Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 229 posts

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#101

Post by aaron695 »

DDT is effectively harmless.

You can eat it and be fine for a bet.

In an ocean, even if you swapped these barrels for a real poison it doesn't matter. It dilutes to nothing.

The insanity on HN about this, I hope clarifies their intelligence on everything.

To go to these commentators for their view on say, Rust, is just as insane.

And this isn't about stupidity, the banning of DDT was criminal, it killed many many people. Perhaps in the millions. But it was poor people. And this is why HN continues this attitude. It wasn't real people killed to them.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#102

Post by charlesu »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #56
FDSGSG wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who does estate tax punish?

The parent poster stated that people breaking laws is argument for high estate tax. Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? If it had zero punishment effect, why do it? If taking money away was not a form of punishment, why is it used as punishment in so many court cases? It punishes those who would have had the assets otherwise. Especially when the stated reason is to punish them.

I didn’t say it was a punishment. I said it was a good argument. There’s no legal method of getting back ill-gotten gains from someone who’s dead. But if you can’t pass along your estate, it doesn’t matter.

For the record, I don’t think the state taking away most (or all) of a person's estate after they’ve died is a punishment at all.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#103

Post by yeezul »

amcoastal wrote: post #47
refurb wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a silly comment considering it was the gov't who has done a shit-ton of ocean dumping in the past (not this case, but others). Who will regulate the government?

The people. People like me, and I would hope you, would demand the government pass laws to not do these things.

And how exactly are you asking your government to pass those laws?

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#104

Post by dragonwriter »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #56
FDSGSG wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who does estate tax punish?

The parent poster stated that people breaking laws is argument for high estate tax. Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? If it had zero punishment effect, why do it? If taking money away was not a form of punishment, why is it used as punishment in so many court cases? It punishes those who would have had the assets otherwise. Especially when the stated reason is to punish them.

> Is this not chosen as a form of punishment?

It's only punishment if you think there is a natural right to control the disposition of property after death. Otherwise, it's just a argument as to why a purely optional benefit not grounded in rights should not be extended by the state.

Not extending a benefit to which there is no entitlement is not inherently a punishment.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#105

Post by throwaway0a5e »

eesmith wrote: post #84
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The children of the people who managed to live out their days without going broke and becoming a burden on everyone else have less money than if their parents spent it all (presumably some of which would have been on them) and died with debt. The people who lived out their days without going broke lose because their property rights are being violated. Their property and their dollars that they have already paid taxes…

If that's punishment for the children of the rich, then those children born to parents who are broke must also live a punished life, yes? If you are against children being punished because of the economics of their parents, then surely you are in support for a strong social safety network for children (universal subsidized/free childcare, including meals, and healthcare), yes? Which requires taxation or other funding…

The rich will still be rich. They'll come up with complex workarounds. They'll impart the money on their kids while they're still alive.

The people who will be screwed are the middle class people who's only (if any) windfall in life is inheriting part of their parents house and using that to pay off their own mortgage or send their kids to college or whatever (and who's kids will likely inherit a share of the house and continue the cycle).

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#106

Post by adamsea »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #51
FDSGSG wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who does estate tax punish?

The children of the people who managed to live out their days without going broke and becoming a burden on everyone else have less money than if their parents spent it all (presumably some of which would have been on them) and died with debt. The people who lived out their days without going broke lose because their property rights are being violated. Their property and their dollars that they have already paid taxes…

Who is a burden on everyone else, and how? I thought the whole point of ... civilization was for people to support each other.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#107

Post by yeezul »

aaron695 wrote: post #101

DDT is effectively harmless. You can eat it and be fine for a bet. In an ocean, even if you swapped these barrels for a real poison it doesn't matter. It dilutes to nothing. The insanity on HN about this, I hope clarifies their intelligence on everything. To go to these commentators for their view on say, Rust, is just as insane. And this isn't about stupidity, the banning of DDT was criminal, it killed many many peo…

Did you even read the article?

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#108

Post by sokoloff »

charlesu wrote: post #100
athms wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only 0.002% of estates pay the tax every year. The best way to avoid paying the tax is to reduce the wealth of an estate by transferring it to insurance or separate entities like a foundation, limited liability company, family limited partnership, or charitable trust. Most wealthy people start estate planning long before retirement. The ones that end up paying are folks like Prince or the newly wealthy that die young…

All loopholes that can be legislated away with enough political will.

What's the likelihood that the multi-millionaires in the Legislature actually want to tackle this?

https://ballotpedia.org/Net_worth_of_United_States_Senators_...

(That was for 2011; it's a reasonably safe bet that as a group they're no poorer now.)

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#109

Post by tsdlts »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #79
tsdlts wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't think it's even relevant that it was not legal at the time". Imagine setting the precedent that the government can unilaterally decide to steal your property based on something your great grandfather did which wasn't even a crime. Do you not see how such a power might be abused in future when you can retroactively punish people for laws where the ink has yet to dry and that they never even committed?

That's a good point. Where's the line between knowingingly circumventing the spirit of the law by following the letter. For example Teflon has been replaced with chemically similar compounds that just aren't Teflon. It'll take decades for the studies to come in, in the mean time every human is being exposed to these chemicals in significant amounts. Then we have bpa, Neonicotinoids and other pesticides. We have cases…

Isn't this a regulation failure though? The fact that these chemicals who we don't know the full effects of are let to market is the problem. Preventative measures make more sense than criminalizing things only when we find out there's a problem.

Also, what if the company has been acquired since then, is it still on the hook? What if they've since switched markets entirely? What if the company disbanded and the founders created a new company in the same market? There's no clean way to deal out punishment in a legally unambiguous or overreaching way.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#110

Post by adamsea »

macspoofing wrote: post #83
darkcha0s wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions. Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime. "Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.

>Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions. I'm not a libertarian myself, but I miss the libertarianism of Silicon Valley and HN. They are still around, but there's a lot more progressives around and there is a very real authoritarian and violent strain that runs through that movement.

> here's a lot more progressives around and there is a very real authoritarian and violent strain that runs through that movement.

Actual facts show that at this moment in time in the U.S. it's white supremacists and related extreme-right ideologies which are producing most domestic terrorism (i.e. actual violence).

https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-comes-home-evolution-domes...

Post reply on HN