I’m so over bipartisanship, family values and sanctity of marriage. The sound of them makes me want to kick someone in the face.
Only if you have enough income… just like the death tax is tax on the assets you own when you die if you have enough that the government wants to take it from you.
If you let me call it a death tax I’ll let you call income taxes a life tax.
Not the even remotely the same. If you don’t have taxable income, you don’t pay the income tax. If you don’t have a taxable estate, you don’t pay the estate tax.
Death really doesn’t enter into it, except that estates transferred before death are subject to the gift tax, and those transferred after death are subject to the estate tax.
No one is being taxed because they died.
No, when you inherit. The tax is on the person getting the money, not the person giving it.
WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF TEH MONIRITAYYSS !!!11!!1!!! cries
You’re wrong but it doesn’t make much diference. The estate, a separate entity, pays the tax… the beneficiaries get what’s left after the government takes what it wants.
Here’s one… “first responders” when it’s used to refer to anyone other than police, fire and other emergency workers.
Who else has it been used to refer to?
All I can say is you’re not being very complimentary toward your mother…
Take the stupid nitpicking about death and taxes somewhere else. Half this thread is all shitted up like an angry rhino after eating 100 lbs of Taco Bell.
Topic; any sort of campaign attack ads. Those things need to go, and swiftly.
“Voting for a third party is wasting your vote.”
Right, it’s a waste of a vote because third parties never win, and they never win because nobody votes for them, because that’d be a waste of a vote seeing as how they never win. I had thought this sort of thing was covered roundabouts 10th grade for most of us, but alas.
Clean up crews.
“Our Men and Women in Uniform”
Which was obvious from the start. There was no way it was going to go anywhere good.
I suppose it’ll go away on its own but I’m done with the word “Shellacking”. Bad enough that it was thrown around all last month, then December was all about how Obama was overcoming the “shellacking” with the lame duck session. Yeesh.
And I know Obama used it but that doesn’t mean it has to be in every friggin’ article about Congress from now on.
And with Bush it was “we done took us a thumpin’”. Is there some rule that presidents are required to refer to a midterm defeat as some kind of folksy term? Are people too stupid to understand “lost some seats”? If Obama fails a primary challenge will we consider him to be “done took out back the woodshed and been switched good?”
How about “Town Hall” … when attendance/questioning is/are controlled by the politicians (sometimes with the aid of other sponsors).
Seems like these came to prominence in the Clinton era.
I wish “Czar” would go and bury itself somewhere. For chrissakes, it’s the title of Russian monarchy taken from an emperor of Rome and has no place in a democracy. People squirm and squeal if a politician emits even a whiff of acting like a “King”, but apparently having a dozen different czars in charge of vast swathes of the government is just peachy. I realize it just means a government official with broad authority, but I’d rather we called them all “Harold, the meek public servant of [whatever].”
Well, I got pretty upset at Mike Kelly (newly elected Congressman from PA) on Face the Nation this morning for all his self-righteous talk about how he ran a business “with [his own] skin in the game,” & Anthony Weiner supposedly never has. When you’re in Congress, you’re representing a lot more than yourself. The whole freaking country has “skin in the game.” It’s a much bigger deal than when the only losses are your own, your employees, & a few investors. If you can’t get that, maybe you’re not ready for this business.
But I wouldn’t kill him over that.
We’ll see if he’s still talking that way after several years in Congress, & what policies he actually proposes. But an I decide to assassinate him, it’ll probably be for policies, not stupid campaign rhetoric.
Now, Senator Tom Coburn (OK), with his, “a person can have compassion, an institution can’t,” line–there’s someone who needs the word tsedakah explained to him, or even moral obligation. Compassion is a feeling, I demand results, you obnoxious Christian! (Also, faith without works is dead.) Grief, maybe we need even more Jews in Congress; people who know what* mitzvot *are.
Coburn I could kill, that ornament.
_
ETA: Oh, I misunderstood the OP.
Well, yes, those things I named are two rhetorical points that need to be debated against. Not exterminated, not banned, just refuted & rendered moot.
And I’ll settle for Coburn repenting or being canned by the voters.
I thought it was a generalization, about all governments, in all places & times. Like, “Massachusetts shouldn’t have Universal Health Care anymore than the federal government, it’s unconstitutional in general.” And ultimately, “The UK shouldn’t have socialized medicine any more than we should.” Hmm, what should we do about that? Should the USA be trying harder to drag the rest of the world back to the 19th Century?