# Are Republicans evil? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 19, 2002, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968 "2002-10-19T13:46:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/161 "2002-10-24T16:34:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*1966, as it happens. But in the meantime I have had many occasions to glance at history books as school materials. Further, I commend to you a book on the very subject of history textbooks, _Lies My Teacher Told Me_ by James W. Loewen. You can find more out here: [http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html](http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/liesmyteachertoldme/liesmyteacher.html) > > Boiled down, his theme is not the repression of history, but the neccesity of rendering history text books bland and inoffensive, when our history is anything but.\*\* Wow, see…that isn’t so hard. Perhaps that is an accurate assessment, but not having read the book, I can’t really critique it. I’ll assume it made a valid case and accept your assertion that textbooks are bland and relatively inoffensive. > [@](#): > > **You really have a problem with his “civility” thing, don’t you? Am I to believe that you contend that the Republicans _don’t_ have such support? And that therefore I am required to prove it to you? With more respect than I am offered, I decline. That’s just plain silly.** Hmmm…perhaps I was being unclear in my request for citation. I was not asking for a cite that the Republican party has the support of Falwell and his ilk, but that the party would collapse **without** their support. Perhaps you now can be bothered to dig up a cite to support that little theory, kind sir. > [@](#): > > **Love the guy! He and Molly Ivins, top of my list of People with Brains Who Don’t Have Funny Accents. You have, in your ardor, omitted the cites referring to his Atwater-like ruthlessness. No doubt you will make haste to correct this.** Of course. Once you actually make a cite that Rove once stated that there are “no rules in a knife fight” referring to elections. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/162 "2002-10-24T16:45:02Z")
He was described that way here: [http://www.maxlogan.com/ny\_times.htm](http://www.maxlogan.com/ny_times.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/163 "2002-10-24T16:46:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Well, your definition of “conservative” is at variance with mine own, and the public at large. That is your privilege, of course. I pass this over lightly, lest I be tempted to the apalling practice of posting a quote from a dictionary. > \*\* I am not as adverse to looking to the dictionary as you so here goes: You were using the word as a noun: n. 1. One favoring traditional views and values. 2. A supporter of political conservatism. 3. Conservative A member or supporter of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada. 4. Archaic. A preservative agent or principle. I would think it’s obvious that we are both using the word to mean #2. The traditional view and value thing would only apply to things outside politics. Like ‘conservative colors’. A good example has already been pointed out. School vouchers, where conservatives want change and Liberals like the status quo. \*\* > [@](#): > > “Huh”, indeed. From whence do you draw the implication that I regard the Republicans as being so responsible? > \*\* You said: “They (republicans) don’t teach our children much about the labor movement in America” Explain what you meant by this, or drop it. Don’t backpeddle out by denying it. \*\* > [@](#): > > Stunning. > \*\* I’m glad you liked it. 🙂 \*\* > [@](#): > > Excellent! Just the ticket! No doubt you can offer cites in evidence of the Republican Party’s firm renunciation of such support. I suggest that a speech at Bob Jones University might provide an excellent forum for expounding such a principled stance. Or perhaps just quick call to the dismayingly bland Mr. Reed saying “Bugger off! We are too principled to accept the support and money of the likes of you!” In the immortal words of Buddy Holly: “That’ll be the day…” > \*\* Right. Because there are oh so many Democratic politicians to choose from who are atheists. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/164 "2002-10-24T16:48:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace0Spades \* > **I don’t find your terminology understandable; it couldn’t _possibly_ be self-serving obfuscation, could it?** An illustration of how “stepped up basis” works has been posted in this thread. If you did not find the term understandable when the thread started, you should find it understandable now.\*\* > [@](#): > > DCU: There you go again. Who’s defending the Democrats? James Carville is one man; pointing to him in an irrelevant point when you’re responding to a poster who accuses the Republicans of having the prevalent view of “no rules in a knife fight.” That means the majority of Republicans – James Carville is not the majority of Democrats, is he?\*\* Kindly provide a cite that the majority of Republicans believes in the “no rules in a knife fight” mantra. You’ve only provided one – Karl Rove – and, like James Carville, he’s just one man (an important man, to be sure, but then, so is Carville). And I can find any number of quotes from other Democratic political strategists. Consider Donna Brazile’s description of Gore opposition researchers as “[killers](http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taedec00f.htm)” and the Gore campaign headquarters as the “slaughterhouse.” And let’s not even start getting into some of Bob Shrum’s more outlandish statements.\*\* > [@](#): > > Somewhat obviously, you’ve retreated back to your traditional hand-waving time-wasters; as I said originally, assign the evil points, and you’ll find the Republicans smoke the Democrats in every category.\*\* Hand-waving? I addressed you point-by-point. You’re the one making sweeping generalizations (“assign the evil points” indeed); you’re the one engaging in hand-waving. Let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we?\*\* > [@](#): > > e.g. Demagoguery: puh-lease, the Democrats are worse? Put _down the bong, counsellor_\*\* Recall the welfare reform debate? The Democrats tried to paint Republicans as ogres who wanted to starve the poor. Recall virtually any discussion of social security? The Democrats try to scare old people by saying the evil Republicans want to take food out of their mouths. Recall hate crimes legislation? The Democrats are the ones pushing emotional hot buttons and portraying Republicans as racist/homophobic/sexist/whatever. You’re damn right the Democrats do more than their fare share of demagoging. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/165 "2002-10-24T16:52:33Z")
**Scylla** : So, no cite for your argument then? My [cite](http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm) seems to disagree with you in almost every respect. Highlights: > [@](#): > > To be subject to tax, the size of an estate must exceed $675,000 in 2001. The estate tax exemption is rising to $1 million by 2006. Note that an estate of any size may be bequeathed to a spouse free of estate tax. > > In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people — fewer than 1.9 percent of the 2.3 million people who died that year — had to pay any estate tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the percentage of people who die whose estates will be subject to estate tax will remain at about two percent for the foreseeable future. In other words, 98 of every 100 people who die face no estate tax whatsoever. Those numbers clash harshly with your own. Were yours invented from whole cloth? Find me a cite or … I believe the phrase is “put up or shut up.” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/166 "2002-10-24T16:55:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace0Spades \* > \*\*He was described that way here: [http://www.maxlogan.com/ny\_times.htm](http://www.maxlogan.com/ny_times.htm) \*\* So Rove never actually said the thing you’re ascribing to him – it’s just a description of him from a third party (Krugman doesn’t describe the quotee as a friend of Rove or evan as a Republican – hell, it could be a Texas Democrat making that quotation). Real intellectual honesty you’ve got going there, **Ace**. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/167 "2002-10-24T17:02:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace0Spades \* > \*\*FTR: If you don’t know what the Heritage foundation is, your tinfoil imprecations have zero merit. Here, I found a [“site”](http://www.heritage.org) for ya. > \*\* **AceOfSpades** , thanks for the link. **stofsky** , thanks for nothing. This is your point that got the heritage thing started: \*\* > [@](#): > > 1. Right Wing Interest Groups: E.g The Heritage Foundation, has bbeen conspiring for 30 years to change public policy by breaking down the walls between the judicial and executive branch. Hello, Clarence Thomas, call your office. Guess who his wife worked for. > \*\* I was responding to everything in your post. Because I wasn’t familiar with the Heritage foundation, I said so, rather than just skip over it and look like I was conceding a point. Anyway, I have now read up on the Heritage foundation. They are a right wing think tank. Clarence Thomas is a right wing judge. The fact that his wife worked for them is not surprising or a conspiracy at all. I still don’t see what evidene there is of the evil _One Percenter_ conservative power club. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/168 "2002-10-24T17:05:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace0Spades \* > \*\ ***Scylla** : So, no cite for your argument then? My [cite](http://www.cbpp.org/5-25-00tax.htm) seems to disagree with you in almost every respect. > > > [@](#): > > > > To be subject to tax, the size of an estate must exceed $675,000 in 2001. The estate tax exemption is rising to $1 million by 2006. Note that an estate of any size may be bequeathed to a spouse free of estate tax. > > > > In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people — fewer than 1.9 percent of the 2.3 million people who died that year — had to pay any estate tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the percentage of people who die whose estates will be subject to estate tax will remain at about two percent for the foreseeable future. In other words, 98 of every 100 people who die face no estate tax whatsoever. > > Those numbers clash harshly with your own. Were yours invented from whole cloth? Find me a cite or … I believe the phrase is “put up or shut up.” \*\* What post of Scylla are you referring to? No one has disputed that the estate tax has a large exemption amount that acts to exclude smaller estates, nor has anyone disputed that most people are not subject to the estate tax. Scylla and myself have opposed the estate tax on fairness grounds, on cost-of-administration grounds, and on the grounds that it encourages spending over savings. Your cites above don’t deal with any of those points. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e495f1/32.png) [@The\_Ace\_of\_Swords](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ace_of_Swords)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/169 "2002-10-24T17:10:41Z")
I believe you’re confusing me with **Elucidator** ; I merely posted what one could find by checking google, and pointed out that equating prevalency with one man was an inane argument. Try to pick up the pace, old bean. Your analysis and arguments here are debilitatingly lame. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/170 "2002-10-24T17:16:45Z")
I believe you are confusing me altogether with your last post. To whom/what are you referring with your last post? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/171 "2002-10-24T17:17:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace0Spades \* > **I believe you’re confusing me with Elucidator; I merely posted what one could find by checking google, and pointed out that equating prevalency with one man was an inane argument.** Like suggesting that all Republicans take a “no rules in a knife fight” approach because one man – Karl Rove – (arguably) takes that approach? You’re right, equating prevalency with one man is stupid, but I’m not the one who’s doing so.\*\* > [@](#): > > Try to pick up the pace, old bean. Your analysis and arguments here are debilitatingly lame. \*\* Then why are you having such difficulty addressing them head-on? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/172 "2002-10-24T17:22:29Z")
Nevermind. Hehe, nice work **Dewey**. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/173 "2002-10-24T17:26:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ace0Spades \* > \*\*He was described that way here: [http://www.maxlogan.com/ny\_times.htm](http://www.maxlogan.com/ny_times.htm) \*\* Yes. Described that way. I rest my case. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/174 "2002-10-24T17:30:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Then why are you having such difficulty addressing them head-on? Is it just me, or is this a recurring problem? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/175 "2002-10-24T17:40:28Z")
Ace: In what possible way does that cite conflict with anything that I’ve said? > [@](#): > > To be subject to tax, the size of an estate must exceed $675,000 in 2001. The estate tax exemption is rising to $1 million by 2006. Not true. Your cite has it slightly wrong. All estates are subject to the Federal Estate Tax. However there is something called the Unified Credit, which every person has and may use during their life or at the time of death. It has gone up this year, and is either 700k or 750k, I forget. So, for example, if a person had engaged in gifting and used up their Unified Credit exemption and died with a total estate of 50k that 50k would be subject to Federal Estate tax. [quote] > [@](#): > > Note that an estate of any size may be bequeathed to a spouse free of estate tax. This is called the unlimited spousal exemption, and is true. > [@](#): > > In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people — fewer than 1.9 percent of the 2.3 million people who died that year — had to pay any estate tax Again, I don’t see how this disagrees with anything I’ve said. The figure applies only to Federal Estate Tax though, I’m sure. I’m going to take a chance and explain something to you. The primary tool in estate planning of estates under 1.5mm is something called the unified credit bypass trust provision which is placed in a will. I’m not going to explain how it works, but the effect is that with proper estate planning, a married couple can shelter a 1.5mm estate so that on the second death there are no Federal taxes due. Similarly there are other tools for larger estates such as life insurance trusts, charitable remainder trusts, gifting strategies etc etc that if implemented properly can completely wipe out the estate tax owable on very large estates. There are still other strategies that while they don’t eliminate the tax, they create an asset that exists to pay the tax, effectively neutralizing it. In this manner there is little reason why a sophisticated person with an estate of almost any size, and reasonable foresight or planning, need pay any estate tax whatsoever. * * * The estate tax then actually does not tax wealth. What it ends up taxing are people of moderate wealth who do not spend thousands of dollars hiring the services of an estate planner. The whole estate tax as it exists now is basically set up to catch the unwary, or the distrustful. The people who usually get caught are the elderly, who tend to be private and suspicious. They may posess moderate wealth. Because they are unsophisticate they don’t know that they need estate planning, and their not comfortable bringing an attorney into their business. I’ll give you an example: A retired couple owns their own home $100k, has two IRAs $250k each, and let’s say $900,000 in CDs for a total estate of $1.4mm. This couple recieves a moderate pension, but they are children of the great depression, and they live frugally and save which is why they have so much in Cds. They take only the minimum from their IRAs, trying to save them as long as possible since they are growing tax-free. Now let’s kill them. One dies, and then the other dies 6 months later. They are each others beneficiaries, and then their children are the contingent beneficiaries. Let’s dispense with final expenses, assume they had insurance and prepaid funerals and move on. Let’s do the IRAs first. The children should have two choices here. They can take over the IRAs and remove the cash based on their added life expectancies, or they can pull the cash out now. Not too many know about the former, and the latter is simpler so let’s take that route. First, there’s the income tax on the money coming out of the IRA. That’s going to be about 190k. Let’s have the estate sell the house and wrap it up. I think the Unified credit is 750k so we’ll use that and leave them with a 650k taxable estate which gets taxed at 55%. That’s $375,000. That gives the total estate shrinkage $575,000. upon death 40% of their estate has gone to tax. There is no reason why with a little planning and a few simple changes to their will that they could have completely avoided all the tax. The effect of the estate tax is that people get taxed simply for not hiring estate planners, not for their wealth. They got screwed because they were ignorant of the complex loopholes, but primarily because they were old and wanted to maintain their privacy. The tax primarily takes advantage of the fact that a lot of old people don’t like telling other people about their money. That’s where the bulk of your 2% comes from. Much larger estates and much wealthier people tend to be more comfortable hiring and listening to advisors, and they take advantage of the loopholes to pass their estates on largely unchanged and sometimes even larger because of their death. In many cases the superwealthy do pay estate taxes, but it really doesn’t effect the wealth they pass on as what they do amounts to the government subsidization of the life insurance industry. The people who get penalized are not the superwealthy, but the moderately wealthy. The private savers, not the large earners. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/176 "2002-10-24T18:06:26Z")
Let’s assume the accuracy of the quote from **Ace0Spades’s** cite: > [@](#): > > In 1997, the estates of fewer than 43,000 people — fewer than 1.9 percent of the 2.3 million people who died that year — had to pay any estate tax. The Joint Committee on Taxation projects that the percentage of people who die whose estates will be subject to estate tax will remain at about two percent for the foreseeable future. In other words, 98 of every 100 people who die face no estate tax whatsoever. **Question:** What percentage of people will pay inheritance tax? Hint: The answer is _not_ 2%. **Answer:** First of all, it’s not quite right to say that “98 of every 100 people who die face no estate tax whatsoever.” Actually 100 or every 100 people who die will face no estate tax. they can’t pay tax, because they’re dead. Although 98 of every 100 _estates_ will face estate tax, the _people_ who bear the tax estate tax burden are the beneficiaries, who inherit. E.g., suppose a wealthy man leaves 1/2 of his estate to his wife and leaves 1/6 to each of his three children. Then four people will all be impacted by the tax on one estate. I don’t know what the average number of beneficiaries is in the wills of wealthy people. If the average were four, then estate tax would impact 2% of estates, but would affect 8% of human beings. Also, _estate tax relief helps some poor and middle-class people:_ Some of those who inherit from wealthy people are not themselves wealthy. So, eliminating estate tax does NOT benefit only the wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/177 "2002-10-24T18:20:16Z")
**Scylla** your esteem for Mr. Goldwater is not contradicted by me. I believe, as you do, that his vote against the Civil Rights Bill of '64 was motivated by political philospy, i.e., states rights. In fact, as a youth I worked for him when LBJ was the “peace” candidate. Indeed, I was quite conservative. Happily, I later moved on to the University, where I was intoduced to sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll and have made a complete recovery. As for Barry, well, any man who publicly states his loathing for Richard Nixon can’t be all bad. **Debaser** > [@](#): > > …You were using the word as a noun… You got me. When you’re right, you’re right. I can offer no valid rebuttal, you nailed that one. I _was_ using the word as a noun. No getting away from it. > [@](#): > > …Explain what you meant by this, or drop it. Don’t backpeddle out by denying it… How you managed to torture that sentence into a confession like that is quite beyond me. Of course the Republicans aren’t primarily responsible for teaching history in public schools. If anyone else is sorely confused, let me clarify: I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that the National Education Association is made up primarily of Republicans. And the Moon is made up of materials that in no way resemble green cheese. [sub]sheeeesh![/sub] > [@](#): > > …the party would collapse without their support… Now, that’s more like it! Upon reflection, that is an overstatement. However, as the electorate is as close as it is, and control of the Parliament of Whores being up for grabs, I think it is safe to say that if the religious right were to withold its vote, I would spend all of Nov. 8th rolling about on the floor and clutching my sides. No, if the Republican Party were to utterly repudiate such as Falwell, Reed, and thier ilk, they would gain my unstinting admiration for a noble and principled act. It would result in a less powerful, but more valid, Republican Party. I would also invest in umbrella company stock, since on the day that pigs fly, umbrellas will become very valuable indeed! ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/178 "2002-10-24T18:23:35Z")
December: That’s just completely wrong. The estate of the deceased is responsible for the estate tax, not the beneficiary(s). The executor pays the final income tax from the estate, plust whatever Federal and state estate taxes are owed, and then distributes the rest. The heirs bear no burden. However, if the number is 2% it is misleading, as most people tend to be married, and there is no estate tax paid at the first death due to the unlimited spousal exemption. This immediately cuts the number in half. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/179 "2002-10-24T18:25:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > \*\* > Scylla and myself have opposed the estate tax on fairness grounds, \*\* Someone mentioned that it is “immoral” because the monies involved have already been earned and taxed by the deceased. Which makes zipitydoodah sense, btw. All the money has been earned and taxed, earned and taxed, earned and taxed, gifted and taxed (above a certain point), won and taxed… it’s like water, which keeps getting pissed into, dumped into the sea, evaporates into the clouds, comes back to earth and your toilet and gets pissed into again. The person who dies and leaves it to you, is not \* you. \* Just like your employer isn’t you, the casinos aren’t you, Ford Motor co. isn’t you. They pay the taxes on the money they get, and when they give it to you, it’s now your money and YOU pay tax on it, whether you earned it, won it, or received it as dividends. Making a special exemption because somebody died before you got it is irrational. (And as we’ve seen, such an exemption already exists for most people. UP TO A POINT. Same goes for all money, the line is just moved around depending on where the money comes from. It’s crazy to think that the rich should have no line at all.) (And I’d like to take this moment to express my satisfaction and pleasure that so many billionaires, such as Warren Buffett, have expressed their belief in the goodness and rightness of the estate tax. Made my day.) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968/180 "2002-10-24T18:27:16Z")
elucidator: > [@](#): > > Scylla your esteem for Mr. Goldwater is not contradicted by me. I believe, as you do, that his vote against the Civil Rights Bill of '64 was motivated by political philospy, i.e., states rights. Then we are in perfect agreement (That doesn’t happen too often, does it.) > [@](#): > > In fact, as a youth I worked for him when LBJ was the “peace” candidate. Indeed, I was quite conservative. I hope having fallen so far from grace hasn’t embittered you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-republicans-evil/132968.md?page=10)