A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'll give you benefit the doubt, and assume I didn't explain myself well. Early last year, the Administration issued a prediction that the deficit would be, say, $580 billion. (I don't recall the exact numbers.) At the time, people pointed out that the prediction was unrealistically high. As they said, the actual number came in lower -- say, $420 billion. But the Administration continues to talk as if the deficit actually was what they predicted. So their ostensible target for halving the deficit is $290 billion, not $210 billion. The math is very simple. Even you should be able to follow it.

I saw one article the other day that indicated that the "halving the deficit" promise is even more hollow. Not only are we using an inflated prediction, rather than the actual 2004 deficit, as a starting point, but are halving in terms of %% of GDP, not dollars. Which, of course, allows you to make a proposal that will "succeed" by inflating the predictions for economic growth.

I don't think this is how Bush sold the plan to the electorate -- i.e., I remember him saying "I will cut the deficit in half by 2009," not "the 2009 deficit will be less than half of the deficit we predicted for 2004," but hey -- I still think he sold the war in Iraq based on WMD.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What gets me is I'm vapid- but I essentially made Wonk's post 2 months ago. I'm actually one of the few people who create opinion change here, because I don't do it as forced concepts.

It's because you're usually an asshole. Not always, but usually. As for the posts when you aren't an asshole, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I'm not inclined to believe you over the fleet of lawyers and tax advisers who've reviewed our various plans.

And other vehicles I was referring to are things like 529 plans.

KPMG and their pet lawyers have been having fun unwinding lots of transactions -- but they frequently get paid on both ends, so it's no skin off their back. And shit like 529 plans are advertised by the IRS, so not that exciting. I may have been thinking that you were talking about stuff that is not practically highlighted on the tax form, urging you to use it.

But I won't try to BOSS you around. Hee hee.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you my internet stalker?

No. I was poking fun at slave, not you.

Please educate me on the last time 1 liberal criticized another. I can't recall this happening recently.

Fuck you. Are you Not Me? If you fantasize that anyone to the left of you is part of a rock-solid bloc on every issue, I can't help you. They have excellent meds now for that sort of delusion.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
KPMG and their pet lawyers has been having fun unwinding lots of transactions -- but they frequently get paid on both ends, so it's no skin off their back. And shit like 529 plans are advertised by the IRS, so not that exciting. I may have been thinking that you were talking about stuff that is not practically highlighted on the tax form, urging you to use it.

Part of my message was about 529s and the like, in order to point out that GGG's comment about 401(k)s was only scratching the surface. I was not playing "who knows the tax codes better?" with you. Nor was I trying to excite you. So back off.

As for the other part of my message, I am painfully/joyfully familiar (in the "I got to bill a lot of hours" sense) with the various tax-shelter plans sold by KPMG and approved in "pay me 50k for a tax opinion" letters from certain large firms. The things I am talking about are nothing of the sort. They are fairly simple and standard savings plans, not transactions created for no legitimate business purpose but merely to avoid taxes. Again, the point was that talking about 401(k)s just scratches the surface of tax-favored investments. Virtually all of which benefit wealthy people.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Part of my message was about 529s and the like, in order to point out that GGG's comment about 401(k)s was only scratching the surface. I was not playing "who knows the tax codes better?" with you. Nor was I trying to excite you. So back off.

As for the other part of my message, I am painfully/joyfully familiar (in the "I got to bill a lot of hours" sense) with the various tax-shelter plans sold by KPMG and approved in "pay me 50k for a tax opinion" letters from certain large firms. The things I am talking about are nothing of the sort. They are fairly simple and standard savings plans, not transactions created for no legitimate business purpose but merely to avoid taxes. Again, the point was that talking about 401(k)s just scratches the surface of tax-favored investments. Virtually all of which benefit wealthy people.

You said "can put away amounts in the six figures a year, tax-free" which is a hell lot, if you are not including any defined contribution contributions, and are talking about someone in a partnership.

It's flat-out true for executives, though there's always the threat of bankruptcy hanging over their heads.

ETA I was also reading this earlier today, and I worry that you all will get sucked into wacko schemes. If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't, etc. etc.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/se_020705.pdf

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
KPMG and their pet lawyers have been having fun unwinding lots of transactions -- but they frequently get paid on both ends, so it's no skin off their back. And shit like 529 plans are advertised by the IRS, so not that exciting. I may have been thinking that you were talking about stuff that is not practically highlighted on the tax form, urging you to use it.

But I won't try to BOSS you around. Hee hee.

Hey, it's no SCIN off his back.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please educate me on the last time 1 liberal criticized another. I can't recall this happening recently.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fuck you. Are you Not Me? If you fantasize that anyone to the left of you is part of a rock-solid bloc on every issue, I can't help you. They have excellent meds now for that sort of delusion.

Try this, club. Google "Howard Dean DNC."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Try this, club. Google "Howard Dean DNC."

As you have said many times (and I agree) Dean is not a liberal.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
You said "can put away amounts in the six figures a year, tax-free" which is a hell lot, if you are not including any defined contribution contributions, and are talking about someone in a partnership.

It's flat-out true for executives, though there's always the threat of bankruptcy hanging over their heads.

ETA I was also reading this earlier today, and I worry that you all will get sucked into wacko schemes. If it's too good to be true, it probably isn't, etc. etc.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/se_020705.pdf

Again, nothing like this.

I'm done with this discussion. If the group of very cautious lawyers who decide on our retirement plans turn out to be wrong, and the group of very cautious lawyers who advise them as well, I'll let you know.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Hey, it's no SCIN off his back.

I need to escape this discussion. (Damn, I can't remember how the acronym was spelled. But the scheme was a doozy.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Old people are people, too, and I think helping them live longer is a good idea. At the same time, resources are finite, and we can't do everything. People object to rationing health care, but health care is rationed now, just in a half-assed, decentralized way. As always, RT has my proxy on this issue, and I'm hoping she'll come along and say something interesting about it.

Uh oh, now there's pressure.

Standards change with time. Used to be that no one even considered the possibility of giving dialysis to an End Stage Renal Disease patient. In fact, one of the reasons that the nephrologists managed to get dialysis covered by medicare for ANYONE (not just the old folks) is that they argued in 1972 that the return would be greater than the cost. Nowadays, it's considered negligently criminal to withhold dialysis from ESRD patients, and truthfully, despite the exhorbinent costs, those patients have a much better quality of life now that they can get dialysis.

The major problem with rationing elderly health care is that a lot of times you often don't know that the patient is going to get sick and die until after treatment has started. If 50 percent of the old folk who get artificial hearts go on to have really nice, healthy lives for the next 20 years, and 25 percent of them have OK lives, and another 25 percent die within the year, you run into a lot of problems arguing that there's no benefit in giving artificial hearts to old folk.

What you need instead is better outcomes research, so you can figure out why that 50 percent did so well and not waste money on the last 25 percent. That middle 25 percent is the group that really causes the ethical problems. There's not enough evidence based medicine these days.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Are you my internet stalker?

Please educate me on the last time 1 liberal criticized another. I can't recall this happening recently.

You are being ridiculous. Intra-party squabbling is written into the Democratic Party bylaws. Contrast that to the lockstep fealty that is the hallmark of the Republican Party.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
You are being ridiculous. Intra-party squabbling is written into the Democratic Party bylaws. Contrast that to the lockstep fealty that is the hallmark of the Republican Party.

In club-dom, Democrats who criticize other Democrats are not liberal. QED.

And much as they love Reagan, Repubs just HATE being reminded of his Eleventh Commandment.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As you have said many times (and I agree) Dean is not a liberal.

I thought everyone to the left of Neal Cavuto was liberal. Please explain.