Maurile Tremblay

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,751 Excellent

About Maurile Tremblay

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    San Diego Chargers

Recent Profile Visitors

37,958 profile views
  1. I think the example articulated in the original post tends to undermine most of the philosophical arguments in favor of abolishing estate taxes. There are valid economic and philosophical arguments both for and against estate taxes that I don't think are affected by anything in the original post. The economic argument against estate taxes is that they reduce total societal wealth by more than a revenue-neutral tax on wages or consumption would. This argument involves a lot of calculus and some questionable assumptions, and is frankly over my head. But I don't think it's particularly controversial among experts who specialize in the relevant subfield of economics. The economic argument in favor of estate taxes is that wealth inequality is bad[citation needed], and estate taxes are a useful tool to redistribute wealth so as to reduce inequality. The philosophical argument against estate taxes is that humans have a custom making property rights transferable. If I work extra hours to buy my son an iPad for his birthday, he's done nothing in particular to have earned the iPad. But if somebody steals it from him, it's no defense for the thief to argue that my son wasn't entitled to the iPad anyway because he hadn't earned it. Society doesn't respect my son's ownership of the iPad because he did something to earn it; it respects his ownership of the iPad because I did something to earn it, and therefore I had the right to give it to him. It's a good custom: it benefits me (I am happy that my son has an iPad), it benefits my son (he likes the Draft Dominator app on it), and it benefits society (by encouraging me to work more productively than if I were allowed to provide only for myself). Moreover, society's respect for my son's ownership of the iPad I gave him should not depend on my continued good health. "Stealing the iPad is okay because the son did nothing to deserve it" is no more compelling when I am dead than when I am alive. It is no more compelling when the gift is in the form of an inheritance than when it's a birthday present. The philosophical argument in favor of estate taxes is that we naturally feel less obligation to the young man who was bequeathed an iPad than to the old guy who bought it with his own hard-earned money. The old guy, however, is now dead. He may have cared a lot about the person he left his inheritance to, but he may not have cared at all about the person who the person he left his inheritance to left his inheritance to; and accordingly the degree to which people think inheritance is a sensible custom tends to go down over multiple generations. An inheritance tax is a way of codifying that intuition, reflecting the declining sense of obligation to people who are long dead.
  2. I'm so sorry, shady.
  3. Yes. I'm not sure where he'd be selected in the 2017 draft -- probably not top three.
  4. Kevin Acee: "Chargers have more than doubled percentage they are offering this year. Bosa hardly budged, if at all. I've taken Chargers to task in this. They have taken curious stands. But they've negotiated. Joey Bosa's side really hasn't."
  5. I like the clips of Trevor Noah's stand-up that I've seen. He hasn't grown into The Daily Show role yet, and I'm not sure whether he will. He still appears uncomfortable, which makes him talk too fast, which is made more problematic by his accent. The Daily Show has lost a lot of talent recently besides just Stewart (Samantha Bee, Jessica Williams, Jason Jones...) I think Jordan Klepper is the funniest one still there, but I could be missing some others because I currently only watch about one episode every three weeks.
  6. This is kind of a weird argument since Entrepreneur Gates became Investor Gates precisely on the basis of his entrepreneurship.
  7. I haven't read the thread, but the above is true only if those who have a lot of money to begin with use it to invest in making amazing things that improve the world. It's not true if they just spend it on cocaine (and other forms of consumption rather than investment). This is also relevant to the discussion of the estate tax, which I see is being discussed a few posts down. Arguably one of the the main effects of an estate tax is to redirect money from investment (making amazing things that improve the world) to consumption (cocaine).
  8. Naz has already admitted being at the scene of the crime.
  9. Cared enough about what? "The governor of the state specifically asked him not to go there because it would only disrupt the relief efforts. Having to stop everything for Secret Service sweeps and motorcades would be an empty gesture that would actually hurt, not help. But he went, and brought the press with him for this 'non-political' event, despite what Conway said. And he took the opportunity at this 'non-political' event to slam Obama for not making the same empty gesture he did." (Link.)
  10. In 2008, McCain got 31% of the Latino vote. In 2012, Romney got 27% of the Latino vote. In 2016, it appears that Trump will get around 20% of the Latino vote (or maybe 19% or 14% or 12%). The rate at which Latinos are turning into Republicans is stunning.
  11. I agree with this. With the shift of power to the executive branch over the last few decades, there is quite a lot a President can do even without the aid of Congress. Ending the War on Drugs, at least as a practical matter, would seem to be feasible by an executive policy prioritizing enforcement of everything else ahead of federally prosecuting non-violent drug offenses.
  12. Sending a message is just talk. Destroying Trump, if it's done correctly, will do a lot more than that. Destroying Trump correctly means voting out all the down-ticket Republicans who refuse to repudiate Trump (and especially those who endorse him). That would have a huge effect, short-term and long-term, on the political landscape in this country -- and the effect would be beneficial, IMO.
  13. That you understand the idea of tradeoffs? That you're capable of holding two or more separate ideas in your head at the same time? Or maybe that you're a bigot. There are a number of possibilities that can't be ruled out; which means that no particular possibility can be confidently assumed, even if assuming it would allow you the sweet pleasure of denigrating your entire out-group with a single broad brush. This is a frustrating election cycle because there are basically no good reasons to support Trump -- at least none that I can think of that hold up to even moderate scrutiny. Trump and his supporters merit criticism and occasionally even mockery to a greater extent than any other recent political movement in America. There is a seemingly endless supply of well-founded criticisms that may be fittingly leveled at them. And yet roughly half of the criticisms aimed at them, or so it sometimes seems, are unsound or logically invalid. Why reach? Why not just stick to factually accurate and logically compelling criticisms?
  14. It's not academic. Consider the real-life example of Paul Ryan. He has criticized and distanced himself from Trump's racist remarks, but he's still voting for Trump for other reasons. Do you think that makes him a racist? (If so, do you think everyone who votes for Hillary is crooked?) I suspect that there are a great many Paul Ryans out there.