Waiting for Fitzgerald

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
And in the process the wilfully obtuse socialist dimwits, cripple our economy and our freedom.


According to a new report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, we pay a very heavy price for the heavy taxation of saving, investment, corporations and estates that Tritch strongly favors. It found that the efficiency cost of the tax system -- the output that is lost over and above the tax itself -- is between 2 percent and 5 percent of the gross domestic product. In short, we lose between $240 billion and $600 billion every year just because of the way we raise taxes.

Based on past postings I think that we could safely replace "Tritch" with the names of any one of several leftwing posters from this board. I wonder what part of being exposed to the benefits of freedom and capitalist markets causes the lefties to turn on our system and seeks its destruction in the name of socialism, which is a slippery slope to Marxism. Why, Bilmoure, why?

Of course, if anybody is interested in what the report actually said, here's a quote from the abstract , acknowledging that it's largely guesswork:

Estimating efficiency costs is very challenging because the tax system has such extensive and diverse effects on behavior. In fact, we found no comprehensive estimates of the efficiency costs of the current federal tax system. The two most comprehensive studies we found suggest that these costs are large--on the order of magnitude of 2 to 5 percent of GDP each year (as of the mid-1990s). However, the actual efficiency costs of the current tax system may not fall within this range because of uncertainty surrounding taxpayers' behavioral responses, changes in the tax code and the economy since the mid-1990s, and the fact that the two studies did not cover the full scope of efficiency costs. The goal of tax policy is not to eliminate compliance and efficiency costs. The goal of tax policy is to design a tax system that produces the desired amount of revenue and balances the minimization of these costs with other objectives, such as equity, transparency, and administrability.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
huh? That's pretty common-knowledge stuff. Look to the polls that exist. Look to the anecdotal stuff in the Iraqi press. Look to the Iraq blogs. At some point, you can't just keep saying "show me proof", especially when you're dealing with commonly-accepted theses. The burden shifts.

(ETA) - But then, you're the guy who keeps saying that the Iraqis opposed our invasion and want us out. So I have to expect a certain level of wishful thinking, I guess.

He said a majority of the Iraqis support the US presence. I asked for proof. I don't think it's common knowledge that that's the case.

Anybody else care to comment on this?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Once again, I didn't threaten to kill the President, by any reasonable interpretation of what I said. As for Senator Landrieu, I'm assuming that nobody's invoking the statue because it was tossed out as violative of the First Amendment the first time it was invoked.

Cite please?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
This would be more meaningful if you didn't have to add the qualifier. Who defines "reasonable"? You? Then, no, I'm sure you're right.

I already repeated exactly what I said, which was that I would rather see Bush dead than me dead.

But then, you know that, because you replied to the post. I added a qualifier because there were people who were claiming I was threatening to kill the Pres. Can you see how my words could lead to that conclusion?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by bilmore
This would be more meaningful if you didn't have to add the qualifier. Who defines "reasonable"? You? Then, no, I'm sure you're right.

Obviously some reasonable people thought he did violate the statute or the potential existed that a reasonable person could find a violation. That's why his post was deleted. Notwithstandign his not fully persuasive professions of innocence.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Take the stick out of your arse you humourless fucking prig. It's a meaningless internet chatboard which serves as a topical receptacle for about 12 people's mental masturbation on politics. While you may beat me out for the prise of erudite ivory tower intellect based on your postings here, step back and look at your great accomplishment with some objectivity.

Boo fucking hoo.

I can see your point now. You're 100% right. Yep. I'm the one engaged in, whaqt is the term you keep using again? Oh yes, the politics of personal destruction.

I look at the eloquence and the simple persuasive power of your prose and I'm suddenly ashamed. Please, dear Penske, take my most heartfelt apology.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Cite please?

I don't have it, but it was either you or Hank who posted the case on the PB when it came out.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Of course, if anybody is interested in what the report actually said, here's a quote from the abstract , acknowledging that it's largely guesswork:

so they may fall in that range or may not. Either way, its obvious from the report that it is costing the economy billions. Because you self interested in the tax system and its inefficient complexities perpetuating themselves you want to wish it true the tax system is equitable or efficient enough to justify. But the people of America know that ain't the case, which is why they elect Republicans to do away with it. Too bad the meddling socialists keep getting in the way of the moral application of policy.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
He said a majority of the Iraqis support the US presence. I asked for proof. I don't think it's common knowledge that that's the case.

Anybody else care to comment on this?

Common knowledge.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I already repeated exactly what I said, which was that I would rather see Bush dead than me dead.

But then, you know that, because you replied to the post. I added a qualifier because there were people who were claiming I was threatening to kill the Pres. Can you see how my words could lead to that conclusion?

While I don't think they do, I do see how a reasonable person could possibly get there. I think intent plays a factor in the determination of culpability under that statute. Only based on the totality of my knowledge of you do I think the intent is missing. In the two dimensions of this board the intent of the threat could be as readily ascertained by a reasonable man as could my insanity by some of my posts. It's the risk of the two dimensional conversation. there is a lot of reality based context missing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
He said a majority of the Iraqis support the US presence. I asked for proof. I don't think it's common knowledge that that's the case.

Anybody else care to comment on this?

I believe in Peace through superior firepower and swift retaliation.

That wasn't really relevent was it?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
so they may fall in that range or may not. Either way, its obvious from the report that it is costing the economy billions. Because you self interested in the tax system and its inefficient complexities perpetuating themselves you want to wish it true the tax system is equitable or efficient enough to justify. But the people of America know that ain't the case, which is why they elect Republicans to do away with it. Too bad the meddling socialists keep getting in the way of the moral application of policy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Anyone stupid enough to avoid taking a gain or realizing income because they don't want to pay .34 of tax for .66 return should pay a higher tax. If anything, the current system is more efficient for the economy because it rewards, through the basis stepup at death, a long-term view of investing, which stabilizes capital.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by bilmore
You don't understand. Had the Bush admin acted solely on ideology, and not been concerned with political acceptability and compromise, there would be no abortions,

would be offset by the sharp increase in the number of dead teenage girls in alleys, found clutching wire coathangers.

we'd be in Syria,

would be offset by the additional troops being killed by IEDs and the million additional card-carrying al-Qaeda members

my SUV would be sipping Alaskan gasoline,

Ridiculous. I have yet to see a SUV that sips anything. Engulfs, devours, rapes, pillages and destroys - yes. Sips - hardly.

and Ty would be in jail.

I'll leave this for Ty. He may prefer the free three squares a day and a roof over his head.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
You don't understand. Had the Bush admin acted solely on ideology, and not been concerned with political acceptability and compromise, there would be no abortions, we'd be in Syria, my SUV would be sipping Alaskan gasoline, and Ty would be in jail. There are no "sole" drivers. There are drivers.

You don't understand.

We've receded from your original snark about Dems being the ones responsible ("Wonder why Bush didn't put more troops into the fight? Because the D's would have had an effin' fit if he had.") to the argument that all Presidential decisions -- down to whether LBJ should fart in the Residence, or wait until he gets to the Oval -- are imbued with political calculus, and therefore political pressures are one of the miasma of factors involved in THIS decision too, and why aren't you understanding this?

Yeah, I understand this point. It's watered down to the stage where it's meaningless, other than an opportunity for you to vent about reactionary, sissified Democrats. But I understand it.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
I believe in Peace through superior firepower and swift retaliation.

That wasn't really relevent was it?

Yes it was, as you are the most important poster on this board.