Edward

Exactly - thank you for clarifiying the position of myself and others.

Can't be his "soul justification", because despite his apparent affection for Gene Harris, Dan is quite short of soul. Oops! I'm sorry for the inadvertently funny typo - I've been listening to a lot of soul music lately.

Wait a minute. Have you ever known a rich person who has refused to get richer because his investment might make someone else rich, too? You agree that in the future, rich people will not use their money to make more money, because they will dilute their power? After all, according to Edward, This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read on this forum, but I can only say that I hope I live long enough to see the rise of the plutocracy because I can't wait to see how they are going to re-write the Constitution and most of the laws to ensure that no one else can get rich and powerful like them. There. Now I am done, and the rest of the liberals can make as much fun as they want. You think I have a fucked up view of the world, but like I said, we have a philosophic difference, and now I know that it is so immense that I cannot believe that I am communicating with intelligent, educated human beings, Edward's apparent knowledge of tax law notwithstanding. What are you talking about? How, exactly, are you attributing these ideas to me? It is right there directly below the spot in my post that you stopped quoting! I've bolded it above, but here it is again. You said it, pal. Plutocrats won't "share power with any newcomer" and therefore "people with big ideas won't find capital for their ventures". Plutocrats will sit on their money because they'd rather preserve their power than expand their fortunes. Well, that's one interpretation. Another one is that if we are talking about a true plutocracy (and nowhere have I said that that is what we have now) in which a relatively few families control the means of production, distribution, and advertising; these families will be able to exert the type of financial and political pressures that will make it difficult for an entrepreneur to preserve his/her economic independence - in other words, not to sell out. Ideas can be bought and utilized by others for their own gains. Is your argument that a plutocracy would not emerge your sole justification for repealing the federal estate tax?

What are you talking about? How, exactly, are you attributing these ideas to me? I believe that I stated that the repeal of the estate tax would contribute to the creation of a plutocracy over several generations, so I guess that you are out of luck.

No, I realize that some taxes may have been paid along the way. Still, the appreciation of many capital assets (such as real estate, collectables, and a large percentage of the appreciation of many stocks and other securities) will not have been taxed at the time of the owner's death. I agree. However, the annual gift tax exclusion (it just recently was increased to $12,000) can be an invaluable tax planning tool for those whose estates just exceed the amounts now sheltered by the unified credit. If each member of a married couple is allowed to give $12,000 annually to each of two children, then $48,000 of (ideally, appreciating) assets can be removed from the couple's estate each year. Over the course of a decade, this amounts to a substantial sum. I don't doubt you in the least. I have encountered people of this mindset, though I doubt as many as you. Yes, at present, the Unified Credit will only shelter $1,000,000 come 2011. I do not think that that amount is enough for many middle class families, and I hope that it will be increased substantially. I think that charitable giving was also a factor. If were wealthy and I had the choice between leaving $1 million to my alma mater or a reduced amount (because of the estate tax) to an heir to whom I have already left a substantial sum, I would be inclined to do the former.

No, those are not the implications of my argument. If I am a billionaire, I can avoid having my estate pay any tax to the government by leaving everything exceeding the unified credit to charity. If I want to make bequests to individuals exceeding the amount sheltered by the unified credit, then I can still do so but the excess amounts will be subject to federal estate taxation. It is not necessarily stupid to choose the latter course. If there were no federal estate tax, then wealthy individuals would feel less compelled to make bequests to charitable organizations and be more inclined to leave their fortunes to one or more individuals. Considering all aspects of the current tax structure in this country, why do you find it so difficult to understand that this would only accelerate the aggregation of wealth in a select few???

Do not put words into my mouth. The point is that the tax burden on the affluent in this country is far less than it is in most first world countries, so talk of it being confiscatory is greatly exaggerated. Enormous? Have you considered that Social Security taxes are levied on only the first $97,500 of wages, serving to significantly DECREASE the effective tax rate of high-salaried individuals versus low and middle income workers? Have you considered that long-term capital gains and qualified dividends are taxed at only 15% and that the advantages of this low rate inures largely to the benefit of the wealthy, who, unlike the lower and middle class who must consume a far greater percentage of their income on necessities, can afford to invest a greater portion of their income? Do you realize that, because of these factors, Warren Buffett pays income taxes at a lower marginal rate than his secretary, who earns about $60,000 per year. And, AGAIN, as I stated earlier, since a decedent's appreciated assets receive a "step-up" in basis to fair market value at the decedent's passing, it is incorrect for anyone to claim that the estate tax taxes money/assets that have already been taxed. Many unrealized capital gains are never subjected to income tax because of this step-up in basis, and, indeed, are never taxed at all because the asset is not subject to estate taxes because of the unified credit. How exactly are these taxes confiscatory considering the rather large amount sheltered by the uniformed credit and other basic tax planning techniques such as utilizing the annual gift tax exclusion? As I stated in my prior post, the Congressional Research Service calculated that, in 1999, when the top marginal estate tax rate was over 50% and the unified credit was much lower than it is now, the average "effective rate" (i.e., the estate tax burden as a percentage of estate value after expenses) was 12.4%. In the 1920s, the last time the richest one percent of the population owned over 40 percent of all private wealth, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, "[w]e can have a democratic society, or we can have great concentrated wealth in the hands of a few. But we cannot have both." Since the birth of this country, other notable Americans aside from Justice Brandeis have provided strong reasons for disagreeing with your view on this issue: Mt. Rushmore and a History of the Estate Tax I did not get this idea from Krugman or Edwards; it came to my attention during a law school course is federal estate and gift taxation over 10 years ago. I find it difficult to believe that you cannot understand how the repeal of the estate tax would help contribute to the creation of a plutocracy. It is easier to make money if you already have money, or do you disagree??? If I am a millionaire and I am allowed to leave my entire estate to my son untaxed (because of repeal of the estate tax), he can much more readily attain the status of "super-wealthy" than if the size of his bequest were necessarily reduced by estate tax considerations. It is easier for a millionaire to become a billionaire than for someone from a much more meager background to do so. Allow this to continue unfettered for a few generations and let's see where we are. Money is power, and I don't know why you would think that, if there were a plutocracy, a relatively few monied families would want to share that power with any newcomer. Where are all these people with big ideas supposed to find the capital for their ventures? No, Dan, I stated that estate planning and charitable contributions can be used to avoid paying any taxes to the government. Not paying taxes to the government is NOT the same thing as being allowed to leave your estate to whomever you want without tax consequences. Moreover, you appear to have missed the second part of my sentence, "and charitable bequests". The increase in the unified credit has been accompanied by a decrease in charitable giving, and it only stands to reason that these contributions would decrease even more significantly if the estate tax were abolished. In summation, don't you think that there are far more important issues to this country than giving tax cuts to the richest 1% - 2%? Considering how greatly the last three "conservative" presidents have run up the national debt, forgive me for not being swayed by your "conservative" arguments.

Wow! Great analysis, Dan! How can anyone argue with such compelling arguments as, "It's total bullshit."??? Have you engaged in any in-depth study of tax policy? Do you have any notion of what the overall tax burden on the wealthy is in the United States vis-a-vis other first world countries? Do you think that the wealthiest 1% - 2% owe society and the government NOTHING for creating the infrastructure that has contributed so greatly to their sucess? - Warren Buffett certainly disagrees with you on this point, but apparently he is just a liberal. Moreover, how exactly do you reconcile the aggregation of wealth in a tiny segment of the population with the important notions of capitalism and economic mobility? If the estate tax is repealed, then, relatively quickly, this country will be run, at least economically, by an elite plutocracy. How easy do you think it would be for anyone to join the ranks of this exclusive group? The Congressional Research Service calculated that, in 1999, when the top marginal estate tax rate was over 50% and the unified credit was much lower, the average "effective rate" (i.e., the estate tax burden as a percentage of estate value after expenses) was 12.4%. Obviously, if you are among the wealthiest 1% - 2% who is going to be affected by the estate tax, you can avoid paying any taxes to the government through estate planning and charitable bequests.

As I recall this was an argument made by Bush but there is not one documented case of anyone having to sell a farm because of estate taxes. (Actually as I write this it seems to me unlikely that there aren't some small farmers with $4M in assests-- maybe they get special depreciation allowances or something. ) The argument is an emotional one used by those who want the estate tax repealed (oh, those poor billionaires!). Family farms and business are eligible for special treatment under the Internal Revenue Code: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities Congressional Budget Office

Jazzshrink, Presently, the unified credit operates to exclude $2 million from each person's estate for estate tax purposes. A married couple can, with very little tax planning (i.e., by utilizing a bypass trust), double that amount to $4 million. Additionally, a person may each and every year give, gift tax-free, $12,000 to as many people as he or she desires. A couple with four children could then, if they so desired, transfer $96,000 to their children every year without incurring any type of tax liability. If you already know all of this, I apologize - I am not about to pry into your personal affairs and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. My point, though, is that the estate tax presently affects no more than the wealthiest 1% - 2% of Americans. Also, since a decedent's appreciated assets receive a "step-up" in basis to fair market value at the decedent's passing, it is incorrect for anyone to claim that the estate tax taxes money/assets that have already been taxed. Many unrealized capital gains are never taxed because of this step-up in basis. Of course, many politicians wanted (and still want) to increase the unified credit significantly (the amount sheltered increases to $3.5 million in 2009, after which the estate tax is repealed entirely for one year only to return in 2011 with a greatly reduced unified credit - only $1 million will be sheltered), but others stand in their way by refusing to accept anything other than the complete repeal of the estate tax. As for the article, it is interesting and well written. I especially like the acknowledgement that, "[t]he estate tax offers a modest counterweight against the development of a new plutocracy to rival the industrial barons of America's Gilded Age."

Well, now I know where to buy my tropical fish (and also where to relieve myself).

I agree. I also couldn't care less about the propriety of "running up the score". However, I do think that any psychological advantage that is gained against future opponents by obtaining such blow-outs is outweighed by the concern for injuries. If Brady or Moss gets injured during the fourth quarter of a game that is well in hand, Belichick is going to look like an idiot - the Patriots suddenly become very beatable. Moreover, wouldn't it be beneficial to try to gain valuable experience for the Patriots' backups during the fourth quarter of these games? As far as the Patriots winning the remaining seven games on their schedule, three of these games look very easy (at home against the Eagles, Jets, and Dolphins), two look moderately challenging (at the Bills and Ravens), and two look fairly tough (at home against the Steelers and at the Giants in the regular season finale). I think that the Giants game will pose the biggest hurdle as the Patriots will probably have home-field advantage wrapped up at that point, and the Giants may be in a heated battle with the Cowboys to win the NFC East (but probably only if they beat the Cowboys at home this weekend).

No, you're not. It is great to win close games, but I am a bit concerned that six of the seven games that the Pack has won could easily have gone the other way. Still, the Packers' defense is pretty darn good, and now they have some quality depth at the wide receiver position (Driver, Jennings, Jones, and Robinson). I think that people wrote off Bubba Franks a bit too quickly; hopefully he will soon make a full recovery from the injury that he sustained during the Washington game. Obviously, the Packer's lack of a quality running back is the team's glaring weakness. The two games against Detroit and the game at Dallas should tell quite a lot about this team.

I thought that the pass interference call on Moss was ridiculous, but overall I don't think that the refereeing was any better or worse than the refereeing that I've seen in this or any prior season. There was a horrible pass interference call against Charles Woodson late in the game at KC, and another bad pass intereference call on what ended up being a meaningless 2-point conversion for the Chiefs. It is all very subjective, and the referees are going to blow that call more often than any of us would like.

Mosaic increased the price of its CD sets to $17 per disc some time ago when the Jack Teagarden Roulette set was released.

David, If you are enamored of the San Diego area, do not fail to consider purchasing property in San Clemente. Compared to other cities in Orange County, it is relatively undeveloped and (at least in comparison to other beach cities) affordable. It is also only a stone's throw away from San Diego. Moreover, it could serve as a base for any day trips to Los Angeles - San Diego is awfully isolated.

Hmmm... Given that the appraised value is a mere 208 million Euros, I wonder at what amount the reserve price has been set.

Exactly. In particular, most of the metropolitan areas on or near the U.S. seaboard are highly susceptible to natural disasters of one type or another. I have lived in southern California for essentially my entire life, and I cannot recall fires as damaging as these ones now raging.

I believe they retailed for $108. Doesn't $18 an LP sound right? That would be correct I think. Mosaic brochure #15 announces the release of the Lee Morgan set - the 6 Q-LP version was available for $90. By the time that Mosaic brochure #18 was printed, the LP set had sold out. Thanks for the info. Where they priced the same as the CDs? The CD set was priced at $64.

I was clearing some room for recent acquisitions, and I noticed this partial set that I no longer need. I purchased this as a partial set directly from Mosaic Records for $45 plus shipping expenses. I am offering it for sale for $45 plus actual shipping costs. (Packaged, this set weighs 2 lbs.) Disc one is missing, but discs 2, 3, and 4 are all in near mint condition. Unfortunately, I do not have a booklet for this set, and the box is of the generic variety (i.e., without the lettering on the spine and the photo on the top). Please send a PM if interested. I will accept payment by PayPal, cashier's check, or money order. Please know that I should be out of town on business next week, so if payment is received after early tomorrow morning (Saturday 10/20) I will not be able to ship the set until the following weekend. I have identified the full track listing below: DISC ONE: (1) Jammin' In Four, (2) Edmond Hall Blues, (3) Profoundly Blue, (4) Profoundly Blue No.2, (5) Celestial Express, (6) Rompin' In '44 (alt), (7) Rompin' In '44, (8) Blue Interval, (9) Smooth Sailing (alt), (10) Smooth Sailing (11) Seein' Red, (12) It's Been So Long (alt), (13) I Can't Believe That You're In Love With Me (alt), (14) I Can't Believe That You're In Love With Me, (15) Big City Blues, (16) It's Been So Long, (17) Steamin' And Beamin' - [i am not sure if this is the correct track order for DISC ONE, but the aforementioned tracks are contained thereon; Tracks 1-5 are by the Edmond Hall Celeste Quartet; Tracks 6-11 are by Edmond Hall's All Star Quintet; Tracks 12-17 are by the Edmond Hall Swingtet] DISC TWO: (1) High Society (alt 1), (2) High Society (alt 2), (3) High Society, (4) Blues at Blue Note (alt), (5) Blues at Blue Note, (6) Night Shift Blues (alt), (7) Night Shift Blues, (8) Royal Garden Blues (alt), (9) Royal Garden Blues, (10) Blue Note Boogie, (11) Blue Mizz, (12) Blue Mizz (alt), (13) Victory Stride (alt), (14) Victory Stride, (15) Joy Mentin', (16) After You've Gone - [Tracks 1-10 are by Edmond Hall's Blue Note Jazzmen; Tracks 11-16 are by James P. Johnson's Blue Note Jazzmen] DISC THREE: (1) Everybody Loves My Baby, (2) Everybody Loves My Baby (alt), (3) Ballin' The Jack, (4) Who's Sorry Now (alt), (5) Who's Sorry Now, (6) The Call Of The Blues, (7) Tishomingo Blues (alt), (8) Tishomingo Blues, (9) Walkin' The Dog (alt), (10) Walkin' The Dog, (11) Easy Rider (trad), (12) At The Ball (alt), (13) At The Ball - [Tracks 1-6 are by Sidney de Paris' Blue Note Jazzmen; Tracks 7-13 are by James P. Johnson's Blue Note Jazzmen] DISC FOUR: (1) J.P. Boogie, (2) Backwater Blues, (3) Carolina Balmoral, (4) Gut Stomp, (5) Mule Walk, (6) Arkansas Blues, (7) Caprice Rag, (8) Improvisations On Pinetop's Boogie Woogie (Pinetop Smith), (9) When You Wore A Tulip (alt), (10) When You Wore A Tulip, (11) Moose March (trad), (12) Panama, (13) Please Don't Talk About Me When I'm Gone, (14) A Good Man Is Hard To Find, (15) Weary Blues, (16) Tenderly, (17) Gettin' Sentimental Over You, (18) Lion's Den (alt), (19) Lion's Den, (20) In A Mellotone - [Tracks 1-8 are by James P. Johnson; Tracks 9-15 are by Sidney de Paris' Blue Note Stompers; Tracks 16-20 are by Vic Dickenson]

I believe they retailed for $108. Doesn't $18 an LP sound right? That would be correct I think. Mosaic brochure #15 announces the release of the Lee Morgan set - the 6 Q-LP version was available for $90. By the time that Mosaic brochure #18 was printed, the LP set had sold out.

Thanks for the recommendations, guys. I am now inclined to pursue the Kocsis set. Larry, I read your thoughtful interpretation earlier while searching this board - thanks for re-posting it here. Although I will certainly listen to whichever set I end up buying, it is intended as a gift for a young woman whom I know; and so I thought it wise to steer away from Ericourt in light of your assessment that he tends to be on the "dry and clear side".

I am interested in purchasing the complete piano works of Claude Debussy, and I would appreciate any recommendation as to how to best acquire these pieces. The reviews on Amazon, though useful, have not made my decision any easier. Sets by the following performers (among others) appear to be readily available: - Aldo Ciccolini - Walter Gieseking - Jean-Yves Thibaudet - Hakon Austbo - Jean-Pierre Armengaud - Daniel Ericourt Thanks for your insight!

Neither can I. The Hodges set was released in the fall of 2000; the Mobley set was released during the summer of 1998. I do not think that either set will be around for that much longer, but we shall see. I placed an order for the Ellington, Johnny Smith, and Columbia Small Groups sets as well as the Cohn/Newman/Green and Onzy Matthews Selects. (It is only prudent to take full advantage of the shipping fee schedule and order in bulk, right? ) At any rate, I should be set for some time now unless I change my mind about the Prima/Manone set. Insofar as they are negative indications as to the future financial viability of Mosaic (I really don't think that regular sales are part of its business model), I hope that Mosaic does NOT have any sales in the foreseeable future. In the eleven years that I have been purchasing sets from Mosaic, I recall only seven or so sales before the trio of sales that we have seen over the past 2.5 months.

Hans, I just took a look at my set, and 77 of the 347 songs are instrumentals - the Mosaic booklet designates each instrumental track, and I believe that my count is accurate. The discography lists around 20 tracks where the NKC Trio was backed by some sort of vocal group. I remember the backing vocals on a half-dozen or so of these tracks being truly invasive and sounding quite dated - I honestly do not recall how large of a distraction the vocal groups were on the other tracks. The discography also lists about 10 tracks with some sort of strings backing, including the "Christmas Song". As for the number of novelty songs, I don't know what to tell you. In terms of comparison, I would say that there definitely are no songs in this set approaching the kind of garbage that Sinatra regularly recorded during the end of his tenure with Columbia. Of course, I believe that, with the trio, Nat Cole did little wrong - he seems to have had the ability (much like Louis Armstrong) of elevating lesser songs with his considerable talents. I am sure that there are those who will disagree with this assessment. I hope that this helps.