Rare and used on the Sunday OPEN thread
“When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn’t work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.”
Emo Philips
Y’all make sure to read Mark Jurkevich’s next post, “Hilarity ensues at the absinthe bar in Bohemia,” which will be up bright and early Monday morning on this blog.
September 30, 2012 - 9:00 AM
The following data may come as a supp rise to some.
http://tinyurl.com/9j4p2es
**
Bike crashes in Hampton Roads: Who’s to blame?
The map below shows all of the bike crashes according to the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles between January 1, 2008 and July 1, 2012. Type a location into the address bar to filter the data. Select a point on the map to get detailed information about the incident.
[map]
By Kathy Adams
The Virginian-Pilot © September 30, 2012
In the turf battle between bicyclists and motorists in South Hampton Roads, each side likes to point fingers at the other when they crash.
Cyclists fault drivers for passing too closely and not respecting their right to use the road. Drivers in turn criticize cyclists for impeding traffic and failing to obey the rules.
State data show they’re almost equally to blame.
Bicyclists and drivers reported collisions to police 774 times in the five cities from 2008 through the first six months of this year, according to a Virginian-Pilot analysis of data provided by the state Department of Motor Vehicles. Police issued a summons in fewer than a third of those crashes – 180.
About 58 percent of those tickets went to drivers, according to the data. Cyclists received the rest.
Bruce Drees, president of the Tidewater Bicycle Association, said he’s not surprised by the breakdown.
“With most crashes, there are ample opportunities for either the cyclist or the driver or a combination of both to avoid a potential crash,” he said.
“There’s clearly some that the driver was at fault, particularly with ones that they claim they didn’t see the cyclist, they were texting, they were doing something other than looking in front of where their car was going,” he added.
“And there are some that are very clearly on the cyclist’s side, like one where he ran a red light and got hit.”
SNIP
**
Dan,
Had you won this award, I would really applaud you:
http://tinyurl.com/9ox9gpz
.
Someone tell me how to put my own avatar on the blog.
Alfred,
Load an image at gravatar.com
That’s all you have to do. The rest is automatic.
Hum?
Down plays expectations???
http://tinyurl.com/8qggnhr
**
Paul Ryan Downplays Mitt Romney’s Debate Performance, Admits to ‘Missteps’
By Emily Pierce
Roll Call Staff
Sept. 30, 2012, 11:28 a.m
GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan today downplayed expectations for Mitt Romney’s debate performance Wednesday, saying the campaign’s goal is not necessarily to score a decisive rhetorical win but to present Americans with a clear choice between the GOP nominee and President Barack Obama.
“I don’t think one event is going to make or break this campaign,” the Wisconsin lawmaker said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
He noted that Obama is a “a very gifted speaker. The man’s been on the national stage for many years, he’s an experienced debater, he’s done these kinds of debates before. This is Mitt’s first time on this kind of a stage.” Ryan did not acknowledge Romney’s recent experience in the GOP primary debates, which Democrats have argued might give him the upper hand.
SNIP
**
——–
Followed by a stratagem to not look as if studding too hard — so if he doesn’t get an “A” ….
http://tinyurl.com/9sl9bqt
We’ll be watching:
http://tinyurl.com/95tp3eg
**
Big Brother, big dogs are looking at you
By MICHAEL KIRKLAND
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 (UPI) — The 2012 U.S. Supreme Court term erupts on the First Monday in October, and in this first month the justices once again look at the intimate relationship between powerful authority and private citizens, and how intrusive that authority can become to protect the nation’s interests.
SNIP
… but in October the justices are scheduled to grapple with several cases involving surveillance.
On Oct. 29, the justices are set to hear argument in a case central to the law that allows spying on citizens in the United States without a warrant in the name of counter-terrorism just as a partisan Congress decides whether to renew the law.
SNIP
On Oct. 31, the justices are set to hear argument in two Florida cases involving police use of dogs.
The cases weigh the security of Americans in their homes and vehicles against how far police can go when using dogs to determine the presence of drugs or other contraband.
SNIP
**
Ryan & Romney don’t want to explain their tax plan. I don’t believe it’s because it would take too long. How about you fellow Bloggers??
http://www.centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA1K5O6G1%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1017
The White House has already started the “downplaying expectations” game.
DNC says Romney will win debate
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/democratic_national_committee_predicts_evR1gr8P6vBzgkMxDxvx7N
Democrat-controlled newspaper The LA Times is already making excuses for Obama. He’s busy.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/09/27/L-A-Times-Lays-Groundwork-to-Explain-Poor-Obama-Debate-Performance
For all my Hokie friends. Congrats on blowing another one. When you find an offense, let me know. Maybe then I’ll bother to watch another Hokie game on the tube.
“Ryan & Romney don’t want to explain their tax plan. I don’t believe it’s because it would take too long. How about you fellow Bloggers??”
Ron, that’s what Paul Ryan’s explanation is. The truth is, Bill Clinton already explained it at the Democratic National Convention.
Ryan’s statement can be seen in two ways:
1. The American people are too stupid to understand it.
2. If they explain it, they know it’ll cost them votes.
Either way, it’s bad — and his remark is yet another bizarre gaffe.
Yes, #8..he is `way too busy`…As the White House stated..“ obama will have less time than we anticipated to sharpen and cut down his tendency to give long, sustanitive answers.“….And the FINAL COLLAPSE begins.
Dave
Virginia Tech already has enough fair-weather fans. The bandwagon is leaving. Either get on or get off.
I hope Ron May’s school doesn’t serve ‘gateway falafel’!
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/09/28/bachmann-we-ban-falafel-school-lunches/
Obama can now claim net job creation:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/27/news/economy/obama-job-creation/index.html
R.I.P. Dorothy Gillespie
Thank you for enriching our lives.
Obama notes:
Obama administration continues lie regarding Ambassador’s murder by terrorists.
1 million obamaphones now in use in Ohio (double last year’s numbers)
A couple of new obamataxes for 2013: “special needs kids tax” 13 billion increase. “obamacare medical device tax” 20 billion.
Does anyone wonder why obama insists on taking money from people who need medical devices, and those with special needs kids; to give away cell phones?
Let’s summarize…; we can get obamaphones, obamacare, obamafood and obamahousing. Heck, if he throws in an obamacar and obamacable we can all quit working; eat, drink, watch TV and talk to each other on the phone…
Then we can use the money we get from obamaunemployment, and/or obamaSSdisability to invest for our “retirement”. (retirement = that time in our life when we have worked and saved enough to pay for food, housing, cell phones, transportation, entertainment etc…)
What’s not to like???
Although in fairness, I think there should be, made available, at least one week per year obamavacation, where every citizen, and their family, gets a “free” trip to Hawaii (it would be really good for the State’s income).
Dan,
Re 1:10 pm
Do you think that obamavoter in the utube (obamaphone) clip would understand their tax plan? How about those interviewed by Howard Stern?
My guess in NO…. Feel free to disagree…
An interesting opinion piece in today’s NY Times. The author is a conservative Republican.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/why-obamacare-is-a-conservatives-dream.html?hp&_r=0
Imbedded within the piece is the 2001 plan for health care reform proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Reading it reminds me a lot of what some call Obamacare today. Funny what was originally their idea is so hated today.
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ344/otto/documents/HeritageBackgroundhealth.pdf
Mitt is now downplaying his income tax plan, “He will cut rates, but don’t expect any decrease in taxes because he will do away with deductions, exemptions, and tax credits”. He wants his changes to be net revenue neutral. In other words no tax reduction, just a shift in who pays taxes.
For instance, a family with three children gets five exemptions of $3,700 a piece (for 2011) which may save the family at 10% tax rate – $1,850. Or it may be a change in mortgage interest deductions. Mitt says the high rates hurt the economy and by lowering rates, it will help create jobs.
My first question is, does he think businessmen are stupid? We look at the net tax, not the tax rates. So if the net tax amount will not change, it makes no difference as far as tax planning. As far as businesses go, our taxes are based on deductions for operating expenses. We deduct the costs of operating the business from our gross income. Don’t get me wrong, there are exceptions and classifications, and carrying interest, and meals and entertainment, and depreciation, etc., but in general that’s how businesses pay taxes.
So what is Mitt’s point? The point is it does make a difference as to who is paying the taxes. The deductions, credits, exemptions and how they are taxed have been put into the tax law as an incentive for business and individuals to take certain actions. Mortgage interest as an encouragement to buy a home, the earned income credit as an incentive to earn income (work); fast write-off of depreciation to encourage businesses to buy equipment, capital gains treatment to encourage people to invest. Carrying interest rules to, well they are there to give a tax break to wealthy hedge fund managers because they have bought Congress.
Higher tax rates also provide incentive to invest. They encourage people to use deductions, exemptions, credits to lower their taxes by doing the things Congress wants them to do. The higher the tax rate avoided by investing, the more incentive to invest.
Lowering the tax rates and removing incentives is simply the opposite of what needs to be done. If I have a million dollars in dividend stocks earning me 5% or $50,000, I can pay $7500 in federal tax with a low risk to my investments. If I had to pay 50% of the dividends in taxes ($25,000) I would be tempted to look at an investment that has higher risk that would earn me higher dividends to offset the additional taxes. Or even more to the point, if I invest my million in a new business and it goes broke, at a 15% tax rate, I lose 1 million less the $150,000 in tax savings from the losses for a net real loss of $850,000. But if tax rates are 50%, my real loss is only $500,000. The higher tax rates encourage me to take a higher risk than lower tax rates.
Cutting the tax rate and simplifying the tax code by eliminating deductions may sound like a good idea, but in reality, the tax code is complex for a reason – it encourages growth in our economy. Higher tax rates and more deductions in the areas where Congress wants growth will do more to encourage growth. Taxes are already simple for most salaried people, the government withholds from your paycheck and gives you a standard deduction. You have a simple tax return, a simple tax rate, take advantage of no incentives. But, if you want a house, the government will give you a tax break to buy one. If you want children, the government gives yo a tax break to have them and not abort. If you want to run a business, the government gives you a tax incentive to buy a new piece of equipment this year vs next in order to save taxes. The higher hte tax rate, the greater the incentive works.
Raising the tax rates and providing specific deductions will do more to motivate taxpayers to take business risks than Mitt’s plan to lower rates and take away deductions. Both can be net revenue neutral but the higher rates provide a better incentive to take new risks.
#6 Henry, fellow, this is standard procedure. Nothing unusual for both sides to dampen expectations, and almost always done by the side that’s leading. I don’t know about Rmoney, but Bush’s minions did it(and with good reason).
Re: Comment by Henry — September 30, 2012 @ 2:44 pm
Virginia Tech already has enough fair-weather fans. The bandwagon is leaving. Either get on or get off.
———
Once and a while I do agree with you.
Having followed the Hokies since the ’40, I agree that you are right about fair-weather fans.
However, dave is right about the offense — save maybe Thomas and a couple of lesser backs.
How many returning offense starters do we have? Where is a wide-receiving corps? When is the O’line going to develop. I have long questioned the O’ play-calling. But this year that is compounded by a lack of top drawer talent, IMHO.
mike O-
“Do you think that obamavoter in the utube (obamaphone) clip would understand their tax plan? How about those interviewed by Howard Stern?
My guess in NO…. Feel free to disagree…”
Do you really take that Howard Stern thing seriously? Do you honestly believe that it would be difficult to find lots of idiot Republicans/Romney supporters? Come on, you’ve got plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose Obama, you don’t need to stoop to this crap.
So, both sides of the church / state debate, what do you think of this:
http://tinyurl.com/8mtzc2a
**
Record number of justices attends Red Mass
By Dan Merica, CNN
updated 4:38 PM EDT, Sun September 30, 2012
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
o Six members of Supreme Court attend annual D.C. event
o Sotomayor and Alito, both Catholic, do not attend
o Jewish Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg never attends anymore
o Critics say event mingles church and state too much
SNIP
**
Jason,
You are correct, pleanty of legitimate opportunities; however, sometimes things drop in one’s lap…
Richard the CPA…
Re: “does he think businessmen are stupid?”
You libs have spent so much time bashing Romney for his business acumen, now you ask this question?… lol…
They want to make the code fairer and flatter… then we won’t need people like you.
I am sure that hurts your business… sorry for you good for us…
Contra,
Last time I checked it was not on the menu.
However, I have it myself at other places and it is good. It hasn’t led me to convert to Islam yet.
18. Mike O – The medical device tax was added because the industry will make a lot more money now that there will be millions more with medical insurance. The government is asking them to give a little back to help pay for all the new coverage.
The “special needs tax” simply isn’t. ACA merely limits the total flexible spending account to $2,500 per year rather than an unlimited amount. Some parents were paying for school tuition for their children with special needs through their FSA accounts. This would include those whose kids have ADHD or similar diagnosis paying upwards of $80,000 a year for private school. This limits the tax free to $2,500 and lets the remaining amount be deducted as a medical expense. It is not an additional tax, just a limit on how much the parents can take tax free off the top. You should also note that children with special needs are entitled to a free public education at public schools. It is only those parents that believe the public education is not sufficient and cannot prove such to the public school system that are subject to this ruling. In other words, if the child truly needs separate schooling, we all pay for it with our taxes. If they do not but the parents believe otherwise, the parents now can deduct up to $2,500 bit other wise they have to treat it like any other medical expense.
An outsider’s look at our election:
http://tinyurl.com/958qw5g
**
Five things you need to know about the US election
By Tom Geoghegan BBC News Magazine
SNIP
1. There’s one big issue
SNIP
2. Only a few states matter
SNIP
3. The electorate is changing
SNIP
4. It’s not just about the US
SNIP
5. Whoever wins, expect more gridlock
SNIP
**
What do you think — particularly about point #5?
Jason, judging by this blog alone, it would be nearly impossible not to.
“You libs have spent so much time bashing Romney for his business acumen, now you ask this question?… lol…
They want to make the code fairer and flatter… then we won’t need people like you.
I am sure that hurts your business… sorry for you good for us…”
mike O
What’s silly is calling Romney “a businessman.” Mitt Romney didn’t operate a shoeshine stand or a restaurant, or a plumbing company. He was in the business-plundering business.
Do you call wolves “sheep” just because wolves eat them?
25. Mike O – Fairer and flatter? Those are mutually exclusive ideas. As a professional,I worry about tax laws that take advantage of the simple minded.
You can thank me later.
If this isn’t a joke, she is one freaking loon!
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/09/28/bachmann-we-ban-falafel-school-lunches/
Mike O.
You have to understand liberals like Dan HATE capitalism and those who practice it. He HATES that Romney was highly successful saving companies and making them profitable. He much prefers a president who has never worked a day in his life or done anything productive for anyone at any time.
Mitt says this lady considers herself a victim. She’s one of the 47%. I dont’ agree.
http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/sbt-redtape-victim-fights-back-20120929,0,3737967.story
In Mitt’s world only those who can afford it can have free speech.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/mitt-romney-free-speech-billionaires-not-school-teachers
Folks, the Daily Currant is a satire site. Bachmann is a dolt, but this one doesn’t appear to be real. However, some folks DO think it’s real because it’s so close to some of the brainless idiocy she’s spread in the past.
Right wingers are so desperate they’ve now taken to insulting law-abiding citizens. Sad.
Debbie@8:57
There has never been any question that Bachmann is loony. When she proposed that the MSM do an in depth investigation of Congressmen to determine which ones hold ant-American views she sealed that verdict on herself. Along with Alan West who claioms that there are at least 80 card carrying communists in the House of Representatives.These are the champions of the Tea Party Republicans.
I notice 0bama has started leaving off the “pays taxes” off the 47% quote. Now he’s saying Romney won’t work with 47% of the people. I would that omission is tantamount to a gd lie.
33. Suzie, if Romney is such a great businessman, why can’t he run a campaign? Why didn’t Bain suffer when he left? Instead they did better than ever. Certainly, begging the US Government for money to save the Olympics is not conservative, that must have been during his liberal period. You certainly could not consider his time as Governor as the Democrats got what they wanted during that time. Maybe it was while he was on the Board of Marriott Corporation establishing illegal tax shelters and hiring illegals. Mitt is such a great businessman that no one seriously considers any of his ideas as even plausible. Even his own party is running away from him. In fact, you even said he was not your first choice.
Mitt simply is not a viable candidate or businessman.
Republican voter fraud in Florida goes criminal. Where, oh where, is the “liberal” media?
Quote from a 1987 Fortune Magazine article – Bain & Co. gets its hands ”deep in the trousers of client companies,” says an executive who knows it well. Maybe too deep, the Guinness scandal suggests.
#35 I heard about this a few days ago. As the article says, rank hypocrisy. This comment should be blasted over the airwaves.
Flafel is unAmerican. Bachmann will save us.
#36 Thank you, Gdad. I should have checked it out myself. Statements like this, “”It starts with falafel, then the kids move on to shawarma.” I thought it had to be a joke, but given some of the things she has said in the past I wasn’t sure.
Beason@19…your analysis misses on several key points:
1) Businessmen look at taxes as pass throughs…ie…the price of the product or service is adjustable to cover tax increases or tax decreases.
A case can be made that businesses pay no taxes.
2) Our tax code is complicated but not for the reason you state. The tax
code at present is an amalgamation of provisions to dictate how US citizens conduct out lives. This should never be the intent of the tax code; it should exist only to provide revenue necessary to run the government. Intead, what we have is so complicated the average citizen cannot prepare their own taxes but must find someone else to do so, at high rates. The route of the IRS to assist is blocked by the utter ineptness of the IRS as a bureauracy and the simple fact even they can’t hire anyone who really can understand the mess that has been made.
3) You insinuate that higher tax rates result in investors accepting higher risk investments to offset the high rates. This is simply not
true. Historically, we see investors simply pull out of investing to preserve principle. Alternatively, lower tax rates do stimulate investments including higher risk ones…in effect…the lower rates generate more, not less, tax revenue because there is more investment
and therefore more money being paid and more tax being paid also. To assume those on fixed income will move to higher risk investments when
face with higher tax rates is ridiculous.
Again, you demonstrate your CPA stands for Confused, Addled and Perplexed.
Beason@40
1) Be advised, running a campaign is not like running a business. R has
a tremendous historical record as a businessman, certainly outshines your
meager efforts. As to the campaign…we will, and are, seeing.
2) What, if any, business experience would you credit Odiot with…or is
his unique ability to engage in corruption and cronyism that appeals?
3) For conservatives R is not quite as conservative, particularly on social issues, as would be desired. On the other hand…Democrats, Christians, Jews and the black population are seeing through Odiot and he
will not carry as much of these segments vote on November 6 which will define him as exactly what he is; a LOSER.
Don’t fret, Debbie. The GOP these days reads like The Onion. Nothing’s too nutty for Bachman. I’m sure she hasn’t started an anti-falafel campaign simply because she hasn’t heard of it.
And again, there is nothing in running Bain Capital that qualifies Romney to run this country. He’s the corporate version of the embalmer who steals the gold teeth from his clients then buried the evidence.
But I see on RCP that Obama is still leading and his domination in the EC is insurmountable. So it seems the country has Romney figured out.
#45 “…but given some of the things she has said in the past I wasn’t sure.”
Exactly why it was effective satire.
#39 “I would that omission is tantamount to a gd lie.”
Speaking of omissions. Anyway, I’m not sure why you’re accusing ME of lying in this one. Except that you keep falsely claiming that I always lie.
#47 In a recent survey economists agreed that Romney understands business better than Obama, but they also agreed that Romney apparently hasn’t the slightest idea how to govern.
46. Leon, again you demonstrate you can recite GOP BS but really have no clue. Businesses do indeed pay taxes and can pass through costs (any costs) only to the extent competition allows. taxes are a part of every capital decision by an investor or a business.
Secondly, anyone with enough money to be investing uses a CPA to advise them. If you can’t afford one, then you should not be investing and your tax returns are very simple. If you can’t prepare them yourself, you will find that there are many very good preparers out there including CPAs that charge very reasonable fees for the preparation of simple returns.
As for your 3rd item, you are wrong. Investors consider risk and the failure to consider the risk of not investing in every decision. Tax costs are a part of that decision making process.
47. Leon, Obama is a politician by trade. He is a well trained attorney with much experience in leadership. Mitt has about 15 years as a businessman working in private equity. His experience was in leveraged buyouts and bankruptcies and investment banking. That particular experience is not in how to run a business but rather how to manipulate a business to suck out the assets of the business. His experience is in the very Wall Street activities that caused the Great Recession. The last thing we as Nation need is to elect a Wall Streeter whose experience is doing the very thing that destroyed the world economy. Mitt obviously has no ability to manage as evidenced by his ffailure to run his own campaign. That directly corresponds to his ability to run a nation. he simply does not have it.
As for Obama being a loser, perhaps you should check his record. Obama has been a winner beating the odds time after time. His record is amazing and in spite of the unemployment that all have said would be his Waterloo is indeed defeating Mitt.
Suzie, “I would that omission” is actually “tantamount to a gd” truth. Romney said it himself. He said that “47% of the people…And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives“. Those were his words, no one put them in a speech for him, there was no Suziesque gaffe. He said it.
Leon, when Reagan lost the Republican nomination to Gerald Ford, did it “define him as exactly what he is; a LOSER”? Losing an election, if it were to happen, does not “define” anyone. Certainly winning an election has yet to have Romney “defined” as a “winner”. Neither will this one.
I’d love to see Rmoney try to run the nation like a “business”. First thing we can gut and then fire the useless, federal tax dollar sucking red states.
53.47. Leon, Obama is a politician by trade. He is a well trained attorney with much experience in leadership.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — October 1, 2012 @ 10:38 am
WOW Richard…now I get it! CPA for you stands for Comedian; Pretend Accountant. Only you could equate Obama with leadership. LOL!
Good joke; just like the rest of the financial/CPA advice you try to throw out and then lend some kind of credibility to same by utilization of the CPA moniker. You might want to revisit Ethics class on such usage.
Secondly, anyone with enough money to be investing uses a CPA to advise them. If you can’t afford one, then you should not be investing and your tax returns are very simple. If you can’t prepare them yourself, you will find that there are many very good preparers out there including CPAs that charge very reasonable fees for the preparation of simple returns.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — October 1, 2012 @ 10:30 am
Your premise is false. You forget the old adage “Never, ever let your CPA
run your business”. True when coined and true now.
You also miss the point. The purpose of the tax code is to collect revenue to operate the government. However, this purpose has been misconstrued over a long period of time. Now we have a tax code which
also attempts to implement social direction; to get us to conduct our affairs in a manner acceptable to the government. This is wrong.
I am a proponent of Fair Tax; a system so simple that anyone can prepare and file their own tax return. Such returns would also be easy to process, check and verify such that the bureacracy that is the IRS could be virtually eliminated. Think of the boost to the economy from the savings; at a minimum it’s $5.0 billion a year as this is how much the IRS
pays out in fraudulent refunds each year!
Now this will put a certain sector of private industry, tax preparers and tax attorneys, out of business. This contributes another boost to the economy as these players are leeches on the business and personal sector.
CPA’s who would balk over such change are, at worst, not deserving of the certification or, at best, poor representatives of the profession. You see, Richard, there are those of us that do realize that the title CPA confers no knowledge of the tax code or ability to prepare tax returns as
CPA relates to the attest function. Further, being a CPA represents a fiduciary responsibility to serve the public. Those of us who understand such are smart enough to find something else to do if the tax code is simplified as it should be.
57 and 58 – Leon – the “Fair Tax”, I might have known. You have now proven that you don’t have a clue. Your comments on CPAs and tax attorneys also indicate you have no clue as to our professions, what the practice of tax law represents, our licensing requirements, or our responsibilities to the public. In other words, the more you write, the more you reveal how little you know. Try researching tax history before you write about the sole purpose of taxation, try checking on the requirements to be a CPA or tax attorney and their ability to practice before the IRS before commenting on professions of which you have no knowledge. I have been writing a VA Ethics course and teaching VA Ethics for many years, if you have a question, I will be happy to answer it. But, your view of the “Fair Tax” says it all, you simply have no understanding of fair taxation.
if you have a question, I will be happy to answer it.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — October 2, 2012 @ 12:16 pm
Mr. Beason, I offer you the same…ditto.
BTW…what you assume about me and my knowledge of the profession in your post #59 is, in fact, exactly the opposite.
Fair Tax is, in fact, a viable proposal which would adequately fund the necessary government with far less burden on our society. Further, properly designed it would provide more revenue as a result of a significant reduction in what has become an extremely wasteful($5.0 Billion paid out in fraudulent refunds last year by the IRS) and corrupt (FOIA requests are on file to determine what tax returns the Obama
administration has accessed and used for political purpose and the head of the Treasury department is nicknamed TaxCheat Timmy) bureaucracy. The savings to the business community generated by the reduction in staff and outsourced services necessary for compliance would result in more funds available for revenue producing activities which equates to more jobs and more tax collected. Everybody wins!
As to political viewpoint…we will just have to agree to disagree. I will say it surprises me how someone with your background can be liberal
or otherwise endorse the economic policies of this administration.
When I see comments such as the ones you made about Romney’s 401(k) contrued in such a way as if they were factual rather than your opinion
it gives me concern. This was done in a much earlier thread before Romney
released the summary of his prior year information so, therefore, you could not have had knowledge of such matter.
Suzie, “I would that omission” is actually “tantamount to a gd” truth. Romney said it himself. He said that “47% of the people…And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives“. Those were his words, no one put them in a speech for him, there was no Suziesque gaffe. He said it.
Hon, Mr. Romney explicitly said “the 47% WHO DON’T PAY TAXES”. Your idiot boy is now leaving the last four words out of his ads. That changes the meaning entirely. It’s where the lie comes in. But it never occurs to the moron Oprah-watchers to ask the obvious question “47% of what?”.
That’s why 0bama is a lying sack of you-know-what.
I guess 0bama had to take those words out “WHO DON’T PAY TAXES” because he wasn’t getting any traction with those ads. Turns out folkers weren’t very sympathetic to the freeloader class. Viewers sided with Romney, so the Democrats turned to what they do best: LIE.
“When I see comments such as the ones you made about Romney’s 401(k) contrued in such a way as if they were factual rather than your opinion it gives me concern. This was done in a much earlier thread before Romney released the summary of his prior year information so, therefore, you could not have had knowledge of such matter.”
–Comment by Leon to Richard Beason
Hey folks, you may have noticed that Leon is becoming well known around here for making stuff up. This is yet another instance of that. Leon is the only person on this blog who has made any statement about “Romney’s 401(k).”
Richard never has never addressed the subject.
#63 Leon just made up other stuff about the UN on another thread. I think he’s been taking fiction lessons from suze.
#62 Just like right wingers left words out of what Obama said in Roanoke. Notice how that whole we built it thing has disappeared?
#62 Just like right wingers left words out of what Obama said in Roanoke. Notice how that whole we built it thing has disappeared?
When you played the whole speech, it sounded even worse. And “We builit it” ads are all over the place.
Another pair of lies by Granddad. Getting right up there with Bammy, ain’t ya?
Leon, it is Romney’s IRA that is in question, not his 401(k). I stand by my posts, since the NY Times and everyone else that has looked into it supports my position. I indeed was ahead of pack on that one. It is because I think rather than repeat Fox News, Rush, Tea Party newsletters, etc.
As for the “Fair Tax”, Leon, it has been proven wrong by numerous economists. It simply will not work, is not fair, is a GOP means of redistributing to the wealthy, and would destroy the economy. One of the many schemes to soak the middle class further.
Stick to your insults and leave the tax law to professionals.
Leon,
The Fair Tax was a way for Neil what’s his name, the radio talk host, to write a book and make some money.
Dan@63 and Beason@67:
Dan, I sit corrected; the reference should have been to IRA, not 401k.
The accounts are similiar both being contributory retirement type accounts.
Beason, here your post from the 08/01/2012 thread re: “Did Mitt Romney pay NO federal income tax for 10 years?”:
For instance, Mitt has more in his foreign IRA than he could have legally invested and probably earned. He has yet to explain how he got that much there.
Comment by Richard J Beason, CPA — August 2, 2012 @ 7:15 pm
Despite your citing of source in post 67 above this post conveyed no such sources. Appears, even with the source, that you are talking out of school as you nor the NYTimes could possibly know what you’re talking about. IMO this is unprofessional and coupled with your concluding statement in 67 above at best a stretch of professional ethics.
It appears to me that you have been teaching, as you state, ethics too long to the point you have the mindset that you are incapable of violating same…in essence you teach but no longer learn.
As to your opinion on Fair Tax, you are entitled to same. However, since it has not been tried I fail to see, and therefore disagree, that it has
been proven not to work. IMO this has been proven with regard to the present federal tax system. In fact, I believe that the Internal Revenue
Code of 1954, as amended, has only two practical issues. 1) Reading any given 2 or more pages is a sure fire cure for insomnia. 2) Three or more copies of said Code would serve as adequate ballast for an aircraft carrier.