![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aggienaut One of the 30 in 30 entries I traditionally make is one where I make controversial political statements, since here at Emosnail we usually take a very uncontroversial centrist approach to things. And so, prepare to know the truth about which side of the political spectrum I'm really a radical of.
Estate Taxes
BACKGROUND: Currently, when you die, your assets are taxed as they transfer to your beneficiaries. This is sometimes called the "death tax," but more often euphemistically the "estate tax." In 2002 the highest rate of estate tax charged by the federal government was 50%, but the Republican administration has shaped plans to wittle that all teh way down to 45% by 2009, at which point it will suddenly completely disappear. Despite the current maximum of 50%, there are a number of factors which can reduce it, so in effect it never exceeds more than 23% currently.
The basic competing philosophies are that one should be free to do with their money as they will, including passing it on intact to their heirs (thus against the tax), or that no one should be given an unfair advantage in life because of the successes of their forefather (in favour of the tax).
OPINION: I believe one should be able to pass things on to their children, as it is a very basic human aspiration to provide for one's children, but this should not lead to dynasties and benefits to successive generations. Therefore the effective rate of estate tax should be set somewhere in excess of 50% so it would only leave marginal amounts after successive transfers. The money collected in tax from this however, should entirely be given over to education, so those who die with vast fortunes will in fact benefit the education of their entire community. Also, as in the current system, a certain base amount of assets will not be taxed at all so that those who are middle class and below don't leave their heirs with pittance.
Additionally however, I like the idea of heirlooms and would find it upsetting if I devised a system that would render people unable to say pass down the family farm that they have owned for generations. As such, I would say land and other important heirlooms could be withheld from the sum taxed, with the condition that if it is EVER sold the seller will have to pay the requisite (50%+) sum of the proceeds in estate taxes as if the transaction was occuring at the same time the inheritance had rolled over. There should be a limit to the amount of land this can apply to however, as I'm unsympathetic to the urge to pass huge tracts of territory on to successors.
Obviously there are other details and fiats to be worked out to make it a comprehensive system, but thats the general idea.
Cigarrette Elimination
BACKGROUND: So cigarrette smoking is a blight on our society, but if we eliminate it now thousands of addicted persons will be left unsatiated and angsty, cigarette manufacturers would be out of jobs, and those shady cigarette CEOs would have to find something else to suddenly plunge all their money into (and I'm betting they'll retain their aptitude for shady business).
OPINION: So I say gradually eliminate cigarette smoking through a gradually increasing minimum smoking age. That way the industry will be gradually eliminated as their customers die off (and maybe they'd even suddenly find a need to keep their customers alive!). Currently the smoking age in California is 18. I say every two years raise the minimum age one year (If it were one for one you'd have a set of people perpetually unable to smoke while those just slighlty older could). And do this at the same rate throughout the United States.
So there you have it. Incidently, my nation on nationstates.net, The Glorious Dominion of Blehtahepdakorum, is just slightly too liberal on economic rights (/haven't stamped them out completely) to have the rating of psychotic dictatorship. (Currently its rated as iron-fist consumerist) Hopefully I'll be able to legislate the Dominion back to psychotic status soon.
Location: Olson 21
Current Music: people rustling
Current Mood: peckish
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-09 01:17 am (UTC)I favor a minimum age of 21 on alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. Just high enough to make things a little harder on high schoolers. This policy is not identical to yours; I'm sorry that we are mortal enemies now.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-09 05:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-09 03:32 am (UTC)spoof edition
Date: 2005-06-09 05:23 am (UTC)Someone should scan the spoof edition and put it online, because (A) its teh awesome, (B) its all about Daviswiki, and (C) I want to link to something that shows my mention.
Seriously though this years spoof edition it the best attempt at published humour I've seen here, leaving past editions and the sneeze with their penis jokes way way in the dust.
Re: spoof edition
Date: 2005-06-09 05:26 pm (UTC)Some statistics:
Rob Roy's name was mentioned 13 times in the spoof edition.
Thomas Lloyd's name was mentioned 1 time.
Kalen Gallagher's name was mentioned 1 time.
Paloma Perez' name was mentioned 3 times.
Incidentally, The Aggie's issues that they'll concentrate on next year included the Entertainment Council. The Aggie is finally entering the level of mainstream journalism, where entertainment = news.
By and large, I have been quite impressed with The Aggie this year, and especially with their spoof edition.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-09 05:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-09 06:31 pm (UTC)In other words, assume you earn $100,000, of which the federal government would take somewhere in the neighborhood of 30%. You conscientiously pay your taxes and have $70,000 left. You take that $70,000 and invest it wisely for a number of years, do very well, and turn it into $700,000. The government will again tax the capital gains at about 20%, leaving you about $575,000. At this point, government has already taken away $155,000 of your money.
Now here's where the putridity of the death tax lies. You can take your $575,000 and spend it on alcohol, gambling, even prostitution (in Nevada) without incurring any sort of punitive treatment from the government. But God forbid you leave that money to your children, in which case the government will come in and take up to HALF of that money away from them.
The death tax is an absolutely despicable predatory exercise of power by the government and nothing less.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-10 08:23 am (UTC)In these cases, you are taking part in a market transaction inwhich someone is providing a service, and sometimes someone is being serviced. By rewarding the sellers, you encourage others to produce similar products/services, which are clearly valued.
Your children however have done nothing to earn the money, and rewarding them will not encourage further production in valued goods. When I see casinos getting lots of money I think, "gee, maybe I should start a casino business, and as the casinos with magicians are making more money I think I'll get a streat magician to do a stage show." When I see someone inherit a lot of money, what am I to think? "Gee, I think I'll go out and start a business that involves me being born rich..."
earning that inheretence
Date: 2005-06-10 08:00 pm (UTC)