Reply With Quote
again . . .
your claim, your burden. I'm not surprised you failed at delivery.I'm sure I could find the info if I wanted, but I don't feel like it.
again . . .
maybe I don't give a if someone who acts constantly drunk wants me to prove anything.
Roubini in FT: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f45b...#axzz2GtJIbgIy
WH, I tried to read the article, but the link immediately requires a sign-in to the Financial Times website, which I am unwilling to do (I don't want the associated cookies). I wondered if you could give us a mini-account of the gist of the article. The le itself seems self-evident (of course the leaders of this country have let us down), and I am aware that Roubini is generally pessimistic (to put it mildly) about the financial future, but I would actually like to know which things he had in mind when he wrote that le. Can you help?
Are you ing re ed? You stated "another crappy metaphor" and "whatever that means"
I was showing you that the "crappy metaphor" is proper for most people. Of course when you thought I pulled it out of my ass you were all over it.
The satire was in that it's not even close to be solved. It's like saying "David Ash is in a QB, everyone can relax now, he's got this".
If you cannot come to grips with the fact you've gone down the wrong road, you won't ask for directions and you refuse to turn around, then you can stay lost. Take pictures.
What part of Missouri?
accessible to me through the Real Clear Markets website: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/
the gist is, our political leaders on both sides are too gutless to reform en lements or raise taxes on the middle class. the recently concluded mini deal threatens to drag the economy to stall speed in the short term, while extending unsustainable tax cuts and fiscal deficits in the near to medium term.
my bad, DMC. the frames (e.g., sarcasm/satire) can be hard to perceive online, especially when not funny or particularly apt.
I registered with these guys about 6 months ago. I've yet to receive one single related piece of email or adverts. Seems like they hold their data close.
I have a separate email account for that sort of stuff. I had to create it to get into yahoo fantasy football leagues so I figured I might as well use it. It is extremely rare that I go over there and actually look at the email but when I do... well... you should see how small they think my (ahem) endowment is.
Yeah, me too. I use: [email protected]
Eh, I learned how to drink when I was younger, plus I chew ice, so straws are a detriment to both of those activities.
Edit: so as it turns out I am not very good at cross-threadular conversation, even when I am the subject.
Last edited by Drachen; 01-03-2013 at 03:56 PM.
Well, hard to argue with it, isn't it? I am becoming inured to the embarrassment of being governed by these jerks.
^^^^^But I will tell you, WH,your input before the last election about insisting on voting third party made me think long and hard....so I wasted my vote on the libertarian ticket. Not that I believe in the Libertarian philosophy about a lot of things, but then I don't believe totally in the platforms of either of the other parties, either. At least I don't mind the libertarian's social values!
Who do you think Roubini voted for? (Can he vote in American elections?)
It was a stretch, admittedly.
+10 Clarity for "Threadular"!
Hey, my vocabulary is just like Apple's slogan. "It just works".It was a stretch, admittedly.
+10 Clarity for "Threadular"!
Corporate owned farms provide by the vast majority of food already. I doubt it does much.
Except to the families that I like shopping for my natural foods from.
an economy that's producing some of the highest levels of inequality to be seen in 75 years, and essentially this estate tax deal that was just approved by the Senate and the House and signed by Obama raised the rate of exemption on the estate tax from what would have been from $1 million to $5 million. And if you're married, that's essentially $10 million. That's of relevance only to the top 0.1 percent of the wealth distribution in this country. They also have established a permanent—so-called permanent tax rate on estates at 40 percent, which, if you go back historically, it was 60 percent in 2000, it was 70 to 75 percent in the 1930s.
changes that were made by the Bush administration and then extended by Obama basically have almost made the estate tax go away. I mean, in 2011, the estates tax at the federal level generated a grand total of about $10.6 billion, which is a pittance.
at the top, a group of dynasties that essentially have ac ulated enough wealth and influence at the same time being able to have, essentially, enough tax avoidance so that they are effectively able to get representation without taxation. And that's a system that I think undermines democracy.
we did a story when the Wisconsin protests were on—and we'll link to it; we'll put it below this video player—but we looked at just the billionaires of Wisconsin, and if you just went back to the year 2000 level estate taxes, and if those estates were to pay those taxes, you could pay off the entire debt of Wisconsin.
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13716...state-tax-deal
"Historically, every time we had a recovery, it was after they ended the unemployment extensions."
We're not in historical Kansas anymore, Toto.
Since September, America Has Lost One Government Job For Every Five Private Sector Jobs Created
But here’s a statistic that jumped out at me: 89,000 public sector workers lost their jobs in October, November, and December—with most of those losses, 66,000, occurring in October.
Large-scale layoffs of government workers continue across the United States. Such layoffs undermine local economies and stymie the recovery. For every five workers who were hired in the past three months, one was laid off by government.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...-jobs-created/
and
Part of the above is inaccurate, b-d. The recent deal did NOT increase the level of exemption for estates. It had been at 5M for individuals and 10M for couples since some time during the last Bush administration. There was some TALK of taking it BACK to the levels it was before Clinton, when it was at 1M, and there was also talk of it going to 3.5M for individuals and a 45% to 50% tax rate above that.
So the only thing that happened with the estate tax as a result of this fiscal cliff thing was that the rate over 5M for an individual or 10M for a couple went from 35% to 40% on everything over the exempted portion.
Nothing else about it changed. If you want to look at is as a glass half-full (from your perspective), the rate went up on the non-exempt portion.
If you want to look at it from a glass half-empty (from your perspective), the exemption amount was left UNCHANGED from existing levels.
" Put in perspective a 500 acre farm in Iowa is worth 5 million just for the land. Tax that at 55% and you kill it."
If the inheritors really want to keep farming, they finance the tax bill and keeping farming.
But an inheriting couple gets the first $10M exempt from estate tax, so no problem.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
