Inheritance Tax
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2014, 02:59 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(16-05-2014 07:30 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  I dunno if I've said this before, but this seems to be one of the most ridiculous and unfair ideas in the history of ever.

Seriously, does anyone have even one good reason for the existence of this ludicrous idea? How did this even come to be a thing?

Wait until you hear about this awesome tax we have here.

It goes something like: "You have zero income? That's ridiculous. You would be dead if you had no money. That means you have money. Now pay this ridiculously high amount of money."

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes undergroundp's post
18-05-2014, 03:52 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2014 03:55 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  The answer, of course, is that reality is complicated and it depends. You seem to have a pathological hatred of complexity, so you don't like that answer, but that's not my problem.

How convenient. As always, you won't go on the record and take a position. You accuse me of assuming your position. Of course I have to read between the lines and infer your position because you don't want to commit to any position. I asked you, of those 4 scenarios, which ones YOU, in your opinion, thought justified being hauled away at gunpoint. As always, your answer is 'it depends'. Depends on what??? If the guy mowing the lawn is tall or short? You love to just attack other people's positions, but refuse to put your own ones out there for criticism.

It depends because that one simplistic and facile example is not the be all and end all of all possible interaction.

It depends because there are there are a great many underlying assumptions and unstated variables involved in even such a hopelessly reductive hypothetical.

As I said, it's not my problem that you're afraid of nuance.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I know, right? Because I totally literally assaulted and abducted people.

Probably. Assuming you've voted on the matter, or for a representative to vote on your behalf, my guess is that you probably DID use the power at your disposal (ie a vote) to criminalize at least activity #4 in my scenario. Therefore, when the police haul off people gunpoint for engaging in a given activity you ARE responsible for it just as much as if you held the gun in your hand yourself.

"Everyone is responsible for everything" is certainly a way to look at things.

Deranged, but okay.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Scale it down. Imagine you live in a town with only 5 people...

Oh God, more pathetic shambling irrelevancies. Well, let's get this one over with...

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... and a proposition comes up to require the women to wear burkhas or else face stoning (sadly a real possibility in some parts of the world). 2 vote 'no', 2 vote 'yes', and you're the tie breaker. If you vote 'yes', and then a woman gets stoned, to me you ARE responsible.

Indeed. Do you know what, beyond itself, such an example is applicable to? Literally nothing.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I guess it's easier for you to tell yourself that there's no blood on your hands unless you physically picked up a stone. But, to me, hiring a hit man to kill your wife is no different than doing it yourself. And appointing enforcement agents to assault and abduct on your behalf is no different than doing it yourself. You threw in the word literally as your scapegoat, because if you instead used the word 'effectively' the answer is probably 'yes, you did'.

So your insane position is genuinely that I, as a random person you know nothing about, am culpable in abduction and abuse.

Cute and all, but if so, so are you. So there's that.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  No, asserting that doesn't make it true. I like the fallacious and unsubstantiated ad populum, though - classy touch!

No, what makes it true is that every time I ask you to identify one example where 'force' is vague, you can't come up with anything other than silly games like the photon gun.

Nice try, my special friend.

Calling even trivial exceptions "silly" doesn't make them not exceptions. So there's that.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If it really were vague, you'd have ended this a long time ago by citing a clear example.

I've given you several.

You'd rather double down on self-obsession by calling them "silly", but that's your problem.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Regardless, I vow that if you kind find examples where force is vague I'll acquiesce, and only push back on cases where it's indisputable that you're using force.

Even if they're "silly"? You already admit of them.

Also you apparently missed another thing in my previous post: property is a subjective term. If someone else acts to defend what they consider property but you do not, you call that bad. If you act to defend what you consider property but someone else does not...

Would it kill you to ever introspect a little?

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You believe in the use of force to defend property. And you just acknowledged that notions of property are subjective.

YES, YES, YES. This IS subjective. My opinion is no more or less valid than yours.

That's why you call everyone else's opinion primitive and wrong, of course.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  That is why I advocate the classic liberal position that whenever laws are made to enforce subjective opinions like this you simply limit the jurisdiction to make room for other jurisdictions to have their own differing opinions. For example, I've said I'm totally fine with one state having a communist system where there is no concept of private property at all. Just make room for other states to have their own opinions.

That neatly and conveniently avoids ever raising the issue of what you think should be done about your opinions.

That's so blindly one-sided it hurts.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Why is this so unreasonable?

It isn't so far as it goes, but your stated definitions are completely inadequate, and your self-righteous raving does not tolerate differences in opinion.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I would imagine that most people (see, I can play the "most people" card too) are capable of recognising both that taxation serves a useful purpose in maintaining order in modern society and that it is neither productive nor beneficial to tax literally everything.

Fine, and since you've conceded this is a subjective matter with varying opinions

I've literally never said otherwise. So, excelling dishonest use of the word "conceded". Most disingenuous. Top form!

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  ... why not accommodate those positions by having taxation, as much as possible, at the state/local level? That's the way it works here in Switzerland. For most the federal income tax rate is only 2% or so; virtually all taxation is done at the local level.

That must be why there's federal VAT.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And we can prove the system works very well because we pay less in taxes and still get much better services from the government.

It's certainly a way to do things. It's far from the only way to do things. Not that it's coherent to appeal to consequences in considering fundamental morality. But in any case, the net tax burden on any given individual is roughly comparable to similarly developed countries and provides for roughly comparable services.

Not that you've ever demonstrated an ability to look beyond the United States when it comes to comparisons.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Not them. You. There's a difference.

Name one thing I've said that conflicts with something that, say, Milton Friedman said? All the points which you dismiss as 'idiotic' and refuse to consider were ones that Friedman and others made long before me.

You mean like basic factual errors like "the North started the civil war"? A statement the vast majority of historians would laugh out of the room? And my personal favourite for classic frankksj fractally wrong statement, "Einstein didn't use data"? A statement so powerfully and recursively erroneous it boggles the mind?

Not to mention the serious flaws in your conduct? The rampant mischaracterisation and straw men? The compulsive fallacies?

But then again, never let it be said lack of self awareness wasn't high on that list, too.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 01:40 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Someone who believes in less expansive definitions of property than you will see you as the one initiating force against them.

Nope. Because if I were to ever vote on a matter of expanding property definition I would always vote to keep the jurisdiction as local as possible to make it as easy as possible for dissenters to escape. I'm only criticizing these when laws when you draw the jurisdiction lines specifically to make escape impossible.

Uh, no. That's not a valid response.

Your definitions of jurisdiction regarding your own property can literally not be narrower than encompassing your own property.

It's such lacking answers which lead me to believe you don't even understand the questions.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Besides, why are you off on such a silly tangent?

Oh, should I have framed it as a tragically reductive hypothetical? Would that have helped?

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What % of the laws that are being passed have anything to do with the definition of property, or are vague in terms of whether 'force' is used or not. 99% of the time the laws are clearly using force to coerce people into doing things against their will and have nothing to do with defending property. But you keep grasping for fringe cases to avoid addressing the overall issue.

How many times do I have to tell you that given broad agreement in principle it is precisely the differences that lead to productive discussion?

That's in theory, of course. "Productive discussion" and "you" are non-overlapping magisteria.

(18-05-2014 02:34 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The 'lawn mowing' scenario I presented, for example, is a very common example. It's something that's debated constantly, and hundreds of laws a year are written on the subject. It's one of the most contested issues in most political races. And you refused to take a stand.

I refuse to take a premature stand given insufficient parameters.

There's a profound difference, of course, but I can see where it's easier for you to pretend otherwise.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
18-05-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
I moved this to another thread since it's true that it's rude to derail someone else's topic with our bickering. And, btw, you're wrong for accusing me of being culpable of abduction. I have never used any power at my disposal, including a vote, to have anybody hauled off at gunpoint.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2014, 05:41 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 04:55 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I moved this to another thread since it's true that it's rude to derail someone else's topic with our bickering. And, btw, you're wrong for accusing me of being culpable of abduction. I have never used any power at my disposal, including a vote, to have anybody hauled off at gunpoint.

You've paid taxes to a modern state. Your ridiculous histrionics are just as applicable to you as to literally anyone else on the planet.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
18-05-2014, 07:21 PM
RE: Inheritance Tax
I didn't want to continue derailing this thread, but this so egregiously false.

(18-05-2014 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  You do not understand 'social contract'. I'm sorry you don't like being born into a society with pre-existing laws. Tough shit. If that is what you want, go find an island because you are delirious if you think it is possible to make your own deal independent of the existing rules.

Of course it IS possible. All the US would have to do is follow the constitution--something the elected leaders swear to do anyway. It clearly stipulates that all coercive laws are reserved for the states, and everybody has a right to pick which of the 50 different sets of laws they can live with. Sure, before you turn 18 your parents make the decision on your behalf, but they get to pick which "society with pre-existing laws" they think you should be born into. And when you turn 18, if you think your parents made a bad choice, you're free to change it. There'd be no need to find an island since you'd 50 different sets of laws to pick from. I'd pick a libertarian state that ensured maximum freedom of choice. You'd pick a liberal state, where you could get have a society and laws that closely reflected your values. And same thing for the conservatives.

The only reason you don't to pick the society and pre-existing laws you live under is because you (collectively) elected politicians who had no respect for the government and rule of law, threw the constitution in the trash, and expanded the jurisdiction so there's one set of laws that covers every place where you can legally live.

And despite all that I didn't have to move to an island. I just moved to another country that had a set of laws I could live with. Sure it was a big hassle to get the legal permission and to learn a new language and culture, but for me the only truly insurmountable challenge was that American liberals were so hellbent on controlling me that they send enforcers halfway around the world to chase you down and use strong-arm tactics to get other countries to let them.

(18-05-2014 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  We have to abide by the pre-existing rules of the society in which we exist. You can accept them, work to change them, or you can leave.

Finally, YES, we agree. You should be given the choice of accepting them, working to change them, or to leave. But that requires drawing the jurisdictional lines so that you have somewhere to you can move to outside the jurisdiction. And it seems disingenuous that you'd say 'if you don't like the laws just leave' when the one and only policy that I protest, which you've been defending, is writing the laws in such a way that it's impossible to leave (ie national jurisdiction). You pay lip service to freedom by saying 'here's the rules, if you don't like them leave', but then you deliberately make the rules such that it's not possible to leave.

(18-05-2014 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, instead of explaining clearly, you keep making up little stories.

Seriously, I think I've explained it pretty clearly. If I hadn't, you'd have responded with a Huh 'huh' or 'wtf'. When you respond with a Censored 'you fucking cunt!' that's a pretty good indication that you understood what I wrote.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 08:36 AM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 08:51 AM by Chas.)
RE: Inheritance Tax
(18-05-2014 07:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  You do not understand 'social contract'. I'm sorry you don't like being born into a society with pre-existing laws. Tough shit. If that is what you want, go find an island because you are delirious if you think it is possible to make your own deal independent of the existing rules.

Of course it IS possible. All the US would have to do is follow the constitution--something the elected leaders swear to do anyway. It clearly stipulates that all coercive laws are reserved for the states, and everybody has a right to pick which of the 50 different sets of laws they can live with.

Except, no. The Constitution has coercive clauses, too, like:

Section 2
2: A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Article XIII
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

And there is:
Article XIV
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Which limits the states' ability to limit the effect of federal law.

(18-05-2014 07:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  We have to abide by the pre-existing rules of the society in which we exist. You can accept them, work to change them, or you can leave.

Finally, YES, we agree. You should be given the choice of accepting them, working to change them, or to leave. But that requires drawing the jurisdictional lines so that you have somewhere to you can move to outside the jurisdiction. And it seems disingenuous that you'd say 'if you don't like the laws just leave' when the one and only policy that I protest, which you've been defending, is writing the laws in such a way that it's impossible to leave (ie national jurisdiction). You pay lip service to freedom by saying 'here's the rules, if you don't like them leave', but then you deliberately make the rules such that it's not possible to leave.

Please show where I have defended or made coercive rules regarding leaving. Otherwise you are, once again, a lying cunt.


(18-05-2014 07:21 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(18-05-2014 02:53 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, instead of explaining clearly, you keep making up little stories.

Seriously, I think I've explained it pretty clearly. If I hadn't, you'd have responded with a Huh 'huh' or 'wtf'. When you respond with a Censored 'you fucking cunt!' that's a pretty good indication that you understood what I wrote.

You are incapable of self-critique. Or accurate quotation.

I said you are a fucking lying cunt. But only when I demonstrated that you were lying.

So, there's that. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: