Call it what it is: DEATH TAX.
Since someone has to DIE for it to happen.
Why the government should get anything because someone dies is what is repugnant.
Study after study shows most millionaires earn their money, not inherit. But libtards always want more money. To buy votes and power to continue their agenda of getting a real 1984.
Well, john oliver was focused solely on estate taxes, not all death taxes.I'm personally against all death taxes, but this thread is about estate tax in particular. |
|
|
|
|
Easiest way to get around estate tax is to tie a big chunk of your money up in precious metals that aren't reported. Your beneficiaries know where the metals are after you die and can gradually sell it off, cash transactions, as they need money. The same is true for guns, art, collectible currency... Don't name it in your will and only let the beneficiary know how to get to it.
|
|
|
|
Best overall car is the focus st and its not even close .I've thoroughly enjoyed racing mine, day cruises, people carrying, etc. It's just fantastic fun and unmatched performance for 20k .
Yeah i loved the speed3 and focus st but i can't make up my mind.The focus seemed to have a little less raw power but seemed to have better suspension torque control and larger power band just more refined maybethe mazda just has more whack ya in the balls punch bu5 a narrow band of power and torque steer like a mother Fuckers compared to focus just my opinion and my opinion doesn't mean much cause i admit to knowing nothing about these front wheel drive turbo cars . |
|
|
|
|
I think the "private" option is a good one. Social Security sops up 12.4% of workers' income. Even at a very modest income with modest returns, the average worker would do much better with a privately owned account than Social Security.
|
|
|
|
Seems a bit disingenuous to compare a formal war with an insurgency and terrorist related violence. The two aren't fought in the same way. Nor are they fought with the same weapons. You're stuck on WWII but it isn't the 40's anymore. Not really. You can fight an insurgency with the same weapons one would use in a conventional war. Russia did so quite nicely in Chechnya by using massive conventional firepower on Grozny and other insurgent-held, civilian-populated targets. Indeed, the sheer indiscriminate nature, destruction, and terror imposed on the civilian population helps to deter their resistance. I’d suggest the fact that the Allies demonstrated a pretty clear resolve that killing civilians to achieve victory was acceptable is the entire reason why World War II was so successful while Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan were not. Perhaps if America had opened up the war by turning Kandahar into a firestorm like Dresden, it would have sent a clearer message of what the price of attacking America is. That worked out well for him didn't it? Considering he's dead and all and a Shia government is now in power in Iraq. And yet it is still unstable and isolated to this day. Good work |
|
|
|
Hasn't worked too well in over 50 years, seems like a new tactic should be called for.
And your grand strategy for conflict has already been utilized over the course of decades in the Sudan, probably to the best that anyone could hope to realistically utilize it. Bashir literally got away with genocide and ethnic cleansing and has been since 1989. And it has completely failed him. Sure he has been able to stay in power, but he lost the southern half of his country, and is losing control of a half dozen other internal states as well.
It simply doesn't work; and now when Bashir has tried to backtrack he's found the SPLM-N announce today that it is joining forced with the Janjaweed against Khartoum. He ended up losing control of his own monsters.
You also mentioned Sri Lanka? That ended, but it took 26 years. Not really a big win, and even now the harshness of how it ended is causing domestic problems. In fact there were warnings of rising extremism just today within Sri Lanka over clashes which have threatened the country with renewed instability. It took 26 years because they kept getting distracted by Western bleeding hearts forcing them into peace talks. When they finally decided to just crush the Tamils, it worked fairly quickly. Sudan doesn’t have anything remotely close to Israel’s overwhelming conventional force either, so it’s a bad example. You can’t realistically hope to stop insurgencies by providing a “legitimate alternative.” It’s basically never worked in a situation like Israel-Palestine. OTOH, the brute force method worked well in the North Caucasus in the 1940s and has been a lot more effective at pacifying Chechnya compared to American efforts in Afghanistan. It also did pretty well in 1991 when Saddam crushed Shia uprisings against his rule that, at their peak, caused him to lose control of the vast majority of Iraq. On the contrary, we've seen that happen all of the time. It was such a method that has caused large swaths of the JEM to finally stop rebelling in Darfur and allow themselves to be absorbed into the Sudanese army. Chechnya and the north Caucuses are hardly stable, and comparing them to the US in Afghanistan is dumb, they are vastly different style of conflicts and the tactics have nothing to do with those differences. |
|
|
|
Similarly, Pashtun villages that collaborate with insurgents should be demolished by carpet bombing. Gaza’s civilians must be taught to stop supporting people who attack Israel, so it makes sense to collectively punish them. Once again, this policy has been tried by the Assad Administration in Syria, the Bashir Administration in the Sudan and the Maliki Administration in Iraq (all have used indiscriminate bombing, particularly the use of barrel bombs) and it has done little but backfire on all of them. Personally, I’d be far less restrained than the Israelis were being if insurgents in some neighboring country were firing rockets at mine And then you'd end up generating massive amounts of sympathy for your enemy allowing them to leverage that political capital into obtaining their objectives over your desires and you'd end up either marginalized (having failed your country) or even possibly at the ICC. Your tactics are especially poor because they completely ignore international response. In your make believe world you seem to have the ability to do whatever you want without having to worry about any sort of domestic or international political consequences. A nice fiction, but the world doesn't really work that way. It took 26 years because they kept getting distracted by Western bleeding hearts forcing them into peace talks. When they finally decided to just crush the Tamils, it worked fairly quickly. Sudan doesn’t have anything remotely close to Israel’s overwhelming conventional force either, so it’s a bad example. Sure they did, especially when Libya was in Sudan as well. What really held them up though was international interference by other countries, which is what tends to happen when you act like a ruthless dictator. |
|
|
|
Of course using collective punishment like that in the Congo is stupid. It would be stupid to kill civilians in Herat or other non-Pashtun regions of Afghanistan in response to the Taliban’s insurgency for the same reason. In either case, they’re far removed from the conflict and don’t really have the ability to intervene. We saw the kind of collective punishment that you are advocating take place in the Congo, and all it did was intensify the fighting and cause the creation of more militant groups through the establishment of self-defense Mai-Mai militias. What you're advocating is nothing new in conflict, indeed it is well understood and it has been found to be both ineffective as a general practice and highly immoral. In contrast, the Salafists are operating amongst civilians in Gaza. The civilians aren’t making any serious attempt to stop them and in all probability, are actively aiding them. Salafists are arrested and killed in Gaza all of the time. If the M23 were getting support from particular villages, then it would make sense to target those civilians. They were and from specific countries as well (Rwanda) and they did target said civilians and guess what? it made the fighting worse and saw a blooming of new militia groups increasing the instability in the Kivus. Your policy failed. |
|
|
|
It is largely Jihadi Salafi groups firing the rockets, groups that are actually opposed to Hamas, which is why it is easier to recognize the overzealous targeting of Hamas in the campaign. the same was true of their search for and accusations surrounding the missing students which third party groups claimed responsibility for, but which Netanyahu took the opportunity to blame on Hamas instead and used it as a justification to illegally harass and target Hamas affiliates. Easy. Because these Salafist groups are operating because of either the incompetence of Hamas, or their weakness, and because of the acquiescence or support of the civilian population. Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them. There's never been a good example of an occupying force succeeding with a population-centric counter insurgency strategy. The most successful examples of crushing insurgencies, like Sri Lanka, involved a willingness to use violence and force to achieve victory. You're contradicting yourself here, Salafists tend to hate the Muslim Brotherhood. Claiming that the Gazan population loves both the Salafists and Hamas doesn't make any sense. It's also dumb to assume that just because a group operates within a territory that 1.) the government likes them and 2.) that the population likes them. I'm pretty sure that the people who suffer from Mayi Mayi attacks in the DRC don't do so with smiles. Nor does it make sense to bomb government forces that are aligned against them if your goal is to see them destroyed. It's pretty dumb to bomb Kinshasa and kill their soldiers while asking them why they aren't able to kill off the M23 rebels. Collective responsibility merits collective punishment. Gaza's population supported Hamas, and acquiesces to, if not outright supports the Salafists. It makes absolute sense to hold them collectively responsible for allowing terrorists to operate amongst them. Of course using collective punishment like that in the Congo is stupid. It would be stupid to kill civilians in Herat or other non-Pashtun regions of Afghanistan in response to the Taliban’s insurgency for the same reason. In either case, they’re far removed from the conflict and don’t really have the ability to intervene. In contrast, the Salafists are operating amongst civilians in Gaza. The civilians aren’t making any serious attempt to stop them and in all probability, are actively aiding them. If the M23 were getting support from particular villages, then it would make sense to target those civilians. Similarly, Pashtun villages that collaborate with insurgents should be demolished by carpet bombing. Gaza’s civilians must be taught to stop supporting people who attack Israel, so it makes sense to collectively punish them. Personally, I’d be far less restrained than the Israelis were being if insurgents in some neighboring country were firing rockets at mine. 1.) You're still contradicting yourself when it comes to then notion of dual Palestinian support for both Hamas and Salafi organizations. The two are diametrically opposed to and hate one another. Suggesting that everyone in Gaza supports both is silly because that's not the kind of relationship that the Brotherhood has with Salafis. They don't even have the same goals; Salafis are against the idea of a Palestinian state and don't support working through government mechanisms in Gaza, so claiming that they support Hamas: a political governmental organization aiming to establish a Palestinian state, is more than a bit off. 2.) The notion of collective responsibility is the same exact justification that the Al Qassam brigade uses to justify launching rockets at Israeli civilians. Congratulations, you're a supporter of terrorism. 3.) The concept of collective responsibility in Gaza doesn't even make any sense seeing as how it ignores the fact that Hamas doesn't rule there with the direct consent of the people. They weren't elected overlords of Gaza and there was no referendum on rocket attacks. They seized Gaza by force after the civil conflict with Fatah. Even outside of this, the notion of collective responsibility and thus the oking of collective punishment is not recognized as valid or legal under either international law, or Israeli law. |
|
|
|
That is the U.S.'s goal: To bring Ukraine into NATO and the EU.
It is better for Ukraine to be on good terms with both Russia and the West. Have an equal relationship with both groups. That is my opinion.
I didn't ask what your opinion of US goals were. I asked two specific questions: Why do you think that bringing the Ukraine into NATO would be good for the US strategically, and why don't you think it would be tremendously destabilizing for the region if they did? That is not my opinion. I repeat: The U.S.'s goals are to bring Ukraine into NATO and closer to Europe and the EU. That is the U.S.'s goal. That is a fact. Therefore it is part of the U.S.'s strategic interest. My opinion was stated as that Ukraine should stay out of NATO and the EU and have both a relationship with NATO/EU and Russia. That part was my opinion. The paragraph above states fact. This paragraph states opinion. What you think is a fact may just be your assumption. Facts are confirmed through evidence. There is no such evidence that would undoubtedly confirm what you consider as "fact". From The Hill: McCain: Put Ukraine on track to join NATO By Kevin Cirilli - 05/15/14 02:40 PM EDT Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Thursday said NATO should put Ukraine on a track for eventual membership and urged the U.S. to provide more military aid to Kiev. “They want to be part of NATO,” said McCain at the New America Foundation's 2014 Conference. “There’s a long process, by the way. You don’t just accept membership. We could put them on a military assistance plan. “We have military assistance plans with at least 50 countries. It would not be an earthshaking or new kind of thing to give these people some ability to defend themselves,” he added. McCain has pushed for the administration to provide military help to Kiev to help it counter pro-Russian separatist groups in the east of the country. At the conference, he said it was "shameful" that the U.S. had not provided more aid, noting that Ukrainian troops lacked body armor, night vision capability and other weapons. "It would help the morale enormously," McCain said. "Believe me, at some point Ukraine will fight. “The people of Ukraine have a long history of fighting for their independence and they’re not going to sit idly by and watch Vladimir Putin invade their country," he continued. McCain mocked the Obama administration for instead sending meals, ready-to-eat. "You can't make this story up: After a heated debate in the White House, the administration decided they would send MREs," McCain said. "But someone said, 'Well, we don't want to fly them in U.S. aircraft because that might provoke Vladimir Putin.' So we leased German trucks to take the MREs in." "I think now we should call it MRE diplomacy," McCain joked. Your first article doesn't even mention NATO. The second one is an interview with the guy that lost the presidential election in 2008. As expected, you have nothing to back up your bare assertion. Now how about trying to narrow in on Obama's comments and policy declarations on it. |
|
|
|
I think that this is a hoax. The ISIS / ISIL is composed of fighters from all around the world, including regions where the Female Genital Mutilation is practiced (such as Somalia, Egypt and Sudan), as well as those from regions where it is not practiced (such as Chechenya and Uzbekistan). Since the latter group is having a majority, this will never be carried out.
The 'religion of peace' strikes again. And there you have it. Bush created ISIS. What is islam doing to stop ISIS from murdering, rioting and now mutilation? What is Islam doing to stop it? Those who are doing nothing agree with it which makes them no different… Like you may have a problem with the tactics of the progressives, but you really don't have a problem with the outcome so you ignore the tactics of the progressives which makes you no different… Like if a friend of yours commits a crime and you do nothing to stop them, you are just as guilty… It is simple What is Islam supposed to do to stop it? We're not talking about a friend committing a crime. Islam is a global religion, and you have a few factions who commit these horrible acts. Most of the Muslim communities condemn ISIS and the things they do, but you blame them because what - they're not all getting on planes to Iraq to fight ISIS directly? Do you know just how stupid you sound? Do you care? |
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info.
The speed3 was a he'll of a ride I mean I couldn't believe a car that price could put my head back on the head rest like that. The turbo is a
bit scary for me having not owned 1 before so the gages seem like a good idea for some peace of mind for pretty low cost.
|
|
|
|
|
Could be buying a shitty gun based on looks or a movie, negligent discharge, operation error, or a ton of other stuff.
Me: Asked for a 10MM Lone Wolf barrel for my G20 for Xmas one year. Dropped it in the gun and didn't think much of it. G20 laid around for a month with the barrel in it until I went to the range. Tried to rack a round and it wouldn't go in. Inspect the barrel and turns out it's some shitty conversion barrel for some odd round. Lucked out that shit didn't go in and blow up in my hand. I don't change anything out to aftermarket anymore
|
|
|
|
Okay Michelle Obama, show what your worth! Will you stand up and fight for millions of women who are being ravaged by misogyny? Or will you be petulant and weak, just like your husband?
Every time you talk about ISIS, I ask the same thing - what do you think we should be doing about them that we are not? Do you want us to go to war again? I find ISIS to be deplorable in the things they do. But we created this problem in Iraq when we invaded under false pretenses and deposed the stable - albeit tyrannical - government there. Under Saddam Hussein's government, women had a hell of a lot more rights than they have under the radical Islamic faction called ISIS. Stop blaming liberals for the mess your President created. |
|
|
|
|
Ok si I want a front wheel drive car with a little balls leaning towards
focus st and mazda speed3
Which should I get
the focus handles better but the speed3 has more raw attitude imo
don't know shit about turbos etc so what do you car nuts think?
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed. Liberals are *shocked*, but it is not a surprise to anyone who pays attention. The PPACA was politically expedient, and therefore passed, precisely because it relied on state exchanges. 39 states opted out, though, something that the central planners in their infinite wisdom somehow did not foresee. That left Obama with an unworkable law because the law only allows them to subsidize premiums for insurance purchased on state exchanges.
|
|
|
|
Moral arguments aside, even if the estate tax was 100% I don't think it would affect inequality that much. But I don't know the numbers
This is the position that I've always had too. I looked it up a few years ago and saw that the estate tax makes up very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very little of our total receipts, to the extent that doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. wouldn't even be noticed from a revenue standpoint, but it would certainly be noticed from the standpoint of families whose lives can be ruined as a result of it. Besides which giving money to the government doesn't magically solve inequality. Corporatocracy still says the money will be used for increased military spending, bigger contracts for bigger business, etc. The little guy factors into this exactly nowhere. |
|
|
|
40k salary = (40000 - 30000) = 10000 * 17% = 1700 / 40000 = 4.25%
400k salary = (400000 - 30000) = 370000 * 17% = 62900 / 400000 = 15.7%
2M salary = 1970000 * 17% = 334900 / 2M = 16.75%
2B salary = 1.97B * 17% = 334.9M / 2B = 16.75%
The higher the salary, the closer to the 17% of said salary you would get under that plan (not weighing in on the merit....yet).
I agree with your flat tax proposal, but I think you could get away with a lower rate--something like 15%--and not affect revenue. I disagree with your comment about states, though. States can and should do what they want. If a state has higher taxes, businesses and individuals are free to locate to a different, lower tax state. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
