Balta1701

Yawn.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) I'm all about RAISING taxes on the top bracket. I'm also all about REDUCING middle tax brackets and shoring up spending (from subsidizing the poor/old to worthless defense spending) (Hug).

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) Then why don't we ask the question what the return on investment looks like for every other tax under the sun? How valuable are the liquor taxes we pay? Property taxes? Tolls? Sales Taxes? Fees? Why aren't we looking at how strong their returns are? I'd say in a lot of cases we actually do keep track of those things. Aren't toll levels compared to the amount of traffic on roads? Aren't fees for things like national parks constantly judged in terms of upkeep versus demand? Heck, I can recall a fairly recent debate over the value of the Chicago Parking Meters and what the appropriate fees should be on those. There are volumes of papers written on the effectiveness of sin taxes (cigarettes, alcohol, even sugar consumption) in terms of whether they achieve the correct goals and how high they need to be to get there.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:39 PM) There's also a detriment to subsidizing a large portion of our society, including the poor and the old. Maybe if people weren't taxed/fee'd to death they'd be able to provide for themselves a little more. I'm hoping you can write my response for me by now .

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) I'd support the vast majority of this. Though I'm not sure why something like deducting interest on college loans is taken out. That's a good thing. That's providing an incentive for people just like deductions for businesses who hire new employees. And I'd remove the cap. $2500 bucks isn't enough. You reminded me of the day care expense, which i'll be utilizing next year. Only 20% is deductible? Ludicrous. Up that to 50% or more. See, now you've hit on the big issue in NSS's setup. He's tried to make Congress limit itself to 5 deductions. The immediate response is that getting rid of one of the current deductions is "Ludirous", and you've put in 2 big deductions already. If we're allowing deductions in the first place, and we've got a system where people are regularly buying Congresspeople (as we currently have), then the current deduction mess is pretty much the logical result. even if Congress tried to limit deductions, the next Congress can just discard those limits.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) Well, that begs the question of whether there should be any "income" tax. It's all a penalty. Any tax is a drag on some portion of society...but clearly, I'm of the philosophy that there is substantial societal gains that can be produced by things like an army and quality health care. So the question we're effectively asking is what things do we want to advantage relative to others. If you raise income taxes relative to investment, you are giving a big boon to people who invest a lot relative to people who don't have funds to invest. This can be a good thing if it encourages effective investment, or a bad thing if it destroys every part of the economy that isn't related to investment. And I think you know which of those I'll say we're closer to.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:27 PM) But you don't want to limit middle class investments solely to retirement. I just think it's unfair that if i earn 3k on my investments this year i gotta pay 450 bucks. That's essentially a penalty for being smart with my money. Having the tax rate be the same on investments as on labor doesn't "Limit middle class investments solely to retirement"...it just treats that income like any other income.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:24 PM) Without doing hardcore numbers I think the answer is something like, raising income taxes on the highest levels, raise inheritance tax, lowering capital gains etc. Capital gains is somewhat of a double tax which is kind of unfair (taxed when you made the money and then taxed as the money gains value), inheritance isnt so much a double tax because the person who is inheriting the money didnt earn it (if it was earned it would be taxed as wages/income). Double-taxation happens all the time. I pay income taxes and then sales taxes and then property taxes and so on. The question to ask is whether low capital gains taxes produces a strong positive economic effect compared to other possible mechanisms of taxation. We've done a spectacular experiment on this in the last 10 years, cutting capital gains taxes to recent historic lows, and the net result has been a disastrous increase in financial risk with no obvious benefit to society except for a lot of vacant housing in the Imperial Valley.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 01:25 PM) I see 2 DL stints and a September shut down in 2012. Look at the bright side, if he hits the DL, the Sox should get some more money back for him from the insurance policy.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) How do you know he wasn't 'ready' to play? Maybe he's just not that good. Or he's a slow starter like Lexi? He was never a slow starter in a long career before coming to the White Sox. Career .275 hitter in April, but much, much lower than that in his 2 aprils on the South Side. And if he's not that good...well, he shouldn't have been playing and given the most at bats on the team. That's the craziest defense of the player you've ever given. "He's not that good, it's not his fault he had a terrible start, some crazy fool kept putting him in the lineup when he didn't deserve to play at all".

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) Why punish those people for being smart enough to invest their left over dollars to earn some more money? This begs a question..."Is this the most effective way to encourage this class of wage earners to invest in retirement funds". If it is not, then even if it disadvantages that type of investment, it's not punishment, because it'd be better for the country if people went elsewhere. A good comparison would be 401k/IRA style retirement accounts, which are currently given huge tax advantages.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 12:21 PM) Barry Bonds > all I love that man. Not really fair to apply that word to him any more.

QUOTE (sunofgold @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 12:42 PM) Kyle Williams is handling this well. Unfortunately, some 49er fans aren't. They should be back in the playoffs next year since they are good and the rest of their division sucks. One thing you ought to take from the 49ers this year is that teams that seem like they're really far away might well be closer than you think. The 49ers looked lost last year, and spectacular this year.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 11:03 AM) No. He should just STFU and pitch. So that we can all read the angry posts/articles about how Jake Peavy is refusing to talk to the media despite his huge salary and ineffectiveness!

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 10:39 AM) My question is, why exactly are they booing him? -Because he was involved in the "sham" of a wedding? -Did he treat Kim like s*** or come off as an ass? -Or are they just laughing at him for getting involved with that crazy family? My wife would say the middle one.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 10:37 AM) I doubt that the tax incidence is 100%, but it is reflected in wages. It's reflected in "lower wages by the employee", but if you want to be rigorous and ask the question "are people who earn $10k a year on minimum wage getting off too easy or are people who earn $40 million a year getting off too easy", then failing to consider that 6% is pretty important. Anyway, the real issue we should be asking is "Does having Mitt Romney pay 14% in taxes make this a more effective economy or society". That's why this would matter in the first place. I feel like I've failed to stress that.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 10:34 AM) And it never gets included when people refer to the tax burdens of the corporations... It really should get counted as a tax that is being paid by the employee anyway, because it really is, it's just hidden.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 10:22 AM) That's great and all Jake, but I'd like to see it on the mound please. It's fluff piece time of year. Stop being frustrated by the fluff pieces and enjoy the fact that spring training is almost here!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) LOL "if you exclude the vast majority of millionaires' incomes, the part that features a heavily regressive tax, why, it's hardly regressive at all!" If you wanted to be really, really rigorous, the payroll tax is even a harder hit at low incomes, because 1/2 of it gets paid by employers. That number is still a "tax paid on earned income", but 1/2 of it doesn't even show up on a wage earner's W-2's.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 10:20 AM) I must say it's extremely amusing that Kris Kardashian has become more hated than LeBron this quickly, he gets booed like crazy anywhere he goes. My wife joined in the opening lineup booing yesterday. He's got to take advantage of this to get some extra endorsement money.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 10:10 AM) Isn't that EXACTLY what the entertainment industry is asking for? Yes. And I absolutely guarantee they will get their next extension before the year 2023 comes along. (I hope everyone is catching why I keep saying that date). Infinite expansion of copyrights is not a good thing. It would not be a good thing if Shakespeare were copyrighted these days.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) The Buffet secretary is pure mythology. Says the person who keeps repeating the "45% of Americans pay no taxes" bullplop.

You gave away the game right there. I'm going to play the same game and not count taxes paid on investment income. Thus, Mitt Romney pays 0% tax rates and is part of those lazy bums you whine about constantly. It's equally fair.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 09:07 AM) It is also hard to pin down when 45% of the US has an effective tax rate of near zero. Continues to be completely untrue, and illustrates a particularly annoying truth here since only the first $112k of Mitt Romney's income is subject to the payroll tax, while for that 45%, their entire income is subject to payroll taxes.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Jan 24, 2012 -> 08:25 AM) Secret Swiss bank account, only paid 14% tax rate... stick a fork in Romney, he's done Wonder if Mittens was in the UBS amnesty group.