Re: Arizona May Drop Speed Cameras
Keith
5ea6c48b-3802-4066...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03arizona.html?ref=us
>
> They aren't making enough money so they may drop the cameras. About as
> close as we are likely to see to an official admission that they are
> really about money, not safety.
IMHO, they are doing it wrong. What they should do is institute a tax of
$50 per day that if a Arizona Registered vehicle goes 11 mph over the
speed limit then the owner of the vehicle is liable for the tax. The tax
could be collected when the vehicle registration fees are paid.
The State doesn't have to prove who was driving that vehicle and there is
no court case, because it is just a tax due for going 11 mph over the
speed limit. Vehicles from out of state would not be subject to the tax
because they would not be owned by Arizona residents.
When the tax reaches $500 the State could send a post card as a tax
notice. It is no different then taxing any other activity.
--
Best Regards, Keith
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/
hal lillywhite
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:38:42 -0800, hal lillywhite wrote in
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03arizona.html?ref=us
>
> > They aren't making enough money so they may drop the cameras. About as
> > close as we are likely to see to an official admission that they are
> > really about money, not safety.
>
> IMHO, they are doing it wrong. What they should do is institute a tax of
> $50 per day that if a Arizona Registered vehicle goes 11 mph over the
> speed limit then the owner of the vehicle is liable for the tax. The tax
> could be collected when the vehicle registration fees are paid.
> The State doesn't have to prove who was driving that vehicle and there is
> no court case, because it is just a tax due for going 11 mph over the
> speed limit. Vehicles from out of state would not be subject to the tax
> because they would not be owned by Arizona residents.
>
> When the tax reaches $500 the State could send a post card as a tax
> notice. It is no different then taxing any other activity.
I doubt the courts would go for unequal taxation. Nor are they likely
to accept the idea that state residents face stricter driving
regulations than non-residents. And of course there is still the near
admission that the cameras are about money, not safety.
Deadrat
0f7cf9...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 3, 5:52�pm, Keith <kilowattra...@use-reply-to.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:38:42 -0800, hal lillywhite wrote in
>> 5ea6c48b-3802-4066-be75-4eb95fc25...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03arizona.html?ref=us
>>
>> > They aren't making enough money so they may drop the cameras. �About
>> > as close as we are likely to see to an official admission that they
>> > are really about money, not safety.
>>
>> IMHO, they are doing it wrong. What they should do is institute a tax
>> of $50 per day that if a Arizona Registered vehicle goes 11 mph over
>> the speed limit then the owner of the vehicle is liable for the tax. The
>> tax could be collected when the vehicle registration fees are paid.
>> The State doesn't have to prove who was driving that vehicle and there
>> is no court case, because it is just a tax due for going 11 mph over the
>> speed limit. Vehicles from out of state would not be subject to the tax
>> because they would not be owned by Arizona residents.
>>
>> When the tax reaches $500 the State could send a post card as a tax
>> notice. It is no different then taxing any other activity.
>
> I doubt the courts would go for unequal taxation.
What do you think a progressive income tax is?
> Nor are they likely
> to accept the idea that state residents face stricter driving
> regulations than non-residents.
Kinda like they're not likely to accept out-of-state tuition at state
universities?
<snip/>
Channel Cast
> hal lillywhite <hlil...@juno.com> wrote in news:8cb4deb5-bf41-4b96-a682-
> 0f7cf9...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Jan 3, 5:52 pm, Keith <kilowattra...@use-reply-to.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:38:42 -0800, hal lillywhite wrote in
>>> 5ea6c48b-3802-4066-be75-4eb95fc25...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03arizona.html?ref=us
>>>> They aren't making enough money so they may drop the cameras. About
>>>> as close as we are likely to see to an official admission that they
>>>> are really about money, not safety.
>>> IMHO, they are doing it wrong. What they should do is institute a tax
>>> of $50 per day that if a Arizona Registered vehicle goes 11 mph over
>>> the speed limit then the owner of the vehicle is liable for the tax. The
>>> tax could be collected when the vehicle registration fees are paid.
>>> The State doesn't have to prove who was driving that vehicle and there
>>> is no court case, because it is just a tax due for going 11 mph over the
>>> speed limit. Vehicles from out of state would not be subject to the tax
>>> because they would not be owned by Arizona residents.
>>>
>>> When the tax reaches $500 the State could send a post card as a tax
>>> notice. It is no different then taxing any other activity.
>> I doubt the courts would go for unequal taxation.
>
> What do you think a progressive income tax is?
Ding!
>
>> Nor are they likely
>> to accept the idea that state residents face stricter driving
>> regulations than non-residents.
>
> Kinda like they're not likely to accept out-of-state tuition at state
> universities?
>
> <snip/>
Ding Ding!
richard
As the city of phoenix has found out, the vast majority of violators have
been their own police and fire vehicles. How ya gonna cite a city/county
owned vehicle?
hal lillywhite
Deadrat wrote:
> > I doubt the courts would go for unequal taxation.
>
> What do you think a progressive income tax is?
Allowed by the constitution which specifically includes income tax.
> > Nor are they likely
> > to accept the idea that state residents face stricter driving
> > regulations than non-residents.
>
> Kinda like they're not likely to accept out-of-state tuition at state
> universities?
Cause their parents don't pay in-state taxes.
Curt
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 01:52:25 GMT, Keith wrote:
> > On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 15:38:42 -0800, hal lillywhite wrote in
>
> >>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/us/03arizona.html?ref=us
>
> >> They aren't making enough money so they may drop the cameras. About as
> >> close as we are likely to see to an official admission that they are
> >> really about money, not safety.
>
> > IMHO, they are doing it wrong. What they should do is institute a tax of
> > $50 per day that if a Arizona Registered vehicle goes 11 mph over the
> > speed limit then the owner of the vehicle is liable for the tax. The tax
> > could be collected when the vehicle registration fees are paid.
> > The State doesn't have to prove who was driving that vehicle and there is
> > no court case, because it is just a tax due for going 11 mph over the
> > speed limit. Vehicles from out of state would not be subject to the tax
> > because they would not be owned by Arizona residents.
>
> > When the tax reaches $500 the State could send a post card as a tax
> > notice. It is no different then taxing any other activity.
>
> As the city of phoenix has found out, the vast majority of violators have
> been their own police and fire vehicles. How ya gonna cite a city/county
Happens here. http://blog.oregonlive.com/washingtoncounty/2007/05/previous_stories_about_a_beave_1.html
Curt
Deadrat
4eccfc...@s3g2000yqs.googlegroups.com:
>
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>
>> > I doubt the courts would go for unequal taxation.
>>
>> What do you think a progressive income tax is?
>
> Allowed by the constitution which specifically includes income tax.
Are ya' havin' trouble making the connections, Sparky? The Constitution
specifically allows taxes on income, "from whatever source derived," but
says nothing about whether the tax has to be equal or unequal on an
individual basis. Yet we have a progressive tax structure in which the
more you make, the more you pay. (At least, up until you make a whole lot,
in which case the loopholes kick in.) And the courts are just fine with
that "unequal taxation."
>> > Nor are they likely
>> > to accept the idea that state residents face stricter driving
>> > regulations than non-residents.
>>
>> Kinda like they're not likely to accept out-of-state tuition at state
>> universities?
>
> Cause their parents don't pay in-state taxes.
And neither do out-of-state drivers pay in-state taxes for the upkeep of
municipal roadways. So what's your point of confusion? Is it that my
example of unequal treatment was reversed?
Keith
The State doesn't cite any one with a violation of the law. The
registered owner of the vehicle is *taxed* $50 by the State up to once per
day for driving lets say above 75 MPH on a highway.
The tax is collected as part of the registration fee that is collected
annually by the State DMV.
It is no different then any other tax that a person is assessed for let
us say owning a boat or airplane or using a park. There is no criminal or
infraction charge so the person is not hauled into court to face
prosecution. If the person fails to pay the tax due at registration time
they can't register the car. You might wonder what happens when a cop
pulls over a motorist for speeding in excess of 75 mph, the person is
cited for a traffic infraction with a ticket and is allowed to pay the
traffic fine or contest the violation of the traffic laws in a court. The
tax could be assessed by asking the registered owner if the car drove over
75 MPH on any day to be assessed the tax.
The tax would encourage people not to drive over 75 mph and the tax would
not be excessive for a single day.
If a motorists decides to wear a monkey mask while driving it wouldn't
matter because the vehicle owner would be taxed for the vehicle driving
over 75 mph.
http://888redlight.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/man-dons-monkey-mask-to-avoid-speeding-ticket/
The tax authority would not have any concern about who was driving, just
that the owner of the vehicle qualifies for the tax.
You could call the tax a "over 75 mph toll or fee" if it helps you
understand it better.
--
Best Regards, Keith
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/
Tired of Google Groups?
http://home.comcast.net/~kilowattradio/usenet.html
Dakota
Let's look at your tax-the-speeders plan. Suppose I'm wealthy and feeling
hungry for some Beluga caviar. I hop in my Bugatti Veron and motor down to
the gourmet grocery at 240 MPH. The camera catches me and adds $50 to my
registration fee. The tax can be imposed once per day under your plan so
once I've racked up $18,250 in additional taxes - the cost of about 10
pounds of the fine fish eggs - I can speed without further penalty. There
is no threat to my license because speeding is no longer a traffic offense.
Your proposed tax makes me wonder what's parked in your driveway.
Keith
> Let's look at your tax-the-speeders plan. Suppose I'm wealthy and feeling
> hungry for some Beluga caviar. I hop in my Bugatti Veron and motor down to
> the gourmet grocery at 240 MPH. The camera catches me and adds $50 to my
> registration fee. The tax can be imposed once per day under your plan so
> once I've racked up $18,250 in additional taxes - the cost of about 10
> pounds of the fine fish eggs - I can speed without further penalty. There
> is no threat to my license because speeding is no longer a traffic offense.
> Your proposed tax makes me wonder what's parked in your driveway.
But you forget that the _traffic_ laws prevent you from driving 240 MPH
down the freeway and when a police officer eventually pulls you over or
you have a wreck you could face reckless driving criminal charges or if
you injure or kill someone you would face other felony criminal charges.
Did you know that the crack drug dealer is still subject to taxation on
his illegal income? The fact that the activity that generates the income
is illegal does not mean it is not taxable and if the police apprehend you
breaking the law doesn't mean he is exempt from the tax. A drug dealer
would be sentenced to prison to for breaking the law and would owe the
state tax on the income.
hal lillywhite
> Are ya' havin' trouble making the connections, Sparky? The Constitution
> specifically allows taxes on income, "from whatever source derived," but
> says nothing about whether the tax has to be equal or unequal on an
> individual basis.
That's covered by things like the 14th amendment. However the income
tax amendment does not prohibit "progressive" taxes so they are
allowed as long as applied equally to all in the same income bracket.
In fact the courts look at what congress wanted and the clear intent
of income tax was to tax the rich. In fact the initial promise was
that most americans would not pay it because they didn't make enough
money.
...
> >> Kinda like they're not likely to accept out-of-state tuition at state
> >> universities?
>
> > Cause their parents don't pay in-state taxes.
>
> And neither do out-of-state drivers pay in-state taxes for the upkeep of
> municipal roadways.
If they buy fuel in the area they certainly do.
And of course what you are proposing is nothing but a way to
circumvent the courts and punish people without due process. That's
called a police state.
Deadrat
d80afc...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 4, 10:07�am, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> Are ya' havin' trouble making the connections, Sparky? �The
>> Constitution specifically allows taxes on income, "from whatever
>> source derived," but says nothing about whether the tax has to be
>> equal or unequal on an individual basis.
>
> That's covered by things like the 14th amendment. However the income
> tax amendment does not prohibit "progressive" taxes so they are
> allowed as long as applied equally to all in the same income bracket.
> In fact the courts look at what congress wanted and the clear intent
> of income tax was to tax the rich. In fact the initial promise was
> that most americans would not pay it because they didn't make enough
> money.
Yeah, whatever. Thanks for sharing. So we're in violent agreement that
two people may pay different amounts in taxes?
>
> ...
>
>> >> Kinda like they're not likely to accept out-of-state tuition at
>> >> state universities?
>>
>> > Cause their parents don't pay in-state taxes.
>>
>> And neither do out-of-state drivers pay in-state taxes for the upkeep
>> of municipal roadways.
>
> If they buy fuel in the area they certainly do.
No, if they buy fuel in the area, they pay for highways.
>
> And of course what you are proposing is nothing but a way to
> circumvent the courts and punish people without due process.
Well, it wasn't my proposal. I'm just noting that the proposal was
perfectly legal.
And of course, taxes aren't judicial punishments, so due process has
nothing to do with this.
> That's called a police state.
No, it's not, you ignoramus. All federal taxes are voted on by your
elected representatives in the national legislature; they are collected
by an executive, whose officers report to persons you elected. If you
have a dispute over the legality of the taxes or the propriety of their
collection, you have recourse to the judiciary.
You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about, do you, Sparky?
hal lillywhite
> And of course, taxes aren't judicial punishments, so due process has
> nothing to do with this.
>
> > That's called a police state.
>
> No, it's not, you ignoramus.
So the police, with no appeal allowed nor even the opportunity to
defend themselves, can punish anyone by forcing them to pay a fine
under the name of taxes. What would you call that?
gb
<hlil...@juno.com> wrote:
>So the police, with no appeal allowed nor even the opportunity to
>defend themselves, can punish anyone by forcing them to pay a fine
>under the name of taxes. What would you call that?
I'd call it impossible.
You are unaware of anyplace where police "punish anyone by forcing
Von Hindenberg
==================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
hal lillywhite
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:20:53 -0800 (PST), hal lillywhite
>
> >So the police, with no appeal allowed nor even the opportunity to
> >defend themselves, can punish anyone by forcing them to pay a fine
> >under the name of taxes. What would you call that?
>
> I'd call it impossible.
>
> You are unaware of anyplace where police "punish anyone by forcing
> them to pay a fine under the name of taxes."
True but it was proposed (apparently seriously) here.
Deadrat
e95cb4...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
Ignorance. On your part.
Improperly assessed taxes may always be appealed. This one would be no
different.
Deadrat
2fa18c...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
No, it wasn't. Nothing in the proposal would preclude appealing an
improper assessment of the tax.
gb
A fine is not a Tax.
gb
>Improperly assessed taxes may always be appealed. This one would be no
>different.
Both fines and taxes may be appealed.
But they are still not the same things at all.
Deadrat
4ax.com:
And no one says they are. Do you have a point or are you just not paying
attention?
Deadrat
4ax.com:
Pretty much the point. The proposal was for an alternative method of
collecting money so as to discourage certain behavior. But neither may be
arbitrarily imposed by the "police," and neither is immune from due process
procedures.
Mark Time
again couldn't think of anything worthwhile to post.
Do you ever have anything of substance, or interest, to say?
Wreck T. Fire
It can serve the same purpose, and oft times does.
Late registration fines are being used in Colorado to shore up budgetary
losses.
Wreck T. Fire
They can serve the same purpose, gasbag.
gb
wrote:
>gb wrote:
>> A fine is not a Tax.
>
>It can serve the same purpose, and oft times does.
Nope. A tax is levied generally, and a fine is collected for an
individual action.
>Late registration fines are being used in Colorado to shore up budgetary
>losses.
As well they ought to be, seems to me. If the normal registration
charges cover the costs of normal registration, then the fine for late
registrations (which also carries an imputed cost above the normal
cost for things like notification and processing) ought to cover such
things, to the degree that it results in an overage in the fund
account.
That's how it's supposed to work!
Von Hindenberg
==================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
Deadrat
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:26:00 -0700, "Wreck T. Fire" <c...@ci.tor>
> wrote:
>
>>gb wrote:
>
>>> A fine is not a Tax.
>>
>>It can serve the same purpose, and oft times does.
>
> Nope. A tax is levied generally, and a fine is collected for an
> individual action.
Like dying? (Estate tax.) Oops! I mean estate *fine*
<snip/>
(You're just makin' this stuff up, right?)
Wreck T. Fire
gb
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:bb7ak5t0jujq5igvd3lnd6ofi0kh28clb1@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:26:00 -0700, "Wreck T. Fire" <c...@ci.tor>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>gb wrote:
>>
>>>> A fine is not a Tax.
>>>
>>>It can serve the same purpose, and oft times does.
>>
>> Nope. A tax is levied generally, and a fine is collected for an
>> individual action.
>
>Like dying? (Estate tax.) Oops! I mean estate *fine*
In which case, you are wrong on both counts.
The estate tax is not a tax on dying.
Von Hindenberg
==================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
Deadrat
4ax.com:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:15:48 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:bb7ak5t0jujq5igvd3lnd6ofi0kh28clb1@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:26:00 -0700, "Wreck T. Fire" <c...@ci.tor>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>gb wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A fine is not a Tax.
>>>>
>>>>It can serve the same purpose, and oft times does.
>>>
>>> Nope. A tax is levied generally, and a fine is collected for an
>>> individual action.
>>
>>Like dying? (Estate tax.) Oops! I mean estate *fine*
>
> In which case, you are wrong on both counts.
I've been wrong before, Sparky. Last time was May of 1964. I think like
to day that it was a Thursday. But not this time.
> The estate tax is not a tax on dying.
Your absurd claim is that a tax is levied "generally" (whatever that
means) as opposed to a fine, which is imposed on an individual action.
The estate tax is a tax (or did you really think I wasn't making fun of
you when I called it a fine?), and it is imposed once and only once at
the time a taxpayer's estate springs into creation. And of course that
happens, *by definition*, at the time of the "individual action" of
dying.
The larger point here is that the distinction between "generally" and
"individually" is useless in distinguising between taxes and fines. It's
true that Congress couldn't, say, impose an "individual" tax on ignorance
and make it apply to you and only to you. That would violate equal
protection. But it's equally true that Congress couldn't impose an
"individual" fine for ignorance on you and only you. That would be a
bill of attainder.
And good thing for you in both cases, because otherwise you'd be
impoverished.
Mark Time
> g
You are a little dick bitch who feels like it is his civic duty as
a Usenet troll to place his nose firmly in the sphincters of those he
dislikes every time they post. They all own you, Jeffy.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
news:ef5ck5ll1196n45bb...@4ax.com...
Nor on the dead.
Deadrat
news:ubadnYGVi7zJq9vW...@posted.pcez:
<snipped: shameless self-promotion/>
> "gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
> news:ef5ck5ll1196n45bb...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:15:48 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>>news:bb7ak5t0jujq5igvd3lnd6ofi0kh28clb1@ 4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:26:00 -0700, "Wreck T. Fire" <c...@ci.tor>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>gb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> A fine is not a Tax.
>>>>>
>>>>>It can serve the same purpose, and oft times does.
>>>>
>>>> Nope. A tax is levied generally, and a fine is collected for an
>>>> individual action.
>>>
>>>Like dying? (Estate tax.) Oops! I mean estate *fine*
>>
>> In which case, you are wrong on both counts.
>>
>> The estate tax is not a tax on dying.
>
> Nor on the dead.
Of course not. It's on estates, but that's not the point. The tax accrues
not "generally" (i.e., not to everyone), but only to those who complete the
act of dying.
The semantic distinction of levies "general" or "individual" is pointless.
Get it now?
gb
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:ef5ck5ll1196n45bbm8d9j71vu7f8k4g3v@
>4ax.com:
>
>> A tax is levied generally, and a fine is collected for an
>>>> individual action.
>>>
>>>Like dying? (Estate tax.) Oops! I mean estate *fine*
>>
>> In which case, you are wrong on both counts.
>
>I've been wrong before, Sparky. Last time was May of 1964. I think like
>to day that it was a Thursday. But not this time.
>
>> The estate tax is not a tax on dying.
>
>Your absurd claim is that a tax is levied "generally" (whatever that
>means) as opposed to a fine, which is imposed on an individual action.
The assertion is correctg as stated,
>The estate tax is a tax (or did you really think I wasn't making fun of
>you when I called it a fine?), and it is imposed once and only once at
>the time a taxpayer's estate springs into creation.
It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
Providing the estate is large enough, that is. Most are not.
gb
>"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>news:ubadnYGVi7zJq9vW...@posted.pcez:
>
><snipped: shameless self-promotion/>
>
>> "gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
>> news:ef5ck5ll1196n45bb...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:15:48 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>> The estate tax is not a tax on dying.
>>
>> Nor on the dead.
>
>Of course not. It's on estates, but that's not the point.
It should be, in that case. Because that's what Really happens.
>... The tax accrues
>not "generally" (i.e., not to everyone), but only to those who complete the
>act of dying.
Since everyone does, eventually, it is levied on the estate of anyone
who does so with a large enough estate.
But once again, keep the terminology clear. It is not levied on
"those who complete the act of dying" either. It might plausibly be
argued that it is levied on the heirs -- who by inspection have Not
yet completed the act of dying, though they are certainly in the
process of it, if they are alive at the time.
That just bothers me not in the least, especially given the large
exclusions now available to pretty much most folks.
>The semantic distinction of levies "general" or "individual" is pointless.
>
>Get it now?
I quite agree, since it buttresses my assertion, which you have now
stipulated to in turn.
Should pretty much end any further argument.
Deadrat
news:sjjck5tml1k5f756m...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:11:59 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>"Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>news:ubadnYGVi7zJq9vW...@posted.pcez:
>>
>><snipped: shameless self-promotion/>
>>
>>> "gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ef5ck5ll1196n45bb...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:15:48 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The estate tax is not a tax on dying.
>>>
>>> Nor on the dead.
>>
>>Of course not. It's on estates, but that's not the point.
>
> It should be, in that case. Because that's what Really happens.
>
>>... The tax accrues
>>not "generally" (i.e., not to everyone), but only to those who
>>complete the act of dying.
>
> Since everyone does, eventually, it is levied on the estate of anyone
> who does so with a large enough estate.
That's right, thus it's levied on everyone who performs a particular act.
>
> But once again, keep the terminology clear. It is not levied on
> "those who complete the act of dying" either. It might plausibly be
> argued that it is levied on the heirs -- who by inspection have Not
> yet completed the act of dying, though they are certainly in the
> process of it, if they are alive at the time.
It might be so argued, but only by an ignoramus. The tax is levied on
the estate of the deceased, which is legal fiction that stands in for the
departed.
> That just bothers me not in the least, especially given the large
> exclusions now available to pretty much most folks.
>
>>The semantic distinction of levies "general" or "individual" is
>>pointless.
>>
>>Get it now?
>
> I quite agree, since it buttresses my assertion, which you have now
> stipulated to in turn.
>
> Should pretty much end any further argument.
<shrug>
I guess we're in violent agreement on the conclusion.
</shrug>
Deadrat
news:33jck51ld7ntt8j1h...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:29:56 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in news:ef5ck5ll1196n45bbm8d9j71vu7f8k4g3v@
>>4ax.com:
>>
>>> A tax is levied generally, and a fine is collected for an
>>>>> individual action.
>>>>
>>>>Like dying? (Estate tax.) Oops! I mean estate *fine*
>>>
>>> In which case, you are wrong on both counts.
>>
>>I've been wrong before, Sparky. Last time was May of 1964. I think
>>like to day that it was a Thursday. But not this time.
>>
>>> The estate tax is not a tax on dying.
>>
>>Your absurd claim is that a tax is levied "generally" (whatever that
>>means) as opposed to a fine, which is imposed on an individual action.
>
> The assertion is correctg as stated,
The assertion is essentially meaningless, so it can't bear the weight of
the argument that the OP was trying to make.
>>The estate tax is a tax (or did you really think I wasn't making fun
>>of you when I called it a fine?), and it is imposed once and only once
>>at the time a taxpayer's estate springs into creation.
>
> It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
No, it's not. It's paid by the estate -- I don't know what "the
exchange" of an estate is -- which is a legal person. The actual check
is cut by the executor or personal representative, acting as a kind of
agent for the estate.
> Providing the estate is large enough, that is. Most are not.
Happy 2010! No estate tax to be paid this year by any estate.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:QrSdnVDE98BdzNvW...@giganews.com...
> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
> news:sjjck5tml1k5f756m...@4ax.com:
>>
>> Since everyone does, eventually, it is levied on the estate of anyone
>> who does so with a large enough estate.
>
> That's right, thus it's levied on everyone who performs a particular act.
Death is an event - not a act -- unless the deceased comitted suicide.
'
>>
>> But once again, keep the terminology clear. It is not levied on
>> "those who complete the act of dying" either. It might plausibly be
>> argued that it is levied on the heirs -- who by inspection have Not
>> yet completed the act of dying, though they are certainly in the
>> process of it, if they are alive at the time.
>
> It might be so argued, but only by an ignoramus. The tax is levied on
> the estate of the deceased, which is legal fiction that stands in for the
> departed.
Do you somehow think the deceased can take it with them? Once the owner
dies, it is just property. The term "estate" is legal fiction that stands
for income to the heirs.
>>
>> Should pretty much end any further argument.
>
> <shrug>
> I guess we're in violent agreement on the conclusion.
> </shrug>
>
I'm sure you can find something to disagree on.
Wreck T. Fire
Von Hindenberg
> The assertion is correctg as stated,
>
==================================================================================
Von Hindenberg
==================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> Should pretty much end any further argument.
Wreck T. Fire
> -
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:QrSdnVDE98BdzNvW...@giganews.com...
>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>> news:sjjck5tml1k5f756m...@4ax.com:
>>> Since everyone does, eventually, it is levied on the estate of anyone
>>> who does so with a large enough estate.
>> That's right, thus it's levied on everyone who performs a particular act.
>
> Death is an event - not a act -- unless the deceased comitted suicide.
Idiotic semantics.
>>> But once again, keep the terminology clear. It is not levied on
>>> "those who complete the act of dying" either. It might plausibly be
>>> argued that it is levied on the heirs -- who by inspection have Not
>>> yet completed the act of dying, though they are certainly in the
>>> process of it, if they are alive at the time.
>> It might be so argued, but only by an ignoramus. The tax is levied on
>> the estate of the deceased, which is legal fiction that stands in for the
>> departed.
>
> Do you somehow think the deceased can take it with them?
Pharoahs used to.
> Once the owner
> dies, it is just property.
It is an asset.
> The term "estate" is legal fiction that stands
> for income to the heirs.
The term "income" is a legal fiction too then, as it's mostly "outgo"...
>>> Should pretty much end any further argument.
>> <shrug>
>> I guess we're in violent agreement on the conclusion.
>> </shrug>
>>
> I'm sure you can find something to disagree on.
Get your nuts working yet, earwig?
gb
>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>news:33jck51ld7ntt8j1h...@4ax.com:
>> It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
>
>No, it's not. It's paid by the estate -- I don't know what "the
>exchange" of an estate is -- which is a legal person.
The estate is not a legal person. Who signs the check?
(I have handled such matters at the request of late friends, and have
some experience with that.)
>... The actual check
>is cut by the executor or personal representative, acting as a kind of
>agent for the estate.
One presumes that the individual doing so is alive, or at least that's
the hope.
>> Providing the estate is large enough, that is. Most are not.
>
>Happy 2010! No estate tax to be paid this year by any estate.
A pity, that.
Von Hindenberg
==================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> A pity, that.
Wreck T. Fire
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:32:18 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>> news:33jck51ld7ntt8j1h...@4ax.com:
>
>>> It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
>> No, it's not. It's paid by the estate -- I don't know what "the
>> exchange" of an estate is -- which is a legal person.
>
> The estate is not a legal person.
Irrelevant, neither is a Roth.
> Who signs the check?
Perhaps a trustee.
> (I have handled such matters at the request of late friends, and have
> some experience with that.)
You are a gassing blowhard who claims to have "personal experience" in
_everything_ written here!
>> ... The actual check
>> is cut by the executor or personal representative, acting as a kind of
>> agent for the estate.
>
> One presumes that the individual doing so is alive, or at least that's
> the hope.
One presumes your your studied droll sense of humor is as useless as the
rest of the garbage you post here.
>>> Providing the estate is large enough, that is. Most are not.
>> Happy 2010! No estate tax to be paid this year by any estate.
>
> A pity, that.
Only if one is a statist.
And you are.
Mark Time
Mark Time
Mark Time
think of anything worthwhile to post.
Do you ever have anything of substance, or interest, to say?
Deadrat
news:_JmdneNeWZm8ydvW...@posted.pcez:
<snipped: shameless top-posted self-promotion/>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:QrSdnVDE98BdzNvW...@giganews.com...
>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>> news:sjjck5tml1k5f756m...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>> Since everyone does, eventually, it is levied on the estate of
>>> anyone who does so with a large enough estate.
>>
>> That's right, thus it's levied on everyone who performs a particular
>> act.
>
> Death is an event - not a act -- unless the deceased comitted suicide.
It just keeps getting better, doesn't it, Sparky? Now you have to split
hairs on whether an individual "event" is an action or not. Have ya
picked up the fact that this general/individual distinction is of no use?
>>> But once again, keep the terminology clear. It is not levied on
>>> "those who complete the act of dying" either. It might plausibly be
>>> argued that it is levied on the heirs -- who by inspection have Not
>>> yet completed the act of dying, though they are certainly in the
>>> process of it, if they are alive at the time.
>>
>> It might be so argued, but only by an ignoramus. The tax is levied
>> on the estate of the deceased, which is legal fiction that stands in
>> for the departed.
>
> Do you somehow think the deceased can take it with them? Once the
> owner dies, it is just property. The term "estate" is legal fiction
> that stands for income to the heirs.
Ya just keep diggin' yourself in deeper, dontcha, Sparky? An estate
isn't just property; an estate is an individual, albeit a special one
created by law. An estate can pay taxes, like a real person; an estate
can owe money; like a real person; an estate can collect debts, like a
real person; an estate can sue others, like a real person. An estate is
a legal fiction that stands in place of the deceased, and the executor is
appointed to animate the estate to act the way the deceased would have
wanted. There may be no persons who are heirs, and there may be no
income for them even if they exist. An estate is distinct from any
heirs.
>>>
>>> Should pretty much end any further argument.
>>
>> <shrug>
>> I guess we're in violent agreement on the conclusion.
>> </shrug>
>>
> I'm sure you can find something to disagree on.
True that. Usually it's some piece of nonsense posted by an ignoramus.
Deadrat
news:hi5l9q$4hs$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
<snip/>
>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:QrSdnVDE98BdzNvW...@giganews.com...
>>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>> news:sjjck5tml1k5f756m...@4ax.com:
>>>> Since everyone does, eventually, it is levied on the estate of
>>>> anyone who does so with a large enough estate.
>>> That's right, thus it's levied on everyone who performs a particular
>>> act.
>>
>> Death is an event - not a act -- unless the deceased comitted
>> suicide.
>
> Idiotic semantics.
Isn't that what semiotics is?
<snip/>
Wreck T. Fire
Deadrat
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:32:18 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>news:33jck51ld7ntt8j1h...@4ax.com:
>
>>> It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
>>
>>No, it's not. It's paid by the estate -- I don't know what "the
>>exchange" of an estate is -- which is a legal person.
>
> The estate is not a legal person. Who signs the check?
An estate is a legal person, just not an actual person. The signature
on the check should read "John Doe, executor of the state of Joe Smith."
Of course, an actual person must animate the estate, which as I've said
isn't an actual human being. But the executor doesn't act as his own
individual; he acts according to the will (pun intended) of the deceased.
>
> (I have handled such matters at the request of late friends, and have
> some experience with that.)
Did your friends know that they were appointing an ignoramus as their
executor?
>>... The actual check
>>is cut by the executor or personal representative, acting as a kind of
>>agent for the estate.
>
> One presumes that the individual doing so is alive, or at least that's
> the hope.
Of course he has to be alive. Legal fictions can't physically move pens.
>>> Providing the estate is large enough, that is. Most are not.
>>
>>Happy 2010! No estate tax to be paid this year by any estate.
>
> A pity, that.
Just wait until next year.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:X-adna_WJLpf99vW...@giganews.com...
> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>
> Ya just keep diggin' yourself in deeper, dontcha, Sparky? An estate
> isn't just property; an estate is an individual, albeit a special one
> created by law. An estate can pay taxes, like a real person; an estate
> can owe money; like a real person; an estate can collect debts, like a
> real person; an estate can sue others, like a real person. An estate is
> a legal fiction that stands in place of the deceased, and the executor is
> appointed to animate the estate to act the way the deceased would have
> wanted. There may be no persons who are heirs, and there may be no
> income for them even if they exist. An estate is distinct from any
> heirs.
Don't give up your day job for lawyering. An estate is a "collection of
property interests" - and the you do not have to be dead to have an estate.
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:X-adna7WJLqG9tvW...@giganews.com...
Nope.
----------
Main Entry:semiotic
Pronunciation:-**-tik
Variant:or semiotics \-tiks\
Function:noun
Inflected Form:plural semiotics
Etymology:Greek s*mei*tikos observant of signs, from s*meiousthai to
interpret signs, from s*meion sign, from s*ma sign
Date:1880
: a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially
with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages
and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics
Bill Shatzer
And commencing January 1 and continuing through the end of the year, it
is irrelevant how large the estate is as there is no estate tax this
year at all. Estates of any magnitude can pass free of any tax whatsoever.
Wealthy individuals are reportedly hiring food tasters and not allowing
close relatives to work on their limos' brakes.
It must be unnerving to know that your heirs will do ever so much better
financially if you just would have the decency to die sometime before
the end of the year.
Look for accelerated fatalities among the rich and famous as December 31
approaches.
peace and justice,
Von Hindenberg
> And commencing January 1 and continuing through the end of the year,
Retract your TREASON:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill Shatzer wrote:
And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Wreck T. Fire
You get your nuts working yet, eunuch?
LDosser
Nope. Paid by the estate.
LDosser
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:32:18 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>news:33jck51ld7ntt8j1h...@4ax.com:
>
>>> It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
>>
>>No, it's not. It's paid by the estate -- I don't know what "the
>>exchange" of an estate is -- which is a legal person.
>
> The estate is not a legal person. Who signs the check?
>
> (I have handled such matters at the request of late friends, and have
> some experience with that.)
Did you embezzle much?
Curt
> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote innews:sjjck5tml1k5f756m...@4ax.com:> >>"Baxter" <lbax02.spamgu...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> >>news:ubadnYGVi7zJq9vW...@posted.pcez:
>
> >><snipped: shameless self-promotion/>
>
> >>> "gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:ef5ck5ll1196n45bb...@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 18:15:48 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> The estate tax is not a tax on dying.
>
> >>> Nor on the dead.
>
> >>Of course not. It's on estates, but that's not the point.
>
> > It should be, in that case. Because that's what Really happens.
>
> >>... The tax accrues
> >>not "generally" (i.e., not to everyone), but only to those who
> >>complete the act of dying.
>
> > Since everyone does, eventually, it is levied on the estate of anyone
> > who does so with a large enough estate.
>
> That's right, thus it's levied on everyone who performs a particular act.
>
>
>
> > But once again, keep the terminology clear. It is not levied on
> > "those who complete the act of dying" either. It might plausibly be
> > argued that it is levied on the heirs -- who by inspection have Not
> > yet completed the act of dying, though they are certainly in the
> > process of it, if they are alive at the time.
>
> It might be so argued, but only by an ignoramus. The tax is levied on
> the estate of the deceased, which is legal fiction that stands in for the
> departed.
So, really, it's not levied on anyone, is it? I mean, the estate
doesn't belong to the heirs, yet. And it doesn't belong to the
deceased anymore, on account of that whole "deceased" thing.
Curt
Deadrat
news:meadncqv7oO05NvW...@posted.pcez:
<snipped: shameless top-posted self-promotion/>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:X-adna7WJLqG9tvW...@giganews.com...
>> "Wreck T. Fire" <c...@ci.tor> wrote in
>> news:hi5l9q$4hs$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> <snip/>
>>
>>>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:QrSdnVDE98BdzNvW...@giganews.com...
>>>>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:sjjck5tml1k5f756m...@4ax.com:
>>>>>> Since everyone does, eventually, it is levied on the estate of
>>>>>> anyone who does so with a large enough estate.
>>>>> That's right, thus it's levied on everyone who performs a
>>>>> particular act.
>>>>
>>>> Death is an event - not a act -- unless the deceased comitted
>>>> suicide.
>>>
>>> Idiotic semantics.
>>
>> Isn't that what semiotics is?
>>
> Nope.
Good gawd! You took that as a serious question?
> ----------
> Main Entry:semiotic
> Pronunciation:-**-tik
> Variant:or semiotics \-tiks\
> Function:noun
> Inflected Form:plural semiotics
> Etymology:Greek s*mei*tikos observant of signs, from s*meiousthai to
> interpret signs, from s*meion sign, from s*ma sign
> Date:1880
>
> : a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals
> : especially
> with their function in both artificially constructed and natural
> languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics
So we know you can use a search engine, you have no sense of humor, and
you have no clue about semiotics.
Mark Time
> x
gb
wrote:
>"gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
>news:6elck51n90hi3qbq5...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:32:18 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>
>>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>>news:33jck51ld7ntt8j1h...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>> It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
>>>
>>>No, it's not. It's paid by the estate -- I don't know what "the
>>>exchange" of an estate is -- which is a legal person.
>>
>> The estate is not a legal person. Who signs the check?
>>
>> (I have handled such matters at the request of late friends, and have
>> some experience with that.)
>
>Did you embezzle much?
Just none whatsoever. I was offered a stipend, but donated it to a
charity in their names instead.
The Living do owe a certain obligation to the dead in such matters,
and as I honored the friendship I also preferred to honor their death
in the same fashion.
And you are churlish to believe otherwise.
Wreck T. Fire
ROTFLMFAO!
Wreck T. Fire
How stupid are you?
> I mean, the estate
> doesn't belong to the heirs, yet.
Ah yes, THAT stupid.
The estate belongs to the heirs the second the maker is deceased, in the
case of a trust, or after probate for a traditional will.
> And it doesn't belong to the
> deceased anymore, on account of that whole "deceased" thing.
>
> Curt
Just shut the fuck up and go away, you blithering idiot.
Wreck T. Fire
> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
> news:meadncqv7oO05NvW...@posted.pcez:
>
> <snipped: shameless top-posted self-promotion/>
>
>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>> news:X-adna7WJLqG9tvW...@giganews.com...
>>> "Wreck T. Fire" <c...@ci.tor> wrote in
>>> news:hi5l9q$4hs$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>> <snip/>
>>>
>>>>> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:QrSdnVDE98BdzNvW...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:sjjck5tml1k5f756m...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>> Since everyone does, eventually, it is levied on the estate of
>>>>>>> anyone who does so with a large enough estate.
>>>>>> That's right, thus it's levied on everyone who performs a
>>>>>> particular act.
>>>>> Death is an event - not a act -- unless the deceased comitted
>>>>> suicide.
>>>> Idiotic semantics.
>>> Isn't that what semiotics is?
>>>
>> Nope.
>
> Good gawd! You took that as a serious question?
Earwigs are humorless...
>
>> ----------
>> Main Entry:semiotic
>> Pronunciation:-**-tik
>> Variant:or semiotics \-tiks\
>> Function:noun
>> Inflected Form:plural semiotics
>> Etymology:Greek s*mei*tikos observant of signs, from s*meiousthai to
>> interpret signs, from s*meion sign, from s*ma sign
>> Date:1880
>>
>> : a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals
>> : especially
>> with their function in both artificially constructed and natural
>> languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics
>
> So we know you can use a search engine, you have no sense of humor, and
> you have no clue about semiotics.
>
True.
Von Hindenberg
==================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
Deadrat
news:meadncWv7oO05NvW...@posted.pcez:
<snipped: shameless top-posted self-promotion/>
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:X-adna_WJLpf99vW...@giganews.com...
>> "Baxter" <lbax02.s...@baxcode.com> wrote in
>>
>> Ya just keep diggin' yourself in deeper, dontcha, Sparky? An estate
>> isn't just property; an estate is an individual, albeit a special one
>> created by law. An estate can pay taxes, like a real person; an
>> estate can owe money; like a real person; an estate can collect
>> debts, like a real person; an estate can sue others, like a real
>> person. An estate is a legal fiction that stands in place of the
>> deceased, and the executor is appointed to animate the estate to act
>> the way the deceased would have wanted. There may be no persons who
>> are heirs, and there may be no income for them even if they exist.
>> An estate is distinct from any heirs.
>
> Don't give up your day job for lawyering.
This assumes I have a day job. And that I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer.
> An estate is a "collection of property interests"
I don't know where you're getting this, but for the purposes of this
thread, an estate is a legal fiction animated by an executor or personal
representative following the instructions in a will or if there is no
will, the default rules of the states laws on intestacy. State law and
court precedent define what and how estates [operate.]
- and the you do not have to be dead to have an estate.
This is true, but irrelevant to the discussion. Anyone who is not
competent to handle his own affairs, may be declared a ward, and have his
property managed by a guardian. That property is referred to as the
ward's estate. At least, that's what it's called in Illinois.
But we're talking about property subject to estate taxes, and that would
be only a decedent's estate.
Deadrat
september.org:
Probably nothing. Remember, anyone can play an executor in cyberspace.
Wreck T. Fire
The gasbag Homuth is an expert on EVERYTHING, hadn't you heard?
Deadrat
news:31bc9510-f430-4ca8...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> On Jan 7, 1:27�pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote
>> innews:sjjck5tml1k5f756m06mcdu3rhaccfse6l@4a
Of course it's levied on someone; it's levied on the *estate* An estate
is a someone, a legal fictious someone, to be sure, but still a someone.
And as an individual someone, the estate is distinct from anyone else,
including the testator, the executor, and any heirs.
>
> Curt
>
Deadrat
4ax.com:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:28:20 -0800, "LDosser" <L...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>"gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
>>news:6elck51n90hi3qbq5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:32:18 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>>>news:33jck51ld7ntt8j1h...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>> It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not. It's paid by the estate -- I don't know what "the
>>>>exchange" of an estate is -- which is a legal person.
>>>
>>> The estate is not a legal person. Who signs the check?
>>>
>>> (I have handled such matters at the request of late friends, and have
>>> some experience with that.)
>>
>>Did you embezzle much?
>
> Just none whatsoever. I was offered a stipend, but donated it to a
> charity in their names instead.
Anyone can be magnanimous in cyberspace.
>
> The Living do owe a certain obligation to the dead in such matters,
> and as I honored the friendship I also preferred to honor their death
> in the same fashion.
Anyone can be a BFF in cyberspace.
> And you are churlish to believe otherwise.
I, for one, am churlish and proud of it. But I hasten to add that I have
abolutely no opinion one way or the other about your tenure as an
executor. Anyone can play an executor in cyberspace, but that doesn't
mean either that he held or didn't hold that office.
I am an agnostic churl in this matter.
Deadrat
Strictly speaking, the property of the estate belongs to the heirs the
second the executor distributes it. This will occur after the executor
pays all claims against the estate, including taxes, debts, and
judgments. This may well be many seconds after the testator dies.
Deadrat
september.org:
I'm startin' to get the gist of it.
LDosser
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:28:20 -0800, "LDosser" <L...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>"gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
>>news:6elck51n90hi3qbq5...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:32:18 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>>>news:33jck51ld7ntt8j1h...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>> It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not. It's paid by the estate -- I don't know what "the
>>>>exchange" of an estate is -- which is a legal person.
>>>
>>> The estate is not a legal person. Who signs the check?
>>>
>>> (I have handled such matters at the request of late friends, and have
>>> some experience with that.)
>>
>>Did you embezzle much?
>
> Just none whatsoever. I was offered a stipend, but donated it to a
> charity in their names instead.
Oh Suuure ...
LDosser
Ahhh, so true. And no one can hear you scream ...
LDosser
ROTFLMAO!!
Many of us knew that going in, but it is a joy to see it so deftly proven -
yet again!
LDosser
Bax is likely thinking of the kind on which one drives an Estate Car, or
Shooting Brake.
LDosser
news:31bc9510-f430-4ca8...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is levied on the estate.
LDosser
Baxter will be right back with a definition of 'testator'.
"Are the tators hot enough?"
"Don't know, I'll call the testator."
Wreck T. Fire
Actually the executor or trustee may disburse funds, at their
discretion, prior to satisfying any claims.
Not saying that is smart, but it can occur.
Wreck T. Fire
A legend in his own pin head...
Wreck T. Fire
> "gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
> news:a60dk5h7devtt1s14...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 16:28:20 -0800, "LDosser" <L...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "gb" <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6elck51n90hi3qbq5...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:32:18 -0600, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:33jck51ld7ntt8j1h...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>>> It is a tax on the exchange of the estate, paid by the living.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not. It's paid by the estate -- I don't know what "the
>>>>> exchange" of an estate is -- which is a legal person.
>>>>
>>>> The estate is not a legal person. Who signs the check?
>>>>
>>>> (I have handled such matters at the request of late friends, and have
>>>> some experience with that.)
>>>
>>> Did you embezzle much?
>>
>> Just none whatsoever. I was offered a stipend, but donated it to a
>> charity in their names instead.
>
> Oh Suuure ...
>
Saint Dondi...
Wreck T. Fire
Pity, that...
Wreck T. Fire
LOLOLOL!!!
He's one station wagon short of bespoke!
Wreck T. Fire
Is that why his nuts don't work any more?
Deadrat
september.org:
> "Deadrat" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
> news:D5ednTD6Hf9XFdvW...@giganews.com...
>> Curt <obadia...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:31bc9510-f430-4ca8-8eee-561c2dcaf361
I've got to get someone to show me how to use those emoticons and all-cap
abbreviations that the kids all use on the intertubes. R-O-T-something.
Wreck T. Fire
<chuckle>
Deadrat
I take it he mostly lives on or.politics. I'd introduce him to richard of
misc.legal, but their combined ignorance might tear a hole in the fabric of
spacetime.
Wreck T. Fire
Oh no...he's ubiquitous across a number of forums and venues, though
this IS his home.
> I'd introduce him to richard of
> misc.legal, but their combined ignorance might tear a hole in the fabric of
> spacetime.
LOL!
Here:
The solipsist Homuth is a total nutter.
LDosser
LOL!!
We could send Shitzer, Drooler, Baxturd and Clammie. They all reckon they're
experts of one stripe or another. That lot could tear space-time a new
asshole!
LDosser
news:hi66e1$egn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I've always thought so.
LDosser
Boiled too long, I expect.
LDosser
Deadrat
news:hi6a6s$hta$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Thank you.
Wreck T. Fire
<G>