Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Americans for Tax Reform)   If you have any plans on dying anytime soon, you better hurry up and do it. You'll save your family a LOT of money by doing so   ( atr.org) divider line
    More: Obvious, Americans for Tax Reform, estate taxes, Tax Foundation  
•       •       •

3572 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2012 at 10:10 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



592 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-20 12:05:09 PM  

skullkrusher: sprawl15: You own a policy on your wife, with the beneficiary of your son. She dies. The money never enters your estate - it goes directly to your son, do not pass go.

that's what I am talking about. I don't think this is true. Otherwise, again, why is every life insurance policy not constructed this way if it means free money to the beneficiary?


You don't think this is true? So you are not sure, and despite sitting in front of the internet where in five seconds you could educate yourself you haven't done so. Yet you have spent more than an hour this morning arguing about something you are apparently completely ignorant of.

Did you not even for a second think for a second, "Hey, I'm going to be arguing about the estate tax, should I perhaps maybe read something about it first?".

How are life insurance proceeds taxed?

While life insurance death benefits are generally excluded from income tax to the beneficiary, they are included as part of the estate of the deceased if the deceased was the owner of the policy at the time of death. This inclusion as part of the estate may subject the benefit paid to estate taxes both at the federal and state levels. Estate inclusion can be avoided if the owner of the life insurance policy is someone other than the deceased, however; this assignment must have occurred more than three years prior to the date of death, or the IRS will still consider the deceased as the policy owner for estate tax purposes.
 
2012-07-20 12:05:31 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Scerpes: Pincy: Scerpes: A 60 percent tax on anything should outrage everyone. I'd be offended if you were stuck paying a 60 percent tax.

Except the person paying the tax is dead. I don't think they'll be able to appreciate your offended-ness.

Their appreciation is irrelevant. It's still offensive.

Not supporting the society that made it possible to create that wealth in the first place is offensive.

Aristocratic dynasties are offensive.

Taxes are less offensive than a fart in an elevator.


You're either stupid or disingenuous. The choice isn't 60 percent or nothing. Most people would not object too strenuously to a reasonable estate tax. However, 60 percent is nowhere near reasonable.
 
2012-07-20 12:06:22 PM  
No one should receive a penny in estate inheritance until the national debt is completely paid off. Those living today are saddling the future generations with massive debt. They are the real self-entitled leaches, borrowing from their children to support their demands on the government.

/trolling from the left is almost never seen
 
2012-07-20 12:07:39 PM  

Scerpes: Most people would not object too strenuously to a reasonable estate tax. However, 60 percent is nowhere near reasonable.


So what is reasonable to you then? What would not have you and Super Grover biatching? My guess is that if it was at anything that resembled a reasonable percentage - one that accomplishes one of the goals of the estate tax in preventing infinite familiar wealth accretion - you would both still be screaming like little children.
 
2012-07-20 12:08:28 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So, you ignore that fact that you were proven factually wrong, and move onto a red herring instead.


I know you think it is as simple as that but unfortunately, it is not. True, I was not aware that the exemption was that low. However, upon researching the rates at which estates were taxed, it is far preferable to the system which is about to come to pass. $50k in 1916 is just about $1,000,000 today. I will accept that if the taxable rates are also carried forward from then. There was also a tax free gift you could make of $50k in 1916 before you passed. That combined with the much lower rates would be satisfactory to me. Apparently not to you. Teddy is cool to quote but when you actually look at the numbers, it doesn't satisfy your greed.

Philip Francis Queeg: I will respond only by reminding you that you have in this very thread expressed that you feel estates larger than yours should be taxed at a higher rate. You feel entitled to dead peoples money. The difference between us is that you feel no one should be entitled to the money that your child may inherit upon your death. I would have no issue with my estate above $1 million dollars being taxed.


the criteria is not "higher than mine". It's the amount of the estate. I don't feel entitled to anyone's money but since the estate tax is not going away, I think it should be maintained at current levels because of what those levels represent, not how much I have at stake.
 
2012-07-20 12:08:43 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: Scerpes: Someone else made it possible for you to do that. You aren't successful with finances. Someone else made it possible for you to do that.

In mexico or the DR among other places you have to buy everything with cash because the court system is a joke and the officials are corrupt to the point that society doesn't allow for loans. This country operates above the level of a banana republican because of the very taxes skullkrusher is complaining about paying. He wants his kid to live in a society that allows for top notch colleges and opportunity but doesn't want to pay for it.

you are, once again, a dishonest coont.

Congrats.

Do you or do you want the estate tax to start slightly above what you hope to pass on to your children?

$5,000,000 is "slightly" above $1,000,000?

"He wants his kid to live in a society that allows for top notch colleges and opportunity but doesn't want to pay for it."

Yes, if you do not embrace every aspect of tax law you're saying taxes are theft and you want to live in Somalia. Maybe not dishonest. Just uncommonly stupid perhaps?


It's typical liberal dishonesty. You oppose an oppressive estate tax rate, you therefore are against all taxes. You want smaller government, you must therefore want no government at all. I don't think they actually believe that, they just like to portray you that way to marginalize you.
 
2012-07-20 12:09:10 PM  

RyogaM: No one should receive a penny in estate inheritance until the national debt is completely paid off. Those living today are saddling the future generations with massive debt. They are the real self-entitled leaches, borrowing from their children to support their demands on the government.

/trolling from the left is almost never seen


You can easily make it trolling from the right by saying that every other tax should be eliminated in conjunction with the 100% estate tax levying.

A Dark Evil Omen: So what is reasonable to you then? What would not have you and Super Grover biatching? My guess is that if it was at anything that resembled a reasonable percentage - one that accomplishes one of the goals of the estate tax in preventing infinite familiar wealth accretion - you would both still be screaming like little children.


If only there was some progressive method of taxation that would increase burden in accordance to wealth.
 
2012-07-20 12:10:02 PM  

A Dark Evil Omen: Scerpes: Most people would not object too strenuously to a reasonable estate tax. However, 60 percent is nowhere near reasonable.

So what is reasonable to you then? What would not have you and Super Grover biatching? My guess is that if it was at anything that resembled a reasonable percentage - one that accomplishes one of the goals of the estate tax in preventing infinite familiar wealth accretion - you would both still be screaming like little children.


I have no idea what would satisfy Grover. However a 15-20 percent estate tax isn't oppressive.
 
2012-07-20 12:10:05 PM  

Thrag: skullkrusher: sprawl15: You own a policy on your wife, with the beneficiary of your son. She dies. The money never enters your estate - it goes directly to your son, do not pass go.

that's what I am talking about. I don't think this is true. Otherwise, again, why is every life insurance policy not constructed this way if it means free money to the beneficiary?

You don't think this is true? So you are not sure, and despite sitting in front of the internet where in five seconds you could educate yourself you haven't done so. Yet you have spent more than an hour this morning arguing about something you are apparently completely ignorant of.

Did you not even for a second think for a second, "Hey, I'm going to be arguing about the estate tax, should I perhaps maybe read something about it first?".

How are life insurance proceeds taxed?

While life insurance death benefits are generally excluded from income tax to the beneficiary, they are included as part of the estate of the deceased if the deceased was the owner of the policy at the time of death. This inclusion as part of the estate may subject the benefit paid to estate taxes both at the federal and state levels. Estate inclusion can be avoided if the owner of the life insurance policy is someone other than the deceased, however; this assignment must have occurred more than three years prior to the date of death, or the IRS will still consider the deceased as the policy owner for estate tax purposes.


thanks for the info.
 
2012-07-20 12:10:31 PM  
Rich people problems.
 
2012-07-20 12:10:32 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: skullkrusher: Headso: Scerpes: Someone else made it possible for you to do that. You aren't successful with finances. Someone else made it possible for you to do that.

In mexico or the DR among other places you have to buy everything with cash because the court system is a joke and the officials are corrupt to the point that society doesn't allow for loans. This country operates above the level of a banana republican because of the very taxes skullkrusher is complaining about paying. He wants his kid to live in a society that allows for top notch colleges and opportunity but doesn't want to pay for it.

you are, once again, a dishonest coont.

Congrats.

Do you or do you want the estate tax to start slightly above what you hope to pass on to your children?

$5,000,000 is "slightly" above $1,000,000?

"He wants his kid to live in a society that allows for top notch colleges and opportunity but doesn't want to pay for it."

Yes, if you do not embrace every aspect of tax law you're saying taxes are theft and you want to live in Somalia. Maybe not dishonest. Just uncommonly stupid perhaps?


You are whining about a bit of hyperbole after calling people who believe the estate tax is at the correct level "money grubbing cocksuckers"? You sound republican.

I totally get the idea of trying to mitigate your tax burden, but to claim it as doing what is "morally correct" is where you go into dishonest mode. And to attack people doing the exact same thing you are but that want the level above what they pay is where it gets even better.
 
2012-07-20 12:11:43 PM  

Scerpes: However a 15-20 percent estate tax isn't oppressive.


Oh, shut up. There is nothing about an estate tax that's oppressive. A 100% estate tax would not be oppressive. Get over yourself.
 
2012-07-20 12:11:58 PM  

Scerpes: It's typical liberal dishonesty. You oppose an oppressive estate tax rate, you therefore are against all taxes. You want smaller government, you must therefore want no government at all. I don't think they actually believe that, they just like to portray you that way to marginalize you.


no, it's typical Headso dishonesty/stupidity

There are a few participating in this thread: qorkfiend, thurstonxhowell come to mind, who would not make such a statement. That's why they are interesting to talk to and people for whom I have as much respect as you can give a stranger on the internet.
 
2012-07-20 12:12:20 PM  

skullkrusher:
the criteria is not "higher than mine". It's the amount of the estate. I don't feel entitled to anyone's money but since the estate tax is not going away, I think it should be maintained at current levels because of what those levels represent, not how much I have at stake.


So it has nothing to do with your kid and his college fund, all of that complaining was immaterial to your feelings on the estate tax. Riiiiiiight.
 
2012-07-20 12:12:41 PM  

RyogaM: Here's were I have issue with this type of thinking: While the deceased was making his money, money that was taxed previously, as you note, he was also consenting, usually by voting for, to an increase in the debt, money that has to be paid by future generations. So, what has actually happened, is that all those people who have amassed an estate of however many millions, have done so while borrowing money that they are forcing others to pay for, and that ain't right. The estate taxes are a way for those saddled by the debt the deceased is trying to foist upon them to claw back some of that money, and, hopefully, pay down the debt they were irresponsibly saddled with.



Can you clarify for me what vote is being cast and what debt they are consenting to increasing in this thought?
 
2012-07-20 12:13:33 PM  
why isnt there a thread for the colorado shooting, mods?
 
2012-07-20 12:14:02 PM  

Headso: You are whining about a bit of hyperbole after calling people who believe the estate tax is at the correct level "money grubbing cocksuckers"? You sound republican.


oh it was "hyperbole" now when the "hyperbole" was central to the point you were trying to make? Interesting.

Guess what? I think the estate tax is at the correct level. I am glad you agree.

Headso: I totally get the idea of trying to mitigate your tax burden, but to claim it as doing what is "morally correct" is where you go into dishonest mode. And to attack people doing the exact same thing you are but that want the level above what they pay is where it gets even better.


there is nothing dishonest about it. You lied. You do it all the time. It's ok.
 
2012-07-20 12:14:19 PM  

Scerpes: It's typical liberal dishonesty. You oppose an oppressive estate tax rate, you therefore are against all taxes. You want smaller government, you must therefore want no government at all. I don't think they actually believe that, they just like to portray you that way to marginalize you.


republicans whinging about hyperbole never gets old.
 
2012-07-20 12:14:32 PM  

SquiggelyGrounders: why isnt there a thread for the colorado shooting, mods?


SOMEBODY SHOT COLORADO?
 
2012-07-20 12:16:06 PM  

sprawl15: SquiggelyGrounders: why isnt there a thread for the colorado shooting, mods?

SOMEBODY SHOT COLORADO?


And failed to put it out of its and our misery
 
2012-07-20 12:16:53 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher:
the criteria is not "higher than mine". It's the amount of the estate. I don't feel entitled to anyone's money but since the estate tax is not going away, I think it should be maintained at current levels because of what those levels represent, not how much I have at stake.

So it has nothing to do with your kid and his college fund, all of that complaining was immaterial to your feelings on the estate tax. Riiiiiiight.


of course it does. It could potentially impact me directly. Even if it didn't have a kid or life insurance I would argue that the exemption was too low. I don't make $1,000,000 a year yet I strongly support Nancy Pelosi's compromise letter she sent to Boehner. It is possible to have an opinion on what is fair, and right and smart without having to have a personal connection. In the case of estate taxes, I also happen to have a potential stake.

It's called being honest and decent. Too bad they don't teach that in school.
 
2012-07-20 12:19:19 PM  

skullkrusher: oh it was "hyperbole" now when the "hyperbole" was central to the point you were trying to make? Interesting.


The point I was making was
1. that taxes are necessary for our society to function at the level it does.
2. you are arguing for policy that would have you not pay a tax and your argument is based on morality.
3. others are arguing for the same thing but at a level that would have you pay for that tax and you call them "money grubbing cocksuckers"
4. if we didn't need tax revenue we would be running surpluses.
 
2012-07-20 12:20:36 PM  
I'd be curious to know if there were a noticable increase in suspicious deaths among the wealthy in the lead-up to an increase in the estate tax. After all, if you've made your money firing people and disposing of aborted fetuses, chances are your children's moral education hasn't been that exemplary. Trig and Trog might conclude you're worth more dead than alive.
 
2012-07-20 12:20:43 PM  
Let's say the oppressive heel of the 1 percent purchases enough of Congress to keep government's hands out of snot-nosed son Edmund Entitled's inheritance.

After poppy's death, Edmund scoffs at the unwashed masses and prepares for the life of leisure he's rightfully earned, based on the hard work or whatever of dearest daddy, who happened to plant his Edmund-making seed in mum after a rather raucous garden party.

Edmund now laughs through life in his high-born way until the government starts chipping away at Edmund's wealth. Edmund can't buy a damn Porsche Carrera GT without paying a big state and local sales tax.

Edmund's cozy 34,000-square-foot cottage on the lake costs him tens of thousands each year in property taxes, which seems a pittance compared with what he pays on his main estate.

The federal government takes a chunk of his bank account's interest each year and any investment income gets a piece carved off.

So, don't worry If the money isn't confiscated at daddy's death. We'll get it eventually.
 
2012-07-20 12:20:49 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher:
the criteria is not "higher than mine". It's the amount of the estate. I don't feel entitled to anyone's money but since the estate tax is not going away, I think it should be maintained at current levels because of what those levels represent, not how much I have at stake.

So it has nothing to do with your kid and his college fund, all of that complaining was immaterial to your feelings on the estate tax. Riiiiiiight.

of course it does. It could potentially impact me directly. Even if it didn't have a kid or life insurance I would argue that the exemption was too low. I don't make $1,000,000 a year yet I strongly support Nancy Pelosi's compromise letter she sent to Boehner. It is possible to have an opinion on what is fair, and right and smart without having to have a personal connection. In the case of estate taxes, I also happen to have a potential stake.

It's called being honest and decent. Too bad they don't teach that in school.


What was Pelosi's compromise? I hadn't heard about that.

/they teach honesty and decency in school, but like math, it's rarely used once you leave
 
2012-07-20 12:21:12 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher:
the criteria is not "higher than mine". It's the amount of the estate. I don't feel entitled to anyone's money but since the estate tax is not going away, I think it should be maintained at current levels because of what those levels represent, not how much I have at stake.

So it has nothing to do with your kid and his college fund, all of that complaining was immaterial to your feelings on the estate tax. Riiiiiiight.

of course it does. It could potentially impact me directly. Even if it didn't have a kid or life insurance I would argue that the exemption was too low. I don't make $1,000,000 a year yet I strongly support Nancy Pelosi's compromise letter she sent to Boehner. It is possible to have an opinion on what is fair, and right and smart without having to have a personal connection. In the case of estate taxes, I also happen to have a potential stake.

It's called being honest and decent. Too bad they don't teach that in school.


Do you think their is a systemic problem in the US where someone doesn't have a fair shot to make it on their own hard work and intelligence unless they are given money from inheritance?
 
2012-07-20 12:22:56 PM  

skullkrusher: Scerpes: It's typical liberal dishonesty. You oppose an oppressive estate tax rate, you therefore are against all taxes. You want smaller government, you must therefore want no government at all. I don't think they actually believe that, they just like to portray you that way to marginalize you.

no, it's typical Headso dishonesty/stupidity

There are a few participating in this thread: qorkfiend, thurstonxhowell come to mind, who would not make such a statement. That's why they are interesting to talk to and people for whom I have as much respect as you can give a stranger on the internet.


This complaint might have had some merit if you are not doing the exact same thing every few posts. You constantly assign thoughts and motives to people you disagree with. People saying that it seems like your motivation is to make it so the tax won't affect you is incredibly mild compared to what you constantly do.

If you are so worried about leaving a good inheritance to your kid perhaps you should not dedicate most of every single farking work day to being one of fark's biggest village idiots and apply yourself to your career instead. Sitting forever in a salaried job where you can obviously spend the majority of your time slacking off is affecting how much money you have far more than taxes ever will.
 
2012-07-20 12:23:56 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher:
the criteria is not "higher than mine". It's the amount of the estate. I don't feel entitled to anyone's money but since the estate tax is not going away, I think it should be maintained at current levels because of what those levels represent, not how much I have at stake.

So it has nothing to do with your kid and his college fund, all of that complaining was immaterial to your feelings on the estate tax. Riiiiiiight.

of course it does. It could potentially impact me directly. Even if it didn't have a kid or life insurance I would argue that the exemption was too low. I don't make $1,000,000 a year yet I strongly support Nancy Pelosi's compromise letter she sent to Boehner. It is possible to have an opinion on what is fair, and right and smart without having to have a personal connection. In the case of estate taxes, I also happen to have a potential stake.

It's called being honest and decent. Too bad they don't teach that in school.


You mean that people who think that the proposed level of estate tax is acceptable aren't money grubbing cocksuckers? You really should berate those fools who would make attacks like that on others who have disagreements with them about the exemption level. You should probably also have a stern talking to the type of poster who would come into a thread and immediately say that honest and decent discussion of that level is inappropriate and that their position is the end of thread. You must hate assholes like those people.
 
2012-07-20 12:24:00 PM  

ManRay:
But me dying does not change the government's claim on my property.



Person A, while alive, cuts a check to his cousin for $10,000,000.00.
His cousin claims the full $10,000,000 as income and pays taxes on it.

Person B, dies, leaving $10,000,000.00 to her cousin.
The cousin claims a deduction, and then pays taxes on it.


What is the moral difference? Both transactions involve a transfer of wealth from one individual to another. Those are always taxed.
 
2012-07-20 12:24:07 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: So you are saying someone who has the money and can actually ATTEND is no advantage over someone who doesn't have the money and CAN'T ATTEND.

see, what you said is that the wealthy were at an advantage to attend top tier schools when it should be based on merit. What I said is that it IS based on merit (unless you can buy your way in which $500k wouldn't do). Paying for it is another matter and I choose to believe that large sums of money shall be required. It isn't a sense of "entitlement" based on wealth. The "entitlement" to gain admission is based on merit. Ability to afford it is another matter. I'll choose to err on the side of "it's gonna cost a boatload of money" rather than the corvus method of hoping to ride a unicorn's rainbow fart to Cambridge.


How is it based on merit when someone with lower grades and SAT scores can attend while someone with better scores can not?

If you believe large sums of money is required then you are saying the US has a systemic problem that people do not have an opportunity to achieve success based on their own hard work unless they get this money?
 
2012-07-20 12:24:12 PM  

Headso: 1. that taxes are necessary for our society to function at the level it does.


of course. Don't hide behind hyperbole. Your alleged "hyperbole" completely mischaracterized the discussion. Ergo, you are a liar

Headso: 2. you are arguing for policy that would have you not pay a tax and your argument is based on morality.


at what I currently own, yes, our estate would avoid having to pay taxes

Headso: 3. others are arguing for the same thing but at a level that would have you pay for that tax and you call them "money grubbing cocksuckers"


that's because you are money grubbing cocksuckers. You think taxation is moral. You think more taxation is therefore more moral. Also, your morality is often based on "I hate people who have more than I do and therefore it is moral to take their stuff" - or at least that is the impression you brave proletariat warriors often give

I find taxes to be a necessarily evil.
 
2012-07-20 12:25:15 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Dude, STFU. You are the worst person to have on your side in the history of sides to be on.


Right I was totally wrong with the "Obamacare" is constitutional because it's a tax. I was TOTALLY wrong about that call.

Hahah
 
2012-07-20 12:26:32 PM  

Corvus: How is it based on merit when someone with lower grades and SAT scores can attend while someone with better scores can not?


there is a minimum standard for admission. If you meet that standard, you get to attend. If you attend you must pay for it.
Regular money doesn't get you in. Merit does.

Corvus: If you believe large sums of money is required then you are saying the US has a systemic problem that people do not have an opportunity to achieve success based on their own hard work unless they get this money?


It's not a case of "believing". Harvard is farking expensive. It is also a private institution so they kinda get to charge what they want. I am cool with this.
 
2012-07-20 12:26:59 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: 1. that taxes are necessary for our society to function at the level it does.

of course. Don't hide behind hyperbole. Your alleged "hyperbole" completely mischaracterized the discussion. Ergo, you are a liar

Headso: 2. you are arguing for policy that would have you not pay a tax and your argument is based on morality.

at what I currently own, yes, our estate would avoid having to pay taxes

Headso: 3. others are arguing for the same thing but at a level that would have you pay for that tax and you call them "money grubbing cocksuckers"

that's because you are money grubbing cocksuckers. You think taxation is moral. You think more taxation is therefore more moral. Also, your morality is often based on "I hate people who have more than I do and therefore it is moral to take their stuff" - or at least that is the impression you brave proletariat warriors often give

I find taxes to be a necessarily evil.


No we find competition and WORKING FOR YOUR OWN MONEY INSTEAD OF A HANDOUT is more moral.
 
2012-07-20 12:28:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: You mean that people who think that the proposed level of estate tax is acceptable aren't money grubbing cocksuckers? You really should berate those fools who would make attacks like that on others who have disagreements with them about the exemption level. You should probably also have a stern talking to the type of poster who would come into a thread and immediately say that honest and decent discussion of that level is inappropriate and that their position is the end of thread. You must hate assholes like those people.


if it were truly a matter of an honest opinion, no, you wouldn't be a money grubbing cocksucker. However, when you say things like "oh how will a child ever survive on $1.4mm. Oh, the horror!" as if that is somehow a valid argument for taxation, you enter cocksucker territory and you're the king of cocksuckertown
 
2012-07-20 12:29:37 PM  

Corvus: skullkrusher: Headso: 1. that taxes are necessary for our society to function at the level it does.

of course. Don't hide behind hyperbole. Your alleged "hyperbole" completely mischaracterized the discussion. Ergo, you are a liar

Headso: 2. you are arguing for policy that would have you not pay a tax and your argument is based on morality.

at what I currently own, yes, our estate would avoid having to pay taxes

Headso: 3. others are arguing for the same thing but at a level that would have you pay for that tax and you call them "money grubbing cocksuckers"

that's because you are money grubbing cocksuckers. You think taxation is moral. You think more taxation is therefore more moral. Also, your morality is often based on "I hate people who have more than I do and therefore it is moral to take their stuff" - or at least that is the impression you brave proletariat warriors often give

I find taxes to be a necessarily evil.

No we find competition and WORKING FOR YOUR OWN MONEY INSTEAD OF A HANDOUT is more moral.


I think thurston already explained to you, you don't speak for a "we"
 
2012-07-20 12:31:00 PM  

skullkrusher: Corvus: How is it based on merit when someone with lower grades and SAT scores can attend while someone with better scores can not?

there is a minimum standard for admission. If you meet that standard, you get to attend. If you attend you must pay for it.
Regular money doesn't get you in. Merit does.

Corvus: If you believe large sums of money is required then you are saying the US has a systemic problem that people do not have an opportunity to achieve success based on their own hard work unless they get this money?

It's not a case of "believing". Harvard is farking expensive. It is also a private institution so they kinda get to charge what they want. I am cool with this.


Wow, can you answer a farking question.

No it is believing. So you believe your child doesn't have a fair shot to make it in the US based on his hard work alone unless he goes to Harvard? Or do you feel Harvard is more an unfair advantage?

It is one or the other.

You can't say Harvard is a FAIR SHOT and also but only the rich to go unless you admit it is an unfair advantage for those well off.


Which is it?

If your child NEED to go to Harvard to be able to succeed on his merit then you are saying all poor people have no fair shot.

You are having it both ways.
 
2012-07-20 12:32:00 PM  

skullkrusher: holy crap - it's about time someone finally pointed out how much shame dimwit brings to the "left".
No surprise it was you, my good man.


He's been on my shiat list for a little while. I hate it when he and I share an opinion.

Disclaimer: I still disagree with you, just not strongly enough to act like you're stupid or make half-assed arguments full of CAPITALIZED words. I'm keeping quiet because no one should want to hear what a guy who didn't know life insurance got hit by estate tax has to say about this.
 
2012-07-20 12:32:16 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: 1. that taxes are necessary for our society to function at the level it does.

of course. Don't hide behind hyperbole.


but you respond to hyperbole... and then whine about the use of it, I made two posts saying simply that the taxes you are trying to get out of paying help pay for the societal infrastructure that your son would use. You ignored them. Then I posted the same thing using some more, uh, colorful verbiage and you immediately responded.

skullkrusher: "I hate people who have more than I do and therefore it is moral to take their stuff


The 5 million dollar man would same the exact same thing to you, after you told him you were hoping to leave less than 5MM to your son but you want anything over that taxed as an estate. You're his prole
 
2012-07-20 12:32:29 PM  

skullkrusher: Headso: You are whining about a bit of hyperbole after calling people who believe the estate tax is at the correct level "money grubbing cocksuckers"? You sound republican.

oh it was "hyperbole" now when the "hyperbole" was central to the point you were trying to make? Interesting.


How dare someone use hyperbole!

skullkrusher: no, corvus thinks my son should wok in a salt mine at 5 years of age. The little entitled welfare queen that he is.


You took my last tip gracefully, see if you can take this one. Never ever fakrking whine about shiat like this. It makes you not only look like a crybaby, it makes you look like a massive hypocrite because you are biatching about the exact things you yourself do. You can't literally call people "money grubbing cocksuckers" and then put on this "well, I never!" act.

You are way off the rails already in this thread. Now you can spend the rest of your work day having another classic skullkrusher meltdown, which I admit will probably be fun to read later when this thread has added a few more hundred posts, or you could do something useful. If you want to keep avoiding work you can spend some time researching estate planning since you seem very concerned about that. That will have the added benefit of next time this subject comes up and you can't resist arguing about it you will actually know something about it.
 
2012-07-20 12:33:18 PM  

Thrag: This complaint might have had some merit if you are not doing the exact same thing every few posts. You constantly assign thoughts and motives to people you disagree with. People saying that it seems like your motivation is to make it so the tax won't affect you is incredibly mild compared to what you constantly do.


I've seen enough posts from those I refer to to understand their mindset. Headso has seen me in enough tax threads to know that I am not opposed to taxation or harbor any belief that we don't need to pay for society. Therefore, he was being dishonest.


Thrag: If you are so worried about leaving a good inheritance to your kid perhaps you should not dedicate most of every single farking work day to being one of fark's biggest village idiots and apply yourself to your career instead. Sitting forever in a salaried job where you can obviously spend the majority of your time slacking off is affecting how much money you have far more than taxes ever will.


thanks for the advice. Perhaps you should take your own advice above - ya know, at least about assuming stuff. That would require some cognitive ability though - you're really only good at the meta meta arguments.

Sad for you.
 
2012-07-20 12:33:18 PM  

coeyagi: List of Sites That Spew Derp and Are Therefore Hurting America (LOSTSDAATHA)

-WorldNetDaily
-AmericanThinker
-TheDailyCaller
-Breitbart
-NationalReviewOnline
-Newsmax
-Townhall
-TheWashingtonTimes
-Redstate
-DrudgeReport
-FoxNews
-FreeRepublic
-StormFront

-AmericansForTaxReform


and MSNBC, for starters

/Let's add this Politics tab to the list as well (I know this place isnt news, so go away).
 
2012-07-20 12:34:05 PM  

skullkrusher: "I hate people who have more than I do and therefore it is moral to take their stuff"


hahahh you have no idea how much you sound like Corvus when you say stuff like this
 
2012-07-20 12:34:36 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: You mean that people who think that the proposed level of estate tax is acceptable aren't money grubbing cocksuckers? You really should berate those fools who would make attacks like that on others who have disagreements with them about the exemption level. You should probably also have a stern talking to the type of poster who would come into a thread and immediately say that honest and decent discussion of that level is inappropriate and that their position is the end of thread. You must hate assholes like those people.

if it were truly a matter of an honest opinion, no, you wouldn't be a money grubbing cocksucker. However, when you say things like "oh how will a child ever survive on $1.4mm. Oh, the horror!" as if that is somehow a valid argument for taxation, you enter cocksucker territory and you're the king of cocksuckertown


And your done. Time to stop posting and slink away.
 
2012-07-20 12:34:54 PM  

skullkrusher: if it were truly a matter of an honest opinion, no, you wouldn't be a money grubbing cocksucker. However, when you say things like "oh how will a child ever survive on $1.4mm. Oh, the horror!" as if that is somehow a valid argument for taxation, you enter cocksucker territory and you're the king of cocksuckertown


Oh my! Someone used mild sarcasm! Quick, get the fainting couch!

You really don't see how hilariously hypocritical this line of complaint makes you?
 
2012-07-20 12:34:55 PM  

Corvus: thurstonxhowell: Dude, STFU. You are the worst person to have on your side in the history of sides to be on.

Right I was totally wrong with the "Obamacare" is constitutional because it's a tax. I was TOTALLY wrong about that call.

Hahah


I really like mussels. I think I'm gonna have some mussels for lunch.

/ What? I thought we were throwing out non sequiturs.
 
2012-07-20 12:35:09 PM  

Thrag: Never ever fakrking whine about shiat like this.


wat

Corvus said the kid should work for his money, and the kid was previously established to be an infant. Either Corvus is an idiot and doesn't know what he's saying or Corvus knows what he's saying and he suggested an infant get a day job to pay for their own diapers. In which case he'd still be an idiot.
 
2012-07-20 12:36:16 PM  

Thrag: You took my last tip gracefully, see if you can take this one. Never ever fakrking whine about shiat like this. It makes you not only look like a crybaby, it makes you look like a massive hypocrite because you are biatching about the exact things you yourself do. You can't literally call people "money grubbing cocksuckers" and then put on this "well, I never!" act.


yeah. I find you and people like you contemptible. You are a sad little boy with a hardon for internet accolades. Honestly, it is apparent. I am sorry that my low opinion of you has such an adverse impact on your emotions.

Thrag: You are way off the rails already in this thread. Now you can spend the rest of your work day having another classic skullkrusher meltdown, which I admit will probably be fun to read later when this thread has added a few more hundred posts, or you could do something useful. If you want to keep avoiding work you can spend some time researching estate planning since you seem very concerned about that. That will have the added benefit of next time this subject comes up and you can't resist arguing about it you will actually know something about it.


I am sure you'll add some in-your-head awesome zinger at the end of it too. People will admire you for that. iHigh-fives all around for Thrag!

Pathetic acceptance whore
 
2012-07-20 12:37:20 PM  

Thrag: skullkrusher: if it were truly a matter of an honest opinion, no, you wouldn't be a money grubbing cocksucker. However, when you say things like "oh how will a child ever survive on $1.4mm. Oh, the horror!" as if that is somehow a valid argument for taxation, you enter cocksucker territory and you're the king of cocksuckertown

Oh my! Someone used mild sarcasm! Quick, get the fainting couch!

You really don't see how hilariously hypocritical this line of complaint makes you?


no, I don't. Try harder! People will like you!
 
2012-07-20 12:37:57 PM  

Jackson Herring: skullkrusher: "I hate people who have more than I do and therefore it is moral to take their stuff"

hahahh you have no idea how much you sound like Corvus when you say stuff like this


now THAT is an insult.

My apologies. It is the impression I get though.
 
Displayed 50 of 592 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report