Yell,

Dude, you're psycho .

The death tax may apply to the richest 1% or whatever you make it out to be, but it crushes the lower rich (people with a few million $ of networth) and not the super rich (people with hundreds of millions to billions of $ of networth). The super rich can easily avoid the death tax, and eliminate competition among the lower rich. It's what annoys me about taxing, we can pillage the lower rich but not the super rich. Until the super rich are taxed in the same way in practice, I am going to consider it unfair. In other words, there is a big difference between the wealthiest .00001% (just to give a smaller number) and being just plainly in the wealthiest 1%, and there's something wrong with the estate tax when the wealthiest .00001% are able to avoid the estate tax when the majority of members in the wealthiest 1% are unable to.

But what BW does not consider is the taxable estate. Suppose your estate is worth $5 million and the estate tax floor is $3 million. You will then have $2 million of taxable networth, and with a 40% estate tax you will pay $800,000 in estate taxes. That would be less than 20% of your estate's value. At least Obama isn't going to say $600,000 is the tax floor as it used to be, he is putting it at $3.5 million, which is higher than it is at present. But my position will still be opposed to the estate tax until the heirs of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates etc do not have the means to avoid it thanks to their political and business connections. Until the super rich billionaires are also in practice subject to the estate tax, then NO TO ESTATE TAXES. With the conditions as they are, it's oppressive and helps to preserve the existing power structures.

Keep in mind

I have nothing against the the estate tax in principle, but I am opposed to it because of unavoidable practical consequences.

Fool,

Sex with minors is not ok, if you are an adult.

And I'm not 14, nor do I act it.

I always thought it was. Since when was the most powerful nation on earth not an empire?

But I do not agree with being aggressive and creating tensions with Russia/China by trying to extend our military presence in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, rather we should use diplomacy and try to cooperate.

But we should get aggressive with the South Americans, assuming other diplomatic needs are met, to reassert our power in order restore a global balance of power. For example, if Henry Kissinger did not support the removal of the communist Chilean government, it would have been very bad by giving the Russians a foothold in our back yard. Only this time we are doing nothing about it.

> You_Fool wrote:

> BW is a true american in the sense he thinks of himself and himself only... what is best for me...>

So do you and every person on the planet.

And gas went down to $2.60 a gallon.

BW insults everyone lol. He has a lot of good points though.

Come on Yell, it's an entertaining historical artifact.

There's only one concept you have to understand.

Supply/Demand

It's possible for government to be efficient, as long as the services it provides are kept to a minimum. It's like a small business vs a large business, the larger you are the harder it is to be efficient.

420,

ahahahaha! No you got it wrong.

Nietzsche's ethical system is considered part of the virtue ethics schema. Instead of trying to reduce ethics to a single or multitude of principles, what is ethical is modeled by an exemplar. For example, we may ask what would Jesus do? Nietzsche's exemplar is what would the strong, healthy, and powerful do? So to Nietzsche, our ethics may be modeled somewhat by people such as Napoleon I or Alexander The Great, except it's much more adaptable and subject to change since the powerful are the givers of value.

And that's Nietzsche's idea of ethics in a nut shell.