Linux-Advocacy Digest #288, Volume #29 Sun, 24 Sep 00 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Bob Hauck)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Matthias
Warkus)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("PistolGrip")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (STATIC66)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:38:04 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 19:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david
raoul derbes) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes) writes:
>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> A fair number of pretty wealthy Americans pay *no tax whatsoever* in this
>>> >> country. There are all manner of tax shelters and dodges that wealthy
>>> >> people can avail themselves of, ...
>>> >
>>> >You make it sound so easy.
>>> >
>>> >If you truly understand this to be true, you can describe,
>>> >in simple English, the simple accounting to make this happen.
>>>
>>> I believe that a little research will reveal those lucky Americans who
>>> have a net wealth of several tens of millions who paid no tax, none,
>>> last year. How they did it I don't know; I am neither an accountant
>>> nor an attorney. People who are in a position to know (Cokie Roberts
>>> on ABC's "Sunday Morning" and Nina Totenberg on NPR) have said over
>>> the years that there are such people (not a hell of a lot, under
>>> a thousand), and I believe them.
>>>
>>> Try Nader's web site, or Google.
>>
>>Regardless, 5% of Americans paid 50% of the taxes last year and 60% of
>>Americans paid 10% of the taxes.
>
>Just out of curiosity, what percentage of the *income* did that same
>5% of Americans earn when they paid 50% of the taxes? I don't have
>an answer, but I'd sure be curious.
>
>>The very rich who pay no taxes are a rarity (although they should be
>>dealt with).
>
>I did not claim there were lots of these people; I suspect it is under
>five hundred individuals, and I'd bet the ranch it's under a thousand.
>But I'd also bet it's a ton of money that isn't taxed.
>
>Another poster (? Eric Bennett?) suggested a plausible scenario in which
>a family might own a farm worth a million or two, and have a simply
>disastrous year, in which the income was zero. That isn't so far fetched,
>but as someone who actually owns half of a family farm, I can tell you
>that even after three disastrously bad years, we are still paying
>income tax. It's a rare year when your income is zero. It might be
>not enough to cover a loan at the bank, but it ain't zero.
>>
>>How about an honest, progressive income tax and *nothing else* (no
>>property tax, no sales tax, no highway tax, no "sin" tax, etc.); then
>>the government would have to show how much we *really* pay in taxes
>>and it would be a lot more fair for lower-income people (who pay the
>>same sales tax as the ultra-rich).
So failing to succeed means you are entitled to a sales tax break??
EVERYONE SHOULD PAY THE SAME RATE.
>
>If you're talking about getting rid of sales tax (and by the way, this
>would be a very elegant way of dealing with the whole Internet tax
>problem, of buying something in New York but from a store in Washington,
>and so forth), that's a great idea. Better yet if we got rid of all,
>and I do mean *all*, exemptions. I do not regret the many, many thousands
>of dollars I pay the government every year. I am proud to live in this
>country, and the government needs money for the roads, the military,
>to support research, to deal with disasters, and to run the country.
>But I deeply resent the conservatively twenty hours it takes my very
>smart wife and me, with help from her father who used to work for H. & R.
>Block, to work out our tax every March and April.
Disasters are natures way of cleaning house. it is not the governments
responsibility to clean up. That should be done by the community on a
**VOLUNTARY** basis.
>
>I recognize that many of the exemptions are designed as "social engineering",
>for example, the government believes that citizens who own homes are
>somehow more likely to contribute to society (or something), and so
>it encourages, by means of the exemption for interest, people to
>take out mortgages and buy houses. Similarly someone in the government
>thinks that giving to charities is a public good, and so that too is
>an exemption.
"social engineering" doesn't sound like freedom to me..I remember a
certain austrian who had an "interest" in "social engineering"
>But people would buy houses and contribute to charities even without
>these exemptions, and it hardly seems fair to, in effect, ask the
>selfish to help pay for the gifts of the generous, or the poor,
>who despite Joe R.'s arguments, cannot purchase a house, to subsidize
>the exemptions of those who can.
Ever hear of HUD?? even though I think it should be abolished, it
helps low-income families buy homes, I have seen homes basically GIVEN
away to low-income people here locally.
>
>I like Forbes' idea: exempt everyone from the first 25 or 30K. After that,
>either a flat percentage (I think Forbes said 17% would do it; I don't
>really know) or a *gently* increasing rate from 10 to say 25% (whatever
>the economists think will do the job.)
Now I went hard on you earlier in the thread (rightly so, IMO) But
here in this one little paragraph, you are on the verge of
enlightenment. Forbes plan was Exactly what we need.. EVERYONE PAYS
THE SAME RATE...
>
>We need a fair tax code. Reasonable people of good intent will disagree
>about what this means, but here's mine: exempt the truly poor and the
>young, don't overburden the rich, don't allow for clever lawyers to find
>ways for the rich to avoid their responsibilities, and determine a fair share
>to be paid by those of us in the middle. I don't pretend to know what
>the right numbers are.
>
How is it more the responsibility of the rich than the poor?? We
should punish the hard working and the successful?? I don't think that
is "FAIR" . Maybe we should just surrender all control of assets and
currency to the government. we could call ourselves U.S.S.A. (united
socialist states of america)
A small percentage of the poor, have a real disability or condition
that may inhibit their ability to earn income.(They should receive
help from **their community**, It is not the job of the government.)
The rest can make their own *choices* as to what to do with their
lives. It is very much possible to build wealth. It takes hard work,
sacrifice, and discipline. This whole concept that there is only so
much money and the "rich" have it all is ridiculous.
There are too many people on the government tit. throwing money at a
problem doesn't solve it. (the last 7 years should illustrate that
nicely) People have no right, NO ENTITLEMENT to free money from the
government (Our tax dollars). The truly sad thing is that the more
worthless you make yourself the more you get for free from our
government.
>I think the real resentment with the taxes stems from two perceptions: a
>widespread (and I think accurate) perception that the code isn't fair,
>and a widespread (probably accurate) fear that much of the money is wasted.
>
Yes it is wasted...I saw a report recently that basically said that
the U.S dept of education had "lost" tens of BILLIONS of dollars. That
is to say it is UNACCOUNTED for. they were being investigated by a
congressional panel. A company had been hired to basically audit them,
but the records were so poorly kept, they didn't think an accurate
figure could be reached for the next 5 years. The agency didn't know
where all those tax dollars went. Additionally, the found thousands of
things the agency had overpaid two,three even five times.. there is no
accountability in the government.
I won't even go into the thousands of useless social programs that
need to be abolished.
I could come up with at least a dozen government agencies that need to
be abolished.
>David Derbes [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
>>--
>>The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
>>Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
>
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:40:00 GMT
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 20:02:41 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <LZep5.291$v3.3837@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(david raoul derbes) wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (david raoul derbes) writes:
>> >
>>
>> >The very rich who pay no taxes are a rarity (although they should be
>> >dealt with).
>>
>> I did not claim there were lots of these people; I suspect it is under
>> five hundred individuals, and I'd bet the ranch it's under a thousand.
>> But I'd also bet it's a ton of money that isn't taxed.
>
>But the number is insignificant, so your complaint is meaningless.
>
>>
>> Another poster (? Eric Bennett?) suggested a plausible scenario in which
>> a family might own a farm worth a million or two, and have a simply
>> disastrous year, in which the income was zero. That isn't so far fetched,
>> but as someone who actually owns half of a family farm, I can tell you
>> that even after three disastrously bad years, we are still paying
>> income tax. It's a rare year when your income is zero. It might be
>> not enough to cover a loan at the bank, but it ain't zero.
>
>ROTFLMAO.
>
>You need to learn the difference between "revenue" and "profit". If you
>don't bring in enough money to cover your bank loans, you didn't make
>any profit, so there's no income tax due.
>
>>
>> I think the real resentment with the taxes stems from two perceptions: a
>> widespread (and I think accurate) perception that the code isn't fair,
>> and a widespread (probably accurate) fear that much of the money is
>> wasted.
>
>Which is sufficient reason to not want the government to take any more
>of my money than necessary.
>
>There's a third reason, as well (partly a combination of the first two).
>Every time I sit down to do my taxes, it pisses me off that even with a
>PhD, it takes hours of sweating and numerous phone calls (followed by a
>final check with an accountant) to try to get things right. There's
>absolutely no reason for that level of complexity.
Ohh there's a reason...THEY ARE ROBBING YOU and trying (poorly) to
hide it in piles of paper.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:43:50 GMT
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 19:48:33 GMT, Yannick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 02:13:24 GMT, Mike Byrns
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Bob Hauck wrote:
>> >Multiple workspaces are a video driver fucntion.
>>
>> Not on Unix. It _shouldn't_ be on Windows either, IMO, but they didn't
>> ask me.
>Of course, having multiple desks by default would be nice and should not be
>difficult to implement.
The third-party developers of such things seem to have some difficulty,
judging by the readme files that come with them. There appear to be a
number of popular programs that do weird things that require special
handling. Perhaps MS could do a better job of it, them having the
source code to the GDI and all.
>But that does not mean you have to prevent it from optionnally being a
>video driver function, especially as you can provide more efficient
>scrolling desks that way.
Scrolling desktops are different from *multiple* desktops.
I don't see any reason why the latter should have to be a driver
function. Inasmuch as the X window managers seem to be more efficient
at switching desktops than any of the NT add-ons I've seen, there
doesn't seem to be an efficiency argument to be made here. It is only
recently that video cards started coming with enough RAM to hold more
than a couple desktops anyway.
OTOH, *scrolling* desktops do have to be in the driver to be efficient,
since that's the only way you can use the video card's RAM to hold the
off-screen portions of the desktop. And that's how it is done on X, in
the X server rather than the window manager.
>> >You *can* move the taskbar around and even add new bars to it.
>>
>> In which Windows? I think KDE may have beat them to that one. OS/2
>> did for sure.
>
>You can move the taskbar around since Windows 95 and Windows NT 4.
But later you say this is true only if you install IE4. Out-of-the-box
Win95 and NT4 do not do this, apparently. Another add-on eh? I'm not
seeing how all these add-ons are proving that KDE is merely a clone of
the Win95 interface.
>As for the classical bars (like before the IE4 upgrade), you always had the
>possibility to develop an application using a desktop bar since NT4 and
>Win95. It would have been a full-width (or full-height) bar, but could
>auto-hide too.
We were talking about user-level features that KDE supposedly borrowed
from Win95. You are talking about someone being able to write an
add-on to do what KDE does.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:44:21 GMT
On 24 Aug 2000 14:56:28 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> In article <LZep5.291$v3.3837@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> >
>> > Another poster (? Eric Bennett?) suggested a plausible scenario in which
>> > a family might own a farm worth a million or two, and have a simply
>> > disastrous year, in which the income was zero. That isn't so far fetched,
>> > but as someone who actually owns half of a family farm, I can tell you
>> > that even after three disastrously bad years, we are still paying
>> > income tax. It's a rare year when your income is zero. It might be
>> > not enough to cover a loan at the bank, but it ain't zero.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO.
>>
>> You need to learn the difference between "revenue" and "profit". If you
>> don't bring in enough money to cover your bank loans, you didn't make
>> any profit, so there's no income tax due.
>
>That's not correct.
>
>What if you buy a cadillac with the bank loans?
>
>> There's a third reason, as well (partly a combination of the first two).
>> Every time I sit down to do my taxes, it pisses me off that even with a
>> PhD, it takes hours of sweating and numerous phone calls (followed by a
>> final check with an accountant) to try to get things right. There's
>> absolutely no reason for that level of complexity.
>
>Just give up and pay an accountant to do it. :) (That's what I do
>and I have a minor in mathematics, a bachelors in CS and I'm in a
>masters program right now
Now theres a solution fitting to the times..."Just give up" ..U.S.S.A.
here we come......
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 10:47:26 -0500
In article <jzoz5.237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "PistolGrip"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
@> Nope, W2K hides it. I cna't get to it at all. I just get a disk
@> full error message when i try to log in.
@
@Then either you and/or your administrator has no clue what they are doing.
@I can assure you.
If you can be so sure I suppose you can tell us what the problem is?
@Dave
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:51:37 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 15:45:48 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andrew J.
Brehm) wrote:
>Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> One way is the method Ted Kennedy uses: the blind trust. Another way to
>> reduce your taxes is charitable contributions. If someone wants to argue
>> that Bill Gates should have given 22 billion dollars to the Government
>> rather than a charitable trust that actually gets results they should take
>> the argument elswhere.
>
>Can you provide statistics that show that charitable trusts provide
>better results than government spending welfare money?
>
>> These same news sources repeat the Democrat's mantra that getting rid of
>> inheritance taxes is "a tax break for the rich". I'm sure that the family
>> farms that are unable to break even because the people running them
>> inherited a huge tax bill that they will spend their lives trying to pay
>> off will disagree.
>
>I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
>seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
>live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
>farmers.
So to hell with the other families that earned their wealth?? their
future generations count less?? we are entitled to their money
because...
>
>> The fact is both sides are full of it. You want real progress and change
>> vote Libertarian.
>
>Oh yes, _change_ you will get. This is the sort of change that, if you
>propose it, will get you less than 1% of the popular vote.
>
>> One other thing, if you want to see what American government run health
>> care looks like, visit a VA hospital.
>
>If you want to see what government run health care looks like look at
>some statistics. You will see that for example Germans pay less than
>Americans (in percent of GDP) for health care, and interestingly enough
>everybody is covered by the system too.
ridiculous to try and compare us and Germany.
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 16:30:53 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:26:59 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>
>>> I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
>>> seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
>>> live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
>>> farmers.
>>
>>Inheritance taxes are a bit worse than that here.
>
>In the U.S., they take a big jump over $600,000. That isn't a very big
>farm. As with income tax, I'm for raising the starting level greatly,
>and increasing the progression. Our nation is simply so huge, that any
>person who gains great wealth within the society should rightly turn
>over a large proportion of their *income* (not their wealth; that's
>their property and the federal government has no right to it, though
>they'll have to negotiate with state or local governments who want to
>tax their property, rightly) to the government to support social
>services. It is the only efficient and assured way to provide for
>society's support of whatever allowed them to accumulate wealth.
NO NO NO...Basically you are saying that if I have 100 dollars and a
job and you have 1 dollar and no job, You are entitled to a portion
of my 100 dollars since you are unemployed..NO NO NO
It is not the job of the federal government to support (hear me now)
ANY social programs. That is the job of the (listen close) **THE
INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITY** ..Under your system we are all baby pigs
suckling on the tits of the bloated Federal mama pig...
You show me 1 "efficient" government agency. Fraud,waste and abuse is
the norm not the exception.
The government is "allowing" us to accumulate wealth now huh??
>
>I think the most egalitarian system might be to tax someone's *income*
>in proportion to their *capital* (wealth). What do you suppose would
>happen then? It might be a stupid idea, I think, but I haven't quite
>figured out why, yet. And to me that means there's probably a "unique
>perspective" hiding in the answer somewhere, one way or the other.
>
>The 'rugged individualist' libertarian mentality has often been observed
>to devolve into anarchism. But it is all too easily forgotten that
>without the civilization to support the ability of citizens to "earn"
>money, the wealthy would not have wealth. Outside of Aaron's
>philospher-king/begger idealism, every person deserves life, liberty,
>and the pursuit of happiness. And while libertarians and conservatives
>might still agree with Aaron that the Constitution does not support the
>welfare state, the fact is that it does. Yes, you have to *fund* the
>life, liberty, and even the pursuit of happiness for some disadvantaged
>people (including the stupid and the lazy both) in order to ensure the
>right to those things for those who are capable of "earning a living"
>(and by definition, anyone earning a living is capable of doing so, and
>anyone who is not doing so is, for some reason you haven't yet
>identified or discovered, not capable of doing so).
Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness do not require "funding".
There is nothing "rugged" about being disciplined, and hard working.
The majority of the poor seem to lack those two essential traits,
therefore fail to realize wealth.
>
>You might discount the Supreme Court, philosophers, and public servants
>all as self-serving and far-left in recognizing that the welfare state
>is a just and fundamental purpose of government. But then you seem to
>simply be ignoring the advice of all the people you rely on to give you
>the right answer, because you didn't like the answer. It should be
>obvious that it isn't because the answer is not correct, but solely
>because it isn't the one you wanted to hear. Because in our reasoning,
>we are all "rugged individualists", but in our hearts, we're all social
>beings. "Give a monkey a brain, and he'll swear he's the center of the
>universe."
"in our hearts, we're all social beings."
exactly why "social" programs and "welfare" are better left to the
community to provide. I would say that I am infinitely more qualified
to decide how I might help my neighbor than a policy making,money
spending suit in government. And you can bet your ass I would not
continue to hand out money or services to him if he is not making an
effort to help himself.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:45:35 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 24 Sep 2000 03:23:41 GMT...
...and Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the quest to make Linux more friendly
> for non-geeks, no one is even hinting at removing any of its power. In
> fact, it is moving handily in both directions along with fifty others.
> There isn't an "either / or" choice here.
May I add this to ~mawa/signatures?
mawa
--
Taschenkammträger!
Discozulautfinder!
Hermann-Hesse-Leser!
Schrankwandbesitzer!
------------------------------
From: "PistolGrip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 11:31:31 -0500
"Bryant Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <jzoz5.237$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "PistolGrip"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> @> Nope, W2K hides it. I cna't get to it at all. I just get a disk
> @> full error message when i try to log in.
> @
> @Then either you and/or your administrator has no clue what they are
doing.
> @I can assure you.
>
> If you can be so sure I suppose you can tell us what the problem is?
Sure, if I could look at it. I manage 100+ Win2000 machines and there is
definitely something wrong with your setup, not the OS.
Dave
------------------------------
From: STATIC66 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 16:35:26 GMT
On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 20:28:26 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> david raoul derbes wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <1efxfht.4xtbz1uyehb2N@[192.168.0.144]>,
>> > Andrew J. Brehm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >Donavon Pfeiffer Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >I don't know how inheritance tax is implemented in the US, but to me it
>> > >seems unlikely that a family farm would be bothered with it. Where I
>> > >live inheritance tax starts way above the level where it could trouble
>> > >farmers.
>> >
>> > You are very much mistaken.
>> >
>> > At the age of 68, my mother had to find 480,000 US to pay the government
>> > for her sister and brother in law's farm. To be fair to the government,
>> > she had ten years to pay it off. She managed, but it wasn't easy.
>> >
>> > She died about two months ago, and now my sister and I get to repeat
>> > the process.
>> >
>> > And yet, I think that we need the inheritance tax. Those who think the
>> > inheritance tax is some sort of wicked thing should perhaps read
>> > Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the subject.
>>
>> No. We need to eliminate the inheritance tax (PRECISELY for the
>> reasons described above), and replace it with a sales tax.
>
>No, we need to have exceptions to the inheritance tax to allow family
>farms or family businesses up to a certain value to be passed along.
>
>If you're so against handouts, why do you support the multimillion
>dollar handouts rich parents pass along to their children?
Talk about a weak argument.
You don't have children do you??
Building a future for your children is to be equated with supporting
deadbeats?? I don't think so.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
