Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago

Your argument assumes that the people ultimately receive the land in suzerainty from their government, as though this republican, representative government somehow rules sovereign like a king. I categorically disagree with that notion. The ultimate sovereign in our Republic is the people themselves; they own their land and the government has no claim to it. That's the reason why I vehemently disagree with property taxes (as did the Founding Fathers), because they effectively declare that citizens do not own their own land but instead rent it from the government. The only property rightfully owned by the government is that which it purchases for its necessary functions. Everything else is in the hands of the people, and there is no reason why they should pay tribute on that which is rightfully theirs.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



Well, technically people did receive land from the King. Dig back long enough and you'll find a King in the chain of title.

Another way to put it -- who owns the land if there are no heirs? Answer is that it "escheats" to the state.

It isn't that we rent the land from the sovereign, its that we (and the people before us in the chain of "fee simple absolute" title) never owned 100% of the interest in the land.

Now I don't believe in property taxes either. But not because the state has no interest in the land; because the state relinquished the interest that it taxes when it transfered that interest by patent, homesteading, or whatever.

If I sell my house to you, I don't get a do over five years or fifty or five hundred years later just because I need more money to do something I want to do and your house is worth a lot of money.

Sorry, DakotaT, if the government made a bad deal with its Louisiana Purchase land, that's it's problem, not mine.

If I sell a piece of land to Donald Trump for peanuts and the next day a big company moves in next door, should I get a mulligan and be able to get a better deal from Trump? Not hardly.

If the government (or "the people") wants my property back, they should only have two choices: they offer me enough money to convince me to sell. Or they should wait until I die and all my heirs die. That's what "fee simple" title means.

Anything else is theft.

Callig the thief the "government" or "the people" doesn't make it any less a thief.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
dfosterf
14 years ago
Oh Dude, that's messed up...

I thought the vote was today, I slept in yesterday...


ca voter on prop 19
porky88
14 years ago
Both sides over exaggerate and take things too far. The democrats are guilty of getting cozy and overspending. The republicans will no doubt attempt to take the country in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, they'll go too far just like the democrats did.

I guess my point is I'm not sure if there is a democrat problem or a republican problem. How about just a people problem?

That's why I think Bill Clinton was a solid president. He understood that there has to be some wiggle room and he demonstrated that when the republicans got elected in 94. Hopefully Obama does the same thing. He's certainly a smart guy, so he has to see it.
http://www.row12.com/ 
UserPostedImage
4PackGirl
14 years ago
holy crap - this is interesting.

ok - here's how it goes, dakota. my parents bought some of their land when it was around $415/acre - that same land is now valued at $8500/acre. if my mom dies or sells her farmland after this year, she or my brother & i will have to pay capital gains on the difference between those two figures. there used to be a stepped up basis that took the value up to what it was the day the person died - that may disappear after this year. and this isn't just for farmers - it's for everyone who inherits an estate. BUT for us 'small' farmers (we own around 700 acres total) 55% of the difference between those two values would go to our fabulous government. this year there was no estate tax at all. next year, it goes to $1 million & it's a 55% tax for estates over that. does it seem right that anyone should effectively lose more than half of their inheritance for taxes? we've paid taxes on that land for years & now we get socked with another 55%?? come ON!!
Wade
  • Wade
  • Veteran Member
14 years ago



What do you think about letting a person's political stance dictate who you associate yourself with?

For me, as long as they don't let their political opinions trickle into everyday interaction I really couldn't care less. Unless we're talking the extreme side here.

"djcubez" wrote:



If I only associated with people who shared my political stance I'd have an even smaller circle of associates than I do.

However, I also wish I felt free to let my own philosophical/political opinions trickle into everyday interaction more than they do. But that's because I'm an extremist (what was it the late Barry Goldwater said?). I wish people would realize that extremism isn't always worth dismissing out of hand as "unrelaistic" or "impractical" or whatever.

But while I rarely let political stance determine who I associate with, it often shapes how I associate with them. Some people on some questions aren't worth listening to. Some people on some questions aren't worth the cost of trying to convince them.

And, more importantly, because my "extreme" beliefs are such a core part of me, there are some people with whom its simply not possible for me to have certain kinds of deep relationship with. I can't imagine ever marrying a Obamoid academic, for example, because I can't imagine mental compatibility with someone who trusts the state or charismatic politicians that much.

Any relationship/association requires the sharing of values; and the deeper the relationship, the deeper must be shared values.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
djcubez
14 years ago

holy crap - this is interesting.

ok - here's how it goes, dakota. my parents bought some of their land when it was around $415/acre - that same land is now valued at $8500/acre. if my mom dies or sells her farmland after this year, she or my brother & i will have to pay capital gains on the difference between those two figures. there used to be a stepped up basis that took the value up to what it was the day the person died - that may disappear after this year. and this isn't just for farmers - it's for everyone who inherits an estate. BUT for us 'small' farmers (we own around 700 acres total) 55% of the difference between those two values would go to our fabulous government. this year there was no estate tax at all. next year, it goes to $1 million & it's a 55% tax for estates over that. does it seem right that anyone should effectively lose more than half of their inheritance for taxes? we've paid taxes on that land for years & now we get socked with another 55%?? come ON!!

"4PackGirl" wrote:



This is on a different note but similar. When each of us kids were born my mom put a certain amount in an account to let it mature. Right now it's around 5-6 times as much money as it was beforehand. The catch is if I want to actually touch that money I have to pay over half of it back to the government and the rest is mine. It's better explained with the real numbers and details but you can get the picture. My mom tells me it's an asset and I should use it to get a loan instead of actually touching the money account. It's just kind of funny to me how backwards it all seems.
djcubez
14 years ago



What do you think about letting a person's political stance dictate who you associate yourself with?

For me, as long as they don't let their political opinions trickle into everyday interaction I really couldn't care less. Unless we're talking the extreme side here.

"Wade" wrote:



If I only associated with people who shared my political stance I'd have an even smaller circle of associates than I do.

However, I also wish I felt free to let my own philosophical/political opinions trickle into everyday interaction more than they do. But that's because I'm an extremist (what was it the late Barry Goldwater said?). I wish people would realize that extremism isn't always worth dismissing out of hand as "unrelaistic" or "impractical" or whatever.

But while I rarely let political stance determine who I associate with, it often shapes how I associate with them. Some people on some questions aren't worth listening to. Some people on some questions aren't worth the cost of trying to convince them.

And, more importantly, because my "extreme" beliefs are such a core part of me, there are some people with whom its simply not possible for me to have certain kinds of deep relationship with. I can't imagine ever marrying a Obamoid academic, for example, because I can't imagine mental compatibility with someone who trusts the state or charismatic politicians that much.

Any relationship/association requires the sharing of values; and the deeper the relationship, the deeper must be shared values.

"djcubez" wrote:



Now I feel like a professor saying this but great answer! If two peoples ideals clash so much it's almost impossible for them not to leak out. And I agree that the deeper you get to know someone the more their political stance matters. It's also situational--in normal friendly interaction rarely does the issue of abortion come up, but there may be that one time when you're both watching a show that brings it up. Do you talk about it? I usually avoid it because I know the person's stance might make me loathe them, and I'd rather enjoy the fun moments that we share. But there are people that make it impossible; people that make it a point to blurt out their opinion when it's not asked for.
DakotaT
  • DakotaT
  • Select Member Topic Starter
14 years ago

holy crap - this is interesting.

does it seem right that anyone should effectively lose more than half of their inheritance for taxes? we've paid taxes on that lantd for years & now we get socked with another 55%?? come ON!!

"4PackGirl" wrote:



The property tax your parents paid on that land has no relevence in the conversation. Yes it is right that you have to pay tax on your inheritance because those are the laws of your state/country. Is it ethical, probably not, but are you asking for sympathy on clearing over $250K for being born into a family with nice assets? Seems like a pretty sweet deal, by the way HOW YOU DOIN? ::razz:
UserPostedImage
porky88
14 years ago



What do you think about letting a person's political stance dictate who you associate yourself with?

For me, as long as they don't let their political opinions trickle into everyday interaction I really couldn't care less. Unless we're talking the extreme side here.

"djcubez" wrote:



If I only associated with people who shared my political stance I'd have an even smaller circle of associates than I do.

However, I also wish I felt free to let my own philosophical/political opinions trickle into everyday interaction more than they do. But that's because I'm an extremist (what was it the late Barry Goldwater said?). I wish people would realize that extremism isn't always worth dismissing out of hand as "unrelaistic" or "impractical" or whatever.

But while I rarely let political stance determine who I associate with, it often shapes how I associate with them. Some people on some questions aren't worth listening to. Some people on some questions aren't worth the cost of trying to convince them.

And, more importantly, because my "extreme" beliefs are such a core part of me, there are some people with whom its simply not possible for me to have certain kinds of deep relationship with. I can't imagine ever marrying a Obamoid academic, for example, because I can't imagine mental compatibility with someone who trusts the state or charismatic politicians that much.

Any relationship/association requires the sharing of values; and the deeper the relationship, the deeper must be shared values.

"Wade" wrote:



Now I feel like a professor saying this but great answer! If two peoples ideals clash so much it's almost impossible for them not to leak out. And I agree that the deeper you get to know someone the more their political stance matters. It's also situational--in normal friendly interaction rarely does the issue of abortion come up, but there may be that one time when you're both watching a show that brings it up. Do you talk about it? I usually avoid it because I know the person's stance might make me loathe them, and I'd rather enjoy the fun moments that we share. But there are people that make it impossible; people that make it a point to blurt out their opinion when it's not asked for.

"djcubez" wrote:



I have an uncle, who is very political. He also happens to love to talk about politics. He thinks he's an independent, but he watches fox religiously, listens to conservative radio, and has voted democrat once in his life. That's what he says of course and it was for senate.

He was or is a big fan of Richard Nixon. Loves Reagan. Hated G.W. Bush, but voted for him twice. He also believes Obama is by far the worse president in history.

His ideologies are I guess what you would expect of a 60-year old guy. I shouldn't say that, but generation gaps count for something. Sometimes he says things that are inappropriate. Doesn't quite get it sometimes, but he just doesn't know better. I honestly have come to that conclusion.

Anyways, my point here is that I talk politics a lot with him or have the last two or three years. I try and avoid it, but he always brings it up. As you say, sometimes it's inevitable. Most of the time it's civil, but they're times when he can get pretty nasty. Obviously, I have to bite my tongue. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, I could careless about his politics. I think listening to his or other people's point of view is alright. I wouldn't call it fun, but I fine political opinions fascinating. What gets me is I just can't believe how people are so hell bent on their philosophies. In my opinion, it's disappointing and entertaining at the same time. I think a lot of it is inheritance.
http://www.row12.com/ 
UserPostedImage
Users browsing this topic
    Fan Shout
    Zero2Cool (13h) : Ok, will do.
    wpr (14h) : Kevin, donate it to a local food pantry or whatever she wants to do with it. Thanks
    wpr (14h) : Kevin,
    Zero2Cool (17h) : Wayne, got your girl scout order.
    dfosterf (17h) : I believe Zero was being sarcastic
    dfosterf (17h) : Due to that rookie kicker Jake Bates that Zero said "he didn't want anyway". 58 yarder to tie the game, 52 yarder to win it. In fairness,
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Lions escape with a win
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : and now Goff looking better
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Goff with ANOTHER INT
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : and now Stroud throwing INTs
    Mucky Tundra (11-Nov) : Goff having an ATROCIOUS game
    wpr (11-Nov) : Happy birthday Corps. Ever faithful. Thanks dfosterf.
    Mucky Tundra (10-Nov) : stiff armed by Baker Mayfield for about 5-7 yards and still managed to get a pass off
    Mucky Tundra (10-Nov) : Nick Bosa
    wpr (8-Nov) : Jets are Packers (L)East
    Zero2Cool (8-Nov) : Jets released K Riley Patterson and signed K Anders Carlson to the practice squad.
    wpr (8-Nov) : Thanks guys
    Mucky Tundra (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday wpr!
    Zero2Cool (7-Nov) : Anders Carlson ... released by 49ers
    dfosterf (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday!😊😊😊
    wpr (7-Nov) : Thanks Kevin.
    Zero2Cool (7-Nov) : Happy Birthday, Wayne! 🎉🎂🥳
    beast (7-Nov) : Edge Rushers is the same... it's not the 4-3 vs 3-4 change, it's the Hafley's version of the 4-3... as all 32 teams are actually 4-2
    Zero2Cool (6-Nov) : OLB to DE and player requests trade. Yet folks say they are same.
    beast (5-Nov) : In other news, the Green Bay Packers have signed Zero2Cool to update their website 😋 jk
    beast (5-Nov) : Might just re-sign the kicker we got
    beast (5-Nov) : Are there any kickers worth drafting next year?
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Preston Smith for Malik Willis
    Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Getting a 7th rounder from the Stillers
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : At least we get 7th round pick now!! HELLO NEW KICKER
    Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Steelers getting a premier lockdown corner!
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Packers are trading edge rusher Preston Smith to the Pittsburgh Steelers, per sources.
    Mucky Tundra (5-Nov) : Preston Smith traded to the Steelers!!!!
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : CB Marshon Lattimore to Commanders
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Bears are sending RB Khalil Herbert to the Bengals, per sources.
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : ZaDarius Smith continues his "north" tour.
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Let the Chiefs trade a 5th for him
    Zero2Cool (5-Nov) : Nearing 30, large contract, nope.
    Martha Careful (5-Nov) : any interest in Marshon Lattimore?
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : What does NFL do if they're over cap?
    Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : They've been able to constantly push it out through extensions, void years etc but they're in the hole by 72 million next year I believe
    hardrocker950 (4-Nov) : Seems the Saints are always in cap hell
    Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Saints HC job is not an envious one; gonna be in cap hell for 3 years
    Mucky Tundra (4-Nov) : Dennis Allen has now been fired twice mid-season with Derek Carr as his starting QB
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Kuhn let go
    beast (4-Nov) : I wonder if the Packers would have any interest in Z. Smith, probably not
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Shefter says Browns and Lions will figure out how to get a deal done for Za'Darius Smith..
    Zero2Cool (4-Nov) : Packers are more likely to have 1,000 yard rusher than 4,000 yard passer
    Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : It's raining hard.
    Zero2Cool (3-Nov) : Packers inactives vs. Lions: CB Jaire Alexander S Evan Williams C Josh Myers Non-injury inactives: WR Malik Heath OL Travis Glover DE Bren
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2024 Packers Schedule
    Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
    Eagles
    29 - 34
    Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
    COLTS
    16 - 10
    Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
    Titans
    30 - 14
    Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    29 - 31
    Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
    Rams
    24 - 19
    Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
    CARDINALS
    34 - 13
    Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
    TEXANS
    24 - 22
    Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Jaguars
    30 - 27
    Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    14 - 24
    Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
    Bears
    Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
    49ERS
    Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
    DOLPHINS
    Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
    Seahawks
    Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
    SAINTS
    Sunday, Dec 29 @ 12:00 PM
    Vikings
    Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
    BEARS
    Recent Topics
    15h / Around The NFL / beast

    11-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    11-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    9-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / joepacker

    8-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

    6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    6-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

    5-Nov / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

    5-Nov / GameDay Threads / Cheesey

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    5-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

    4-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.