a lot of wealth eaten up in lawyer fees. If the cutoff were higher (10 million?), maybe it wouldn't bother me. But if you have to pay, say, 5% of your estate that is a lot of money, even if it helps to keep you from having to turn over 40% to the government. Paying 5% is better than paying 40, but that still doesn't mean that paying the 5% is "fair".

end rant.

ltl/fb · 10-22-2003, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
I don't think the actual form is any more complicated (but I am not a tax attorney). I do remember from my estate tax class in LS that a lot of the ways to get hit with death taxes (generation skipping transfer taxes, IRD, etc.) require a lot of lawyering to avoid (charitible remainder trusts, etc.).

As a corporate lawyer, I remember doing some fancy footwork to avoid (not evade) taxes for my clients (1031 asset exchanges, IRU swaps etc.) but there the players were big boys who could afford to pay what was a small amount in relation to the taxes that they avoided. As a percentage, an estate of 1-2 million or so will have a lot of wealth eaten up in lawyer fees. If the cutoff were higher (10 million?), maybe it wouldn't bother me. But if you have to pay, say, 5% of your estate that is a lot of money, even if it helps to keep you from having to turn over 40% to the government. Paying 5% is better than paying 40, but that still doesn't mean that paying the 5% is "fair".

end rant.

People pay 5% or more (and sign non-disclosure agreements) to avoid taxes all the freaking time. Ask E&Y and Jenkins.

Edited to correct spelling.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-22-2003, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Sure he coulda been killed. But he thought he had an inside line on where to plunge to avoid death. And he thought he could do it for fun and profit. Hopefully he'll make more from interviews than the $10,000 (not sure if that is American or Canadian) that he will be fined. He probably will.

At least this is what has been reported to date.

Fair enough. Maybe I'm just reminded of the childhood cartoon references to going over the falls in a barrel.

That, and having seen the Potomac after the hurricane, I'm having trouble picturing how anyone doesn't drown in the swirling water at the bottom.

Anyway, if the guy sounds like he did it so he could get it on TV, I'll be the first one to change the station. But if he did it just to prove it could be done, or some stupid primal instinct like that, then I think I'd probably find him interesting for 30 seconds or a minute.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 10-22-2003, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Connect_the_Dots
As a percentage, an estate of 1-2 million or so will have a lot of wealth eaten up in lawyer fees. If the cutoff were higher (10 million?), maybe it wouldn't bother me. But if you have to pay, say, 5% of your estate that is a lot of money, even if it helps to keep you from having to turn over 40% to the government. Paying 5% is better than paying 40, but that still doesn't mean that paying the 5% is "fair".

Sure. Paperwork costs are regressive. But again I ask what's new? That's true of the income tax too. My parents spent a chunk on lawyer fees to get an estate plan. But the chunk was a lot smaller than the money it will save once they're both dead (unless my mom dies in 2010, in which case the fees will have been a waste).

And really you don't need a lot of the advanced techniques with GST and whatnot unless you've got a huge load. The pretty basic credit trust will should be able to be generated for not more than a couple of Gs.

And if you want to raise the floor, I'm all for that. In fact, the current law provides for that even in advance of 2010. But that doesn't justify a repeal.

There's a decent moral argument to be made for a complete repeal of the estate tax. And there's a decent moral argument to retain it. I can't say which one is right, and probably no one can. But to dress up a repeal as justified by farmers, paperwork, or small businesses is fundamentally disingenuous. Although not surprisingly, it enjoys 70% support among those who have no hope of being subject to the estate tax, even as currently written.

ltl/fb · 10-22-2003, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure. Paperwork costs are regressive. But again I ask what's new? That's true of the income tax too. My parents spent a chunk on lawyer fees to get an estate plan. But the chunk was a lot smaller than the money it will save once they're both dead (unless my mom dies in 2010, in which case the fees will have been a waste).

And really you don't need a lot of the advanced techniques with GST and whatnot unless you've got a huge load. The pretty basic credit trust will should be able to be generated for not more than a couple of Gs.

And if you want to raise the floor, I'm all for that. In fact, the current law provides for that even in advance of 2010. But that doesn't justify a repeal.

There's a decent moral argument to be made for a complete repeal of the estate tax. And there's a decent moral argument to retain it. I can't say which one is right, and probably no one can. But to dress up a repeal as justified by farmers, paperwork, or small businesses is fundamentally disingenuous. Although not surprisingly, it enjoys 70% support among those who have no hope of being subject to the estate tax, even as currently written.

It is beginning to shock me that you are too stupid to come in out of the hurricane.

Bil Mo' · 10-22-2003, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I did not come over for the single guys. I came over despite them, mainly in order to annoy bilmore a little more. It seemed to work.

Big shout out to fb for the moniker reference. Am I allowed to say shout out on the PB?

You came here for me?

Well, I have been to see a great yogi, relived my days of exploring the world of my mind, and am now returned from my journey.

And now, NCS, I am ready for you.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-22-2003, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Article against preemptive war.

I would think that the massive intelligence failure of the Great WMD/Snipe Hunt have completely discredited the case for preemptive war.

Atticus Grinch · 10-22-2003, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Fair enough. Maybe I'm just reminded of the childhood cartoon references to going over the falls in a barrel.

That, and having seen the Potomac after the hurricane, I'm having trouble picturing how anyone doesn't drown in the swirling water at the bottom.

Suffocation does seem to be the prevailing theme for many who go over the falls, barrel or no. The guy who strapped himself to an anvil inside a wooden barrel and in so doing quartered himself on impact is my favorite, though. The Straight Dope had a definitive list of Niagaranauts and their various fates, but its website seems to be malfunctioning today.

In other stunt/publicity whore news, David Blaine is back on solids, which is probably more than we can say for Roy "I need cranial surgery like I need a hole in my head" Horn.