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 (1h) : This page was generated in 0.135 seconds.
    Mucky Tundra (1h) : Tbh, I can never tell the difference in speed unless it's completely shitting the bed
    Zero2Cool (2h) : Sure does feel like site is more snappy
    Zero2Cool (5h) : I thought that was the Lions OL
    Mucky Tundra (6h) : Travis Glover placed on IR; seasons over for him
    Zero2Cool (10h) : found bad sql in database, maybe site faster now?
    dfosterf (5-Aug) : I'm going to call that a good move.
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Packers sign CB Corey Ballentine
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : I'm not sure how to kill the draft order just yet so it's not so confusing.
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : *to be able
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : and because it's not a dynasty league (which makes a lot more sense to be ability to trade picks)
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Oh I know; I was just exploring and it blew my mind that you could trade picks because of the whole reordering thing
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Zero, I think I preferred my offer: your 1st for my 15th rounder
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : Keep in mind, we do a draft reorder once all members locked in
    Zero2Cool (4-Aug) : You can have my 12th Rd for your 2nd round
    Mucky Tundra (4-Aug) : Hey i didn't know we could trade picks in fantasy
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Update: Rock has tried a cheese curd, promises it's not his last
    Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : watch it!! lol
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : you're right, we never did leave, the site just went down :P
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Rock claims to have never eaten a cheese curd
    Zero2Cool (3-Aug) : We did not leave.
    Mucky Tundra (3-Aug) : Family Night! WE ARE SO BACK!
    Mucky Tundra (2-Aug) : To this day, I'm still miffed about his 4 TD game against Dallas on Thanksgiving going to waste
    Martha Careful (2-Aug) : Congratulations Sterling Sharpe. He was terrific and I loved watching him play.
    beast (2-Aug) : I believe it's technically against the CBA rules, but Jerry just calls it a simple unofficial chat... and somehow gets away with it.
    beast (2-Aug) : Jerry Jones is infamous for ̶n̶e̶g̶o̶t̶i̶a̶t̶i̶n̶g̶ chatting with players one on one... and going around the agent.
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Oo just saw a blurb saying that Dallas negotiated directly with Parsons and not through his agent
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I assumed that both guys will get paid, just a matter of when or how we get there
    Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : McLaurin nor Micah going anywhere. They will get money
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : the Synder years or do they take care of one of their own?
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Do the Commanders risk losing a top WR with an emerging QB just because he's turning 30 and potentially risk damaging the rebuild from
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : Turns 30 this September, plays at a high level and Washington has some cap space I believe
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : More interesting is Washington with Terry McLaurin
    Mucky Tundra (1-Aug) : I would imagine Dallas will resolve this issue with a truckload of money
    Zero2Cool (1-Aug) : Micah pulling a Myles with trade request
    beast (1-Aug) : Packers should make some cheese forks
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : GRAB THE PITCHFORKS~
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : CUT HIM
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : Socieltal collapse imminent
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : The West has fallen
    Mucky Tundra (31-Jul) : After starting off camp with 25 straight made field goals, Brandon McManus has missed one
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : But it should be stable
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : It's probably gonna be slower.
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : We're gonna just full go on to the new host.
    Zero2Cool (31-Jul) : What crap. Site issues galore
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : if PH dies, there is packerpeople com available
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : database is on new host, eventually website will follow
    Mucky Tundra (30-Jul) : Zero, regarding Ewers, you are correct.
    Zero2Cool (30-Jul) : Sadly, this might be our life for awhile. I could put it on another host, but seems it was slower, although more stable
    beast (30-Jul) : How long will it be down?
    Please sign in to use Fan Shout
    2025 Packers Schedule
    Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
    LIONS
    Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
    COMMANDERS
    Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
    Browns
    Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
    Cowboys
    Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
    BENGALS
    Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
    Cardinals
    Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
    Steelers
    Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
    PANTHERS
    Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
    EAGLES
    Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
    Giants
    Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
    VIKINGS
    Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
    Lions
    Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
    BEARS
    Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
    Broncos
    Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
    Bears
    Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
    RAVENS
    Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
    Vikings
    Recent Topics
    4h / Fantasy Sports Talk / dfosterf

    12h / Around The NFL / wpr

    5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    5-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    4-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

    3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    3-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    3-Aug / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

    2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    2-Aug / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

    28-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

    28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    28-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

    27-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

    Headlines
    Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.