LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Waiting for Fitzgerald (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=704)

sgtclub 09-19-2005 08:25 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have no idea where you got the idea that I supported, approvied of, or engaged in any of this. whatever the source, you were misinformed.
Nice Section 230 cover.

taxwonk 09-19-2005 08:26 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Isn't the registration and yearly fees that all entities must pay to their state of incorporation/organization and any other state in which they do business a sufficient fee for having the privilege or incorporating/organizing?
Yes. Just like the $10 I pay to renew my driver's license every three years is exactly the amount needed to cover the cost of the burden I impose on the highway system, environmental costs, the portion of our military budget devoted to protect a secure supply of oil, etc.

What the hell have I been thinking all these years?

taxwonk 09-19-2005 08:32 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is not really correct. A GP of an LP does not have unlimited liability. It's liability is akin to the liability a director has in a corporation.

The point I was making is that we allow LPs and LLCs to shield themselves from unlimited liability, but we retain only 1 level of taxation (i.e., at the ownership level). So if we are willing to do this for these entities, I don't see a rational purposes for not extending that to corporate entities.
You are wrong on this. The GP has unlimited liability. The only cap on this is the fact that the shareholders of a corporate GP have limited liability, so if the corporate GP goes belly up, the shareholders aren't on the hook.

Spanky 09-19-2005 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't even know where to start with this one.
I guess you don't like taxing the rich.



Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub Cite please? The rich do not send their kids to public schools, they do not take public transportation, and they are not on welfare. They don't need food stamps, perscription drug benefits, or social security. Yes, they have more assets to protect than the poor, but I think it's at least an even use of resources.
They do get prescription drug benefits and social security and it is obscene. My parents get social security checks and both checks don't even cover their weekly wine bill. Both those programs should be means tested.


Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hence, the need for a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment (Hi Penske!)

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I would bet by any empiracle study, the overwhelming majority of legal resources are used by the poor in this country. The rich, for example, don't need (or want) a PD.
I believe the criminal defense budget is a small part of the entire legislative budget. Most of it is spent on civil trials and most people can't afford to be involved in a civil trial. Welfare and food stamps is a way of stopping poor people from robbing the rich. If people are allowed to starve to death they are not going to go silently into the night. The rich depend more on the police, on fire, - hell everything.


Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is true only if that 1 util remains stagnant. In the real world, a rich person turns 1 util into 1 million utils.
The key is to put the money into the poor persons hand and get them to invest it. That is the best utilization of the money for everyone involved. If my trust fund cousin spends it on Crystal, not so much help.


Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
Good luck trying to balance that equation.
The joy of public policy. That is why I support people to run for office and don't run myself.

Spanky 09-19-2005 08:37 PM

Oops

Spanky 09-19-2005 08:38 PM

oops

sgtclub 09-19-2005 08:47 PM

Penalizing the Cops
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
You are wrong on this. The GP has unlimited liability. The only cap on this is the fact that the shareholders of a corporate GP have limited liability, so if the corporate GP goes belly up, the shareholders aren't on the hook.
You are correct. I was thinking of a manager of an llc.

Penske_Account 09-19-2005 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't even know where to start with this one.



Cite please? The rich do not send their kids to public schools, they do not take public transportation, and they are not on welfare. They don't need food stamps, perscription drug benefits, or social security. Yes, they have more assets to protect than the poor, but I think it's at least an even use of resources.



Hence, the need for a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment (Hi Penske!)
Hi!

Penske_Account 09-19-2005 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
They could, but they have no incentive to do so. That's why the government imposes taxes. On the other hand, if you feel so strongly that government provides too much, why don't you offer to take on some of the burden yourself? Pay for the paving and maintenance of your street and relieve the city of Seattle of the burden, allowing them to reduce their overall need to soak the taxpayers?
I am not necessarily complaining about local taxes. The benefit there is more tangible and there is more of an oportuntity to address local government on issues. I am talking about the Feds.

ltl/fb 09-19-2005 11:06 PM

tired and dumb
 
is one effect of not allowing a deduction for dividends that it encourages (all else being equal) a co to reinvest in itself rather than pay dividends? If so, might the taxation thing be partly a policy to encourage that?

Are dividends received taxed at a different rate than regular income?

The things I don't remember . . .

I agree with Spanky's comment on the flat tax, adding that I think if you set the base amount (if you make less than that, no tax) at a reasonable place, the rate has to be really quite a bit higher than people expect in order to be able to have it be flat (esp. if you want to get rid of estate/gift tax, corp tax, etc.)

I can't believe I almost missed an opportunity to comment on flat tax.

Captain 09-19-2005 11:15 PM

Not Kangaroo
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I had no idea your last name was "Obvious"
Thank you for the inspiration.

I only stated the obvious because it seemed to have been overlooked.

ltl/fb 09-19-2005 11:19 PM

Not Kangaroo
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Thank you for the inspiration.

I only stated the obvious because it seemed to have been overlooked.
You should use Captain 401(k) at some point:

http://www.psca.org/KDAY/2005/captain-k.jpg

www.psca.org/kdaymain.html

Captain 09-19-2005 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The key is to put the money into the poor persons hand and get them to invest it. That is the best utilization of the money for everyone involved. If my trust fund cousin spends it on Crystal, not so much help.
I think this is the key to much of the economic history of the country and our phenomenal growth. We have relatively well off working people, and often have had a lot of decentralized capital. Thanks to the frontier, the distribution of land in the US in the 19th century was amazingly democratic compared to the rest of the world. To be able to do something like that today!

Hank Chinaski 09-19-2005 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
I think this is the key to much of the economic history of the country and our phenomenal growth. We have relatively well off working people, and often have had a lot of decentralized capital. Thanks to the frontier, the distribution of land in the US in the 19th century was amazingly democratic compared to the rest of the world. To be able to do something like that today!
If you could create a country how would you set up its tax structure?

Captain 09-19-2005 11:22 PM

Not Kangaroo
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You should use Captain 401(k) at some point:

http://www.psca.org/KDAY/2005/captain-k.jpg

www.psca.org/kdaymain.html
I was thinking of Captain Jack Sparrow when I chose the name, but couldn't remember the sparrow part and didn't think Captain Jack had the right connotation. I didn't realize there would be so many Captains.

ltl/fb 09-19-2005 11:51 PM

Not Kangaroo
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
I was thinking of Captain Jack Sparrow when I chose the name, but couldn't remember the sparrow part and didn't think Captain Jack had the right connotation. I didn't realize there would be so many Captains.
Captain Morgan.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-20-2005 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Penske_Account
If really rich people, like Clinton (and Bill Gates and his dad, and Buffett, and Soros and Corzine et al) feel so opposed to the concept of tax cuts to the really really rich, can't they just give the money to the government as a non-deductible patriotic donation? Why is this so problematic. Pay what you think is equitable and SFTU! Commies!
This makes about as much sense as saying that if a corporation thinks that the government's tax laws amount to double taxation, it should just pay what it thinks is equitable instead.

Spanky 09-20-2005 01:09 AM

Tax the Rich: Why not.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
I think this is the key to much of the economic history of the country and our phenomenal growth. We have relatively well off working people, and often have had a lot of decentralized capital. Thanks to the frontier, the distribution of land in the US in the 19th century was amazingly democratic compared to the rest of the world. To be able to do something like that today!
I agree with but I also think it is that so many immigrants make it big here (like Carnegie) that our economy attracts the best entrepenerus from around the planet. Other countries drive them out and we suck them in.

What I don't get is the obsession in my party of some of the people to protect wealthy tax payers. It is bizarre. And it is not the wealthy country club Republicans that are obsessed with tax cuts for the rich, it is more of the middle class Republicans. It is like it is some moral crusade or something. The point behind low taxes is to stimulate the economy so the rising tide lifts all boats. It is not to stop the government from "unfairly taxing" the rich.

It is like free trade an capitalism. We don't have them to help a few get rich, it is because free trade and capitalism, when instituted properly, benefits every strata of society.

Tax policy should be engineered so that growth can be optimized. If you can get more tax money out of the rich while you are doing that, that is the best of all worlds. Taxes are a necessary evil. It sucks that we have to tax rich people. But it sucks even more that we have to tax poor people.

The point is to increase growth while taxing the poor people as little as possible.

ltl/fb 09-20-2005 01:11 AM

Tax the Rich: Why not.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with but I also think it is that so many immigrants make it big here (like Carnegie) that our economy attracts the best entrepenerus from around the planet. Other countries drive them out and we suck them in.

What I don't get is the obsession in my party of some of the people to protect wealthy tax payers. It is bizarre. And it is not the wealthy country club Republicans that are obsessed with tax cuts for the rich, it is more of the middle class Republicans. It is like it is some moral crusade or something. The point behind low taxes is to stimulate the economy so the rising tide lifts all boats. It is not to stop the government from "unfairly taxing" the rich.

It is like free trade an capitalism. We don't have them to help a few get rich, it is because free trade and capitalism, when instituted properly, benefits every strata of society.

Tax policy should be engineered so that growth can be optimized. If you can get more tax money out of the rich while you are doing that, that is the best of all worlds. Taxes are a necessary evil. It sucks that we have to tax rich people. But it sucks even more that we have to tax poor people.

The point is to increase growth while taxing the poor people as little as possible.
Your repetitiveness makes me think you maybe have aspirations of being a Bush speechwriter?

Penske_Account 09-20-2005 01:38 AM

Osama Six-Pack
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The House yesterday passed an anodyne resolution commemorating the fourth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. It extended sympathy to the victims and survivors; honored the military, first responders, and others who helped; thanked foreign leaders for their support; declared that America is not waging war "on any people or any faith"; reaffirmed a commitment to the global war on terrorism; and vowed "never [to] forget the sacrifices made" on 9/11 or to "bow to terrorist demands." No one could disagree with that, right? Not quite. The House vote for the resolution was 402-6; here are the six far-left Democrats who voted "no":

John Conyers (Mich.) Barbara Lee (Calif.) Jim McDermott (Wash.) Cynthia McKinney (Ga.) Pete Stark (Calif.) Lynn Woolsey (Calif.)

McDermott is the lowest level of scumbag treasonous piece of cat-shite. In a just world a Radical Islamic would fly a plane into him, although I imagine when the dems hand over the keys to the Ayotallahs when they get a chance that a guy like McDermott would be one of the first that they behead. After Hillary.

Penske_Account 09-20-2005 01:39 AM

Leno on the French
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
One nice thing is a lot of foreign countries are helping us out. Like today, France sent a donation. They sent a truckload of white flags for people to wave when they're waiting to be rescued.
LOl.

Penske_Account 09-20-2005 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you could create a country how would you set up its tax structure?
Voluntary.

Penske_Account 09-20-2005 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This makes about as much sense as saying that if a corporation thinks that the government's tax laws amount to double taxation, it should just pay what it thinks is equitable instead.
2.

Penske_Account 09-20-2005 01:41 AM

Tax the Rich: Why not.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Your repetitiveness makes me think you maybe have aspirations of being a Bush speechwriter?

Your stupidity makes me think you are Biden's alter ego.

Hank Chinaski 09-20-2005 08:18 AM

Tax the Rich: Why not.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with but I also think it is that so many immigrants make it big here (like Carnegie) that our economy attracts the best entrepenerus from around the planet. Other countries drive them out and we suck them in.

What I don't get is the obsession in my party of some of the people to protect wealthy tax payers. It is bizarre. And it is not the wealthy country club Republicans that are obsessed with tax cuts for the rich, it is more of the middle class Republicans. It is like it is some moral crusade or something. The point behind low taxes is to stimulate the economy so the rising tide lifts all boats. It is not to stop the government from "unfairly taxing" the rich.

It is like free trade an capitalism. We don't have them to help a few get rich, it is because free trade and capitalism, when instituted properly, benefits every strata of society.

Tax policy should be engineered so that growth can be optimized. If you can get more tax money out of the rich while you are doing that, that is the best of all worlds. Taxes are a necessary evil. It sucks that we have to tax rich people. But it sucks even more that we have to tax poor people.

The point is to increase growth while taxing the poor people as little as possible.
this would point to you trying to get your friend to open his vineyard to the public, or at least letting some of us in.

Captain 09-20-2005 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you could create a country how would you set up its tax structure?
I don't think there is a one-size fits all solution for tax structures. I'd like a flexible structure where if the economy is down, congress is supposed to figure out how to spur investment and get it going, while if the economy is roaring, Congress is charged with not slowing it down.

What I'd most like in any system is the disclipline for Congress to clean the tax code up periodically. Every provision that is not of general application, and some of those that are, should have a sunset provision so it is revisited in a certain number of years.

Captain 09-20-2005 09:12 AM

Tax the Rich: Why not.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with but I also think it is that so many immigrants make it big here (like Carnegie) that our economy attracts the best entrepenerus from around the planet. Other countries drive them out and we suck them in.

What I don't get is the obsession in my party of some of the people to protect wealthy tax payers. It is bizarre. And it is not the wealthy country club Republicans that are obsessed with tax cuts for the rich, it is more of the middle class Republicans. It is like it is some moral crusade or something. The point behind low taxes is to stimulate the economy so the rising tide lifts all boats. It is not to stop the government from "unfairly taxing" the rich.

It is like free trade an capitalism. We don't have them to help a few get rich, it is because free trade and capitalism, when instituted properly, benefits every strata of society.

Tax policy should be engineered so that growth can be optimized. If you can get more tax money out of the rich while you are doing that, that is the best of all worlds. Taxes are a necessary evil. It sucks that we have to tax rich people. But it sucks even more that we have to tax poor people.

The point is to increase growth while taxing the poor people as little as possible.
I'd only add to this that somewhere the Government has decided that spending and taxing are only remotely and not directly related. Whether it was the late Keynesian advocacy for mammoth deficit spending or the Supplier-siders' theories that tax reductions would pay for themselves, the idea that you don't have to make both sides of the equation add up strikes me as blindingly, obviously wrong.


Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-20-2005 09:32 AM

Tax the Rich: Why not.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
I'd only add to this that somewhere the Government has decided that spending and taxing are only remotely and not directly related. Whether it was the late Keynesian advocacy for mammoth deficit spending or the Supplier-siders theories that tax reductions would pay for themselves, the idea that you don't have to make both sides of the equation add up strikes me as blindingly, obviously wrong.
Someone in government, that is everyone elected to Congress, realized that most of their constituents now operate this way, paying with credit and an expectation to pay it off in the future.

Of course, for an individual, at least of working age, their wages are likely to increase more rapidly than is the overall national income, so overspending is a little less unreasonable. We need the Amish to run the budget.

Penske_Account 09-20-2005 11:05 AM

the legacy of the goron: Germany held hostage, day 2
 
Schroeder is still not conceding. Why does he hate Germany so much?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...n/scumbags.jpg

Sidd Finch 09-20-2005 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The key is to put the money into the poor persons hand and get them to invest it. That is the best utilization of the money for everyone involved. If my trust fund cousin spends it on Crystal, not so much help.
But what if Crystal is putting herself through school?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-20-2005 11:15 AM

North Korea
 
If Kim Jong Il is ever deposed, he should become a car salesman.

Does he ever actually agree to anything, or does he always say "it's a deal" and then, upon getting agreement from the other side, thinks he can ask for more?

Can we give up on Iraq and finish the job from 50 years ago on the Korean peninsula?

Sidd Finch 09-20-2005 11:15 AM

Tax the Rich: Why not.
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
I'd only add to this that somewhere the Government has decided that spending and taxing are only remotely and not directly related. Whether it was the late Keynesian advocacy for mammoth deficit spending or the Supplier-siders' theories that tax reductions would pay for themselves, the idea that you don't have to make both sides of the equation add up strikes me as blindingly, obviously wrong.

2.

And yet, the Bushites think that more tax cuts is the way to resolve this. And we have yet to see the Repubs using their complete control of the legislative process to bring spending in line with revenue. (Though I suppose any day now they will find the 400 billion dollars of waste, fraud and abuse they need to cut.)

Sidd Finch 09-20-2005 11:17 AM

North Korea
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If Kim Jong Il is ever deposed, he should become a car salesman.
Ew. I wouldn't depose him with fringey's twat.


Quote:

Does he ever actually agree to anything, or does he always say "it's a deal" and then, upon getting agreement from the other side, thinks he can ask for more?
The latter. Seems to work well for him, kind of like "the asshole gets the money" theory of negotiation.


Quote:

Can we give up on Iraq and finish the job from 50 years ago on the Korean peninsula?
There may be a connection between this sentiment and his intense desire to have nukes. I'm just guessing.

Hank Chinaski 09-20-2005 11:17 AM

Islam- a Religion With Important Work to Do
 
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=1951292005

So in the months after the Tube bombings, what has the UK Muslim community been busy doing?
  • Burger King recalls 'sacrilegious' desserts


    THE fast-food chain, Burger King, is withdrawing its ice-cream cones after the lid of the dessert offended a Muslim.

    The man claimed the design resembled the Arabic inscription for Allah, and branded it sacrilegious, threatening a "jihad".


    The chain is being forced to spend thousands of pounds redesigning the lid with backing from The Muslim Council of Britain. It apologised and said: "The design simply represents a spinning ice-cream cone."

    The offending lid was spotted in a branch in Park Royal last week by business development manager Rashad Akhtar, 27, of High Wycombe.

    He was not satisfied by the decision to withdraw the cones and has called on Muslims to boycott Burger King. He said: "This is my jihad. How can you say it is a spinning swirl? If you spin it one way to the right you are offending Muslims."

    A Muslim Council spokesman said: "We commend the sensitive and prompt action that Burger King has taken."


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...Cones-pbuh.jpg

I played basketball for about a year in the Nike "Allah flame" shoes. That year, my game was live. No word on whether the ice cream was good.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) 09-20-2005 11:24 AM

North Korea
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

There may be a connection between this sentiment and his intense desire to have nukes. I'm just guessing.
Sure. Beat him to the punch.

SlaveNoMore 09-20-2005 11:30 AM

Two Birds
 
Quote:

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
If Kim Jong Il is ever deposed, he should become a car salesman.

Does he ever actually agree to anything, or does he always say "it's a deal" and then, upon getting agreement from the other side, thinks he can ask for more?

Can we give up on Iraq and finish the job from 50 years ago on the Korean peninsula?
Better yet, why don't we give "North Korea" to the Palestinians and drop a few Hamas leaders in there.

SlaveNoMore 09-20-2005 11:31 AM

Quote:

Sidd Finch
But what if Crystal is putting herself through school?
Does he not get paid for hosting the Oscars?

SlaveNoMore 09-20-2005 11:34 AM

Islam- a Religion With Important Work to Do
 
Quote:

Hank Chinaski
[THE fast-food chain, Burger King, is withdrawing its ice-cream cones after the lid of the dessert offended a Muslim...

The man claimed the design resembled the Arabic inscription for Allah, and branded it sacrilegious, threatening a "jihad".

... He was not satisfied by the decision to withdraw the cones and has called on Muslims to boycott Burger King. He said: "This is my jihad. How can you say it is a spinning swirl? If you spin it one way to the right you are offending Muslims."
But they want to build a memorial to Flight 93 that looks exactly like a Muslim Crescent. Funny dat.

PS - I saw this ice cream thing yesterday and thought it was a joke.

Tyrone Slothrop 09-20-2005 11:46 AM

Islam- a Religion With Important Work to Do
 
Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
But they want to build a memorial to Flight 93 that looks exactly like a Muslim Crescent. Funny dat.
Who put Burger King in charge of building that memorial?

Corporations aren't supposed to run everything until I'm 50, I thought.

SlaveNoMore 09-20-2005 12:29 PM

Islam- a Religion With Important Work to Do
 
Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
Who put Burger King in charge of building that memorial?
Come to think of it, a Burger King in Mecca would be a fitting tribute to Flight 93.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:11 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com