dagblog - Comments for "A Real Death Tax: Let the Killers Choose, Let the Profiteers Pay"

Interesting and encouraging.

Michael Wolraich — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 23:29:51 +0000

In reply to Donal wins the

Interesting and encouraging. The article doesn't my concern about enforcement though.

Ha! I thought of a name, too:

Donal — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:52:47 +0000

In reply to Donal wins the

Ha! I thought of a name, too: SemiAuto Insurance. Now if I can just get a cut of the premiums ...

Donal wins the

artappraiser — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:25:19 +0000

In reply to A Real Death Tax: Let the Killers Choose, Let the Profiteers Pay

Donal wins the influence-the-debate competition!

Latest Front in the Gun Debate Is Mandatory Insurance

New York Times, by Michael Cooper and Mary Williams Walsh, Feb. 21 11:49 AM ET

The two sides in the gun debate seem to agree that the insurance industry should play a bigger role in an armed society, but they differ on state proposals seeking to make liability coverage mandatory.

Well said!

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:37:14 +0000

In reply to A Real Death Tax: Let the Killers Choose, Let the Profiteers Pay

Well said!

Anonymous — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 02:36:33 +0000

In reply to A Real Death Tax: Let the Killers Choose, Let the Profiteers Pay

Well said!

Thanks demun. Cap-n-trade is

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 19:35:30 +0000

In reply to I'm reminded of the "carbon

Thanks demun. Cap-n-trade is a fair comparison, insofar as it took a fresh, incentive-based approach to an old problem. I have no illusion about a Death Tax being passed any time soon; just brainstorming here. But if I were a powerful pol trying to build momentum for the idea, I would certainly look at what went wrong with cap-and-trade.

I just meant that it is far

artappraiser — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 04:10:56 +0000

In reply to I don't think the same model

I just meant that it is far easier for industries like this to change the forces they have been allied with and attitudes about marketing than one might think. Especially once they are "regulated" with a tax with the intent to discourage some purchases, that they'll not just drop "ideological" bedfellows (here: those who think there is nothing wrong with selling tobacco,) but join with industry enemies to try to ensure they have to follow the same rules or be put out of business.

I'm reminded of the "carbon

demunchained — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 15:03:20 +0000

In reply to A Real Death Tax: Let the Killers Choose, Let the Profiteers Pay

I'm reminded of the "carbon tax". remember this?

"Sen. Bernard Sanders, Vermont independent and self-described socialist who caucuses with the Democrats, said he plans to introduce legislation in February that will charge companies a fee for carbon pollution, in addition to ending tax subsidies for oil and coal companies and making “historic investments” in renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass. The bill, he said, would also give consumers a rebate “to offset any efforts by the fossil-fuel companies to jack up their prices,” he said in a statement.

When asked if the president could support such a measure, however, Mr. Carney demurred, saying only that the White House does not support a tax on carbon emissions."

If there's no will in Washington to tax the major causes of greenhouse gases, I don't see the Death Tax getting traction. It's a great idea, which should be part of a comprehensive strategy to deal with our absurd gun violence/death problem, but most good ideas these days are ignored by our political leadership.

It's one reason why the public approval rating of congress is at an all time low.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/23/white-house-rules-out-ca...

That is so pie in the sky,

Orion — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 12:41:47 +0000

In reply to How would you get insurance

That is so pie in the sky, isn't it? There is no incentive whatsoever for a private insurance company to make gun ownership difficult. The only field of our society that takes interest in public safety is the government. If you want to reduce gun violence, the government has to do the deed. No one else will.

I'm not interested in

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 00:14:40 +0000

In reply to So now you're talking about a

I'm not interested in slippery slope arguments. The government has no interest in penalizing rope makers. Ropes don't kill 10,000 people a year.

If you prefer, you can call it a fine.

dagblog - Comments for "A Real Death Tax: Let the Killers Choose, Let the Profiteers Pay"

Interesting and encouraging.

Ha! I thought of a name, too:

Donal wins the

Latest Front in the Gun Debate Is Mandatory Insurance

New York Times, by Michael Cooper and Mary Williams Walsh, Feb. 21 11:49 AM ET

Well said!

Well said!

Thanks demun. Cap-n-trade is

I just meant that it is far

I'm reminded of the "carbon

That is so pie in the sky,

I'm not interested in