D13theColonel vs. Mathius Part IV: The Death Tax

Yes, let’s talk about taxing stuff that was already taxed once (or more).





  1. 😎

    • For the record, the death tax is pure bullshit and absolute theft.

      • More so than other taxes?

        Either all taxes are “pure bullshit and absolute theft,” or none are.

        Either you have an absolute, immutable divine right to absolute dominion over your property (read money), or you do not.

        If the former, then all taxes of all stripes are “pure bullshit and absolute theft.”

        Otherwise, it’s just a muddy gray zone and that’s, like, your opinion, man.

        • No, Mathias, that’s just not the way the real world works . I know it’s the Liberal in that thinks that you can just put all things in one basket and claim superiority. Just like how your ilk likes to claim that because we are against radical Islamic jihad, you conflate that to say we hate all Muslim’s , which is total Bullshit.. while I’m against a vast majority of taxes, there are some worthy, like paying for roads and such. I ha c email no muddy gray zone, that belongs to your gray area loving self. 🙂

          • I don’t want to type it out again, but see my story yesterday about the man who offers a woman $1,000,000 then $1 to sleep with him.

            You’ve opened the door. We now know you’re a big government statist who believes it’s ok for the government to “steal” from people and redistribute that wealth (even if only in the forms of a public good like roads). Now that we know that, we’re both on the same team. We’re both tax-and-spend Big Government Progressives.

            GMan, Buck, Charlie, Todd, and myself: one big happy family.

            The only question now is how to balance the scales of Greater Good vs Individual Liberty.

            You’re one of us whether you like it or not.

            • Credit for the comedy. I consider roads a local issue, not national. NO, I’m certainly not one of you, by even the longest stretch of the imagination.

              • So, just to be clear:

                Step 1: It’s ok for someone to take your money without your permission or say-so.
                Step 2: It’s ok for them to pool that money with that of other individuals.
                Step 3: It’s ok for them to then spend that money for the purpose providing a societal good that benefits some more than others, and not necessarily in proportion to what they contribute….

                … but only if the people doing this live close by?

                Are you suuurrre you’re not one of us?

              • So just to be clearer:

                #1, negative, that is theft and thieves will be shot. I can get around taxes if I so choose.
                #2, negative, that is also theft and thieves should be shot on sight, all of them.
                #3, bullshit, it is just the world that our ancestors and corrupt politicians have put us in, and it can be changed.

                No I’m not one of yous people, your bazaar to think strangers have a right to your property without your permission. When some of them decide you pay your taxes by allowing your pretty wife to service them, I’m betting your gonna be changing your mind real quick.

            • Mathius,

              Greater Good:
              No such thing. All “good” is individual. You cannot apply “good” to a group.

              The concept of “group” is a construct – made up in our minds. Only thing that really exists are individuals. When good is applied, you measure it on the person.

              You can say “10 people share the benefit” – and group them, but it is measured by each individually and it is only a construct to group them together. If #11 suffers a loss, it is A LOSS, regardless how many gain. It is a self-surving lie to claim that because 10 win and 1 lose, that such a tradeoff is “ok”.

              You can test this by placing YOURSELF as the loser. If you’re honest, you see that your prespective of “greater good” changes.

              • We know your opinions on this Mr. Flag. That’s not my point.

                My point here is that g-man, having accepted the validity of any taxes, no matter their size, scope, or intent, places him on my side of the red-line.

                You can’t cross that Rubicon and hold on to your pirate hat.

                As such, it’s no longer a question for him of whether taxes are right or wrong, but rather where the acceptable compromise is between individual rights and Greater Good.

                In other words, he’s a big government tax and spend statist, just like me, who supports evil taxation theft in service of some greater good. And he’s just in denial.

        • ALL taxes are pure bullshit and absolute theft! If I want to help fund local roads then that should be my OPTION. If I want to help fund the local schools then that should be my OPTION.

          • Rick – and if you CHOOSE not to, then what? Should you be barred from sending your kids to school? Should you be barred from driving those roads?

            And who gets to decide how much you must pay for the privilege?

            • We The People should get to decide those things. The people of my county for local issues. The people of my state for state issues. Not the criminal organization that is call government.

              • So in your mind, the local and state government making a decision is somehow valid, but the federal government is not? If the state enacted a tax and used the money to pay for its roads, you would be 100% ok with that?

              • Nope. I said ‘we the people’ (not government) get to decide. And I will never be 100% ok with taxes.

              • We the people did decide – through voting and our representatives.

              • And you didn’t answer my question – if ‘we the people’ decide and you disagree then what?

              • There are always options. If one uses the roads, one should help pay for it’s upkeep. If one chooses not to pay, society can shun the person.

                School taxes, ugh! What utter theft. If one home schools why should one pay school tax? In Pa, all landowners pay annual school taxes. The education system that is paid for is below standards and in some communities a complete failure. Get ALL government out of the education process and privatize ALL of it, no taxes. Pay to play, that’s how we the people should operate, not the elected corrupt government politicians.

              • Recurring compulsory payments surrendered in order to prevent myself from being shot or imprisoned is theft. That is all I was saying. Call it what it is. It is theft.

            • Buck,

              You have unstated assumptions.
              …roads only can be built and provided by government
              ….schools only can be built and provided by government

              These assumptions are false. Hence your argument for taxes to provide these things are equally false.

        • Yes, all taxes are theft, and evil.

          However, there are worse examples of theft and evil.

          There is a difference between shoplifting and armed robbery. There is a difference between a punch in the nose and a bullet between the eyes.

          To roll back evil, especially an evil that is broadly seen as “necessary” like taxes, the best tactic is to work on the ones that many see as evil and as potentially removable then try to remove the whole systemic version of evil.

          Thus, working to eliminate the death tax as a step is a good plan.

  2. It couldn’t happen in the USA….

    “On December 5, 1947, Einstein and Morgenstern accompanied Gödel to his U.S. citizenship exam, where they acted as witnesses.

    Gödel had confided in them that he had discovered an inconsistency in the U.S. Constitution that could allow the U.S. to become a dictatorship.

    Einstein and Morgenstern were concerned that their friend’s unpredictable behavior might jeopardize his application.

    Fortunately, the judge turned out to be Phillip Forman, who knew Einstein and had administered the oath at Einstein’s own citizenship hearing.

    Everything went smoothly until Forman happened to ask Gödel if he thought a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the U.S. Gödel then started to explain his discovery to Forman. Forman understood what was going on, cut Gödel off, and moved the hearing on to other questions and a routine conclusion”

    • Hey Flag!

      ask Gödel if he thought a dictatorship like the Nazi regime could happen in the U.S.

      Every time I hear any variation of “it couldn’t happen here,” I wince.

      If it can happen once, it can happen again if conditions are ripe.

      Human nature hasn’t changed. Human nature doesn’t change.

      Vigilance only stalls the inevitable.

      I look around at the modern America and I wince at the blatant and hostile anti-Muslim sentiment. I don’t think a rehashing of Manzanar is that likely, but it is disconcerting that it is not nearly as unlikely as it should be.

      What conditions gave rise to the Nazi regime? Militant nationalism, a depressed economy, an egomaniac and compelling leader who channels the nation’s fear and rage into scapegoating an ethnic group and blaming foreigners. Boy, does that all sound familiar.

      • How about the loss of a major war which was never driven home by the Allies. Pershing was against the Armistice exactly because it did not involve the Germans admitting defeat. He predicted # 2 after a time out. What about Versailles? Removing rather than neutering the kaiser was also a contributing factor. Look no further than MacArthur’s use of Hirohito. Gotta look at the whole, the Gestalt. In WW 1 Wilson went pretty damned far and the anti-German hostility on the part of the populace was a whole lot worse than anything you have seen about Muslims. Had it not been for FDR’s calming presence, and that Jewish dentist, always wondered which side Huey Long, POTUS, would have backed in WW 2.

        I love the way you jump in with the Nazi’s. How about the perversion of the Russian Revolution. Something that started out idealistically but wound up killing millions of Russia’s own citizenry.

        I ALWAYS use both examples. The intolerance of the left expressed most recently in “bathroom wars” makes me doubt your fear should be from the right. That Mo Fo Hillary would lock me and Dale and G-man and the rest up in a heartbeat. You would probably be OK fro a while until round 2 or 3 or 4 of the “cleansing”. See: Stalin.

        • The intolerance of the left expressed most recently in “bathroom wars” makes me doubt your fear should be from the right.

          Please elaborate?

          • The entire argument is specious but if I disagree I am a hateful, anti Trans, anti gay etc. I do not do that to the idiots I disagree with nor do I know any “right wingers” who do.

            By the way, ditto for bakers and pizzerias.

            As some here have said, go on something like Huff Po and make an opposition point and you will be told in no uncertain terms how the “reasonable” opposition would treat you.

            Please comment on Nazi’s and Germany.

            • Just so I understand this:

              Republican controlled governments impose laws to control the potty habits of innocent men and women based on a non-existent threat of bathroom assaults and unsubstantiated privacy concerns. The left has schpilkas*. The left calls the right out on (A) Big Gov’ment micromanaging of peoples’ lives for no real reason and (B) targeting and generally victimizing an already marginal segment of society. The right then cries woe-is-me “how dare they not tolerate my intolerance!”

              Did I get that right?

              How is it that you can sit there and opine so frequently about the size and intrusiveness of the government, but you’re just fine when it wants to inspect what’s in some people’s pants before they can take a leak?

              *Yiddish is a great language. Generally “ants-in-the-pants,” but in context more along the lines of overly-dramatic agitation bordering on hysteria. (sch-PEEL-keys)

              • No what you are deliberately ignoring is the right to privacy of all people and the right not to have that privacy violated. Your way of looking at things, discounting some 6,000 years of human civilization, involves the imposition of minuscule MINORITY NORMS over the overwhelming majority norm. Exactly to what purpose?

                It is not terribly hard for example to find suicide statistics among trans people. Transformation did not solve the underlying problem. Encouraging more confusion among six year olds will do nothing for the society except create more problems . Long before we had “big government” there were small government societal norms even NO government societal norms. . It amazes me that you can argue (have the chutzpah) against imposition of rules by big government when it is big government itself doing this imposition on your side of the argument. You seem to be the perfect example of Walt Kelley’s admonition, “We have met the enemy and he is us”.. To my knowledge there never was, in the past, any government attempt to publicly lay down the law where boys and girls may pee. Your guys decided to throw common sense out the window and create a non-existent problem.

                May I remind you, government has NOT been suddenly repressing the right to use the “other” bathroom. You are repressing the millennia old right to privacy based on true gender. You are in fact the perfect example of the modern, literate, cultured Nazi. But then again, we know from Nuremberg that most of those guys thought they were right too, right up to and including having the hangman’s noose fitted.

              • “The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” — Thomas Paine

              • SK,

                Just because something is old does not make it right.

                Racism is old.

                Bigotry is old.

                Homophobia and anti-trans are old.

                That does not make them right.

                Getting rid of an evil “societal norm” in favor “minority norms” cannot be argued against on the grounds that we must uphold the ancient ways.


                And, just to throw out a thought to you:

                It is not terribly hard for example to find suicide statistics among trans people. Transformation did not solve the underlying problem.

                Are you positive that it’s because of some underlying mental illness or because of the way society treats people who are different?

                Encouraging more confusion among six year olds will do nothing for the society except create more problems

                Loving and tolerating people for who they are is not encouraging confusion amongst six year olds. It’s helping people who are in a tough place deal with their own private lives in a safer and less hostile manner.


                By the way, many of your exact same arguments can be (and have been) used verbatim against gay people. Are homosexuals just confused six year olds, too? Would they stop being gay and feel better about themselves if we just shoved them all back into the closet?

              • Thanks, Well, try this one out for size, “Just because it is all new and improved does not make it right either”. In the 20th century we had two all new and improved versions of government. It cost 100,000,000 people their lives.

                Do NOT throw up strawman arguments to me. Frankly, I ams ick and tired of listening to them. You are a close minded person. Never in a million years woudl you entertain the notion that children are suggestible and bad parenting can bring on things in that child that shouldn’t even be talked about. Same with homosexuality. You would never entertain the possibility that homosexuals are both born AND made.

                You are unfortunately a straight up, black or white person, a TRUE believer, in your own way every bit as off kilter as those loony fundamentalist preachers. You will never see any shading. I pity you for it.

              • SK,

                You would never entertain the possibility that homosexuals are both born AND made.

                Sure I would.

                Identical twins have a significant correlation for sexual orientation. If one is gay, the other is gay something like 60% of the time. This suggests that there is a strong genetic component.

                At the same time, the fact that it’s not 100% suggests that there is also a significant environmental component.

                Nature v. Nurture.


                That said…………… so what? Is there something BAD about being gay or trans?

  3. .

  4. Just A Citizen says:


    I posted some history of the death tax last week. In that search I discovered that the term “Death Tax” has been used to describe this tax long before and “conservatives” started using it. In fact the term dates to the 1700’s.

    And per some other information I found the tax is NOT an income tax. It was originally considered an “excise” tax. This poses a very interesting Constitutional question.

    • First of all, though I don’t happen to know the ruling off hand, I know the SCOTUS has upheld the estate tax.

      Secondly, aren’t we long past pretending that the US government follows any sort of strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution?

      Third, there were a lot of terms being used as far back as the 1700’s which are no longer used – some for good reason. Would you like me to recite some of them? You, like GMan, seem to think that just because something is old, or “it’s always been this way,” that it’s sacrosanct and has to be preserved. The law has a name. That name is the Estate Tax.

      Fourth, calling it the death tax is a way of loading in emotional bias – it presumes and implies the unjustness of the tax before any rational discussion takes place. It’s why, for example, the abortion debate cannot take place in any rational sense when one side insists on calling it baby murder and the other is talking about extracting embryos – maybe it is murder, but allowing for the debate to happen on those terms means the conclusion is foregone. Keep the terminology neutral, then reach a conclusion.

      • What is old is the Liberal Progressive (Communist) nonsense that has infiltrated weak minded people through a failed education system. Our current system of Federal government was never intended to be, read your history Skippy 🙂

      • Yes, Matt, let’s keep the terminology neutral while simultaneously changing the definition of every word in the constitution.

  5. 14,900 more emails have magically appeared from Hitlary’s private server, work related and some classified. I gues she didn’t turn them all over after all. She committed perjury, period. Off to jail with the wench 😀

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Isn’t that amazing…sarc. The investigators say it will take a lot of time to vet these newly uncovered emails and it will be after the election. Just like the Clinton Foundation. How many years has there been an opportunity to correlate Foundation activities, money donations via speeches and State actions. We can start way back with Haiti.

      During the last batch there were emails that covered discussions between Hillary and the network experts. One major issue that cropped up was that the OFFICIAL State Dept systems had to remove security protocols to allow access of Hillary’s private server. The advisor said, there is a work around and that is USE the Official State Dept system. She ademently did not want that claiming the desire for her private emails to stay private. Also that the system would bypass the FOI rules so that if search of records in the state system was initiated NOTHING would show, or only what they wanted to show.

      Also there was the security people saying that her system was constantly under attack. Requiring for them to shut down to block phishing attacks, sometimes up to 24 hours. Pardon me, by that is one hell of a way for the SOS to run her business, especially when decisions have to be made now.

  6. Before Mathius and I debate the Estate Death Tax……heh heh……

    Please allow me to expound upon a subject discussed above….Texas does it again. It blocks the executive order from the POTUS his edict to public schools on transgender restrooms…..Pretty simple, actually. If you are male, please use the male facilities. If you are female, please use the female facilities. Gender is based upon your physical attributes…not how you feel in the morning. If you have a “hangy downy thingy”..you are male. Be guided accordingly. Obama threatened to pull all public school funding…Texas said ok.

    Secondly, three professors from the University of Texas had their law suit thrown out….Their lawsuit said that for Texas to allow students to carry concealed weapons in classrooms violated their civil rights ,The judge says….take your petty cries elsewhere. It is a state issue and you are teaching at a State University. Live with it.

    Estate Death Tax will be available in the morning. This is somewhat near and dear to my heart…as I am going through this very thing at this very moment.

    • On the transgender issue – so post op you are ok with not using the bathroom you ‘should’ use based on birth? I thought, and correct me if I’m mistaken, Texas would require you use the bathroom for the gender you were born with…

      Wouldn’t it be worse for a woman to have someone that for all intents and purposes looks like a man step into a women’s restroom because he was born a female? Not to mention I’m still not quite sure how you would go about policing this.

      • Dude, Tom Boys have been around forever and have never complained about which restroom to use. The whole movement is Communist bullshit. It’s even written in the Congressional record. Would you like me to post the exact sentence?

        • What are you talking about by bringing ‘tom boys’ in to the discussion!? Doyle know anything about transgender??

          • Yes, I know that transgenderism is still considered a mental illness. But that really don’t matter, because here is my position. If a girl wants to dress and act like a man and use the men’s restroom, I could care less, however, I can’t speak for the ladies who take more issue with their privacy and the privacy of the little ones. Now, I’m sure there are areas like San Francisco and places in Jersey and other Liberal enclaves that have transgenders bopping around all the time. In some cases, one can’t even tell a tranny is a man, I know, I’ve seen some overseas. I’ve seen a few, and they were hideous looking and I wouldn’t blame a woman for not wanting to share their restroom with such a person. But again, I don’t speak for women and it’s really a non issue out here in the country.

            It seem’s to me that the Left is trying to push their ideology on everyone, again, like Obamacare, which is a disaster and soon to be shown as far worse than a disaster.

            The bottom line….Obama overstepped his authority and used a threat to withhold Federal funds. Doesn’t sound all that much different than organized crime to me.

            • Ah yes, the old ‘but think of the women and children!’ argument…

              You mention a right to privacy but refuse to recognize that same right also applies to a transgender individual.

      • January 10, 1963. Rep. A. S. Herlong Jr., a Democrat from Florida no less, recited a list of Communist goals, 45 to be exact.

        Number 16 – “Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.”

        Number 26 – “Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as ‘normal, natural, healthy’.”

        Number 32 – “Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.”

        It’s but a few, but a very telling warning considering today’s ideology of the Liberal Left.

      • Hiya Buckster………Hows things up in “yankee land”? I did not know if you were going to be first or Mathius first on POST OP things…….No sir, that is not what Texas said……..what is said is that you are what you are…..BUT…..if you go to the lengths of whacking off your parts, take an ax and cleave up the middle….then add some implants….you get to be with what your change is……what Texas said……you do not get to choose your moods. ( they did make exception for sex change operations…..EXCEPT in sports. They have made some modifications to some rules. Not sure what they all are as yet….

  7. To Buck, if I may butt in on your take of local taxes….you asked about roads and things withing the state. I would be totally ok with my tax money staying in the State. I do not want to pay for your roads. You pay for them.

    • Colonel, from my understanding Texas gets back in federal funding MORE than it gives. Donor site what your point is here.

      On Texas and transgender – I stand corrected Ted; didn’t know Texas made a distinction between pre and post op. That being said, I still disagree. A friend of mine is transgender. She was born male, has not undergone surgery as of yet. She would look extremely out of place in a male restroom though! Hasn’t used a male restroom in years and has never been questioned on it. If anything a question would arise if she walked in to a male restroom. In Texas she would be expected to use the male restroom I take it?

      • Funny you should ask about Federal Funding but you asked about it in a generality. AS such, and since I was actually on the Texas Highway Commission for many years, I understand it thoroughly and still get calls from time to time….Federal Funding comes into Texas now on primarily three fronts. Education not being one of those fronts. Texas has 19,960 total miles of highway of which 3,233.4 miles is Interstate Highway to which, Texas successfully argued that with the introduction of NAFTA, that all Texas Interstate highways be funded totally by the Federal Government or Texas would shut down the road system. The Feds agreed in order to get NAFTA passed. So, we successfully dumped the cost onto the Clinton Administration which readily agreed. The reason was that, under NAFTA, Mexican trucks were not subject to the weight and measures provisions that USA trucks were. Trucks greater than 80,000 GVW were allowed and still were until recently. The highway system was being totally destroyed by the NAFTA trucks from Mexico ( Understand that to this very day, American trucks cannot go into Mexico, the trailers must be handed off to Mexican companies…but NAFTA is another subject.) The Clinton Administration published rules, much like the immigration issues….the law is there but there is no enforcement of the weight a measures DOT rules on Mexican trucks. So, we dumped the entire cost onto the Feds. In addition, since the Feds did not want to administer the maintenance of the Interstate Highway system in Texas,…you know..those shovel ready jobs….it fell upon the State of Texas. So, we now bill successfully the entire cost of maintaining the Interstate highway system…all 3,233 miles of it.

        The second Federal funding comes from the rental of all US military bases and the maintenance thereof….and, third, ( one which is the biggest Ponzi schemes of all time ) the imposition and maintenance of windmills, of which Texas is the largest producer of wind energy, and also, the largest killer of migratory birds and butterflies from Mexico as a direct result of the windmills. The EPA and the “greenies” turn a blind eye to this phenomenon. And to show that Texas has great bargaining skills….the coal industry thrives here as a result of negotiations on the wind farms. So, we sell energy across State Lines at 30% greater cost of coal but we keep our coal and gas reserves and burn it 40% cheaper for our energy. ( A good example….in 100 degree heat with the AC at full power in the summer time…the average electric bill for a 4,000 sq foot home runs about $ 230 for total electric heat and air.)

        So, yes, Texas does take in a great amount of Fed Funds but only on the highway system, which they gave to us…military posts….and wind farms. Public school funding is through local and state property taxes on a pay as you go basis. And, Texas is among the highest in property taxes, but we are pay as you go and there are no subsidies for taxes. EVERYONE pays according to the schedule set out…poor and rich alike.

        Now on Transgender…..the edict from the POTUS sets out public schools.elementary and high school and does not include colleges and universities. It is not a law but it is tied to Federal school funding. It has been challenged in court and the courts in Texas have ruled that it is left up to the State. The State, in turn, has left it to the individual school districts and the PTA’s to decide. Now, us backward, independent Texas folks are pretty simple. If you are a man….use the man’s restroom facility. If you are a female, use the female restroom facility. However, if you have undergone sex change surgery, there is an exception. Understand that I am not a church going person….but Southern Baptists reign supreme down here. A gun in one hand and a bible in the other, with your horse tied up outside. Since the State Department of Education sends out the edicts to public school districts, it left the decision up to each school district and the PTA’s. IF they decide to include transgender, it is a local decision decided by local people and even then, the specific PTA for the specific schools. That is the way it should be.

        Very sorry for the long response, understanding that you need your “deciphering juice” (coffee) to get your day started, but thought that I should explain the Federal funding in Texas and why. But, because we negotiated the issues with the Clinton administration over NAFTA…..we saved billions….which went to our schools and now is going to medical expense since Obamacare failed miserably down here. Even the Mexicans did not want it. The money we saved has also funded job fairs and border security….not golf courses and swimming pools.

  8. @ Mathius

    Racism is old.

    Bigotry is old.

    Homophobia and anti-trans are old.

    That does not make them right.

    It’s as old as mankind itself. It’s natural and will never change. We are tribal by nature and that will never change. The arrogance of the Liberal Left should be quite clear, you’ll think you can change human nature, change the climate, save the planet (that don’t need saved) and protect species of life that will become extinct, regardless of the nonsense the enviro-nuts do.

    • It’s as old as mankind itself.

      ::citation needed::

      It’s natural and will never change.

      So we shouldn’t try?

      The arrogance of the Liberal Left should be quite clear, you’ll think you can change human nature

      No. We just acknowledge human nature and try to use the force of government to keep it in check.

      change the climate, save the planet (that don’t need saved) and protect species of life that will become extinct, regardless of the nonsense the enviro-nuts do.

      “that don’t need saved”?

      “that don’t need saved”??

      “that don’t need saved”??!?!??!?!!

      Again, no. We – the Liberal Left – acknowledge the harm that we, as a species, do to the natural world and try to take steps to mitigate that harm.

      Unchecked, we pollute with reckless abandon in pursuit of profits. Unchecked, we hunt entire species to death for sport. Unchecked, we pave over natural habitats of endangered species. Unchecked, we eradicate the rhino because some culture thinks its horn makes a good boner pill.

      Meet the Great Pacific Garbage Patch:

      Most of this is not quite so apparent as it is generally suspended beneath the surface, but it’s larger in area than the United States. And we did this is in what? A century? Imagine what we’ll do with another century – especially if you – the Conservative Right – keep fighting us every step of the way in our efforts to protect the environment.

      Fish populations are plummeting as we simultaneously damage their habitat and harvest them in unsustainable bulk.

      And it is scientific consensus that we are causing climate change. I do not claim to be an expert, but here is a matter of scientific undisputed record: the world is getting warmer. This has been (globally) the hottest summer in the hottest year in the hottest decade on record. Full stop.

      Are causing this? Scientists, who know more about the subject than you or I, are almost unanimously in agreement that we are. Could this be a conspiracy? No. Absolutely not. But could they be wrong? SURE! Science is wrong all the time – it’s a messy process that makes lots of mistakes before it arrives at the right answers. But, generally, it is a good idea to act on the best information you have available, especially when there’s not real downside to doing so. “Going green” might not be the greatest economically, but it pales in comparison to the what-if if they’re right.

      We – the Liberal Left – want to act. Maybe we’re wrong and we transition the entire planet over to solar power and sustainable food practices and cost a few percent of GDP. But you – the Conservative Right – want to bury your head in the sand. And what if you’re wrong?

      • re: The Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

        I generally agree with you Lefties on this. (Except for blaming the Conservative Right) When I see this garbage, the space junk, etc. it disgusts me. I just can’t understand why we (humanity) have allowed this.

        Global warming: Even if it was due to CO2 and man-made, why is it that the ‘little people’ are expected to pay to fix it when you have people like Hillary, Obama, DiCaprio, Bush, Soros, etc. spewing out more CO2 in one pleasure flight on their personal jets than I will produce in my lifetime? Yeah, I’m the one that needs to adjust my lifestyle.

        No rebuttal expected, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents worth in the discussion. Well, it’s probably 3 cents now…….after taxes. 🙂

        • Appreciate the 2-3 cents.

          And, just to clarify: I don’t blame the Conservative Right for creating the situation(s), but I do feel that they are much more resistant to any actions which might help fix it.

          Is the EPA perfect? Hell no! Not even close. But they’re still a step in the right direction. And who is constantly trying to weaken and defund them? Not us liberals.

      • Again, your points are missing the point. Nobody wants litter and garbage everywhere. The Pacific garbage patch was caused by the tsunami in Japan a few years back. Does it need cleaned up? You bet. Let’s get Japan to pay for it, it’s their trash.

        Global warming is bullshit and the concensus spoken of has been debunked long ago. We are currently entering a global cooling period. Much like before your time, the 70’s, idiot Liberal scientists actually wanted to drop black soot on the polar ice cap to help melt it. Besides, it was much warmer during the time of dinosaurs, long before us arrogant humans.

        “Imagine what we’ll do with another century – especially if you – the Conservative Right – keep fighting us every step of the way in our efforts to protect the environment.”

        Bullshit. The global Warming fraud is one big reason, because the Liberal Left will cost everybody a fortune fighting a fantasy. It’s nothing more that a Liberal tax and steal fraud perpatrated by manipulated statistics that are incomplete and hand picked.

        Your never going to change human nature, ever, period. Trying is idiotic and a waste of time, not to mention the problems it is causing.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Gman…the garbage patch has been in existence long before the tsunami in Japan. Just enhanced. I’ll make a casual observation here though….where did the garbage come from? Trash thrown overboard from ships and boats, true, Mexico , filthy California liberal, Oregon liberal. Washington liberal, Canada liberal, Alaska cons, Japan, ? Korea, 1/2 communist ? Russia, socialist, China, communist, Vietnam communist, PI ? Hawaii liberal Not many evil conservative governments bordering the pacific above the equator. Nothing stopping the bordering countries or states to go clean it up. It’s mostly their refuse anyway.

          Lest we remember the great Johnson Administration wanted to DAM the Colorado to fill the Grand Canyon just like Lake Meade and Lake Powell which bracket the canyon. Even the Sierra Club was all into the project…..Just like we hear very little and I mean little about the destruction of migratory birds in the flyways by the Audobon Society. Even the US Wildlife Service head when pushing windfarms on the chesapeake said it will do them good to be thinned out…the greater good.

          Even though Mathius cited that last year was the warmest on record…..I read that report and the caveat was since (1979) It also went on to say that it was statistically a non record due to the +/- errors. The report also said that the earth was also “GREENER” due to the life giving CO2 that is manna to plants and the generation of O2 which is good for us.

          So also does empirical records show that the Roman warming period was even warmer by several degrees than the projected catastrophy by the climate change advocates. Major climate shifts occur all the time riding on other major cycles. It was far warmer in the dinosaur days with lots of green. Every 20-30 years the NYTimes has run panics going fro ice age to heat catastrophy and gloom and doom…Just a few short years ago like 30-35 the very same scientists predicted an ice age and mass starvation and famine. Their science was just a flawed then as it is today…….Now I drive < 4000 miles a year, I recycle, I withstand hotter than most people do and leave windows open in the summer. I dress appropriately in the winter and keep the house cool, not 75, but 60. Summer, 85 not 72. Step outside and it's 100 with 85% humidity and 85 inside is down right frigid.

      • Matt, we have been through this global warming BS many times on this site. I know lots of scientists and statisticians and can say with certainty there is not a universal belief in AGW. That is a myth. It has been debunked several times. The projections of run-away warmth are all based on computer models that failed to predict the last twenty years. As such they are unvalidated. Validation of a statistical model is a rigorous process. If I built and used a model to predict the octane number of gasoline and it failed during validation and failed during continuous validation on real live product predictions, the EPA would haul my customer and me into court and fine us for producing off spec gasoline. These models would not pass a court test. They are not better at predicting the future than flipping a coin in fact worse because flipping a coin is totally random, these models have systematic errors hence bias in one direction.

        Now, am I an authority on climate. No. But I am an authority on infrared spectroscopy upon which the fundamental issue of the green house effect is based. I have published articles on the high resolution spectra of CO2 and other gases. I have been actively doing spectroscopy for 45 years. I also use statistical modelling in my work namely partial least squares regression and principle component analysis which are some of the underlying tools used to create the models. So I do have fundamental experience to talk about the mathematics and science behind the theories.

        If had a roulette wheel model that predicted as poorly as these models, and used it in a casino, expect to lose your shirt. You have been sold a bill of goods and are a sucker for taking the bait.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          You do remember back a few years ago when this BS was being challenged. The Russians had been providing data from all over Russia. They wanted to see where their information was plotted in the grand scheme of things. They were told by the university in the UK that, now is discredited, that “we did NOT use your data because it did not fit the model.” These scientists have it ass backwards. Obviously its the model that is in error and needs to be modified. Not the data. But to counter that the scientists are now taking data and “adding” a number to fit the model or the new tool, whose data may now be in error. As they recently did. All along sea voyages ships take water temp readings and samples. This has been going on for a long time. Lots of samples. One gets in time lots of data points. NOAA put up a new satelite to replace these individual sample readings. The satelite data came back as I believe 5 degrees different upward. NOAA proclaimed all the previous data was in error uniformily and adjusted it upward to coincide with the satelite. What if the satelite had an error built in, much like the error that skewed the data and images from the Hubble space satelite.

          Analyists have gone directly back to the alleged 100 climate scientists that Al Gore says they said that AGW is man made etc. All of them refuted that statement as being an exclusive factor. I look at the mirror finishes on the new buildings in the cities to save energy are in fact exacerbating the issue by becoming solar furnaces causing the AC systems to work even harder to stay cool. You have sensors anywhere near and the data will be skewed. That was shown years ago by deniers actually finding where the sensors are and determined that they were placed to elevate the temperatures. The original collecting agencies said it was to difficult to have sensors placed all over and retrieve the data. So the sensors migrated to where they easily could get to them. Plus it then fit he model, and also increased their funding etc etc etc.

          Droughts in CA and the southwest have been rampant at least over the past 750 years. When we first moved to CA almost 60 years ago there were roughly 20 million documented people with X water supplies. There certainly was farming in the Imperial Valley and San Jocquin valley. We had droughts which required immediate serious water conservation even back then. Jump to the current problem in CA and the southwest. CA had doubled it population and added ZERO new water capacity and in fact is less than it was, and the food production had vastly increased. How can anybody in their right mind not believe something has to give. Much less NOT put any restrictions on until 4 years into the drought. Utter stupidity. Drought wiped out the Anasasi indian culture hundreds of years ago and they were had a negligable population.

  9. The Estate/Death Tax. Make no mistake…….it may be a legal term but the estate tax is really and purely a death tax. It costs you to die. This from the IRS and a quote: “The IRS states that an estate tax is a tax that is levied on the right to transfer property upon your death.” It says specifically that it is levied upon DEATH….not life. Its sole design is to keep wealth from being passed to children. Its design is to transfer wealth. Its design is nothing more than double and sometimes treble taxation and even sometimes quadruple. I can give specific examples, if you wish. So, you can argue that the tax is not a “death tax” all you want….and I am sure you will argue the semantics. So, yes the tax is called The Federal Estate Tax but it is levied only at death. I think that you can simplistically argue that is a death tax. It is not a tax for the “collective good” at all. It is a tax of greed and jealousy. It is a socialist tax and it is theft. Legal theft mind you but theft just the same.

    Is it fair? No…..I can see no argument that if a family makes money and invests it wisely and it grows and taxes are paid on its growth that it should be taxed, once again, upon the death of the principal. Why should this be? It is more of the same diatribe that just because you have more, you should share more of the burden. I often hear, from the left, that everyone should be equal. Ok, let us make everyone equal. You want an estate tax? Let’s impose an estate/death tax on everyone regardless of income levels. What is wrong with treating EVERYONE equal….isn’t that what those of you on the left preach? Or is making it equal, the hypocritical stance of inequality. You wish to punish success by taxing it or taking it away. Who has the right to dictate what someone can keep and not keep? It certainly is not what Buck suggested earlier concerning elected officials because it is not elected officials instituting it. Buck is also the first to say that the majority rules unless the majority says or does something that hurts the rights of the minority. But Buck will now say that, in the case of the minority rich, the majority is ok in trampling the rights of the minority….and do not try to say it is not the same using semantics.

    Now, there is going to be the argument that there are various ways to reduce the estate/death tax….it will be said that proper tax planning and estate planning and exemptions and exempt and non-exempt trusts and various other methods are available and that the actual tax is much less than the 40%. But that is not the issue. The issue that there should be no tax on estates as they have already been taxed numerous times on the same money. So, other than a redistribution of wealth, why is there an estate/death tax?

    The monetary issues of dealing with the estate/death taxes are astronomical. As a personal example, I just measured the Form 706, entitled United States Estate (Generation – Skipping Transfer) Tax Return. It is in two binders and each binder measures 4.5 inches thick and over 1500 pages. That is just one form and its supporting documents. The total cost of administration and preparation has exceeded $50,000 and it is not over as yet. We are anticipating approximately $100,000 in cost just to administer and file an IRS form. This does not include the cost of the government’s time in all of this. This 100k could put a grandchild through college.

    I do not think that anyone on the left can justify this but I am willing to give them a try. If they do try, then they must admit that they are socialists and believe in the redistribution of wealth. If they admit this, then they must admit the hypocrisy of creating equality. Then they must admit that they support, not democracy, but a state run society that dictates the aspects of living. They cannot claim libertarian motive’s ……….as this flies in the face of a libertarian. They cannot claim that it is just and use the term “fair share” because if they do….they are guilty of more hypocrisy.

    This will do for a start….and, Mathius, you can call in Buck if you wish since I included him in on this,,,,,and, after all, it is his expertise….but he better be on his game. I have been well educated in the Federal Estate/Death Tax…..of late.

    • JAC and I looked at the legal justification of the Estate/DEATH tax a few days ago. It is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. The Constitution mentions excise taxes, tariffs, per capita taxes levied on the state and as an afterthought the income tax. The DEATH tax was justified as an excise tax when first introduced and later as an income tax. However, I do not see how it qualifies as a excise tax or as an income tax.


      Excise taxes usually are are on some form of merchandise and can be a fixed amount or percentage of the sale price. There is no sale of goods here when an estate is settled. There is a transfer of title so to speak but it is a completely different scenerio than a whiskey tax or gas tax.

      If the DEATH tax is an income tax, then why is it levied on the estate rather than the heirs and why is it not simply handled as normal income on your 1040? Inheritance is treated as income tax free income.

      Is this another case were liberal license was taken with the meaning of words when interpreting the Constitution? Next time I’m in a auto accident, I am going to liberally redefine the words in my insurance policy and see if that garners me more money.

      Basically I go back to the 1100 Charter of Liberties. The heirs must repurchase the estate from the king.

    • I’ll try to get to this – busy day. I have two ESTATE tax returns to finish up, bind, and send to the IRS! No joke.

    • While probably a small number when looking at the big picture, the DEATH Tax also is responsible for some unemployment, including the unemployment of unskilled workers who work farms and some small business’s (landscaping and gardening comes to mind). When a farm or business is closed due to the tax, the government, who did NOTHING to build that farm or company, takes. Many people, including outside the business/farm are also affected. It’s a lose/lose, nobody gains, except the incompetent alphabet agencies in the Federal government.

      • Ah yes, the old but it’s killing family farms line. Too bad that’s just not true. Note the below article which gives a better summary than I can at the moment – high exemption amount, discounts, special use valuation, installment plan for payment of the estate tax…


        • The big key to the article, people don’t want to pay for the lawyers to figure out how to get around the tax. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to find that lawyers fees may exceed the actual tax before the end arounds. Seems to me the tax is far too complicated, which will dispropotionately affect small farms and business’s. It’s not uncommon to see small farms (less than 200 acres) auctioned off BECAUSE of the death tax/legal fees. But, everyone has access to a lawyer, like everyone has access to photo ID’s for voting. One is generally free, one is a backbreaker for some.

          • Small businessman/small farmer family member. “We can’t afford the proposed tax or the legal fees to figure it all out”. Catch 22 that most liberal media idiots would have no clue of. A lawyers dream, complicated tax codes, I would fully expect you to support it, afterall, it’s your paycheck.

          • Also keep in mind I only see the effects from the point of view of those that are not wealthy. Middle/lower middle class folks don’t have the resources to pay boatloads of money to a lawyer or in taxes. What is sad is seeing a small farm or business, which wasn’t making anyone wealthy, have to be sold to pay the death tax AND the sales tax on the sale itself. The other problem is that there are time limits on paying taxes. The sale of property or a business, at market value, may take much longer, which leads to an auction and the sale at usually much lower than market value. The little guy is always screwed because you Liberal’s want to steal more from the wealthy. Yes, everyone suffers equally in the Liberal utopia. The only people that seem to benefit are lawyers…..HMMM

            • Middle/lower class don’t have the $11M needed (for married couple) to need to address the potential estate tax.

        • The estate tax for farms does not just apply to the land but also to the value of the buildings, farm equipment, live stock, stored grain and cash in the bank less any debts. Good farm land in IL averages about $8500/acre but can range up to $13,000/acre for excellent land. A typical farm use to be 160 acres but now is closer to 320 to 640 acres. 640 acres is a full section (square mile).

          I know of one farm in IL that was a family homestead from the 1840’s/50’s when the area was settled. In the depression, the current owner almost lost his farm. He was saved by an FFA project his son had. The boy was growing turkeys. They built the 7th largest turkey farm in the country. I knew the son and the family. Dad and I worked repairing buildings on the original homestead. Dad restored the old farmhouse. Mom worked in the packing house a couple of falls. When the son eventually died his wife inherited the farm but had to sell 200 acres to pay the taxes. When she died. the grandson inherited the farm. He had to sell 20% of the turkey production to Swift to pay for the taxes.


          • When the son eventually died his wife inherited the farm but had to sell 200 acres to pay the taxes.

            Someone more informed than me will have to confirm, but I’m 90% sure that you don’t have estate taxes when passing your estate to your spouse.

            • Actually, the will governs or the lack thereof as well as any estate planning on generation skip.

              • Right.. so maybe I’m misreading the order of events.

                1. Dad has a farm.
                2. Something something something.
                3. Son saves farm by raising turkeys.
                4. Dad dies, son inherits, taxes (presumably) imposed.
                5. Son dies, son’s wife inherits, taxes imposed.
                6. Son’s wife dies, grandson inherits, taxes imposed.

                Step 5 doesn’t seem right, but the rest does.

              • (bonus points for laying it out in Anita language…something, something, something. I can relate)

            • If the farm passed to the wife, no estate tax would be due.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Is this not limited to a certain dollar value? Or maybe I am just thinking of the Homeowner exemption to the Cap. Gains tax.

    • Colonel:

      A few quick points, and given my lack of enough coffee today and my busy day, this is going to be a bit inartfully put in places, but you’ll get the gist.

      1. Estate vs. Death tax — in name it is the ‘estate tax’. You and I both know the term ‘death tax’ was coined to scare people and raise opposition to the tax (because everyone dies!). But let’s put the name to the side – we are both relatively smart people and know what we are talking about regardless of the term used.
      2. More semantics – the tax is not imposed on you; you are dead. It is imposed on your estate, meaning it reduces what your heirs may receive. So in effect it is imposed on your heirs. I’ll ignore tax allocation clauses in one’s will.
      3. Double/triple/quadruple taxation – you are glossing over what you know to be much more complex than that. In many cases there is no true double taxation – take stock that was purchased decades ago and never sold. The growth in value over these decades was never taxed. It is included in your estate and subject to estate tax at fair market value. But then your heirs receive a step up in basis so when the stock is ultimately sold, they are only taxed at the gain from the date of death value to the sales price. No double taxation on the subsequent sale either.
      4. Socialist tax – you bet there’s a socialist element to the estate tax, just as there’s a socialist element to the progressive income tax. So what? Let’s not go down the slippery slope of, well if you admit it’s socialist then you don’t support equality and support a state run dictatorship. Come on Colonel – I’d expect this type of silly argument from G, not you. The history of the estate tax shows it had a few purposes – first and foremost was to raise revenue, it was also seen as a means to keep some of the burden of taxes off the lower and middle class, and lastly was to impose some (albeit small) check on dynastic wealth. But really it was and is about raising revenue and placing a greater burden in those that can bear it.
      5. Buck’s argument about the majority trampling minority rights – what rights? The ‘right’ of the wealthy not to pay taxes? My argument is that we have a system in place that allows majority rule with certain safeguards to protect and guarantee the rights of the minority. Majority/minority in this context relates to intransmutable qualities – race, gender, sexual orientation. It does not relate to one’s economic status or net worth.

      I could go on but again, busy day today and need more coffee. Will try to check in tonight to respond to any other questions/comments in this area.

      • To the Buckster….you will, someday find that Dr Pepper is a better alternative to coffee ( Mathius will find out the same of Red Bull, even though he fed it to my raptors earlier and they disappeared. How can you not find a raptor in a cowboy hat, but, alas).

        Now, I do not envy your position of wrapping up estate issues…except you will reap great benefits from it….however, to your point number one….yes, it was/is a scare tactic..a lesson we learned from you lefties. We learned it well. And it is a reality….everyone will die.

        2. Objection, kind sir. You are indeed correct that it is a levy placed on the estate of the “dead principal.” However, it is still a tax on the heirs on money and wealth accumulated prior….and taxes paid, not on the growth ( until it is taken ) but paid on the dividends and income that the stocks, you mentioned, produce. But that stock does no heir any good until the heir receives dividends, to which they will pay a tax or the heir sells the stock, to which they will pay a tax. So, the growth does get taxed even with the step up basis. So when you tax the estate ( stocks, using your example ) at the value at the time of DEATH and then you tax it again at the time of sell, you have effectively taxed it twice which would be a third time because the money that bought the stock in the first place was already taxed. Now, let us take that step a little further, using your stock analysis. The final tax bill for the estate comes due on the value that is rendered at the time of death. There is no cash with which to pay the tax….so you sell the stock to pay the tax…you will have a capital gain event on the stock taxed at time of death. It matters not WHO pays the tax, estate or heir, it is still another tax on the same money regardless of the step up basis…..unless the stock takes a nose dive.

        And, like you, I will also not go into the tax allocation in will’s. We do not have enough room for that one. Like I said above, the form 706 on our estate was two binders over 1500 pages.

        Your point number 3…..see answer to number 2.

        Your point number 4…..” you said: The history of the estate tax shows it had a few purposes – first and foremost was to raise revenue, it was also seen as a means to keep some of the burden of taxes off the lower and middle class, and lastly was to impose some (albeit small) check on dynastic wealth. But really it was and is about raising revenue and placing a greater burden in those that can bear it.”

        D13 agrees to the extent that it is a revenue source. Therein lies the problem with me. As you said, you and I are both smart and, likewise, you and I know the score. You believe in socialism and I do not. To you, equality is Robin Hood….take from the rich and give to the poor…why? The only reason you can come up with is that because one is rich, you believe in the institution of a greater burden and the only litmus test is…you have more to give. You know good and well, that my statement of equality is on the same basis as progressive taxes. EVERYONE should be EQUAL in the application of our laws. EVERYONE should have an estate tax regardless of income. That is equality. You cannot base equality on the amount of money that someone accumulates and others do not. Well, I guess you can, but in my eyes, therein lies the hypocrisy. Apply all laws equally. No progression.

        Your point number 5……ah ah ah….not going to let you get away with that one. So, Objection…..You say: ” Majority/minority in this context relates to intransmutable qualities – race, gender, sexual orientation. It does not relate to one’s economic status or net worth.”

        My question…..why does it not relate to all things. You want equality in your left hand…but inequality in your right hand. You are using the selective issues again. Include EVERYONE.

        I, also, have a lot of estate issues including an up coming estate auction. Ugh….however, the pros are doing that, which is a whole other issue….the evaluation method used to determine value. The IRS is a very unforgiving institution with no direction, except to collect money.

        • Will come back to this tonight when I have more time. But one quick correction – if you sell the stock to generate cash to pay the tax you will NOT have capital gains tax due as a result of the step up in basis I had mentioned.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Even though this is not an estate tax issue, a similar tax was levied in the early 90’s called the luxury tax. new airplanes, new luxury cars, boats. Used were exempt. There were more people who lost their jobs due to the companies going out of business that specialized in these new products, and more unemployment and other welfare paid out as a result than any tax that was collected. The weathly just kept their old boat or plane and maybe remodeled it. A totally stupid get the rich tax foisted on Bush I by the democrats in congress after he carelessly said “Read my lips, no new taxes”

          • Actually if I remember correctly, the sainted John Kerry, who served in Viet-nam, ordered his new yacht overseas in that period.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              The dems forget that the rich spending on new houses and new planes, new boats etc can be classified a discretionary spending. rarely do they have to build that new vacation home when they may have a couple already. By continuing to buy and consume, they help the working class more directly than any government “help” the poor or working class program. Just think of the skim that is taken off the top of that tax and what finally reaches those intended. Not only the tax preparers, but the IRS handling, Federal agencies handling it, then State then local, all receiving salary even before it gets to the intended, unless the bureauacracy was the intended destination anyway….NOT sarcastic. Just like a charity, not much filters down after all the handling expenses, but a charity is far more direct and less is skimmed off. Back in the early days of Obama, he wanted to eliminate the charitible contribution form tax deductions. I specifically remember Trump saying is the government going to step into all the hospitals, and other beneficiaries of these charitable donations…..he said, “i’ll bet not”…The progressive government wants to be the sole arbitor as to where any money is distributed, because they know best, not the individual.

              One of the reasons for the prolonged depression was with the flailing around by the government. The wealthy (those that remained that is) sat on their money because they didn’t have a clue what the government was going to do next.

  10. A little history on inheritance taxes. Prior to 1100, William II son of William the Conquer required barons (nobles) to purchase back their estates form the crown upon the death of the previous baron. In 1100 after the mysterious death of William II in a hunting accident with his brother Henry I, the barons extracted from Henry I a set of laws called the 1100 Charter of Liberties. Clause 2 of this charter outlaws this inheritance tax. Clause 8 states that barons who have committed a crime will no longer be able to purchase absolution from the crown but must stand trial for the crime and serve the just punishment. Basically, no one is above the law.


    Odd how well history repeats itself.

  11. @Buck….I know of no laws that disallow tranny’s from using womens restrooms, prior to Obama’s school demands. I’ve never seen a sign that states such, I have however seen a video of one getting his tranny ass kicked by a bunch of black chicks for going in the ladies room at a fast food restaurant. Prior to Obama’s illegal interference in the education system, were there any laws against such actions by Tranny’s?

  12. OK, I’ll be quiet now and let the Colonel and Mathius/Buck go at it. 🙂

    • I do not think that I should have to explain to my six year old grand daughter why some kid with a wiener wants to get dressed in the same room she gets undressed in. These sick SOB’s may want to impose this on themselves and god forbid even on their kids but they have no right, under God or Man to impose it on anyone else.

      Don’t ever talk to me about FREEDOM if you would take it away from someone else.

      This plays nicely into the current arguments about unwillingness to compromise and incivility. Well, those of us who are willing to compromise suggest a third space, neither male nor female to accommodate confused people. Well, THAT is NOT good enough! It MUST be THEIR way . THEY are always the arbiters of fair and those who decide what “compromise” means. Hence there can be no compromise, not when it is dictated.

      • It is not about rights but about demanding acceptance and approval of their abnormal life style. Unfortunately that can not be mandated by legislation but they still try.

        • It is not about rights

          Yes it is.

          but about demanding acceptance and approval of their abnormal life style.

          A. I object to the connotations of your word choice of “abnormal.” Certainly it is not “typical,” and so your term is accurate, but there seems to be a value judgement in there that I reject.

          B. No it’s not. It’s about the fact that YOUR DISCOMFORT DOES NOT TRUMP MY RIGHTS.

          Unfortunately that can not be mandated by legislation but they still try.

          Acceptance, no. Rights, yes.

          And the rights will be enforced by the government until society learns to accept.

          This is exactly the same as bathroom desegregation in the 60’s. White people were uncomfortable. The law said “tough shit.” Eventually people got over it.

          • Beg to differ with you Matt. The trannies have a right to facilities but within the norm of society. We are talking about making them comfortable while making multiple others uncomfortable. They have no right to impose on others.
            As for demanding acceptance, I cite the bakers and photographers. This was pure intimidation to force others to accept their life style. It has nothing to do with rights.
            Yes they are abnormal as in a small fringe group. We are talking about a fringe group of a fringe group. Trannies are a small segment of the LBGT crowd which is a small group within the whole. Why should everyone else bend over backwards to accommodate them? It is not equivalent to the 60s and black civil rights.

            As for the federal executive dictate (= tyranny) to tranny “integrated” locker rooms and restrooms in schools, I strongly disagree. There is nothing in the Constitution addressing this situation hence it is a state issue. Furthermore the executive branch does not have the authority to dictate this. All the states should tell the Feds to stuff it.

            This subject should not even come up in schools but it is crammed down our throats by “concerned citizens” who are only thinking of themselves and their agendas. To use kids in this fashion is unconscionable.

            • See, Matt has this Normal/Abnormal thing. Who is to say what?

              Well, just for the hell of it, if I have a penchant for thinking I am a dog, I identify as such because my parents in my formative years took care of Bowser but ignored me (there are such!). Do I have the right to, when I am in the mood, travel around naked, barking, sniffing other dogs anuses on all fours looking for a fire hydrant?

              It is perfectly normal to me, in all other respects I am a solid citizen except when the full moon rises (yep, that wives tale is true also). To “prevent” me from acting on my fantasy is hurtful and puts me in a box labeled, “abnormal”.

              When prostitution eventually becomes decriminalized, such self identifying dog people will be able to come out into the open. Would Matt force them, back in the closet? To be shamed and humiliated for something that is as much a part of their psyche as any other sexual predilection?

              Don’t dismiss this, not at all. There are shows on HBO late night that actually gave me the idea. Though, thinking you are a horse, is apparently much more common.

              • ::dusts off Nifty Jack Sparrow hat::

                Are you violating anyone’s Rights?

                I mean actual Rights. Rights with a capital R.

                Not societal norms, not government laws. I mean Rights-Rights. Self determination? Self-direction? Sovereignty of person? Physical security?

                Are you damaging their property or biting them? Are you stealing their belongings and burying it, or digging up their gardens?

                If not, go have fun. Stay out of traffic.

                The fact that I don’t want to see you wandering around naked except for a collar doesn’t change the fact that MY DISCOMFORT DOES NOT CREATE AN IMPOSITION ON YOU.

                (god, how do I get rid of that mental image!!)

      • I do not think that I should have to explain to my six year old grand daughter why some kid with a wiener wants to get dressed in the same room she gets undressed in.

        I don’t see why you not wanting to explain things to your own child means that someone else’s kid needs to have his or her bodily functions controlled by the government.

        (there’s a wonderful Louis CK bit I could link to, but it’s kind of hostile in this context, so I won’t.. but oh man is it funny)

        Don’t ever talk to me about FREEDOM if you would take it away from someone else.

        What freedom is being taken away from you? The right to tell someone else where they can take a leak?

        Let me put on my pirate hat and try to spell this one out in the simplest terms possible: you do not have the right to control someone else’s body just because you’re uncomfortable. Period. Y’AAARRRGGG!

        If your child is uncomfortable, that’s your child’s problem. Then your child should go use a restroom on a different floor, or hold it until the other child is done. What you do not get to do is say “I’m uncomfortable, so you have to do what I say.” That’s ridiculous.

        I’m uncomfortable every time I see a fat woman wearing a midriff. Does that mean I get to have the government ban it? How does the fact that I don’t want to explain fat women wearing midriffs to my child justify my law?

        Well, those of us who are willing to compromise suggest a third space, neither male nor female to accommodate confused people


        How about we ditch shared bathrooms altogether and go to single occupancy? Or, conversely, single occupancy stalls with a shared sink space.

        I don’t like how your suggestion comes off as segregationist and discriminatory “no, no, you go use the “other” stall.”

        Hence there can be no compromise, not when it is dictated.

        Get back in the closet (or whatever the trans-equivalent is) is not a compromise.

        Go use the “other” restroom is not a compromise.

        But, regardless, there is no need for compromise. They do not have to acquiesce to some half measure of their rights. They do not have to – nor should they – agree to anything less than the full autonomy and self-determination granted to every other citizen.

        I’m sure a lot of white people were very uncomfortable with black people in their bathrooms. Should MLK have accepted a “compromise” of using separate but equal facilities?

        Just one more time, because I really want this to sink in: YOUR DISCOMFORT DOES NOT TRUMP MY RIGHTS.

        • Blurred lines and moving goal posts come to mind. Where does our right to our own minds and our own perception of reality come into play?

          • Where does our right to our own minds and our own perception of reality come into play?

            At the point where your perceptions are justifying controlling someone else’s body.

            Blurred lines and moving goal posts come to mind.

            You, ma’am, are not wrong. The goal posts are moving.

            It is likely that the day will come when they move to a point with which I am not comfortable. I will be the one sitting on your side saying “it’s not natural” and “its always been this way” and “why should I accommodate something abnormal like that?”

            First is was African Americans, then homosexuals, now transgendered. Next, I suspect (not joking) will be technologically augmented humans. I can see the argument now. “He has a robotic eye that can record everything it sees – he shouldn’t be allowed in the bathroom!” It’ll be an interesting debate.

            But that doesn’t mean I’ll be on the right side of the debate. And I expect some young whippersnapper to pipe up that “just because you’re uncomfortable doesn’t trump other people’s rights.” And I’ll want to smack that kid for his youthful arrogance and lack of appreciation for the ancient ways “why, back in my day…”

            But as Mr. Dillon pointed out, the Times, they are a-changin’.

            • Mathius,

              I’ve already asked this question once, with no answer (To Buck I believe), but, exactly what law or laws prevent Tranny’s from using the ladies room? I’m curious, because I know of no such laws, haven’t seen any signs stating such, nothing.
              With that said, why do we need this new government interference when there there are no laws preventing the action of Tranny’s?

              • but, exactly what law or laws prevent Tranny’s from using the ladies room?

                There are some laws that are currently pending in the courts or which have been struck down.

                The problem is that these laws are supported by the exact same arguments which failed so spectacularly to hold back gay rights. So it’s an easy loss.

                because I know of no such laws, haven’t seen any signs stating such, nothing.

                Really? Nothing? Nothing at all?

                Well, here you go! An example:


                You have google, too, and if you feel the need to find more examples, I encourage you to use it. I’d also point out that a lot of these bills died amidst stiff opposition / backlash. Search for “bathroom bills.”

                With that said, why do we need this new government interference when there there are no laws preventing the action of Tranny’s?

                Because the Red Shirts are trying to regulate people’s potty habits.

                Also, not for nothing, I’m pretty sure “tranny” is not the right term.

              • This Act is in response to Oboma’s attempt to subjugate his authority, again. Your post makesubject clear that NO LAW existed that prevented tranny’so from using the ladies room pRiordan to Obama said action. This is nothing short of a made up problem to keep fucking up kids heads in school. Utter and total nonsense that isn’t even worth the time to discuss the issue.

            • The next thing will be statutory rape. Since everything is based on how a person feels that day, what’s the problem with a child having a romantic relationship with an adult. If you’re not comfortable with that, aren’t you controlling that child? Blurred lines.

              • Because that gets into issues of consent.

              • Wrong! It’s ok for Obama to force his will on grammar school kids.

              • The next thing will be statutory rape. Since everything is based on how a person feels that day, what’s the problem with a child having a romantic relationship with an adult. If you’re not comfortable with that, aren’t you controlling that child? Blurred lines.

                A) OBJECTION! Slippery slope argument.

                B) No, because children are not capable of giving consent. With that said, I’ve known some 17 year olds who are more mature than some 40 year olds. It very much depends on the person. And if you are able to come up with a better litmus test than “have you traveled around the sun 18 times?” I’d be happy to hear it out.

                C) To your point re Obama. “Forcing your will” on children by not allowing adult teachers to discriminate against them is a nonsensical argument. It’s not like Obama is forcing kids to be trans. He’s letting kids who are trans safely and freely express themselves and use facilities which correspond to their internal mental identities rather than what some external authority figure deems them to based on what’s in their pants.

              • In case you have not noticed it, the slippery slope is just doing fine for the past 25 years. That is all we have these days is slippery slope because your side wants my side to play nice and COMPROMISE.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                I was totally going to stay out of this…..political crisis…..because that is exactly what it is and being convieniently used as such.

                I’m sure everyone here has not even bothered to think about this issue before now, much less without even knowing I’m sure have shared facilities with a transvestite. 1st a female who id’s as a male and uses the mens room will find it difficult to use a urinal and uses a stall. 2nd a male who feels like a women and uses a ladies facility, will probably not find a stand up urinal and again will use a stall. privacy is preserved.

                Now the part that is absolutely NOT being discussed is the bona fide PERVERTS. How many prosecutions in a year are there for perverted behavior and exposing oneself to a juvenile? A guy in a ladies room whipping his member out at the ladies or their young daughters just wanting to get off… is an offense and perversion, is now going to get a free pass. All the perp has to do is claim that his civil rights are being violated and freedom rings.

                What will happen like in so many bars….uni-sex bathrooms…one at a time. There is a public restroom being built right next door to my house. The city could have used a portion of a parking lot across the street up by a row of bars and restaurants, but no they had to plop it in between two residential houses. The exterior design is based on my house so that isn’t bad. Clearly the facilities are NOT segregated, but single occupant at any given time. What is more an issue for us is that when the manned facility CLOSES at the end of the business day 1700, what facilities are the drunks, diners, tourist etc going to use at 0200? Unfortunately we as the residents feel the bushes and shrubs are going to get a workout. Given that there will be signs guiding people to the bathrooms only to find them closed.

              • Hi Dale! Welcome to the party!

                A guy in a ladies room whipping his member out at the ladies or their young daughters just wanting to get off… is an offense and perversion, is now going to get a free pass. All the perp has to do is claim that his civil rights are being violated and freedom rings.

                No he wouldn’t.

                This would still be a crime.

                Regardless of your gender, you still no not have the right to expose yourself to a minor.

                Maybe the biological male can claim civil rights for allowing him to be in the female restroom in the first place, but whipping it out isn’t and never has been protected. And, to my knowledge, no one is suggesting it should be.

                This is a bit of a strawman argument.

                And, regardless, “some guy might possibly do something and hide behind unrelated rights” isn’t justification for controlling the bathroom use of thousands of otherwise innocent individuals who just want to take a leak.

                I could sub out a few words and it becomes instantly absurd: “a black person whipping his member out at the men and their young boys just wanting to get off… is an offense and perversion, is now going to get a free pass” – now is that a justification for banning all black men from using the men’s restroom just because some black man might engage in this behavior? And where is his free pass? Surely this is still a crime?

        • So, Your discomfort (using a neutral bathroom), does not TRUMP my grand daughters rights.

          DO YOU GET IT NOW?

          • Not to mention you libs are always all over the so called “right” or “expectation” of privacy.

          • Flip it around.

            I’m not comfortable with YOU, SKT, using the bathroom with me. Therefore, yo, SKT, need to go use the “neutral” bathroom.

            DO YOU GET IT NOW?

            You are suggesting that your grand daughter’s “right” to no be uncomfortable means that some other person should have to use the restroom that your granddaughter decided is appropriate. Your granddaughter doesn’t get to make this choice. She can choose – FOR HERSELF. But she cannot choose FOR SOMEONE ELSE. If your granddaughter is uncomfortable sharing, then your granddaughter is free to wait or use the “neutral” bathroom herself. What she cannot do is tell another person what to do.

            As y’all keep saying, if you allow your daughter to control someone else, then you must let someone else control your granddaughter the same way. That door swings both ways. Thus, you leave the door open for the trans person to tell your granddaughter when and where SHE can take a leak.

          • big·ot·ry
            noun: bigotry; plural noun: bigotries

            intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.
            “the difficulties of combating prejudice and bigotry”

            Now, I am tolerant of your view and am willing to compromise. I think that despite the outlandish cost to sooth the feelings of someone who may or may not be insane, (are we allowed to have insane anymore or is it just an alternative lifestyle?) third party bathrooms should be built. You are intolerant of my view which IS A COMPROMISE, note I did not say no way, no how, never which would NOT be a compromise. You are unable. unwilling to even think compromise. Hence, the shoe fits Cinderella..

  13. To back away a bit from our rather heated conversation re trans (not quite sure how the thread on the Estate Tax wound up here, but ok). Let’s discuss the following:

    Fundamentally, the idea of Trans is the idea that a person who was born male “identifies” or “feels” that they are actually female (or vise versa).

    As such, I would like to consider what it means to “feel” like a member of a particular sex.

    What does it mean to “feel male” or “feel female”?

    Mathius’s unsubstantiated opinion: Surely it’s not about whether you pee standing up.* It’s about how you dress, how you act, how you interact with others. It’s about whether you are “effeminate” or “masculine.” A biological male who eschews “manly” activities such as sports in favor of say dolls and dress-up may come to consider that the “meaning” of being a male is to be “manly” and, since he is not “manly,” he is not male. Since he identifies with “feminine” behaviors and “feminine” personality trades, he identifies as a female.

    Given my personal take on the subject, what say you about the roles that genders play in our lives and on the development of our children’s self-perceptions?

    *sometimes I sit

    • No one replied to this one.. anyone want to take a shot?

      • * I usually sit, but sometimes I squat. How’s that? Oh, you mean gender roles? How about lose the ‘roles’ label and just leave it at gender. Seems like it used to sort itself out with no stirring necessary…til yous guys started stirring.

      • This whole trans/bathroom is BS and I cannot believe that intelligent people are even entertaining this issue. It is completely ridiculous and asinine.

        Today I’ve come to the realization that I am a cat. Cats shit in the sandbox. So when I shit in the sandbox at the park do not be alarmed. It is my right to do so and you MUST respect and accept my rights and feelings. Oh, and here is a link to verify my claim. 😉


        • Oh, and I’ve decided that I want to marry my goat. Who are you to deny me true love? And you better perform the ceremony and bake us cake….or I will sue you!

          • Mazel Tov!

            I’ll look for my invite in the mail.


            You’re not hurting me. Go do with your property what you want.


            I’m not really a qualified minister, but sure. Pay my fees and I’m in.

            I’m a decent baker, but you’re taking your chances if you ask me to make a tiered cake.

  14. Dale tangentially raises a point that I would like clarification on.

    If a man exposes himself in a umm.. unprofessional manner.. to other individuals, he is committing a crime.

    Yes? We all agree? Good.

    As a bunch of backwater pirates (and pirate-wannabees), I wonder what your justification for this law is considering that it’s controlling the free actions of a man who is not physically hurting you or violating any of your Rights (big R) and in light of your small government philosophies.

    The question is, generally, “why does your sense of being offended get to trump his right to act in a way that doesn’t actually violate any of your Rights?”

    (The use of minors in your responses is expressly prohibited. We are not discussing this under the banner of “save the children.” )

    • No, we do not all agree.
      The part you leave out is “where is this man doing this?”

      Such non-violent acts are wholly dependent on property rights – just like yelling “Fire!” in a theatre – it is has NOTHING to do with free speech; it has to do WITH VIOLATING THE TERMS OF YOUR ATTENDENCE IN THE THEATRE.

      All property is owned, there is no such thing as “public property”. By the definition of property, someone owns it.

      It is this owner that determines if this is or is not an appropriate act on his property, and his determination is absolute.

      • We should be in agreement that it is defined as a crime by the current laws of the US government. Does that work for you? Even if you don’t accept said authority, you recognize that there is such a thing on the books as laws and that they are backed by compelling force. And that if you do this, some men in blue will arrest you if you can.

        But this wasn’t really a question for you. Your ideology is crystal clear on points such at this.

        It’s more for the GMAN and JAC’s of the world who believe themselves to be True Pirates, yet will trample on individual rights when it suits them, then hypocritically turn around and point at us liberals who are (marginally) worse offenders and decry our evil ways.

        But, since you’re here, quick followup: Say we dissolved the government tomorrow, just snapped our fingers and it was – poof – gone. Hallelujah! Free at last, free at last! Since you assert that all property must be owned, who “owns” the nature preserve in your local town formerly “owned” by the federal government since the days of yore? This isn’t a gotcha question – I just want to understand your mindset. For purposes of this question, assume that you cannot trace a historical record of ownership to a specific owner whose descendants are entitled to it.

        • Work for me how? Just because there is a “law”, does not make it “right, correct, or valid”.

          First, there is no “snap of the fingers”, only your fairy tale. As with all fairy tales, no matter what is presented to sooth you, you merely fairy tale another constraint, since it is merely a fairy tale without any basis in reality. Thus, such excerises are utterly pointless.

          If the government begins to dissolve due to its gross financial problems, it is possible they will begin selling off such lands or forfeits such land to bond holders of government debt. Then, who ever buys such land owns it.

          • I do not suggest that it is right, correct, or valid. Only that it “is.” That is, there IS such a law. And individuals such as GMAN and JAC might support such a law viewing – as you do not – as valid.

            The question (again, not for you) is how “that makes me uncomfortable” becomes justification for (via force / govt fiat) controlling the behavior of third parties who pose no threat to your individual Rights.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Great question. So why is it OK for the transgender or confused person to control my behavior or the behavior of my daughters basketball team because of their “uncomfortable feelings” about using the boys locker room?

              • How are they trampling your rights by using a bathroom?

                Surely you are free to not use the room with them if you are uncomfortable.

                Your thinking is muddy.

                You’re saying that someone doing something that doesn’t harm you is controlling your behavior and, as such, you are justified in controlling their behavior. BF would have a field day with this.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              First, I would not trample anyone’s rights whether I believe that some laws are appropriate or not. I believe in objective and moral law. Such law would not trample actual rights and they would be applied equally to everyone.

              The hole in your arguments is that you constantly confuse Rights, rights and “socially acceptable” or “normative behavior”. If you were not trying to use law to dictate “normative behavior” there would be far fewer conflicts.

              The other problem the left has is impatience. You win over a few people to your way of thinking then quickly jump to the court to enforce your view. Gay marriage was the latest example.

  15. Mathius,
    “Scientists, who know more about the subject than you or I, are almost unanimously in agreement that we are.”

    This is factually wrong. MOST scientists DO NOT AGREE that we are influencing.

    In that group, the largest percentage say “We don’t know” but vehemently DISAGREE with the out-right nonsense claim “We are”. They say “we don’t know”

    A very large group of scientists say “We are NOT” (I’m here)

    It is actually a VERY SMALL GROUP that profess certainity that we are, but if you press them for causation, they point to computer models, not science.

    This small group, since it is “doom and gloomers” tends to grab the ear of politicans and the media – the first group are always looking for problems to make them worse and the second group knows that such nonsense sells.

    You further ply the nonsense of open-ended risk. The problem with your methodology is that it is always wrong.

    You can say “Hey, preventing asteriod strikes may cost us the entire economic output of mankind, but it pales in comparison to what will happen if we get hit!”

    Such nonsense.

    The problem with “going Green” is that IT DOES NOT WORK. First, it is ludicrous to believe we can prevent climate change, even a little bit. You will spend billions trying to prevent the unpreventable.

    Second, Green technology, by fact of physics and science, CANNOT replace the energy we use from other sources. It is IMPOSSIBLE.

    Third, you pretend that such green technology has no defects or costs relating to the environment. Yet, these technologies utterly depend on industry, mining, manufacturing to be produced, all of which is “not green”. It is like electric cars – great you don’t use oil – too bad you use coal (electricity).

    The left is arrogantly, unintellictual, uninformed, and down right bonkers in this matter. Typical, since the average lefty can’t reason or logic to save his life.

  16. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius & Buck

    Following your tome on transgender, gay, etc. etc. What an absolute load of hoohey. And here is why.

    Rights. It matters not whether they come from God, existence of your fellow man. The fact is that rights mean nothing except as recognized by your fellow man.

    Majority vs. Minority: Under our form of Govt. a majority decides what is and is not a right. There are only protections for “equality” as provided by the Society.

    So you see, it is in fact Society which decides. There is no magical protection you can claim that is independent of said majority of society.

    FACT: WE the PEOPLE could reinstate slavery if we decide to do that.

    The fact is that a small group, 9 Wizards in Black Robes and 1 President, have decided they are going to change Society’s rules by changing the meaning of our laws. Thus you get blow back when Society does not agree.

    There is no protection of “sexual orientation” provided in the Bill of Rights. Doesn’t exist, even if you wish or want it. Thus a minority has dictated to the majority under the pretense of some “nonexistent” civil right. But such rights come from the people, not the govt. and certainly not 9 unelected lawyers who cannot make a logical argument nor apparently understand the plain English written in our Constitution.

    Slippery slope fallacy: You lost your right to use this as a rebuttal when the very concerns expressed by people over my lifetime have all come to pass. A slippery slope is no longer a fallacy when it continuously comes true. You misplay this card constantly, trying to change the argument.

    NOBODY has a right to shower or dress in front of me, or my children, or anyone for that matter. Because nobody has such a right and in order to facilitate group gatherings the HUMANS of our population segregated themselves according to sex. I think the reasons are obvious and have nothing to do with churches or any other institution other than human social evolution.

    Your entire argument about discriminating “against” transgender, etc. in shower and bathroom settings is ridiculous for this very reason. Society has decided that women showing and dressing among themselves is OK. YOU are in fact IMPOSING YOUR WILL upon them by claiming that they must legally be required to shower and dress with a man claiming to be a woman. Their comfort level is theirs to decide, not you and not Mr. Obama. This should not be a matter of law nor of Rights protected under the law.

    Sexual orientation and identity are not objective human traits. They are completely subjective, depending entirely on the person claiming such identity. Objective law cannot be based on such whim, fancy, desire or other ethereal criteria.

    There were no laws against bathroom use. The laws you now ridicule came about in response to lawsuits files by the “aggrieved” because they were asked to use a different bathroom or shower facility.

    One more thing, there is NO SUCH THING as a Right to dignity. Just add a right to dignity with the Progressive desire for positive rights in our laws and think what you could get.

    • YOU are in fact IMPOSING YOUR WILL upon them by claiming that they must legally be required to shower and dress with a man claiming to be a woman.

      You were doing so well, too… shame.

      No. No no no no no no no no no no NO!

      ::rolls up newspaper::

      No one is requiring anyone to shower with anyone else.

      If your wife doesn’t want to shower and dress with “a man claiming to be a woman,” she does not have to. SHE can shower later or SHE can use a different bathroom.

      What she CANNOT DO is tell the other person that he/she has to go elsewhere. (assuming public facilities – obviously this goes out the window in a private facility).

      But that does not give her the authority to tell the other person what to do.

      “I’m uncomfortable” does not give you the authority to control my life.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        You are in fact dictating when my wife or daughter can use the shower because they do not want to shower with you.

        How can you be so blind to what your position actually requires?

        There is no way to get around the fact that your view IMPOSES upon those who do not wish to shower with the man calling himself a woman. You leave them the choice of not showing. Yet you allow him to dictate to the majority that if they don’t want to shower with him their only choice is to leave.

        Again, false claim and changing the argument. My comfort is not “controlling your life”, nor any aspect of your life. You may certainly shower in the mens locker room. You can shower at home. But you cannot simply walk in and use the ladies shower just because you claim to be a woman.

        That you have a human right to bathe does not give you a right to dictate to society when and where that will happen. That is not a legal matter, whether on private or public property.

        • You are in fact dictating when my wife or daughter can use the shower because they do not want to shower with you.

          This is garbage.

          Don’t want to shower with me? Don’t shower with me. How is that my problem?

          I don’t want to argue with you anymore, so you have to sign off the computer. Is that how this works?

          There is no way to get around the fact that your view IMPOSES upon those who do not wish to shower with the man calling himself a woman

          Sure there is.


          You leave them the choice of not showing.

          Yes. And you can smell like a Yeti.

          Yet you allow him to dictate to the majority that if they don’t want to shower with him their only choice is to leave.


          Similarly, if the majority – as was once the case – felt uncomfortable using a restroom with a black person, they had no right to make him leave then either.

          I don’t know how many times I can say this, and I have yet to see you address it: “I am uncomfortable” does not justify using government force to control other people’s behavior. You do NOT have the right to “not be offended” or “not be uncomfortable.” But he/she does have the right to use public facilities to take a leak.

          That you have a human right to bathe does not give you a right to dictate to society when and where that will happen.

          This is soooo interesting.

          Firstly, I’m not aware of any “human right to bathe,” but ok.

          But look at first principles: You have a right free action (including explicitly the right to the pursuit of happiness) with the sole caveat that this right ends where the rights of others begins. That is, so long as you are not violating others’ rights, you can do it. Right? That’s Pirate 101.

          So, I’d rewrite that: That you have a human right to free action means that no one can dictate when and where you can bathe provided you do not violate anyone else’s rights in doing so.

          Analogy: I don’t want to eat with JAC. I have a “right” to not have to eat with JAC. I see that he’s in my favorite restaurant. I can wait for him to finish or I can go elsewhere. NOPE! He should be banned because his presence infringes on my “right” to not have to eat with him. How does that make sense?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Flawed analogy. Much like your arguments, changing things around to fit your conclusion instead of comparing apples to apples. Here is a better version.

            Analogy: I don’t want to eat with JAC. I have a “right” to not have to eat with JAC. I am eating in my favorite restaurant. JAC wants to sit down an eat. I can ask hime to wait or I can go elsewhere. NOPE! He gets the judge to declare that he can eat anywhere and anytime he wants so I must now ban myself in his presence, thus infringing on my “right” to not have to eat with him. How does that make sense?

            Now even more false is you comparing eating in a restaurant with using a bathroom or showering and dressing in a locker room. That you do not seem to grasp the differences in society norms and culture is baffling.

            • Even in your revised analogy, I don’t see how you have any grounds to ask him to wait or go elsewhere. He has every bit as much “right” as you to eat at that restaurant. Why should your hangup justify an imposition on him?

              Flip it around – he doesn’t want to eat with you. You walk in and he asks you to wait or leave. Hell no, says JAC. You sue and the judge says that he had no right to tell you where you can eat. Now he’s saying that you’re imposing on him and you should be banned.

              Now even more false is you comparing eating in a restaurant with using a bathroom or showering and dressing in a locker room. That you do not seem to grasp the differences in society norms and culture is baffling.

              So what? Rights change somehow because you’re emptying your bowels instead of filling them?

              Because (insert magical hand waiving) what you’re doing is more “private” that somehow changes the equation to give you more authority and me fewer rights?

              Liberty for me, but not for thee!

              • Just A Citizen says:


                And why should your hangup justify an imposition on me?

                Flipping around….. YES, keep flipping it around. Then you will see that IMPOSING based on FEELINGS is happening on both sides of this argument.

                Thus you are not dealing with actual RIGHTS.

                And YES Mathius, our freedoms do change based on the situation we find ourselves in. Meaning that I do not have the same freedom or latitude when eating vs. using a bathroom.

                Again, you have no RIGHT to use the restaurant nor to use the bathroom of your choice.

        • You are dealing with bigotry in its worst form,. You cannot win because the bigot will not even acknowledge you have the right to disagree. You are lumped in with the neanderthals who would stone a gay person to death even though all YOU want to do is protect the rights of the MAJORITY (and of your own) from being trampled.

          And people wonder how Nazism and Stalinism took hold! What seemed to be good ideas that went horribly bad.

          Here, again, for comment is that wonderful example of how to deal with someone who makes a minority feel bad. Doesn’t matter how small the minority or how crazy, just that they felt bad. Wonder what Matt thingks?


    • The laws you now ridicule came about in response to lawsuits files by the “aggrieved” because they were asked to use a different bathroom or shower facility.

      Just so I understand your thinking here, here’s the timeline.

      1. Trans people used the “wrong” bathroom for their biological sex.
      2. People wouldn’t let them.
      3. Trans people sued.
      4. JAC points out “there are no laws.” Which, since correct, should mean that they WERE FREE TO USE THE RESTROOMS AND WERE BEING DENIED THEIR RIGHTS. Because if it’s not illegal, then it’s legal.
      5. Feb 22, 2016, North Carolina passes HB2 requiring children to use bathrooms based on birth certificates.
      6. May 13, 2016, the Department of Education released guidelines requiring schools to butt out and ties compliance to Title IX funds.

      Put another way, some people were stopped from doing something they were legally allowed to do. This upset them, so they sued. Then the government stepped in and stopped them. Then another part of the government said they should be able to keep doing the thing. And this is all the fault of the people doing the legal thing in the first place that harms no one and getting upset when people extra-judiciously stopped them.

      Did I get that right?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        There were no laws. Some people complained about men in the women’s room so security told them to leave. This is a simple matter of disturbing the peace.

        The locker room situations were created by activists who would not accept arrangements worked out by schools. They wanted to use the court to force mixed facilities.

        Your timeline is thus seriously flawed.

        Caveat: There may have been A law somewhere. One should never say no law when we have thousands of obscure and strange laws still on the books of every state.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        And NO, they were not stopped from doing something they were legally allowed to do.

        That little word on the bathroom means what it says. MEN…..WOMEN

        • not stopped from doing something they were legally allowed to do.

          So then it was illegal to use the “wrong” bathroom?

          Fine! Then, for all intents and purposes, it was a law.

          So then your side started it.

          You said

          The laws you now ridicule came about in response to lawsuits files by the “aggrieved” because they were asked to use a different bathroom or shower facility.

          So was it illegal before or was it a response to their lawsuits? You can’t have it both ways.

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I explained it to you several times. NO law prohibiting use. That prohibitive laws do not exist for any give thing does not mean there are not restrictions on behavior that are imposed in other ways.

            ACCEPTED societal behavior…. use the bathroom with your sex denoted, men vs. women. Shower with people of your sex, use the locker room designated for your sex.

            Then along comes Mathius and says hell no, I am not doing that. So a security guard, vice principle or cop is called to remove you. You were disturbing the peace by deliberately not conforming with the rule. I am not referring to the “law” regarding disturbance of the peace but the natural law concept.

            This is how many cultural norms are enforced, until some Jack Snipe decides there needs to be a “law” to enforce it. Like noise ordinances.

            You had no legal right to ignore these rules of conduct and society has every right to enforce them as best they can, with an appropriate response. In this case, remove you but no violence against you. Our society relies on authority figures to deal with such conflicts to avoid violence. Thus the authorities are called to enforce norms that may not be actual laws.

            • Are not the kids in school required to take physical education? If so, then they cannot just choose to leave the facility when a member of the opposite sex enters.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                And are not some sports teams being required to accept players of the opposite sex?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Our local high school discovered an easy solution to this years ago. It was inadvertent as it was caused by budget cuts.

                They shut off the hot water to the showers. Kids stopped showering at school after practice and games.

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    And to address another silly argument made over what is or is not “normal”.

    conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
    serving to establish a standard.
    approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.
    free from any mental disorder; sane.
    Biology, Medicine/Medical.
    free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
    of natural occurrence.

    • Sure.

      Seems like a normal definition. 😉


      But who says “normal” is “right”?
      Who says “normal” is “better”?
      Who says “normal” stays constant?
      Who says the pursuit of “normal” gives you the right to force other people to behave “normally”?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Society. But more important, how does Society choose?
        Society, and same as above.
        Normal never remains constant, but it usually changes SLOWLY and of course it is changed by Society.

        • But then isn’t “society” (whatever that is .. the one yelling the loudest? the one making up laws?) changing like you claim regarding this issue?

          Thus, so isn’t this the case of you arguing against yourself, JAC? You propose society will change, and it is, and you’re raging against it, while promoting that this is what society does….

          • Just A Citizen says:


            I am recognizing that the Society we live in, and most today, make laws that affect them. That in our society those laws are supposed to require “majority support”. This is the theory of our system, we both know that if the majority sits on their hands and shuts their mouths a minority can pass the laws as well.

            I am also recognizing that any society creates a code of normal, acceptable, behaviors. Sometimes they use laws to enforce these and other times they use other means. Shunning and even vigilante violence are just two.

            So I am not arguing against myself. I do rant against the Society because I view its rules and laws to be irrational, immoral, or just plain stupid.

            I also rant against the Courts and Govt. breaking the bond or promise of our system by imposing their will via rulings and other laws. One lying and the other swearing to it, if you will.

            I fully recognize that I am a MINORITY when it comes to how things should be vs. how they actually are.

            I am simply not dismissing Society’s role in how laws come to be created because I think their laws bad. Thus my constant mantra about why it matters “how” such laws are developed. By emotion or by reason of some kind. Do we apply concepts of Rights and Justice, Freedom and Liberty, or do we just do what feels good or what some small group demands?

            It is the ultimate conundrum in some respects. We want a moral govt. that protects the rights of all the people, but in the end it is the people who decide what the govt. laws are, and thus what is moral per the law.

            Slavery is absolutely immoral in my view. An affront to the metaphysical Right of Man to pursue his existence per his nature. However, if humans decide to form and support a Govt. of some kind, they create a system whereby they could, and do, pass laws that are immoral. Such as legalizing slavery.

            My arguments above were intended to show Mathius, and Buck, that they support the system of Governance which results in the rules and laws they don’t like. They claim some righteous source of what is and is not permissible, while touting majority rule. Not recognizing that the majority is speaking, they just don’t like the answer. Their defense is to claim some Right because they cannot deal with the reality of their own system. But where does the primacy of this Right come from? The same people.

            I would like to add one thing relative to proper government. I know, you don’t have to say it. That is that people who govern themselves have to be able to govern according their own cultural norms. We place some restrictions on this as a Nation, but there should be great latitude for State and local Govt. to enforce their local customs and culture. Yes, this can result in discrimination in ways most of us would find offensive. But it should be allowed.

            A diversity in many laws, customs and cultures does not mean a Nation is split. Not if the CORE values are held by the vast majority of people.

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    Buck, Mathius

    On topic

    I earn money and it is taxed at the income rate.

    I put money in the bank, earning interest each year.

    I pay taxes each year on the interest income.

    I die.

    My estate, consisting of nothing but cash, is taxed AGAIN.

    True or False??

    If True is this not obvious double taxation?

    And if true, Is this not a greater outrageous act of theft than just the income tax alone?

    • Shhhhh………you know better than to be logical.

    • I earn a dollar. It is taxed.

      I use that money to buy a candy bar from you. I pay sales tax.

      It is now your income. It is taxed again.

      You use that money to buy a gumball from Todd. You pay sales tax.

      It is now his income. It is taxed AGAIN!


      The money was taxed as my income, and again as sales tax.

      Then it was taxed as your income, and again as sales tax.

      Then it was taxed as Todd’s income.

      Behold, QUINTUPLE taxation!

      What’s your point? We pay taxes on top of taxes. I’m surprised we don’t have to pay a Tax-Tax.

      Every penny you have has been taxed countless times at countless levels. Double-taxation is nonsense because you are 1000 levels deep. If you want to gripe about double-taxation, you should start with the biggest culprit: sales tax.

      Anyway, the Estate Tax is not a tax on you. You’re dead. Frame it any way you want, and shove it through whatever legalese you need to, what the Estate Tax really is at the end of the day is a tax on money leaving your estate and entering someone else’s and that, sir, is income to the recipient just as much as it would be if they had won the lottery. And income is taxable by our current “society approved!” system.


      But what do I know – I’m only the son of an estate planner.* This is probably a question best left to an actual lawyer who specializes in this stuff. Paging Counselor Buck.

      *no, Buck is not my father.

      • Um, sales tax is not a tax on your income. It is a tax on the good/service. Not double taxation.

        You are pointing to the economic fact that money is traded over and over, and trying to use that to claim it is taxed over and over. Sorry, no. You could (wrongly say) that $1 bought everything in the US, since it was traded for oranges, then cars, then rent, then utilities, and over again.

        Tax is not applied to money. It is applied to THINGS (sales tax) SERVICES (sales tax) INCOME (income tax/capital gains), which all REFERENCED in terms of money. The money itself is not taxed.

        • An example to demonstrate tax where there is no tax applied to money by this example;

          When you exchange $100 for 5 x $20, it is not taxed. You get all 5 x $20 bills.
          Also, if you buy a currency, Euro, there is no tax.
          If you buy a gold coin that is denomiated ($20 1 oz gold coin), there is no tax.

          But if you ship money, in currency or coin, the shipping is taxed (sales tax on the shipping).

      • Estate tax is not a tax on the dead person and it is not a tax on the money.

        It is tax on the TRANSFER OF ASSETS.

        If I give you a million dollars, and it is not a gift, that money will be taxed as your INCOME.

        • Yes the $1M gift would be taxed as ordinary income lumped in with all your other income. The estate tax is levied before you receive the funds and is based on the entire estate not on your portion. Hence it is tax on the estate not on your income from the estate. Again, what is the constitutional justification for this tax? Most excise taxes that I have seen look very much like a sales tax in that there is a bilateral exchange of goods and money. Estates are a unilateral exchange. If it is an income tax, then it should be accessed on the individual receiving the funds and lumped in with all his other income hence payable on April 15.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Here is the answer to your question. But alas, like so many other issues, it matters not what the law actually says. Even when the courts on prior rulings define the tax in such a way that it makes it illegal.


              P.S.. Per this argument I was wrong the other night. I was repeating what the IRS tells folks. Shocking they don’t tell us the truth, just shocking.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Even if the IRS prepares your taxes, you can still be audited by the same organization and if an error is discovered that organization is not held liable or claims any responsibility for their error. Unlike any other tax preparer like H&R Block etc. Who does accept ownership of their mistakes.

                Just ask Wesley Snipes how he enjoyed his vacation at a Federal resort for challenging the legality of the income tax.

              • Thank you JAC. My reading of the Constitution essentially came to the same conclusion. I would suggest that under the income tax rules the IRS might be able to claim income tax on capital gains of the estate although that might be hard to document since basis records might not have been kept.


      • To add to Mathius’ point though – since the income tax is imposed on YOU and the estate tax is imposed on your HEIRS (your estate), there can be no double taxation in the legal sense of the phrase.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Does the estate/death tax apply to an estate with NO heirs?

          WHO gets the estate in this case?

          • Depends on state law and terms of will. If someone dies with no intestate heirs (last survivor of entire family), the estate generally gets turned over to the state or charities. I always provide that of no intestate heirs, it goes to charity.

            • Just A Citizen says:


              But is the estate tax still enforced on the estate?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Why do you never answer the complete question?

              I asked if it is taxed if their are no heirs. So please assume no heir and no gifts to charity.

              Is the estate taxed by the Fed. Govt. before it is taken by the State in which it occurs?

        • Just A Citizen says:


          Excuse me, but earlier one of you claimed it was not a tax to the heirs, but to the estate itself. Meaning that the executor would have to pay the tax BEFORE distribution to any heirs could occur. True or False??

          And if it is “income” to the heirs then why is there a different and penalizing tax rate for this type of income if it is not to force liquidation and confiscation?

          • Depends on terms of will – colonel and I both decided to ignore tax apportionment clauses in the will. Generally people provide taxes are paid out of residue – meaning if you leave someone $1,000, they get the full amount, but when you leave your residue to your children, taxes come off the top. So your kids aren’t paying the tax directly, but in effect they are as it directly reduces their share. Does this make sense?

            • Just A Citizen says:


              Earlier this evening I read the US Code on the estate tax. It clearly stated the tax liability is to be paid by the “executor” of the estate. That would be prior to disbursement.

              So I am not sure we are talking about the same kind of estate or just don’t know all the rules.

              • Yes it is paid by the executor; my point is that, in effect, it is ‘paid’ by the heirs as it reduces their share of the estate.

                But no matter how you look at it, it isn’t a tax on you since you are dead, so no double taxation.

        • Buck,

          I disagree, it is NOT imposed upon the heirs.

          If this was the case, it would be added to the heirs income of that year, and fall under Income Tax.

          The law states specifically “it is imposed upon the ESTATE….” . The estate stands alone as the measure of the taxes due, and not the assets or income of the heir.

          The Estate pays the tax PRIOR to the transfer of the Estate.

          Otherwise, one would say that the debts of the Estate, which are paid prior to the transfer, would be “paid by the heirs”.

          It is typical of people to look over the debts/taxes of an Estate to the full value, and wrongly think “that is all mine, therefore, all costs are paid by me”. It is conceptual over reach similar to people looking at their share portfolio and believing that its value is the same as the “money in hand”.

  19. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius and Buck

    I do NOT accept the argument that the estate/death tax is about Revenue. No rational Govt. would budget its operations around an income source that was not dependable nor predictable.

    Remember, this tax has been around since before we had data to develop meaningful demographics and actuarial tables.

    Which brings me to the question: Why do you guys support this tax?

    • Of course it was and is primarily about raising revenue – just look at the legislative history behind its enactment. One of the ideas – right or wrong – was that the imposition of the estate tax to raise revenue would allow for a lower income tax rate.

      I support pretty much all forms of progressive taxation.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        The estate tax pre-dates the income tax by a hundred years. The estate/death tax has been implemented and then killed then implemented several times.

        So I am pretty sure any claim of it reducing income taxes was invented by those pushing the tax long after the income tax was established. In other words, propaganda not truly a primary concern for revenue.

        • One (raising revenue) is not dependent on the other (reducing income tax rates). I should have been clearer in my earlier post. I had meant that this is one argument that demonstrates raising revenue was a concern – it came up in the legislative history at one point in time surrounding reenacting or increasing the estate tax, but not sure exactly when.

          But the argument that raising revenue wasn’t a concern is laughable.

          And I support the estate tax for these reasons – it raises revenue and imposes more of a burden on those who can afford it. Same reason I support having income tax brackets.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        And why is a death/estate tax considered Progressive? WHY do YOU support it?

        I suppose you have no problem with any kind of tax, as long as the rich get soaked the most. Is that a fair summary?

        • And why is a death/estate tax considered Progressive? WHY do YOU support it?

          I’m not sure how you can be confused by this, but ok.

          The Estate Tax is only on estates valued at over $5mm. Poor people do not have $5mm estates. Middle-class individuals do not have $5mm estates. Do you know who does? The wealthy.

          That’s textbook progressive taxation.

          I suppose you have no problem with any kind of tax, as long as the rich get soaked the most. Is that a fair summary?

          Leaving out your connotations, and speaking purely for myself, sure. Sounds about right to me.

          Tax the rich, help the poor.

          I’ll tell you a story: my old boss laid off a coworker of mine. A great guy, solid worker, but things weren’t going too well at the fund and cuts had to be made, I guess. After a few months of unemployment, my friend was in the neighborhood and decided to stop by for a visit. He got to talking with my boss. Of course, one of the subjects was how hard it was to make ends meet financially. My friend, jobless, running out of savings, living with 3 roommates, mentioned how he was worried about how he was going to pay the rent. My boss, I shit you not, replied: “yes, I know exactly what you mean. Things are pretty tough out there. It just cost me $60,000 to replace windows in my house and my horses are costing me a fortune.” This guy is worth 250 million dollars. Screw him. His window replacements at his mansion and horses – PLURAL – are not equivalent to the needs of my co-worker to make rent. They just aren’t.

          So, yea, tax the rich. Tax them out the ass. Tax them 12 ways from Sunday, and then once again when they die. I don’t care. So what? They won’t replace the windows on their mansions or stable a half-dozen thoroughbred horses at a private farm in Greenwich, but the poor will be able to make rent. Yea, I’m ok with that trade-off.


          And now for an added note: I am in the 2%. Both my wife’s and my parents are comfortably in the 1%. We will be subject to the estate tax when they die, as will our children when we die. And that’s as it should be. So this isn’t some ethereal ‘screw those other people’ but rather I’m including myself and my family in this.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Not to get to personal….but did you feel compelled to help your friend during his time of need? It seems by your last statement that you are in that position to have done so.

            Back a few years ago when Warren Buffett became Obama’s whipping boy. and Mr Buffett proclaiming that his secretary pays more in income tax than he does. Implying that he does not pay his fair share in taxes. Obviously Mr Buffett uses the IRS tax code to his advantage or he’d be sitting in prison.

            As a second part to the story the IRS said that “If you feel that you have NOT paid enough in taxes, even though you have used all legitimate deductions….we do accept additional money” I never heard that Mr Buffett voluntarily forked over any additional funds.

            • but did you feel compelled to help your friend during his time of need?

              I gave him glowing references and extended my professional network on his behalf. I made a number of calls to my contacts to find gainful employment for him.

              I took him out to dinner (he had been eating a lot of ramen).

              I offered – though he declined – the use of my couch should the need arise.

              I was not in a particularly comfortable place financially myself – that same boss had not given me a raise in a number of years (despite great reviews) and I had just had a child, so I was in no position to really to donate financially (nor do I think he would have accepted it).

              I did make it known that he could always come to me for a loan (though I would probably never try to collect). He wound up taking a job doing construction before he reached this point.

              Generally, though I do give to charity as the whim strikes me, I consider my charitable obligations to society to be have been filled by what I pay in taxes toward the Greater Good. There is little difference – to me – in giving 30% of my income to a local shelter vs Uncle Sam taking it out of my paycheck for the purposes of providing societal goods.

              Obviously Mr Buffett uses the IRS tax code to his advantage or he’d be sitting in prison.

              Yes. This is a good argument for revising the tax code.

              I am not particularly involved in how my taxes are done. I keep receipts and records of medical deductions etc. I throw it all in a shoebox and ship it off to my accountant to deal with. I tend to get a modest refund check of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars each year.

              I don’t, for instance, get involved with structuring my revenue into any kind of tax shelter or similar shenanigans as might be employed by the uber wealthy.

              I never heard that Mr Buffett voluntarily forked over any additional funds.

              Neither have I.

              This, again, is a good argument for amending the tax code.

              People are not saints. We want to hold onto our money because…. ::drum roll::

              Mathius’ 3rd Law: People. Are. Greedy.

              Even Mr. Buffett. What he understands – and I understand – and Buck understands – but that you do not seem to is that if you want government to have money to spend on services, the government has to TAKE that money. It will not be freely given.

          • “This guy is worth 250 million dollars. Screw him. His window replacements at his mansion and horses – PLURAL – are not equivalent to the needs of my co-worker to make rent. They just aren’t.”

            They just aren’t……I will assume that this is your feeling and definition. To that, you are entitled.

            Actually, Mathius, I really did not expect this from you….because I do not read this as antagonistic to raise the ire of someone….I read it as jealousy. I hope that I am wrong.

            One other question here…..so with your attitude as written above, then, theoretically, you nor your parents are going to do anything to reduce your tax burden. Because to do so would make you “greedy”. Correct?

            I will admit to mine…although I do not call it greed. I simply do not care about the poor people in China….or the person that has to work two jobs to make their rent. I owe them nothing…..nothing at all.

            • I read it as jealousy. I hope that I am wrong.

              You are. I am not jealous.

              Well, technically, I am “envious,” but that’s another issue.

              I do want to be that rich some day. I do want to have the ability to afford a mansion with a stable of thoroughbred horses (though I generally think I would not choose to spend it on such).

              But, no, this is not about jealousy – or envy. It is about the fact that, somehow, society permits some people to have super-luxury while others are starving. That’s not ok.

              No one needs a Maserati. No one needs a 300ft yacht. Before society is “ok” with people accumulating sufficient wealth to be able to afford these things, society needs to make sure that everyone – everyone – has the basic necessities. It’s that simple.

              If my coworker is going to get kicked out of his apartment (especially through no fault of his own), and you are griping about the cost of the windows in your 10,000 sqft mansion (in Greenwich, no less), there’s something wrong here.

              • What blubbering.
                There is nothing wrong here other then your brain and thinking.

                You blame the rich man for the choices made by the poor man. What crap!
                The stupid left advocate that those that can must surrender their ability to those that can’t.

                Yet, Mathius, I bet you’d rage if that was applied to your school marks. I can imagine your ranting that the guy who failed got 1/2 the marks you got on a test, so that he doesn’t fail, but you then barely passed the course too. You stamp your feet yelling “not fair! I studied for hours and he went out and partied, how come I lose marks and he gets marks!”

                The lefty brain is nothing but mental confusion.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                BF…while in college I actual had a professor pull that experiment in a philosophy class. She raised the grades of the non-performers and lowered the grades of the excellent performers. When we’d get a shitty grade and someone who we all knew was a dolt and wouldn’t know Decartes from Frank Zappa would get a higher grade impacting our GPA’s etc you talk about all hell breaking out. Obviously it was hard for the dean to lower the dolts grades down to where they belonged, but the dean was able to raise ours to where they belonged. The professor was FIRED never to be seen again in that school. People do expect to be rewarded for their efforts. In the military I had people that should never have made it through basic, much less through the A and C school. One could not get rid of them, so I always had to take from other resources to cover for them. Impacting the whole units overall performance and output. This was all a result of affirmative action and racial and gender equality goals, whether they performed equally or not. The better and more qualified personnel had to work longer and harder hours to compensate putting them at risk by total exhaustion in jobs that you needed all your wits at all times. Oh and they did not get increased pay for their effort. In time it paid, that if the excellent performer re-upped or got their next stripe through direct competition. The others usually would not be recommended for re-enlistment but that was 4-6 years of reduced productivity

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Mathius….would you rather see the money pissed away to non-productive entities that in most cases are a black hole, or see the money spent on what you deem as a waste and who needs that maserati or yacht. What about the people who would have made that car or yacht if that “discresionary” money was not spent on that wasteful and un-needed product. They’d be UN-EMPLOYEED. That has been proven time and time again. But then you said you’re to young to remember the luxury tax levied in th early 90’s as a political sop to the left. Sure all these estate taxes/death taxes and get the rich schemes have been around forever. In 1835 De Tocqueville wrote about it, by saying that every scheme to get the rich back fired on the very people who it was intended to help and it hurt the working class even more, by making them unemployed.

                Just because Buffett has remorse about his usage to his advantage of the US Tax code does not mean that it should be changed for everyone. That is theft and coersion. Buffett can change how he gets paid at anytime to increase his tax burden to pay his “fair” share He chooses to not do so, He also can just plain write a check to assuage is guilt, he also chooses to not do so.

                I sure would love to live in the house I did as a kid and young teenager. The community is ranked as one of the top and at times the weathiest communities in America. Nice western style house, stables, riding trails and a 54 ft pool, gated with security….nice then and is now, However then took an income of $12,000 and the house was $32000. Today the very same house is $4.3M. The stables have been replaced with a tennis court because the community had large stable areas and training facilities and there was no need to have the horses on your property. yes back then there were actors and directors and set designers, lawyers, but most were just plain engineers and rocket scientists. The two wealthiest families with the grandest houses were hispanic and their business was importing labor from Mexico. Today, one has to be a Kardashian or Kaitlyn Jenner. I neither wanted to work that hard to legitimately live there now nor did I want to be con artists like the Kardashians.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                I forgot to mention the in between results until the Dean corrected the inequity. Those of us that were the excellent performers quit….period, still came to class just so the prof couldn’t ding you on attendence. Why bother pushing the bar and height of excellence when there was no reward greater than the non-productive member of the class. The non-profuctive class member continued as before, getting something for nothing and never thought twice about them not really deserving that grade, they came out of the class just as stupid and lazy as they went in…..That was the point of the professors experiment, except she did it unethically and against any rules the school had put out for societal and behavioral experiments such as this. It did cost her her position, but she probably wrote a pretty good paper out of it.

          • Because the lefty gang is economically illiterate, to them a rich man spending $10,000 on goods and services DOES NOTHING in the economy, but a poor person spending $10,000 on goods and services IS EVERYTHING in the economy.

            The lefty hates the window installer when he works for the rich, but loves the same man if he works for the poor.

            The left stinks to high heaven of envy. That is all their “Progessive” mentally is, nothing but envy.

            • The lefty is so bizarre mentally sick.

              Here is Mathius and Buck, arguing “need”, yet live in, no doubt, really nice homes and drive really nice cars. They aren’t lowering their life style at all to help “the poor” they so weep about. But they have no problem forcing OTHERS to lower their lifestyle to help the poor

              They are one sick bunch of mental perverts. Nothing about them is moral. They are the disease.

              • Do I have a nice house? I like to think so – not large but comfortable for me and in a good area for my needs/wants.

                Do I have a nice car? Not really – it’s in good condition and works well enough, but I’dmuch prefer having something else.

                And before you ask, yes – I give to charity both in terms of my time and money.

                It isn’t about making the rich lower their lifestyle – it’s about the rich having the ability to contribute more to society without it impacting their lifestyle. Not sure what is so difficult to understand here.

              • No, it is about stealing from one so that you feel good about giving it to another.

                You have no measure of contribution. You live in a fantasy magical world, using your own life as a measure of the life of your neigbhors, envious of many.

                You think the rich “do nothing”, yet they are the ones that create employment and jobs and actual economic value. You have no brain to understand that. You merely look at outcomes, and judge. You are utterly incapable of looking at the “means” of such outcomes.

                You destroy jobs by pillaging the rich. And then in your sickness, point to the unemployed and state “I am here to help, let’s pillage some more!”

            • Firstly, kudos on knowing the difference between jealousy and envy.

              Secondly, whether the money is spent by the rich or poor makes little difference, but the rich do not spend all their money.

              (But Mathius, you fool, if they don’t spend it, it goes into a bank which loans it out! Thus it is still in circulation. Says my psychic reading of Mr. Flag’s mind)

              True. But not all that money makes it back into circulation, at least immediately. Some percentage is held in reserve. Ignoring people like you who bury piles of gold in the back yard, it generally finds its way back out into the economy by way of loans. And, further, who gets the loans? People who can afford to pay them back! In other words, generally, not the poor.

              (But Mathius, you blithering idiot, some of those people will start businesses which employ those poor people! And the rest will spend it at existing businesses who, in turn, cycle it back into the economy resulting in more hiring of those same poor people!)

              Sure. And that’s great.

              But (A) they don’t always hire the poor. Sometimes (frequently) they are able to avoid hiring more people, or they hire from the middle classes. And (B) the cycle biases toward the top. Those businesses filter most of their wealth back toward the owners – (You moron, they took the risk and are entitled to the reward) – leaving the lower classes (largely) out of the loop.

              By forcing part of that cycle through the lower classes (who will necessarily spend every cent), it benefits the poor while still doing nothing to hurt the economy.

              (Mathius, you incompetent leftie, you’re economically illiterate and completely hopeless. I’m not even going to dignify this with a response.)

              • Mathius,

                You are correct. That is why the rich is the fundamental backbone to the wealth of the nation – they have saving above their consumption….. and this is the group you attack!!

                Again, economic ignorance.

                Where is this percentage “held in reserve”????
                More nonsense:

                Jewellery 84,300 49.2%
                Investment (bars, coins) 33,000 19.26%

                The total global gold supply is worth $1.8 trillion. Most of the jewellery holdings is in India (so now you rant against the poor Indians about their evil hording???)

                The number of US citizens owning gold is less than 0.01% – trivial. Most Americans have never seen a gold coin.

                BUT EVEN THEN, to buy gold, they trade their cash to the gold dealer, who then puts the cash back into the economy.

                Buying gold is NO DIFFERENT THEN BUYING A WINDOW. You would not claim “oh, look at the terrible economics of a window. Once you buy it, it just sits there!”

                Again, you are merely demonstrating the utter lack of your economic education.

                The poor do not get loans BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PRODUCTIVE, hence cannot repay the loan.

                In your bizarre mental tornado, you think giving someone your car who can’t drive is a good idea because – heck, they will crash it!. But I bet you don’t do that, do you? You lend your car out to someone WHO WON’T CRASH IT.

                But when its money, you lobotimize yourself.

                The poor do not get jobs because they do not have the skills to be productive at those jobs.

                Again, in your ignorance, why don’t you quit and give your job to the poor man down the street? Well, of course you will say because he can’t do the job

                But here you are in your lobotimized mode, saying the “rich” should do what you would never do.

                You are nothing but a wholly mess of contradictions and ignorance. What is worse and frightening, you get to vote.

              • Mathius,

                Indeed, if you had any real Progessive economic sense, you want the rich to spend, spend, spend and spend some more.

                Yet, because you are trapped in your disease of envy, you see their spending as bad, bad, more bad, and terrible.

                It is a very good thing the rich build super-homes, drive utterly over-priced cars, buy first-of-breed electronics and toys …. because if they didn’t, you would not have the luxuries YOU HAVE at the very low price you paid.

                It was the rich who put air conditioning in their cars first —- and paid $10,000 for it.
                You get it today as standard.

                It was the rich who bought the first home computers —- and paid $100,000 for it.
                You get it today for a couple of hundred bucks.

                It was the rich who got the first refridgators, indoor plumbing, electricity, home heating, etc. —- and paid zillions for it.
                You get it today so cheap, you wouldn’t even consider NOT having such things.

                Your envy of the rich makes you radically less off, poorer, and sick.

                But in your mind disease, you’d rather grovel in the dirt then see your neigbhor “better off”.

              • In 1981, the Ferrari 512BB did 0-60mph in 5.0 seconds and cost (in today’s dollars) $660,000.

                Today, you can buy a Dodge Challenger R/T for $27,000 that does the same. Why? Because some rich “fool” paid $600,000 for the technology and development in 1980 so you can experience it today.

                But you obviously do not like that.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Hate to say this, but do you think the “unspent” money just sits like the imagery of Scrooge McDuck”? Its out working, that is if the rich keep their money in a bank and the bank uses it in the form of loans etc. Even if the rich spend it on stocks and bonds and other investments it’s out working and employing you. Back to an example that Obama and the left used in the late 2000’s about a artisan that charges $5000 dollars for a purse. There were people that bought these pieces of art. The left looked at that as such a waste because that artisan could have designed a purse and sell it for $10 for the unwashed masses. 1st off she would not have been able to produce her piece of art at that sale price, much less she’d have to produce and sell 500 to equal 1. Impossible as a single artisan. She’d have to set up in Indonesia, China or India and only the poor there would benefit not here, besides the market is saturated in cheap shit. Imagine making only 20 purses in a year and making 100K, that’s smart business. A niche but smart.

          • Dale A Albrecht says:

            Mathius…If I read you correctly and as you state you are in the top 2% of the income bracket in this country. That by the numbers puts you in and around $250K/year. That’s pretty nice and more power to you. I also assume that you live either in Manhattan or in the very near proximity of NYC. With all the taxes and expenses of being anywhere near NYC that sure puts a serious dent in that income.

            If your income is derived from helping managing a hedge fund, correct me if I’m wrong. Did you ever give a passing thought to the people that have been laid off because of the company NOT making the analysts on wall streets expectations, or even if the company did and or exceeded the goal if the management could squeeze more return to the investor they will. At a great inconvienience to employees. The owner of your hedge fund has only one responsibility and that is to get the greatest return to your investors money. It hurts when decisions are made that hit so close to home. Your help to your friend extended to a dinner and obviously a shoulder and a reference. When I was “retired” 6 years ago, at&t made it a policy as a condition of employment that your management CAN NOT give a reference. They could not even verify that you worked for them. The only thing provided was a note from personel in St Louis that you did in fact work for at&t, period.

            (This next part is taken from a paper in USFunds writing abot what it takes to be a 1% 10% 20%’r and the portion of taxes paid and the shift over the past years. A 20% was just over 100K and a 1%’r just over 300K)

            “Earning enough income to be in the top 1, 10 or 20 percent is no small accomplishment, but chances are good that many people you know, and may not think of as rich, fall into the top 1, 10 or 20 percent.

            Contrast these income statistics with the picture often painted in the media that the wealthiest Americans aren’t paying their fair share. According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1 percent of households collectively pay more in taxes than all of the tax-paying households in the bottom 90 percent.

            Take a look at how much this has changed over the past few decades. In 1980, the bottom 90 percent of taxpayers paid about half of the taxes. The top 1 percent contributed about 20 percent.

            Now, the top 1 percent pays more than the bottom 90 percent. Perhaps this is more than their fair share?” end quote

            • NYC, other thereabouts, yes.

              Did you ever give a passing thought to the people that have been laid off because of the company NOT making the analysts on wall streets expectations, or even if the company did and or exceeded the goal if the management could squeeze more return to the investor they will.

              I’m not sure what you’re getting at here… I see a lot of words I’m familiar with, but none that make sense in context of what I do.

              As a hedge fund employee, I have never been involved in the investment side. I handle Operations and am currently the CTO (chief technical officer) and DoE (director of ops). Basically, I don’t decide what we trade, but I make sure that everything that should happen happens. If they place a trade, I make sure the money moves, the shares settle, the yada yada yada yada. I also make sure they have the appropriate hardware and software and support to do the business they mean to do. I make the wheels turn.

              The owner of your hedge fund has only one responsibility and that is to get the greatest return to your investors money.

              Yes….. but as the sole equity owner, employment costs for non-trading and non-research employess comes straight out of his pocket, not out of the investor returns. He laid my coworker off because he wanted to make more money. Period. This decision had nothing to do with a fiduciary duty. He looked at the situation and determined that having new windows was more important to him than retaining a loyal and hardworking employee.

              When I was “retired” 6 years ago, at&t made it a policy as a condition of employment that your management CAN NOT give a reference. They could not even verify that you worked for them. The only thing provided was a note from personel in St Louis that you did in fact work for at&t, period.

              I’ve seen similar policies. I’ve been on the receiving end of such policies.

              All I can say is that a good worker I worked with asked for a reference, I’m going to provide it. I might do so “off the record,” but I’m going to tell a prospective employer that they would be well served. My coworker deserved that. He put in his time, worked hard, was reliable, and a solid employee who lost his income because a multi-millionaire wanted to be slightly richer than he already was. He earned my respect and my recommendation, and I’m going to give it.

              Earning enough income to be in the top 1, 10 or 20 percent is no small accomplishment, but chances are good that many people you know, and may not think of as rich, fall into the top 1, 10 or 20 percent.

              This is an interesting point, and I would suggest that it’s very accurate. The curve is one of those asymptotic “hockey-stick” graphs where the 2% (as you suggest, not me) earns around 250k, the 1% around 500k, but then the 0.1% earn 1mm and the 0.01% earn a 10mm+. A sharp spike at the end. The difference between 2 and 5% is rather small by comparison. Certainly, especially in these parts, a 2%-er (nationally) is nowhere near “rich” in a local sense.

              The idea that a dollar is a dollar is a dollar isn’t really accurate when looking regionally. Land here costs dramatically more than land down South or out West. Everything costs more. So higher earnings are offset by higher expenses. If I had my income, but lived in East Texas, I’d be rolling in it. Out here, with two kids and a mortgage, I’m “getting by” (with a moderate safety margin).

              Now, the top 1 percent pays more than the bottom 90 percent. Perhaps this is more than their fair share?” end quote

              I’d be willing to bet that the lion’s share of that is being shouldered by the 0.1%, making this even more extreme.

              But ponder me this, why do the 1% have almost all the wealth in this country? Forget that they’re paying more, they own more of the wealth. I forget the exact stat, and it’s 4 o’clock, so I have to gp, but I remember seeing that the Waltons – just the one family – are worth more than the bottom half of the country combined. I’ll leave you to fact check, but it’s certainly plausible. If so, maybe the real issue is that we aren’t taking enough from them (and me).

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                You’re the one who said that your are in the 2% bracket. I looked up the break points as published by a tax foundation. When married I was in the what is now the 20% + bracket but that was 25 years ago. I retired just below the 20% bracket after building back on a single income and not having to share housing arrangements to keep my living standard that I had obtained. Even after my divorce I kept the historical house in VT and the Jag and all my “stuff” I had always geared my living so if “shit” happens life goes on. That by the way entails relocating. Like getting eventually out of VT, then NE entirely and coming south to the Raleigh area. Then finally the coastal region. In the past, like in 1980 I was offered by IBM a position in San Jose. With the salary they paid for my job, it required 4 people at the same level to afford the same size apt I had in VT, alone. If one left, you were screwed with all the other increased costs in that area. Now because I’m on a fixed income I rent. It’s a fixed outlay each month. No surprises because if the AC or heat fails, that’s the absentee owners problem. I’m right downtown in the historical district 1/2 block from the water, I walk everywhere. The apt is 2000 sq feet on two stories of a 3 story 1843 house. A lawyer rents the 1st floor and he’s never there, maybe once a week. I literally have the house to myself. Beat that in NYC. Not a chance

                I doubt that you would risk your livelihood writing an off the record reference, when the company specifically forbids it, when it could be checked by the potential employer. If so, I’m proud of you, but my direct and personal experience is that people will not, regardless. of how many years you worked with them or the personal relationship

      • No, Buck, it was never about revenue specifically.

        It was about
        1) realizing uncaptured capital gains. Since Estate transfers tend to transfer assets that would not be normally sold (and therefore subject to capital gains), it was enacted to capture the tax on the capital gains of property that was essentially “locked” because it would never be sold (family farms, etc.)

        2) prevent the “idle rich” from being idle, forcing the use of capital in the market. If you’re going to lose the money to taxes anyway, might as well use it in the capital markets to earn if it was going to be taxed away.

        • In other words, if it was merely about revenue, the government simply would have to implement a fair market value tax on property/assets. But this would add serious overhead of reporting and distort decisions about assets (cause selling assets to pay for the tax on assets).

          It was in part “Social engineering” on the rich – trying to force their participation into capital markets.

          • What happened to your ability to read?? I never said it was ONLY about raising revenue, but history is very clear raising revenue was a major concern.

            • Nonsense.
              The amount of revenue is minisucle. It provides less than 1% of revenue.

              To claim this was the “major concern” is clearly dumb.

              The “major” consideration was social engineering upon the “landed rich”.

        • Just A Citizen says:



          By the way, you forgot “coveting” along with the envy thing.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Sir…..I read a long time ago that many people left Europe because of the inheritance tradition. That is primagentry, The eldest got the goods and everyone else got stiffed. That I got. Then I read a counter to that was that even though 1 the eldest may have the controlling, through inheritance, interest it also was in the lessor members of the family to work their collective asses off and make sure the eldest maintained and expanded the “family” estate and wealth. It benefited them all.

          In England you see all sorts of grand estates being “donated” to the state because the family can not afford the estate/death tax. Case in point the Duke of Marbourough, Churchill’s family. That huge estate, Blenheim, was given to the general after a victory in battle. Other than that they did NOT earn it. In a couple generations it reverted back to the crown. Winston, though born there went off on his own and created his own wealth through his own labors and skills, regardless of what they were. Like writing. Usually someone had to WORK to create the estate and wealth. Then in time later generations lost the will to work and maintain the estate or it was so declasse to work. They deserve to lose that estate and let new blood come in. Like most branches of the Vanderbilt family. The 1st two Cornelius and his son really expanded the wealth from nothing. After that most branches failed and those estates are now gone. Only two still are truly in the family name. granted they use the tax laws to maintain the property by being tax free entities. They as a family work hard to maintain and grow these estates for their and the publics benefit. The part in VT were able to buy back huge tracts of land that had been sold off and restoring portions of the estate that were on those sections that had gone to wrack and ruin. The same in Ashville.

          Some grand estates in England got their start by literal thievery, like Cecil Rhodes and Clive of India.

          No government should have the right to dismantle an estate to sate it’s own greed or agenda if that estate is a thriving and growing concern, like as an example the Colonel’s family. “all for one one for all”. If it is a failing and dying family and business let someone else have a go at it. Really big example is Thomas Jefferson. The only really good business deal he did was the Lousiana Purchase. Personally he couldn’t balance his accounts ever. Built a beautiful place at Monticello and several others around there, but not a one survived after his death. It was all created on debt with no chance of repayment. It was liquidated by his creditors upon his death, The ONLY part the Jefferson’s still own is the graveyard.

  20. JAC…..remember that Buck is a lawyer and he deals in semantics….that is what a Barrister does. The left deals in semantics ( and the right, to some extent ) when they want their point made.

    To your question above….I was the executor of my mom’s will. When she died it passed through to my dad….no tax. When dad died, as executor, I am charged with administering his will. In the vernacular, it is the estate ( the transfer of assets ) that is taxed. There are a variety of ways to lessen the burden of tax through trusts ( exempt and non exempt ), through generation skip, which can continue down the road. The other aspects of it is how the trusts are funded. All stocks, etc. are given a step up basis….meaning that the stocks, coins, paintings…assets are valued at the time of death. The new basis is passed on to the heirs. Where I say the double taxation comes in is when the valuation is placed on stocks, for example, there is a tax placed on that valuation at the time of DEATH. Then, that same stock is taxed again when it is sold by an heir. So, to follow Buck’s reasoning, which is correct except for one thing…and that one thing is that at the transfer of asset (which in the eyes of the IRS…means sold) there is a tax on THAT ASSET…..which, Buck says, it is a defacto tax on the heir. Then, when that heir sells that same asset that has been taxed once already….it will be taxed again. So, in effect, that heir has been taxed twice….according to Buck’s reasoning,

    Now, in the very beginning of time, the estate/death tax was and still is considered a revenue source. It goes to the Treasury of the United States to be used however they wish to use it.

    So, the leftist/socialist point of view is the inequality of the Robin Hood approach. My argument is that this is discriminatory ( to which the left says, in this case it is ok…some more of that selective bull shit )….you either have an estate tax on everyone or no one. It is a very lame…lame…lame….reasoning to say, you should pay it when others should not. It flies in the face of equality. It is the same with progressive taxation….with a flat tax, if you make more you will pay more but for some reason that does not work in the minds of the left or the progressive/socialist thinker. They prefer to use the litmus test of how much one has to determine fairness and equality and not on equal application of laws.

    Meaning no disrespect to Buck at all because it is his profession…..but it seems to me to be a great conflict of interest to be in the business of helping people reduce or eliminate a tax burden and at the same time decry those that do. To me….personally, that reeks of hypocrisy. It sounds like the Clinton Foundation. Different sets of rules. Of course, going o a simple flat tax with no deductions and eliminate the estate/death tax would put most of his firm out of business. There would be no need for much planning that a will and/or codicil could not provide.

    • You still seem to be missing my point on the double taxation issue – it is not taxed twice in your scenario of the stock. Estate tax is levied on the fmv of the stock on death; when the heir sells, income tax is levied on only the gain from the date of death value.

      The only instance where you may have merit to your argument of double taxation is when the same stock passes through two separate estates so is subject to estate tax on both deaths. But that’s what trusts are for!

  21. G Man…..may I please have one last thread on the debate schedule……..State’s Rights vs Federal Rights……..

    And, with your permission, Sir Mathius…..this old geezer will take the lead again.

  22. G Man….would you please start a new, and final debate thread, on State’s rights vs. Federal rights..

    With your kind permission, Sir Mathius, I will take the lead.

  23. Just A Citizen says:


    Ranchers and farmers are not “rich”. You continue to ignore the information provided on the impact of the estate tax on these family’s ability to keep the farm/ranch in the family.

    They are not wealthy in terms of income. Only the asset value of the land, equipment and livestock. Ironically, values which are very high due to 1) Govt. intervention, ie., inflation, and 2) The rich driving up land prices.

    Ever heard the term “cash poor and land rich”?

    I don’t care if they are a small percentage of the population. The estate tax’s impact is real and it is destructive.

    But it is a useful tool for the Govt. to indirectly get people to donate their land to the Govt.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      A cousin of mine is currently the owner of approximately 4000 acres of land sitting on the Marcellus Shale formation, which includes as of last year the original family farm. None of this land, that I know of, has been actively farmed since the late 60’s. Due to increased regulations and other government laws and costs the farm shut down.

      I just looked up the selling price in that township where the property is located and a 20 acre parcel runs roughly $250K. The cousins that stayed and maintained their families property ranging from 500-1000 acres all long ago ceased diary operations. Some have allowed drilling bringing in a very nice retirement income. Some are still holding out only because the primary owner refuses to allow drilling even on an obscure portion of 800 acres. That’ll change in the near future at their passing.

      I never heard of vacation stories from these uncles and cousins. They worked from dawn till dusk 365/year. The only “vacation” from the farms were during WWII. None went to combat due to exemptions, but several of my great uncles took time and went to Newfoundland and helped build airfields. My immigrant great grandfather started “gifting” to the 11 offspring an equal portion/value of the family farm, way back in ’32. He died in ’49. 4 portions represented the value of family farm because 4 members of the family remained and continued running it until ’69, the rest got cash or a home.

  24. Just A Citizen says:

    Lets think a moment about the underlying and fundamental values, such as Rights, linked to this estate tax issue.

    Mathius and Buck have done a good job of revealing the “left’s” true nature regarding not just this tax but all taxes. Namely, the rich should pay more. Should meaning must in Progressive speak.

    So what does this mean at the fundamental level? It means that the “right to pursuit of happiness” does not really exist in their world. Because my happiness is subject to their approval, not on whether my pursuit actually has a negative affect on another’s Rights.

    My pursuit of happiness, and my right to property, is completely subservient to the whims, desires and opinions of others.

    Now one for their side. Not exactly but it could be seen that way.

    WHY should our right to property extend to the right to convey property upon our death. If property is not gifted before death why is there a Right to determine the disposition of property after our death.

    An option to the current situation is that all property still held at death will be auctioned to the highest bidders. The sale price can be used by the States in which the property is located as tax revenue. Or, the proceeds can be distributed to the heirs and taxed as ordinary income.

    Have to go to the nursery to look at plants for the yard. Back later.

  25. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Flag….how is the new plane? Has it been delivered yet?

  26. Not sure what is so difficult to understand here.;;;;;;It is difficult, counselor, because it is not voluntary.

%d bloggers like this: