Question:
SNIP What part of "I’m a guessin’ " implied to you that I had any proof? According to my Websters New World Dictionary, guess = surmise or theorize or postulate, among others. For the same reason, I wrote she "probably" lists the MBE bathroom as her place of abode. Probable = possible, conceivable, likely, reasonable, among others. It’s my GUESS that you’re a psychotic stalker obsessed with Marcy and that you’re PROBABLY dangerous to her and her children.
GUESS again, honey. The only thing I’m dangerous around is white chocolate and macademia nut cookies, and that isn’t a PROBABLY, that’s a DEFINITE. Now, the three names and the six social security numbers I can prove – thus those statements were not preceded by "I’m a guessin’" or "probably". Don’t even bother to ask me to post the SSN’s, because I won’t. Oh I bet you will sooner or later, OWN.
What? And take the chance that someone else will claim the 4% (at least that’s what I think it is) finders fee that you get for calling in tips to the IRS??? I don’t think so…… Those liens get bigger every day you know. OWK
Response:
snip Now, the three names and the six social security numbers I can prove – thus those statements were not preceded by "I’m a guessin’" or "probably". Don’t even bother to ask me to post the SSN’s, because I won’t. Oh I bet you will sooner or later, OWN. What? And take the chance that someone else will claim the 4% (at least that’s what I think it is) finders fee that you get for calling in tips to the IRS??? I don’t think so…… Those liens get bigger every day you know.
Uh huh. So why haven’t you called the IRS yet, OWN? Ghoulagirl. "Kim dictates how people think here. If she says it is so then they all believe it to be so. She lives in their heads, you see." – Di the Delusional Birthmother, 5/2/2002
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – snip Now, the three names and the six social security numbers I can prove - thus those statements were not preceded by "I’m a guessin’" or "probably". Don’t even bother to ask me to post the SSN’s, because I won’t. Oh I bet you will sooner or later, OWN. What? And take the chance that someone else will claim the 4% (at least that’s what I think it is) finders fee that you get for calling in tips to the IRS??? I don’t think so…… Those liens get bigger every day you know. Uh huh. So why haven’t you called the IRS yet, OWN? Ghoulagirl.
If you read my post for comprehension, it states that I wouldn’t post the SSN’s on the chance that someone ELSE would call and claim the 4% finders fee that you get for calling in tips to the IRS. That would lead most readers to believe that the original poster (myself) has already called in the tip to the IRS and is protecting his/her own original finder’s fee. I could be wrong. OWK
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – snip Now, the three names and the six social security numbers I can prove - thus those statements were not preceded by "I’m a guessin’" or "probably". Don’t even bother to ask me to post the SSN’s, because I won’t. Oh I bet you will sooner or later, OWN. What? And take the chance that someone else will claim the 4% (at least that’s what I think it is) finders fee that you get for calling in tips to the IRS??? I don’t think so…… Those liens get bigger every day you know. Uh huh. So why haven’t you called the IRS yet, OWN? Ghoulagirl. If you read my post for comprehension, it states that I wouldn’t post the SSN’s on the chance that someone ELSE would call and claim the 4% finders fee that you get for calling in tips to the IRS. That would lead most readers to believe that the original poster (myself) has already called in the tip to the IRS and is protecting his/her own original finder’s fee. I could be wrong. If that’s the case, I wonder why they haven’t taken any action against Marcy, don’t you OWN?
Ms. Ghoulagirl: Who’s saying they haven’t taken any action? #1. The IRS moves very, very slowly – investigations can take months. #2. All investigations confidential, even the local authorities won’t know the status of an investigation until it’s complete. Denny
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – snip Now, the three names and the six social security numbers I can prove - thus those statements were not preceded by "I’m a guessin’" or "probably". Don’t even bother to ask me to post the SSN’s, because I won’t. Oh I bet you will sooner or later, OWN. What? And take the chance that someone else will claim the 4% (at least that’s what I think it is) finders fee that you get for calling in tips to the IRS??? I don’t think so…… Those liens get bigger every day you know. Uh huh. So why haven’t you called the IRS yet, OWN? Ghoulagirl. If you read my post for comprehension, it states that I wouldn’t post the SSN’s on the chance that someone ELSE would call and claim the 4% finders fee that you get for calling in tips to the IRS. That would lead most readers to believe that the original poster (myself) has already called in the tip to the IRS and is protecting his/her own original finder’s fee. I could be wrong.
If that’s the case, I wonder why they haven’t taken any action against Marcy, don’t you OWN? Ghoulagirl. "Kim dictates how people think here. If she says it is so then they all believe it to be so. She lives in their heads, you see." – Di the Delusional Birthmother, 5/2/2002
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ASHINGTON (Oct. 31) – Lame. Paid yer taxes yet, Marcy? Still time to be an honest citizen before Election day. steve Yeah, but honest citizens only vote once, right? With those six social security numbers and three different names (or is it four?), I’m a guessin’ that Marcy tries to vote for her favored candidate(s) at least twice, if not three times. She probably lists the closest Mail Boxes Etc. bathroom as her place of abode and then goes from poll to poll to cast her ballots. Got any actual evidence to back that up, OWN? Evidence of what? That Marcy tries to vote more than once, OWN. Ghoulagirl. What part of "I’m a guessin’ " implied to you that I had any proof? According to my Websters New World Dictionary, guess = surmise or theorize or postulate, among others. For the same reason, I wrote she "probably" lists the MBE bathroom as her place of abode. Probable = possible, conceivable, likely, reasonable, among others.
It’s my GUESS that you’re a psychotic stalker obsessed with Marcy and that you’re PROBABLY dangerous to her and her children. Now, the three names and the six social security numbers I can prove – thus those statements were not preceded by "I’m a guessin’" or "probably". Don’t even bother to ask me to post the SSN’s, because I won’t.
Oh I bet you will sooner or later, OWN. Ghoulagirl. "Kim dictates how people think here. If she says it is so then they all believe it to be so. She lives in their heads, you see." – Di the Delusional Birthmother, 5/2/2002
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ASHINGTON (Oct. 31) – Lame. Paid yer taxes yet, Marcy? Still time to be an honest citizen before Election day. steve Yeah, but honest citizens only vote once, right? With those six social security numbers and three different names (or is it four?), I’m a guessin’ that Marcy tries to vote for her favored candidate(s) at least twice, if not three times. She probably lists the closest Mail Boxes Etc. bathroom as her place of abode and then goes from poll to poll to cast her ballots. Got any actual evidence to back that up, OWN? Ghoulagirl. "Kim dictates how people think here. If she says it is so then they all believe it to be so. She lives in their heads, you see." - Di the Delusional Birthmother, 5/2/2002
Evidence of what? That she has multiple names? That she likes to use Mail Boxes Etc as her place of business? That she has multiple social security numbers? What?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ASHINGTON (Oct. 31) – Lame. Paid yer taxes yet, Marcy? Still time to be an honest citizen before Election day. steve Yeah, but honest citizens only vote once, right? With those six social security numbers and three different names (or is it four?), I’m a guessin’ that Marcy tries to vote for her favored candidate(s) at least twice, if not three times. She probably lists the closest Mail Boxes Etc. bathroom as her place of abode and then goes from poll to poll to cast her ballots. Got any actual evidence to back that up, OWN? Evidence of what?
That Marcy tries to vote more than once, OWN. Ghoulagirl. "Kim dictates how people think here. If she says it is so then they all believe it to be so. She lives in their heads, you see." – Di the Delusional Birthmother, 5/2/2002
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – message ASHINGTON (Oct. 31) – Lame. Paid yer taxes yet, Marcy? Still time to be an honest citizen before Election day. steve Yeah, but honest citizens only vote once, right? With those six social security numbers and three different names (or is it four?), I’m a guessin’ that Marcy tries to vote for her favored candidate(s) at least twice, if not three times. She probably lists the closest Mail Boxes Etc. bathroom as her place of abode and then goes from poll to poll to cast her ballots. Got any actual evidence to back that up, OWN? Evidence of what? That Marcy tries to vote more than once, OWN.
Early, and often? Helen – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ghoulagirl. "Kim dictates how people think here. If she says it is so then they all believe it to be so. She lives in their heads, you see." – Di the Delusional Birthmother, 5/2/2002
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ASHINGTON (Oct. 31) – Lame. Paid yer taxes yet, Marcy? Still time to be an honest citizen before Election day. steve Yeah, but honest citizens only vote once, right? With those six social security numbers and three different names (or is it four?), I’m a guessin’ that Marcy tries to vote for her favored candidate(s) at least twice, if not three times. She probably lists the closest Mail Boxes Etc. bathroom as her place of abode and then goes from poll to poll to cast her ballots.
Got any actual evidence to back that up, OWN? Ghoulagirl. "Kim dictates how people think here. If she says it is so then they all believe it to be so. She lives in their heads, you see." – Di the Delusional Birthmother, 5/2/2002
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ASHINGTON (Oct. 31) – Lame. Paid yer taxes yet, Marcy? Still time to be an honest citizen before Election day. steve Yeah, but honest citizens only vote once, right? With those six social security numbers and three different names (or is it four?), I’m a guessin’ that Marcy tries to vote for her favored candidate(s) at least twice, if not three times. She probably lists the closest Mail Boxes Etc. bathroom as her place of abode and then goes from poll to poll to cast her ballots. Got any actual evidence to back that up, OWN? Evidence of what? That Marcy tries to vote more than once, OWN. Ghoulagirl.
What part of "I’m a guessin’ " implied to you that I had any proof? According to my Websters New World Dictionary, guess = surmise or theorize or postulate, among others. For the same reason, I wrote she "probably" lists the MBE bathroom as her place of abode. Probable = possible, conceivable, likely, reasonable, among others. Now, the three names and the six social security numbers I can prove – thus those statements were not preceded by "I’m a guessin’" or "probably". Don’t even bother to ask me to post the SSN’s, because I won’t. OWK
Response:
ASHINGTON (Oct. 31) – Former Enron Corp. chief financial officer Andrew Fastow was indicted Thursday on 78 federal counts alleging he masterminded a scheme to artificially inflate the energy company’s profits. The indictment, returned by a grand jury in Houston and released in Washington by the Justice Department, is essentially a formal restatement of a criminal complaint brought earlier this month. But the indictment is notable for the sheer number of charges, which include fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and one count of obstruction of justice not included in the original complaint. If convicted, Fastow faces hundreds of years in jail and millions of dollars in fines. Fastow, 40, is free on $5 million bond and faces a Nov. 6 arraignment on the charges. He is the highest-ranking Enron official to be charged in the federal probe. Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson, head of the Bush administration’s corporate fraud task force, said the indictment does not end the investigation into Fastow. He also said federal officials ”will use every appropriate measure to recover the ill-gotten gains of these corporate schemers.” Enron, No. 7 on the Fortune 500 list two years ago, filed for bankruptcy last year after revealing a $618 million loss and eliminating $1.2 billion of shareholder equity. Prosecutors say Fastow and others created a scheme to defraud Enron and its shareholders through transactions with off-the-books partnerships that made the company look more profitable than it was. Fastow also enriched himself, prosecutors say, by an estimated $30 million by using the entities to get kickbacks through family members who were investors and by siphoning off income that should have gone to others. Maximum penalties for the each of the multiple charges against Fastow include 20 years for money laundering, 10 years for wire fraud and five years for conspiracy. Fastow also faces several million dollars in fines. Fastow is the most prominent Enron figure targeted so far by the Justice Department. Prosecutors are expected to pressure him to find out what he might say about his former colleagues, including former Enron chairman Kenneth Lay and former chief executive Jeffrey Skilling. Fastow’s attorneys have said his work had the full approval of top Enron executives and that Fastow did not believe he committed any crimes. Federal prosecutors say that beginning in 1997, Fastow created a series of complex ‘’special purpose entities” that kept poorly performing assets off Enron’s balance sheets and falsely manufactured earnings, making the energy trading giant appear more financially sound than it truly was. Four of the partnerships were detailed in federal court papers: -LJM allowed Enron to manipulate its balance sheet in several ways and permitted Fastow and others to earn huge amounts of money through management fees and skimmed profits. -Southampton defrauded both Enron and National Westminster Bank through a series of secret investments, with income then siphoned off by Fastow and others. -Chewco bought a limited partnership interest in the California Public Employees Retirement System for an investment scheme called Joint Energy Development Investments, or JEDI. Fastow allegedy received kickbacks from payments Enron made to Chewco through transfers to his wife and other family members. -RADR was supposed to purchase part of Enron’s interest in California wind farms with independent investors. In fact, the indictment says, the investors were funded by Fastow and he and members of his family received $10,000 in annual gifts from the partnership. Enron’s collapse last year was the first in a series of corporate scandals that have rocked the business world and roiled the stock market. Investors lost huge amounts of money and former Enron employees lost most of their retirements savings; accounting firm Arthur Andersen went under soon after it was found guilty of obstruction of justice in shredding documents related to its Enron audits. Prosecutors in August won a guilty plea from Fastow’s once-trusted lieutenant, Michael Kopper, who provided much of the information on the partnerships used by prosecutors to build their case against Fastow. Kopper pleaded guilty to money laundering and wire fraud and faces up to 15 years in prison at his scheduled April 4 sentencing. Former Portland, Ore., Enron energy trader Timothy Belden pleaded guilty Oct. 18 to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a scheme to drive up prices during California’s energy crisis. Belden, who faces up to 5 years in prison when he is sentenced in April, has promised to cooperate with investigators. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also filed a civil lawsuit against Fastow claiming that he defrauded investors and violated securities laws. The SEC is seeking unspecified penalties against Fastow and repayment of his allegedly ill-gotten gains. AP-NY-10-31-02 1632EST Copyright 2002 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Response:
Paid yer taxes yet, Marcy? Still time to be an honest citizen before Election day. Yeah, but honest citizens only vote once, right? With those six social security numbers and three different names (or is it four?), I’m a guessin’ that Marcy tries to vote for her favored candidate(s) at least twice, if not three times. She probably lists the closest Mail Boxes Etc. bathroom as her place of abode and then goes from poll to poll to cast her ballots.
Sounds like a Chicago democrat! steve
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ASHINGTON (Oct. 31) – Lame. Paid yer taxes yet, Marcy? Still time to be an honest citizen before Election day. steve
Yeah, but honest citizens only vote once, right? With those six social security numbers and three different names (or is it four?), I’m a guessin’ that Marcy tries to vote for her favored candidate(s) at least twice, if not three times. She probably lists the closest Mail Boxes Etc. bathroom as her place of abode and then goes from poll to poll to cast her ballots. OWK
Response:
ASHINGTON (Oct. 31) –
Lame. Paid yer taxes yet, Marcy? Still time to be an honest citizen before Election day. steve
Response:
Question:
I’ve never heard of a "taxable fringe benefit" as you describe it below. A business deduction is not taxed and is not reported on any thing like a W2 where I come from. It is simply an itemized deduction on the corporate return. Since there is little or no business reason to own the airplane other than to provide it to the owner, if the benefit is not reported on W2 penalties
I don’t know, Jim. I’m from Alabama, too, and when I had a company car, the value of my personal mileage certainly WAS reported on my W2. (I did not have to reimburse the employer — it was a taxable fringe benefit.) Deductible to the employer, and imputed income to me. As another example, my group life insurance in excess of $50,000 is a taxable fringe benefit, tax deductible to the company and imputed income (at specified rates) to me. — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Response:
In your case the plane sound like it is a business expense and not a fringe benefit. In Jay’s case (as stated), aircraft expenses are not business expenses and are not deductible by the business.
Since he’s an S corp. If a C corp, it would be [presumably] deductible to the corp as compensation expense and taxable to Jay as imputed income. — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Response:
Eh? Liability and protection of personal assets are the one of the main reasons corps are formed. That plus taxes. Of course, these days, anyone can be sued for any reason by anybody for unlimited bucks but that’s beside the point. Why do you say that? Jim Fisher
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Having the airplane owned by a corporation won’t protect your assets if you crash and are the pilot. It might protect them if someone else crashed the plane. Mike MU-2
Response:
In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. 
(I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!)
No problem, however, remember that they will have to determine the value of that Bonus and add it to his taxable income. As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater. Any tax guys out there to answer this one? My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong?
As long as you keep all the deductions etc…appropriately scaled (and have contemporaneous records for such) to the business part of the use everything is fine. The IRS doesn’t really deal with it any different than cars.
Response:
The corp shields you from liability as the plane’s owner, but not as the pilot. Same as if you were flying a rented plane. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Eh? Liability and protection of personal assets are the one of the main reasons corps are formed. That plus taxes. Of course, these days, anyone can be sued for any reason by anybody for unlimited bucks but that’s beside the point. Why do you say that? Jim Fisher Having the airplane owned by a corporation won’t protect your assets if you crash and are the pilot. It might protect them if someone else crashed the plane. Mike MU-2
– Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Response:
You will be liable because you are the PILOT. You would be personably liable even if you or your company didn’t own the airplane. Corporations don’t shield anyone from their own actions. Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Eh? Liability and protection of personal assets are the one of the main reasons corps are formed. That plus taxes. Of course, these days, anyone can be sued for any reason by anybody for unlimited bucks but that’s beside the point. Why do you say that? Jim Fisher Having the airplane owned by a corporation won’t protect your assets if you crash and are the pilot. It might protect them if someone else crashed the plane. Mike MU-2
Response:
You are mostly correct, it would be taxable to the recipient not the corporation. If I decided that my corp will buy a house in Jackson Hole for my (employee of corp) use, then the value of the use of the house is taxable and is reported on form W2. It is the same as if the corporation paid to rent the house for my use. In your case the plane sound like it is a business expense and not a fringe benefit. In Jay’s case (as stated), aircraft expenses are not business expenses and are not deductible by the business. Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I neglected to mention that my scenario departed from the original scenario in one important way: My scenario assumes that the plane is used primarily for business purposes and that all expenses are perfectly legitimate. There are no cans of worms to be found here. I was only attempting to answer your original question of what advantage there would be to having a company own a plane. I’ve never heard of a "taxable fringe benefit" as you describe it below. A business deduction is not taxed and is not reported on any thing like a W2 where I come from. It is simply an itemized deduction on the corporate return. Jim Fisher North Alabama Jay would have $5000 in taxable fringe benefits which must be reported. This is a can of worms and could lead to problems if one gets audited. Since there is little or no business reason to own the airplane other than to provide it to the owner, if the benefit is not reported on W2 penalties will likely be assessed. Mike MU-2 Successful Capitalist
Response:
I neglected to mention that my scenario departed from the original scenario in one important way: My scenario assumes that the plane is used primarily for business purposes and that all expenses are perfectly legitimate. There are no cans of worms to be found here. I was only attempting to answer your original question of what advantage there would be to having a company own a plane. I’ve never heard of a "taxable fringe benefit" as you describe it below. A business deduction is not taxed and is not reported on any thing like a W2 where I come from. It is simply an itemized deduction on the corporate return. Jim Fisher North Alabama
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jay would have $5000 in taxable fringe benefits which must be reported. This is a can of worms and could lead to problems if one gets audited. Since there is little or no business reason to own the airplane other than to provide it to the owner, if the benefit is not reported on W2 penalties will likely be assessed. Mike MU-2 Successful Capitalist
Response:
Having the airplane owned by a corporation won’t protect your assets if you crash and are the pilot. It might protect them if someone else crashed the plane. Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My plane’s corporation was set up for the sole purpose of pleasure flying. That is what the "business" does and nothing else. It was set up to, (a); protect my assets if I corkscrew into an apartment complex and (b); provide a simple, efficient and tax-friendly means of managing the assets of the company (the plane) and (c): provide for an easy means of selling shares in our company to others who wish to join us or if somebody wants to bail out. Most of this stuff is spelled out in the corporation’s Letters of Incorporation. I bet your Letter don’t say much about a plane, does it? The purpose of YOUR corporation is to deliver circulars and doesn’t have a whole lot to do with flying. If I were to let my company buy my plane for me, I would definately receive the liability protection afforded by the corporation but my accountant probably would attempt to disuade me from writing everything off. He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane. It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. Your bank MAY have been considering the liability side of this ONLY. In that case, it WOULD be foolish to form another corporation. In my case, I’d have to make my plane partners my business partners. I like these fellers but I don’t wanna be in business with ‘em! In my case, I really don’t expect think there much of a tax benefit in havin g a seperate corporationn own the plane. I reckon I’ll find out when I eventually do my taxes (still have a few days, ya’ know). In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) And my accountant says that I COULD let the company buy me a Dodge Viper (and a plane for that matter, I reckon) but says that the Uncle Sam MAY frown upon me. I do NOT wanna be frowned at by that guy! Jim Fisher Cherokee 180C North Alabama
Response:
Hypothetical question #1: Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed?
First, let me say that I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about here. I’m a computer nerd, not an accountant. Like you, I pay accountants to know all this stuff for me. The following statements are theories I have developed from information my accountant has realyed to me over the years and may have no basis in fact. I also know that YOU know as much or more about this stuff than I. But we both like a good debate. ;-) That being said . . . .: It matters for the same reason that you could not get away with buying a $150,000 motor home for your business if you rarely used said motor home for business purposes. Otherwise, why not have your company buy your house, lawn tractor and beach house? You can’t do that ’cause they aren’t used for business or, if they are, not used enough to report it to Uncle Sam. People DO, in fact, allow their company to buy beach houses and other stuff. But some of these same people get taken to the cleaners when the IRS disagrees with their accountant. Backpayments and interest are okay but IRS penalties for gross "miscalculations" really suck. This is not to say that you cannot re-imburse yourself for expenses involved with company functions related to owning these assets, of course. If you throw a big coompany party in your motor home, you can let the company pay for the party and the flat tire you get from running over a beer bottle . . . but you already know all that, of course. All this being said, (and I backtrack on my "percentage theory" a little) if you or your accountant can prove to the IRS that having this plane is necessary to performing your duties as president and furthers the profitability of the company, you are perfectly within your rights to write it off. Even if you only use it once a year. Your only obligation is to prove your case to our Uncle. not to your accountant or banker. That once per year trip better be a very important and/or profitable one if you want Uncle to pay for you plane the whole year! I don’t think my accountant would let me get away with having the company buy my plane. But that may change as I use the plane more and more for business. Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane?
My plane’s corporation was set up for the sole purpose of pleasure flying. That is what the "business" does and nothing else. It was set up to, (a); protect my assets if I corkscrew into an apartment complex and (b); provide a simple, efficient and tax-friendly means of managing the assets of the company (the plane) and (c): provide for an easy means of selling shares in our company to others who wish to join us or if somebody wants to bail out. Most of this stuff is spelled out in the corporation’s Letters of Incorporation. I bet your Letter don’t say much about a plane, does it? The purpose of YOUR corporation is to deliver circulars and doesn’t have a whole lot to do with flying. If I were to let my company buy my plane for me, I would definately receive the liability protection afforded by the corporation but my accountant probably would attempt to disuade me from writing everything off. He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane. It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay.
Your bank MAY have been considering the liability side of this ONLY. In that case, it WOULD be foolish to form another corporation. In my case, I’d have to make my plane partners my business partners. I like these fellers but I don’t wanna be in business with ‘em! In my case, I really don’t expect think there much of a tax benefit in havin g a seperate corporationn own the plane. I reckon I’ll find out when I eventually do my taxes (still have a few days, ya’ know). In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!)
And my accountant says that I COULD let the company buy me a Dodge Viper (and a plane for that matter, I reckon) but says that the Uncle Sam MAY frown upon me. I do NOT wanna be frowned at by that guy! Jim Fisher Cherokee 180C North Alabama
Response:
James, this thread has gone on a tangent slightly away from the training question, but I wanted to share my initial reactions to your post. While they are a little on the smart-assed side, there is a kernel of truth that might help you evaluate this. I am currently training to get my private pilots license. I am also an owner of a small business. I have an airport nearby and could benefit from being able to fly to clients who need me to work onsite. Does anyone know if I can expense my training or even the purchase of a plane?
Yes. You can expense whatever you want; they are your books. Now if you are a public company and need to get an auditor’s opinion, you may get a qualified opinion if you claim a material expense with which they do not agree, but you still can expense it. Another question is "Can I deduct it in determining taxable income?" The answer is certainly "yes". Maybe even legally, if you have a sound rationale for doing so. Most of the responses so far have been to still a third question: "Will the IRS allow a deduction, and if not, will the tax court be likely to back up the IRS position?" This was probably the intent of your question. However, keeping these distinctions in mind may be helpful. Just a business person; NOT a tax advisor, so FWIW… — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Response:
And this explains why, in my previous note, I said "IF you reimburse at completely reasonable rates." This note explains the potential gain if you reimburse the company for less than full cost (e.g., $1,000, when full bill was $5,000) and don’t get caught. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In this example, Jay’s company owns the plane. His company makes all the payments. Pays for all maintenance and all other incidental expanses. Jay simply pays his company back a certain amount per hour/mile every time he flies. At the end of the year, Jay’s total TAXABLE profit for the year is, say, $10.000.00 (hypothetical, o’ course, Jay makes more than Bill Gates). Jay’s total bill for the plane for the year is $6,000.00 but Jay paid the company back $1,000.00 for personal use. Jay didn’t have to pay ANY of the bank payments or maintenance out of his after-taxes pocket. The company did that for him at a pre-tax rate making business ownership of the plane, from a tax standpoint, considerably cheaper than owning it himself. So, Jay, being the greedy capitalist pig that he is, only pays taxes on the remaining $5,000 dollars profit instead of the full $10,000 thereby cutting his tax bill in half. Jim Fisher Capitalist Pig North Alabama
– Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Response:
What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2
Tax write-off, Mike. If I may be so presumptuous, I’ll explain how it works: In this example, Jay’s company owns the plane. His company makes all the payments. Pays for all maintenance and all other incidental expanses. Jay simply pays his company back a certain amount per hour/mile every time he flies. At the end of the year, Jay’s total TAXABLE profit for the year is, say, $10.000.00 (hypothetical, o’ course, Jay makes more than Bill Gates). Jay’s total bill for the plane for the year is $6,000.00 but Jay paid the company back $1,000.00 for personal use. Jay didn’t have to pay ANY of the bank payments or maintenance out of his after-taxes pocket. The company did that for him at a pre-tax rate making business ownership of the plane, from a tax standpoint, considerably cheaper than owning it himself. So, Jay, being the greedy capitalist pig that he is, only pays taxes on the remaining $5,000 dollars profit instead of the full $10,000 thereby cutting his tax bill in half. Jim Fisher Capitalist Pig North Alabama
Response:
In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too.
I would think so. If the corporation you were a C corp, it would have to worry about reasonableness of compensation. But last I heard, bonuses were taxable, so what does that get you? And of course, as an S corp, you would just be moving money from one pocket to the other. — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Response:
Even assuming NO business usage, there are still a couple of reasons for a corp to own (rather than personal ownership). Second, you’re spending pre-tax income on aircraft maintenance and upgrades, rather than post-tax.
Depends on how realistic your personal charge for use is. If perfectly realistic, this is not an advantage. E.g., if 100% personal, company spends $20,000 on operating expense and deducts it. However, you reimburse that $20,000, which is taxable income to the corp. And since you are an S corp, there is no chance of tax arbitrage here, as far as I see. NOT a tax guy, so take it FWIW. — Alex Transpose first two letters of return address to reply by email.
Response:
Jay would have $5000 in taxable fringe benefits which must be reported. This is a can of worms and could lead to problems if one gets audited. Since there is little or no business reason to own the airplane other than to provide it to the owner, if the benefit is not reported on W2 penalties will likely be assessed. Mike MU-2 Successful Capitalist – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2 Tax write-off, Mike. If I may be so presumptuous, I’ll explain how it works: In this example, Jay’s company owns the plane. His company makes all the payments. Pays for all maintenance and all other incidental expanses. Jay simply pays his company back a certain amount per hour/mile every time he flies. At the end of the year, Jay’s total TAXABLE profit for the year is, say, $10.000.00 (hypothetical, o’ course, Jay makes more than Bill Gates). Jay’s total bill for the plane for the year is $6,000.00 but Jay paid the company back $1,000.00 for personal use. Jay didn’t have to pay ANY of the bank payments or maintenance out of his after-taxes pocket. The company did that for him at a pre-tax rate making business ownership of the plane, from a tax standpoint, considerably cheaper than owning it himself. So, Jay, being the greedy capitalist pig that he is, only pays taxes on the remaining $5,000 dollars profit instead of the full $10,000 thereby cutting his tax bill in half. Jim Fisher Capitalist Pig North Alabama
Response:
But you need to reimburse for the use of the airplane with after tax dollars and if there is a difference between the reimbursement and the actual expense of providing the airplane, then that is taxable income paid to you (taxable fringe benefit). Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Even assuming NO business usage, there are still a couple of reasons for a corp to own (rather than personal ownership). It’s advantageous from a liability point of view, although the amount is debatable. Everybody sues everybody nowadays, regardless. Maybe you get to keep your house, when the dust has settled after the lawsuit? Second, you’re spending pre-tax income on aircraft maintenance and upgrades, rather than post-tax. I can’t think of any other reasons — but those sound pretty good! — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2 Jim, Hypothetical question #1: Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed? Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane? An aside: In 1998 I was going to set up a separate corp to own the plane, not being sure if I had enough "business" use in my company to justify owning it. My lending institution told me it would be foolish to set up yet ANOTHER corporation, if we already had an "S Corp" up and running. The bank president told me to simply reimburse my company for personal use…he owns a Bonanza himself… He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane. It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater. Any tax guys out there to answer this one? My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me). Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business. Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property. When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown. $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently. If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before. Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this: Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company? I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time. If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane. We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431
Response:
Even assuming NO business usage, there are still a couple of reasons for a corp to own (rather than personal ownership). It’s advantageous from a liability point of view, although the amount is debatable. Everybody sues everybody nowadays, regardless. Maybe you get to keep your house, when the dust has settled after the lawsuit? Second, you’re spending pre-tax income on aircraft maintenance and upgrades, rather than post-tax. I can’t think of any other reasons — but those sound pretty good! — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2 Jim, Hypothetical question #1: Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed? Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane? An aside: In 1998 I was going to set up a separate corp to own the plane, not being sure if I had enough "business" use in my company to justify owning it. My lending institution told me it would be foolish to set up yet ANOTHER corporation, if we already had an "S Corp" up and running. The bank president told me to simply reimburse my company for personal use…he owns a Bonanza himself… He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane. It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater. Any tax guys out there to answer this one? My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me). Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business. Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property. When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown. $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently. If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before. Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this: Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company? I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time. If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane. We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431
Response:
What is the point of the business owning the plane if most of the use is personal and reimbursed to the business? Mike MU-2 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jim, Hypothetical question #1: Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed? Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane? An aside: In 1998 I was going to set up a separate corp to own the plane, not being sure if I had enough "business" use in my company to justify owning it. My lending institution told me it would be foolish to set up yet ANOTHER corporation, if we already had an "S Corp" up and running. The bank president told me to simply reimburse my company for personal use…he owns a Bonanza himself… He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane. It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater. Any tax guys out there to answer this one? My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431 Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me). Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business. Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property. When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown. $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently. If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before. Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this: Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company? I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time. If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane. We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431
Response:
Jim, Hypothetical question #1: Why would it matter how much my company uses the plane on "business", so long as all personal usage is reimbursed? Hypothetical question #2: Assuming the company NEVER uses the plane, how would this be any different than the corporation you have set up for the sole purpose of owning the plane? An aside: In 1998 I was going to set up a separate corp to own the plane, not being sure if I had enough "business" use in my company to justify owning it. My lending institution told me it would be foolish to set up yet ANOTHER corporation, if we already had an "S Corp" up and running. The bank president told me to simply reimburse my company for personal use…he owns a Bonanza himself… He also said that — so long as the Board of Directors okays the purchase — any corporation can legally own an airplane. It’s no different than buying a truck, or computers — or any other major outlay. In fact, he said that if the Board decides to GIVE the President a plane as a "bonus", that’s legal too. (I wasn’t so bold as to try THAT one!) As it turns out, we use the plane for business regularly — but personal use is far greater. Any tax guys out there to answer this one? My tax accountant hasn’t batted an eye on this one in yet — but maybe he’s wrong? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me). Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business. Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property. When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown. $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently. If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before. Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this: Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company? I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time. If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane. We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431
Response:
Jay, Actually, I don’t use my plane for business . . . yet. My plane is owned by a Delaware corp. of which I am 1/3 partner (other two partners only fly a total of about 30 hours a year each – sweet deal for me). Just like you, our "company" bills each of us for hours flown and I cut a check for the hours. However, I will soon my using the plane for business. Will be flying it down to beach area looking at investment property. When I do, I will reimburse myself 100% for every hour flown. $35.00 per hour in my case. I’m not sure what the maximum hourly rate (or $ per mile) that the IRS allows (help anybody?) but I’ll pay myself back 100% until I hear differently. If the IRS bitches, I’ll simply pay them back plus interest. It’s happened before. Nothing to worry about as long as I’m attempting to be 100% legal about it (the IRS looks at "intent" when deciding whether or not to assess penalties PLUS interest or just interest). The only thing that may or may not be "kosher" in your case is this: Do you fly your company’s plane on company business enough to justify it being owned and paid for by the company? I forget what the formula is, but you gotta be using it for business X% of total time. If not, the IRS is likely to disallow all company expenditures on the plane. Anybody out there illuminate this further? Jim Fisher North Alabama
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane. We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431
Response:
You can never expense training for a new certificate. You can expense required recurrent training [for example, if your job requires you to fly, then a biennial flight review may be tax deductible], if getting it allows you to keep your present job. Not otherwise.
Untrue. There was an article in last month’s (I think it was last month) Private Pilot magazine where the IRS lost a suite against a Private Pilot who expensed all his instrument training cost to his business. The pilot was able to effectively prove to the judge that the instrument rating was a necessary business expense because, without it, his business would be negatively affected. I’m sure there’s some place on the net where you can look this case up. As long as you have receipts and can prove that the expense it is necessary to your business, you can write just about anything off. In other words: If you can prove that a gold plated rubber ducky in your bath tub is necessary for your business to prosper, you can write it off. One more thing: If you use your plane for more than 80% business, the IRS allows you to write off 100% of the plane – even your personal flying time. Jim Fisher North Alabama – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Lee
Response:
How do you guys handle personal flying expense? Our company owns the plane. We track personal hours carefully, and bill ourselves quarterly for the time used. I then write a personal check to the company for the amount due. Sound kosher? — Jay Honeck Iowa City, IA Warrior N33431
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – You can never expense training for a new certificate. You can expense required recurrent training [for example, if your job requires you to fly, then a biennial flight review may be tax deductible], if getting it allows you to keep your present job. Not otherwise. Untrue. There was an article in last month’s (I think it was last month) Private Pilot magazine where the IRS lost a suite against a Private Pilot who expensed all his instrument training cost to his business. The pilot was able to effectively prove to the judge that the instrument rating was a necessary business expense because, without it, his business would be negatively affected. I’m sure there’s some place on the net where you can look this case up. As long as you have receipts and can prove that the expense it is necessary to your business, you can write just about anything off. In other words: If you can prove that a gold plated rubber ducky in your bath tub is necessary for your business to prosper, you can write it off. One more thing: If you use your plane for more than 80% business, the IRS allows you to write off 100% of the plane – even your personal flying time. Jim Fisher North Alabama Lee
Response:
I am currently training to get my private pilots license. I am also an owner of a small business. I have an airport nearby and could benefit from being able to fly to clients who need me to work onsite. Does anyone know if I can expense my training or even the purchase of a plane? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks James Webb Synthetic Light Productions
Response:
You can expense your aircraft the same as you do your car. The rate is different, need to look it up. The real part is that it is often questioned, so you’ll need to demonstrate utility [i.e., that it really is a business property, or is used in business, and to what degree], and keep good records (when, where, for what, etc IAW IRS guidelines). Remember, airplanes (and computers) are "listed" property, and are scrutinized carefully. You cannot expense the entire airplane in one year, you’ll have to depreciate it over more (maybe 7) years. You can never expense training for a new certificate. You can expense required recurrent training [for example, if your job requires you to fly, then a biennial flight review may be tax deductible], if getting it allows you to keep your present job. Not otherwise. Lee
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am currently training to get my private pilots license. I am also an owner of a small business. I have an airport nearby and could benefit from being able to fly to clients who need me to work onsite. Does anyone know if I can expense my training or even the purchase of a plane? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks James Webb Synthetic Light Productions
Response:
Question:
Anne wrote a critique on my post based on thinking that cloning is actually "In Vitro fertilization". But its not, because that involves a father’s and mother’s DNA being combined.
Actually Walt, *you* missed the point. If a person were to clone herself, her DNA is already a combination of DNA from a man and a woman — her genetic parents. The clone would have the same DNA. So the genetic father would be the same man. The genetic mother would be the clonee’s mother. Cloning doesn’t retroactively abolish sexual reproduction. Rupa
Response:
I can’t even pretend to understand the scientific method used to clone a human…and I object to cloning, based solely on my own personal religious beliefs. To me, cloning is playing God…and I cannot agree with that.
Infertility treatments, birth control, organ transplants, immunizations, ad nauseum… are also "Playing God". Do you object to them as well? Just wondering. I wonder how cloning would affect the Nature vs Nurture research? Personally, I think that the idea of cloning human beings is repulsive. I certainly wouldn’t want to raise "ME". It’s so creepy. Kate Workman
Response:
Jade asked: It’s terrifying really… to think that there are no laws for this sort of thing because no one ever even thought this sort of sci-fi could exist. It’s similar to the mass panic that would be felt if aliens ever do land. What would we do?
Ten years later, we would be discussing the issues surrounding interspecies marriage and adoption. J.
Response:
Anne, your critique of my post would put me to shame if your knowledge was correct. However, when you fully understand what a clone is, go back an re-read my post. It may then make sense to you. Keep in mind some sarcasm is intended on my part.
Oh, Walt, get a sense of humor. You’re so uptight. I wasn’t trying to put you to shame. You do it so well to yourself! Anne — L. Anne Babb To save energy, do not go out lookin’ for trouble; chances are, it will find you soon enough. (Forrest Gump)
Response:
Sue: Of course I know that medicine has long been playing God…but it seems pretty obvious to me that vaccinations, antibiotics, transplants ect. are beneficial and needed. Technology should be used tobenefit everyone in need, no question. I cannot equate cloning with these necessary medical proceedures. Cloning seems to me to be taking medicine beyond a reasonable and humane limit. Besides being unnatural, unnecessary and and IMO very dangerous, there is no reasonable way to regulate an industry such as cloning..not that I can think of anyway. Just because we have the intelligence to accomplish this feat does not mean we should use it. This may be my Catholic upbringing speaking, I feel much the same way about abortion. I cannot justify an abortion (for myself), I don’t have the right to kill a child anymore than I have the right to clone a human. (Could be I’ve read too much Sci-fi, shades of Frankenstien come to mind…). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I can’t even pretend to understand the scientific method used to clone a human…and I object to cloning, based solely on my own personal religious beliefs. To me, cloning is playing God…and I cannot agree with that. Tribe, Medicine has long been playing God. They’ve just gotten progressively more high tech in the last decade or so. Do you object to heart transplants? Vaccinations? Antibiotics? The more invasive assisted reproduction techniques? What about humanitarian efforts to airlift food to starving children in war-torn areas? What’s adoption but playing God? That said, regardless,I do not condone a ban on the research….I worry about restricting the science that allows cloning because, (if I understand it correctly), banning it could very easily put at risk legitimate medical research that could lead to some much needed medical advances. Very tight restriction should be placed on this science not by a bunch of Washington bureaucrats….qualified scientists in the field should police the activity. So those who might benefit financially will be those allowed to determine the future of cloning? That’s an interesting approach … one I don’t subscribe to. Sue T.
Response:
<snip There’s a good start! Don’t understand something, ban it! "Rush out" and "create new law" should go together as well as "hard liquor" and "handguns". You get about the same effect.
Your m.o. seems to be to embrace all new technology and dive into uncharted territory. Both the knee-jerk "ban it" and the "full speed ahead" modalities are equally worrisome to me. Yeah, sure, whatever. I’d think that the gene donor would be the "parent".
Think of artificial insemination, human variety. Surely you’re not thinking that the sperm donor is the "parent"??? Yep, sure. Just like knowing who the fathers are of today’s children insures that child support is always paid.
If only we knew who the mother and fathers of 2+% of "today’s children" are, I’d be delighted! Overjoyed! If a woman gives birth to say a girl and the girl is her clone (identical in virtually every respect) is the woman who gives birth the mother of this child or her twin-sister? Yes.
And perhaps the source of much misery. Joy is also a possibility, but I have a little difficulty believeing that a mentally and emotionally healthy individual, especially one who enjoyed loving, long-term relationships with peers, would feel much desire to clone him/herself. Huh? This is supposed to be a reason? Geez, what about all the emotional harm cause to regular kids who suspect they are adopted. I think we should outlaw adoptions (mandate abortions) so that no child ever has to worry about being adopted.
Oh great. Do you have a sister named Jessica? Also, will this be defacto incest? Nope, not even masturbation.
I think he meant narcissim. I mean the "mother" mated with her own flesh and blood, even in a stronger sense than if a brother and sister committed incest, at least genetically speaking.
Okay, maybe he didn’t mean Narcissus. Time to brush up on your genetics. The genetic reason to discourage close relatives from mating is to reduce the chance that currently unexpressed (read that as "broken") genes common to both parents are the ones inherited by the child.
Imo, cultural reasons probably pre-dated the genetics underpinings of incest taboos. <snip all the Foos How would you like growing up as a kid knowing you never had a biological father?
A biological father who would be approximately 40 years old at the time of the clone’s birth, who might find the idea of cloning totally repugnant, who might not wish to accept the clone, who might be long dead. Ooh! Another argument to ban all activity based on childhood trauma. Kids like to call other kids "freak" already.
It’s when the clone calls himself a "freak" that I begin to worry. Imo, all children need and should have two adults who love and care for them … bare minimum. Sue T.
Response:
Why would you try to put words in my mouth? Did you already plunk down some cash for a clone? It’s odd how you attacked my post so vehemently when we agree on the basic point. Curiousity killed the cat. Complacency kills far more many cats. Stupidity kills more. Dumb luck wipes out quite a few. Never underestimate the fickle finger of fate. A curious cat that dies exploring, striving to…
I appreciate you expanding on what I said. Why don’t you calm down? I’m quite interested in hearing your point. Just wondering. How many cats are killed annually by forethought, caution and responsibility? This is a world issue and sooner or later some nut will authorize it or
do it. Only if ‘nut’ is defined as someone who doesn’t agree with you. How enlightened. Fortunately, we are not compelled to do only those things which aren’t "nutty", look at bungee jumping.
Granted. If you feel I am not enlightened is this your way of enlightening? How rude. Interesting how you compare bungee jumping to human cloning. Remember, countries compete technologically. It’s a prize to be the first, especially when it makes money. Yes, and?
And my point WAS that cloning is not unlikely which in my OPINION it seems that you agree. Why would you even write that snit? I’m sure there is a way to profit of this. Geez, profits are always evil? I thought that sometimes people profit because they have done something helpful or useful.
Again, you are putting words in my mouth and you completely missed the point. See above. There always is. Perhaps some eccentric rich types will be attracted to the concept of his own ‘immortality’. Lots of people see that in their children today. It’s not always a bad thing.
WHO said it was? I was giving reasons why cloning is likely. HELLO?? My children will continue a line that’s been unbroken for billions of years. I hope that line continues for billions more. I’ll do everything I can to give them the love, support, education, financial means, and yes, if I can, genetic makeup to make that happen. If I’m carrying a gene that pre-disposes me to cancer, and I can eliminate it from their genotype, I will. It’s none of your business. If I were to choose to have a child who is genetically identical to either myself or my wife, what business is it of yours? It is no more your business than what school I send my children to or whether I buy piano lessons from them.
Did someone do something terrible to you? Why are you so flippin’ angry? I promise I will never personally try to infringe on your right to procreate in any way. Now take a deep breath and relax. BTW, you raised some good points for debate. I’m just confused at why you did it is this manner. Do you think people can hear each other when their screaming? I hope you don’t try to pass along your communication skills gene. Much like cryogenics. Is cryonics a bad thing? Why? Do you contend that it can’t work, or do you contend that it may work, but shouldn’t? Why are you so comfortable in declaring how others should live and die?
What? I didn’t say it is either bad or good. I said cryogenics is much like cloning in that it is (in a sense) buying immortality. Why are YOU so comfortable in saying I declared how others should live and die? Are you confusing me with someone else? Besides, that’s what they said about test tube babies. I don’t know what "that" you are speaking of. There have been tens of thousands of in vitro fertilizations….
‘THAT’ is the whole point of the post. Sheesh. ‘That’ is the proclaimation that it is unlikely to ever happen. Get it yet??? It’s terrifying really… Why? Just because you declare it terrifying, doesn’t mean I have to take your word for it. …
The above and below is a continued thought. If you want to know why you should have continued reading. to think that there are no laws for this sort of thing because no one Why are you so eager to legislate other’s behaviour when you haven’t demonstrated any sort of threat other than your own vague "terror". Lot’s of nice …
—snip of an accusation that I want to enslave others— It is not a question of whether or not cloning is wrong. It is a question of whether or not humanity will have the skills to deal with this new unatural act. Go ahead. Try to tell me it’s natural and I will tell you all about bacteria learning how to grow genitalia. ever even thought this sort of sci-fi could exist. Same sort of sci-fi as airplanes, microwave ovens, VCRs, laprascopic sugery, CAT scans, MRIs, preservatives, anitbiotics, blood transfusions, indoor plumbing, etc.
Thank you for reiterating my point yet again. If you feel so strongly, I hear that Ted Kazynski’s land up in Montana is available.
‘If’ being the operative word. You never asked me to expand on how I feel. It’s similar to the mass panic that would be felt if aliens ever do land. Like the mass panic that happened when Louise Brown was born? Like the same panic that happened when Dolly was announced? Geez, they must have swept those bodies off the street mighty damn fastbecause…
—snip some blah blah blah — I was referring to a legislative panic. I strongly disagree with you if you feel that human cloning will not be a headline news story and its issues debated in virtually every country of the world. Your sacasm becomes you, by the way. What would we do? Cheer, smile silently at all the technophobes working on their ulcers, and then get back to work.
Is that your opinion or a fact? Jade
Response:
First I think all the states need to rush out and create a new law that says that if a scientist (male or female) clones another human being from a female, he/she is legally the "father". This will solve the child-support issue. However, it might not minimize the chances the clone might have to be put up for adoption, should some classic reason come along.
<snip I forgot to add, Walt, what cloning has to do with adoption. The fellow who says he’s going to clone humans within the next few years has stated outright that he intends to do this through a FERTILITY clinic. This is the way that people with fertility problems can be assured of having a healthy child, if they can carry the child to term themselves, or get someone else to do it for them. Imagine that, children on demand. I’d call it Dr. Moreau, not Dr. Frankenstein, Anne — L. Anne Babb To save energy, do not go out lookin’ for trouble; chances are, it will find you soon enough. (Forrest Gump)
Response:
First I think all the states need to rush out and create a new law that says that if a scientist (male or female) clones another human being from a female, he/she is legally the "father". This will solve the child-support issue. However, it might not minimize the chances the clone might have to be put up for adoption, should some classic reason come along.
Back in March or April Pat Robertson addressed the cloning issue on 700 CLub one morning. He was against it (which is no surprise), but he asked a rather telling question: "What would their legal status be? Would clones be like adoptees?" By all means necessary, Marley *****BASTARD NATION***** www.bastards.org
Response:
If I understand correctly, this cloning a person, is to get the best athelete, the most intelligent person, and then to remove all the bad genetic codes from a human, so that the human was perfect, in all ways, Physically, Mentally, Emotionally,
No, right now the people who want to do the cloning are wanting to do it for the money, i.e., working through fertility clinics for people who can’t conceive children naturally and who want to raise their own genetic material (i.e., selves?). One person, A Scientist, said, something to the effect, that GOD was smart, but when get this Clones done, they will be smarter, than GOD.
In the interview I read, the scientist said that we would be "equal" to God, doing God’s work, being co-creators with God. The thing is, the genetic stuff of creation, fertilized eggs and sperm, are still God’s domain. Nobody has created a synthetic egg, synthetic sperm, or synthetic embryo. Kind of reminds me of those Babylonians, saying, "Let’s build this thing up to heaven and be equal with God," or how about Lucifer, saying, "I will ascend unto the throne of God." It didn’t work for them very well, but, hey, who knows? AMERICANS have never tried ascending unto the throne of God yet, by golly! Looks to me like this Scientist, want to do away with us as humans, since we all do not think alike, look alike, act alike, beleive alike. Then they will have what they think is the perfect human, when they clone what they think is the most perfect person,
Oh, clones are still human. They are already-fertilized eggs that grew into fetuses, then were born and became people. That’s all they are: copies of other people, and they would be people in their own rights, just as monozygotic (identical) twins, who share identical DNA, are each people in their own rights. Just think, if all of this clones, were attorneys, were accountants, were bankers, or were all of any other profession, what would this world be like?
Well, I’d kind of like to have a clone of myself, but a grown one who lived here at home with all of us. Actually, I think it would take about four clones to do the job and relieve me of all my responsibilities. Problem is, being clones of me, they would all be bull-headed and they’d fight over their assigned duties. The Career Clone would probably want to be the Sex Kitten Clone. The Mom Clone would want to be the Wife Clone and both would whine about how come they never got to wear lingerie from Victoria’s Secret. The Career Clone would be upset that she didn’t get to cuddle in bed in the mornings with the babies. And the kids would be SO confused. When they went to bed at night, would they have to say, "Goodnight Mom, Goodnight, Mom, Goodnight, Mom, Goodnight, Mom, Goodnight, Mom"? So, see, cloning isn’t such a good idea after all. Please someone else, send what they they beleive will happen if this clones are allowed to be made, of humans, so they will be living, breathing, robots of the human beings.
No, Will, they won’t be robots. They will be human beings. If someone cloned you, that would be YOU at five months old, learning to sit up. That would be Little Will, at age 5, learning to ride a two-wheeler. That would be Little Will, at age 9, out on the soccer field. That would be Teenage Will, at age 16, getting his driver’s license. He’d be a copy of you, but because the environment he’d be raised in would be totally different from the one you were raised in, he would also be unlike you in some (or many) ways. Just think: If they could get Elvis’s DNA, we could have another Elvis! Anne Against Cloning, And Just Having Fun — L. Anne Babb To save energy, do not go out lookin’ for trouble; chances are, it will find you soon enough. (Forrest Gump)
Response:
I can’t even pretend to understand the scientific method used to clone a human…and I object to cloning, based solely on my own personal religious beliefs. To me, cloning is playing God…and I cannot agree with that.
Tribe, Medicine has long been playing God. They’ve just gotten progressively more high tech in the last decade or so. Do you object to heart transplants? Vaccinations? Antibiotics? The more invasive assisted reproduction techniques? What about humanitarian efforts to airlift food to starving children in war-torn areas? What’s adoption but playing God? That said, regardless,I do not condone a ban on the research….I worry about restricting the science that allows cloning because, (if I understand it correctly), banning it could very easily put at risk legitimate medical research that could lead to some much needed medical advances. Very tight restriction should be placed on this science not by a bunch of Washington bureaucrats….qualified scientists in the field should police the activity.
So those who might benefit financially will be those allowed to determine the future of cloning? That’s an interesting approach … one I don’t subscribe to. Sue T.
Response:
<snip Yup. No reason it shouldn’t.
The addition of "in my opinion" might be wise. Complacency kills far more many cats. Stupidity kills more. Dumb luck wipes out quite a few. Never underestimate the fickle finger of fate. A curious cat that dies exploring, striving to be somthing more than it is today, is really the only one that was ever fully alive in the first place. Life isn’t meant to be lived in a stupor. Explorers and cowards both wind up in the same palce, but the path they took made all the difference.
And this is your personal philosophy? Only if ‘nut’ is defined as someone who doesn’t agree with you. How enlightened. Fortunately, we are not compelled to do only those things which aren’t "nutty", look at bungee jumping.
Good example! Are you also a bungee jumper? Remember, countries compete technologically. It’s a prize to be the first, especially when it makes money.
Thank you for providing one of the reasons why technology, babies, and financial incentives should never be mixed. Geez, profits are always evil? I thought that sometimes people profit because they have done something helpful or useful.
On this ng (and in real life) we’ve seen more than a few entrepreneurs who sought their fame and fortune, doing something "helpful or useful" in the adoption field. Unfortunately, when profits enter the picture, ethics are often driven out, in some cases overnight. And of course, the babies are those who are likely to suffer first and most. Lots of people see that in their children today. It’s not always a bad thing. My children will continue a line that’s been unbroken for billions of years.
Are you a father NOW? I hope that line continues for billions more. I’ll do everything I can to give them the love, support, education, financial means, and yes, if I can, genetic makeup to make that happen. If I’m carrying a gene that pre-disposes me to cancer, and I can eliminate it from their genotype, I will. It’s none of your business.
There we totally disagree. If I were to choose to have a child who is genetically identical to either myself or my wife, what business is it of yours?
It’s my business and that of every member of society if we subscribe to the notion that children can and must be protected against some of their parent’s ideas. Just as it’s my business if you book passage for your child with the Heaven’s Gaters. It is no more your business than what school I send my children to or whether I buy piano lessons from them.
If the school is unlicensed and/or accused of wrongdoing, it’s my business. And if questions are raised about the school, then inquiries might be made concerning the piano teacher … and many other facets of your decision-making. Is cryonics a bad thing? Why? Do you contend that it can’t work, or do you contend that it may work, but shouldn’t? Why are you so comfortable in declaring how others should live and die? I don’t know what "that" you are speaking of. There have been tens of thousands of in vitro fertilizations since Louise Brown was born back in 1979. As far as I know, they haven’t turned in to brain eating monsters. As far as I know, they are as happy and healthy as any other group of children.
Perhaps you would care to do a bit of research on the matter before expounding so loudly and forcefully. Why? Just because you declare it terrifying, doesn’t mean I have to take your word for it. Now, 16 year olds with driver’s licenses, that’s terrifying!
An interesting generalization. Did you think YOU were terrifying when you began to drive? Did you do so at age 16? (There’s an analogy to be drawn there … do I need to explicitly state it?) Why are you so eager to legislate other’s behaviour when you haven’t demonstrated any sort of threat other than your own vague "terror". Lot’s of nice white folks were terrified at the prospect of allowing other people to marry outside of their "race". What is different about your position. You both want to enslave others because of your fears. ever even thought this sort of sci-fi could exist. Same sort of sci-fi as airplanes, microwave ovens, VCRs, laprascopic sugery, CAT scans, MRIs, preservatives, anitbiotics, blood transfusions, indoor plumbing, etc.
We have someone on this ng who feels that "technology rulz". Is that also your position? Like the mass panic that happened when Louise Brown was born? Like the same panic that happened when Dolly was announced? Geez, they must have swept those bodies off the street mighty damn fast because I sure didn’t see them (of course, I probably slept in late).
That the American public is so apathetic and unschooled in logic is the truly terrifying crisis for me. That, combined with people like you seem to be who are pushing for undue haste in technology without the ethical considerations being fully explored. Cheer, smile silently at all the technophobes working on their ulcers, and then get back to work.
An interesting pov. No ulcers here and no technophobia. Sue T.
Response:
<snip That’s called selective breeding and is the antithesis of cloning.
The antithesis? I don’t think so. Both are "assisted reproduction" techniques that have potential for good and ill. Fourth, why do you think everyone would converge onto the same idea of "superior"? Sure, a lot of americans would end up selecting for some common physical traits.
Perhaps because that’s what’s happened with past manipulation of other genetic material. The end result is more likely, imo, to be less rather than more diversity. Why isn’t that their right?
Again with the preeminent rights of adults and little or no consideration for the rights of the children born. We do that today, albeit crudely, by selecting mates who have traits we like. This won’t, however, lead to a world of only one type of person.
Are you issuing a guarantee? Different families would place emphasis on different traits and skills. Some would lean towards music or other arts. Others towards the athletic talents. Others towards more rational, scientific thinkers.
I think this probably represents your hope, rather than your latest peek into some bound-to-happen crystal ball. <snip All of the genetic musical material in the world won’t come to anything without the child raised in a loving, supportive home.
Another one of your pronouncements, delivered as fact, when it seems to me to be nothing more than your hope. What we are likely to end up selecting for are good parenting skills.
Good parenting skills aren’t in need of technomax. They can be had today for little or no $$$, just an investment of time, love, sensitivity, etc. Let’s turn this question around. Who are you to say that human development should stop here? Why are accidents good, noble, or moral, but conscious, deliberate planning is evil or depraved? Who are you to say that a parent isn’t allowed to make every effort that they can to insure that their children aren’t the happiest, healthiest, best educated, etc. That isn’t just a right, I feel it is a duty.
Oh Lordy. <snip God argument Are you saying we are so perfect in all ways that no room for change must ever be allowed?
I have no idea what he will say. I say that we haven’t a clue as to the possible repercussions of cloning and therefore should be very very cautious about too much manipulation. How enlightened of you. We look and act nothing like our ancestors of 100,000+ years ago.
Hyperbole? Or is that a just plain silly statement? In fact, we wouldn’t even consider them fully human. Do you consider our existence at the expense of those long dead ancestors to be evil? If so, please go out and shoot yourself. If not, then why should we view the prospect of future generations that continue to change from what we are today as any more evil? The important thing is that continue to live, and learn, and fall in love, and write songs, and build their culture, and all the thousands of other things that we have been doing for a very long time. Whether our lifespan is 30, 60, or 3000 years won’t change that. Whether our IQ is 30, 100, or 10000 won’t change that. Whether our vocabulary is 3000, 30000, or 30000000 words won’t change that.
Do you really believe that the outermost options won’t result in change? Anyone who believes in the concept of "the most perfect human" is doomed to be sorely disappointed. There would be a temporary glut of attourneys, bankers, etc. They would overpopulate their niche. They would starve and die
Well maybe I am in favor of this technology after all … for unethical adoption professionals. <snip None of this would change.
I am of the opinion that your simplistic assurances are every bit as frightening as the technology. -JohnG
An engineer? Would you mind telling us what type engineer you are? And whether you’re still in school or gainfully (?) employed. Thanks. Sue T.
Response:
First I think all the states need to rush out and create a new law that says that if a scientist (male or female) clones another human being from a female, he/she is legally the "father". This will solve the child-support issue. However, it might not minimize the chances the clone might have to be put up for adoption, should some classic reason come along. IRONY: If a woman gives birth to say a girl and the girl is her clone (identical in virtually every respect) is the woman who gives birth the mother of this child or her twin-sister? EMOTIONAL HARM: You know its bad enough for adoptees that they face certain emotional consequences for being given up by one or both birth parents and now there is the possibility that some girl may grow up wondering if the woman that gave birth to her is her mother or her twin-sister? "SIN?" Also, will this be defacto incest? I mean the "mother" mated with her own flesh and blood, even in a stronger sense than if a brother and sister committed incest, at least genetically speaking. MORE EMOTIONAL HARM: How would you like growing up as a kid knowing you never had a biological father? I know I for one would feel like a "freak". And no doubt, youthful peers who found me out would all call me "freak’. Yes folks, Dr. Frankenstein is on the scene.
Response:
Have concern about this CLONING a person, Looking for some good feedback on your feelings, and ideas. If I understand correctly, this cloning a person, is to get the best athelete, the most intelligent person, and then to remove all the bad genetic codes from a human, so that the human was perfect, in all ways, Physically, Mentally, Emotionally, Then the could take this genetic eggs, from a female, and make a whole human race out of people who were the best of everthing into each human, Therefore eliminating the need for us, (humans of today With either phyical, Mental, Emotional, problems, The idea is to crete, the perfect human being, and then make several of them, This people would be, the best of the best, in sports, an extremely high IQ, type of person, One person, A Scientist, said, something to the effect, that GOD was smart, but when get this Clones done, they will be smarter, than GOD. Looks to me like this Scientist, want to do away with us as humans, since we all do not think alike, look alike, act alike, beleive alike. Then they will have what they think is the perfect human, when they clone what they think is the most perfect person, Just think, if all of this clones, were attorneys, were accountants, were bankers, or were all of any other profession, what would this world be like? Part of the reason for living on this earth, is the feeling of ones own identity. Their own feelings, their own believes, their own roots. Please someone else, send what they they beleive will happen if this clones are allowed to be made, of humans, so they will be living, breathing, robots of the human beings. WillWeat, from TN,
Response:
I can’t even pretend to understand the scientific method used to clone a human…and I object to cloning, based solely on my own personal religious beliefs. To me, cloning is playing God…and I cannot agree with that. That said, regardless,I do not condone a ban on the research….I worry about restricting the science that allows cloning because, (if I understand it correctly), banning it could very easily put at risk legitimate medical research that could lead to some much needed medical advances. Very tight restriction should be placed on this science not by a bunch of Washington bureaucrats….qualified scientists in the field should police the activity. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First I think all the states need to rush out and create a new law There’s a good start! Don’t understand something, ban it! "Rush out" and "create new law" should go together as well as "hard liquor" and "handguns". You get about the same effect. that says that if a scientist (male or female) clones another human being from a female, he/she is legally the "father". Yeah, sure, whatever. I’d think that the gene donor would be the "parent". This will solve the child-support issue. Yep, sure. Just like knowing who the fathers are of today’s children insures that child support is always paid. If a woman gives birth to say a girl and the girl is her clone (identical in virtually every respect) is the woman who gives birth the mother of this child or her twin-sister? Yes. You know its bad enough for adoptees that they face certain emotional consequences for being given up by one or both birth parents and now there is the possibility that some girl may grow up wondering if the woman that gave birth to her is her mother or her twin-sister? Huh? This is supposed to be a reason? Geez, what about all the emotional harm cause to regular kids who suspect they are adopted. I think we should outlaw adoptions (mandate abortions) so that no child ever has to worry about being adopted. Also, will this be defacto incest? Nope, not even masturbation. I mean the "mother" mated with her own flesh and blood, even in a stronger sense than if a brother and sister committed incest, at least genetically speaking. Time to brush up on your genetics. The genetic reason to discourage close relatives from mating is to reduce the chance that currently unexpressed (read that as "broken") genes common to both parents are the ones inherited by the child. So, let’s say we have a gene called Foo. There are three alleles: FooA, FooB, nad FooA’. If a person has at least one FooA or FooB, the lead happy productive lives. If they only have FooA’, then they are condemned to a horrible libe of festering boils and "Laverne and Shirley" reruns. So, let’s say who have to impetuous siblings, sib1 and sib2, who are the product of mom and pop. We could get the following genetic distribution (remember each person gets two alleles of each gene): mom: FooA FooB pop: FooA’ FooB So, by the powers of Gregor Mendel… sib1: FooA’ FooA sib2: FooA’ FooB We invoke Mendel again to create the incestuous bastard… bas1: FooA’ FooA’ It doesn’t matter that FooA’ only occurs in 0.001 per 100,000 people. These two love crossed kids have a 1 in 4 chance of producing our boil covered couch potato. This isn’t the case with a clone. The clone has the same genetic makeup as the donor. If the donor is genetically healthy, the the offspring will be equally endowed (barring point mutations, which are a serious issue actually). How would you like growing up as a kid knowing you never had a biological father? Clones would, it’s the same male that was the father to the donor. I know I for one would feel like a "freak". And no doubt, youthful peers who found me out would all call me "freak’. Ooh! Another argument to ban all activity based on childhood trauma. Kids like to call other kids "freak" already. Sometimes it’s because of what they look like, or how they speak, or what their parents do. I guess in your wold everyone should walk, talk, and look alike in order to avoid any potential for harrassment, ever. Sounds like you want a Yes folks, Dr. Frankenstein is on the scene. So is the crowd that cried for Barabbus. Who did the greater evil? -JohnG
Response:
First I think all the states need to rush out and create a new law
There’s a good start! Don’t understand something, ban it! "Rush out" and "create new law" should go together as well as "hard liquor" and "handguns". You get about the same effect. that says that if a scientist (male or female) clones another human being from a female, he/she is legally the "father".
Yeah, sure, whatever. I’d think that the gene donor would be the "parent". This will solve the child-support issue.
Yep, sure. Just like knowing who the fathers are of today’s children insures that child support is always paid. If a woman gives birth to say a girl and the girl is her clone (identical in virtually every respect) is the woman who gives birth the mother of this child or her twin-sister?
Yes. You know its bad enough for adoptees that they face certain emotional consequences for being given up by one or both birth parents and now there is the possibility that some girl may grow up wondering if the woman that gave birth to her is her mother or her twin-sister?
Huh? This is supposed to be a reason? Geez, what about all the emotional harm cause to regular kids who suspect they are adopted. I think we should outlaw adoptions (mandate abortions) so that no child ever has to worry about being adopted. Also, will this be defacto incest?
Nope, not even masturbation. I mean the "mother" mated with her own flesh and blood, even in a stronger sense than if a brother and sister committed incest, at least genetically speaking.
Time to brush up on your genetics. The genetic reason to discourage close relatives from mating is to reduce the chance that currently unexpressed (read that as "broken") genes common to both parents are the ones inherited by the child. So, let’s say we have a gene called Foo. There are three alleles: FooA, FooB, nad FooA’. If a person has at least one FooA or FooB, the lead happy productive lives. If they only have FooA’, then they are condemned to a horrible libe of festering boils and "Laverne and Shirley" reruns. So, let’s say who have to impetuous siblings, sib1 and sib2, who are the product of mom and pop. We could get the following genetic distribution (remember each person gets two alleles of each gene): mom: FooA FooB pop: FooA’ FooB So, by the powers of Gregor Mendel… sib1: FooA’ FooA sib2: FooA’ FooB We invoke Mendel again to create the incestuous bastard… bas1: FooA’ FooA’ It doesn’t matter that FooA’ only occurs in 0.001 per 100,000 people. These two love crossed kids have a 1 in 4 chance of producing our boil covered couch potato. This isn’t the case with a clone. The clone has the same genetic makeup as the donor. If the donor is genetically healthy, the the offspring will be equally endowed (barring point mutations, which are a serious issue actually). How would you like growing up as a kid knowing you never had a biological father?
Clones would, it’s the same male that was the father to the donor. I know I for one would feel like a "freak". And no doubt, youthful peers who found me out would all call me "freak’.
Ooh! Another argument to ban all activity based on childhood trauma. Kids like to call other kids "freak" already. Sometimes it’s because of what they look like, or how they speak, or what their parents do. I guess in your wold everyone should walk, talk, and look alike in order to avoid any potential for harrassment, ever. Sounds like you want a Yes folks, Dr. Frankenstein is on the scene.
So is the crowd that cried for Barabbus. Who did the greater evil? -JohnG
Response:
I’d like to inject a little more thought here about the likelyhood of common cloning.
I’d like you to do that too. I believe it will happen.
Yup. No reason it shouldn’t. Curiousity killed the cat.
Complacency kills far more many cats. Stupidity kills more. Dumb luck wipes out quite a few. Never underestimate the fickle finger of fate. A curious cat that dies exploring, striving to be somthing more than it is today, is really the only one that was ever fully alive in the first place. Life isn’t meant to be lived in a stupor. Explorers and cowards both wind up in the same palce, but the path they took made all the difference. This is a world issue and sooner or later some nut will authorize it or do it.
Only if ‘nut’ is defined as someone who doesn’t agree with you. How enlightened. Fortunately, we are not compelled to do only those things which aren’t "nutty", look at bungee jumping. Remember, countries compete technologically. It’s a prize to be the first, especially when it makes money.
Yes, and? I’m sure there is a way to profit of this.
Geez, profits are always evil? I thought that sometimes people profit because they have done something helpful or useful. There always is. Perhaps some eccentric rich types will be attracted to the concept of his own ‘immortality’.
Lots of people see that in their children today. It’s not always a bad thing. My children will continue a line that’s been unbroken for billions of years. I hope that line continues for billions more. I’ll do everything I can to give them the love, support, education, financial means, and yes, if I can, genetic makeup to make that happen. If I’m carrying a gene that pre-disposes me to cancer, and I can eliminate it from their genotype, I will. It’s none of your business. If I were to choose to have a child who is genetically identical to either myself or my wife, what business is it of yours? It is no more your business than what school I send my children to or whether I buy piano lessons from them. Much like cryogenics.
Is cryonics a bad thing? Why? Do you contend that it can’t work, or do you contend that it may work, but shouldn’t? Why are you so comfortable in declaring how others should live and die? Besides, that’s what they said about test tube babies.
I don’t know what "that" you are speaking of. There have been tens of thousands of in vitro fertilizations since Louise Brown was born back in 1979. As far as I know, they haven’t turned in to brain eating monsters. As far as I know, they are as happy and healthy as any other group of children. It’s terrifying really…
Why? Just because you declare it terrifying, doesn’t mean I have to take your word for it. Now, 16 year olds with driver’s licenses, that’s terrifying! to think that there are no laws for this sort of thing because no one
Why are you so eager to legislate other’s behaviour when you haven’t demonstrated any sort of threat other than your own vague "terror". Lot’s of nice white folks were terrified at the prospect of allowing other people to marry outside of their "race". What is different about your position. You both want to enslave others because of your fears. ever even thought this sort of sci-fi could exist.
Same sort of sci-fi as airplanes, microwave ovens, VCRs, laprascopic sugery, CAT scans, MRIs, preservatives, anitbiotics, blood transfusions, indoor plumbing, etc. If you feel so strongly, I hear that Ted Kazynski’s land up in Montana is available. It’s similar to the mass panic that would be felt if aliens ever do land.
Like the mass panic that happened when Louise Brown was born? Like the same panic that happened when Dolly was announced? Geez, they must have swept those bodies off the street mighty damn fast because I sure didn’t see them (of course, I probably slept in late). What would we do?
Cheer, smile silently at all the technophobes working on their ulcers, and then get back to work. -JohnG
Response:
If I understand correctly, this cloning a person, is to get the best athelete, the most intelligent person, and then to remove all the bad genetic codes from a human, so that the human was perfect, in all ways, Physically, Mentally, Emotionally,
Well, I guess we can stop right there as you don’t understand correctly. But, since this is USENET, we won’t. Then
Your supposition is false, so the ‘then’ and all that follows is irrelevant. the could take this genetic eggs,
What are genetic eggs? Are there other varieties? from a female,
A good source of eggs. and make a whole human race out of people who were the best of everthing into each human,
From one woman’s eggs? Boy, will she be tired! Therefore eliminating the need for us,
I think I could make a credible case for eliminating you without the super-eggs fromthe tired super-ovulator. (humans of today With either phyical, Mental, Emotional, problems,
Geez, you’re right. Let’s make more fucked up people. In fact, since it is so noble to be inferior, let’s raise the percentage of people with such wonderful things as cystic fibrosis, Down’s syndrome, Tay Sachs, breast cancer, and the rest. No more that one healthy child per household! What a wonderful, enlightened world we would live in then. First, if you want to breed (or engineer) the "perfect" human, cloning is one of the last things you’d want to do. First, it’s hard. Much harder than breeding the old fashioned way. Second, because it is hard, it is expensive. It takes trained people, drugs, moderately high tech instruments and techniques, and quite a bit of time and planning to pull it off. Third, if you are trying to come up with a person who is "superior" to existing people, you can’t start by cloning. You need to find or engineer the genes that provide the traits you are looking for. Then you need to get all of these genes into one person. That’s called selective breeding and is the antithesis of cloning. Fourth, why do you think everyone would converge onto the same idea of "superior"? Sure, a lot of americans would end up selecting for some common physical traits. Why isn’t that their right? We do that today, albeit crudely, by selecting mates who have traits we like. This won’t, however, lead to a world of only one type of person. Different families would place emphasis on different traits and skills. Some would lean towards music or other arts. Others towards the athletic talents. Others towards more rational, scientific thinkers. Some of these traits are very likely to be mutually exclusive. You will never be able to breed a person who is both the best power lifter and the best long distance runner. It is likely that modes of thought are equally exclusive. All of the genetic musical material in the world won’t come to anything without the child raised in a loving, supportive home. What we are likely to end up selecting for are good parenting skills. Let’s turn this question around. Who are you to say that human development should stop here? Why are accidents good, noble, or moral, but conscious, deliberate planning is evil or depraved? Who are you to say that a parent isn’t allowed to make every effort that they can to insure that their children aren’t the happiest, healthiest, best educated, etc. That isn’t just a right, I feel it is a duty. The idea is to crete, the perfect human being, and then make several of them, This people would be, the best of the best, in sports, an extremely high IQ, type of person,
And this is bad because? One person, A Scientist, said, something to the effect, that GOD was smart, but when get this Clones done, they will be smarter, than GOD.
First, you misquote, badly. Second, please, what is "smarter, than GOD" supposed to mean? Since I deny the exsistence of "GOD", the statement is meaningless to me. If you are a believer however, how can you believe anything made of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and a few trace elements ever amount to anything compared to the supposed infinite creator of the universe? Looks to me like this Scientist, want to do away with us as humans,
Depends on how you look at it. Why should the "people" of 1000 years from now be forced to look, act, and live like we do? Are you saying we are so perfect in all ways that no room for change must ever be allowed? How enlightened of you. We look and act nothing like our ancestors of 100,000+ years ago. In fact, we wouldn’t even consider them fully human. Do you consider our existence at the expense of those long dead ancestors to be evil? If so, please go out and shoot yourself. If not, then why should we view the prospect of future generations that continue to change from what we are today as any more evil? The important thing is that continue to live, and learn, and fall in love, and write songs, and build their culture, and all the thousands of other things that we have been doing for a very long time. Whether our lifespan is 30, 60, or 3000 years won’t change that. Whether our IQ is 30, 100, or 10000 won’t change that. Whether our vocabulary is 3000, 30000, or 30000000 words won’t change that. since we all do not think alike, look alike, act alike, beleive alike.
And we never will. Then they will have what they think is the perfect human, when they clone what they think is the most perfect person,
Anyone who believes in the concept of "the most perfect human" is doomed to be sorely disappointed. Just think, if all of this clones, were attorneys, were accountants, were bankers, or were all of any other profession, what would this world be like?
There would be a temporary glut of attourneys, bankers, etc. They would overpopulate their niche. They would starve and die (or go on welfare) until they came back into balance with what their society needed. Kind of like what loggers are doing in the Pacific Northwest, or what most of the people involved in the care of horses did in the early part of this century. Part of the reason for living on this earth, is the feeling of ones own identity. Their own feelings, their own believes, their own roots.
None of this would change. Please someone else, send what they they beleive will happen if this clones are allowed to be made, of humans, so they will be living, breathing, robots of the human beings.
Ahh, can someone parse this? -JohnG
Response:
Have concern about this CLONING a person, Looking for some good feedback on your feelings, and ideas.
Will We At Tennessee, If I understand correctly, this cloning a person, is to get the best athelete, yesr the most intelligent person,
yesr,smatrs ear impotent to use all and then to remove all the bad genetic codes from a human
will teh LORD put thim jinitec codse thier to mike sur that we dindt klive furivir aand be lik untwo teh LORD , so that the human was perfect, in all ways yesr, Physically, yesr, ispiceaeiylluy psyhciacalliey Mentally, veri smatr Emotionally, lovse teh LORD Then the could take this genetic eggs, from a female, and make a whole human race out of people who were the best of everthing into each human
all jiniteieciattauliy teh same, Therefore eliminating the need for us, (humans of today With either phyical, Mental, Emotional, problems, yesr The idea is to crete, the perfect human being, and then make several of them, to cretin thims This people would be, the best of the best, in sports, an extremely high IQ, type of person,
yesr, lik untwo teh LORD One person, A Scientist, said, something to the effect, that GOD was smart, but when get this Clones done, they will be smarter, than GOD.
yesr, smatretrts thin teh LORD, thits wot he sid, i seeeeed hims last nithgt on teh TV takin to Ted Couple. He sid so. Looks to me like this Scientist, want to do away with us as humans, since we all do not think alike, look alike, act alike, beleive alike.
he beeeleeves in teh LORD thits wot he sid, sos i beeeeleeev hes doin god Then they will have what they think is the perfect human, when they clone what they think is the most perfect person, like untwo teh LORD Just think, if all of this clones, were attorneys, were accountants, were bankers, or were all of any other profession, what would this world be like?
teh will be preechers and theierere wifes. it wil be god Part of the reason for living on this earth, is the feeling of ones own identity
Identuty dont mater. Burth ciaetrifaeicaetes dont mater Only teh LORD maters, and these gut is on teh LORD’s sid, he sid sow. . Their own feelings, their own believes, their own roots. dont mater, omly teh LORD maters Please someone else, send what they they beleive will happen if this clones are allowed to be made, of humans, so they will be living, breathing, robots of the human beings.
Ite will be fein, beecausee tehy will al beeleeve in teh LORD. Waht does this meen , these thing yuo uses so much , these ,,,,,, yer frend barry – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -WillWeat, from TN,
Response:
Anne wrote a critique on my post based on thinking that cloning is actually "In Vitro fertilization". But its not, because that involves a father’s and mother’s DNA being combined. Anne please get your facts straight. (1) WEBSTER’S: Clone – "The aggregate of the asexually produced progeny of an individual" (2) The genetic DNA material is solely that of one parent. That is, it is not combined with another either of the same sex or opposite sex. (3) Dolly the sheep was made like this: - Ewe #1 had a single cell removed from its body - Ewe #2 had its DNA removed from an egg cell and the DNA discarded - Ewe #1’s cell is placed next to the #2 egg cell (less its DNA) - Electric pulses are used to force the cells to fuse and to make the fused cell "think" fertilization has occurred - The fertilized egg is placed in the womb of Ewe #3 - Ewe #3 eventually gives birth - The offspring is genetically identical in every respect to Ewe #1 DNA from Ewe #2 and #3 have nothing to do with the genetic outcome, or its negligible. Throughout this process the only DNA is that of Ewe #1. Now "sexual" fertilization occurs when the DNA from male and female combine. Asexual fertilization, uses only one DNA strand from one and only one "parent". Thus the offspring is nearly a perfect twin of the "parent", albeit not born at the same instant of time. (4) Some asexual reproduction (cloning) occurs in some species of life in nature. That is, self-fertilization occurs. The offspring is and identical twin. Anne, your critique of my post would put me to shame if your knowledge was correct. However, when you fully understand what a clone is, go back an re-read my post. It may then make sense to you. Keep in mind some sarcasm is intended on my part.
Response:
Anne, What a great idea. One of me to be a librarian, and one of me to be mother to the Empress, and one of me to be Bob’s wife, and one of me to read and one to get the house clean. BTW the Empress Elizabeth Man Jie now can say the word "NO" and says it often, she has learned the toddler laws of property, best summarized as: "It’s MINE, it’s MINE, it’s MINE!" pays loving attention to her baby doll, pets the cats, and kisses them on the top of their heads, and seems to be learning about ten new words a day, loves _Where the Wild Things Are_ because she can growl, and clearly is going to become a mountain climber. Her favorite activity is to climb Mt. Babba–Babba being Chinese for daddy, because when she manages to stand on his shoulders, she gets flipped down in a sommersault. We have taught her to respond to the question: "How old are you?" with the response "I’m two." She hasn’t learned yet to hold out 2 fingers, instead she gives a "Heil Hitler" salute.
Response:
IRONY: If a woman gives birth to say a girl and the girl is her clone (identical in virtually every respect) is the woman who gives birth the mother of this child or her twin-sister?
It’s her daughter. Not herself, not her twin sister. The baby would have had a different environment from the womb onward. It would have been made with her own eggs (albeit slightly modified!). How could it be her twin? On the other hand, if her mother had had two eggs implanted instead of one, it could have been her twin, though obviously not her identical twin. If cloning were to become common, presumably unlikely, and there was a need to distinguish such kids from non-cloned ones, we’d probably come up with a politically correct term like ‘identical daughter.’ In fact, with new reproductive technologies, we might need terms — from a child’s point of view — for 1. solo genetic-mother, solo genetic father: (child grew from genetic material of this person; ‘identical mother’ or ‘identical father’ also okay.) 2. egg-mother, sperm-father: (child grew from egg & sperm of these people, is not cloned; ‘genetic mother,’ ‘genetic father,’ birth-father’ also okay) 3. womb-mother, (child grew in this woman’s womb; ‘birth-mother’ also okay, but usually also includes genetic-motherhood) 4. legal mother, legal father (legal parent(s) of child) 5. house-mother, house-father (child is raised by this parent(s)) 6. step-mother, step-father (spouse of remarried legal parent. Can by extension be used for spouse of remarried any-parent.) 7. foster-parent (house-parent without legal parent status) 8. adoptive parent (legal parent without genetic parent or womb-mother status) Of course, a child could have several parents in categories 4-8 — or none at all. "SIN?" Also, will this be defacto incest? I mean the "mother" mated with her own flesh and blood, even in a stronger sense than if a brother and sister committed incest, at least genetically speaking.
She didn’t mate, though…that’s the point. Incidentally, a man could also, in theory, be cloned. MORE EMOTIONAL HARM: How would you like growing up as a kid knowing you never had a biological father? I know I for one would feel like a "freak". And no doubt, youthful peers who found me out would all call me "freak’.
You’d only feel a freak if it was unusual…like kids of divorce, or incubator babies, or adoptees used to feel. Otherwise it would be like, hey, I’m *just* like my Mom. Of course, I think it’ll make for fireworks growing up — I think most of us parents would go bananas trying to raise someone exactly like us. I think if I had (and I wouldn’t!) such a daughter, I’d get her Dad to do more of the raising. Maybe clone-kids *shouldn’t* be raised by their identical parents! Yes folks, Dr. Frankenstein is on the scene.
Naah. People always get scared of new technologies, and then in a few years, they’re old hat. Not that I recommend human cloning, I just think its social impact will be trivial. Rupa
Response:
If cloning were to become common, presumably unlikely, and there was a
I’d like to inject a little more thought here about the likelyhood of common cloning. I believe it will happen. Curiousity killed the cat. This is a world issue and sooner or later some nut will authorize it or do it. Remember, countries compete technologically. It’s a prize to be the first, especially when it makes money. I’m sure there is a way to profit of this. There always is. Perhaps some eccentric rich types will be attracted to the concept of his own ‘immortality’. Much like cryogenics. Besides, that’s what they said about test tube babies. It’s terrifying really… to think that there are no laws for this sort of thing because no one ever even thought this sort of sci-fi could exist. It’s similar to the mass panic that would be felt if aliens ever do land. What would we do?
Response:
First I think all the states need to rush out and create a new law that says that if a scientist (male or female) clones another human being from a female, he/she is legally the "father". This will solve the child-support issue. However, it might not minimize the chances the clone might have to be put up for adoption, should some classic reason come along.
Walt, that’s a great idea! Also very amusing. IRONY: If a woman gives birth to say a girl and the girl is her clone (identical in virtually every respect) is the woman who gives birth the mother of this child or her twin-sister?
The child and the woman who births the child are genetic clones, not twins. MZ Twins are conceived at the same time, the fertilized egg splits at the same time, and twins are generally born within minutes or hours of each other (although there are a handful of cases in which twins were born months apart). (An aside: The question of which twin is older is really incorrectly put, as MZ twins are equally ‘old’ — one twin may be born before the other, but their age from conception is exactly the same.) Again, a clone is a clone, not a twin, even though MZ twins are nature’s clones. But a cloned person can’t be called a twin. EMOTIONAL HARM: You know its bad enough for adoptees that they face certain emotional consequences for being given up by one or both birth parents and now there is the possibility that some girl may grow up wondering if the woman that gave birth to her is her mother or her twin-sister?
I don’t think that would be as big a problem as having to experience in reality what some daughters dread: BECOMING MOM. Also, there would be (I’d think) incredible identity issues. Is Mom, Jr. a person in her own right, or is she just a clone of Mom? Mom in miniature? Or, like Ripley 8 (Alien Resurrection), just another form of a person you used to be, but aren’t? Huh? "SIN?" Also, will this be defacto incest? I mean the "mother" mated with her own flesh and blood, even in a stronger sense than if a brother and sister committed incest, at least genetically speaking.
No, no mating occurred. The genetic material of an already fertilized egg would produce the clone. This would be reproduction in its true sense, making a copy of something. I could, in effect, give birth to myself. This is not like having sex with my father, as my mother and father already did that (yeah, only three times in their lives, though). I’d be more like a human Xerox machine. MORE EMOTIONAL HARM: How would you like growing up as a kid knowing you never had a biological father? I know I for one would feel like a "freak". And no doubt, youthful peers who found me out would all call me "freak’.
No, no! The clone HAS a biological father! The biological father is whoever fertilized the egg in the first place. So, if I were to have myself cloned, my daughter’s father would be MY father. That would kind of make us sisters, except for the fact that my DNA and her DNA would be identical. So all we could be is clones, scientifically. Socially one could say we were (a) mother and daughter, (b) ’sisters’ of different generations, or (c) clones (once cloning was socially acceptable, we could say something like this: "I have three birth children, three adopted children, a foster child, two step kids, and oh, yes, these are my clones." Yes folks, Dr. Frankenstein is on the scene.
Well, think of the possibilities of re-raising oneself. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate form of narcissism? And revenge? If our clones turned out better than we did, we could thumb our noses at Mom and Dad, proving that we were better parents than they were. And we could let ourselves (er, I mean our clones) do what our parents didn’t let us do the first time around. Think of all the cookies we could vicariously eat in bed. We could space out our clones over the decades so that my great-granddaughter would really be ME, and then we’d all (all who had clones, that is) be immortal. The possibilities are endless, Anne — L. Anne Babb To save energy, do not go out lookin’ for trouble; chances are, it will find you soon enough. (Forrest Gump)
Response:
