A Question of Balance
 

the difference between 200k and 6m per year is only in the number and quality of toys, and how many leeches you can feed.

The Republic is dead. Long live the . . .
 

How could this be? I used to be a big fan of the UN, or at leastthe potential of it, but no way would I trust that organization with this.

A Question of Balance
 

I've solved the problem by putting my leeches on diets. They're a little pale, but it builds character. Besides, it works with the never too rich or too thin theme.

I was simply noting what the proposals said. I am most definitely not advocating eliminating the mortgage interest deduction, any more than I am in favor of eliminating the deduction for state taxes. I think either one is going to be disastrous for the housing market, which will create a huge drag on the economy, if not a full-blown depression.

I either favor a true flat tax or a tax which is progressive and provides incentives that increase upward mobility. I would pay for the continued deductions by (i) eliminating the AMT; (ii) taxing interest, dividends, and wages at the same rate; (iv) raising the minimum estate allowance to $10 million and eliminating the basis step-up at death.

A Question of Balance
 

Adjusted gross income.

A Question of Balance
 

Yes -- but when you're talking about "middle class" -- like Sebby was -- that concept necessarily applies to some group in the "middle" of the population (as Wonk was pointing out).

So, it is kind of nuts to say (as Sebby did) that folks in the top 2%-4% of income in the country are middle-class. But what he was really getting at was that they ain't "rich" in his view.

S_A_M

Argh. Why not? State A taxes high, provides high services, by the choice of its voters, while State B has no state income tax, and few services. Why should fed tax policy favor State A's choice over State B's choice?

Why would government want to discourage more government? Besides, taxes are good for you Hal. . . .

S_A_M

A Question of Balance
 

Yes, "middle" doesn't particularly work (though when was it last the true "middle"?). But that could be a matter of semantics. If "middle class" people can afford less than they used to, standard-of-living-wise, do we just define down what it means to be "middle class"? Or do we lift the dollar-numbers of "middle class" to reflect what it takes to attain what we've typically expected middle-classers (even, say on the upper end of middle-classers) to attain?

There was talk of judicial review at the time of adoption, but it wasn't clear how seriously anyone took it. State nullification was the same - much discussed, but somewhat timidly defended.

The point still is that those words on the page are quite difficult to interpret. Knowing what it means that Congress shall make no law infringing freedom of the press requires the definition of the very inscrutable terms "freedom", "press", and "infringe", as well as difficulties figuring out whether this is only a limitation on Congress (so the President by executive order can still declare martial law, suspend habeus corpus, and jail his opponents?) or all the ancilary parts of the government.

Getting into this discussion shows that there was also a need for a court to interpret the idea of judicial review, not clearly spelled out in the constitution, and proper redress for constitutional breaches.

This is why I view the idea that we should interpret the Constitution based on a "close reading" to be a bunch of hogwash.

To continue asking the conundrums, Mr. Bilmore, tell me, if we are going to just read the words in the constitution, does the Supreme Court even get to interpret the constitution? Remember, he decides that case by first deciding that he has no jurisdiction in the matter and then issuing this sweeping dictum that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution.

Comity of Errors
 

Because the principal of comity requires that one sovereign not impinge on another sovereign's more direct claim to taxes. In the foreign arena, this is accomplished through both tax treaties and the foreign tax credit. In the U.S., it's accomlished by the federal government not laying claim to tax on dollars already claimed as tax by the several States.

It's federalism at work. Federal tax policy doesn't favor one state's choices over another's. Federal tax policy recognizes that it cannot claim as taxable income money that has already been claimed as tax by the state. The Peoples' right to choose not to favor higher tax rates is preserved through their power to either vote or move.

A Question of Balance
 

Or, just for fun, we could look at what policies are creating this widening gulf between rich and poor, such that there is no real "middle class" any more.

I find it ironic that after this response you basically agree with me on the need to phase in any repeal of the mortgage interest deduction.

So we agree substantively, but our reasons differ.

Comity of Errors
 

On para. 1, how is what you say consistent with the AMT, which removes the deduction for state income taxes?

on para. 2, it favors the choice between sales and income taxes (or did for years). And why can't it "double" tax--we do it at the federal level alone, and it's done at myriad other levels as well, including by the states, who tax income that's also taxed by the federal gov't. I don't recall a deduction for federal taxes on any state income tax form I've completed (for at least four states).

What's the irony, exactly? Moving from a bad policy to a good policy can have dislocative effects because there are still beneficiaries of a bad policy.

Comity of Errors
 

too bad the government wasn't as considerate about the double taxation of dividends or of the death tax, but I guess we have to expect politicians who believe in a culture of death to also want to tax that event. Circular.

(1) That was my point, that there is no baseline so you have to deal with whatever legacy there is;

(2) In the end, these are discussions of good policy versus bad policy, each of which have their impact; there is not a "neutral" policy or a no policy policy.

A Question of Balance
 

the left wing's policy of plantation politics whereby they seek to maintain a permanent underclass of people who they have deluded into voting for them is one policy that prevents the poor from attaining middle class status. The policy of the left to expand the concept of "rich" to include "income rich who are really middle class" as well as "asset rich" artifically inflates "rich". Those two policies probably account for a great deal of the gulf you cite.

Sorry, catching up and not paying attention. This is the federal proposal, or some hypothetical proposal?

Is this the Balt Anal Rape Tax Reform Act of 2005? (BARTRA?)

(May well be both selling a house - no doubt for much less than I could if the interest were deductible - and buying a house - thereby eliminating my current deduction - very soon and not by choice).

is that how RT sees it?

BTW, she's got plenty of lube (i hear), so it shouldn't be too painful.

ETA: If you were paying attention, you would know that this was a recommendation from a panel, not passed legislation. If you're selling very soon, so what. If you're selling in five years, maybe it's a problem.

You remember that part how I used to be married?

Because you looked down...realized you were the only fat one???

Are we sure Bill wasn't/isn't fat?

Yep. Let that be a lesson to you.

"Ping! Pow!

Jen doesn't think so.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tb...nton.sized.jpg

eta: Enh. Funnier when the pic was bigger. Anyway, does this mean that Balt is cuckold? Whoa.

Who the hell is Jen and how is she relevant to this board or its mission?!!!??! Not_Bob, please stay on not_off_topic.

A Question of Balance
 

Well, you've hit on my favorite pet peeve - the govt compiling stats, and making legislation, based on data averaged from every secotr of the country. I'm rich to a fucking dirt farming imbecile in WVa, but I ain't rich in Philly.

just say no
 

THE TOP 10 WORST REASONS TO SUPPORT HARRIET MIERS:

"I SUPPORT HARRIET MIERS…



#10: BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN. "So, Karl Rove…made it clear that the President was looking for a certain kind of candidate, namely a woman to replace Justice O’Connor."—Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family.

#9: BECAUSE GEORGE W. BUSH "KNOWS HER HEART." "I know her heart."—George W. Bush on Harriet Miers.

#8: BECAUSE SHE’S NOT TOO SMART. "If a great intellectual powerhouse is a requirement to be a member of the court and represent the American people and the wishes of the American people and to interpret the Constitution, then I think we have a court so skewed on the intellectual side that we may not be getting representation of America as a whole. —Former Senator Dan Coats, Harriet Miers’ escort through the nomination process.

It’s supposed to be the smartest people we can find handling the toughest issues of the day. There’s already a place for the less-than-brilliant in our political system, Dan. It’s called the "United States Senate."



#7: BECAUSE SHE’S AN EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN: "Miers is a very, very strong Christian [who] should be a source of great comfort and assistance to people in the households of faith around the country."--Former Whitewater prosecutor, Kenneth Starr.


#6: BECAUSE HER EVANGELICALISM DOESN’T MATTER: "I believe that she is pro-life. But the question as to whether or not she's pro-life or not has no bearing and should have no bearing as to . . . how she would rule on a particular case interpreting the right to an abortion."- Scott McClellan.


#5: BECAUSE SHE HAS NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER: "41 of the 109 justices who have served on the Supreme Court had no judicial experience at all when they were nominated. ...Furthermore, Harriet Miers's background as a legal practitioner [and lack of judicial experience] is an asset, not a detriment. She has spent her career representing real people in courtrooms across America."—Texas Senator John Cornyn.


#4: BECAUSE SHE’S "EXCEPTIONALLY WELL-QUALIFIED" FOR THE JOB: "Anyone that knows Harriet Miers knows that she's exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court."—White House spokesflak Scott McClellan.

Until the phrase "exceptionally well-qualified to serve on our nation’s highest court" is re-defined to mean "attended Bible study with George W. Bush," there is no way any rational person could use it to describe Harriet Miers.

#3: BECAUSE HER JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY WILL NOT CHANGE OVER TIME: "I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy, she is today."—President George W. Bush.


#2: BECAUSE WE WILL HURT YOU IF YOU DON’T: "The White House is seeking the help of Republican activists in Iowa and New Hampshire to pressure GOP senators with Presidential hopes to support Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. The effort, coming as the White House seeks to reassure conservatives skeptical about Miers’ qualifications, is largely aimed at turning up the heat on Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, White House aides acknowledged."--AP


And, finally, the Number One Worst Reason To Support The Appointment of Harriet Miers To The Supreme Court...

"TRUST ME" —President George W. Bush.


Hmmm….out-of-control government spending, faster government growth than under President Clinton, no border security, $300 billion in tax dollars thrown at Hurricane Katrina, the $700 billion drug giveaway program for rich seniors, signing the McCain/Feingold anti-free speech bill after declaring it unconstitutional, no progress on Social Security reform, massive expansion of federal government power into local schools, police, etc.


http://stopmiersnow.com/images/stori...t_Miers_no.jpg

A Question of Balance
 

Don't knock the dirt farming imbeciles of WVA Sebby, It is those same dirt farming imbeciles in WVA who are very important to the demoncrats in Washington. It is those dirt farming imbeciles in WVA, residing on the pork fueled section of the dimwit political plantation, who are deluded into voting for Kleagle Byrd, Conscience of the Demo Party.



http://www.willisms.com/archives/robertbyrdkkk.gif

For RT
 

I gotta hand it to him... This is a great "fuck you" photo. He's an idiot, but I have to give props to a anyone for thumbing his nose with that kind of glee.

A Question of Balance
 

Jesus.... He looks like an albino Yoda. When I get that way, I want someone to put me down.

A Question of Balance
 

To your credit you have more character and principle than the Demo party leadership. If the Clintons can take out Ron Brown and Vinnie Foster, why not Byrd?

A Question of Balance
 

I will trim your eyebrows, if that helps.

Bill's a little chunky.

For RT
 

Is there a place one can retrieve one's old mug shot?

For a friend of course.

Is Mrs. Slave expecting?!?!?!?!?!?!

For RT
 

I could barely even get the jurisdictions that house my arrest records to find them. I am sure my mug shots no longer exist.

Down below, or everywhere?