Reagan-Lovers: Stop the Bull

Pie size limitations are created by politicians who seek to purchase votes with other people's money. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Word! The pie size is only limited at a given set of effort. If you (or society) expend more effort -- more pie.

That is exactly right.
Old business's hardly create jobs , yet these old bastards control the purse strings to all the politicians and all they want are tax cuts for their fat asses. We really want to stimulate job growth we'd invest in start-ups and quit listening to old generational and corporate wealth that has grown fat and lazy and only wants tax cuts and hand outs. They do not care about our huge deficits, they are just raiding this country's coffers and will transfer their wealth overseas. True patriots they are! Can you follow any of these musing their Captain? Originally Posted by WTF

Rhetoric is just that...Rhetoric.

You say you want to create jobs...

But have someone go buy a tract of land...hold it for a year or two...develop it into single family lots...sell those lots out to home buiders over the course of 3-5 years...those homebuilders build houses and sell them to consumers...and every dollar of income generated from the development company or the homebuilding company is taxed as ordinary income.

But buy a share of stock in Exxon from your local stock broker...and sell it one year later...and it is long term capital gains.

Which one created more jobs? The government choose which motivation to incent...and they got it.
*************
Have an oil company spend a million dollars drilling a well with some 70% of that costs being Intangible Development Costs (real dollars, spent on drilling a well to completion)...and some idiots out there call that "tax breaks for the oil companies".

Build a building for $5MM, and get to expense it for tax purposes over the course of the next 39.5 years.

But buy a product manufactured in Taiwan, and sell it in a store tomorrow...and expense it immediately.

Which of those operations created more jobs...here...for Americans?
************
Somewhat like courting the women in here. You can recognize that they are primarily here for some green, but still like to be treated like a woman, and given a choice will be with those who do.

Or you can call them a bitch...tell them to fall on their knees and suck away...and hand them their money.

Incent the action you want to occur...without a lot of judgement as to what the right or wrong of the motivation...and you generally end up with a good outcome. Or Not!! It's your choice. But I guess it is a lot more gratifying for some to complain about the world rather than accepting it...joining it...and doing something about it.

Rhetoric is just that...Rhetoric.

You say you want to create jobs...

But have someone go buy a tract of land...hold it for a year or two...develop it into single family lots...sell those lots out to home buiders over the course of 3-5 years...those homebuilders build houses and sell them to consumers...and every dollar of income generated from the development company or the homebuilding company is taxed as ordinary income.

But buy a share of stock in Exxon from your local stock broker...and sell it one year later...and it is long term capital gains.

Which one created more jobs? The government choose which motivation to incent...and they got it.
*************
Have an oil company spend a million dollars drilling a well with some 70% of that costs being Intangible Development Costs (real dollars, spent on drilling a well to completion)...and some idiots out there call that "tax breaks for the oil companies".

Build a building for $5MM, and get to expense it for tax purposes over the course of the next 39.5 years.

But buy a product manufactured in Taiwan, and sell it in a store tomorrow...and expense it immediately.

Which of those operations created more jobs...here...for Americans?
************
Somewhat like courting the women in here. You can recognize that they are primarily here for some green, but still like to be treated like a woman, and given a choice will be with those who do.

Or you can call them a bitch...tell them to fall on their knees and suck away...and hand them their money.

Incent the action you want to occur...without a lot of judgement as to what the right or wrong of the motivation...and you generally end up with a good outcome. Or Not!! It's your choice. But I guess it is a lot more gratifying for some to complain about the world rather than accepting it...joining it...and doing something about it. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

on developing the real estate: you would sell the raw land to a related entity for its development and take the gain personally on the build-up in value of the land held for more than a year and a day and receive a capital gain on that portion. the profit related to the development would be ordinary income.

Capital Gains- this is an issue all by itself. hold something for a period of time, say ten years, and be taxed on its entire gain, while the purchasing power of that money is not the same as it was ten years prior. there should be some purchasing power allowance.

IDC- something i know a little bit about. the preference is for integrated oil companies, not independents, although obama certainly has his sights set on destroying the domestic oil business as a means of converting us to his dual vision of bringing america down to the level of other nations in terms of our use of energy and resources for our "common salvation" and converting us from a fossil based energy economy to some green vision nebulously floating around the ether.

real property depreciation is an issue, although financing is normally longer term too. the life of a building for depreciation purposes should float with the avergage life of related mortgages so that a deduction is allowed as the principal is repaid, 39.5 years is way too long.

but your real point is certainly correct, obama does not incentivize the risk takers and employers. he believes in passing out goodies (stimulus) to leeches, unions, and the unemployed while castigating the entreprenuer.

Word! The pie size is only limited at a given set of effort. If you (or society) expend more effort -- more pie. Originally Posted by pjorourke

What you supply side defenders fail to mention is that the pie can also shrink. That is what has happened. Is that Obamas fault?

What Doove may have meant was that when one group of folk (the 400 richest) that control a large % of the wealth , it is unhealthy for all. These folks sit on the sidelines waiting until their favored politicians bestow a rigged game upon the masses.

Rhetoric is just that...Rhetoric.

You say you want to create jobs...

But have someone go buy a tract of land...hold it for a year or two...develop it into single family lots...sell those lots out to home buiders over the course of 3-5 years...those homebuilders build houses and sell them to consumers...and every dollar of income generated from the development company or the homebuilding company is taxed as ordinary income.

But buy a share of stock in Exxon from your local stock broker...and sell it one year later...and it is long term capital gains.

Which one created more jobs? The government choose which motivation to incent...and they got it.
*************
Have an oil company spend a million dollars drilling a well with some 70% of that costs being Intangible Development Costs (real dollars, spent on drilling a well to completion)...and some idiots out there call that "tax breaks for the oil companies".

Build a building for $5MM, and get to expense it for tax purposes over the course of the next 39.5 years.

But buy a product manufactured in Taiwan, and sell it in a store tomorrow...and expense it immediately.

Which of those operations created more jobs...here...for Americans?
************
Somewhat like courting the women in here. You can recognize that they are primarily here for some green, but still like to be treated like a woman, and given a choice will be with those who do.

Or you can call them a bitch...tell them to fall on their knees and suck away...and hand them their money.

Incent the action you want to occur...without a lot of judgement as to what the right or wrong of the motivation...and you generally end up with a good outcome. Or Not!! It's your choice. But I guess it is a lot more gratifying for some to complain about the world rather than accepting it...joining it...and doing something about it. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

WTF are you talking about? I have been railing about the fuc'd up tax system for years. You think , I don't agree with you there think again.

On a side note, it sounds like you need to hire nevergivesitathought as your CPA!

Lastly I have never wanted to call a woman on here a bitch and demand she lick my balls (not that I'd object if she just couldn't help herself!) but I have thought a few of the gents on here were thin skinned bitches!

on developing the real estate: you would sell the raw land to a related entity for its development and take the gain personally on the build-up in value of the land held for more than a year and a day and receive a capital gain on that portion. the profit related to the development would be ordinary income.

IDC- something i know a little bit about. the preference is for integrated oil companies, not independents, although obama certainly has his sights set on destroying the domestic oil business as a means of converting us to his dual vision of bringing america down to the level of other nations in terms of our use of energy and resources for our "common salvation" and converting us from a fossil based energy economy to some green vision nebulously floating around the ether.

real property depreciation is an issue, although financing is normally longer term too. the life of a building for depreciation purposes should float with the avergage life of related mortgages so that a deduction is allowed as the principal is repaid, 39.5 years is way too long.

but your real point is certainly correct, obama does not incentivize the risk takers and employers. he believes in passing out goodies (stimulus) to leeches, unions, and the unemployed while castigating the entreprenuer. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

LOL. Oh NGIAT...I never meant I didn't know how to circumvent some of the tax laws.

In your point one...I think in actuality if the land is in a partnership the development company must be at least a "check the box" corporation. But then there are related party issues...and timing on gains of those related parties...that must also be dealt with. The IRS rules do not allow you to get away with form over substance.

On point two...IDC discussions are not only related to integrated oil companies...they generally relate to production statistics...and even if they were...are less jobs created because of the integration?

On point three...if one goes through an analysis of the building costs...and documents it properly...one can get a shorter depreciation on some items (for instance an HVAC unit).

But let's not get off track into Obama or Bush...or conservative or liberal...or Dem or Pub. Obama catches the brunt of it today...because he is the current catcher. I don't think he is a very good one...and I hold for him no sympathy cause he asked for the job...but there is plenty of blame to go around for world today....if you're in the blame game. I am not.

All sides of the aisle miss this point. Incent, with economic motivation, the action that you want to occur...and it will, more often than not, occur. Villanizing a motivation achieves very little.

WTF are you talking about? I have been railing about the fuc'd up tax system for years. You think , I don't agree with you there think again. Originally Posted by WTF

WTF...I can't think of a single subject that you haven't railed for...or against...in some facet.

Like the 1,000 monkeys and 1,000 typewriters...we are bound to agree on something.

.

All sides of the aisle miss this point. Incent, with economic motivation, the action that you want to occur...and it will, more often than not, occur. Villanizing a motivation achieves very little. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Well I'll be damn, after all that BS , you come back to the actual crux of the matter. You have restored my faith in the great English writer!

WTF...I can't think of a single subject that you haven't railed for...or against...in some facet. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

It's called the pro and con. Each side usually has a valid point. Though PJ has made it very difficult for me in that regard!

Like the 1,000 monkeys and 1,000 typewriters...we are bound to agree on something. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

A young pet monkey had an accident and needed a brain transplant. The veterinarian told the monkey's human family, "Brains are very expensive, and you will have to pay the cost yourselves."
"Well, how much does a brain cost?" asked the family.
"For a male brain, $500,000. For a female brain, $200,000," replied the vet.
All the men in the family nodded because they thought they understood. But the mother was unsatisfied and asked, "Why the difference in price between male and female brains?"
"Standard pricing practice," said the vet. "The female brains have to be marked down because they’ve actually been used!".

LOL...out of the mouths of babes. I never claimed they do give a shit wnat I think. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Neither did i. So the point was just as dumb when you made it (first) as it was when i made it.

I've been talking about what capital thinks.

If "capital" is somehow code for "CEO's" then yeah, you were talking about what capital thinks.

You can't even follow your own thoughts...i.e. don't put words in other mouths.

Project much?

That is your fundamental problem. Its not. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Ok, but as the pie increases in size, those increases are continually flowing more and more to the top 2% of people, leaving everyone else with little to show for it. So my point stands.

While i'm by no means wealthy, i do consider myself pretty lucky relative to the vast majority of people. Being single only goes to making my situation even all that much better. But basically, i consider myself a pretty typical American consumer. I know where i spend, and i know where i've cut back over the years. And a lot of the cutting back would not have occurred had my increases in salary over the years, percentage wise, kept up with the increases enjoyed by those at the upper ends of the income scale. That's not a whine, that's just a fact. I understand that the natural laws of capitalism state that money is going to flow where money is going to flow, which is fine. But let's not pretend that it's automatically a good thing for the economy as a whole just because that's what capitalism says it should do.

Neither did i. So the point was just as dumb when you made it (first) as it was when i made it.

If "capital" is somehow code for "CEO's" then yeah, you were talking about what capital thinks.

Project much? Originally Posted by Doove

Is that kind of like...I'm rubber and you're glue?

You're just too clever for me.

And a lot of the cutting back would not have occurred had my increases in salary over the years, percentage wise, kept up with the increases enjoyed by those at the upper ends of the income scale. Originally Posted by Doove

Maybe you need to put forth more effort or take more risks. Thats usually what is driving the growth in the upper levels of income.

Maybe you need to put forth more effort or take more risks. Thats usually what is driving the growth in the upper levels of income. Originally Posted by pjorourke

What has driven the pie to shrink? The upper levels slacking!???!

You guys are to funny, privatize profits , socialize losses.

Not a bad gig for the movers and shakers in this country.

I'm just suprised so many people still fall for that BS.

Pie size limitations are created by politicians who seek to purchase votes with other people's money. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

God forbid a politician would purchase votes with his own money.

What has driven the pie to shrink? The upper levels slacking!???!

You guys are to funny, privatize profits , socialize losses.

Not a bad gig for the movers and shakers in this country.

I'm just suprised so many people still fall for that BS. Originally Posted by WTF

Shrinking pie? Mine is up about 20% over the last 12 months, compared to the same period a year ago. I took some risks last year that are paying off and am working harder than ever. Nobody bailed me out or socialized my losses. But then again, I'm not a "mover and shaker" -- just a hard worker.

My only complaint is that I don't have enough time to get laid regularly.

What has driven the pie to shrink? The upper levels slacking!???!

You guys are to funny, privatize profits , socialize losses.

Not a bad gig for the movers and shakers in this country.

I'm just suprised so many people still fall for that BS. Originally Posted by WTF

And I'm surprised that given the rainstorm here today that the traffic lights aren't working and neither is my cable.