Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Ace: When someone dies, the government seizes all assets. They pool them all, and appraise everything. Everyone gives a certain amount in inheritance. If their assets are worth less than that amount, the difference in money is added to it, and then everything, including their stuff and the added money, is spread equally among the inheritors. If their assets are worth more, the government takes away stuff until it is equal, and the rest is spread out equally among the inheritors. The will can specify a preference for what should be kept and what shouldn't be, but, barring that, the inheritors should choose what assets they wish to get, if their over 18, and an equal split of monetary and non-monetary assets, if their under 18. The rest goes to the government. That number is different depending on how many inheritors there are, so, if you have 5 children each of your children would get as much as if you have 1 child. This means that people will still inherit stuff from their parents, but everyone will get about as much.
Now, if someone wishes for their children to get their business after their death, then they can specify that in their will, and the worth of said business would be measured as best it could, and be counted against the amount they can spend. If someone wants to give their children more non-monetary assets than the law would allow, then their inheritors will go into debt to the government until they can pay it all back, unless their inheritors already have enough money to pay it, in which case they're pretty much buying it from the government. If the inheritors are over 18, or they aren't, and the amount of non-monetary assets is more than is allowed, they can choose to get some or all of the non-monetary assets as, well, money.
Make sense?
Also, I'm a guy, and I do sort of think that there should be some sort of communal child raising that happens so that bad parents cannot screw up their children, and only trained professionals would raise them... >.>
edited 19th Nov '12 6:39:41 PM by deathpigeon
"trained professionals" is a bad idea, as that would seem to take away people's rights. That said, we need a damned sight better CPS regs so we can catch abusive parents more easily.
Also, that seems like a piss poor way to handle inheriting/selling of businesses. Particularly as we probably already have ways to do that do so quite well. I don't think anyone hands a business over to their child without taking care of the paperwork beforehand, according to practices already in place. In fact, that seems more damaging to the business overall to suddenly have the government up in their businesses invasively like that, just because someone died.
![]()
![]()
One result of it would be that it would help close the income disparity because, essentially, no one would be born rich or poor. Everyone would have to either earn enough money to become rich or loose enough money to become poor.
![]()
Sure, why not?
I can cover my plan for child raising in another post.
Also, the government wouldn't actually get all up in the business unless a person's will states that they want the business to go to their children and they've drawn up the necessary paperwork. Otherwise, the business itself can choose who they want as the new owner, such as through a vote by the boardmembers, or something.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Makes sense as a system but goes against human instincts/nature (Paternal/Maternal bonds and whatnot), so its almost impossible that it will be created. Any politician who would openly advocate for it could kiss there career goodbye.
Even if it were implemented people would try to use every cheat in the book to get around it.
edited 19th Nov '12 6:49:19 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016Small, family owned businesses tend not to have boardmembers. And also tend to be owned by family, hence the "family business". If the owner has declared they want to the business to go to someone, I don't see why the government should go in and start taking away assets for literally no reason. There's inheritance tax (though granted I'm not sure how it goes, but I think you have to pay taxes on things like houses your mother wills you) and other legalities that come with inheriting assets, but why should the government go in and take away from something you likely helped to build and were already a partner in? Family businesses are called that because family is involved, thus the kid was in there somewhere for quite a while.
![]()
![]()
Eh, the raising of children is probably a topic for another thread. No candidates are talking reformation/improvement of the foster system these days.
edited 19th Nov '12 6:52:53 PM by AceofSpades
@Best Of: Thanks, now I can properly google for that incident.
Wouldn't something close to a utopia be a ttopia? -rimshot-
Communism is great if you completely get rid of the human element. So not great at all, really.
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?![]()
If the kid has worked up to the point where he or she would take over the business of nothing is specified, like he or she is the vice-president of the business or something, then the dead person's will wouldn't have to specify the kid gets the business and the business probably wouldn't get counted as an asset. However, if the kid isn't a part of the business at all or is only in a low ranking position, and the parent wants their child to take over the business after he or she has died, then the business would get counted as an asset.
edited 19th Nov '12 6:58:02 PM by deathpigeon
Massachusetts cuts tuition for illegal immigrants
I like that podcast to.
-thinks post-sec should be free or damn close to it-
This isn't really that important to me. It doesn't address the issue at the core of education so -shrug-
also why is your tuition so fucking expensive?
edited 19th Nov '12 7:26:02 PM by thatguythere47
Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?
Because College is an industry in the US. You can end up getting a job because you studied at one school over another, despite there being very little difference in the education. Schools in the US are more about reputation, and connections than education. Honestly, if you put the effort, you can get just as good an education at a state college as at Harvard. Also, we've got massive degree inflation in the US, with many people being majorly overqualified for the work they do.
College is a business.

Governor Walker signals ending same-day registration
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016