Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - nike6075

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 83
71
General Off-Topic Board / Re: MAS: Don't Disturb the Sexy
« on: April 22, 2008, 07:19:59 AM »
Whatever - i'll read it tink.

72
I'm not sure who all you people are who are concerned about the job market three years from now - I'd much prefer to have a job at graduation.  For all intents and purposes, 'hiring' for the class of 2011 will take place in the Fall of 2009 - at 2L OCI.  And the decisions about how many SAs there will be, how many offers will be extended, etc will be made before that.

73
General Off-Topic Board / Re: MAS: Don't Disturb the Sexy
« on: April 21, 2008, 06:42:32 AM »
It is what it is.

i also hate when people say "it is what it is".

well, it is what it is

                        



what is it?



fixed

74
General Off-Topic Board / Re: One of them will be President?
« on: April 18, 2008, 03:26:51 PM »
Questions about trade- 0

Questions about process, Jeremiah Wright, and other trivial nonsense- At least a dozen

Great job, ABC.  ::)

You can't just say we should ignore fairness to increase revenue. Slavery was good for the economy too but that doesn't mean we should bring it back. So many things in this country are such a struggle because there is an incredible inertia in Washington against fixing past mistakes because those who benefit from the current situation are loathe to change it and have to adjust their money-making strategy.

I'm not saying we should ignore fairness to incerase revenue.  I'm saying we shouldn't solely base our tax system on some politician's idea of fairness.  Besides, who gets to say what is "fair?"  That is a very subjective word.  There is nothing "fair" about our current tax system, thus my support for the Fair Tax.  A TRULY fair tax system.

At only 30 more cents on every purchase!


But that's a different discussion entirely...

It is a different discussion, but I can't let your false statement stand.  If you know anything about our current tax system at all (and I'm assuming you do), you know there is already an embedded tax from our current tax system in everything we buy.  That would be eliminated.  You wouldn't "feel" the full 30 cents (really 23, BTW, but I won't even get into the whole inclusive/exclusive debate).  I will fully admit to any potential problems in the Fair Tax, but on a board full of so many intelligent people, can we please resolve not to sink to repeating misleading half-truths?

Well, it is 23% of the new total, but that amount is found by adding 30% to the current, non-taxed price.  That is, if something now costs $1.00, your new total on the item is $1.30 (that extra $.30 is 23% of this new total).  Simply because the tax is 'inclusive' - that is, the price on the sticker already includes the tax - doesn't change the fact that we're paying an extra 30 cents on the dollar.

In reality, the percentage would have to be much more than that, because the proposal accounts for government spending in that the government receives revenue from the tax on items it purchases, but does not include the tax in its governmental budgeting for expenditures.  That is, the federal government would pay taxes to itself based on its own purchases, but the price of those purchases is not shown to increase to include the tax.

Also, state and local governments would get crushed by this system.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf

75
General Off-Topic Board / Re: One of them will be President?
« on: April 18, 2008, 03:02:53 PM »
There is no sense in arguing whether or not a low tax on capital gains is good for the economy.  IT IS good for the economy, and that fact is supported by indisputable evidence.  And it doesnít take a PhD economist to understand why.  Obama isnít an idiot, he knows this fact.  So why would he still support such a drastic hike in the capital gains tax rate in spite of the damage it will do to our economy?  Itís based on his fundamental belief that we can only be a moral society when the fruits of our labor are widely shared.  And whatís so wrong with that?  Well, in essence, he wants to punish competence, and by competence, I mean the careful, planned and strategic investment decisions by middle income households seeking to build wealth (not just big bad Wall Street as he so often alludes to).  Unfortunately, nothing will change this left wing view of his.


Wow... You'd think after the utterly horrible failure of trickle down economics, that such biblical statements of "fact" would somehow be tempered by now. After all, it's 2008, not 1981.

But I guess there is no limit to the self-delusion that plagues the economic theories developed by rich white men. Ah, it would be refreshing for a trickle-downer to speak directly and honestly for once (and leave the self-delusion behind). Get your placards and let your inner Friedman run free. Long live the aristocracy! Democracy is over-rated. And economic equality is for losers.

Obviously this guy is flame.

76
General Off-Topic Board / Re: One of them will be President?
« on: April 18, 2008, 02:00:46 PM »
I just lived off of Chipotle.

I am living mightily. Viva burritos.

Actually, I'm a qdoba guy...

Boobs?

Oh damn, just remembered I'm going to be quite near one three days a week for the next two months. Excessive?

Never too much.

77
General Off-Topic Board / Re: One of them will be President?
« on: April 18, 2008, 01:57:31 PM »
The capital gains question made me so crazy I was literally jumping up and down in my room. The way Obama answered it made me cringe.  I don't want a President who bases tax rates on "fairness," even when it means bringing in less revenue.  Seriously?  Isn't it better for all of us when there is more money in the coffers, so to speak?

The problem with your statement here  is that you are assuming Charlie Gibson was correct. As a multimillionaire I can understand why Charlie would be upset about having his capital gains tax raised. However, the evidence supporting his claim that revenues increase when capital gains are cut is extremely poor. See, for example: http://www.cbpp.org/7-10-07tax.htm

What makes me really annoyed is when I see a millionaire like Charlie crying crocodile tears about the middle class being affected by a tax increase that would only effect people with over $250,000 in revenue.

Try reading the rest of the thread first.

78
General Off-Topic Board / Re: One of them will be President?
« on: April 18, 2008, 01:43:27 PM »
I just lived off of Chipotle.

I am living mightily. Viva burritos.

Actually, I'm a qdoba guy...

Boobs?

79
General Off-Topic Board / Re: One of them will be President?
« on: April 18, 2008, 01:09:53 PM »
Questions about trade- 0

Questions about process, Jeremiah Wright, and other trivial nonsense- At least a dozen

Great job, ABC.  ::)

You can't just say we should ignore fairness to increase revenue. Slavery was good for the economy too but that doesn't mean we should bring it back. So many things in this country are such a struggle because there is an incredible inertia in Washington against fixing past mistakes because those who benefit from the current situation are loathe to change it and have to adjust their money-making strategy.

I'm not saying we should ignore fairness to incerase revenue.  I'm saying we shouldn't solely base our tax system on some politician's idea of fairness.  Besides, who gets to say what is "fair?"  That is a very subjective word.  There is nothing "fair" about our current tax system, thus my support for the Fair Tax.  A TRULY fair tax system.

At only 30 more cents on every purchase!

But that's a different discussion entirely...

Bye-bye dollar menu. How would I ever survive law school?

Live off the land.

80
General Off-Topic Board / Re: One of them will be President?
« on: April 18, 2008, 01:05:35 PM »
Questions about trade- 0

Questions about process, Jeremiah Wright, and other trivial nonsense- At least a dozen

Great job, ABC.  ::)

You can't just say we should ignore fairness to increase revenue. Slavery was good for the economy too but that doesn't mean we should bring it back. So many things in this country are such a struggle because there is an incredible inertia in Washington against fixing past mistakes because those who benefit from the current situation are loathe to change it and have to adjust their money-making strategy.

I'm not saying we should ignore fairness to incerase revenue.  I'm saying we shouldn't solely base our tax system on some politician's idea of fairness.  Besides, who gets to say what is "fair?"  That is a very subjective word.  There is nothing "fair" about our current tax system, thus my support for the Fair Tax.  A TRULY fair tax system.

At only 30 more cents on every purchase!

But that's a different discussion entirely...

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 83