Wednesday, 5 July 2017

Both parties should favour retaining inheritance tax
Indeed, they should favour increasing it.    Old Lange's rant of the day
As any good Republican will tell you: unearned income destroys initiative and creates dependency.
As any good Democrat will tell you: taxing the rich is just and equitable.
      An estate is not the property of the heirs: as  the heirs have done nothing to earn it.  The state can justly take any or all of the estate of a dead person, since it does not belong to any citizen.  (We call the state’s share an inheritance tax, but that is by tradition, not necessity – though the tradition has been enshrined by common law precedent.)
        If a person dies intestate, the heirs have a legal expectation to a share of whatever property the state does not take.  If not intestate, the same goes for assignees.

       Note: Before someone cites the 5th amendment, which allows the state to take from 0% to 100% of anyone's property and to determine what compensation will be paid, it is not relevant here:  after you are dead, you do not own any property. 

Food stamp rolls plummet in states that restore work requirements
Not a bad idea at all, but the states were always free to require or not require work.  
What this article does not tell us is WHY states removed the work requirement.  

It does, however, tell us that big government in Washington now intends to tell states what to do in this regard.

NPR Tweeted Declaration Of Independence, some Americans Flipped Out 
Might be time for a national poll again.
How many people would support the Bill of Rights, expecailly if presented one at a time? How do supporters divide by party affiliation. How many people would agree with the the Declaration of Independence? Or even recognize it?  Again, how does by party affiliation divide on these questions.

CNN Has The ‘Trust’ Advantage Over President Trump In A New Poll
Not unexpected: CNN lies to them less often.

Barrister Blames Brexit As Racist Who Attacked Woman In Niqab Is Jailed 
Women who wear niqabs in Britain are either being deliberately offensive to local cultural values or are pig-ignorant. (British cultural values do not accept that there are women so high and mighty that none dare look upon their face, not do they accept sexist practices that suggest one gender may see a person's face but another gender may not).
    However, In a free society, people are allowed to be deliberately offensive and to be ignorant of culture and custom. Attacking someone for this reason is not only illegal and reprehensible, it is also against local cultural values.
   PS:  The attacker did not utter a single racist sentiment. He railed about the woman's religion, not about her race.   Or am I fighting a losing battle here: does racism no longer mean racism? Is it now just a catchall term for any offensive behavior?

No comments:

Post a Comment