Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (14340)	6/6/2002 6:30:45 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 21057

The subject is the tax code and what is defined as tax liability under that tax code. It's not a question of "attitude"; it's a question of law...that's what tax code is...law. But we are not arguing what the law currently is, I think we would all agree that estate taxes exist. The issue at hand is should they exist. That brings up attitudes about the law, and political beliefs and philosophies particular beliefs about the proper role of government. It's not a legal question. Tim

To: jttmab who wrote (14340)	6/6/2002 6:44:07 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

It's not a question of "attitude"; it's a question of law...that's what tax code is...law. You act as though the tax code were separate from the government. Adam and Eve, as far as we know, didn't pay taxes. Taxes are purely a function of government imposition. There is nothing theoretical about them. They aren't natural -- i don't know of any plant, fish, or mammal other than man that pays taxes. The tax code IS the attitude of government imposed by threat of force. Nothing more than that.