LawTalkers
Page 39 of 125 « First 293738 39 40414989 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   My God, you are an idiot. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=861)

Tyrone Slothrop 07-18-2011 09:06 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by greedy,greedy,greedy (Post 455750)
hey, missed this part. Good luck. I hope it rocks.
2

Adder 07-18-2011 09:08 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 455745)
how can people who don't pay taxes pay more?

Hank Chinaski

460-23
Huh? By paying some? Am I missing something?

sgtclub 07-19-2011 01:28 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 455754)
If there was any relationship between spending and taxes that might make sense.

Of course, there isn't, and they are adamant in insisting there not be.
The D proposal ties these together. They want $X in tax increases for every $Y in spending cuts.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-19-2011 08:52 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 455758)
The D proposal ties these together. They want $X in tax increases for every $Y in spending cuts.
This is a level of insight all the commentators appear to lack. I had not realized there was a straight quid pro quo calculation of taxes and cuts.

Given your insight into the process, can you tell me whether the parties are negotiating at all over, say, what different cuts to make, or what or who should contribute taxes?

Also, can you tell me what X and Y are? I'd be interested in the exact ratio.

Sidd Finch 07-19-2011 10:58 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 455745)
how can people who don't pay taxes pay more?
Which people don't pay sales tax?

Adder 07-19-2011 11:00 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 455744)
It would have raised taxes on the bottom 90% and cut them for the top 10%:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp...ryanplan-1.jpg
I haven't looked into Ryan's tax particulars, although I'm curious how repealing corporate and estate taxes results in a reduced tax burden for someone making $20,000 or less.

Adder 07-19-2011 11:02 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 455758)
The D proposal ties these together. They want $X in tax increases for every $Y in spending cuts.
Right, but I'm not sure how D proposals that Rs reject justify the Grover Norquist position that tax cuts are in fact spending cuts and the way to achieve a shrunken government.

Which is why it seems simpler to me to conclude that Grover Norquist and the rest of the Rs really only care about the tax part.

sgtclub 07-19-2011 11:07 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 455759)
This is a level of insight all the commentators appear to lack. I had not realized there was a straight quid pro quo calculation of taxes and cuts.

Given your insight into the process, can you tell me whether the parties are negotiating at all over, say, what different cuts to make, or what or who should contribute taxes?

Also, can you tell me what X and Y are? I'd be interested in the exact ratio.
I think the ratio is $3 to $1 at the $4 trillion cut level. I think the D proposal raises taxes just on the "rich" (I think they've defined this at $250K). Don't know about the specific cuts.

Cletus Miller 07-19-2011 11:08 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 455761)
I haven't looked into Ryan's tax particulars, although I'm curious how repealing corporate and estate taxes results in a reduced tax burden for someone making $20,000 or less.
Retirees and those receiving small inheritances, and I'd give odds if you'd like to wager.

sgtclub 07-19-2011 11:11 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 455762)
Right, but I'm not sure how D proposals that Rs reject justify the Grover Norquist position that tax cuts are in fact spending cuts and the way to achieve a shrunken government.

Which is why it seems simpler to me to conclude that Grover Norquist and the rest of the Rs really only care about the tax part.
This makes no sense to me.

Adder 07-19-2011 11:25 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 455764)
Retirees
Yeah, I guess so.

Quote:
and those receiving small inheritances
Huh? Small inheritances are already tax free.

Adder 07-19-2011 11:27 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 455765)
This makes no sense to me.
Why? Cutting taxes has to this point never resulted in shrinking the size of government.

And it probably isn't going to meaningfully do so this time either, unless you consider reducing social security and medicare benefits to be reductions in the size of government.

Cletus Miller 07-19-2011 11:29 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 455766)
Huh? Small inheritances are already tax free.
Not if it is a small part of a large estate. $10,000 out of a taxable estate would be "subject to" estate tax and go to someone with taxable income under $20k--the numbers underlying that chart were developed by people who want to show how everyone is benefited, so I expect they would do the accounting that way.

Adder 07-19-2011 11:29 AM
How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb
 
No worries, Timmy's just gonna mint a trillion dollar platinum coin or two.

Which actually might be a really appealing solution.

Adder 07-19-2011 11:30 AM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 455768)
Not if it is a small part of a large estate. $10,000 out of a taxable estate would be "subject to" estate tax and go to someone with taxable income under $20k--the numbers underlying that chart were developed by people who want to show how everyone is benefited, so I expect they would do the accounting that way.
Okay, could be.

Sidd Finch 07-19-2011 12:01 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 455768)
Not if it is a small part of a large estate. $10,000 out of a taxable estate would be "subject to" estate tax and go to someone with taxable income under $20k--the numbers underlying that chart were developed by people who want to show how everyone is benefited, so I expect they would do the accounting that way.
If so, that's some serious monkeying with numbers.

Estate taxes are imposed on the estate, not on the beneficiaries. And just how often is an estate, large enough to be taxable, distributed to individuals with less than $20k annual income?

Fugee 07-19-2011 12:37 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 455771)
If so, that's some serious monkeying with numbers.

Estate taxes are imposed on the estate, not on the beneficiaries. And just how often is an estate, large enough to be taxable, distributed to individuals with less than $20k annual income?
Small bequests made to "the help"?

Sidd Finch 07-19-2011 12:44 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugee (Post 455772)
Small bequests made to "the help"?
Statistically insignificant, especially when you limit it to "help" getting paid less than $20k/year.

Cletus Miller 07-19-2011 01:02 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 455771)
Estate taxes are imposed on the estate, not on the beneficiaries. And just how often is an estate, large enough to be taxable, distributed to individuals with less than $20k annual income?
Then how does one justify dividing up estate tax burdens by quintiles at all? Try to get inside the head of someone who calls it a "death tax" before formulating your response.

Sidd Finch 07-19-2011 01:05 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 455775)
Then how does one justify dividing up estate tax burdens by quintiles at all? Try to get inside the head of someone who calls it a "death tax" before formulating your response.
If it's really a "death tax", seems pretty logical to base it on the income of the decedent during the last year of life.

Cletus Miller 07-19-2011 01:12 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 455776)
If it's really a "death tax", seems pretty logical to base it on the income of the decedent during the last year of life.
Sure. And then, assuming that upon death the decedent ceases to earn income (dunno if correct, Code-wise), if that person dies early enough in January, em might well have less than $20k in income and a taxable estate. And, for the basis of projections, and projecting ($47 less the benefit of reduced corporate tax) in benefits to however many million taxpayers, all you need is to assume one person per year has a taxable estate and less than $20k in income in em's last tax year.

Any projections made by either side are so full of BS that it's almost impossible to unpack. And projections related to inheritance tax are about the worst.

Sidd Finch 07-19-2011 01:29 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 455777)
Sure. And then, assuming that upon death the decedent ceases to earn income (dunno if correct, Code-wise), if that person dies early enough in January, em might well have less than $20k in income and a taxable estate. And, for the basis of projections, and projecting ($47 less the benefit of reduced corporate tax) in benefits to however many million taxpayers, all you need is to assume one person per year has a taxable estate and less than $20k in income in em's last tax year.

Any projections made by either side are so full of BS that it's almost impossible to unpack. And projections related to inheritance tax are about the worst.
ETA: never mind. far too boring.

sgtclub 07-19-2011 01:45 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 455767)
Why? Cutting taxes has to this point never resulted in shrinking the size of government.

And it probably isn't going to meaningfully do so this time either, unless you consider reducing social security and medicare benefits to be reductions in the size of government.
Hence, the push for a balanced budget amendment.

Adder 07-19-2011 01:52 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 455780)
Hence, the push for a balanced budget amendment.
By which you mean symbolic vote on a horrid, draconian thing that will never be adopted that likely is only honestly supported by the small handful of its dimmest sponsors.

Good to know that they are tackling the pressing scourge of constant tax increases that never happen though.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 07-19-2011 01:54 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 455780)
Hence, the push for a balanced budget amendment.
If the Rs hadn't pushed through the 22nd Amendment, you would have had something better than a balanced budget amendment: a third and fourth Clinton term instead of Bush.

Adder 07-19-2011 02:12 PM
Pants maybe not the only thing on fire
 
Marcusss Bachmann lied when he said the "barbarians" quote had been doctored. In making the allegation he gives us reason to look at the original program, and learn that he also he seems to think all straight people think about and are tempted by gay sex. Hmm.

futbol fan 07-19-2011 02:37 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 455760)
Which people don't pay sales tax?
Let's not jump to conclusions. All of Hank's Buicks have come tax-free due to family connections, so he may not be familiar with the concept from those transactions. If he also has a cousin at the liquor store, he may not know what "sales tax" means at all.

Hank Chinaski 07-19-2011 02:39 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 455783)
If the Rs hadn't pushed through the 22nd Amendment, you would have had something better than a balanced budget amendment: a third and fourth Clinton term instead of Bush.
I know Clinton saved budget expense when he ignored the embassy bombings and the Cole? Poll: would he have ignored 9/11?

futbol fan 07-19-2011 02:40 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 455788)
I know Clinton saved budget expense when he ignored the embassy bombings and the Cole? Poll: would he have ignored 9/11?
For how many minutes?

Cletus Miller 07-19-2011 02:43 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 455787)
Let's not jump to conclusions. All of Hank's Buicks have come tax-free due to family connections, so he may not be familiar with the concept from those transactions. If he also has a cousin at the liquor store, he may not know what "sales tax" means at all.
Hank wishes he could buy a Buick; it would impress his Chinese clients.

Hank Chinaski 07-19-2011 02:52 PM
Re: New Editorial Standards for WSJ!
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironweed (Post 455789)
For how many minutes?
infinty minutes? two infinity minutes?


that guy really couldn't deal with emergencies, if he could, he'd have directed his seed away from that fat girl's dress.

Sidd Finch 07-19-2011 05:08 PM
Re: Pants maybe not the only thing on fire
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 455786)
he also he seems to think all straight people think about and are tempted by gay sex. Hmm.
Like you don't like lesbian porn.

Adder 07-19-2011 05:30 PM
Re: Pants maybe not the only thing on fire
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 455797)
Like you don't like lesbian porn.
You think Marcuss does??

Tyrone Slothrop 07-19-2011 07:51 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
IIRC, and I may not, Club mentioned something last night about the problems that states have with unfunded liabilities for state workers' pensions, the implication as always when conservatives raise such things that the problem lies with state workers living high on the hog rather than state governments which don't want to pay for what things cost. So I thought of that again when I read this on the Yglesias blog:

Quote:
Amid relentlessly depressing news about the national economy and the federal debt situation, The Washington Post reported a rare bit of positive-sounding information this morning:

Quote:
Gov. Bob McDonnell will announce Tuesday that Virginia ended the fiscal year on June 30 with a surplus of $311 million, according to the governor’s office.

McDonnell (R) will outline how he will spend the surplus in a news conference on Capitol Square, though most of the money is already accounted for — including funding for roads, education and the Water Quality Improvement Fund, which is used for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup.

This is the second year Virginia has had a budget surplus after three years of revenue shortfalls when the state had to cut billions from the budget. Last year, Virginia ended the fiscal year with a surplus of about $403.2 million — almost twice the previous estimate.
Before everyone packs their bags and moves to Virginia, however, it’s worth looking into this situation more closely. Did the state achieve it’s sterling fiscal situation through a balanced package of spending cuts and tax increases? Did it enact a stringent austerity budget along the lines of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act that was up for debate in Congress today?

No on both counts. Instead, let’s flashback to a Richmond Times-Dispatch article from last year detailing the state’s plan for balancing its budget:

Quote:
Virginia is taking away more than $620 million that would have been paid toward state employee and teacher pensions, but the state is leaving an IOU.

Beginning in 2013, the state will have to repay the money to the Virginia Retirement System over 10 years, with 7.5 percent interest.[...]

Sen. Walter A. Stosch, R-Henrico, called the provision the most important step taken by the assembly to protect the retirement system, even as it relies on deferred pension contributions for almost one-fourth of the money used to balance the two-year budget.
That’s right, Virginia “balanced” its budget and set up this year’s surplus by borrowing money from itself. Coming on top of $17.6 billion worth of unfunded pension liabilities, that would have been a rather audacious move for any governor to approve. But that’s especially so for McDonnell, who is among the leading vice presidential candidates for a party that presently is waging a total war against increasing the federal government’s borrowing authority.

Of course, McDonnell isn’t the only conservative who has embraced these accounting gimmicks. The Virginia House of Delegates, which has a solid Republican majority, also voted for the plan. And this Pew report showed that a number of conservative-led states were guilty of underfunding their pension obligations in 2010, including those of GOP governors-turned-presidential hopefuls Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry.
Let's see if any conservatives who complain about unfunded pensions take McDonnell to task for this. I'd love to see that but I won't hold my breath.

Hank Chinaski 07-19-2011 08:33 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 455809)

Let's see if any conservatives who complain about unfunded pensions take McDonnell to task for this. I'd love to see that but I won't hold my breath.
if you want me to work with you on how to call people out on this let me know- it'll cost you money, but you will learn how to make the argument. first thing is we need to get some Rs here that don't criticize Rs. I think our only real hope is if GGG or Gasalot or sidd grow up and turn R, or if my ty@50 predictions turn true.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-19-2011 08:40 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 455811)
if you want me to work with you on how to call people out on this let me know- it'll cost you money, but you will learn how to make the argument. first thing is we need to get some Rs here that don't criticize Rs. I think our only real hope is if GGG or Gasalot or sidd grow up and turn R, or if my ty@50 predictions turn true.
I'm not trying to call out anyone here. Club is not carrying water for McDonnell and I expect he'd agree that Virginia should balance its budget instead of using tricks to make McDonnell look good. If someone gave you truth serum and forced you to take a position, you would surely say the same. The point is more that unfunded pension liabilities are a result of politicians acting like politicians, and that poliiticians get away with it because they're supporters prefer to tell happy stories about them.

sgtclub 07-19-2011 09:14 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 455812)
I'm not trying to call out anyone here. Club is not carrying water for McDonnell and I expect he'd agree that Virginia should balance its budget instead of using tricks to make McDonnell look good. If someone gave you truth serum and forced you to take a position, you would surely say the same. The point is more that unfunded pension liabilities are a result of politicians acting like politicians, and that poliiticians get away with it because they're supporters prefer to tell happy stories about them.
I don't understand how borrowing from the pension fund = balanced budget.

Tyrone Slothrop 07-19-2011 09:18 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 455813)
I don't understand how borrowing from the pension fund = balanced budget.
They're not really borrowing from it. They're not making payments into it that they need to make in order to keep up with the state's obligations. As a result, they'll need to pay more (with 7.5% interest) down the road. It has the same effect as borrowing, but the borrowing essentially already happened when the state incurred the future obligation.

sgtclub 07-19-2011 09:56 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 455814)
They're not really borrowing from it. They're not making payments into it that they need to make in order to keep up with the state's obligations. As a result, they'll need to pay more (with 7.5% interest) down the road. It has the same effect as borrowing, but the borrowing essentially already happened when the state incurred the future obligation.
This is borrowing. The fed has been doing the same with SS for years.

Hank Chinaski 07-19-2011 09:57 PM
Re: My God, you are an idiot.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 455812)
I'm not trying to call out anyone here. Club is not carrying water for McDonnell and I expect he'd agree that Virginia should balance its budget instead of using tricks to make McDonnell look good. If someone gave you truth serum and forced you to take a position, you would surely say the same. The point is more that unfunded pension liabilities are a result of politicians acting like politicians, and that poliiticians get away with it because they're supporters prefer to tell happy stories about them.
at the bottom of the Pelosi depression one of my clients decided to file NO new patent applications for a year- they filed what are called provisional applications, but those cost 1/10 a real application. After a year they had to pay the big bucks on each provisional, but, for that one year the costs fell off the table. the problem was the next year they had to pay the bucks for the cases they had filed as provisionals, and obama was the president and the Dems controlled congress so the economy stayed in the toilet, but it was a plan for a year.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:38 PM.
Page 39 of 125 « First 293738 39 40414989 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

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