Are we headed for a world wide meltdown?

Nope. Smart move on your part. WTF should try it some time.

Occasionally even he manages to blurt out the truth:

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF
I hate to say it but lustylad's last bastard child's baby momma was his Daddys first born.
Originally Posted by lustylad

Yea , sometimes I get lucky...

Bought a BetaMax at Goodwill for $7. Turns out Ollie did in fact mention Abu Nidal and not Bin Laden. See? No harm fessing up. Now, might be a good time for you to reexamine the whole of your existence. I'll even toss in a free BetaMax player for ya. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

We'll all die soon enough....not wastimg my time on that philosophy blabber.

But I do appreciate your candor.

Maybe you can teach that lying wannabe an economist lystylady how to admit a mistake.

This is off topic, but since this is my thread I can hijack it! I was seeing a sugar baby who lived close to me many years ago. At the time she'd take off every once in a while to see a sugar daddy in a distant city. He'd buy her plane tickets and she'd be gone less than 24 hours. He'd give her ridiculous amounts, like $10,000 or $15,000, for the trip.

Well it turns out he was CFO of a company and he was defrauding it out of massive amounts of money, over $50 million in total. It was a big story in the local press where he lived. I'm expecting him to show up on American Green, the show on CNBC, one day.

Anyway I'm amazed how far this guy David Mikkelson made $98,000 in embezzled funds go -- vacations in India and Buenos Aires and a new porn star wife. He must have blown some of his salary or dividends as well.

Mikkelson's payment of personal expenses with money from his business, thereby making them tax deductible, is an excellent illustration why some successful Democratic businessmen argue for higher taxes -- because they've figured out a way to avoid taxes by gaming or defrauding the system. Originally Posted by Tiny

Hey! Although I'm not a Democrat, I'm perfectly OK with higher tax rates as long as everything I do that's necessary is tax-deductible.

For instance, my visits with sugar babies should reasonably be classifiable as necessary health treatments as they are excellent for my circulatory system. As such, I expect they will keep me out of the hospital as I enter my "golden years."

Since I do not believe in burdening the Medicare system with their costs, why shouldn't I treat these expenses as tax-deductible items?

.

Lael Brainard was out just earlier today with a statement apparently intended to "clarify" the Bostic statement to which I alluded yesterday, lest there be any perceived uncertainly about the Fed's commitment to combating inflation. Brainard insinuated that, yes indeed, they would "do whatever it takes" to stamp out inflation, and that three or more 50-bippers will likely be on the agenda in short order. (To those who think we'll go beyond a 2.5% effective Fed funds rate in pivotless fashion during this tightening cycle, I'll take the under on that!)

.

Get out of debt. Buy solid companies that pay a hi dividend. Sell puts on those stocks and be happy if you have to buy them at the end of the contract or be happy to just collect the dividend if the contract expires worthless. America is not going to collapse if there is a recession so just keep on buying more of the dividend paying stocks, if they go down the dividend pays a higher %...buy more. Stay with solid companies or ETF
s and CEFs with a good history. Good luck to all of you.

How can you maximize employment, and, at the same time maintain stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates, when inflation's 8%? My friend WTF's contention recently that you can maximize productivity (I think he meant GDP growth) and government revenues at the same time by adjusting tax rates is almost reasonable compared to that. Originally Posted by Tiny

No that was not my point. My only point was that there is a optical efficient tax rate. It is constantly changing. You will never be able to put a number on it. Never. Even if you had the best actuaries working on the formula 24/7/365...

My point has been that lustylad is a parroting fraud. He would have know this stupid factoid were he anything more than a Junior College dropout.

He if similar to those NFL odds busters who come on week after week offering up who you should bet on and going 3 for 16 coming on the next week acting as if 3 for 16 never happened! In other words a bullshitter.

Hey! Although I'm not a Democrat, I'm perfectly OK with higher tax rates as long as everything I do that's necessary is tax-deductible.

For instance, my visits with sugar babies should reasonably be classifiable as necessary health treatments as they are excellent for my circulatory system. As such, I expect they will keep me out of the hospital as I enter my "golden years."

Since I do not believe in burdening the Medicare system with their costs, why shouldn't I treat these expenses as tax-deductible items?

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Medical expenses are only deductible to the extent that they exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income. So it appears your expenditures on sugar babies are significant.

This shows you're a wise man. While >7.5% sounds like a lot, your circulatory system is important for your health and longevity. If banging those sugar babies gives you an extra 3 or 4 years before you croak, I expect the net present value of your future earnings, after tax, will actually be greater. It depends on how much you're spending on the sugar babies and what discount rate you use though.

The Fed has said it will begin to shrink its balance sheet this month by letting maturing bonds roll off at an initial pace of $47.5 billion per month. That is scheduled to double to $95 billion a month in September. Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Hmm... I must've missed this one. It would be interesting to look at the maturity profile of the Fed's current $9 trillion balance sheet. A shrinkage of $95 billion a month, if sustained, would halve its total holdings in roughly 4 years, bringing them back down to pre-pandemic levels.

The fact that the Fed can simply let maturing bonds run off suggests it holds a bucketload of short-term stuff. Outright selling would be highly dispruptive and cause bond market rates to spike. But let's be thankful that at least the Fed is no longer ADDING to its balance sheet each month!

Hey! Although I'm not a Democrat, I'm perfectly OK with higher tax rates as long as everything I do that's necessary is tax-deductible.

For instance, my visits with sugar babies should reasonably be classifiable as necessary health treatments as they are excellent for my circulatory system. As such, I expect they will keep me out of the hospital as I enter my "golden years." Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Can I also deduct the cost of my sugar baby's breast implants? Or do I have to call it a tax-exempt gift to her, and let her claim it as a "business" deduction?

Hmm... I must've missed this one. It would be interesting to look at the maturity profile of the Fed's current $9 trillion balance sheet. A shrinkage of $95 billion a month, if sustained, would halve its total holdings in roughly 4 years, bringing them back down to pre-pandemic levels.

The fact that the Fed can simply let maturing bonds run off suggests it holds a bucketload of short-term stuff. Outright selling would be highly dispruptive and cause bond market rates to spike. But let's be thankful that at least the Fed is no longer ADDING to its balance sheet each month! Originally Posted by lustylad

What do you think the effect will be on interest rates of letting the bonds mature, versus what we'd see if they'd never bought the bonds in the first place? In other words, will just letting the bonds run off have a similar effect to boosting the Fed Funds rate?

We'll all die soon enough....not wasting my time on that philosophy blabber.

But I do appreciate your candor. Originally Posted by WTF

Translation: I'm a simple-minded simpleton who is incapable of reflecting on anything deeper than my gay boyfriend's butthole.

Thanks for your candor!

Can I also deduct the cost of my sugar baby's breast implants? Or do I have to call it a tax-exempt gift to her, and let her claim it as a "business" deduction? Originally Posted by lustylad

That's a silly question. The IRS would never let you get away with your first idea. So your second idea is better, and yes, if she's a hooker like the Snopes co-founder's new wife, then she can deduct the cost of her new breasts. However you should give some thought to whether you want to whittle away your lifetime gift and estate tax exemption.

An additional bit of good news, she should be able to write off the entire cost of the breasts in the year of the surgery through a IRC Section 179 deduction, instead of depreciating the cost over the lifetime of the implants.

Can I also deduct the cost of my sugar baby's breast implants? Or do I have to call it a tax-exempt gift to her, and let her claim it as a "business" deduction? Originally Posted by lustylad

You bought your ladyboy some new hooters!?

Good for you...

However you should give some thought to whether you want to whittle away your lifetime gift and estate tax exemption.
Originally Posted by Tiny

You're crazy if you think lustylad is going to whittle away any way near the ....what is it 12 million estate tax exemption!

His boyfriend will be lucky if lusty leaves him his Milton Friedman book and a couple of buttplugs!

Translation: I'm a simple-minded simpleton who is incapable of reflecting on anything deeper than my gay boyfriend's butthole.

Thanks for your candor! Originally Posted by lustylad

You not careful, you gonna wind up in the timeout bin with buttbino!