If you've managed to amass enough to hit the threshold where the tax comes in (what is it, $80,000 or something)
Currently it appears to be $2 million. Around 2% of all Americans pay it. If you had an estate worth $2,000,100, you would only pay the tax on the $100 over the minimum.
The Republicans were playing games with the tax, so it disappears in 2010, and then goes back to 2001 levels in 2011 ($1,000,000). If this isn't an incentive for rich people to kill their parents in 2010, I don't know what is.
Most Democrats are in favor of raising the minimum credit, but Republicans stalled that plan in favor of repealing the tax entirely.
He was supported by the Democrats in the primary. I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting though. Are you saying that the Democrats simply shouldn't have allowed the primary to take place?
Imagine what would happen if 10% of the voters went for non-Democrat and non-Republican.
It's considered a "landslide" if one candidate gets 60% of the vote. If the party in charge can ignore the wishes of a full 40% of all voters (49% if you're Bush), I think they can handle ignoring 10% of voters.
But this is all beside the point. The point is that this clearly violates the law.
Unfortunately the people doing this are likely the "true believers" who will never ever believe that Bush makes mistakes/is evil, and are willing to go to prison to keep the Republicans in office. The candidates and other high-ups in the Republican party are well insulated from blame.
This will alter the election, and the Republican candidate will not get punished if he wins - only pawns will get sacrificed, and they're quite willing to do that.
What's the difference between asking people if abortion should be legal and asking them what should actually be done with abortion laws?
I think that the first one is the same as asking "Should we take steps to insure that there are fewer (or no) abortions?"
Which even people who think that abortion should be legal will say yes to. These steps could include things like education and more widespread contraceptive use, or getting everyone to abstain until marriage.
Or it could simply be a knee-jerk reaction, and they haven't really thought about the issue and consequences of any specific course of action - they're just saying what their preacher told them to say.
It seems that the court is in Iraq following Iraqi laws (which are really just whatever Bush and company decided they would be). Automatic appeals might not be part of the process.
Yeah seriously, I mean could you imagine working there and how rattled you would be from it all?
Interesting point. Maybe they've achieved a part of their goal. This might push some people to quit in favor of working somewhere they feel to be safer, and that will cost Paypal some money. Which, of course, is really the only way to hurt a corporation.
An alternative is to simply reduce the amount of electricity you need to generate in the first place. For instance, switching to geothermal heating and cooling would drop your electricity usage a good amount. Solar thermal water heating will take out another chunk.
The major cost is up front, but that can be compensated for with equity loans - as you'll be saving on electricity bills over time, if the monthly payments are low enough you might just be paying less money monthly right from the beginning.
Many, many people who support being "tough on crime" only do so because it feels good to hurt those people who have "hurt" you (I say 'hurt' in quotes because many crimes don't actually hurt anybody except the perpetrators themselves). They really don't care whether it helps society, or prevents future crimes.
I don't think the general human population can handle being on their own,
Funny, because that's exactly what they did for most of human history.
So every single person throughout most of human history grew their own food, made their own clothes, never traded for anything, ran their own court system, policed their entire country and secured their own borders all by themselves?
If not, you've got a funny definition of "being on their own".
Do you think that, on his deathbed, Einstein was thinking "Oh, I wish I had paid more attention to my wife" No, he was thinking "I wish I had gotten to finish my unified theory of relativity"
I assume that I'm not going to be happy when I'm on my deathbed in any case. So, might as well be as happy as possible the rest of the time.
If anyone in the US is in poverty it is of their own choice (fast food joints are always hiring), and all they have to do is work 40 hrs a week.
I have a friend who used to work in a customer support call center. She lost her job due to downsizing, and applied everywhere she could, including all the fast food places in the area. All of them turned her down.
Depends on whether they commit libel or not (which they have, several times). Most recently, labelling Mark Foley as a Democrat (libeling the whole Democratic party).
As an aside, here's a dilemma - being offered a job working at The Daily Show (or The Colbert Report), but the job is to watch hours and hours of Fox News to find the parts they can use and make fun of.
Pfft. CNN is just as corporate as all the rest - they're in no way left-wing.
In any case, CNN would not falsely label a former Congressman as a member of the other party just to smear them, as Fox News has been doing recently. Nor would they engage in the many, MANY dirty tactics that Fox News uses on a daily basis.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, it's $2 million for a single person, $4 million for a couple.
Which is why the Republican scare tactic of telling people that EVERYONE is subject to this tax is nonsense.
The Republicans were playing games with the tax, so it disappears in 2010, and then goes back to 2001 levels in 2011 ($1,000,000). If this isn't an incentive for rich people to kill their parents in 2010, I don't know what is.
Most Democrats are in favor of raising the minimum credit, but Republicans stalled that plan in favor of repealing the tax entirely.
He was supported by the Democrats in the primary. I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting though. Are you saying that the Democrats simply shouldn't have allowed the primary to take place?
This will alter the election, and the Republican candidate will not get punished if he wins - only pawns will get sacrificed, and they're quite willing to do that.
I think that the first one is the same as asking "Should we take steps to insure that there are fewer (or no) abortions?"
Which even people who think that abortion should be legal will say yes to. These steps could include things like education and more widespread contraceptive use, or getting everyone to abstain until marriage.
Or it could simply be a knee-jerk reaction, and they haven't really thought about the issue and consequences of any specific course of action - they're just saying what their preacher told them to say.
It seems that the court is in Iraq following Iraqi laws (which are really just whatever Bush and company decided they would be). Automatic appeals might not be part of the process.
Wow. You realize that credit reports contain incorrect information (and not that infrequently), and yet you STILL assume that they are thieves.
Just... wow.
You know, I heard that the population of elephants has tripled over the last six months. I read it somewhere, I think.
An alternative is to simply reduce the amount of electricity you need to generate in the first place. For instance, switching to geothermal heating and cooling would drop your electricity usage a good amount. Solar thermal water heating will take out another chunk.
The major cost is up front, but that can be compensated for with equity loans - as you'll be saving on electricity bills over time, if the monthly payments are low enough you might just be paying less money monthly right from the beginning.
Don't forget the most common purpose -
5. Revenge
Many, many people who support being "tough on crime" only do so because it feels good to hurt those people who have "hurt" you (I say 'hurt' in quotes because many crimes don't actually hurt anybody except the perpetrators themselves). They really don't care whether it helps society, or prevents future crimes.
I just want that to sink in - Microsoft - the only console gaming company left.
*shiver*
Yes, because everyone knows that the Republicans don't have any power, what with controlling all three of the branches of the Federal government.
Vote against the incumbent. Give someone new a chance to completely betray you!
If not, you've got a funny definition of "being on their own".
Though for some reason inflation does not shoot up after the minimum wage is raised, like the right-wing loves to say it will. Curious.
I wonder if you could create a business and file your monthly subscription fee as an expense.
Get your facts straight.
I knew two people who joined the military within the last year. For some reason they don't think they're going to be deployed to Iraq.
Depends on whether they commit libel or not (which they have, several times). Most recently, labelling Mark Foley as a Democrat (libeling the whole Democratic party).
As an aside, here's a dilemma - being offered a job working at The Daily Show (or The Colbert Report), but the job is to watch hours and hours of Fox News to find the parts they can use and make fun of.
That would be a tough call.
Pfft. CNN is just as corporate as all the rest - they're in no way left-wing.
In any case, CNN would not falsely label a former Congressman as a member of the other party just to smear them, as Fox News has been doing recently. Nor would they engage in the many, MANY dirty tactics that Fox News uses on a daily basis.
Fox News is basically Pravda for the right wing.