Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Using Spanky as your example, apparently some lawyers got their knowledge from the same source. Which I guess explains why he's now preying on unfortunate homeowners instead of practicing law.

And we are all jealous.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have always given you credit for that. It's one of the main reasons it rustrates me so much when you refuse to see that some of your economic ideas truly screw over the same people you would otherwise protect.

That is the intelligent design of economic darwinism.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Damages aren't sufficient because they fail to remedy the injury. The exclusionary rule is all about the externalities.

As a citizen, I have no use for cash. What I want is to know that the cops won't come crashing in my door because my neighbor, who is pissed at me for letting my dog shit in his yard (hi Pony!), has told the cops that he thinks I might be dealing.

If the cop is going to get a demerit on his record because the city has to pay me $10,000 damages, but he's going to get his sergeant's stripes if he busts a drug dealer, isn't going to give a shit about whether the neighbor is right or wrong. He's kicking the door in because it no longer costs him anything to be wrong.

What the fuck is it about some people that they think that all the wrongs in the world can be solved by throwing money at them?

I think your problem is that you don't think dealing drugs is a crime. You are not worried about someone having their rights infringed on, you are worried about someone getting caught dealing drugs.

You don't use a child molester and kidnapper as your example because that is a crime everyone agrees is bad.

If your neighbor gives the reason for the cops to bust in and they find chained up children in your basement then everything would work out great. The children would go free, and your heirs would get the money for the damages done to you while you rot in jail for the rest of your life.

The answer to your issue is not the exlusionary rule, you don't like some of the laws we have.

If they break in and you are not a drug dealer, I think $10,000 is pretty good compensation. For $10,000 the cops can come do an illegal search of my house any time. In fact I wish they would.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Using Spanky as your example, apparently some lawyers got their knowledge from the same source. Which I guess explains why he's now preying on unfortunate homeowners instead of practicing law.

What is scary is that you are still practicing law when you can't separate two obviously different issues. You just don't grasp that the purpose behind the exlusionary rule is not to prevent guilty people from getting caught, it has to do with stopping the cops from overreaching their authority. Letting a guilty guy go free is not the intention of the rule, just an unintended consequence.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Using Spanky as your example, apparently some lawyers got their knowledge from the same source. Which I guess explains why he's now preying on unfortunate homeowners instead of practicing law.

I save people from going through forclosure. They are upside down so they are about to lose everything. I stop the forclosure and get them some money. They love me. It is the banks that don't like me so much.

What do you do besides insuring that your rich clients pay less taxes (insuring that more of the burden falls on the poor).

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I save people from going through forclosure. They are upside down so they are about to lose everything. I stop the forclosure and get them some money. They love me. It is the banks that don't like me so much.

What do you do besides insuring that your rich clients pay less taxes (insuring that more of the burden falls on the poor).

We should do away with the tax code. A simple flat tax at a set level, no deductions, no credits, no government induced market warping incentives or disincentives, no nothing. A 1 page filing:

Dear Secretary of the Treasury:

My SSN is xx-xx-xxxx. I made $x last year.

Attached is a check for $y, representing my tax obligation of z%.

Spend it wisely or else!!!

Sincerely,

Jack Taxpayer

I pray for President Bush to have the fortitude to lead us to such a promised land.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
We should do away with the tax code. A simple flat tax at a set level, no deductions, no credits, no government induced market warping incentives or disincentives, no nothing. A 1 page filing:

Dear Secretary of the Treasury:

My SSN is xx-xx-xxxx. I made $x last year.

Attached is a check for $y, representing my tax obligation of z%.

Spend it wisely or else!!!

Sincerely,

Jack Taxpayer

I pray for President Bush to have the fortitude to lead us to such a promised land.

In this promised land, does x include only wage income? Investment income? Alimony? Gambling winnings? Tips?

Just curious.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by dtb
In this promised land, does x include only wage income? Investment income? Alimony? Gambling winnings? Tips?

Just curious.

No double taxation, so dividends are out. Alimony is out. Your others are mainly mostly in.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by dtb
In this promised land, does x include only wage income? Investment income? Alimony? Gambling winnings? Tips?

Just curious.

Or say if you are an up and coming politico, and some rich guys let you rob a futures market account to bribe you, and to set you up for a run at National office- would those illegal proceeds be taxed?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Or say if you are an up and coming politico, and some rich guys let you rob a futures market account to bribe you, and to set you up for a run at National office- would those illegal proceeds be taxed?

This hypo sounds far-fetched, I am not sure it could ever happen irl. Isn't more likely that a first time investor could just get lucky and make outsized profits in a very short period in the complex world of the commodities markets, cash out on a high and then never trade in such instruments again? The latter seems more like the common fact pattern to me.

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
This hypo sounds far-fetched, I am not sure it could ever happen irl. Isn't more likely that a first time investor could just get lucky and make outsized profits in a very short period in the complex world of the commodities markets, cash out on a high and then never trade in such instruments again? The latter seems more like the common fact pattern to me.

Moo

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Moo

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
"Us"? Since when did you become a malcontented rabble-rousing leftist?

By "us" I meant us rational thinking people, so we can banish the looneys to Gaza.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Chavez's speech had him proposing moving the UN to Jerusalem, because that would solve most of the Wrold's problems. He got the biggest ovation of the summit.

Do you think the diplomats would vote to move it to Jerusalem, you know, if it were a secret vote?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_world_summit

I think the diplomats would vote to give Jerusalem to the Palis - That big nuke that the Israelis have is the equivalent to the 2nd Amendment protection.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have always given you credit for that. It's one of the main reasons it rustrates me so much when you refuse to see that some of your economic ideas truly screw over the same people you would otherwise protect.

My economic ideas are consistent with my ideas on civil rights - stay the fuck out.