The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

[Rover]

I worked in Houston for 11 years and came to appreciate much about Texas and Houston. Texas has a unique history. It was once an independent nation. And the legend is that Emily Morgan, "the yellow rose of Texas," played a key role. And Houston is a city with enormous "can do" spirit. To turn itself into the 4th busiest American port (despite being inland) Houston built the ship channel. To bring major league baseball to town, Houston built the first indoor air conditioned baseball stadium. Houston also built the first retractable roof football stadium with natural turf. Houston built a massive, marvelous center for the performing arts soley through donations. Not a dime of public money was used.

Judging a state solely on the basis of the people it sends to Congress or elects governor is a fool's errand. Sort of like judging Mass. solely because of the Kennedy gang. None of the Texas worthies you mentioned drowned a young girl and then ran away.

Amusing, since in Mass the Patriots owner tied to get the state to pony up 300M bucks for a new stadium 15 years ago and they told him to go screw. Red Sox tried a similar scam and were told the same thing.

Right on about the Texas vs Massachusetts pols. I don't recall any Mass officials launching a war based on doctored intelligence that cost 5,000 American lives for no reason. Can you think of anybody from Texas who did something like that in recent memory?

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Let's flip the question: When a person dies, who deserves their assets? Why?

Whomever they dictate it should go to. Its their money.

 

[The Exiled One]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Whomever they dictate it should go to. Its their money.

Correction, it WAS their money. Once they are dead, they can't own money.

Secondly, just because you've identified a recipient, explain to me how they deserve it. If I targeted you for a punch in the gut, does that mean you deserved it simply because I decided so?

 

[mookie1995]

Amusing, since in Mass the Patriots owner tied to get the state to pony up 300M bucks for a new stadium 15 years ago and they told him to go screw. Red Sox tried a similar scam and were told the same thing.

Right on about the Texas vs Massachusetts pols. I don't recall any Mass officials launching a war based on doctored intelligence that cost 5,000 American lives for no reason. Can you think of anybody from Texas who did something like that in recent memory?

Speaking of, I see ads on the innerwebs asking me to sign a petition to have the gov send Barbie frank to serve out Kerry's term

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Correction, it WAS their money. Once they are dead, they can't own money.

Secondly, just because you've identified a recipient, explain to me how they deserve it. If I targeted you for a punch in the gut, does that mean you deserved it simply because I decided so?

It doesn't matter if they deserve it or not. Its not your property to take.

*as an aside, I hate the word deserve. It simply means you get something without earning it.

 

[geezer]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Correction, it WAS their money. Once they are dead, they can't own money.

Secondly, just because you've identified a recipient, explain to me how they deserve it.

This is the craziest thing I've ever read. Do you really want every will to file some kind of "justification" for his or her decisions regarding their private property? And if it's not where you want that property to go, it's revoked, or what? Who decides on the "worthiness" of each bequest? I hope you just wandered out a little too far on that limb, and you're not serious about this.

 

[Rover]

Speaking of, I see ads on the innerwebs asking me to sign a petition to have the gov send Barbie frank to serve out Kerry's term

No thanks. Never was a fan of Barney Frank. He was the direct beneficiary of the state's Congressional delegation getting weaker and weaker. When I was a kid he was a nobody compared to the Conte, Moakley and of course Tip O'Neil. Now with people like Tierney still in office he looks like a heavyweight by comparison.

 

[The Exiled One]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

It doesn't matter if they deserve it or not. Its not your property to take.

That's not the an answer to the question I asked. I haven't advocated anything yet.

*as an aside, I hate the word deserve. It simply means you get something without earning it.

I think the opposite is true. "Deserve" means something you HAVE earned.

Merriam-Webster: to be worthy, fit, or suitable for some reward or requital

 

[The Exiled One]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

This is the craziest thing I've ever read. Do you really want every will to file some kind of "justification" for his or her decisions regarding their private property? And if it's not where you want that property to go, it's revoked, or what? Who decides on the "worthiness" of each bequest? I hope you just wandered out a little too far on that limb, and you're not serious about this.

I'm quite serious, but I'm not debating policy at this point. I'm just saying that, as a culture, we've decided on a particular way of handling assets. I'm just looking for people to recognize that this method of handling assets isn't based on economical theory, but cultural tradition. I don't want to talk about how to fix anything, I just want it understood for what it is.

 

[joecct]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Amusing, since in Mass the Patriots owner tied to get the state to pony up 300M bucks for a new stadium 15 years ago and they told him to go screw. Red Sox tried a similar scam and were told the same thing.

Right on about the Texas vs Massachusetts pols. I don't recall any Mass officials launching a war based on doctored intelligence that cost 5,000 American lives for no reason. Can you think of anybody from Texas who did something like that in recent memory?

Which is why the Pats play in Foxboro instead of Boston. And one day, the dump that is Fenway Park (America's Most Beloved Ballpark tm) will fall into the swamp it's built on and the Sox will have a new stadium in (could it be possible that BU will own both of Boston's ballparks?)??? (To be fair Bob Kraft used Hartford as the staking horse to get the new palace built. It worked.)

Some time ago I read Bill Veeck's tale of owning Suffolk Downs (30 Tons a Day). The insight into the graft and corruption in the Commonwealth was very interesting.

BTW, didn't Jack Kennedy try to invade Cuba?

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

That's not the an answer to the question I asked. I haven't advocated anything yet.

And I'm saying its inconsequential. Its not for us to decide. The person so owns the property decides who is most deserving.

 

[geezer]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

And I'm saying its inconsequential. Its not for us to decide. The person so owns the property decides who is most deserving.

This seems so obvious to me that I don't understand how opposition could even form to it in a liberal society. North Korea, maybe. But an outsider deciding who "deserves" the assets of an estate in the U.S. of A.? Preposterous. Every principle the U.S. was founded on says you can give your farm to whoever you **** well please and the government's got nothing to say about it. Of course, that has changed over the years with estate taxes taking a big chunk etc. but I think the basic principle that we are free to live our own lives as we choose, remains in place.

 

[The Exiled One]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

And I'm saying its inconsequential. Its not for us to decide. The person so owns the property decides who is most deserving.

Then you'd have to claim the same for ALL forms of taxes, because they're ALL examples of the collective public commandeering individual assets for the common welfare.

 

[The Exiled One]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

This seems so obvious to me that I don't understand how opposition could even form to it in a liberal society. North Korea, maybe. But an outsider deciding who "deserves" the assets of an estate in the U.S. of A.? Preposterous. Every principle the U.S. was founded on says you can give your farm to whoever you **** well please and the government's got nothing to say about it. Of course, that has changed over the years with estate taxes taking a big chunk etc.

And I'm pretty sure you've admitted it (particularly by using the word "preposterous"), that our current system is culturally based, not scientifically based.

but I think the basic principle that we are free to live our own lives as we choose, remains in place.

This has never been true at any level of society in human history.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Then you'd have to claim the same for ALL forms of taxes, because they're ALL examples of the collective public commandeering individual assets for the common welfare.

Except we don't tax assets in this country (at least until someone dies). We tax work (income) and we only tax it once.

I have no problem with putting a stop taxing work and instead tax consumption. In fact, its a nice way around the estate tax. Money by itself don't do anything for you. Its only when money is spent that someone gets value from it. In this case, when the heirs spent their inheritance they would pay the tax on those assets.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

And I'm pretty sure you've admitted it (particularly by using the word "preposterous"), that our current system is culturally based, not scientifically based.

Its called freedom

 

[The Exiled One]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Except we don't tax assets in this country (at least until someone dies). We tax work (income) and we only tax it once.

...which is a policy based on cultural norms, not economic theory.

I have no problem with putting a stop taxing work and instead tax consumption. In fact, its a nice way around the estate tax. Money by itself don't do anything for you. Its only when money is spent that someone gets value from it. In this case, when the heirs spent their inheritance they would pay the tax on those assets.

NOW you're talking policy changes based on economic theory. I don't agree with this theory, but I didn't want to have a policy discussion, so now I'll bow out.

 

[unofan]

Except we don't tax assets in this country (at least until someone dies). We tax work (income) and we only tax it once.

Except we also tax capital gains, dividends, interest, gifts over a certain amount, sales, imports, etc. Inheritances are essentially large gifts and are certainly income for the recipients.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Except we also tax capital gains, dividends, interest, gifts over a certain amount, sales, imports, etc. Inheritances are essentially large gifts and are certainly income for the recipients.

Then, at most, they should be taxed for any capital gains they had accumulated at the time of the person's passing since the rest had already been taxed.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Except we don't tax assets in this country (at least until someone dies). We tax work (income) and we only tax it once.

I have no problem with putting a stop taxing work and instead tax consumption. In fact, its a nice way around the estate tax. Money by itself don't do anything for you. Its only when money is spent that someone gets value from it. In this case, when the heirs spent their inheritance they would pay the tax on those assets.

Tell to the millions of property owners in this country when the schools come a crowin' that we don't tax assets in this country.

Taxing consumption is the basis for both FairTax and 9-9-9. You are taxed one time for the movement of money.