StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 4, 2012 -> 10:09 AM) I have no idea...not only does this accomplish nothing, but it's dangerous because you have no idea what might be wandering around in the wilderness, be it animals or even people. Seems like a ignorant practice if you ask me. It's one thing if you're shooting at targets in a fenced off area of wilderness in a huge field, it's another if you're shooting into a forest for no reason. At least when it's hunting season, people are made aware of the hunting areas to remain clear of. There are designated recreational shooting areas in some National Forest areas, but not currently in National Wilderness areas. This randomly googled site has some more info. A review of the bill from the CS Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinio...istory/(page)/2

There's a significant change to the national monument powers in there as well. These people are opposed to the idea of public wilderness and parks. They're actively anti-environment. I don't think that's an unfair way of describing it. Here's a pro-gun site's take on how terrible this bill is: http://www.ammoland.com/2012/04/19/hr-4089.../#axzz2E6FxmrQ8 I just enjoyed a day hiking around Desolation Wilderness in October. I can't imagine why people would want to open a place like that up to roadways, logging and mining.

Comments from Ta-Nehisi on the Jordan Russell shooting, differentiating it from Treyvon at the end as lostfan pointed out http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...l-davis/265704/ Perhaps not. Perhaps Davis friends dumped the shotgun, as their friend bled to death and then summoned the police. Dunn, for his part, drove off telling his girlfriend he'd "fired at these kids." The couple then checked into a hotel. The next morning, Dunn tuned into the news and learned that Davis had been killed. Later that day he was arrested. An alert witness had jotted down his license plate number. I understand asking a neighbor to turn down their music. I only barely understand being temporarily parked at a convenience store, and asking someone to turn down their music. I don't at all understand shooting in self-defense and then neglecting to call the police. And I really don't understand shooting in self-defense, and neglecting to contact the police even after you've learned that you killed someone. When we think about Stand Your Ground laws, I think it's worth considering the effects of such a law beyond the immediate. Accepting Dunn's story, that Davis had a shotgun and police simply haven't found it yet, it may seem perfectly logical to say, "If you threaten my life, I have the right to take yours." But the argument rests on an shockingly optimistic view of human nature. Guns are power. But we can't really bring ourselves to think about how power might alter our calculus. Dunn's daughter claims that he is a "good person." He may well be. But this is beside the point. It's as if we can't grok the idea that "goodness" is not immunity against evil acts, or even reckless acts. I don't want to put to much pressure on a daughter, who is obviously distraught. But too much is made of "goodness." The powers of human "goodness" are vastly overrated. As an aside, I don't think Trayvon Martin comparisons are necessarily helpful here. The single aggravating factor in Martin's death was the lack of police action.

It's not that he shot them "because they were black." It's that it's a reasonable conclusion that he went to tell some 'thugs' to turn their 'music' down while armed with a gun and, due to his prejudices, interpreted something they did as a threat against his life worthy of shooting a teenager to death over. If you check that article or others and look at the comments (which Y2HH wisely advises you not to!), you'll see people who support the shooter with a similar interpretation of the likely events. I'll readily admit that I'm making some assumptions here and judging it in a harsh light. Racism isn't just guys in hoods lynching people, though. It's not explicitly thinking "man, I hate me some n*****s." It's attitudes and prejudices and judgments and beliefs ranging from disgustingly, openly racist to low-level soft bigotry in the way things are perceived or told. It doesn't take a huge leap, imo, to come to the conclusion that a middle-aged Florida white guy who felt the right to tell a bunch of black teens he parked next to to turn their music down and who eventually shot at and killed one of them had some underlying racist beliefs. That doesn't make him someone who goes to klan rallies or posts at StormFront, but it doesn't mean there's not a racial aspect. Who knows, maybe he tells a bunch of white kids blasting Brad Paisley to turn their music down, too, and is armed when he does so.

People's eyebrows can get split like that by punches, I don't doubt Zimmerman's head hit the ground at some point. Whether it happened repeatedly and whether he initiated the confrontation is another thing altogether, though.

I grabbed 1st in my one league thanks to two other guys losing this week. I've also had three 140+ point games dropped on my recently, otherwise I would have walked away with it.

First place by 200 points in one league, last place by 200 in another

I don't know why I subject myself to them sometimes, but that's a good rule to follow in general. I'm not sure if there's a high troll ratio or just a bunch of horrible people. Given that those comments appear to be facebook-linked, I'm going with the latter.

yeah, but have you seen the pictures of the other guy? spoiler alert: there's a large hole in his chest. I don't see how this is any different than the one from a few months ago that showed the back of his head cut. People get bloody noses in fights regardless of who instigates said fight. It doesn't really help the claim that he was attacked, only that there was some sort of physical altercation, which wasn't in dispute. edit: jesus christ some of the racism in the comments on that story

Estate taxes weren't proposed and implemented in response to capital gains sheltering. It's an ancient practice, but it was originally instituted in the US in the 1860's. It's current form dates to 1916.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) A lot? A 1k jewelry purchase isn't that much. You don't have to be anywhere near rich for this to be true. And even if it's just a few times...1k just seems too low. Now you're penalizing people that may want to do something extra special once or twice in their lives? Luxury to me in this regard would be over 5k, and for an engagement, over 10k. I have no idea on the merits of HH's proposal, but jewelry is the easiest example of a "luxury good" you can think of.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) I don't believe that's how it works. Whatever price he initially received the shares at is his strike. His strike doesn't change for her...she would still owe money on the profits minus strike... The author of that piece is a tax lawyer and it jives with what I've turned up googling: https://www.google.com/search?q=step-up+bas...me&ie=UTF-8 The case of a spouse is a bit unique since they pay zero estate tax anyway, but let's assume the same situation but with a son or daughter. With the estate tax, the estate will pay up to 35% tax on all assets above the $5.1M exemption as valued at the time of death. When the estate satisfies its tax burden and the shares are transferred to the son or daughter, the new basis for those shares is the current value, not what was originally paid. So, for instance, if your father bought land in 1960 for $80,000 that was now worth $5,000,000, when you go to sell it, you would not be paying taxes on $4,920,000 in cg's. If there was no estate tax below $5M, those capital gains will go completely untaxed and your father could have borrowed against that $5M land as a source of income. Having no estate tax will foster generational wealth and an even-larger wealth disparity.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:26 PM) All auto purchases above 20k? That's like every car on the planet. None of those numbers you listed could possibly be considered "luxury" other than the aircraft purchases. How many people make jewelry purchases above $1k more than a handful of times in their lives?

Your heirs aren't being punished in any way. Money that was not theirs and that they did nothing to earn is being subject to a tax before it becomes theirs, and only on estates in the top 0.01% (currently, that will change to ~ top 1% if it drops down to $1M exemption). Estates of that size are often comprised of unrealized and untaxed gains that have their basis re-adjusted at the time of death. The inheritors can either borrow money against these unrealized gains (e.g. Zuckerberg) or they may be able to sell them gains-tax-free anyway, as Steve Jobs' wife was able to do:

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 02:05 PM) ...also, to further dismiss your silliness...unrealized gains will eventually be realized and therefore taxed. Let's not pretend they won't be...which you appear to be really good at doing (pretending). Not if the basis is stepped-up at death/transfer without taxation, but either way, it's a way to shelter capital gains from taxation for generations. And if you're that wealthy, you can secure credit against those untaxed assets, essentially gaining access to those capital gains without officially realizing them. This is pretty much what Zuckerberg was doing when Facebook went public: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/...g-tax.html?_r=1

It's an important point, imo, that undercuts arguments that the estate tax may be immoral or that it is a "death tax." My issue was with the way you framed your point and I think that framing reveals a flaw in the argument you were making. "You" don't lose any of your wealth via the estate tax because you are dead. Choosing to spend some of it now to decrease your estate's taxes for your future heirs benefits you and not them. There's a difference there and I think its worthwhile not to lose sight of it. Though you did concede that the estate tax encourages spending over wealth-hording.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 26, 2012 -> 09:53 PM) Just to throw this in for discussion... there is a key difference between land holdings, and financial investment instruments: liquidity. If you inheret some big farm or ranch, and suddenly owe a large tax bill on it... how do you pay for that? You can sell the land itself, but that defeats the purpose of inheritance (in part). If you are given money, or stock, or bonds, etc., you can sell it in part to cover the taxes. I realize that, on the other hand, the land also has value and is therefore a large income by device. Perhaps the solution here is, for illiquid assets, allow for a long-term payment schedule of taxes. You could put a tax lien of sorts on the property, like a tax mortgage or escrow type scenario, and allow for percentage payments over time. At least that way you won't prompt rapid sales that diminish the value of the relatively illiquid assets. digging around for some other stuff, I came across this from CBPP: They don't source this, but it appears to be valid: http://extension.missouri.edu/p/G508

You lose every cent when you die regardless of what happens to your estate afterwards. The estate tax is a boon to charitable organizations and helps work against unearned wealth and aristocracy. I see nothing unfair about it, nor do I see it as "punishment." Much of the wealth subject to estate taxes is unrealized capital gains, anyway, meaning that it hasn't been taxed previously and may never be taxed if there's no estate tax.

Robin expands on his argument here: http://coreyrobin.com/2012/12/02/jefferson...on-not-slavery/

People as a whole might, but that doesn't say much about the top estates that get hit by the estate taxes that we're talking about. The people waiting in line for hours to save a couple hundred bucks on some electronics gadgets likely aren't the people to be heavily impacted by estate taxes in the first place. "Estate planning" isn't really a thing for most Americans. Tax Policy Center has some numbers: That's an estimated 52,500 estates out of the 2.4M Americans who die annually. Considering that the bottom 60% of Americans hold only 4.2% of the net wealth and that only 7,274 households had a net income exceeding $1M in 2007, the estate tax can't really be considered to have a broad impact on spending or savings habits.

Yes, her being in Paris with him is a strong indicator that he fathered children on her. He was also at Monticello at the appropriate times for the other children, and of course he did free her children when he died. But she traveled with him as his slave-servant. If anything, though, taking slaves as concubines is even more reprehensible than the brutality of the fields and workshops.

There were numerous 'moral' justifications for slavery along the lines of "it's better for them." It was referred to as the Domestic Institution. It's all part of the same "white man's burden" strain of thought and you can still find traces of it today in the "well, the descendants of the slaves were better off in the long run, so maybe it wasn't so bad!" excuses. Robin explains his argument above that comment, it's linked in my earlier first post. He overreaches in some regards, but I don't think he does in that one. What was to be done with emancipated slaves was a genuine dilemma in a white supremacist society. You could not (coherently) argue that they were equal human beings that should not suffer under slavery while turning around and forcibly denying them the rest of their rights. But, as Wiencek explains in his original Smithsonian article, Jefferson wasn't even really that opposed to slavery and grew increasingly less so as time went on. I don't know that Jefferson was "publicly" attached to Sally Hemings*. It's still not known for sure that Jefferson fathered children on this slave, though it is likely and the most plausible scenario. It's not particularly odd for him to have been fearful of blacks because he lived with them as owned property to which he claimed complete and total control. But Robin isn't claiming, as far as I can read it, that Jefferson was "terrified," but that he couldn't imagine a functional society composed of whites and free blacks. Jefferson doesn't seem to be expressing a fear of retaliation against former masters but of a larger collapse. *Hemings was also 3/4's anglo fwiw

Sorry, I just happened to have read Frederick Douglass's collective works last week so I'm a bit touchy on the subject.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 3, 2012 -> 11:18 AM) That's because he couldn't fathom that the slaves would stick around. He thought as soon as they were freed they'd head back to Africa. That was a common way of thinking that even Lincoln shared and discussed as a possibility. Yeah, Lincoln proposed colonization. But he didn't believe they'd leave of their own accord AFAIK. From Corey Robin, in the comments: GMAFB. Jefferson's rationalization for his continued participation in and support of a monstrous institution is not in any way similar to the "current liberal mindset" that seeks to correct for the centuries of injustices perpetrated by men like Jefferson. eta: your framing is interesting as well, as if minorities themselves aren't liberal and don't advocate for and support those policies.

FWIW a few states do have inheritance taxes, e.g. Iowa. Inheritance taxes and estate taxes aren't the same thing.