My daughter got an estate from her dad, and it became active two days ago. But he didn't do anything as dignified as pas away.
He was burned out of existence so thoroughly that not one single earthly remain has ever been recovered.
But he left her more than enough money, and now she's suddenly wealthy. Despite the fact that one of the accountants was trying to steal the money for himself.
Thank you so much! im like learning new stuff everyday! great job!
and is it more easier and you dont have to pay these type of taxes, if you just gonna sign over everything to Family member or someone you know, who you want to have the all the property
so if you own credit card or any other charges, those company wont go after your property and try take it cause you own the debt??
1) America is better than Somalia because of taxes
2) Somalia is shitty because of no taxes
Great job on the "moving to Somolia" analogy; btw - Somolia is better off now than it was for the residents who lived there during the militant government and with "No Government" ... in quotes because foreign governments and prior military officers are trying to impose their power on the Somolian people; similar to the actions of an official "Government"
So...the fact that it currently exists this way makes it right?
Nice logic.
I would say that no society "relies" on force ... only that it exist. Government, however, relies on force - without it, it couldn't exist.
The majority of your everyday life and interaction with others is not predicated on the use of force...tell me, what part of YOUR life is reliant upon the use of force upon others?...if you're a cop, dont answer - you are a sociopath and need mental help.
@helltrackrider Name a theoretical society that doesn't rely on force, then. Problem is you can't think of one; if you tell me, "anarcho-capitalism" I will just respond that I never agreed to that arrangement and only the credible threat of force can sustain it.
Anarchy would not rely on force; it is based on the removal of authority (i.e. force)...
Retalitory force would exist - this is quite different than "relying" on force (i.e. the initiation of force without cause - as todays governments do)
There is no "agreement" in Anarcho-Capitalism...it is a normal state of being; all authority removed - kind of like YOU living; you didnt agree to it - but you exist.
Trying to claim that "force" would be necessary to sustain a system that doesnt have "force" is just ignorant...Is anyone forcing you to live?...forcing you to work?...forcing you to eat?...forcing you to log on to YouTube and talk about "force"?...No.
@helltrackrider No it isn't. Who said people should be allowed to own property? "rights" only exist if you have more force than everyone else.
Fact for ignorant anarchists: States exist because only they can provide the force necessary to reasonably allow people to live unmolested. The day the state disappears is the day another state is formed and invades unincorporated land.
I havent said you have the Right to own land; ownership of land is predicated upon respect towards others...hence, NOONE owns land today b/c Government doesnt respect anyone ... Government imposes taxes on land - dont pay those taxes, Land is stolen from you...tell me, do you "own" anything if it can be taken from you?
How can you "forcefully" provide a lifestyle free of "force"?...Do you see the dilemma in this logic?
Ownership can also be viewed as an extension of your labor or effort in life; you are right in saying that someone only "owns" something if they have the "force" required to protect it...theft would be an issue in any Society; but - currently (as is with any Government) theft is legitimized and accepted as moral.
Without Government; those who impose force/fraud upon others would be dealt with - most likely by ostracization.
If you feel that ostracization is not a powerful tool; please take a look at history and see how bad and to what measures human beings have to just to "fit in" or to be a part of something...
Religion and Government being the two most noteable creations.
Removal from "society" and its functions is much, much worse than imprisonment or fines/fees.
@helltrackrider You can't ostracize an entire army that just looted lmao. Nor do existing criminals care about ostracization, they just form their own communities and prey on others.
If force were so frowned upon, then why do states exist? Not to mention no society exists without force, unless everyone agrees on exactly the same thing (Won't happen).
Buffett owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses. Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics. If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
@Chiszle RAISE income tax? The income tax should be abolished. Tax on labor is morally wrong. It's basically saying that the State owns everything you earn and allows you to keep x percent of it. We didn't even have an income tax until the Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913, and what has happened since then? Massive inflation, and that's an even more sinister form of taxation.
@cilution - I see, it's something I have not fed to much thought into. Mostly because in my head taxes bring up a lot of dissonance. I should look into it more before I vent an opinion.
@Chiszle Just imagine if the stimulus had been suspending the income tax for a year or two instead of letting politicians channel billions into industries that don't have the demand to justify it (soon as the money flow stops, the jobs are lost).
That would have been equivalent to giving every working person in America a significant raise, and directly helped main street, and probably would have been cheaper. The rich make most of their money on capital gains which are taxed differently, too.
@cilution - Is the stimulus package not like feeding an obese person hamburgers? It really just needs a diet to cut off the excessive weight, but then someone decides to keep feeding the problem.
Just trying to have fun with metaphors. However, if that is what the stimulus package does. Then why did they do it? Is it really for a few corporates to gain? And does that suggest corporate lobby cheques were passed?
@Chiszle Not all of it was just for corporate gain at taxpayer expense. Many politicians genuinely believed they were putting money into worthwhile causes. Things like infrastructure, homes, alternative energy, whatever the case may be. I'm sure there were plenty of deals behind closed doors, though. Ultimately, it is the market that determines where that capital should be allocated, and if it is allocated in the wrong places on a large enough scale, we have recessions.
@cilution Or if it isn't being allocated at all (ie. savings excess or pure stock market (in the instance where companies do not receive money to allocate to investment; the money is simply spent on higher stock value).
@cilution The optimal solution would have been to spend it on high return investment (ie. infrastructure), but I suppose between giving the financial industry the money to keep it solvent or giving that money directly to homeowners via income tax breaks, I would prefer the latter as well.
@cilution suspending the income tax wouldn't help anyone. it would just increase the rate of inflation. which would ultimately nullify the increased income. unless, of course, you're willing to put price controls in place. but i'm guessing you'd be against that too.
@Chiszle It's taxing the new income of the person receiving the income. Same concept of paying taxes on the lottery or massive winnings. Do you know who signed the first estate tax into law? George Washington.
say if my father has 2 million dollars worth of land and he leves it to me. when he dies will i have to pay a tax? or will i be exempt? thanks.
harryleo1996 2 months ago
Wow, I wanna billion. If I get it, I'll give every commentator here a new car!
ArnoldSchwarznigger 6 months ago
She should be pretty okay, lol
Screw that, the government should be okay. They need to fuck off.
ENJOYtheLITTLthings 7 months ago
@ENJOYtheLITTLthings completely agree.
TheDatsunKing 7 months ago
Thanks
ENJOYtheLITTLthings 7 months ago
My daughter got an estate from her dad, and it became active two days ago. But he didn't do anything as dignified as pas away.
He was burned out of existence so thoroughly that not one single earthly remain has ever been recovered.
But he left her more than enough money, and now she's suddenly wealthy. Despite the fact that one of the accountants was trying to steal the money for himself.
My stock broker friend found the guy out.
vickiormindyb 7 months ago
Thank you so much! im like learning new stuff everyday! great job!
and is it more easier and you dont have to pay these type of taxes, if you just gonna sign over everything to Family member or someone you know, who you want to have the all the property
so if you own credit card or any other charges, those company wont go after your property and try take it cause you own the debt??
Duhitpt 7 months ago
Comment removed
Duhitpt 7 months ago
Estate Theft.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
bush cut estate tax and the raided social security to get the money back
harj2009 7 months ago
This 'estate' has already been taxed on income. Why would anyone tax it again? Just raise income tax and remove this.
Chiszle 7 months ago
@Chiszle Derp. Sales tax? What! My income was already taxed with the income tax!!!!
No fair!!! I AM MOVING TO SOMALIA!
lmao if you literally cant figure out why someone would tax it again
SPQRomantic 7 months ago
@SPQRomantic
You act as if these are truths:
1) America is better than Somalia because of taxes
2) Somalia is shitty because of no taxes
Great job on the "moving to Somolia" analogy; btw - Somolia is better off now than it was for the residents who lived there during the militant government and with "No Government" ... in quotes because foreign governments and prior military officers are trying to impose their power on the Somolian people; similar to the actions of an official "Government"
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider I didn't say that, but I would. There is a reason states exist.
SPQRomantic 7 months ago
@SPQRomantic
Yep...States exist to plunder the livestock (individuals) and keep the livestock within their fences (borders).
Those who question or disobey the State; prison or death - your choice.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider Hahaha you must watch Molyneux and take it seriously.
SPQRomantic 7 months ago 2
@SPQRomantic XD I think he does!
Scientisticsoviet 7 months ago
@SPQRomantic
Gee...who would take aggression and force against them seriously!?
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider Tell me a society that isn't reliant on force.
SPQRomantic 7 months ago
@SPQRomantic
So...the fact that it currently exists this way makes it right?
Nice logic.
I would say that no society "relies" on force ... only that it exist. Government, however, relies on force - without it, it couldn't exist.
The majority of your everyday life and interaction with others is not predicated on the use of force...tell me, what part of YOUR life is reliant upon the use of force upon others?...if you're a cop, dont answer - you are a sociopath and need mental help.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider Name a theoretical society that doesn't rely on force, then. Problem is you can't think of one; if you tell me, "anarcho-capitalism" I will just respond that I never agreed to that arrangement and only the credible threat of force can sustain it.
SPQRomantic 7 months ago
@SPQRomantic
Anarchy would not rely on force; it is based on the removal of authority (i.e. force)...
Retalitory force would exist - this is quite different than "relying" on force (i.e. the initiation of force without cause - as todays governments do)
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@SPQRomantic
There is no "agreement" in Anarcho-Capitalism...it is a normal state of being; all authority removed - kind of like YOU living; you didnt agree to it - but you exist.
Trying to claim that "force" would be necessary to sustain a system that doesnt have "force" is just ignorant...Is anyone forcing you to live?...forcing you to work?...forcing you to eat?...forcing you to log on to YouTube and talk about "force"?...No.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider No it isn't. Who said people should be allowed to own property? "rights" only exist if you have more force than everyone else.
Fact for ignorant anarchists: States exist because only they can provide the force necessary to reasonably allow people to live unmolested. The day the state disappears is the day another state is formed and invades unincorporated land.
SPQRomantic 7 months ago
@SPQRomantic
I havent said you have the Right to own land; ownership of land is predicated upon respect towards others...hence, NOONE owns land today b/c Government doesnt respect anyone ... Government imposes taxes on land - dont pay those taxes, Land is stolen from you...tell me, do you "own" anything if it can be taken from you?
How can you "forcefully" provide a lifestyle free of "force"?...Do you see the dilemma in this logic?
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@SPQRomantic
Ownership can also be viewed as an extension of your labor or effort in life; you are right in saying that someone only "owns" something if they have the "force" required to protect it...theft would be an issue in any Society; but - currently (as is with any Government) theft is legitimized and accepted as moral.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@SPQRomantic
Without Government; those who impose force/fraud upon others would be dealt with - most likely by ostracization.
If you feel that ostracization is not a powerful tool; please take a look at history and see how bad and to what measures human beings have to just to "fit in" or to be a part of something...
Religion and Government being the two most noteable creations.
Removal from "society" and its functions is much, much worse than imprisonment or fines/fees.
helltrackrider 7 months ago
@helltrackrider You can't ostracize an entire army that just looted lmao. Nor do existing criminals care about ostracization, they just form their own communities and prey on others.
If force were so frowned upon, then why do states exist? Not to mention no society exists without force, unless everyone agrees on exactly the same thing (Won't happen).
SPQRomantic 7 months ago
@helltrackrider fucking naive morons.. the crooks would just screw you and live with their other crook friend
moestietabarnak 7 months ago in playlist recent
This has been flagged as spam show
Buffett owns life insurance companies that rely on the death tax in order to sell their estate-planning businesses. Buffett made about a billion dollars off of the Wall Street bailout by investing in Goldman Sachs on the assumption Uncle Sam would bail it out. He also is planning investments in ethanol giant ADM and government-contracting leviathan General Dynamics. If your businesses’ revenue comes from the U.S. Treasury, of course you want more wealth.
vechorik 6 months ago
@SPQRomantic - Yes, skimming to much off of capital gets on my nerves.
Chiszle 7 months ago
@Chiszle RAISE income tax? The income tax should be abolished. Tax on labor is morally wrong. It's basically saying that the State owns everything you earn and allows you to keep x percent of it. We didn't even have an income tax until the Federal Reserve came into existence in 1913, and what has happened since then? Massive inflation, and that's an even more sinister form of taxation.
cilution 7 months ago
@cilution - I see, it's something I have not fed to much thought into. Mostly because in my head taxes bring up a lot of dissonance. I should look into it more before I vent an opinion.
Chiszle 7 months ago
@Chiszle Just imagine if the stimulus had been suspending the income tax for a year or two instead of letting politicians channel billions into industries that don't have the demand to justify it (soon as the money flow stops, the jobs are lost).
That would have been equivalent to giving every working person in America a significant raise, and directly helped main street, and probably would have been cheaper. The rich make most of their money on capital gains which are taxed differently, too.
cilution 7 months ago
@cilution - Is the stimulus package not like feeding an obese person hamburgers? It really just needs a diet to cut off the excessive weight, but then someone decides to keep feeding the problem.
Just trying to have fun with metaphors. However, if that is what the stimulus package does. Then why did they do it? Is it really for a few corporates to gain? And does that suggest corporate lobby cheques were passed?
Chiszle 7 months ago
@Chiszle Not all of it was just for corporate gain at taxpayer expense. Many politicians genuinely believed they were putting money into worthwhile causes. Things like infrastructure, homes, alternative energy, whatever the case may be. I'm sure there were plenty of deals behind closed doors, though. Ultimately, it is the market that determines where that capital should be allocated, and if it is allocated in the wrong places on a large enough scale, we have recessions.
cilution 7 months ago
@cilution Or if it isn't being allocated at all (ie. savings excess or pure stock market (in the instance where companies do not receive money to allocate to investment; the money is simply spent on higher stock value).
Scientisticsoviet 7 months ago
@cilution The optimal solution would have been to spend it on high return investment (ie. infrastructure), but I suppose between giving the financial industry the money to keep it solvent or giving that money directly to homeowners via income tax breaks, I would prefer the latter as well.
Scientisticsoviet 7 months ago
@cilution suspending the income tax wouldn't help anyone. it would just increase the rate of inflation. which would ultimately nullify the increased income. unless, of course, you're willing to put price controls in place. but i'm guessing you'd be against that too.
iluminatr462 6 months ago
@Chiszle It's taxing the new income of the person receiving the income. Same concept of paying taxes on the lottery or massive winnings. Do you know who signed the first estate tax into law? George Washington.
Mestilf22 7 months ago