ptatc

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 09:29 AM) The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. I don't recall this type of massive tax overall ever happening, let alone repeating it over and over again.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 09:27 AM) And the whole zero tradition, wanting to win with a franchise that hasn't won much, small market, closer to Japan than most, up and coming team. They check off a ton of boxes as well. They've had one of the most important playoff wins in history. Beating the Cubs in 1984.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 09:18 AM) I'm in no way a supporter of it, there's too much stuff like the estate tax that has no benefit other than lining pockets. I have to read more about the pass through tax, cause it might not help the real smallest businesses anyway. Some of the poor/middle class will receive tax cuts, but those will come at the expense of the other half of the middle class that will see tax increases, especially if they itemize. A big wash. In the end, it seems like a standard conservative plan. Give more money to the people and companies that employ the everyday citizens. With more money, they will create more jobs and have more production and stimulate the economy, at least that's the rationale. In some situations it works but in many it just creates a bigger income gap as they just keep the money to themselves. This seems to be what the people who like it are touting. In theory it makes sense. More people working, more jobs healthier economy. The whole tax cuts that disappear in 2026 will be offset by more people employed and no businesses in the country. It will be interesting to see if it happens.

QUOTE (GenericUserName @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 09:09 AM) Yeah they can sign minor league deals. There was even an article about Putnam where he commented about not knowing if he would be tendered and if he isn't if he would be back with the White Sox to do rehab. This is common practice with fringe guys. Don't take up a roster spot because they can't pitch, but keep them in the organization to bring back to the MLB at a later date.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 08:45 AM) Well, I'd say that it actually is perfectly in line with modern conservative philosophy to enrich the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, but there are more ideologies than American conservatism or liberalism. Maybe just straight up plutocracy more than anything, really. The bill doesn't really include anything you'd see in a modern liberal tax plan. Ok. I was honestly curious when someone said it was neither conservative nor liberal.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 08:39 AM) This bill was not a compromise bill. If it isn't liberal nor consevative philosophy then what is it?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 08:23 AM) White Sox only have 7 guys on their 40 man roster that are legitimate bullpen options for next year: Aaron Bummer, Jace Fry, Dylan Covey, Danny Farquhar, Nate Jones, Juan Minaya, and Gregory Infante. They will be adding a ton of pitching Burdi. He should be up at some point.

QUOTE (BlackSox13 @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 01:39 AM) Athletic supporter? If you can't be an athlete be an athletic supporter.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 2, 2017 -> 08:18 AM) Who is "they." This board has a lot of conservatives on it, however this isnt anything even remotely close to a conservative philosophy on economics. Its neither Liberal or conservative. I dont know what you call it. Compromise?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 08:15 PM) As the partisan lines grow deeper and deeper it's only gonna get worse. Many Congresspeople don't even have to think anymore, they just vote along party lines and are guaranteed re-election. There really needs to be a serious third party emerge or it is only gonna get worse. Agreed. It's more than just getting elected. The rhetoric is bordring on hatred which really makes both parties at fault. Its for this principle I voted third party in the presidential election.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 03:14 PM) I think there's general agreement that a more simplified tax code would be more fair no matter how we did it, but I would also note that, just as in the exercise we went through, simplified does not always mean more fair or better. These two comments seem to contradict one another.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 12:55 PM) There's been plenty of studies on this. A flat VAT is very, very regressive. As a percentage of their total income, the wealthy spend far less than the non-wealthy, who spend nearly 100%. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2011/01...-is-regressive/ The wealthy save and invest a much higher percentage of their income than the poor or even the middle class. The way around this would be to exempt "necessary" goods like food or clothing from a VAT, but that again makes a more complex tax code. We do that already with sales taxes at least for food, fwiw. Most of the difference there has to do with the VAT not including some significant items, not the least of which are financial services and multiple residences and travel. Most of it is also based on % but they do not discuss the ramifications on the gross revenue. The wealthy do spend a more than the non-wealthy but not as a % of the income. This is why an income tax is still needed but shouldn't necessarily be the primary tax. I agree the necessary items should be exempt, especially food. I think it would still be a more simple tax code and more fair than the current system. However, A tax or money person, I am not.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 10:30 AM) Yes. If you make a lot of money, it's really, really good for you. If not, not so good. I'm not sure about this. Remember the income tax would also go down in the process. Think about how much money you and I spend, then think about how much the wealthy spend. How much revenue would be generated at 20% from $2,000 suits, luxury automobiles, private aircraft and other things that only the wealthy purchase.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 11:47 AM) 100% publicly financed campaigns with zero outside contributions would be nice SCOTUS has basically ruled that you can't have any campaign finance laws though due to free speech. That works too.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 11:41 AM) They're largely already millionaires going in or make most of their money becoming lobbyists and peddling their influence and connections once they're out. And a lot of it comes back to financing campaigns. Billionaire donors hold a whole hell of a lot of sway. It's part of why such accumulating so much wealth in the hands of a few is damaging for democracy and freedom. Our Senators and Reps answer first and foremost to the guys cutting the big checks. You and I are somewhere way down the line. They need a campaign cap like a salary cap. Politics and baseball have something in common.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 11:35 AM) Yes, I want the tax code to be exactly 10 pages. Not 9 pages, not 11 pages. Never mind. Either way, there will never be reform when the people who make the laws are among the very wealthy. People in Washington have zero incentive to make legit changes. The GOP "makes sure it hurts Democratic states and voters as much as possible". The Democrats make sure the poor are given just enough handouts to make sure Democratic states and voters stay Democratic while doing nothing to hurt their own pocketbooks. I guess one side appears better than the other because it pretends to help people, but nothing is really ever getting better for most of the country. And it gets worse each voting cycle.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 11:38 AM) These people stopped representing their voters decades ago, and I'm f***ing sick of it. People we elect shouldnt be made millionaires while in office. No doubt.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 10:08 AM) Canada has a VAT too, IIRC. You've still got to have a bit of a complicated code because the richer you are, the less money you need to spend on essentials. If you just had a flat VAT with no other assistance, stipends, etc., you'd have a massively regressive tax code. Someone making $30k a year spends nearly 100% of their income on things subject to a VAT, someone making $30M spends a tiny fraction. I would agree that it can't be the only tax. It isn't in the EU either. But if it was a major portion of it, I think it would be helpful. The wealthy will still pay more as they spend more. I don't think it should be based on what % of their income they spend. They will still provide the vast majority of the government tax revenue.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 09:38 AM) With respect to the Estate Tax, the first $5.49M per individual is not subject to tax. So for estate tax purposes, it is only the wealthy who are taxed. Caveat to that is that inherited (non-Roth) IRAs are subject to tax since they were not taxed in the first place regardless of the dollar amount. Income that wasn't previously taxed, should be taxed.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Dec 1, 2017 -> 07:47 AM) Yes, it's to avoid being "double taxed", you don't pay the corporate income tax on top of individual taxes, you only pay an individual tax. I'll have to double check the exact details on this bill, there are so many different versions being pushed around. Obviously, plenty of wealthy people exploit this with entities that would be hardly considered real corporations. If anybody truly cared about tax reform, they would just blow up the entire tax code booklet and make it about 10 pages long. There is no reason for it to be so complicated and it only benefits people who have the knowledge or resources to take advantage of it. The EU uses a large value added tax to purchases. This makes sense to me. Tax people on how much yhey use. They wouldn't need the massive tax code.

QUOTE (GenericUserName @ Nov 30, 2017 -> 02:25 PM) Everyone who says Ohtani can't do it are just threatened by something they don't know how to comprehend. Ohtani is such a rare case because players at his talent level would never be allowed to play both because they would be drafted out of high school (where many do play both) and then forced to only do one thing by the organization. As we see more high end talent ending up going to college, we are seeing more players who are allowed to play both and are thriving. Who is to say that Hunter Greene, if he had gone to college, couldn't have been a top pick either way like McKay was? Now I don't think everyone can do this and Ohtani may well fail in one of the aspects, but to dismiss it out of hand is shortsighted. I think you are underestimating how difficult it is to do either of them we'll in the MLB, let alone both.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 30, 2017 -> 06:12 PM) After this passes it will be not taxed at all. As of right now it is an extremely weak income tax levied only on the highest of earners. I didn't realize only the wealthy were taxed.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 30, 2017 -> 06:04 PM) It's unearned income for the heirs, and aristocracies are bad. I agree with it being income and taxed. I disagree that having money is bad.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Nov 30, 2017 -> 06:07 PM) When Democrats last controlled government, this was not how things were passed. Getting things passed when you have a majority on a party line vote but on thoughtfully crafted legislation would be miles better than what we're seeing. Many would disagree. This was the Obama care path.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 30, 2017 -> 06:02 PM) An heir is basically earning untaxed income from who they are born from without it. I see no reason why that should not be taxable income. right but it's taxed much differently than income, isn't it?