They are taxes on money that is left to other people - otherwise known as an estate.
The taxes are collected against the dead person's assets, and the remainder constitutes the inheritance. Tax - dead person. Death tax. Simple.
Death Taxes is a euphemism to make it sound like someone is actually being screwed
I think you're having a problem understanding the concept and definition of a euphemism.
Just give your money to a charity (either in your will or before death) and no taxes
Try that, the state will block some of that money to pay the state's chunk.
Oh, and the dude is lying about it to. California has no estate tax.
My dad was just a regular working guy who saved his money and retired. When he died in California he left a small estate, and the state taxes ate up a good portion of it. The lawyer says if he had over $500,000 we would have been royally screwed by taxes. Whatever they want to call it, they do the most to collect what is in essence death taxes. The cool part? The state takes its chunk based on the gross value. For example, a $200,000 estate mostly in a home, a $100,000 medical debt, and the state wants 20%. The state takes $40,000, $100,000 goes to the bill, and the inheritance is $60,000. In addition, probate fees, etc., are also based on the gross, so the end amount will be even less. Sadly, if the person had known the exact moment of death, he could have sold his home to have the cash to pay the bill just before death. Then the state would have taken only $20,000 of the remaining.
Basically, the state makes dying worse, and penalizes those who do not have enough wealth to be able to shield it. Only the regular family gets screwed.
the only reason that state-level primary education works is that the federal government sets uniform standards and will deny substantial funds to any state that violates them.
The federal government has supported local primary education from the beginning through land grants and fund disbursements, but it never set uniform standards until recently. Not coincidentally, the downturn of primary education is also fairly recent.
Socialism of any kind can really only work at the national level. Employers can't easily flee countries
It also only works on the national level because people can't easily flee the terror of these socialist paradises.
So he rode bikes, while Obama goes golfing constantly. The rest of the time he was working. A president can't ever really go on vacation, but Bush had the facilities to do his job there.
Need a break, they can always hang in the facilities in DC for weekends/short breaks.
That's what Camp David is for, and why it's generally not counted as vacation time. The president can work in a more relaxed atmosphere away from the DC crazy, maybe take a quiet stroll, go horse riding, whatever. Bush just preferred home. Obama actually goes on real vacations, not having a vacation home (he likes to stay at the homes of rich Democrat donors).
Bush had a mini White House set up at the ranch in Texas. Aside from brush clearing photo ops, he was basically at work, just away from the DC crazy. He even hosted foreign dignitaries there. A lot of infrastructure was put in place at the ranch and could stay there until Bush left office.
What OP is talking about is the jet-setting of Obama and his wife around the world, filling many international flights of AF1 and attending cargo planes, extravagant hotels at an obscene cost. While a president can never truly be on vacation, these are more like real vacations than Bush usually took.
The same way it would work currently (from what I understand - Im not American) with the exemption to the cooling off period if your life is in danger and you need to buy a gun
Then you have someone running around without training, kind of ruins the point.
And the cooling off period isn't for any concern for crime, their effectiveness being inconclusive at best. The waiting period is designed to dissuade people from purchasing handguns overall, which is the goal of the organization that had them instituted.
Don't those left-wing nutjobs believe in their own judicial activisim
The types we are dealing with do not take positions based on overarching principle. Instead they take individual positions they were convinced to by their peers or superiors regardless of context. Thus, you will see conflicting positions that amount to obvious hypocrisy.
Two recent examples:
A Republican speaking of "Freedom of religion" while supporting a law allowing vouchers to be used for religious schools, then backpedaling quickly when she realizes that Muslims schools will get money too. She's not for the principle of freedom of religion, she just wants to promote her own religion.
A liberal satying that the Founders were talking about muskets in the 2nd Amendment, and couldn't have envisioned modern firearms, therefore the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover modern firearms. They of course have no problem exercising their 1st Amendment right to say this over the Internet, television and radio. This person doesn't really believe that rights should be restricted to the technology of the time, he just wants to ban guns.
Even for what you want to mandate, there are concerns.
like gun safety classes for anyone purchasing a firearm for the first time
How do you propose to prevent this from becoming a poll tax? They must be free. How are you going to make sure localities don't schedule classes erratically in order to prevent people from taking them? What do you do for the woman who just got a restraining order against a violent man threatening to kill her? Sorry lady, class is in three weeks, good luck. Education is important, but in order for this to work without violating rights or killing people, it must not prevent lawful, timely ownership.
electronic fingerprint safeties on all new firearms
The first person who can't defend himself because of that 3%+ fingerprint false rejection rate, and gets killed, who gets to be blamed? If you are not willing to have a non-matched person grab the loaded smart gun, point it at your head, and pull the trigger, then you should not be willing to risk the lives of others on the bet that the system will read their prints perfectly in time of need.
I wouldn't even think about these until all police and military have been armed with such weapons for years and they've proven themselves in the real world. To make only the people do it is a good sign of an authoritarian state.
Anyone who believes otherwise is a progressive authoritarian, not a progressive liberal.
If Feinstein thinks her committee is right in pulling a Snowden, then her position is inconsistent. That is my point. As far as the hypocrisy of Feinstein goes, the relevance of the document doesn't matter.
indeed, as obvious from their contents, they're crucial
It was CIA work product, their conclusions, not actual information on the program itself.
They most certainly shouldn't be able to raid other committee's computers to destroy the copies
They didn't, they accessed CIA computers in the CIA SCIF. Once they realized thei unintentional access to these documents would not last, committee members then took the documents out of the SCIF, without redaction by the CIA, contrary to the agreement with the CIA.
It's just so fun to see Feinstein's own people playing the Snowden part.
This is an oversight committee that is specifically created to study this topic; there's no "spillage" here
Using CIA computers, the committee found classified documents they were not supposed to get, and the CIA looked at those CIA computers to determine how the committee found them, and where on a non-CIA-accessible part of the network they were copied to. So, now you have classified documents in a place where the classifiying authority did not authorize them go to.
Basically, the committee pulled a Snowden on the CIA, getting documents they shouldn't have had and copying them.
I was surprised that CBS was leading the charge on Fast & Furious. Liberals eating their own? Nope, turns out that reporter had been a thorn in management's side a long time for not sticking to party line reporting, and she is finally being drummed out of the network. I guess your info digging pissing off the White House enough to have them yell at you is a bad move for a journalist in a liberal network.
Neither the NRA or any other pro-rights organization needs to run a spear campaign against her. Merely factually pointing out her activities is quite enough to damage her reputation.
And we keep re-electing these scoundrels, why, exactly?
She is a very wealthy Democrat in a district that will always vote Democrat. The only one who can unseat her would be another Democrat in the primary, but the DNC powers that be would never allow it. Luckily she is quite old, so should die or retire soon. Either is fine with me.
I was doing CD-ROMs in 1993. It required a very special full-height SCSI 1 GB hard drive that did not recalibrate itself from time to time, and a $3,000 1x SCSI writer. Turn off all services, screensavers, etc., hit write, and don't breathe for the next hour or so. Underrun buffer? What's that?
Slashdot Mirror
The taxes are collected against the dead person's assets, and the remainder constitutes the inheritance. Tax - dead person. Death tax. Simple.
I think you're having a problem understanding the concept and definition of a euphemism.
Try that, the state will block some of that money to pay the state's chunk.
My dad was just a regular working guy who saved his money and retired. When he died in California he left a small estate, and the state taxes ate up a good portion of it. The lawyer says if he had over $500,000 we would have been royally screwed by taxes. Whatever they want to call it, they do the most to collect what is in essence death taxes. The cool part? The state takes its chunk based on the gross value. For example, a $200,000 estate mostly in a home, a $100,000 medical debt, and the state wants 20%. The state takes $40,000, $100,000 goes to the bill, and the inheritance is $60,000. In addition, probate fees, etc., are also based on the gross, so the end amount will be even less. Sadly, if the person had known the exact moment of death, he could have sold his home to have the cash to pay the bill just before death. Then the state would have taken only $20,000 of the remaining.
Basically, the state makes dying worse, and penalizes those who do not have enough wealth to be able to shield it. Only the regular family gets screwed.
They are taxes due when you die. Death taxes. Estate taxes is the euphemism to make it sound like nobody's actually being screwed.
The main problem with this is that with going out in grand style, you don't just disappear over the ocean.
Dont' forget the possibility of a Flight 93 replay, an attempted terrorist hijacking thwarted, but resulting in a crash.
The federal government has supported local primary education from the beginning through land grants and fund disbursements, but it never set uniform standards until recently. Not coincidentally, the downturn of primary education is also fairly recent.
It also only works on the national level because people can't easily flee the terror of these socialist paradises.
Either way, the proof of a good (P)RNG is in statistical analysis of the output.
The A7 has a hardware random number generator in the Secure Enclave, This isn't used where available?
So he rode bikes, while Obama goes golfing constantly. The rest of the time he was working. A president can't ever really go on vacation, but Bush had the facilities to do his job there.
That's what Camp David is for, and why it's generally not counted as vacation time. The president can work in a more relaxed atmosphere away from the DC crazy, maybe take a quiet stroll, go horse riding, whatever. Bush just preferred home. Obama actually goes on real vacations, not having a vacation home (he likes to stay at the homes of rich Democrat donors).
Bush had a mini White House set up at the ranch in Texas. Aside from brush clearing photo ops, he was basically at work, just away from the DC crazy. He even hosted foreign dignitaries there. A lot of infrastructure was put in place at the ranch and could stay there until Bush left office.
What OP is talking about is the jet-setting of Obama and his wife around the world, filling many international flights of AF1 and attending cargo planes, extravagant hotels at an obscene cost. While a president can never truly be on vacation, these are more like real vacations than Bush usually took.
Then you have someone running around without training, kind of ruins the point.
And the cooling off period isn't for any concern for crime, their effectiveness being inconclusive at best. The waiting period is designed to dissuade people from purchasing handguns overall, which is the goal of the organization that had them instituted.
The types we are dealing with do not take positions based on overarching principle. Instead they take individual positions they were convinced to by their peers or superiors regardless of context. Thus, you will see conflicting positions that amount to obvious hypocrisy.
Two recent examples:
A Republican speaking of "Freedom of religion" while supporting a law allowing vouchers to be used for religious schools, then backpedaling quickly when she realizes that Muslims schools will get money too. She's not for the principle of freedom of religion, she just wants to promote her own religion.
A liberal satying that the Founders were talking about muskets in the 2nd Amendment, and couldn't have envisioned modern firearms, therefore the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover modern firearms. They of course have no problem exercising their 1st Amendment right to say this over the Internet, television and radio. This person doesn't really believe that rights should be restricted to the technology of the time, he just wants to ban guns.
A few years ago Yahoo released some cleansed search data. Researchers were able to pinpoint the searches of a specific guy living in Florida.
Even for what you want to mandate, there are concerns.
How do you propose to prevent this from becoming a poll tax? They must be free. How are you going to make sure localities don't schedule classes erratically in order to prevent people from taking them? What do you do for the woman who just got a restraining order against a violent man threatening to kill her? Sorry lady, class is in three weeks, good luck. Education is important, but in order for this to work without violating rights or killing people, it must not prevent lawful, timely ownership.
The first person who can't defend himself because of that 3%+ fingerprint false rejection rate, and gets killed, who gets to be blamed? If you are not willing to have a non-matched person grab the loaded smart gun, point it at your head, and pull the trigger, then you should not be willing to risk the lives of others on the bet that the system will read their prints perfectly in time of need.
I wouldn't even think about these until all police and military have been armed with such weapons for years and they've proven themselves in the real world. To make only the people do it is a good sign of an authoritarian state.
Both of your proposals are fairly authoritarian.
If Feinstein thinks her committee is right in pulling a Snowden, then her position is inconsistent. That is my point. As far as the hypocrisy of Feinstein goes, the relevance of the document doesn't matter.
It was CIA work product, their conclusions, not actual information on the program itself.
They didn't, they accessed CIA computers in the CIA SCIF. Once they realized thei unintentional access to these documents would not last, committee members then took the documents out of the SCIF, without redaction by the CIA, contrary to the agreement with the CIA.
It's just so fun to see Feinstein's own people playing the Snowden part.
Liberal netowrk journalists attacking the one non-liberal network is great for a career.
No hurt, but the gauze is throwing off my touch typing.
Using CIA computers, the committee found classified documents they were not supposed to get, and the CIA looked at those CIA computers to determine how the committee found them, and where on a non-CIA-accessible part of the network they were copied to. So, now you have classified documents in a place where the classifiying authority did not authorize them go to.
Basically, the committee pulled a Snowden on the CIA, getting documents they shouldn't have had and copying them.
This would be considered spillage if classified information was sent where it wasn't supposed to go.
What is illegal about the government searching a government computer to find and remove said spillage?
I was surprised that CBS was leading the charge on Fast & Furious. Liberals eating their own? Nope, turns out that reporter had been a thorn in management's side a long time for not sticking to party line reporting, and she is finally being drummed out of the network. I guess your info digging pissing off the White House enough to have them yell at you is a bad move for a journalist in a liberal network.
Touch typing and hand injuries just don't mix. It's a lot of effort just to type this well.
Neither the NRA or any other pro-rights organization needs to run a spear campaign against her. Merely factually pointing out her activities is quite enough to damage her reputation.
She is a very wealthy Democrat in a district that will always vote Democrat. The only one who can unseat her would be another Democrat in the primary, but the DNC powers that be would never allow it. Luckily she is quite old, so should die or retire soon. Either is fine with me.
Because we are the little people and she is the ruling class. We only matter to gain her more power and make her husband more money.
Deploy: to arrange in a position of readiness, or to move strategically or appropriately
The start position or status is irrelevant. Either is appropriate in this case.
I was doing CD-ROMs in 1993. It required a very special full-height SCSI 1 GB hard drive that did not recalibrate itself from time to time, and a $3,000 1x SCSI writer. Turn off all services, screensavers, etc., hit write, and don't breathe for the next hour or so. Underrun buffer? What's that?