Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

OTP: October 2012-THE RACE: As Candidates Prep, Attention in DC split between politics and baseball

While President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney bone up in Nevada and Colorado for Wednesday’s opening debate, back in the nation’s capital attention is split between the hard-fought presidential race and baseball playoffs.

The Nationals won the first division baseball championship for a Washington team since 1933 by clinching the National League East race Monday night.

Washington, D.C., has the only ballpark where so many Cabinet members, politicians and other luminaries routinely gather and where fans now are openly rooting for a particular president — one who served more than a century ago, Theodore Roosevelt.

“Let Teddy Win” banners and buttons are everywhere. Fans like 2008 GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona say it’s time for Roosevelt’s 500-plus losing streak to end.

[...]

“Teddy, you are the victim of a vast left-wing conspiracy by the commie pinko libs in this town,” McCain said in a video played in the stadium Monday night. “But you can overcome that.”

The October 2012 “OT: Politics” thread starts ... now.

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 02, 2012 at 02:14 PM | 6119 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nationals, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 39 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >  Last ›
   3801. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4279160)
You think investors don't know that cap gains aren't adjusted for inflation? That's one of the central reasons that people are opposed to taxing cap gains as income.




So, if capital gains were indexed for inflation you'd be just fine with them being taxed as ordinary income? Of course you wouldn't, so why bring it up? Andy and I have already signed up to that position. I suspect most if not all would as well. In fact, I would be very much against Cap gains being taxed as ordinary income if they weren't indexed for inflation. So how's that?


Double posted for the flip.
   3802. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4279161)
Of course there's more risk. There's also much more potential profit. That's one of the main reasons why most of us start businesses. I sure as hell wasn't deterred from starting my business because of the risk involved. Those risks are a given. What's crazy is the idea that if I'd put my profits into the stock market, I should pay a lower tax rate when I cashed in than if I'd just paid myself more at the end of each year.

We're going in circles. There's a big difference in risk between paying yourself more and investing that same amount of money in the stock market. (And if you didn't do a full risk assessment when starting your business, that wasn't very wise. That sounds more like a hobby than a business.)

***
This is why people have taken to calling you a troll, so the fund manger may make ZERO- so may many other classes of people- but they don't get such preferential treatment- only the fund manager does- he gets the treatment that people who have money at risk- people who may actually lose money (ie., investors)- you never actually address this you just keep dancing around-

Here we go again with the "troll" nonsense. Thank god we have you around here to elevate the dialogue.

If the treatment of hedge-fund managers is so different than other businesses in which cap gains are involved, then why hasn't this alleged loophole been closed? I highly doubt that a high percentage of Americans are sympathetic to hedge-fund managers, and the Dems controlled the presidency, House, and Senate for all of 2009 and 2010. If this is so outrageous or different, why hasn't there been any movement on changing it?
   3803. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4279164)
Hedge fund managers do get paid something besides their bonus on profits. If the troll is trying to argue something besides that then he is simply doing what he does best and most often.
   3804. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4279168)
If the treatment of hedge-fund managers is so different than other businesses in which cap gains are involved, then why hasn't this alleged loophole been closed? I highly doubt that a high percentage of Americans are sympathetic to hedge-fund managers, and the Dems controlled the presidency, House, and Senate for all of 2009 and 2010. If this is so outrageous or different, why hasn't there been any movement on changing it?



Just like the $100 bill lying on the sidewalk.
   3805. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:40 PM (#4279172)
So, if capital gains were indexed for inflation you'd be just fine with them being taxed as ordinary income? Of course you wouldn't, so why bring it up? Andy and I have already signed up to that position. I suspect most if not all would as well. In fact, I would be very much against Cap gains being taxed as ordinary income if they weren't indexed for inflation. So how's that?

Why are you presenting it as a binary choice? Why couldn't there be some middle ground in which cap gains are adjusted for inflation while also acknowledging that risk-free earnings should be taxed higher than earnings that carry some (or substantial) risk?

As I said on the last page, it's absurd to suggest that lottery winnings should be taxed at the same rate as the earnings of someone who risked five years and substantial money to build a company that might have failed.
   3806. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4279175)
As I said on the last page, it's absurd to suggest that lottery winnings should be taxed at the same rate as someone who risks five years and substantial money to build a company that might fail.


Lottery winnings aren't risk free. You have to purchase a ticket which has very, very little chance of paying out.

Why couldn't there be some middle ground in which cap gains are adjusted for inflation while also acknowledging that risk-free earnings should be taxed higher than earnings that carry some (or substantial) risk?


Joe's idea of compromise. Give me everything I want, and nothing you want. While we're at it, why don't we lower the top tax brackets and also create more loopholes?

   3807. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4279180)
If the treatment of hedge-fund managers is so different than other businesses in which cap gains are involved, then why hasn't this alleged loophole been closed?
It must be an accident. Tax loopholes never get there because people are trying to find ways to not pay taxes.
   3808. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4279182)
Hedge fund managers do get paid something besides their bonus on profits. If the troll is trying to argue something besides that then he is simply doing what he does best and most often.

I love how McCoy announced he put me on "ignore" but still obsessively comments on everything I say here. Very strange behavior.

***
Lottery winnings aren't risk free. You have to purchase a ticket which has very, very little chance of paying out.

Yes, buying a lottery ticket is the same as investing $100,000 in a start-up.

Joe's idea of compromise. Give me everything I want, and nothing you want. While we're at it, why don't we lower the top tax brackets and also create more loopholes?

If both sides agree that cap gains should be indexed to inflation, then there's no "compromise" needed on that topic.
   3809. zonk Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4279183)
Hedge fund managers do get paid something besides their bonus on profits. If the troll is trying to argue something besides that then he is simply doing what he does best and most often.


A fair bit more, in fact --

Setting aside the fact that "hedge fund manager" can probably mean anything from jr analyst to actual fund head -- I would be willing to bet significant money (just based on acquaintances who have - and in a few cases, still do -- work in such areas) that none of them are earning salaries below 6 figures... The bonuses, though, get so large that they often seem to forget that it's not like they're risking a zero income year.

Was arguing about the carried interest loophole with a friend last weekend -- and his point was the same as Joe's -- "But there's no guarantee that I get a CI bonus!"... My response was "so you mean you don't even get a salary?" -- to which he responded "Of course, but it's not much". His definition of "not much" was roughly 8 times the US median income -- but, sure, when you compare it to a 6-7 figure bonus - I suppose it really is "not much".

   3810. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4279186)
If the treatment of hedge-fund managers is so different than other businesses in which cap gains are involved, then why hasn't this alleged loophole been closed? I highly doubt that a high percentage of Americans are sympathetic to hedge-fund managers, and the Dems controlled the presidency, House, and Senate for all of 2009 and 2010. If this is so outrageous or different, why hasn't there been any movement on changing it?

See, this is the kind of question that you might want to look up the answer to before you argue your point.

Laws closing this loophole have been passed multiple times by the House since 2007, but were filibustered by Republicans in the Senate each time.

If the basis for your argument is the fact that no loophole exists because nobody has tried to close it, then I guess you can stop arguing now.
   3811. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4279189)
Yes, buying a lottery ticket is the same as investing $100,000 in a start-up.


You're right. It's riskier. Mind you, it doesn't benefit society as much, but that's not what we are arguing. We are arguing risk (your choice BTW).
   3812. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4279192)
Was arguing about the carried interest loophole with a friend last weekend -- and his point was the same as Joe's -- "But there's no guarantee that I get a CI bonus!"... My response was "so you mean you don't even get a salary?" -- to which he responded "Of course, but it's not much". His definition of "not much" was roughly 8 times the US median income -- but, sure, when you compare it to a 6-7 figure bonus - I suppose it really is "not much".

The salary is taxed as income. I'm not the world's biggest fan of hedge funds, but if the treatment of carried interest is so different and so outrageous, why does it persist? Why did a Dem president, Dem House, and Dem Senate fail to act on this for all of 2009 and '10? Isn't this the type of thing that would have been a home run for the Dems?
   3813. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4279193)
See, this is the kind of question that you might want to look up the answer to before you argue your point.

Laws closing this loophole have been passed multiple times by the House since 2007, but were filibustered by Republicans in the Senate each time.


:-)

I was holding onto that little tid bit...

I'm not sure why Joe is even arguing on this little arcane tax issue, I suppose it's because he took a [misinformed]stand and he's gonna stand and fight on that hill come hell or high water...

   3814. The Good Face Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4279194)
Except it's the opposite in what I am describing. On Wall Street, a fair number women are hired at junior levels that require the worst (longest/most unstable) hours. It is at the more senior levels that have more stable hours where you find less women.


Naturally. The junior females often get married and/or have children and leave the company before they stick around long enough to be eligible for the most senior positions. When those hiring decisions are made, the pool of females is more depleted than the pool of males.
   3815. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4279195)
Naturally. The junior females often get married and/or have children and leave the company before they stick around long enough to be eligible for the most senior positions. When those hiring decisions are made, the pool of females is more depleted than the pool of males.


This is logical.
   3816. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4279197)
See, this is the kind of question that you might want to look up the answer to before you argue your point.

Laws closing this loophole have been passed multiple times by the House since 2007, but were filibustered by Republicans in the Senate each time.

If the basis for your argument is the fact that no loophole exists because nobody has tried to close it, then I guess you can stop arguing now.

The Dems had a filibuster-proof Senate for 181 days in 2009 and into 2010. Why wasn't this bill moved and passed then?

***
You're right. It's riskier. Mind you, it doesn't benefit society as much, but that's not what we are arguing. We are arguing risk (your choice BTW).

OK, great. Let's make lottery winnings tax-free. Makes great sense.
   3817. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4279200)
I'm not sure why Joe is even arguing on this little arcane tax issue, I suppose it's because he took a [misinformed]stand and he's gonna stand and fight on that hill come hell or high water...


Because he has his marching orders, and he's a good little soldier.
   3818. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4279202)
OK, great. Let's make lottery winnings tax-free. Makes great sense.


No. Let's tax hedge fund managers salaries and lotto winnings the same. Makes more sense.

The Dems had a filibuster-proof Senate for 181 days in 2009 and into 2010. Why wasn't this bill moved and passed then?


Joe's boilerplate response for everything "Liberals" want but couldn't get passed. Just how much legislation do you expect to get crammed into this period, a big chunk of which Congress was out of session?
   3819. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4279203)

The Dems had a filibuster-proof Senate for 181 days in 2009 and into 2010. Why wasn't this bill moved and passed then?

I don't know. Hedge fund managers have a lot of money to throw around. That's why in 2010 it only got 57 votes in the Senate after passing the House. The point is your theory that nobody cares about the issue so it must not be a problem is patently false.
   3820. spike Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4279204)
I'm not sure why Joe is even arguing on this little arcane tax issue, I suppose it's because he took a [misinformed]stand and he's gonna stand and fight on that hill come hell or high water...

He's just needs to hold out until he can get snapper to lay down some covering fire with an AC130. Pretty sure we are outside of the 10m safety zone.
   3821. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4279206)
Joe's boilerplate response for everything "Liberals" want but couldn't get passed. Just how much legislation do you expect to get crammed into this period, a big chunk of which Congress was out of session?

Whose choice was it to spend a big chunk of it out of session? If the Dems cared more about vacation time than advancing their agenda, then you should be aiming your blame at Dems.
   3822. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4279208)
Do you want to discuss politics or do you want to discuss me all day?


It's not our fault that you cause so many instances of /headshake and /facepalm .

Sseriously folks, I don't know why you keep arguing with him, because it's clear you'll get nowhere.
   3823. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4279209)

Whose choice was it to spend a big chunk of it out of session? If the Dems cared more about vacation time than advancing their agenda, then you should be aiming your blame at Dems.

The Dems are not perfect. Let's agree on that and also agree that changing carried interest taxation would be good policy. Deal?
   3824. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4279211)
Sseriously folks, I don't know why you keep arguing with him, because it's clear you'll get nowhere.

As opposed to all the liberals who've admitted to changing their minds here. Give me a break.
   3825. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:13 PM (#4279213)
As opposed to all the liberals who've admitted to changing their minds here. Give me a break.


There's an example on this page.
   3826. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4279215)
Whose choice was it to spend a big chunk of it out of session? If the Dems cared more about vacation time than advancing their agenda, then you should be aiming your blame at Dems.


There's that $100 bill again.
   3827. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4279217)
Romney back up to +0.8 at RCP, with his net approval also beating Obama's by +0.8. Obama's lead is also declining in Ohio.
   3828. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4279221)
If folks here are really upset about the tax treatment of carried interest, they should be denouncing Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who resisted the efforts to eliminate the special treatment when the issue arose in 2007. Those efforts were led by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), by the way.

A fairer tax system would treat all income the same, but we have long since abandoned the idea that fairness is the only consideration. We want to encourage savings and investment, so interest and dividends receive special treatment. We want to encourage home ownership, so mortgage interest is deductible. These decisions may not be that controversial, but the tax code has hundreds of pages of special rules, favoring or disfavoring this or that industry. Generally, Republicans have suggested that tax reforms should be based on "fairer", flatter rates that come closer to treating income the same regardless of source, as was done in the 1987 tax reform under President Reagan with bipartisan support.
   3829. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4279226)
If folks here are really upset about the tax treatment of carried interest, they should be denouncing Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who resisted the efforts to eliminate the special treatment when the issue arose in 2007.


OK, I denounce him. Now what?

Generally, Republicans have suggested that tax reforms should be based on "fairer", flatter rates that come closer to treating income the same regardless of source, as was done in the 1987 tax reform under President Reagan with bipartisan support.


I agree with this, and would love to see it come to pass again.

   3830. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:35 PM (#4279230)
I know most people here don't venture over to National Review, but this article raises some interesting questions:

Nate Silver's Flawed Model

But look at some of the weights applied to the individual polls in Silver’s model. The most current Public Policy Polling survey, released Saturday, has Obama up only one point, 49–48. That poll is given a weighting under Silver’s model of .95201. The PPP poll taken last weekend had Obama up five, 51–46. This poll is a week older but has a weighting of 1.15569.

The NBC/Marist Ohio poll conducted twelve days ago has a higher weighting attached to it (1.31395) than eight of the nine polls taken since. The poll from twelve days ago also, coincidentally enough, is Obama’s best recent poll in Ohio, because of a Democratic party-identification advantage of eleven points. By contrast, the Rasmussen poll from eight days later, which has a larger sample size, more recent field dates, but has an even party-identification split between Democrats and Republicans, has a weighting of .88826, lower than any other poll taken in the last nine days.
   3831. bobm Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4279231)
If you do not like private equity and hedge funds not paying their fair share in taxes, let's just eliminate the tax deductibility of interest on debt. Why should corporate or mortgage borrowing receive favored tax treatment over other forms of debt or equity financing?

Closing the carried interest loophole is tinkering at the margin in comparison.
   3832. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4279233)
Generally, Republicans have suggested that tax reforms should be based on "fairer", flatter rates that come closer to treating income the same regardless of source, as was done in the 1987 tax reform under President Reagan with bipartisan support.


Are the scare quotes on "fairer" because you don't like the idea of fairness creeping into tax policy, or because you recognize that "fair taxation" and "flat taxation" are not the same thing?
   3833. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4279235)
If I ever live in NY again I promise not to vote for Schumer in any election he is in. Now that we've got the blame and punishment out of the way can we move forward and actually talk about this issue in a non-must defend Romney on every single issue/political issue kind of way?
   3834. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4279236)
Closing the carried interest loophole is tinkering at the margin in comparison.

It seems like the so-called Buffett Rule: More of a talking point than a substantive policy change.

***
Now that we've got the blame and punishment out of the way can we move forward and actually talk about this issue in a non-must defend Romney on every single issue/political issue kind of way?

Just like the liberals here discussed Obama and Benghazi.
   3835. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4279239)
. . . can we move forward and actually talk about this issue in a non-must defend Romney on every single issue/political issue kind of way?

So that's the end of trying to blame Romney for paying taxes at the rate provided by law - a law he had nothing to do with enacting? Seems like a good move, it wasn't getting much traction anyhow.
   3836. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4279240)
As opposed to all the liberals who've admitted to changing their minds here. Give me a break.


You're singled out not because you stubbornly hold a position, but because you commit what Dave highlighted: "Intellectual dishonesty, moving goalposts, arguing strawmen, mischaracterizing people's positions, ignoring people's comments or questions that have been posed to you".
   3837. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4279243)
So that's the end of trying to blame Romney for paying taxes at the rate provided by law - a law he had nothing to do with enacting? Seems like a good move, it wasn't getting much traction anyhow.

I wasn't aware people were "blaming him" but in any case Romney wasn't and is not the issue on this topic and yet I'm betting there are a few people defending carried interest simply because Romney's name was used as an example.
   3838. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:50 PM (#4279245)
I wasn't aware people were "blaming him" but in any case Romney wasn't and is not the issue on this topic and yet I'm betting there are a few people defending carried interest simply because Romney's name was used as an example.


Well, yeah. The operative decision (especially with JoeK) is never "what is the most rational approach to this issue?" It is always "what side is my team playing on this today?" Tribalists like Kehoskie, in particularly, have so thoroughly embraced the post-modern construct of narrative over truth that nothing is beyond their ability to spin.
   3839. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4279249)
You're singled out not because you stubbornly hold a position, but because you commit what Dave highlighted: "Intellectual dishonesty, moving goalposts, arguing strawmen, mischaracterizing people's positions, ignoring people's comments or questions that have been posed to you".

So when Misirlou argues that buying a lottery ticket should be considered even more risky than spending years building a business, he wasn't committing any of the above?
   3840. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4279253)
So when Misirlou argues that buying a lottery ticket should be considered even more risky than spending years building a business, he wasn't committing any of the above?


You've changed the discussion yet again. I'm talking about committing ALL or MOST of the things Dave describes.

It's like watching a train wreck that keeps going and going. That's why we're still around in this thread, I suspect.
   3841. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4279254)
. . . and yet I'm betting there are a few people defending carried interest simply because Romney's name was used as an example.

I think you'll find that going forward, as in 2007, the Democratic defenders of carried interest in the Senate are the largest barrier to its reform. In this instance, Joe K's position may not be typical of a majority of the GOP, although it is probably also true that there is not any real interest in addressing this as a stand alone issue. If folks care about this issue, pay attention to who is pushing legislation in the next Congress rather than just seeking political advantage in the current campaign. Democrats are getting contributions from Wall Street for a reason, you know.
   3842. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:04 PM (#4279255)
You've changed the discussion yet again. I'm talking about committing ALL or MOST of the things Dave describes.

It's like watching a train wreck that keeps going and going. That's why we're still around in this thread, I suspect.

It sounds like quite a show. Seems strange that so many people apparently want me gone.
   3843. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:06 PM (#4279256)
Again, I don't give a fig which side of the aisle is keeping carried interest around. That isn't the issue and has not been the issue people who have actually tried to discuss have focused on. Granted we're talking non-troll division here.
   3844. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:09 PM (#4279258)
In this instance, Joe K's position may not be typical of a majority of the GOP, although it is probably also true that there is not any real interest in addressing this as a stand alone issue.

I'm certainly not worried about hedge-fund managers. I'm just not convinced that this alleged loophole is as big or outrageous as some others seem to believe. I also believe it's absurd to try to paint this in an anti-GOP or anti-Romney light, especially given what you pointed out re: Grassley, and also since Dems had a minimum of 181 filibuster-proof days during which they could have changed the law.
   3845. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4279262)
So when Misirlou argues that buying a lottery ticket should be considered even more risky than spending years building a business, he wasn't committing any of the above?


So, are you arguing that business start ups have a lower success rate than winning the lottery? It's amazing we have any economy at all.
   3846. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:11 PM (#4279264)
Of course there's more risk. There's also much more potential profit. That's one of the main reasons why most of us start businesses. I sure as hell wasn't deterred from starting my business because of the risk involved. Those risks are a given. What's crazy is the idea that if I'd put my profits into the stock market, I should pay a lower tax rate when I cashed in than if I'd just paid myself more at the end of each year.

We're going in circles. There's a big difference in risk between paying yourself more and investing that same amount of money in the stock market. (And if you didn't do a full risk assessment when starting your business, that wasn't very wise. That sounds more like a hobby than a business.)


Well, if it was a hobby, it was a hobby that enabled me to buy a four bedroom house on a large lot in a nice neighborhood, build a personal library as good as you'll ever see, support my wife through grad school, and treat my current websites as supplementary rather than necessary sources of income. It was a hobby that also let me answer to nobody but my customers, and not some goddam suit. You should get such a hobby yourself.

Part of my current income is investment income that's taxed as capital gains. And while obviously I'm not about to increase my own rate individually and voluntarily, as I'm sure you and Ray might suggest, I also see no reason whatever why my income from those investments shouldn't be counted along with my other income when it comes to my overall tax bill. Warren Buffett is my spokesman on this.

Once again: Greater risk, greater reward. My choice. Nobody was putting a gun to my head when I made it. I made a lot of money in the market from 1996 until 2007, lost a lot of it in 2008 and early 2009, and have made most of it back since then. Why I deserve a lower tax rate for sticking my surplus money in a series of mutual funds is something I just don't get. If this doesn't amount to rent-seeking for a particular class of people, I'd like to know what does.
   3847. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:13 PM (#4279266)
So, are you arguing that business start ups have a lower success rate than winning the lottery? It's amazing we have any economy at all.

Since you're supposedly part of the serious, non-troll left here, it's kind of comical for you to suggest that spending one minute to buy a $1 lottery ticket should somehow be viewed in the same light as spending years and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to start a business.

***
Andy — Nothing in #3846 changes the original point I made. There's a big difference between not being deterred by risk and not bearing any risk. Unless you're assuming that everyone has the same tolerance for risk, it's a big leap to suggest that changing the risk/reward scenario will result in no change in net investment.
   3848. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:19 PM (#4279271)
Since you're supposedly part of the serious, non-troll left here, it's kind of comical for you to suggest that spending one minute to buy a $1 lottery ticket should somehow be viewed in the same light as spending years and tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars to start a business.


Gee, way to argue honestly.

What if I spent 30 min per month and buy $10,000 worth of lottery tickets each month for 12 months vs spending 1 min and buying $100,000 worth of AAPL options? Both had a good chance to return nothing, the lottery tix much more so than the options, but both pay off at 10-1 12 months after the initial purchase. One is taxed at 15%, the other at 31% (or whatever the highest bracket is.
   3849. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:25 PM (#4279273)
Gee, way to argue honestly.

Which part of that wasn't honest? You've repeatedly talked about lottery tickets having worse odds than start-ups [see #3806, #3811, #3845].
   3850. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4279276)
I know most people here don't venture over to National Review, but this article raises some interesting questions:

Nate Silver's Flawed Model


Jordan does have some interesting questions,such as the bit about why the old Marist/Ohio poll having a higher weight given to it by Silver than the more recent RAS poll, is one that Nate really should address, but other stuff indicates that Jordan has a lack of command of some of these facts. For instance, he notes that Silver has Gravis having a Republican House effect- but complains that since the partisan sample of the most recent Gravis poll does not show a Rep "lean" that Silver shouldn't be adjusting for any house effect- Silver doesn't adjust for partisan sampling (only the unskewed guy does that)- what he does is note when/which polls typically have RESULTS either left or right of center, basically Jordan is comnaalining and accusing Silver of acting like the unskewed guy- in part BECAUSE Nate does not act like the unskewed guy...

anyway, Some of Silver's weights do look a bit "off" and who knows, maybe Nate's partisan bias is creeping into the mix here and there, but nowhere does Jordan note that RCP isn't so "clean" either- it doesn't adjust for house effects, and it treats each polling company the same- if one polls 800 and another polls 800, they are treated equally UNLESS one is excluded altogether- Nate includes more polls than RCP, and neither incorporates as many polls in its average as Pollster.
   3851. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4279279)
Democrats are getting contributions from Wall Street for a reason, you know.


Just about anyone who has a decent shot at making/enforcing policy gets money from Wall Street.

   3852. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4279280)
Also, when yesterday's IBD poll showed Obama at +6, Nate was just as quick to discount that as he was to discount Gallup's. His consistent position is that outlier results should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter which candidate or party they seem to favor.
   3853. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:35 PM (#4279284)
Also, when yesterday's IBD poll showed Obama at +6, Nate was just as quick to discount that as he was to discount Gallup's. His consistent position is that outlier results should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter which candidate or party they seem to favor.

Nate wasn't talking too much about outliers until Romney pulled ahead in the poll to which Nate deliberately gave the most weight in his 2012 model.

That issue aside, I hope Nate explains why he's giving the most weight to the oldest polls in some states. That bit about giving the most weight to the oldest of eight or nine Ohio polls seems very odd. It appears Nate's model might be more subjective than is commonly acknowledged.
   3854. Steve Treder Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4279285)
Also, when yesterday's IBD poll showed Obama at +6, Nate was just as quick to discount that as he was to discount Gallup's. His consistent position is that outlier results should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter which candidate or party they seem to favor.

And whatever subconscious bias Nate may have (as may we all), the idea that he is intentionally slanting his projections (in any direction) is ridiculous. Silver has utterly staked his professional reputation and career on getting these results as accurate as he can. No matter who wins, to the extent he gets it wrong he will suffer, and to the extent he gets it right he will prosper.
   3855. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4279289)
No matter who wins, to the extent he gets it wrong he will suffer, and to the extent he gets it right he will prosper.

Yep, he doesn't make money, keep getting on TV, publishing books, and getting paid by the WSJ if he is simply a poll spinster for the Democrats.

The real question that should be asked is has Nate been consistent with his weighting. Is this what he did in 2008 and 2010 or is this something new?

The reason these questions have popped up is because Nate has been open and transparent with his work. All of these "shocking finds" have been out there for all to see since day one.
   3856. Steve Treder Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4279292)
The reason these questions have popped up is because Nate has been open and transparent with his work. All of these "shocking finds" have been out there for all to see since day one.

Good point, and another clear way in which he is plainly not intentionally cooking the books.
   3857. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:47 PM (#4279293)
Andy — Nothing in #3846 changes the original point I made. There's a big difference between not being deterred by risk and not bearing any risk. Unless you're assuming that everyone has the same tolerance for risk, it's a big leap to suggest that changing the risk/reward scenario will result in no change in net investment.

Joe,

I'm not assuming that everyone has the same tolerance for risk. Mine is fairly low, but my confidence in my ability to make money selling books when I opened my shop was through the roof. I thought my chance of success was a mortal lock, and as it turned out I was right.

But while I fully understand the point you're making about the social utility of investment and the need to incentivize it, I think that the incentive / reward should more properly lie in the upside of the possible profits than in the tax rates. Having personally seen this from the POV of the non-investor and the investor, whatever preference I have here is strictly that, since for the last 16 years (when I started investing in the market) my policy preference has gone counter to my personal interest.
   3858. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4279295)
And whatever subconscious bias Nate may have (as may we all), the idea that he is intentionally slanting his projections (in any direction) is ridiculous. Silver has utterly staked his professional reputation and career on getting these results as accurate as he can. No matter who wins, to the extent he gets it wrong he will suffer, and to the extent he gets it right he will prosper.

This is undoubtedly true in the general sense, but if it's true that Nate's projections are seen on the left as something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, then this would be the time that Nate would be the most susceptible to allowing his bias to creep in. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the Dems will go into full-blown panic mode if Nate substantially downgrades Obama's chances in Ohio, so it's at least curious that Nate seems to be giving the most weight to the oldest and most pro-Obama polls in Ohio and a couple other key states.
   3859. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4279296)
Also, when yesterday's IBD poll showed Obama at +6, Nate was just as quick to discount that as he was to discount Gallup's. His consistent position is that outlier results should be taken with a grain of salt, no matter which candidate or party they seem to favor.

Nate wasn't talking too much about outliers until Romney pulled ahead in the poll to which Nate deliberately gave the most weight in his 2012 model.


But whether he "talks" about it as much as you'd like, the nonpartisan discounting of outliers is built right there into his model! And he "talked about it" again yesterday when there was an outlier poll that favored Obama. I'm not really sure what your complaint is.
   3860. JL Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4279298)
Which part of that wasn't honest? You've repeatedly talked about lottery tickets having worse odds than start-ups [see #3806, #3811, #3845].

The current odds of winning the PowerBall are 1 in 175,223,510.00. The odds of winning any prize when buying a $2 PowerBall ticket are 1 in 32. Is it your belief that start-ups have worse odds than that?
   3861. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4279299)
OK, great. Let's make lottery winnings tax-free. Makes great sense.


That works fine up here in Canada. We also don't tax game show winnings. That's why when they had the Canadian version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire", anyone who might have won the top prize on that (limited run) show would have actually won more than the American, even though (way back then) the Canadian dollar was worth much less (0.66 USD).
   3862. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4279302)
Look, it's clearly not about the risk. As I and others have shown, there are plenty of other ways to make money which carry the same or greater risk of 0 payout and/or risk of losing everything. Only the carried interest and cap gains receive the favorable tax treatment. I agree with the clapper that it's about which behavior we wish to encourage, and which we wish not to, and nothing about risk. Clearly, investing in the stock market has more benefit and probably less risk than investing in the roulette wheel. So if one wants to defend the carried interest exemption, one needs to argue that there is a net benefit for it to be this way.
   3863. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4279303)
I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the Dems will go into full-blown panic mode if Nate substantially downgrades Obama's chances in Ohio, so it's at least curious that Nate seems to be giving the most weight to the oldest and most pro-Obama polls in Ohio and a couple other key states.

Well, there were two Ohio polls released today. Suffolk's shows a dead heat and Quinnipiac's shows Obama ahead by 5. Friday's Ohio poll had Obama ahead by 3. We'll see how Nate deals with that, but IIRC (correct me if I'm wrong), he's discounted Quinnipiac in the past as having a pro-Democratic bias.
   3864. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:58 PM (#4279304)
But whether he "talks" about it as much as you'd like, the nonpartisan discounting of outliers is built right there into his model! And he "talked about it" again yesterday when there was an outlier poll that favored Obama. I'm not really sure what your complaint is.

The first sentence was precisely my complaint last week. Nate talking about outliers is the equivalent of preaching to the choir. His "Gallup vs. the World" article last week seemed like cheerleading more than analysis. There was no reason whatsoever to post that article unless he was trying to reassure Obama supporters.

***
That works fine up here in Canada. We also don't tax game show winnings. That's why when they had the Canadian version of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire", anyone who might have won the top prize on that (limited run) show would have actually won more than the American, even though (way back then) the Canadian dollar was worth much less (0.66 USD).

This seems really strange — taxing work but not "free" money.
   3865. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4279305)
The current odds of winning the PowerBall are 1 in 175,223,510.00. The odds of winning any prize when buying a $2 PowerBall ticket are 1 in 32. Is it your belief that start-ups have worse odds than that?

No, it's my belief that spending one minute to buy a $1 lottery ticket isn't even on the same continuum as spending five years building a company.
   3866. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:01 PM (#4279308)
No, it's my belief that spending one minute to buy a $1 lottery ticket isn't even on the same continuum as spending five years building a company.


How about spending 1 hour to buy $10,000 in lottery tickets vs spending 1 hour to buy $10,000 in AAPL options?
   3867. Danny Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:02 PM (#4279311)
This is undoubtedly true in the general sense, but if it's true that Nate's projections are seen on the left as something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, then this would be the time that Nate would be the most susceptible to allowing his bias to creep in. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say the Dems will go into full-blown panic mode if Nate substantially downgrades Obama's chances in Ohio, so it's at least curious that Nate seems to be giving the most weight to the oldest and most pro-Obama polls in Ohio and a couple other key states.

Yeah, it's so bizarre that Nate has Obama winning Ohio by 2 points. I mean, that's just totally out of line with the RCP average, which has Obama ahead by 1.9 points.

And it's just super suspect that Nate has the polling average in Ohio as Obama +3.0 and the adjusted polling average as Obama +1.8. I mean, it's like totally obvious that he's cooking the books to help the Democrat Party, amirite?
   3868. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:06 PM (#4279315)
It's like watching a train wreck that keeps going and going.


It sounds like quite a show.


The saying "It's like a train wreck" must be pretty old, because I've got much better entertainment options now. I don't think a train wreck would hold my interest for more than five minutes.

Also, I guess it dates from a time when everyone know what it was like to watch a train wreck?
   3869. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4279316)
I'm assuming that once again JoeK is having trouble understanding any poll that doesn't reveal Romney to be the overwhelming favorite. Can we all just assume that everybody else understands the point and the troll never will and simply move on?
   3870. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:11 PM (#4279317)
Also, I guess it dates from a time when everyone know what it was like to watch a train wreck?

I saw a train wreck about 15 years ago or so on the side of the Hudson River in Hyde Park. About 10 to 20 cars fell into the river in the early morning hours.
   3871. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4279320)
I've never seen a train wreck in person, but the chain reaction is grimly fascinating.

You saw it live, McCoy?
   3872. JL Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4279324)
No, it's my belief that spending one minute to buy a $1 lottery ticket isn't even on the same continuum as spending five years building a company.

So it is not about risk, it is about effort? Is that your position now?
   3873. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4279325)
The reason these questions have popped up is because Nate has been open and transparent with his work. All of these "shocking finds" have been out there for all to see since day one.

And now his open, transparent and successful methodology is being attacked. Attacked, I tell you. See, this is EXACTLY why Romney won't release his tax returns!
   3874. BurlyBuehrle Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:23 PM (#4279328)
I saw a train wreck about 15 years ago or so on the side of the Hudson River in Hyde Park. About 10 to 20 cars fell into the river in the early morning hours.


But how long did you watch it? Did you try to argue with it? <snicker>
   3875. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:24 PM (#4279330)
How about spending 1 hour to buy $10,000 in lottery tickets vs spending 1 hour to buy $10,000 in AAPL options?

How does buying lottery tickets benefit society in a way that's remotely comparable to investing in a business?

***
Yeah, it's so bizarre that Nate has Obama winning Ohio by 2 points. I mean, that's just totally out of line with the RCP average, which has Obama ahead by 1.9 points.

And it's just super suspect that Nate has the polling average in Ohio as Obama +3.0 and the adjusted polling average as Obama +1.8. I mean, it's like totally obvious that he's cooking the books to help the Democrat Party, amirite?

Thank god this place has non-snarky liberals to elevate the dialogue.

Cutting through the snark, yes, it's still interesting that Nate has Obama winning Ohio since Ohio tends to go +2.0 for the GOP candidate relative to the national polls.
   3876. rr Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4279332)
There was no reason whatsoever to post that article unless he was trying to reassure Obama supporters.



All he said was that outlier polls should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, that Gallup has been wrong a lot lately when they have had outliers, (he gave examples) but that Gallup is still very much worth looking at and should be "5 to 10 percent" of what a poll analyst looks at in a given day.

And of course the bias thing cuts both ways, as it always does. Silver is:

a) A liberal
b) a very high profile polling analyst
c) a guy who works for the NYT
d) a guy who was on Jon Stewart last week plugging his new book
e) a guy whose projection of the 2008 race was excellent

And he is saying that Obama is still probably going to win.

So, obviously people in the GOP are going to really, really want to believe that he is wrong, and lo and behold, here comes the National Review, finding flaws in his model. And there probably are, and he is probably aware of them. You of course have been questioning Silver day after day for weeks.

But as has been pointed out to you several times, beyond all partisanship issues, Silver's rep is based on getting it right, and the worst possible outcome from his POV would be predicting an Obama win and being wrong, since that would make it look to many like his biases messed up his model and few things would be a bigger hit on his credibility than that would. It may happen that way, but allowing his personal biases to tilt the scales of his predictions to Obama is completely against Silver's professional interests.
   3877. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4279334)
So it is not about risk, it is about effort? Is that your position now?

Is it your position that spending one minute to buy a $1 lottery ticket is somehow on the same continuum with spending years of one's life and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to start a business?
   3878. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4279335)
You saw it live, McCoy?

It was before sunrise and it was on the other side of the river so I heard it but didn't see it. When the sun came up you could see about 10 to 20 rail cars in the river. I think they stayed in there for a few days.
   3879. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4279338)
But as has been pointed out to you several times, beyond all partisnahsip issues, Silver's rep is based on getting it right, and the worst possible outcome from his POV would be predicting an Obama win and being wrong,

I never suggested that Nate was crazy enough to predict an Obama win on Nov. 5 despite the numbers showing a likely Obama loss. The issue is whether his model is moving quickly enough toward Romney or perhaps allowing bias to creep in to prevent widespread panic.

In any event, nobody's talking about a grassy-knoll-type conspiracy here; National Review simply asked why Nate is giving the most weight to the oldest and most pro-Obama polls.
   3880. Danny Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4279346)
Thank god this place has non-snarky liberals to elevate the dialogue.

There is no dialogue. You just regurgitate the same senseless and baseless criticism of Silver every day.
Cutting through the snark, yes, it's still interesting that Nate has Obama winning Ohio since Ohio tends to go +2.0 for the GOP candidate relative to the national polls.

There's absolutely nothing at all "interesting" or "fishy" about projecting Obama to narrowly win a state where he leads in the polls. Do you find the RCP polling average in Ohio--which, again, is the exact same 2 point advantage 538 gives him--to be a product of bias?

I know most people here don't venture over to National Review, but this article raises some interesting questions:

That National Review article was full of nonsense and misunderstandings:

The difference comes from the fact that Real Clear Politics gives equal weight to all of the polls it includes and uses only the most recent polls from each polling organization in a given timeframe.

The difference is also that RCP ignores the Ipsos/Reuters and RAND tracking polls.
The most current Public Policy Polling survey, released Saturday, has Obama up only one point, 49–48. That poll is given a weighting under Silver’s model of .95201. The PPP poll taken last weekend had Obama up five, 51–46. This poll is a week older but has a weighting of 1.15569.

This isn't true.
The NBC/Marist Ohio poll conducted twelve days ago has a higher weighting attached to it (1.31395) than eight of the nine polls taken since.

Because the sample size of that poll is larger, and Marist is one of the more reliable pollsters. Does he actually disagree with these factors affecting the weight given to the poll? Or does he only take issue with the weight because it was a good poll for Obama?
He means that PPP’s polling results have tended to favor Obama less than they used to, and thus that the “house effect” of their democratic tilt has lessened. But this subjective measure fails to take into account the possibility that Romney is doing better among the same samples.

No, he means that PPP's more recent polls are not as favorable to Obama *relative to other pollsters* as they were earlier in the cycle. There is nothing subjective about this, and it has nothing to do with Romney doing better in the polls in an absolute sense.
I am not a fan of unskewedpolls.com by any means

OK, great, he's reasonable.
In that same post, Silver touts that a “SurveyUSA poll showing Mr. Obama with a one-point lead in Florida is really the slightly better result for him.” That SurveyUSA poll indeed had Obama up by one point, but had a Democratic party-ID advantage of nine points. In 2008 Democrats had a three-point advantage, and in 2010 the parties were even. So the SurveyUSA poll is good news only if you believe Democrats will not only improve on their 2008 turnout, but triple their turnout advantage over Republicans.

Oh, I see, he's "unskewing" the polls.
This is also true of Silver’s dismissal of Romney’s lead in Gallup this week. While Romney is likely not up by seven points nationally, as the poll predicted, you can’t dismiss it while at the same time giving a twelve-day-old Marist/NBC Ohio poll a higher weighting than eight newer polls when Marist has leaned Obama this entire cycle.

Back in reality, Silver's model still gives Gallup the exact same weight it did before it swung so heavily toward Romney.

This entire column can be boiled down to: "I haven't studied any of this, but I know Silver is doing it wrong because his analysis is not as favorable to Romney as I think it should be."
   3881. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4279347)
How about spending 1 hour to buy $10,000 in lottery tickets vs spending 1 hour to buy $10,000 in AAPL options?

How does buying lottery tickets benefit society in a way that's remotely comparable to investing in a business?


Well, the $10,000 in lottery tickets goes towards government programs in Canada (hospitals, for example).
Buying 10,000 in AAPL stock does nothing for society. Even when that stock is sold, how much of that money actually goes towards helping society?
And by society, I don't mean stockbrokers.
   3882. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4279349)
And by society, I don't mean stockbrokers.


Do you mean people in tuxedos and ball gowns? Like, high society? Because that money could go to hiring a band for the fall cotillion.
   3883. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:40 PM (#4279350)
This seems really strange — taxing work but not "free" money.


It's only "free" money for a moment. When it starts earning interest, then the interest becomes taxable.
Or, when someone spends it, the HST kicks in.
Or if you buy a house, then your property taxes kick in.

It's a rare event that a lottery winner just hangs on to every penny of the money.
   3884. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:41 PM (#4279352)
There's absolutely nothing at all "interesting" or "fishy" about projecting Obama to narrowly win a state where he leads in the polls. Do you find the RCP polling average in Ohio--which, again, is the exact same 2 point advantage 538 gives him--to be a product of bias?

I thought one of the major purposes of Nate's model was to regress to the historical mean? If not, how is Nate's model any better than the RCP average?

The difference is also that RCP ignores the Ipsos/Reuters and RAND tracking polls.

One of which didn't exist four months ago.

This entire column can be boiled down to: "I haven't studied any of this, but I know Silver is doing it wrong because his analysis is not as favorable to Romney as I think it should be."

Yeah, only a dumb "poll truther" would be stupid enough to suggest that polls showing a Dem +9 or Dem+11 advantage might be problematic.
   3885. Random Transaction Generator Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4279355)
Do you mean people in tuxedos and ball gowns? Like, high society? Because that money could go to hiring a band for the fall cotillion.


Up in Canada, the tuxedo tax and the soirée tax will get you.
   3886. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:42 PM (#4279356)
It's a rare event that a lottery winner just hangs on to every penny of the money.

What's this? A liberal giving examples of trickle-down economics?
   3887. JL Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:43 PM (#4279357)
Is it your position that spending one minute to buy a $1 lottery ticket is somehow on the same continuum with spending years of one's life and tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to start a business?

Not at all. But the discussion originally was about risk. Specifically that capital gains should be taxed less due to risk.

Now, you have switched your position and saying it is about effort (or at least that appears to be what you are saying). So is it now about effort, as opposed to the risk one undertakes? Is that now your position?
   3888. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4279358)
Do you mean people in tuxedos and ball gowns? Like, high society? Because that money could go to hiring a band for the fall cotillion.

Sadly debutante balls are dying out. The number of debs attending the one that is hosted at my place dwindles further every year. I don't know if they'll be holding one this year. It costs something like 30,000 to have your little girl become a debutante.
   3889. McCoy Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4279359)
Is that now your position?

Is this a serious question or simply rhetorical?
   3890. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4279360)
Now, you have switched your position and saying it is about effort (or at least that appears to be what you are saying). So is it now about effort, as opposed to the risk one undertakes? Is that now your position?

I haven't switched my position at all. Uncompensated effort is a major form of risk. It's absurd that this even needs to be explained.
   3891. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:46 PM (#4279361)
I always wondered why credit cards charge you a fee you use their cards as well as charging the owner of the shop a few to use their cards at the shop? Seems like a hell of a racket.
   3892. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:49 PM (#4279362)
So it is not about risk, it is about effort? Is that your position now?


Give up you now while you still have a sense of honor, you are trying to nail both jello and wet spaghetti to a wall...
   3893. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4279363)
I always wondered why credit cards charge you a fee you use their cards as well as charging the owner of the shop a few to use their cards at the shop? Seems like a hell of a racket.
You just answered your own question.
   3894. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4279365)
I haven't switched my position at all. Uncompensated effort is a major form of risk. It's absurd that this even needs to be explained.


but why don't Real Estate Agents and full commission sales reps- who run the risk of uncompensated effort, enjoy the same tax relief that fund managers do?

(yes I'm ignoring my own advice)
   3895. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4279366)
but why don't Real Estate Agents and full commission sales reps- who run the risk of uncompensated effort, enjoy the same tax relief that fund managers do?

Do they have invested money at risk?
   3896. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 06:55 PM (#4279367)
I always wondered why credit cards charge you a fee you use their cards as well as charging the owner of the shop a few to use their cards at the shop? Seems like a hell of a racket.
You just answered your own question.


actually credit card companies do sometime compete- some (like Discover, some JPMC cards) will try to entice borrowers by kicking back to borrowers some of the fees charged to retailers

on the other end, some card companies will try to entice retailers to accept their cards by lowering the fees charged to retailers... (less likely now that the credit provider clearinghouses are so well established)
   3897. Howie Menckel Posted: October 22, 2012 at 07:12 PM (#4279375)
walk me through the Obama/Libya thing:

- when do we believe Obama knew
- when do we believe he told us it was terrorism
- does that contradict having Susan Rice on the talk shows almost a week later pitching the video angle
- in last week's debate, when did Obama say he told us it was terror/act of terrorism - and if the day after, I'm stuck in the Susan Rice loop again

I feel like I'm in a cornfield maze. What's the path out of here?

Thanks, I'll hang up and wait for your response.

   3898. Spahn Insane Posted: October 22, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4279376)
This seems really strange — taxing work but not "free" money.

I've been saying this in response to opponents of estate taxes for years. (And I don't buy the "double taxation" canard; just because the person who's getting the inheritance is a family member or designated beneficiary doesn't make the inheritance anything other than "income" [taxed only once, at the time of inheritance] from that person's perspective.)
   3899. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: October 22, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4279377)
Do they have invested money at risk?


No, but then neither do the fund managers benefiting from the carried interest rule.
   3900. Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 22, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4279378)
I've been saying this in response to opponents of estate taxes for years. (And I don't buy the "double taxation" canard; just because the person who's getting the inheritance is a family member or designated beneficiary doesn't make the inheritance anything other than "income" from that person's perspective.)

I'm in favor of very high estate taxes, so you'll get no argument from me on that.
Page 39 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(115 - 2:49am, Oct 22)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogMike Scioscia, Matt Williams voted top managers
(22 - 2:21am, Oct 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(57 - 2:07am, Oct 22)
Last: PreservedFish

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(602 - 2:01am, Oct 22)
Last: Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes

NewsblogAs Focus Faded and Losses Piled Up, Royals Change Their Game
(7 - 1:16am, Oct 22)
Last: boteman

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(40 - 1:00am, Oct 22)
Last: Roger Freed Is Ready

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(19 - 12:52am, Oct 22)
Last: Mike Emeigh

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(316 - 12:38am, Oct 22)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2898 - 11:11pm, Oct 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogDombrowski told that Iglesias 'will be fine' for 2015
(21 - 10:22pm, Oct 21)
Last: fra paolo

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(852 - 8:40pm, Oct 21)
Last: Biff, highly-regarded young guy

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(10 - 8:02pm, Oct 21)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(107 - 7:04pm, Oct 21)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(10 - 6:00pm, Oct 21)
Last: Perry

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(58 - 5:44pm, Oct 21)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

Page rendered in 0.9486 seconds
52 querie(s) executed