Who are others?

[Patriotdiscussions]

Found this in my state constitution and was wondering if you could help me make some sense out of it. I don't know any citizens or residents that are not natural persons. I thought maybe corporations but that is not it. Any help would be great, thanks.


SECTION 5. Estate, inheritance and income taxes.—
(a) NATURAL PERSONS. No tax upon estates or inheritances or upon the income of natural persons who are residents or citizens of the state shall be levied by the state, or under its authority, in excess of the aggregate of amounts which may be allowed to be credited upon or deducted from any similar tax levied by the United States or any state.
(b) OTHERS. No tax upon the income of residents and citizens other than natural persons shall be levied by the state, or under its authority, in excess of 5% of net income, as defined by law, or at such greater rate as is authorized by a three-fifths (3/5) vote of the membership of each house of the legislature or as will provide for the state the maximum amount which may be allowed to be credited against income taxes levied by the United States and other states. There shall be exempt from taxation not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) of the excess of net income subject to tax over the maximum amount allowed to be credited against income taxes levied by the United States and other states.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE. This section shall become effective immediately upon approval by the electors of Florida.

[AndyK]

Well. in general, you got your 'natural persons' (as in the flesh & blood, breathing variety) and then you got a whole bunch of other legal entities including: Estates, Trusts, Partnerships, Corporations, Governments (as in county and municipal), Churches, etc.

For a better analysis of the question, I suggest that you find an annotated copy of the state's constitution somewhere on line -- said annotations being analyses of the text. Perhaps starting at the "Official Internet Site of the Florida Legislature"

[Patriotdiscussions]

Well. in general, you got your 'natural persons' (as in the flesh & blood, breathing variety) and then you got a whole bunch of other legal entities including: Estates, Trusts, Partnerships, Corporations, Governments (as in county and municipal), Churches, etc.

For a better analysis of the question, I suggest that you find an annotated copy of the state's constitution somewhere on line -- said annotations being analyses of the text. Perhaps starting at the "Official Internet Site of the Florida Legislature"

Already looked and found nothing, so I came to the tax experts.

Would most of those entities you posted be paying estate and inheritance tax?

I do not recall most of those entities paying inheritance tax.

Also notice it reads resident and citizens OTHER than natural persons.

Besides a corporation, I see no other option you provide that would be considered a citizen or resident.

So if it does mean a corporation(which it does not) why say others instead of just corporation?

Also could you provide some reading of the last time a corporation paid estate or inheritance taxes? I can not find any, almost like they do not pay those taxes.

[AndyK]

The Florida Constitution contains many references to the state's laws.

Perhaps you couold try looking through the laws (in specific, any section entitled 'definitions' ) to see what the State means by 'person / persons'.

Then, you could do some research as to the general definitions of natural and artificial persons..

You could then answer your own question.

In any case, the section you quoted does not only pertain to estate and inheritance taxes. You seem to have overlooked a word of MAJOR significance regarding Florida's tax policies.

[chronistra]

Would most of those entities you posted be paying estate and inheritance tax?

The section you quote covers estate, inheritance and income taxes. Those entities could be paying at least one of those three types.

Besides a corporation, I see no other option you provide that would be considered a citizen or resident.

Trusts, estates, churches, charities, and other such entities have residency too. An estate, for example, is usually a resident of the same jurisdiction as the decedent at the time of death; trusts are typically resident in the jurisdiction of the grantor.

[Famspear]

Here's an excerpt from the quote PD provided:

SECTION 5. Estate, inheritance and income taxes.—
(a) NATURAL PERSONS. No tax upon estates or inheritances or upon the income of natural persons who are residents or citizens of the state shall be levied by the state, or under its authority, in excess of the aggregate of amounts which may be allowed to be credited upon or deducted from any similar tax levied by the United States or any state.
(b) OTHERS. No tax upon the income of residents and citizens other than natural persons shall be levied by the state, or under its authority, in excess of 5% of net income, as defined by law, or at such greater rate as is authorized by a three-fifths (3/5) vote of the membership of each house of the legislature or as will provide for the state the maximum amount which may be allowed to be credited against income taxes levied by the United States and other states. There shall be exempt from taxation not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) of the excess of net income subject to tax over the maximum amount allowed to be credited against income taxes levied by the United States and other states...

The estate and inheritance taxes are mentioned only in subsection (a), which deals only with "natural persons who are residents or citizens of the state [presumably meaning the State of Florida]". So, the discussion of estate and inheritance taxes on a "corporation," etc., is off base.

Subsection (b) mentions only the income tax. Subjection (b) covers the tax on income of "residents and citizens other than natural persons." There wouldn't be any "citizens other than natural persons," generally. Therefore, subsection (b) would apply only to an income tax on residents other than natural persons. As I believe is noted above, a corporation could be a "resident [of Florida] other than a natural person."

EDIT: A more complete citation is Article VII, section 5 of the Florida Constitution.

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
Also could you provide some reading of the last time a corporation paid estate or inheritance taxes? I can not find any, almost like they do not pay those taxes.

No. They do not pay those taxes.

By definition, corporations are designed not to expire (as in, die). They can be dissolved and liquidated but they are not "estates" and are not subject to inheritance taxes because they don't inherit anything.

[Burnaby49]

...
Also could you provide some reading of the last time a corporation paid estate or inheritance taxes? I can not find any, almost like they do not pay those taxes.

No. They do not pay those taxes.

By definition, corporations are designed not to expire (as in, die). They can be dissolved and liquidated but they are not "estates" and are not subject to inheritance taxes because they don't inherit anything.

That is about the stupidest comment I've yet read on Quatloos (Patriots, not Roy Beans). It's like Patriot saying he's looked in vain for any proof that a rock ever paid estate tax. Does he have the slightest clue what he's babbling about?

[JamesVincent]

That is about the stupidest comment I've yet read on Quatloos (Patriots, not Roy Beans). It's like Patriot saying he's looked in vain for any proof that a rock ever paid estate tax. Does he have the slightest clue what he's babbling about?

Did you have to ask?

[LPC]

...
Also could you provide some reading of the last time a corporation paid estate or inheritance taxes? I can not find any, almost like they do not pay those taxes.

That is about the stupidest comment I've yet read on Quatloos (Patriots, not Roy Beans). It's like Patriot saying he's looked in vain for any proof that a rock ever paid estate tax. Does he have the slightest clue what he's babbling about?

Thanks for summing up what I have been struggling to express.

What we're seeing is a stunning lack of reading comprehension, combined with a complete absence of common sense, on top of arrogance.

I think that "Schiller" pretty much sums it up.

(I don't think we've had any Schiller references for awhile, so newcomers might need to be aware of a somewhat famous quote by Frederick Schiller, usually translated as "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.")

[JamesVincent]

I always thought this was a good one.

[Pottapaug1938]

I'm reminded of the time, years ago, when my wife worked at a psychiatric nursing home in the two years before our marriage. One day, she was with a mentally retarded resident; and they both saw someone do something really stupid outside. the man turned to Jakki and said "I may be 'tarded, but I'm not THAT 'tarded!" That guy may have been "'tarded"; but he was smarter than some people I've met who have no such "official" disability.

I'm also reminded of the Boston-area slang phrase "that's retarded" (pronounced "re-TAH-did"). The connotation is on the order of "only someone who is truly retarded would do something that stupid". The phrase has fallen somewhat into disuse; but sometimes when I read posts like the original one in this thread, I can't keep that phrase from flashing through my mind.

[Judge Roy Bean]

I'm reminded of the time, years ago, when my wife worked at a psychiatric nursing home in the two years before our marriage. One day, she was with a mentally retarded resident; and they both saw someone do something really stupid outside. the man turned to Jakki and said "I may be 'tarded, but I'm not THAT 'tarded!" That guy may have been "'tarded"; but he was smarter than some people I've met who have no such "official" disability.

I'm also reminded of the Boston-area slang phrase "that's retarded" (pronounced "re-TAH-did"). The connotation is on the order of "only someone who is truly retarded would do something that stupid". The phrase has fallen somewhat into disuse; but sometimes when I read posts like the original one in this thread, I can't keep that phrase from flashing through my mind.

I think the "r" word itself has become socially unacceptable. I was somewhat taken aback a few years ago when I showed a guy working on a troublesome old engine how to advance and "retard" the spark and his young daughter looked at me strangely and said they get in trouble if they use that word at school.

[Famspear]

I think the "r" word itself has become socially unacceptable. I was somewhat taken aback a few years ago when I showed a guy working on a troublesome old engine how to advance and "retard" the spark and his young daughter looked at me strangely and said they get in trouble if they use that word at school.

This is a never-ending problem, and in my view it is not being properly addressed.

As many regulars here know, my son has Down Syndrome. He is mentally retarded and has a severe speech impairment.

As far as I can tell, this is more or less what happens.

Words such as moron, imbecile and idiot were formerly used to describe certain people with mental development disorders. Certain people began using those words in an inappropriate manner -- as epithets, to make fun of people, etc. -- so that the words eventually came to have connotations that were negative. Then, the use of the words in any way became offensive -- so that even using the terms to describe people who actually had the applicable mental condition was considered to be offensive.

So, some substitute terms such as "retarded" and "retardation" were introduced. Eventually, the process repeated itself: Certain people began using the word "retarded" in an inappropriate manner -- as an epithet -- so that even using the term in a neutral way to describe a person who actually has the mental condition is considered by some people to be offensive.

So, people have now tried to replace "retarded" with yet another term, such as "mentally challenged" or "developmentally challenged," etc., etc.

This process is sometimes called the "euphemism treadmill." Unfortunately, it doesn't work. And, unfortunately, it will continue until people stop caving into those who use these terms inappropriately. Essentially, moving from the use of "idiot" to "retarded" and then from "retarded" to "mentally challenged", etc., is not helpful. It does not solve the real problem.

What WOULD be helpful where people use any of these terms in an offensive manner is to explain to those people -- and to the public at large -- that being born mentally retarded is not something to be ashamed of, that it's not something that the individual brought on himself, that it's not right to make fun of someone because he or she is retarded, and that it's not right to use the term as an epithet to describe anyone -- whether he or she is retarded or not.

Calling someone a crook or a criminal is correct and appropriate if that person really is a crook or a criminal, particularly if he or she has been convicted of a crime. In my view, however, referring to someone who is mentally retarded as being mentally retarded is not wrong or inappropriate if that person has that condition and the term is not being used as a wrongful criticism, or in a mean-spirited way.

This is a tough subject. I myself have been guilty of using some of these terms in an inappropriate way.

[Famspear]

Just to elaborate on my post above: The people who want to use certain words inappropriately are not going to be "fooled" when well-meaning people treat a term like "retarded" as "no longer allowed" and replace it with a term such as "intellectually challenged" or "developmentally challenged." The "bad guys" will know what the "new" terms mean, and will inevitably choose to use those new terms in an inappropriate way, just as they did in the prior stages of the process. Then, unless the cycle is stopped, any use of terms such as "intellectually challenged" will eventually become just as offensive to the public at large -- because well-meaning people didn't have the courage to stand up to those who use the terms wrongfully.

Again, my view is that we should not declare one term "offensive" and move on to another. The appropriate response is to use the term in the correct way, and to explain why its use in that way is correct. Endlessly continuing on the euphemism treadmill isn't getting us anywhere.

[JamesVincent]

I once got "corrected" by one of my kid's teachers. During one of the many conferences over the years I was trying to describe some of Mary's quirks and used the phrase idiot savant. I was very firmly told that the word idiot is unacceptable.

[LPC]

Again, my view is that we should not declare one term "offensive" and move on to another. The appropriate response is to use the term in the correct way, and to explain why its use in that way is correct. Endlessly continuing on the euphemism treadmill isn't getting us anywhere.

The "euphemism treadmill" is nothing new, and has probably been going on as long as there has been human speech.

One example I read about some time ago is how we talk about economic conditions. In the 1800s, mass unemployment and depressed prices were called "hard times" or "crashes." By the earlier part of the 20th century, politicians (the source of many euphemisms) wanted a gentler term, so they were called "depressions." In other words, not a "crash" but just a kind of a dip. The Great Depression gave the word "depression" a bad name, so now they are called "recessions." I expect that the Great Recession will give that word a bad reputation, and we'll soon be using a different word to describe bad economic times.

Another type of "euphemism treadmill" revolves around bodily functions. The word "bathroom" is itself a euphemism, because the important function has nothing to do with bathing. Once "bathroom" becomes too obviously associated with something we don't want to talk about, we switch to a different phrase, like "rest room."

[grixit]

Agreed on the above, starting with "retarded but not stupid". That's why we distinguish between the retarded, who are doing the best they can, some very well in fact, and the frikintards, who have more or less normal levels of cognitive ability, but refuse to use them.

As for the euphemism treadmill, i think it's speeding up. Wasn't so long ago a lot of transsexuals were calling themselves "trannies" now it's been declared abusive terminology.

On the other hand, sometimes the treadmill breaks. For instance, "tax protester" "tax defier", "nontaxpayer", "freeman", "sovereign", "living soul" "flesh and blood man", etc, are all failed euphemisms, they all mean "frikintard".

[wserra]

"Politician" became "public servant". And don't get me started on what Congressional sponsors name their most odious bills.

[Pottapaug1938]

Something like "Constitutional and Natural Rights Restoration Act"?