Why are you cowards so scared to discuss the HONESTY of Rand Paul?

Fuckers are smarter than I am, but I like reading your stuff...

Indeed. These people don't give a rat's ass about properly reforming or fixing anything if instead they can simply keep an issue remotely describable as blocking tax cuts for the "rich" around for continuing episodes of demagoguery. I think another good example is the carried interest "loophole," which liberals have used as a whipping post for many years. They love to say they're doing all they can to end it, but back in 2007 two prominent Senators worked behind the scenes to make that effort quietly go away. (If you immediately guessed that the names of those two Senators are Clinton and Schumer, you understand this issue!) Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

I'm not surprised, and it points to Hildebeest's utter hypocrisy at a time when she is now being attacked by Bernie's socialist dupes for not sufficiently hating Wall Street... the irony is that carried interest is one area where one could objectively challenge the tax code. It allows hedge funds and private equity firms to treat their “2 + 20” fees as capital gains. Since these fees are compensation for the work of running the investment vehicles rather than money that the hedge funds/PE firms put at risk along with their clients, there is a logical case to be made for treating “carried interest” (or at least part of it) as ordinary (and taxable) income. Do you agree? What are the arguments for cap gain treatment?

Using a crude, blunt force instrument to force the "fix" of a problem that should be handled by cleaning up the tax code has little chance of working out well, in my view.

In any case, blunt-force government "fixes" have a long history of failing or backfiring. Remember the wage-price rules handed down during the Nixon years?

"Got a problem with inflation? No worries. We'll just outlaw it!" Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Nixon and his failed wage-price controls are a whole separate topic...

Unfortunately I don't share your optimism that this kind of cram-down of new tax rules can't work. It'll take years to challenge the new rules in Tax Court, and the outcome is uncertain. In the meantime, corporations have to figure out how to fund their foreign subs in ways that minimize their overall taxes while complying with Jackass Lew's arbitrary rules... the bastards employ the same tactics in other areas too. For instance, the EPA keeps issuing new regs forcing power companies to install expensive new equipment to (marginally) reduce certain emissions – by the time the Courts get around to ruling that the EPA exceeded its authority and/or didn't perform a proper cost/benefit analysis, it's a fait accompli because billions have already been spent to comply... this is the Odumbo REGULATORY STATE in action, determined to impose its agenda on the country at all costs, forcing everything through before the courts can reverse it!

I'm not surprised, and it points to Hildebeest's utter hypocrisy at a time when she is now being attacked by Bernie's socialist dupes for not sufficiently hating Wall Street... the irony is that carried interest is one area where one could objectively challenge the tax code. It allows hedge funds and private equity firms to treat their “2 + 20” fees as capital gains. Since these fees are compensation for the work of running the investment vehicles rather than money that the hedge funds/PE firms put at risk along with their clients, there is a logical case to be made for treating “carried interest” (or at least part of it) as ordinary (and taxable) income. Do you agree? What are the arguments for cap gain treatment? Originally Posted by lustylad

The argument for taxing carried interest at cap gains rates essentially boils down to the claim that it incentivizes capital formation, since an even greater after-tax reward would flow to the venture's manager at the end of the day. However, even though I have personally benefited from the provision, I have a bit of trouble with that one. The way I see it, if I do not have my own capital at risk, it's a whole different ball game, and the "carried interest" return does not in essence differ from any other commission or performance fee. In short, I fail to see how taxing carried interest at ordinary income rates does much of anything to impede capital formation. (But, hey, if the code offers something, I'll take it!)

IUnfortunately I don't share your optimism that this kind of cram-down of new tax rules can't work. It'll take years to challenge the new rules in Tax Court, and the outcome is uncertain. In the meantime, corporations have to figure out how to fund their foreign subs in ways that minimize their overall taxes while complying with Jackass Lew's arbitrary rules... the bastards employ the same tactics in other areas too. For instance, the EPA keeps issuing new regs forcing power companies to install expensive new equipment to (marginally) reduce certain emissions – by the time the Courts get around to ruling that the EPA exceeded its authority and/or didn't perform a proper cost/benefit analysis, it's a fait accompli because billions have already been spent to comply... this is the Odumbo REGULATORY STATE in action, determined to impose its agenda on the country at all costs, forcing everything through before the courts can reverse it! Originally Posted by lustylad

Well, here I think an interpretation of my statement would depend on what the definition of "work" is!

What I meant, in essence, is that I don't think Lew's marching orders will work well with respect to effectively addressing the issue without risking certain adverse and non-trivial consequences for the economy.

But from Obama's point of view, they are likely to "work" very well, since he will be able to come away smug and satisfied that he has been able to impose his will on a swath of corporate America!
.