Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think it's a shame a brilliant, but unfortunately shrill and deluded economist like Krugman gets the headlines while a guy like Reich, a moderate with a policy bent similar to Krugman's, but allowing for dissent to his views, and confident enough to admit when he's wrong, is stuck in the runner-up position among the ranks of prominent liberal economists. Reich's analyses are elegantly simple. Where Krugman whines and hides in the silly double-speak terminology economists often use to make a simple science seem impossibly complex, Reich has a great capacity to get straight to the heart of the issue: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ugh/index.html

By the way, I do not read this as an admission that he was wrong, or as an argument against further stimulus.

Also, the book opens with an anecdote about Mariner Eccles and his depression-era realization of the paradox of thrift.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by ironweed

Get off it. Just because Nobels have been handed out to some less than deserving characters (pre-accomplishment anti-colonialist secret Kenyans included) doesn't mean that they're not significant. But besides that Krugman has been proven right again and again, and especially with his criticism of Bush & Co., for which he's been written off forever after by certain quarters no matter how much sense he makes. You're not that kind of a knee-jerk Krugman hater, are you?

P.S. - I am knitting a sweater for Penske's First Amendment rights. Does anyone know his favourite colour?

Red - it covers irate, cranky, and bordeaux spillage.

[LessinSF]

No rational basis for law against adoption by homosexuals sez Fla. Supes.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

No rational basis for law against adoption by homosexuals sez Fla. Supes.

Not the FL supes, just FL 3d circuit.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

No rational basis for law against adoption by homosexuals sez Fla. Supes.

Actually the intermediate appellate court, but still quite interesting.

eta: stp

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

No rational basis for law against adoption by homosexuals sez Fla. Supes.

Hank says discriminating against the gays is mainstream in Michigan and so there must be a rational basis.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Hank says discriminating against the gays is mainstream in Michigan and so there must be a rational basis.

No no. Just that, because it's mainstream in MI, there must be many Dem voters who support discriminating against tehgays, and so the Dems here should shut their traps.

Of course, given the chickenshit elected Dems, there's not much to argue about re Dem voters approval for discriminating against tehgays.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

2

People think they can drive just as well while they are talking on the phone. They are wrong.

how about "I can drive while on the cell phone better than the mainstream Michigan drivers not on one?"

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Not the FL supes, just FL 3d circuit.

Right you are. I skipped right to the synopsis, sure I was right.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

How about we just forget about any distinction between debt and equity. It's income when you receive it, it's a deduction when you pay it. The obligation to repay really shouldn't enter the equation.

Otherwise, if I have the ability to get cash without having income, I'll start making moves on the tax chess board, and this will start getting complicated.

And why isn't a corporation taxable on its sale of its own stock? Seems like an accretion to wealth to me?

I agree, if we're willing to be purists about this thing, we can make it much simpler.

The thing about debt and equity is that neither is taxable when you receive it and the return of either is not deductible. As long as the party contributing has a legal right to a return of its its investment, you can't rightfully call the investment income.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I truly believe that Wonk could not come up with a system he couldn't game, however simple or complex it is.

You really haven't paid much attention to what I've been saying about tax policy at all, have you? I would actually prefer to legislate my practice out of business. But only if we well and truly eliminate "all" of the preferences and tax expenditures.

[Adder]

[QUOTE=taxwonk;434244]You really haven't paid much attention to what I've been saying about tax policy at all, have you? /QUOTE]

A bit of general advice: this is always a safe assumption.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

You really haven't paid much attention to what I've been saying about tax policy at all, have you? I would actually prefer to legislate my practice out of business. But only if we well and truly eliminate "all" of the preferences and tax expenditures.

I didn't say you wouldn't "like" to come up with a system you couldn't game. I was saying you couldn't.

Even if you managed to eliminate all preferences, you'd have a hell of time sorting out how to deal with taxation of international operations. Is allowing a foreign tax credit a preference?

I assume your scheme will eliminate all tax deductibles contributions and all tax-exemptions for charities, all IRAs and 401ks, all municipal bonds, all exemptions for state and local governments, etc. Got to tax the country club dues and drive up the cost of fancy educations if we're going for the simple tax.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I didn't say you wouldn't "like" to come up with a system you couldn't game. I was saying you couldn't.

Even if you managed to eliminate all preferences, you'd have a hell of time sorting out how to deal with taxation of international operations. Is allowing a foreign tax credit a preference?

I assume your scheme will eliminate all tax deductibles contributions and all tax-exemptions for charities, all IRAs and 401ks, all municipal bonds, all exemptions for state and local governments, etc. Got to tax the country club dues and drive up the cost of fancy educations if we're going for the simple tax.

You can deduct golf course dues? I don't think so. The only deduction I've seen is a portion of dinners with clients, which you can deduct at any restaurant.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can deduct golf course dues? I don't think so. The only deduction I've seen is a portion of dinners with clients, which you can deduct at any restaurant.

Golf clubs are generally tax-exempt. They don't pay tax on receipt of your dues. Golf clubs are a tax preference item.

So are bar associations. I can think of few organizations more deserving of a good taxing than golf clubs and bar associations.