My God, you are an idiot.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Anyway, good luck with the new business.

Hey, missed this part. Good luck. I hope it rocks.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I can understand the discomfort of having a mortgage when you've just started a business. But is renting really any better? If you have more than a month-to-month lease, then you've got a long-term commitment that you can't easily break, the same problem that a mortgage imposes. If you go month-to-month, then you have that uncertainty and risk if the rental market picks up. Beyond that, you've got an asset that potentially provides some additional borrowing potential if you need it.

It's much easier to downsize on the fly.

Anyway, good luck with the new business.

Thanks, off to a good start!

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hey, missed this part. Good luck. I hope it rocks.

Gracias

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Well that's where we differ. I don't see government spending as anything other than a short term gap filler.

I'm not sure why you think that is a difference.

I also think you are underestimating the unfunded pension liabilities at the state level.

Fair enough.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Their argument, which I think has merit, is that future congresses are not bound by the spending cuts, while the tax rates are far more difficult to change.

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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by greedy,greedy,greedy

hey, missed this part. Good luck. I hope it rocks.

2

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

how can people who don't pay taxes pay more?

Hank Chinaski

460-23

Huh? By paying some? Am I missing something?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

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]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

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]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

how can people who don't pay taxes pay more?

Which people don't pay sales tax?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It would have raised taxes on the bottom 90% and cut them for the top 10%:

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]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

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]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

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]

Originally Posted by Adder

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]

Originally Posted by Adder

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.