Speaking of international law…I find Declaration III of the Hague Convention of 1899 ridiculous and outdated.
I think that the laws that you must stop for people in crosswalks are ridiculous. I don’t think that killing pedestrians is a good thing (most of the time), but those laws just give people a license to jaywalk, which I’ve seen too many times to count; that haughty “I’m an entitled pedestrian crossing against the light, you mean old cars MUST bow to me!”. No. Stay the fuck out of the street when cars are coming, period. Cross when either the light says WALK or the road is clear of traffic. If they’re going to put the screws to drivers like that, then they conversely need to enforce jaywalking laws more strictly. That, of course, isn’t going to happen, so they need to not give jaywalkers an unwarranted advantage and get rid of that stupid law.
Here’s the poop. Let’s say you filed a tax return for the year 2008 and deducted your state taxes paid on Schedule A. Then your federal refund for 2008 was based on deducting the state tax you paid in 2008. But you get a refund from your state taxes for tax year 2008. That means you really didn’t pay as much state tax as you told the IRS for that year, you got some back. So you have to add that as income for the following year. That’s why you have to claim it only if you deducted it from your federal form in the previous year.
It’s not a death tax, it’s an estate tax. Let’s say two people pull in $5 million this year. One because of his hard work and initiative, the other because some rich relative died. Why should the hard worker have to pay tax on that income and not the heiress?
Because the $5 million that the was inherited is what was left after the departed earned it. The departed, presumably, worked hard and earned more than $5 million. The government took their share and $5 million was left. Why should it be taxed again just because they died?
It isn’t being taxed again- it’s new income to the recipient. Often, it was never taxed at all. Mr Gotrocks buys 1000 shares of Acme Widgets at $10 per share in 1950. When he dies in 2010, the shares are worth $1010 each. The gain is $1000 per share, or $1,000,000. Since Mr. Gotrocks never sold the shares, no tax was ever paid on it. Why should Gotrocks, Jr. get a tax free windfall?
As a lifetime pedestrian, I agree with this. I don’t even cross the street when there’s no traffic unless I have a WALK signal (well, hardly ever). I figure that in a right-of-way argument with a pile of rolling steel (or fiberglass, or whatever) the odds are that I’m going to lose.
Thanks for not jumping on me for that! 
I do very much respect pedestrian safety and all, I just think that requiring a mass of rolling steel to stop on a dime is less reasonable than asking pedestrians not to walk right out in front of them, it’s just more convenient (and lucrative) to put the onus on drivers.
I’ll “Me, too” the views concerning prohibition laws against marijuana and prostitution. Also the part about Homeowners Associations- I can’t believe those are even legal in the U.S.
Despite the fact that they’re keeping my company in business, I would SO repeal, or at least severely weaken, laws about archeological protection. I read and edit many of the reports of archeological investigations my consulting firm undertakes at the behest of various public agencies, and I am always astonished that anybody feels this is a worthwhile use of taxpayer dollars. Arrowheads and pottery shards are cool enough, I guess, on the rare occasions we find them, so I suppose I could go along with a requirement that they at least be searched for and collected. But when I see how much time and effort (which translates as “how much money from the public till”) goes into writing reports with detailed analyses that are only of interest to other archeologists, I just think that there’s no way the public is getting its money’s worth.
Could you be more specific? I’m curious because one of my professors is on the International Narcotics Control Board, the body that oversees UN drug policy, so I consequently hear quite a bit about UN drug control.
So if I give my wife $100,000 should she pay tax on it? What if I give it to my underage son? What if I buy him a college education ($100k)? It is essentially income to them, so why shouldn’t they pay tax on it? The government already got their slice of that money. Just because someone dies doesn’t mean the government gets to put their hands into it again. I have no problem with the government taxing money exchange when there is an exchange of good or services to accompany it. To avoid the gift loophole, I can also see an argument for taxing gifts over a certain amount, but taxing inheritance to me is a double tax. Obviously your view is different. Not a big deal.
As for Mr. Gotrocks, how do you determine exactly how much the shares are worth on the day he dies? What if he dies at 10:00 am and by 3:00 pm it comes out that the CEO has bankrupted the company and now the shares are worth $1 each. Do you still tax the recipient at $1010 a share?
Shares and income for them are taxed after the sale. This makes perfect sense since everything is worth only what someone is willing to pay you at the time you are willing to sell. It may be worth millions on paper, but until you actually sell it you haven’t made anything. Just ask all those people that ended up underwater on their houses.
It’s a tax on the dead person’s estate. The heirs then pay a tax on what they inherit so your second guy does pay tax…
Double taxation as far as I am concerned.
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/inheritance-tax1.htm
I’ll keep it simple: I’d repeal all federal laws that deal with things that states and cities should have sole jurisdiction over.
Now, the question is, what are those things? Well, that’s a long story…
Not everything should be a national issue. Most things, IMO, shouldn’t be. I’d rather have 50 little laboratories of democracy than a system where every little thing becomes the job of an executive I may not have voted for or a legislator half a country removed from my congressional district. I don’t care what laws they have in Alabama or in California as long as they meet a minimum (VERY minimum) level of constitutionality.
We ask Washington to do everything for us, they will do nothing well.
Alas, federalism will likely never lose its bad rap. Thanks a lot, racist Jim Crows… way to corrupt one of the things that made this country so great and ruin it for the (IMO, ignorant) generations that followed…
No, the heirs pay nothing. Inheritances are tax-free.
Most of the Estate very very likely never had taxes paid on it in the first place. If the Estate is some 3 million bucks, it’s likely mostly Capital Assets. Rich people do not keep their funds in Scrooge McDucks Money Vault. 
Tax upon the gains of Capital assets is not paid until they are transferred, which is exactly what happens when the heirs get them.
In the case of what cmosdes is talking about- in general gifts are also tax free. If a rich dude did sell stock, then gives the gains to his wife/kids/whoever, he’d have paid tax upon the gains.
There is no “double-taxation”. No more than every single dollar is taxed upon it’s transfer.
Regarding estate / death taxes, the first $3.5 million of an inheritance is effectively tax free. So, the tax only hits the wealthy. Nice to see for a change. 
Harassment style gun laws. They do not save lives, lower crime, help law enforcement, or protect the children.
As a fine example, my first Beretta 96FS came with 11 round capacity magazines. The gun was purchased in California in the early 1990’s. California currently has a ban on firearms magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. I have a newer, nicer 96G Elite II that came with 10 round magazines and I still have the 11 round magazines from the first gun. So, that extra cartridge capacity makes me a criminal and a threat to society?
Even the folks who do not want me owning this gun should see how stupid that law is. There was no benefit to the law. Either ban guns or leave me alone with the useless laws.
It’s grandfathered in, you don’t have to surrender anything. Does the magazine have a date stamp or anything like that?
I automatically think of Labour’s heinous violation of civil liberties. The Lib Dems would scrap a lot of their laws:
I agree with most of that (not sure about double jeopardy - if new evidence comes to light to prove someone’s a murderer, shouldn’t they go to prison? EDIT: the Lib Dems would agree with this, but would abolish it in cases of other crimes. Still not sure I agree).
But they don’t mention Labour’s laws against violent porn, which don’t make a distinction between consent and lack of, I believe. Wimps!
No date stamp. They were manufactured before these useless laws existed. Good point about being grandfathered in.
Just a useless law that does not benefit society or protect the children.
No, just buying more of them. What you owned prior is completely legal,afaik, ianal.