Leftwing advocacy site-Bravo Foxtrot Delta
So would yours. It is only possible to punish people AFTER they have committed a crime.We've already been through that discussion. Your worldview would allow an entity to use another entity in a damaging fashion, or cause another entity intentional harm, and then maybe put a price on this use or harm after the fact.
But it is possible by patrolling to reduce crime. Put a speed limit sign in a town with no cop and everyone will ignore the sign. Put a cop by the sign on random days and half the people might follow the law. Your system calls for no oversight, so no one will follow the law as long as they can make money by breaking it.So would yours. It is only possible to punish people AFTER they have committed a crime.
I've got no problem with patrolling to fight crime. That's what police forces are supposed to do: force people to follow the law.But it is possible by patrolling to reduce crime. Put a speed limit sign in a town with no cop and everyone will ignore the sign. Put a cop by the sign on random days and half the people might follow the law. Your system calls for no oversight, so no one will follow the law as long as they can make money by breaking it.
With your limited Federal government I didn't expect there to be an equivalent of the EPA. Sorry I misunderstood you.I've got no problem with patrolling to fight crime. That's what police forces are supposed to do: force people to follow the law.
You did not misunderstand me. I don't see much of a role for the federal government when it comes to protecting the environment within any of the states. There may be some limited role the federal government has to play in mediating disputes between states over environmental issues.With your limited Federal government I didn't expect there to be an equivalent of the EPA. Sorry I misunderstood you.
I rest my case.You did not misunderstand me. I don't see much of a role for the federal government when it comes to protecting the environment within any of the states. There may be some limited role the federal government has to play in mediating disputes between states over environmental issues.
I rest my case.
I've got no problem with patrolling to fight crime. That's what police forces are supposed to do: force people to follow the law.
Leftwing advocacy site-Bravo Foxtrot Delta
Forget about the source - so you disagree with the statistics? Do you have others to present to counter them?
Your usual response when you can't disprove any of the facts presented.
I rest my case.
Quote Originally Posted by Catawba
Your usual response when you can't disprove any of the facts presented.
You are often confused on this issue. The problem with the bovine excrement propaganda you cite is not the facts. Its rather the agenda. The BE claims that cutting the looter tax of the wealthy "costs" the government money.
I say while "costing" is a bit specious I couldn't care less. Indeed, that is a good reason to abolish the death tax-to deprive a parasitic government of the wealth of people it already loots too much
Your usual response when you can't disprove any of the facts presented.
By all means, present the actual language which supports this allegation. Allow me to assist you
Frequently Asked Questions on Estate Taxes
and
and now, two birds with one stone - both Henrin and Turtle and the transfer of an estate independent of death
from the wikipedia entry on that very topic
So we know two things there
1- the estate tax is imposed on the transfer of the estate
2- should one want to transfer the estate before death occurs, that can be done independent of death and still pay a tax on that transfer
Your usual response when you can't disprove any of the facts presented.
I couldn't care less if cutting the death tax cuts the amount of money the government gets. There is no dispute of facts
Yeah its an opinion piece that is based on the attitude that the government needs more money (to waste) and not parasitizing the rich enough will prevent the malignancy known as the federal government from wasting more and more money. That is an agenda that sane people oppose
from that propaganda piece Catawba cited crying that the current estate tax rates COSTS the government money (which is a laugh-it assumes that higher rates are proper which of course has no factual support)
In reality, bequests are not subject to the income tax; the entire estate is subject to the estate tax, after which each heir receives his or her share of the estate without paying further taxes on it.
Present your data. See the post on this very page above this one 1841 - one-quarter of one percent in 2009. But you would have the name of the tax defined by how it impacts less than one percent of the public rather than how it impacts 99% of the American public.
Not only is that a gross intellectual fraud, it is an absurdity of the worst sort. It makes The Mad Hatter look like a sane and calm counsellor.
Who are Luntz & Faris? The people who gave folks on he right their marching orders regarding the neologism. Its right here in the thread.
So if a factory in Kansas starts dumping crap into the Missouri river upstream of our drinking water supply inlet then we have a choice to die from poison or die from thirst. Nice world you have there.
Oh, that's right, we take them court and wait for the court to somehow force the factory to stop dumping poison in the river. In the meantime our citizens are dying. Well, that's OK because in the end we'll get to sell a useless factory and distribute what few funds we can get from it to the families of the dead so that maybe they won't have to be buried in a mass grave. :roll:
Many small business owners are affected by the tax TODAY so unless they are in the 1% the data in post #1841 is crap.
I explained my reasoning once and you did nothing but repeat yourself AGAIN. I have no reason to say it again.
Funny that I never heard of them but you have.
You attack the data but fail to present any of your own. That is not debate. It is simple statement of a belief on your part.
As to you not knowing Luntz & Faris - your lack of knowledge about the neologism of the 'death tax' and the partisans who promote it - is something that speaks about you and not me.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?