Miss America will return to Atlantic City, but her famous song will not

[J]

Let's face it , the song sucked anyhow. Something a lot more upbeat
and sexy is needed ( any suggestions ?). While they're at it, the
competitions should be limited to 3 categories; (1) evening gown
competition. (2) swimsuit contest, and (3) bikini trampoline jumping.
The pageant should eliminate the talent portion and the interview;
nobody really gives a damn. "Miss America" needs to get back to it's
basics; that it's a beauty contest.

You can bet that if my advice is followed, the show will enjoy a
renaissance and set record t.v. rating









http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/press/atlantic_city/miss-america-song-cut-from-pageant-amid-dispute-over-rights/article_09c62848-11a7-5a50-8e13-7392bbf0db3b.html









When Miss America 2014 is crowned in Atlantic City on Sept. 15, she
will not be serenaded by the iconic song that has been part of almost
every pageant since 1955.

The song “Miss America,” best known by its opening line “There she is,
Miss America,” is no longer included in the pageant, Miss America
Organization Vice President Sharon Pearce confirmed. She said in an
email that no decision has been made on the final musical selection.

The omission appears to stem from a lawsuit filed by the deceased
songwriter Bernie Wayne’s wife, Phyllis, in April 2012. She accused
the pageant of using the song without the proper license in both 2011
and 2012.







J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

Honesty. Decency. Integrity

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <vtuoo8t46gcafofh7...@4ax.com>,

J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Let's face it , the song sucked anyhow. Something a lot more upbeat
> and sexy is needed ( any suggestions ?). While they're at it, the
> competitions should be limited to 3 categories; (1) evening gown
> competition. (2) swimsuit contest, and (3) bikini trampoline jumping.

Sexist much?

> The pageant should eliminate the talent portion and the interview;
> nobody really gives a damn. "Miss America" needs to get back to it's
> basics; that it's a beauty contest.

Except that they say it is NOT a beauty contest.

--

JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Adam H. Kerman]

Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

>>Let's face it , the song sucked anyhow. Something a lot more upbeat
>>and sexy is needed ( any suggestions ?). While they're at it, the
>>competitions should be limited to 3 categories; (1) evening gown
>>competition. (2) swimsuit contest, and (3) bikini trampoline jumping.

>Sexist much?

You want to see male beauty pageant contestants wearing evening gowns?

>>The pageant should eliminate the talent portion and the interview;
>>nobody really gives a damn. "Miss America" needs to get back to it's
>>basics; that it's a beauty contest.

>Except that they say it is NOT a beauty contest.

I object to your punch line.

[WrongWayWade]

J wrote:
> Let's face it , the song sucked anyhow. Something a lot more upbeat
> and sexy is needed ( any suggestions ?). While they're at it, the
> competitions should be limited to 3 categories; (1) evening gown
> competition. (2) swimsuit contest, and (3) bikini trampoline jumping.
> The pageant should eliminate the talent portion and the interview;
> nobody really gives a damn. "Miss America" needs to get back to it's
> basics; that it's a beauty contest.
>
> You can bet that if my advice is followed, the show will enjoy a
> renaissance and set record t.v. rating

But, but, but.... it's a SCHOLARSHIP contest!!

[BTR1701]

In article <vtuoo8t46gcafofh7...@4ax.com>,
J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:

> When Miss America 2014 is crowned in Atlantic City on Sept. 15, she
> will not be serenaded by the iconic song that has been part of almost
> every pageant since 1955.
>
> The song “Miss America,” best known by its opening line “There she is,
> Miss America,” is no longer included in the pageant, Miss America
> Organization Vice President Sharon Pearce confirmed. She said in an
> email that no decision has been made on the final musical selection.
>
> The omission appears to stem from a lawsuit filed by the deceased
> songwriter Bernie Wayne’s wife, Phyllis, in April 2012. She accused
> the pageant of using the song without the proper license in both 2011
> and 2012.

And a big thanks to copyright law once again for chipping away just a
little bit more at our culture.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I'm not sure what the issue was. How was this song not a work for hire?
Seems like some lawyer fucked this up big time decades ago.

Nevertheless, the true purpose of copyright law is to encourage the
deceased songwriter to keep writing music!

[BTR1701]

In article <kmiusa$kq6$3...@news.albasani.net>,

Or to encourage his/her descendants to... well, I'm not sure what.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <kmiusa$kq6$3...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

I recall that, long ago (maybe 1968 or so), there was some problem
about the rights to the song, and it was doubtful whether things could
be resolved in time for that year's broadcast. They were, and so they
did that song and the lesser effort the pageant had ordered up to
replace it. I suppose whatever problems exist now stem from that
long-ago settlement.

The song wasn't a work for hire, but the songwriter wanted more money
for it when the contract to use it expired, as the song had become
popular.

BTW I had no idea they were still going through the motions on Miss
America. I'll bet the demos are worse than they are for those Lawrence
Welk reruns on PBS.

[Adam H. Kerman]

. . . to not work! Just like eliminating inheritance taxes.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-0EFDEC...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

Well, to sue to make sure she can license the song to ... the other Miss
America pageants ...

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Adam H. Kerman]

Well, I simply don't understand why it would have been written at all if
it wasn't to be used to serenade the beauty pageant winner. If there was
some horrible contract problem and the pageant never did own it, why didn't
they commission another song decades ago and dump this song?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kmj38u$vom$2...@news.albasani.net>,

Grrr. Inheritance taxes absolutely need to be eliminated.

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-63DE5...@news.easynews.com>,

Never understood the logic of them (other than just another chance for
the government to take what doesn't belong to it).

The person who died already paid taxes on that money. Why should his/her
death suddenly trigger a whole new slew of taxes on it?

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

It's one of the few taxes that, by its very nature, does no economic
harm. Income taxes tax work. Even the tax on so-called unearned income is
still a tax on work, as you're lending your earnings to someone else
for business reasons when you buy stocks and bonds. Excise taxes and sales
taxes tax legitimate business transactions, but we treat them like
sin taxes.

If a decendant has less money to play with from an enormous estate, it's
simply not bad for the economy.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-EFD9EC...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

And why should you lose the family home because you have to come up with
a percentage of it's value in dollars? You can't just hand over the
living room and guest bath ...

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kmjaah$eia$4...@news.albasani.net>,

Except to the people it harms.

Income taxes tax work. Even the tax on so-called unearned income is
> still a tax on work, as you're lending your earnings to someone else
> for business reasons when you buy stocks and bonds. Excise taxes and sales
> taxes tax legitimate business transactions, but we treat them like
> sin taxes.

This is simply a death tax, penalizing you for dying, and taking it out
on your survivors.

>
> If a decendant has less money to play with from an enormous estate, it's
> simply not bad for the economy.

Except for the part where it's bad for the economy.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Children of the wealthy don't get harmed by inheriting less, not in a
way that I care about. I don't know who you think gets harmed. For decades,
there have been rules for transferring ongoing businesses and farms
intact, so that one's always been a red herring. There are rules about
tax-free transfers between husband and wife, and very generous exemptions
on smaller estates.

>>Income taxes tax work. Even the tax on so-called unearned income is
>>still a tax on work, as you're lending your earnings to someone else
>>for business reasons when you buy stocks and bonds. Excise taxes and
>>sales taxes tax legitimate business transactions, but we treat them
>>like sin taxes.

>This is simply a death tax, penalizing you for dying, and taking it out
>on your survivors.

Better a tax on estates than a tax on earned income. The latter does
genuine economic harm.

>>If a decendant has less money to play with from an enormous estate, it's
>>simply not bad for the economy.

>Except for the part where it's bad for the economy.

Fewer Ferraris sold is about all I can think of.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <kmj3jo$vom$3...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman

Well, I've dug into this and I have an answer: The song wasn't written
for the pageant. It was licensed.

From
<http://www.classicthemes.com/50sTVThemes/themePages/missAmericaPageant.
html> or

<http://goo.gl/3aZB0>

Main Theme: "Miss America!"

[aka: "There She Is, Miss America!";

The first appearance of the song most associated with this pageant was
not on the "Miss America" broadcast itself. The song was introduced in a
fictionalized drama about a contestant called "The Miss America Story"
that aired on NBC's series "Philco Television Playhouse." The play
starred Johnny Desmond and Lee Meriwether playing herself. Desmond
played the Master of Ceremonies, and sang the song in the TV play.*

In September, 1955 the "Miss America" pageant was broadcast for the 2nd
year coast-to-coast; so changes were made to make it better for
television; One change: the host of the radio/TV quiz show "Stop The
Music" named Bert Parks, was hired to be the M.C. for the pageant. Parks
sang the song written for the "Philco Playhouse" on the pageant itself
-- a case of life imitating art. And his schmaltzy rendition became a
tradition -- almost a TV cliché over the years.

Musical conductor-arranger Glenn Osser also began a long association
with the pageant in that same year.

The composer of the song was honored in memoriam by "The Bernie Wayne
Scholarship for the Performing Arts", established in 1993 as part of the
"Miss America" contest.

After Bert Parks left the show, other M.C.'s tried but were not
successful in matching his open-voiced tenor performance of this old
warhorse.]

Composer: Bernard ("Bernie") Wayne (BMI)

Orig. Publisher: Bernie Wayne Music (BMI)

2005 Publisher: Bernie Wayne Music (BMI) div. of Spirit Music Group of
New York, NY

Unpublished Copyright Date: Sep. 21, 1954; Eu 372 145. Unpublished
Renewal Date: Jan. 21, 1982; RE-116-089.

Published Copyright Date: Sep. 6, 1955; EP 93 039. Published Renewal
Date: Jan. 6, 1983; RE-161-134.

* * *

*Notes on the above from Professor Bubba: Lee Meriwether was Miss
America 1955, which the above doesn't make clear, so this show was a
dramatization of the pageant she'd won. The episode of Philco
Television Playhouse they're talking about was broadcast on 4 September
1955, a little less than a year after Lee won on 11 September 1954.
(The 1955 pageant had been held the night before the Philco broadcast.
That one was won by Sharon Ritchie, who never became famous on her own.
BTW Sharon's son Stephen died in the WTC on 9/11.)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Thanks for looking that up. I'm still befuddled, because you'd think it
would have been a work for hire for the producer of the made-for-tv movie,
which itself was licensed from the pageant.

>*Notes on the above from Professor Bubba: Lee Meriwether was Miss
>America 1955, which the above doesn't make clear, so this show was a

>dramatization of the pageant she'd won. . . .

I remember that Miss Meriwether won. If you list the number of truly
talented beauty pageant contestant winners, it's a pretty short list.

Miss Meriwether, Vanessa L. Williams (later fired)

I'm stuck for a third.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <kmjof5$bdk$3...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman

So am I, but I admit I haven't thought about it much. There were a
fair number who became early-TV celebrities, such as To Tell the Truth
panelist Marilyn Van Derbur, and a few have built TV careers of other
sorts (Tawny Godin, Phyllis George, Terry Meeuwsen, Gretchen Carlson),
but there haven't been any breakouts such as Lee Meriwether and Vanessa
Williams.

The most recent winner I've even heard of is Leanza Cornett, and she
won all the way back in 1992. This thing is just not on the public
agenda anymore, and it hasn't been for quite some time.

BTW, a correction: The 1956 pageant was broadcast on September 10,
1955. I've since found out that they held it on the Monday after Labor
Day during those years.

[J]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 22:42:42 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <vtuoo8t46gcafofh7...@4ax.com>,
> J <jdyo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's face it , the song sucked anyhow. Something a lot more upbeat
>> and sexy is needed ( any suggestions ?). While they're at it, the
>> competitions should be limited to 3 categories; (1) evening gown
>> competition. (2) swimsuit contest, and (3) bikini trampoline jumping.
>
>Sexist much?
>
>
>> The pageant should eliminate the talent portion and the interview;
>> nobody really gives a damn. "Miss America" needs to get back to it's
>> basics; that it's a beauty contest.
>
>Except that they say it is NOT a beauty contest.

If it's not a beauty contest, why has there never been a fat, ugly
contestant? They may not all be Kate Upton but you'll never see a
Rosie O'Donnell.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <kmjko9$5dm$3...@news.albasani.net>,

Then eat shit and die.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <100520131703572189%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>,

Thank you for not only doing the math, but showing your work.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ok Fred.

[William December Starr]

In article <atropos-EFD9EC...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Grrr. Inheritance taxes absolutely need to be eliminated.
>
> Never understood the logic of them (other than just another chance
> for the government to take what doesn't belong to it).
>
> The person who died already paid taxes on that money. Why should
> his/her death suddenly trigger a whole new slew of taxes on it?

Why shouldn't it? I asked you back in January:

-------- [ *cut_here* ] -----------------------------------------

In article <atropos-F95C94...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
>> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>
>>> Why should it be? All those assets-- the money and the things
>>> that were purchased with the money-- were already taxed. Why is
>>> it taken as axiomatic that just because you die, the government
>>> suddenly gets to come in and take another massive chunk of your
>>> property away from you and your family? They already had their
>>> bite of the apple the first time around.
>>
>> For the same reason that it's axiomatic that money must only be
>> taxed once at most.
>
> Yes, a person's right to his/her own property *is*
> axiomatic. Strange that you don't seem to think so.

I can see that as supporting an argument that money must be taxed
_zero_ times, but once the principle of taxation is accepted, what's
the argument for taxing it only once?

(Which is worse to you:

1. the state taxes your dollar at 5%, then comes back and
taxes the remaining 95 cents at 5% again, or

2. the state taxes your dollar only once, at 15%?)

-------- [ *cut_here* ] -----------------------------------------

-- wds

[Mason Barge]

You know, we are close enough on this issue to start an organization!
I'll do the website and the legal work, to boot.

[Micky DuPree]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) writes:

> In article <atropos-EFD9EC...@news-europe.giganews.com>,
> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

>> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>> Inheritance taxes absolutely need to be eliminated.
>>
>> Never understood the logic of them (other than just another chance
>> for the government to take what doesn't belong to it).
>>
>> The person who died already paid taxes on that money. Why should
>> his/her death suddenly trigger a whole new slew of taxes on it?

> Why shouldn't it? I asked you back in January:

The argument makes it sound like it's the money itself being
discriminated against. I can hear a dollar bill protesting, "You
already taxed me once. This is double jeopardy!"

The processes of economic transaction, economic transformation, and
economic transfer have long been considered potential points of
taxation. By the logic of "you can't tax it more than once," only
brand-new money/wealth entering an economy could ever be taxed. Given
the moral hazard of unearned wealth and the dynastic concentration of
wealth, inheritance tax has been a sensible policy choice with the
increasing democratization in the west.

However, I think it would make more sense to shift inheritance tax from
being levied on an estate to being a special lifetime category of
individual income tax. To illustrate, there are qualitative as well as
quantitative differences between a million-dollar estate being inherited
by a single heir versus that same million-dollar estate being inherited
equally by ten heirs. In the first case, the heir is probably looking
at a quite comfortable income for life without working, while in the
second case, the heirs can maybe afford a mortgage for the first time
and entrance to the middle class.

It's not unreasonable for people to want to provide for their loved
ones. It should be possible, given the cost of living, to figure out a
sum ($250,000? $400,000? Exceptions for debt and medical expenses?
The exact figure is what bean counters are for.) that every adult
individual would be eligible to inherit during his lifetime without
taxation. This would provide for the maintenance of loved ones and the
buoyancy of the middle and working classes. In the oft-cited case of
land-rich, cash-poor family farms, it would allow a family of heirs to
keep the family farm without having to sell it to pay the inheritance
tax. Only when an individual has exceeded that pre-calculated sum of
inheritance would the balance (and any future inheritances) be subject
to taxation.

The financial maintenance of minor children and disabled adults is
different, of course, and shouldn't be deducted from their lifetime
inheritance income exemption.

-Micky

[Mason Barge]

I agree, and I'd add this, although it actually is not in my own best
interest.

The problem with gutting the inheritance tax is that we are killing
the American dream. Along with taxing dividends and capital gains at
heavily preferred rates to earned income, we are essentially rewarding
people who inherit money and punishing those who want to rise up from
poverty.

We pontificate about how the poor should get jobs and "this is
America" and stuff, but the truth of the matter is that our government
now protects the aristocracy and punishes the meritorious person who
wasn't born with a lot.

[BTR1701]

In article <knsr1q$pk7$1...@pcls6.std.com>,

MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

> The processes of economic transaction, economic transformation, and
> economic transfer have long been considered potential points of
> taxation.

Hell, they don't even need those points. California just passed an
income tax that goes back *retroactively*. You suddenly don't just owe
higher taxes on this year's income, you have to go back and pay extra
taxes on several previous years that you thought you were already done
with, and woe be it to you if you did something silly and spent that
money, thinking hilariously that your tax bill had been paid and the
rest was yours to do with as you like.

> By the logic of "you can't tax it more than once," only
> brand-new money/wealth entering an economy could ever be taxed. Given
> the moral hazard of unearned wealth

LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.

> In the first case, the heir is probably looking
> at a quite comfortable income for life without working

And of course the goal is to stop that at all costs, huh? Given how
morally hazardous that is and all...

A receding tide lowers all boats to the bottom and all that...

> It's not unreasonable for people to want to provide for their loved
> ones.

But not too much. We don't want them making their loved ones too
comfortable. That just wouldn't be fair.

[BTR1701]

In article <mue4q854qotllemfc...@4ax.com>,

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree, and I'd add this, although it actually is not in my own best
> interest.
>
> The problem with gutting the inheritance tax is that we are killing
> the American dream. Along with taxing dividends and capital gains at
> heavily preferred rates to earned income, we are essentially rewarding
> people who inherit money and punishing those who want to rise up from
> poverty.
>
> We pontificate about how the poor should get jobs and "this is
> America" and stuff, but the truth of the matter is that our government
> now protects the aristocracy and punishes the meritorious person who
> wasn't born with a lot.

The only proper and moral purpose of taxation (which is essentially the
taking of citizens' property by force) is to pay to fund the government.
That's it.

Not to set social policy, reward some, punish others, encourage this, or
discourage that, e.g., all these taxes to discourage smoking, or
drinking, or sugary foods. Or to encourage people to commute a certain
way.

As long as what I'm doing is legal, it's none of the government's
business in the first place, let alone to levy taxes to try and force me
to change my perfectly legal behavior. If I'm breaking no laws, it's
certainly not the proper place of government to use its taxing authority
to economically force me to something I don't want to do, or to refrain
from something I have every right to do.

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:21 PM:

The second sentence of my reply will list all of the things that I take
exception to in terms of what you just wrote.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I was wondering if you could give me some advice on how to handle
stress." -- Norma Bates, BATES MOTEL

[Jim G.]

BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:

> In article <knsr1q$pk7$1...@pcls6.std.com>,
> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>> Given
>> the moral hazard of unearned wealth
>
> LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.

Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
someone else's "fair share" should be.

[Mason Barge]

On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:27:27 -0500, "Jim G."
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
>> In article <knsr1q$pk7$1...@pcls6.std.com>,
>> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>
>>> Given
>>> the moral hazard of unearned wealth
>>
>> LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.
>
>Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
>else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
>someone else's "fair share" should be.

It's a technical term in the tax code. In the 1970s when the top
marginal tax rate was around 75-80%, there was a cap on earned income
at 50%.

And don't look at me when you start talking about "fair share". I'm
all for people getting rich. I just don't like favoring inherited
income over earned income.

[Mason Barge]

Well, I thought the concept of progressive income tax had been a
reasonable and widely-accepted compromise between the "my money"
chest-pounders and the commies. It doesn't bother me to pay a little
more, anyway.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <knts6n$707$9...@dont-email.me>,

+1

[Adam H. Kerman]

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:

>>MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>>>Given the moral hazard of unearned wealth

>>LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.

>Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
>else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
>someone else's "fair share" should be.

If you inherit money, you haven't earned it. It is unearned.

[BTR1701]

In article <knupft$pq0$4...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

If you're on a reality show, you haven't earned that money, either. Yet
it isn't taxed that way.

[trotsky]

...said the anonyshit. Oh my God, you broke the hypocrisy meter again!


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[Adam H. Kerman]

You're performing actual work. Of course those are earnings. The other
contestants are uncompensated.

[Obveeus]

Actually, I think all contestants are compensated for their 'work' at some
fairly minimal rate while the big winners at the end are given 'prize
money'. One of the resulting problems is that the production studio doesn't
properly take out taxes before distributing 'prize money' they way it would
have to for the contract work / scale pay so you have people like Richard
Hatch spending their loot and then getting in big trouble when Uncle Sam
comes to collect his share later.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I'll accept that the other contest participants earn something. The winner's
prize is ordinary income. There is withholding on ordinary income. Any of
these contestants would have been required to give the producer a W-4 (and the
California equivalent) to identify name, address, and Social Security Number
for tax purposes. FICA/HI (Social Security Old-Age Pension and Medicare
taxes) would have been withheld, too.

If one is underwithheld, then one is required to pay quarterly estimated
taxes. Now, if one's income is substantially higher this year than the
previous year, there are "safe harbors" for being underwithheld and
there aren't penalties and interest for not having made estimated tax
payments. But taxes are still due April 15.

You're wrong about Hatch's tax problems. The contest didn't take place in
Los Angeles, but Borneo, in the part controlled by Malaysia. They were
subject to Malaysian tax laws, whatever those are, and as Hatch is a United
States citizen, he's obliged to report his worldwide earnings. Unless
provisions of a tax treaty apply, there's no US withholding on foreign
earnings. Unless provisions of a tax treaty apply, the taxpayer pays taxes
to the foreign tax administration, and pays US taxes on all foreign earnings,
but receives a credit for foreign taxes paid or accrued. Some states tax
worldwide income as well, although residency rules apply. Hatch may have been
in Borneo long enough that he may have been able to argue that he wasn't a
resident of his home state and would have filed his state taxes based on
part year residency, while still being required to report everything.

Furthermore, it wasn't just that Hatch hadn't paid his taxes. He hadn't
filed. If he'd filed a reasonably accurate return, he would have faced
penalties and interest for unpaid taxes, but not criminal charges for
late payment of taxes.

The only thing the producer may have screwed up was not withholding
Malaysian taxes if required.

Now, a Jeopardy! winner works at the television studio in the United States,
so federal, state, and FICA/HI taxes will have been withheld. He may have
to screw with an additional state tax return and seek a refund or get a
credit on the tax return of his home state, depending on interstate tax
agreements, but he's unlikely to have been substantially underwithheld.

[BTR1701]

In article <knvn4p$9td$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
> >>>>MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
> >>>>>Given the moral hazard of unearned wealth
>
> >>>>LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.
>
> >>>Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
> >>>else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
> >>>someone else's "fair share" should be.
>
> >>If you inherit money, you haven't earned it. It is unearned.
>
> > If you're on a reality show, you haven't earned that money, either.
> > Yet it isn't taxed that way.
>
> You're performing actual work.

No you're not. You're just going about your daily life while people film
it.

[See what happens when you start presuming to decide what income is
earned and what isn't?]

[BTR1701]

In article <knvnvi$js2$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>

wrote:

> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
> >>>>>MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>Given the moral hazard of unearned wealth
> >
> >>>>>LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.
> >
> >>>>Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
> >>>>else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
> >>>>someone else's "fair share" should be.
> >
> >>>If you inherit money, you haven't earned it. It is unearned.
> >
> >>If you're on a reality show, you haven't earned that money, either. Yet
> >>it isn't taxed that way.
> >
> > You're performing actual work. Of course those are earnings. The other
> > contestants are uncompensated.
>
> Actually, I think all contestants are compensated for their 'work' at some
> fairly minimal rate while the big winners at the end are given 'prize
> money'.

I'm talking about those Kardashian or Housewives-type reality shows.
There is no prize money and no work. People just go about their lives
and let the rest of us watch it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

You're completely wrong on so many levels.

1) You watch these shows.

2) You assume I watch these shows. Never, ever, ever

3) Whether you believe it or not, being compensated for appearing on
camera is actual work and rightfully treated as ordinary earned income
by the tax code. Now, I have no idea what the treatment of being
compensated for the use of stock footage, if any compensation is due
to the subject of the footage, but this is ordinary income.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I have no trouble understanding these basic economic concepts. Despite
your odd belief, this is an instance in which tax code definition of
earned income is aligned with reality.

Where the tax code gets it very wrong is calling interest and dividends
unearned income, given that the monies came from one's labor in the first
place and it's economically useful to lend them out or use them as capital.

Work is economically useful activity performed for compensation in which
the laborer uses his knowledge and skills.

The knowledge and skills being employed in these reality shows is the
ability to get some producer to compensate one for being on camera in
ordinary situations (except for the camera) and to sell the stupid show
to MTV, TLC, Bravo, etc., and to get eyeballs on the antics. You may not
approve of how these people earn money and what they do to work, and you
may not wish to do anything of the kind (not that anyone asked), but
work it is.

Inheritance ain't compensation for work.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on 5/26/2013 5:55 PM:

> On Sun, 26 May 2013 15:27:27 -0500, "Jim G."
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
>>> In article <knsr1q$pk7$1...@pcls6.std.com>,
>>> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Given
>>>> the moral hazard of unearned wealth
>>>
>>> LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.
>>
>> Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
>> else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
>> someone else's "fair share" should be.
>
> It's a technical term in the tax code. In the 1970s when the top
> marginal tax rate was around 75-80%, there was a cap on earned income
> at 50%.

If you're suggesting that Mickey was using it in a technical sense, well
... call me skeptical.

> And don't look at me when you start talking about "fair share". I'm
> all for people getting rich. I just don't like favoring inherited
> income over earned income.

I agree. OTOH, I don't believe in beating someone up financially just
because someone else deemed that person to be worthy of the inheritance
assets that had been earned by *someone* in the past. And I say that as
someone whose odds of ever inheriting anything substantial are somewhere
between slim and none.

[Jim G.]

Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 12:03 AM:

You can't possibly know what someone might have done in the days and
weeks and months and years leading up to the inheritance taking place.

> It is unearned.

Again, you can't possibly know that. IMO, all that should matter is that
the person bequeathing the assets clearly felt that the person receiving
the inheritance had "earned" it or "deserved" it for some reason--a
reason that may be entirely unknown to you and me.

[BTR1701]

In article <ko006t$u9e$2...@news.albasani.net>,

So are you.

> 1) You watch these shows.

And that's wrong. I do not watch them. I don't have to watch them to
know about them.

> 2) You assume I watch these shows. Never, ever, ever

And that's wrong. I made no such assumption about you, nor did I say
anything that implied that I had.

> 3) Whether you believe it or not, being compensated for appearing on
> camera is actual work

No, it's not. See how that works? I deemed something 'unearned' merely
because I don't think it's worthy.

No different than someone deeming an inheritance 'unearned' or 'morally
hazardous' just because they think it's unworthy.

The heir could have been busting her ass in dad's company for years in
order to deemed worthy of that inheritance. You don't know if that's the
case, and neither do I. If it is, it's certainly as much earned as a
Kardashian walking around shopping and gossiping and being paid millions
for doing nothing more than allowing someone to film it. It sure as hell
isn't any more 'morally hazardous'-- as Dupree claimed-- than the
Kardashians and their ilk.

I don't dispute the tax code calls inheritances unearned, but the fact
that some bureaucrat or politician decreed it to be so once upon a time
doesn't make it true.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 12:03 AM:
>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
>>>>MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>>>>>Given the moral hazard of unearned wealth

>>>>LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.

>>>Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
>>>else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
>>>someone else's "fair share" should be.

>>If you inherit money, you haven't earned it.

>You can't possibly know what someone might have done in the days and
>weeks and months and years leading up to the inheritance taking place.

I don't care. I doubt the Vanderbilts nursed their parents for years.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <ko0393$nji$6...@dont-email.me>,

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 12:03 AM:
> > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
> >>> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
> >
> >>>> Given the moral hazard of unearned wealth
> >
> >>> LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.
> >
> >> Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
> >> else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
> >> someone else's "fair share" should be.
> >
> > If you inherit money, you haven't earned it.
>
> You can't possibly know what someone might have done in the days and
> weeks and months and years leading up to the inheritance taking place.
>
> > It is unearned.
>
> Again, you can't possibly know that. IMO, all that should matter is that
> the person bequeathing the assets clearly felt that the person receiving
> the inheritance had "earned" it or "deserved" it for some reason--a
> reason that may be entirely unknown to you and me.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim's still mad at me, I see, because he still thinks I linked him with
the Vanderbilts.

[Obveeus]

Ah, yes, on 'reality shows' that follow people around for everyday life they
are compensated and I assume their income is considered earned income just
like any other actor. However, despite Kerman's indications otherwise, I
don't see why a show like SURVIVOR or JEOPARDY would withhold 'fica' for the
prize winnings. If you win $100,000 in Las Vegas you don't pay Social
Security taxes on it and I believe that TV 'winnings' are treated the same
way. The windfall would come in the form of a 1099-G and would be declared
on one's taxes as income, but would not be subject to FICA.

Perhaps tdciago could provide details?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>Ah, yes, on 'reality shows' that follow people around for everyday life they
>are compensated and I assume their income is considered earned income just
>like any other actor. However, despite Kerman's indications otherwise, I
>don't see why a show like SURVIVOR or JEOPARDY would withhold 'fica' for the
>prize winnings. If you win $100,000 in Las Vegas you don't pay Social
>Security taxes on it and I believe that TV 'winnings' are treated the same
>way. The windfall would come in the form of a 1099-G and would be declared
>on one's taxes as income, but would not be subject to FICA.

It's not terribly difficult to understand that participating in a contest
and winning a prize is treated differently than gambling.

Also, the taxable income from gambling is the amount of the prize net of
the wager. The gross amount shouldn't be confused with the net amount
on 1099-G, but casinos may fuck this up and the taxpayer must explain this
on his tax return. Also, gambling losses are an itemized deduction but not
to exceed winnings.

No, gambling winnings aren't earned income for Social Security purposes.

There's also withholding on gambling winnings. Again, not a comparable
situation to Richard Hatch's.

[Mason Barge]

You gonna' dis me by asking td???

FICA is a tax on employment income. If you earn money as an
independent contractor, you still have to pay the taxes because you
are deemed to employ yourself, although you can deduct expenses more
easily.

You are correct that prizes are treated like gambling or any other
type of windfall income; since it is not earned in employment, it is
not subject to employment taxes. (Gambling winnings are a bit
different in that the payor has to withhold federal estimated tax if
it's over $5k.)

They are, however, treated as "earned" income (or used to be, when it
made a difference).

If you worked for Labor and really wanted to bust some balls, I bet
you could make a pretty good case that Survivor contestants are
statutory employees - I mean, you know they pay the losers
*something*.

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:46:15 -0500, "Jim G."
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 12:03 AM:
>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
>>>> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>
>>>>> Given the moral hazard of unearned wealth
>>
>>>> LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.
>>
>>> Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
>>> else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
>>> someone else's "fair share" should be.
>>
>> If you inherit money, you haven't earned it.
>
>You can't possibly know what someone might have done in the days and
>weeks and months and years leading up to the inheritance taking place.
>
>> It is unearned.
>
>Again, you can't possibly know that.

To me, "earned" has a specific statutory meaning. It is money you
receive for working. By definition, it is different from inherited
money (which isn't "income" at all, but a gift) and passive investment
income, such as dividends and interest.

[Obveeus]

"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:14:45 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Ah, yes, on 'reality shows' that follow people around for everyday life
>>they
>>are compensated and I assume their income is considered earned income just
>>like any other actor. However, despite Kerman's indications otherwise, I
>>don't see why a show like SURVIVOR or JEOPARDY would withhold 'fica' for
>>the
>>prize winnings. If you win $100,000 in Las Vegas you don't pay Social
>>Security taxes on it and I believe that TV 'winnings' are treated the same
>>way. The windfall would come in the form of a 1099-G and would be
>>declared
>>on one's taxes as income, but would not be subject to FICA.
>>
>>Perhaps tdciago could provide details?
>
> You gonna' dis me by asking td???

My dis wasn't intended to be twords those with tax law knowledge, it was
just a reference to actual experience on the show.

> FICA is a tax on employment income. If you earn money as an
> independent contractor, you still have to pay the taxes because you
> are deemed to employ yourself, although you can deduct expenses more
> easily.

I understand that and I maintain that the bulk of money that the Survivor
contestants recienve is as a 'prize' rather than as 'employment income'.

> You are correct that prizes are treated like gambling or any other
> type of windfall income; since it is not earned in employment, it is
> not subject to employment taxes. (Gambling winnings are a bit
> different in that the payor has to withhold federal estimated tax if
> it's over $5k.)

If I remember right from back when Hatch got in trouble, the show did
withhold some tax before handing him his prize money, but they did not
withhold anywhere near enough (the lottery works the same way when they hand
people a big 'after tax' check that does not actually withold enough and the
winner has to immediately file a quarterly tax payment to pay the rest
themselves) and he failed to pay the difference (in addition to other income
he failed to report for his post Survivor radio gigs).

> They are, however, treated as "earned" income (or used to be, when it
> made a difference).
>
> If you worked for Labor and really wanted to bust some balls, I bet
> you could make a pretty good case that Survivor contestants are
> statutory employees - I mean, you know they pay the losers
> *something*.

Yes. I think all the contestants get some minimal amount (like $10,000)
just to appear on the show since they will be sequestered for 45 days or so.
I assume that income is treated as 'earned' and that they are independent
contractors (working in 'acting' or 'entertainment industry' or something).
The people that make it as far as the jury get 'prize' money in addition,
and that prize money goes up the farther along in the game they make it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

>You are correct that prizes are treated like gambling or any other
>type of windfall income; since it is not earned in employment, it is
>not subject to employment taxes. (Gambling winnings are a bit
>different in that the payor has to withhold federal estimated tax if
>it's over $5k.)

>They are, however, treated as "earned" income (or used to be, when it
>made a difference).

Earned income is subject to Social Security taxes; unearned income isn't.

Here's a guy who says prizes are "other income" (not subject to Social
Security taxes) and reported on Line 21:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2012/08/09/julian-block-comments-on-prizes-and-awards-not-putting-his-answer-in-the-form-of-a-question/

Gambling isn't the same as a prize; something must be at risk to be gambling.

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-05-26, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I thought the concept of progressive income tax had been a
> reasonable and widely-accepted compromise between the "my money"
> chest-pounders and the commies.

The concept of a progressive income tax is one of the main planks of the
Communist Manifesto. It is neither "reasonable" nor a "compromise."

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled.)

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental
protection... the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually
an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's
resources will be negotiated." -- Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 27 May 2013 17:46:00 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>
>"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 May 2013 16:14:45 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Ah, yes, on 'reality shows' that follow people around for everyday life
>>>they
>>>are compensated and I assume their income is considered earned income just
>>>like any other actor. However, despite Kerman's indications otherwise, I
>>>don't see why a show like SURVIVOR or JEOPARDY would withhold 'fica' for
>>>the
>>>prize winnings. If you win $100,000 in Las Vegas you don't pay Social
>>>Security taxes on it and I believe that TV 'winnings' are treated the same
>>>way. The windfall would come in the form of a 1099-G and would be
>>>declared
>>>on one's taxes as income, but would not be subject to FICA.
>>>
>>>Perhaps tdciago could provide details?
>>
>> You gonna' dis me by asking td???
>
>My dis wasn't intended to be twords those with tax law knowledge, it was
>just a reference to actual experience on the show.
>
>> FICA is a tax on employment income. If you earn money as an
>> independent contractor, you still have to pay the taxes because you
>> are deemed to employ yourself, although you can deduct expenses more
>> easily.
>
>I understand that and I maintain that the bulk of money that the Survivor
>contestants recienve is as a 'prize' rather than as 'employment income'.

No argument there.

>> You are correct that prizes are treated like gambling or any other
>> type of windfall income; since it is not earned in employment, it is
>> not subject to employment taxes. (Gambling winnings are a bit
>> different in that the payor has to withhold federal estimated tax if
>> it's over $5k.)
>
>If I remember right from back when Hatch got in trouble, the show did
>withhold some tax before handing him his prize money, but they did not
>withhold anywhere near enough (the lottery works the same way when they hand
>people a big 'after tax' check that does not actually withold enough and the
>winner has to immediately file a quarterly tax payment to pay the rest
>themselves) and he failed to pay the difference (in addition to other income
>he failed to report for his post Survivor radio gigs).
>
>> They are, however, treated as "earned" income (or used to be, when it
>> made a difference).
>>
>> If you worked for Labor and really wanted to bust some balls, I bet
>> you could make a pretty good case that Survivor contestants are
>> statutory employees - I mean, you know they pay the losers
>> *something*.
>
>Yes. I think all the contestants get some minimal amount (like $10,000)
>just to appear on the show since they will be sequestered for 45 days or so.
>I assume that income is treated as 'earned' and that they are independent
>contractors (working in 'acting' or 'entertainment industry' or something).
>The people that make it as far as the jury get 'prize' money in addition,
>and that prize money goes up the farther along in the game they make it.

I'd feel about 90% certain they are not independent contractors, but
statutory employees, assuming they are all paid a minimum guarantee.

[Dano]

"Mason Barge" wrote in message
news:uvi7q8d98t6i5upmd...@4ax.com...

================================================

Hey. It's hard god damned work picking the right parents.

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 02:29:20 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:

>On 2013-05-26, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, I thought the concept of progressive income tax had been a
>> reasonable and widely-accepted compromise between the "my money"
>> chest-pounders and the commies.
>
>The concept of a progressive income tax is one of the main planks of the
>Communist Manifesto. It is neither "reasonable" nor a "compromise."

So Abraham Lincoln was a Communist?

[David Johnston]

On 5/27/2013 8:29 PM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-05-26, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, I thought the concept of progressive income tax had been a
>> reasonable and widely-accepted compromise between the "my money"
>> chest-pounders and the commies.
>
> The concept of a progressive income tax is one of the main planks of the
> Communist Manifesto. It is neither "reasonable" nor a "compromise."
>

Making one concession and refusing all the other demands is pretty much
exactly how compromise works.

[Jim G.]

Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 1:12 PM:

So is "doubt" a good enough standard for you in all things, or just when
it comes to the idea of someone inheriting someone else's assets?

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on 5/27/2013 4:13 PM:

> On Mon, 27 May 2013 11:46:15 -0500, "Jim G."
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 12:03 AM:
>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
>>>>> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Given the moral hazard of unearned wealth
>>>
>>>>> LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.
>>>
>>>> Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
>>>> else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
>>>> someone else's "fair share" should be.
>>>
>>> If you inherit money, you haven't earned it.
>>
>> You can't possibly know what someone might have done in the days and
>> weeks and months and years leading up to the inheritance taking place.
>>
>>> It is unearned.
>>
>> Again, you can't possibly know that.
>
> To me, "earned" has a specific statutory meaning.

That's because you're a reformed lawyer. :)

> It is money you
> receive for working. By definition, it is different from inherited
> money (which isn't "income" at all, but a gift) and passive investment
> income, such as dividends and interest.

Again, I seriously doubt that Mickey was talking about this when s/he
mentioned "unearned wealth." For starters, note the use of "wealth"
instead of "income." As such, I jumped in on the ethical side of the
discussion. I'll let the lawyers and reformed lawyers cover the boring
and tedious (to me, at least) tax law stuff.

[Dano]

"David Johnston" wrote in message news:ko2mf4$mfb$1...@dont-email.me...

=========================================

His type wants neither compromise OR democracy.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 1:12 PM:
>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 12:03 AM:
>>>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
>>>>>>MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:

>>>>>>>Given the moral hazard of unearned wealth

>>>>>>LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.

>>>>>Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
>>>>>else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
>>>>>someone else's "fair share" should be.

>>>>If you inherit money, you haven't earned it.

>>>You can't possibly know what someone might have done in the days and
>>>weeks and months and years leading up to the inheritance taking place.

>>I don't care. I doubt the Vanderbilts nursed their parents for years.

>So is "doubt" a good enough standard for you in all things, or just when
>it comes to the idea of someone inheriting someone else's assets?

I know the difference between earnings and other types of income. You
don't. Nor do I believe you can get yourself adopted by the Vanderbilts
and have to worry about this issue at all.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Again, I seriously doubt that Mickey was talking about this when s/he
>mentioned "unearned wealth." For starters, note the use of "wealth"
>instead of "income." As such, I jumped in on the ethical side of the
>discussion. I'll let the lawyers and reformed lawyers cover the boring
>and tedious (to me, at least) tax law stuff.

You don't know the difference between wealth and income? Sad, Jim.

MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) is female.

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 28 May 2013 10:41:09 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

Don't feed the troll. It's a false syllogism.

David wants to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor people.
The Communists want to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor
people.
Therefore, David is a Communist.

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-05-28, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So Abraham Lincoln was a Communist?

Abe Lincoln was a tyrant. However, his income tax was ruled
unconstitutional and does not bear direct lineage to today's
mess.

[Roger Blake]

On 2013-05-28, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> David wants to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor people.
> The Communists want to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor
> people.
> Therefore, David is a Communist.

The Democrats have implemented the vast majority of the Communist
Manfesto. (Look it up, it reads like a checklist.) Does that make them
Communists? For all intents and purposes, it does.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Roger Blake <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:
>On 2013-05-28, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>So Abraham Lincoln was a Communist?

>Abe Lincoln was a tyrant. However, his income tax was ruled
>unconstitutional and does not bear direct lineage to today's
>mess.

False. Lincoln's income tax has a brief sunset, although it got extended
a number of times. It was repealed by Congress during Reconstruction.
There was never a federal court ruling.

A different income tax was imposed in the 1890s. This was ruled to be a
direct tax because it fell, in part, on income derived from land rents.
Direct taxes were constitutional but required to be apportioned by state.

The constitutional requirement to apportion direct taxes by state was
repealed by the 16th Amendment.

[WrongWayWade]

BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <knsr1q$pk7$1...@pcls6.std.com>,
> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>> The processes of economic transaction, economic transformation, and
>> economic transfer have long been considered potential points of
>> taxation.
>
> Hell, they don't even need those points. California just passed an
> income tax that goes back *retroactively*. You suddenly don't just owe
> higher taxes on this year's income, you have to go back and pay extra
> taxes on several previous years that you thought you were already done
> with, and woe be it to you if you did something silly and spent that
> money, thinking hilariously that your tax bill had been paid and the
> rest was yours to do with as you like.
>
>> By the logic of "you can't tax it more than once," only
>> brand-new money/wealth entering an economy could ever be taxed. Given

>> the moral hazard of unearned wealth
>
> LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.

Don't you get it? It's morally hazardous if the heir inherits the money
without earning it, but morally wonderful if the government seizes it
without earning it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

WrongWayWade <rl31...@excite.com> wrote:

'Splain, Luthy, the morality of taxing somebody's earned income (or
income earned from lending out or providing capital using earned income
as the seed). All I'm saying is one doesn't have severe economic consequences,
but the other does.

But, hey, the several of you are objecting to moral implications, still
without making an argument.

[Dano]

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
news:2013052...@news.eternal-september.org...

On 2013-05-28, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> David wants to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor people.
> The Communists want to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor
> people.
> Therefore, David is a Communist.

The Democrats have implemented the vast majority of the Communist
Manfesto. (Look it up, it reads like a checklist.) Does that make them
Communists? For all intents and purposes, it does.

===================================================
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to
public purposes.

No. Not even remotely close.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Define "heavy". I don't think so. Especially given loopholes...ability to
stash holdings off shore etc..

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Seriously? Explain Paris Hilton and Donald Trump.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

WHAT?

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a
national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

US banks are hardly, truly "owned" by the state in any way.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands
of the State.

Really? Make THAT case.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State;
the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the
soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Oh yeah. THAT happened. Yesterday wasn't it? :/

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies,
especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition
of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable
distribution of the population over the country.

Yeah. Right.

9. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of
children's factory labour in its present form and combination of education
with industrial production.

You get what you pay for right? Might be free...but is it a decent
education? Certainly not compared from the wealthy/power class. Which
controls the money and power of America. In a true communist state there
would be NO private schools. That last bit? Conservative icon Newt
Gingrich would have children working IN the schools...as janitors...in
preparation I suppose for what he deems their appropriate calling.

The Democrats really suck at this whole commie takeover thing eh?

[Dano]

"Roger Blake" wrote in message
news:2013052...@news.eternal-september.org...

On 2013-05-28, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So Abraham Lincoln was a Communist?

Abe Lincoln was a tyrant. However, his income tax was ruled
unconstitutional and does not bear direct lineage to today's
mess.

==========================================

Your first sentence illustrates what an absolute loon and moron you are and
dooms you to many a killfile. Goodbye.

[David Johnston]

On 5/29/2013 7:40 AM, Roger Blake wrote:
> On 2013-05-28, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> David wants to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor people.
>> The Communists want to tax rich people at a higher rate than poor
>> people.
>> Therefore, David is a Communist.
>
> The Democrats have implemented the vast majority of the Communist
> Manfesto. (Look it up, it reads like a checklist.)

Okay. I looked it up. No they haven't. They have not abolished all
rights of inheritance, they do not operate the means of communication
and transportation, the central bank does not have an exclusive monopoly
on offering loans, they have not instituted state ownership of
factories, they have not made employment compulsory, they have not
applied all "rents of land" to public purposes, they have not combined
education with industrial production, they have not confiscated the
property of all emigrants, and they have not abolished the distinction
between country and city by relocating people out of the cities.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 11:22:43 -0600, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:

Picky, picky.

[Mason Barge]

On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:38:11 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
<rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:

>On 2013-05-28, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So Abraham Lincoln was a Communist?
>
>Abe Lincoln was a tyrant. However, his income tax was ruled
>unconstitutional and does not bear direct lineage to today's
>mess.

Way off the point. He proposed and actually implemented a progressive
income tax. I'm guessing between gigs killing vampires.

So:

a) Abe Lincoln was a Communist,

or,

2) Abe Lincoln was not a Communist.

[Jim G.]

Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/28/2013 1:31 PM:

> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 1:12 PM:
>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/27/2013 12:03 AM:
>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> BTR1701 sent the following on 5/26/2013 12:14 PM:
>>>>>>> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> Given the moral hazard of unearned wealth
>
>>>>>>> LOL! "Moral hazard of unearned wealth"? You guys crack me up.
>
>>>>>> Isn't it scary how easily some people presume to decide what someone
>>>>>> else has "earned"? It's right up there with presuming to know what
>>>>>> someone else's "fair share" should be.
>
>>>>> If you inherit money, you haven't earned it.
>
>>>> You can't possibly know what someone might have done in the days and
>>>> weeks and months and years leading up to the inheritance taking place.
>
>>> I don't care. I doubt the Vanderbilts nursed their parents for years.
>
>> So is "doubt" a good enough standard for you in all things, or just when
>> it comes to the idea of someone inheriting someone else's assets?
>
> I know the difference between earnings and other types of income. You
> don't.

I understand the difference, which is why I called Mickey on it. OTOH,
and as usual, I prefer to look at things from an ethical and a moral
perspective, rather than a legal one. If someone at one time earned his
or her assets and subsequently decides to bequeath those assets to
someone else for reasons unknown to you and me, then that's that
person's prerogative, and the beneficiary shouldn't be beat up
financially because of it.

> Nor do I believe you can get yourself adopted by the Vanderbilts
> and have to worry about this issue at all.

Sad, but true. But I can always dream.

[Jim G.]

Adam H. Kerman sent the following on 5/28/2013 1:32 PM:

> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Again, I seriously doubt that Mickey was talking about this when s/he
>> mentioned "unearned wealth." For starters, note the use of "wealth"
>> instead of "income." As such, I jumped in on the ethical side of the
>> discussion. I'll let the lawyers and reformed lawyers cover the boring
>> and tedious (to me, at least) tax law stuff.
>
> You don't know the difference between wealth and income?

What makes you think that?

> Sad, Jim.

Perhaps if it were true...

> MDu...@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) is female.

Fair enough. I didn't know and didn't want to assume.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on 5/29/2013 2:10 PM:

Zombies suck the lifeblood out of you. So do commies. Abe killed
zombies, so Abe was clearly anti-Communist. Honestly, do I have to do
*all* of the thinking around here?

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Mason Barge sent the following on 5/29/2013 2:10 PM:

>> 2) Abe Lincoln was not a Communist.
>
> Zombies suck the lifeblood out of you. So do commies. Abe killed zombies,
> so Abe was clearly anti-Communist. Honestly, do I have to do *all* of the
> thinking around here?

Did I miss a sequel? Since when did Abe Lincoln become a zombie hunter?

[David Johnston]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tFaQYSFLuE

[anim8rFSK]

In article <koapo2$agb$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

http://cdn2.ciberdvd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/PwWZ0.jpg

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Mason Barge]

Dumbass, you gigged him for the wrong mistake. Abe is a zombie
hunter. But they don't suck the lifeblood out of you. They eat your
brains.

That would still make them Communists, though.

[Obveeus]

Yep. Zombies are Communists are left-wingers while Vampires are Nazis are
right-wingers.

[David Johnston]

Technically there were two different movies, the vampire hunter one and
the zombie hunter one which was a pre-ripoff of the vampire hunter one.

[Mason Barge]

Yeah that makes no sense. Zombies are brain-dead and vampires have no
hearts.

Well, they do, but when Fred took Angel's heart out during Season Five
it looked like a "shriveled walnut".

Trivia question: what state was the license plate from?

[trotsky]

Imagine one of those two guys thinking that they missed something. At
least some of us dwell in the realm of facts.


--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.

[Obveeus]

This is probably not where I am supposed to respond with: 'what license
plate?', so I'll just take a guess instead.
Maryland 'War of 1812'?

[Mason Barge]

See if Anim can answer without doing any research.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <irvkq894qktgj04i7...@4ax.com>,

Nope. I don't even understand the question.

[Mason Barge]

On Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:19:24 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:

There is a question in the original Trivial Pursuit: "In the movie
Jaws, what state was the license plate from, that they pulled out of
the shark?"

When Fred has Angel on the table and is pulling out all of his
internal organs, including a heart that she describes as "a shriveled
walnut", I'm 90% sure she pulls out a license plate (as a joke
reference to Jaws). So the question: What state was the license plate
from?

[Obveeus]

Louisiana.

> When Fred has Angel on the table and is pulling out all of his
> internal organs, including a heart that she describes as "a shriveled
> walnut", I'm 90% sure she pulls out a license plate (as a joke
> reference to Jaws). So the question: What state was the license plate
> from?

Oh my, now I'm going to have to go looking for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul_Purpose_(Angel)

I watched the pertinent scene on Netflix (mmm, raisins!), but I still have
no idea where the license plate is from. Jalisco, Mexico maybe? All I see
is 'JAL' and then Fred's hand and then 'EX' with a 1978 license plate date.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <2fpmq8d7eib76l1a4...@4ax.com>,

Okay, unless I misunderstand it, this is a trick question; Fred's
license plate isn't from a state, unless it's from a state within
Mexico. :)

The Jaws answer IIRC is where Jude Cormier hails from.

[BTR1701]

Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is a question in the original Trivial Pursuit: "In the movie
> Jaws, what state was the license plate from, that they pulled out of
> the shark?"
>
> When Fred has Angel on the table and is pulling out all of his
> internal organs, including a heart that she describes as "a shriveled
> walnut", I'm 90% sure she pulls out a license plate (as a joke
> reference to Jaws). So the question: What state was the license plate
> from?

Lousyana

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on 5/31/2013 5:30 PM:

They do both, don't they? While vamps limit themselves to blood?

> That would still make them Communists, though.

There you have it. :)

[WrongWayWade]

Jim G. wrote:
> Mason Barge sent the following on 5/29/2013 2:10 PM:
>> On Wed, 29 May 2013 13:38:11 +0000 (UTC), Roger Blake
>> <rogb...@iname.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2013-05-28, Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So Abraham Lincoln was a Communist?
>>>
>>> Abe Lincoln was a tyrant. However, his income tax was ruled
>>> unconstitutional and does not bear direct lineage to today's
>>> mess.
>>
>> Way off the point. He proposed and actually implemented a
>> progressive income tax. I'm guessing between gigs killing vampires.
>>
>> So:
>>
>> a) Abe Lincoln was a Communist,
>>
>> or,
>>
>> 2) Abe Lincoln was not a Communist.
>
> Zombies suck the lifeblood out of you. So do commies. Abe killed
> zombies, so Abe was clearly anti-Communist. Honestly, do I have to do
> *all* of the thinking around here?

Abe Lincoln was a VAMPIRE Hunter. There was a whole movie about it and
everything. Please keep up...

[Mason Barge]

It's hard to keep up with someone behind you.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/abraham_lincoln_vs_zombies/

[suzeeq]

There was also Abe vs the Zombies too. Guess you're a couple years behind.