On the importance for nazis, commies and all extremists to stop fighting

[TECSHARE]

Communism is totally compatible with globalism. Furthermore global policy has been pushing further and further into Communist policies. If you want to understand actually go read some of the source material I presented you and think about it instead of just demanding I spoon feed you then spitting it out when you don't like the taste.

Problem is that I've read some of the sources you've given like this one:
https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf

Where there conclusion has absolutely 0 evidence. They conclude that wall street supports Bolchevick Revolution in the hope to spread communism every where. Yeah ok but there are no proof of that...

or this one:
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

Which as I stated in another thread is completely crazy. They litterally write that inheritance taxation is the same as abollition of inheritance rights. What can you say when someone tells you that 2 = 1?

Yeah I really doubt you have read that paper, because if you did you would see it contained government documents, records, and publicly verifiable events to back up these claims. Of course it is way easier to just keep believing what you believe rather than to do the work to learn something new when you might not agree with the implications of it. That seems to be your favorite way to handle these subjects fat man.

No, 1 + 1 = 2. Inheritance has been systematically stripping the backbone of this nation, and I will tell you how. One very straight forward simple example is a family farm. It may have been in the family for generations, and when it is left to the next generation, suddenly they owe taxes on what the family already owns and have already been taxed for over and over again. Usually coming up with such a large lump sum of money is not possible, and suddenly that farm which has been in the family for generations is forced to be sold because they cant pay the inheritance tax. Then companies like Monsanto swoop in and buy this prime land for pennies on the dollar. This is one primary way the industry of this nation has been systematically dismantled. Furthermore it removes incentive for people to work as hard to leave something for the next generation, because they know the government is just going to take it from their children anyway.

Again this is just ONE point of the entire ten planks which you didn't bother addressing. As usual you take the lazy way out, call it crazy, declare yourself correct and move on as if you just had a debate.

"Nazis and commies" are typically extremely authoritarian, so if either of them actually gained power, the result would be severe oppression and the elimination of all political rivals. The status quo is pretty bad, and part of me hopes that the yellow vests manage to tear it all down (somehow), but replacing the status quo with an even more authoritarian regime wouldn't be an improvement.

Maybe the two sides could get together and agree to some sort of actual anarchism (not the weird doublethink kind that some communists ascribe to), like the system described in The Machinery of Freedom. Or you could split the country into far-left and far-right states, but allow for free movement between them so people can go to the side that they prefer and/or the side that works better.

The problem with Anarchy is it only really tends to work in small homogeneous groups much like Socialism or Communism. Furthermore, Anarchy is also a useful delivery mechanism for Communism. The core tenet of Communism has always been to destroy the existing institutions in order to displace them with Communist versions of them. Anarchy again provides for this power vacuum and allows it to grow. Also frankly most people I have come into contact with that consider themselves "Anarchist" are really just confused and or disingenuous Socialists/Communists. Socialists and Communists rarely try to gain power openly, it is always a game of subversion, displacement, and redirection of resources toward Communist goals covertly.

[mOgliE]

Yeah I really doubt you have read that paper, because if you did you would see it contained government documents, records, and publicly verifiable events to back up these claims. Of course it is way easier to just keep believing what you believe rather than to do the work to learn something new when you might not agree with the implications of it. That seems to be your favorite way to handle these subjects fat man.

No, 1 + 1 = 2. Inheritance has been systematically stripping the backbone of this nation, and I will tell you how. One very straight forward simple example is a family farm. It may have been in the family for generations, and when it is left to the next generation, suddenly they owe taxes on what the family already owns and have already been taxed for over and over again. Usually coming up with such a large lump sum of money is not possible, and suddenly that farm which has been in the family for generations is forced to be sold because they cant pay the inheritance tax. Then companies like Monsanto swoop in and buy this prime land for pennies on the dollar. This is one primary way the industry of this nation has been systematically dismantled. Furthermore it removes incentive for people to work as hard to leave something for the next generation, because they know the government is just going to take it from their children anyway.

Again this is just ONE point of the entire ten planks which you didn't bother addressing. As usual you take the lazy way out, call it crazy, declare yourself correct and move on as if you just had a debate.

You're definitively crazy.

Your example is a good one but it is NOT the same thing as "abolishing inheritance right".

For god's sake taking 20% from something is NOT the same thing as taking 100% of something. How can't you see that??

You call me lazy but there is no lazyness in considering that what this site states is wrong. They litterally say "abolition of inheritance right is enforced" while giving as proof "inheritance taxes". Those two things are not equivalent, and by a very large gap!!! They are not equivalent by about 80%!!!

If communist abolition of inheritance right was enforced, your family example would be left with nothing. In  reality they would be left either with the farm and a 20% debt, or with 80% of the farm value.

Edit: as long as you continue with the afirmation that taking 20% from something is the same as taking 100% of something there is no logic, no truth and no point in your debate, your arguments or your ideas. Sorry man. Admit you're wrong and that this communist policy is not enforced by a very large gap. It doesn't mean that inheritance taxe is right. Just that it is not enforced.

[TECSHARE]

Yeah I really doubt you have read that paper, because if you did you would see it contained government documents, records, and publicly verifiable events to back up these claims. Of course it is way easier to just keep believing what you believe rather than to do the work to learn something new when you might not agree with the implications of it. That seems to be your favorite way to handle these subjects fat man.

No, 1 + 1 = 2. Inheritance has been systematically stripping the backbone of this nation, and I will tell you how. One very straight forward simple example is a family farm. It may have been in the family for generations, and when it is left to the next generation, suddenly they owe taxes on what the family already owns and have already been taxed for over and over again. Usually coming up with such a large lump sum of money is not possible, and suddenly that farm which has been in the family for generations is forced to be sold because they cant pay the inheritance tax. Then companies like Monsanto swoop in and buy this prime land for pennies on the dollar. This is one primary way the industry of this nation has been systematically dismantled. Furthermore it removes incentive for people to work as hard to leave something for the next generation, because they know the government is just going to take it from their children anyway.

Again this is just ONE point of the entire ten planks which you didn't bother addressing. As usual you take the lazy way out, call it crazy, declare yourself correct and move on as if you just had a debate.

You're definitively crazy.

Your example is a good one but it is NOT the same thing as "abolishing inheritance right".

For god's sake taking 20% from something is NOT the same thing as taking 100% of something. How can't you see that??

You call me lazy but there is no lazyness in considering that what this site states is wrong. They litterally say "abolition of inheritance right is enforced" while giving as proof "inheritance taxes". Those two things are not equivalent, and by a very large gap!!! They are not equivalent by about 80%!!!

If communist abolition of inheritance right was enforced, your family example would be left with nothing. In  reality they would be left either with the farm and a 20% debt, or with 80% of the farm value.

Edit: as long as you continue with the afirmation that taking 20% from something is the same as taking 100% of something there is no logic, no truth and no point in your debate, your arguments or your ideas. Sorry man. Admit you're wrong and that this communist policy is not enforced by a very large gap. It doesn't mean that inheritance taxe is right. Just that it is not enforced.

So what part of what I explained is not making it impossible for this theoretical family to keep their inheritance of their farm? Oh right they are literally forced to sell it to pay the taxes. This is literal removal of inheritance rights. I don't give a shit if your opinion is it should be defined as 100% tax to meet your metric. This is the same game you always play, and exactly why I have no respect for you. You don't argue logic you argue semantics. You don't refute any of the points, you just call them wrong and crazy. You don't read any sources I present you just dismiss them and declare yourself correct. You are the ideological equivalent of a person with syphilis spreading it all around without a care in the world for anyone it effects, you just want some fuk. You don't give a damn if anything you say makes logical sense, just gimme muh Communism.

[mOgliE]

So what part of what I explained is not making it impossible for this theoretical family to keep their inheritance of their farm? Oh right they are literally forced to sell it to pay the taxes. This is literal removal of inheritance rights. I don't give a shit if your opinion is it should be defined as 100% tax to meet your metric. This is the same game you always play, and exactly why I have no respect for you. You don't argue logic you argue semantics. You don't refute any of the points, you just call them wrong and crazy. You don't read any sources I present you just dismiss them and declare yourself correct. You are the ideological equivalent of a person with syphilis spreading it all around without a care in the world for anyone it effects, you just want some fuk. You don't give a damn if anything you say makes logical sense, just gimme muh Communism.

Contrary to what you say I read your sources.

So you still maintain that it is the same thing to seize the inheritance (here this farm) and to tax this inheritance for 20% of its value?

And I'm the one lacking logic?

I'm not talking semantics here, I'm talking numbers. There is a situation in which the family has nothing (abolition of inheritance right) and a situation where the family has 80% of the value of the farm or keep the farm and pay a debt of 20% of the farm value.

You're claiming those two situations are the same. You are wrong. Can't say much more.

[mOgliE]

0 Chance of it happening of course.

Sure, with that kind of attitude.

Ahah! Funny how 99% of people tell me I'm an utopist and how my ideals will never be real and how you come telling me "yo bro you're not ambitious enough, dream bigger!"

I'm not fighting on the streets, and I'm on the other side of the world, so probably my thoughts here don't mean much, but if I were you I'd make it my #1 priority to get an ambitious but solid plan together amongst all yellow-vest stakeholders for what you want to accomplish and how to do it. Quite possibly, a left-right coalition is possible without compromising anyone's principles as long as you're willing to define exactly where your common ground is and where exactly you want to work together. From what I've heard, there is consensus on having more referenda, which is a start, but honestly this isn't very ambitious, and I doubt that it'd change much. Having an end goal of a multi-state federation might be one way to get huge changes via a left-right coalition, though I'm sure there are many other ideas.

If you have a dozen groups just thrashing against a vaguely-defined status quo for vaguely-defined goals, you're not going to get anywhere, and in fact you just give more credibility to the status quo.

It's a bit more than having more referenda, it's having the right as citizens to launch a referendum on any subject.
It's basically seizing the power from the government. That's why they're not really happy with the demand.

The result is dozen groups just trashing because there wasn't enough support for the revolution.

But believe me, I was there in the first weeks. The world has no idea how close we were to 1789 all again. A cop shooting was all it would have taken to break the country in civil war.

Sad it didn't happen. But every time the people protest like this, with one strong goal in mind (seizing the power back), there is a chance that we succeed. Might not be a huge chance but a chance is better than nothing.

installing direct democracy and free weapons (so big government but also powerful people).

Interesting idea, though IMO that'd end up being an Orwellian groupthink state where every imaginable minority is eventually persecuted.

Direct democracy is problematic in many ways, but most obviously because you can't actually vote on every little thing, even with technology. It isn't practical to vote on every proposed line in a trade agreement which most people won't even understand, for example. So you end up delegating, especially on the decision of which things warrant a vote, and this creates a bureaucratic class which really controls everything. This is basically how General Secretary Stalin came to be a dictator.

That's a very valid point you're raising but I think you don't have a high enough opinion of technology and people.

First, internet and blockchain allow for instant, at home, easy and secured voting on any subject you want. It also allows you to propose any subject/law/agreement you want.

But most importantly, it allows you to delegate power to anyone, instantly and to take it back at any moment instantly too.
A very easy thing to do would be:
-Everyone has 100 voting power (VP)
-You can chose anyone you wish to be your delegate. You can delegate all your VP or part of your VP. For example a parrent can delegate 33% of his VP to each of his 3 children.
-There is a vote every week on Saturday at 3pm on all the propositions that were made in the week and reached the criterias (like gathering enough local support to be proposed).
-You can vote from 3pm to 10pm on everything
-As soon as 10pm starts then if you haven't, voted, your VP gets sent to your delegates, which transforms their vote that was worth 100VP in a more powervul vote worth (100+delegated VP)

Of course you can chain this. You delegate your VP to your partner, who delegates her VP to a philosopher she likes. None of you vote, the philosopher gets 200 more VP.

Liquid democracy is crazy because it's self-organized but allows people to take the power back anytime there is an abuse. Every time a politician lies, once exposed he's dead.

We can even go more crazy and define areas of expertise. Is your law about education, economy, trade... When you propose a law you put tags on it. And you can define your delegation while taking tags into account. If decision is about economy I'll grant my voting power to this guy cause I know he's an expert. If it's about science, this guys has my VP. The law has 5 different tags? Then my VP is divided into 5 and goes to 5 different (or not) experts I trust.

It's not 1950. We can do this.

[TECSHARE]

So what part of what I explained is not making it impossible for this theoretical family to keep their inheritance of their farm? Oh right they are literally forced to sell it to pay the taxes. This is literal removal of inheritance rights. I don't give a shit if your opinion is it should be defined as 100% tax to meet your metric. This is the same game you always play, and exactly why I have no respect for you. You don't argue logic you argue semantics. You don't refute any of the points, you just call them wrong and crazy. You don't read any sources I present you just dismiss them and declare yourself correct. You are the ideological equivalent of a person with syphilis spreading it all around without a care in the world for anyone it effects, you just want some fuk. You don't give a damn if anything you say makes logical sense, just gimme muh Communism.

Contrary to what you say I read your sources.

So you still maintain that it is the same thing to seize the inheritance (here this farm) and to tax this inheritance for 20% of its value?

And I'm the one lacking logic?

I'm not talking semantics here, I'm talking numbers. There is a situation in which the family has nothing (abolition of inheritance right) and a situation where the family has 80% of the value of the farm or keep the farm and pay a debt of 20% of the farm value.

You're claiming those two situations are the same. You are wrong. Can't say much more.

I know you don't read my sources for a fact. Do you know how I know this (other than your shockingly obvious ignorance on all these subjects)? Because any time I post something your RESPOND INSTANTLY, and unless you are reading at a rate of 3 pages a second, you aren't reading the sources I provide. Also I have seen you claim to have read things here before, but then when pressed you demonstrate complete and undeniable ignorance of the subject matter. Whatever small portion you do bother to attempt to read you then skim over, never really paying attention or thinking critically about it, but only looking for points you can most easily argue. So not only are you ignorant, you are also a liar.

If your brain was a muscle you had to work out to stay in shape, you would be a huge tub of lard with Cheetos stuck in his fat rolls drinking from a 2 liter of Mountain Dew. This is just a joke to you. I have literally spent years of effort trying to learn the ins and outs of Communism and related topics which I personally consider very important, and you roll up with your lazy ass disingenuous approach, you might as well spit in my face. Your ignorant self assured lackadaisical attitude is an insult, and if you want to treat this like a game, I might as well make a game out of you because you waste my time.

That said, again you only addressed ONE of the 10 planks listed on that page, I have a feeling you only looked them over until you could find something you felt you could make a point on then quickly ended any semblance of a thought process. I would love to see you try to argue the other planks.

One simple question. Is or is not a fact that the state uses the force of law to take inheritance? I didn't ask you how much. This is a yes or no question. I patiently await your semantic gymnastics fat man.

[mOgliE]

I know you don't read my sources for a fact. Do you know how I know this (other than your shockingly obvious ignorance on all these subjects)? Because any time I post something your RESPOND INSTANTLY, and unless you are reading at a rate of 3 pages a second, you aren't reading the sources I provide. Also I have seen you claim to have read things here before, but then when pressed you demonstrate complete and undeniable ignorance of the subject matter. Whatever small portion you do bother to attempt to read you then skim over, never really paying attention or thinking critically about it, but only looking for points you can most easily argue. So not only are you ignorant, you are also a liar.

If your brain was a muscle you had to work out to stay in shape, you would be a huge tub of lard with Cheetos stuck in his fat rolls drinking from a 2 liter of Mountain Dew. This is just a joke to you. I have literally spent years of effort trying to learn the ins and outs of Communism and related topics which I personally consider very important, and you roll up with your lazy ass disingenuous approach, you might as well spit in my face. Your ignorant self assured lackadaisical attitude is an insult, and if you want to treat this like a game, I might as well make a game out of you because you waste my time.

So here there is litteraly nothing but personnal attacks. And sorry but reading your shit isn't long considering how short it is. Dude reading your little site takes what? 10 minutes? 30 tops if you're slow?

That said, again you only addressed ONE of the 10 planks listed on that page, I have a feeling you only looked them over until you could find something you felt you could make a point on then quickly ended any semblance of a thought process. I would love to see you try to argue the other planks.

I addressed one of the ten because that's what we call an example, and I've addressed ALL THE TEN here in a separate thread cause that was borderline off topic.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125222.0

One simple question. Is or is not a fact that the state uses the force of law to take inheritance? I didn't ask you how much. This is a yes or no question. I patiently await your semantic gymnastics fat man.

I guess the personnal attack is all what you have now?

Answer is no. State doesn't use the force of law to take inheritance. Easy question.

[TECSHARE]

I know you don't read my sources for a fact. Do you know how I know this (other than your shockingly obvious ignorance on all these subjects)? Because any time I post something your RESPOND INSTANTLY, and unless you are reading at a rate of 3 pages a second, you aren't reading the sources I provide. Also I have seen you claim to have read things here before, but then when pressed you demonstrate complete and undeniable ignorance of the subject matter. Whatever small portion you do bother to attempt to read you then skim over, never really paying attention or thinking critically about it, but only looking for points you can most easily argue. So not only are you ignorant, you are also a liar.

If your brain was a muscle you had to work out to stay in shape, you would be a huge tub of lard with Cheetos stuck in his fat rolls drinking from a 2 liter of Mountain Dew. This is just a joke to you. I have literally spent years of effort trying to learn the ins and outs of Communism and related topics which I personally consider very important, and you roll up with your lazy ass disingenuous approach, you might as well spit in my face. Your ignorant self assured lackadaisical attitude is an insult, and if you want to treat this like a game, I might as well make a game out of you because you waste my time.

So here there is litteraly nothing but personnal attacks. And sorry but reading your shit isn't long considering how short it is. Dude reading your little site takes what? 10 minutes? 30 tops if you're slow?

That said, again you only addressed ONE of the 10 planks listed on that page, I have a feeling you only looked them over until you could find something you felt you could make a point on then quickly ended any semblance of a thought process. I would love to see you try to argue the other planks.

I addressed one of the ten because that's what we call an example, and I've addressed ALL THE TEN here in a separate thread cause that was borderline off topic.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125222.0

One simple question. Is or is not a fact that the state uses the force of law to take inheritance? I didn't ask you how much. This is a yes or no question. I patiently await your semantic gymnastics fat man.

I guess the personnal attack is all what you have now?

Answer is no. State doesn't use the force of law to take inheritance. Easy question.

You just see what you want to see, and no one can change that but you. As long as you are this intellectually dishonest and lazy I am going to treat you as the intellectual poser bottom feeder you are. I don't care what you did in another thread, it is very much on topic and I have no desire to participate in a carefully curated thread that just so happens to segregate critique of your preferred ideology.

If the state does not use force of law to take inheritance, then the inheritance tax is not taking from inheritance, thus taking inheritance? You see your gap in logic here? Of course not, you only see your preferred reality. Fuck causality and economics, I GOTS TO HAS MUH COMMUNISM!

[mOgliE]

You just see what you want to see, and no one can change that but you. As long as you are this intellectually dishonest and lazy I am going to treat you as the intellectual poser bottom feeder you are. I don't care what you did in another thread, it is very much on topic and I have no desire to participate in a carefully curated thread that just so happens to segregate critique of your preferred ideology.

If the state does not use force of law to take inheritance, then the inheritance tax is not taking from inheritance, thus taking inheritance? You see your gap in logic here? Of course not, you only see your preferred reality. Fuck causality and economics, I GOTS TO HAS MUH COMMUNISM!

Oh, look, more personnal attacks.

Funny how the deeper we go, the more personnal attacks and yelling at semantics you do.

Never seen any scientist or honest person yelling for semantics. That's the base of a debate: define what you're discussing.

Also got a yes or no question for you.
Are those 2 situations identical:

A father passes away and his 1M$ house is inheritated by his 3 children

1/ The state comes in and take the house as inheritance is abolished. The children have nothing.

2/ The state says "hey sorry for your loss you can keep the house of course but you owe the state 200k$ as inheritance taxation, you got about a year or 6 months to pay it". The children either pay those 200k$ and keep the house or sell the house and keep the 800k$

Are those 2 situations identical? Yes or no question.

You can add some personnal attacks as you seem to love them. You already said that I was a fat lazy stupid dumb man without any logic or knowledge in laws, economics, psychology or history. Might add that I am ugly too, you haven't said that one yet.

[TECSHARE]

You just see what you want to see, and no one can change that but you. As long as you are this intellectually dishonest and lazy I am going to treat you as the intellectual poser bottom feeder you are. I don't care what you did in another thread, it is very much on topic and I have no desire to participate in a carefully curated thread that just so happens to segregate critique of your preferred ideology.

If the state does not use force of law to take inheritance, then the inheritance tax is not taking from inheritance, thus taking inheritance? You see your gap in logic here? Of course not, you only see your preferred reality. Fuck causality and economics, I GOTS TO HAS MUH COMMUNISM!

Oh, look, more personnal attacks.

Funny how the deeper we go, the more personnal attacks and yelling at semantics you do.

Never seen any scientist or honest person yelling for semantics. That's the base of a debate: define what you're discussing.

Also got a yes or no question for you.
Are those 2 situations identical:

A father passes away and his 1M$ house is inheritated by his 3 children

1/ The state comes in and take the house as inheritance is abolished. The children have nothing.

2/ The state says "hey sorry for your loss you can keep the house of course but you owe the state 200k$ as inheritance taxation, you got about a year or 6 months to pay it". The children either pay those 200k$ and keep the house or sell the house and keep the 800k$

Are those 2 situations identical? Yes or no question.

You can add some personnal attacks as you seem to love them. You already said that I was a fat lazy stupid dumb man without any logic or knowledge in laws, economics, psychology or history. Might add that I am ugly too, you haven't said that one yet.

Lol, the deeper we go. The only thing we are going deeper is into your horse shit.

There is no requirement for the situations to be identical for them to lose the house. Your implication that these things need to be equal for this to be a removal of inheritance is asinine and simply restating your earlier premise just from another direction. There is no logical or logistical difference between your two arguments, only semantics. The result is the same, the children do not inherit the land of their ancestors. This is the most common result.

In the end they will usually lose the house. Furthermore this disproportionately strips the inheritance of the LESS wealthy of the class who would inherit, further creating even more of a rift between the haves and the have-nots. In the end another business is destroyed and centralized into corporate profits. Still waiting for you to touch on any of the other planks too, and again I don't give a shit about your other thread so don't bother.

...Oh, and you're ugly.

[mOgliE]

There is no logical or logistical difference between your two arguments, only semantics.

AHAHAHAHAHAH oh man you're so much in bad faith xD

Nooooooooo there is no difference between a situation where they get 800k$ and a situation where they have nothing.

You're simply denying reality. Let's end this. If you can't admit that taxing 20% of the inheritance value is DIFFERENT from taking the whole inheritance there is nothing to debate.

[TECSHARE]

There is no logical or logistical difference between your two arguments, only semantics.

AHAHAHAHAHAH oh man you're so much in bad faith xD

Nooooooooo there is no difference between a situation where they get 800k$ and a situation where they have nothing.

You're simply denying reality. Let's end this. If you can't admit that taxing 20% of the inheritance value is DIFFERENT from taking the whole inheritance there is nothing to debate.

Nice straw man. I never claimed those two things were the same. It is however a fact that the inheritance tax strips following generations of inheritance, no matter how full or how partial. Still waiting for you to argue against any of the other 10 planks...

[mOgliE]

Nice straw man. I never claimed those two things were the same. It is however a fact that the inheritance tax strips following generations of inheritance, no matter how full or how partial. Still waiting for you to argue against any of the other 10 planks...

First I've addressed all 10 planks here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125222.0
And already told you that. Not my fault if you don't read.

Second, your argument was NOT that inheritance tax partially strips following generations of inheritance. Otherwise I would have agreed with you.

Your point was that this plank was right, this plank being "Abolition of all rights of inheritance.". ALL RIGHTS.

ALL RIGHTS

You admitted yourself that inheritance tax is different from total taxation, that it strips only partially the family inheritance. Hence the situation is different from an abolition of ALL rights.

You say that

no matter how full or how partial.

But you're the one claiming all right of inheritance have been abolished.
Be consistent. Or be quite.


And by the way, your argument of "the family farm being lost after generations" is completely stupid. 99% of the time the family house or family farm or whatever would have to be divided between 3 children which means the only way to keep it in the family would be that 1 child buy back 66% of the house. Otherwise they'll have to sell it. So he should be able to afford the 20% tax...

Houses and farms were passed from generation to generation before because only the eldest son inherited them. This is no longer the case. Sorry, we're no longer in the 19th century.

[Spendulus]

.....
Are those 2 situations identical:

A father passes away and his 1M$ house is inheritated by his 3 children

1/ The state comes in and take the house as inheritance is abolished. The children have nothing.

2/ The state says "hey sorry for your loss you can keep the house of course but you owe the state 200k$ as inheritance taxation, you got about a year or 6 months to pay it". The children either pay those 200k$ and keep the house or sell the house and keep the 800k$

Are those 2 situations identical? Yes or no question.

You can add some personnal attacks as you seem to love them. You already said that I was a fat lazy stupid dumb man without any logic or knowledge in laws, economics, psychology or history. Might add that I am ugly too, you haven't said that one yet.

Okay, you are double dog ugly?

Inheritance tax is a pretty bad idea for numerous reasons. From the point of view of the state (your best buddy right?) in the case of a business asset where the family cannot possibly pay the estate tax bill (double taxation) the state loses yearly taxation income from a productive business entity as its operations are thrown into chaos.

So that's stupid.

[mOgliE]

Okay, you are double dog ugly?

Inheritance tax is a pretty bad idea for numerous reasons. From the point of view of the state (your best buddy right?) in the case of a business asset where the family cannot possibly pay the estate tax bill (double taxation) the state loses yearly taxation income from a productive business entity as its operations are thrown into chaos.

So that's stupid.

What's the link between inheritance taxation being stupid (which I strongly, VERY strongly, disagree with) and inheritance taxation not being abolition of inheritance taxation?

TECSHARE is the one trying to make a point saying the 10 planks are truly enforced everywhere. I was simply demonstrating he was wrong. That's all.

[TECSHARE]

Nice straw man. I never claimed those two things were the same. It is however a fact that the inheritance tax strips following generations of inheritance, no matter how full or how partial. Still waiting for you to argue against any of the other 10 planks...

First I've addressed all 10 planks here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5125222.0
And already told you that. Not my fault if you don't read.

Second, your argument was NOT that inheritance tax partially strips following generations of inheritance. Otherwise I would have agreed with you.

Your point was that this plank was right, this plank being "Abolition of all rights of inheritance.". ALL RIGHTS.

ALL RIGHTS

You admitted yourself that inheritance tax is different from total taxation, that it strips only partially the family inheritance. Hence the situation is different from an abolition of ALL rights.

You say that

no matter how full or how partial.

But you're the one claiming all right of inheritance have been abolished.
Be consistent. Or be quite.


And by the way, your argument of "the family farm being lost after generations" is completely stupid. 99% of the time the family house or family farm or whatever would have to be divided between 3 children which means the only way to keep it in the family would be that 1 child buy back 66% of the house. Otherwise they'll have to sell it. So he should be able to afford the 20% tax...

Houses and farms were passed from generation to generation before because only the eldest son inherited them. This is no longer the case. Sorry, we're no longer in the 19th century.

Sorry, I am not submitting to your divisive selective removal of criticisms of your ideology from a thread directly addressing it. Either post it here or don't, but I am not participating in your self serving removal of topics from this thread.

No, my argument was:

Also if you actually take the time to look over The 10 Planks of Communism I think you will have to admit the world has largely adopted these policies, even if they have a different name for it. Additionally China is arguably the most important economy in the world, and they most certainly have goals for global Communism, and the resources and potential to achieve it. If you were to take a hard look at all of these facts I think you may agree.

Largely =/= completely. You are modifying my premise to more exclusive language and then demanding I defend the premise YOU created. This is a logical fallacy and not a refutation of my argument, it is a refutation of your argument. Also the concept that this no longer happens because not many are farmers any more is retarded because it applies equally to ANY large functioning enterprise left to ones children, the farm was simply an example.

Communism IS globalist in nature, and globalist Communist policies ARE in fact in the majority regardless of your fallacious denial of this fact. You are a tool for globalists and your own arrogance keeps you in this subservient position as a disposable tool for the people you claim you hate.

[KingScorpio]

so nazis commies and all extremists should stop fighting so capitalists can install a corrupt capitalist system over their heads and scam as many of them as possible as money earning cattle?

you dont understand why nazis commis and extremists fight in the first place

[Spendulus]

so nazis commies and all extremists should stop fighting so capitalists can install a corrupt capitalist system over their heads and scam as many of them as possible as money earning cattle?

you dont understand why nazis commis and extremists fight in the first place

...because they want nazis cattle, commis cattle, and extremist cattle for the big cattle fight?

[KingScorpio]

so nazis commies and all extremists should stop fighting so capitalists can install a corrupt capitalist system over their heads and scam as many of them as possible as money earning cattle?

you dont understand why nazis commis and extremists fight in the first place

...because they want nazis cattle, commis cattle, and extremist cattle for the big cattle fight?

well nazis commis and extremists are all capitalists. the question is which capitalists are most successful.

you want to know which capitalists create most general wealth and most sustainabyl and which concentrate wealth only on themselves?

look at europes wealthmap today, the commies, the monarchiests, the extremists and the nationalists are all poor. and the nazi capitalists are the richest.

[mOgliE]

Well I think this thread is a perfect proof.

I was trying to make peace between commies and nazis. I even sent apologies and peace messages in PM. The result is just another agression without any legitimacy from the nazi.

Thanks TECSHARE for showing that extreme right is just too stupid to take an opportunity when they see it.

The most amazing thing is that you don't even seem to understand what you're saying but well...
It seems the only possibility will be to kill each other while letting the bankers rule. As you're clearly rejecting any peace offer and insulting me as soon as you have the chance.

Cheers.