How to Discombobulate Your Libertarian Friends

No - short version - the value of your easement can be deducted from your adjusted gross income tax with a 15-year carry forward.

So - hypothetical using round numbers - your easement is valued at $1,500,000.

Say you pay $500,000 in income taxes.

You can deduct that full amount -- $500,000 -- for the first through third years -- i.e. for a total of $1.5 million.

Or let's say your tax bill is $50,000. Then you can deduct 100 percent from your taxes for all 15 years.

With an annual tax bill of $200,000, you can deduct 100 percent for the first seven years, 50 percent in year eight, and then you're done.



A Land Trust or conservancy -- 501(c)3 -- is the recipient of your donation. They are in charge of enforcing the easement.

It's no more complicated, really, than filling out any other charitable giving deduction.

If I smoke pot, I'm not stealing.

If I keep a mugger from taking my money, I'm not stealing.

At least you've returned to the actual debate. I disagree with the notion that the government is mugging us. It is a social club, we all belong, we all should pay dues. Anybody who doesn't like the dues has no obligation to stay in the club. Just don't expect to be allowed through the door once you resign your membership.

But what have we here? Poor storm can't stand paying dues because he only uses the sauna on days when Flow and Tex drop by, and he never sits in the smoking room.

That's a very interesting way of looking at it (twisting things into absurdity), but the government would be presumably enforcing regulations that apply to all businesses, so it is not a minority being trampled.

I never signed up, didn't agree to the dues, don't recognize the legitimacy of any organization built on theft, and don't give a tinker's damn what you think.

I'm choosing to live outside the grasp of your club and there's two things you can do about it -- jack and shit.

How come the only place that Storm quote appears is in gul's post?

If we're all a part of a club, shouldn't we all pay the same fee?

To be fair -- steamy butt darts with Flow is pretty much the subtext of every post I make.

You think business owners are a majority of the population?

No more sauna games for you, my friend.

What method we use for tax collection is a distinct issue from whether there should be taxes.

Your parents signed you up by the virtue of you being born a US citizen. Upon adulthood, you are certainly free to renounce your citizenship and go live off the land somewhere. Just remember the sheep are for making sweaters and lamb chops, not the other thing that you do...

Playing word games is fun! I think you know exactly what I meant.

Yes, but your club analogy falls apart if some have to pay more than others. If the few are taxed much while the many taxed little (or not at all), the few are being exploited.

I have no particular love for the Bush administration, but I have to say, it's not as though it originated the tactic and it's not as though it's the ultimate when it comes to using it.

That he compared those evasions to evading the other laws doesn't mean he evades them all in the same way.

I honestly don't get your point here at all.

Honestly, if Storm really does say A<>A all the time, you could really have saved us both a lot of typing and found a foolproof example of it than this one here.

In my hypothetical, I noted that he was an employee of a small utility stationed in Whitesville to keep an eye on a critical switching station that tended to be flooded during the rainy season and to do maintenance work within the entire territory.

But the point is that the minority has insufficient economic power for market forces to work in the case I outlined.

As for the business owner being a minority, mentioned in another posting, the argument proves too much, since it makes every business owner a minority of one.

Not at all. There are definitely plenty of clubs where different members pay different fees. Your typical health club, for example, has a whole bunch of different deals going on. Some memberships get sold at a high price, while other members haggle down to a bare minimum.

Now typically, the members who pay the most get the most. You can argue that's not the case from the "government" club.

Depends on the club. If it's a snobby London social club of the sort El Chup aspires to join, then you are absolutely correct.

If it it the town little league, I can well imagine scholarships for kids from poor families. Again, nobody has to join the club, so the kid who's dad balks at subsidizing the poor kids' fee can certainly play ball alone in his backyard.

So he had to move to the town for work? Couldn't he just ask for a transfer?

I mean, businesses have the right to refuse service to pretty much anyone. It's not a violation of his rights if he isn't being served. It is, however, a violation of a business owner's rights to be forced to serve him.

I think the point is that he shouldn't have to ask for transfer because of being discriminated against. And no, businesses don't have the right to refuse service on the basis of race. Now, proving discrimination based on race might be problematic in many instances.

So you'd rather the business owner be forced at gunpoint to do something he doesn't want to do?

I see, the value of your easement is determined by the value of the things you're signing over and not necessarily the appraised value of your land? Mineral rights, surface rights, development, etc. Am I with you?

And just like a piece of new equipment, how I take the deduction is up to me?

Cool.

Using the term "forced at gunpoint" is unnecessarily extreme. It's no more "at gunpoint" than obeying any other law would be. Would you use the sentence, "People are forced at gunpoint not to exceed the speed limit"? But in the end, it's the same thing: A law against discrimination is enforced no more stringently than a law against speeding -- and often less so.

You're too much!

Yes, that's exactly what I meant...

When you break the law, the guy arresting you isn't carrying a teddy bear at his side.

If it's under-enforced, why have it?

OK, so you'd sacrifice the rights of the minority in favor of the majority. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Exactly. So what's your solution? Anarchy?

In fact, no one is arrested for discrimination, so your point about guns is even less appropriate in that context.

I never said it was underenforced. I said that it's not done at gunpoint. It's enforced less stringently, meaning less strictly, than speeding laws. People are pulled over for speeding thousands of times a day. People are never arrested for discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws are enforced administratively or civilly.

The cop giving you a speeding ticket has a gun. The bailiff in a court during your discrimination suit has a gun. If you don't pay the penalties, how do they punish you?

[action=Timmy]wanders off to do something else.[/action]

The award to a victim is usually the damages actually caused, or, if there is a fine, it's often based on the damages caused.

However, there's no doubt that the discriminatory business owner does face the possibility of damages and sanctions where these antidiscrimination laws exist and apply. It's like breaking any other law: There are consequences.

Your sarcasm detector needs adjusting...

I've played along with you this far, but twisting word games bore me rapidly, and you're not fooling me.

If you ever want to really discuss things with me, you let me know.