Here's a Subject They All Agree On!!!

I think you reverted, and there was no discussing with you, only you telling me what I should think. Wrong! You're the one who reverted. That's why you're not fun. At least until recently when you began frothing at the mouth trying to make me care about your opinion. That's funny! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Of course you don't think I'm fun. I challenged you to do things like read, learn, and engage in critical thinking. That's uncomfortable territory for you. You're much more at home when you're simply hurling juvenile insults at people!
.

You did no such thing. LOL! You're delusional. It's funny.

During the Reagan Administration the Tax Code under went some significant changes, but IMO the most devastating was the elimination of the "sheltered gains" multi-family housing regulations in which investors in limited partnerships were allowed to take their gains after 20-25 years "tax free" ... so long as the LP's followed the rules of generating NO PROFITS during the life of the LP .... which meant that all revenues were plowed back into the low income (sliding scale) complexes.

What the LPs meant was high purchases of heavy appliances, roofing materials, and upgrading constant repairs with the associated labor expenses .... which consumed the profits ... while the tenants enjoyed quality places to live that were regularly UPGRADED. There were 1,000's of them around the country. Creating many manufacturing and local labor jobs .... installing, repairing, and servicing.

In a 90 day window during which no gains taxes would be paid they were dumped on the market ..... which began driving down the real estate market in multi-family projects .... and systematically driving out low income families as the projects were converted to standard rental complexes.....not to mention loss of manufacturing, sales, and labor jobs.

My point is ... there are sometimes unintended consequences when people don't back up and look at the larger picture .... and what happens to the "dominoes."

The same happens every time there is a discussion about elimination of the deductions for 2nd homes (vacation properties) .... the vacation home market starts suffering for months while Congress (and the media) "debate" whether to get rid of it. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I'm all for having the deductions for 2nd homes. What I am against is the large multi-national corporations making billions of dollars in profits annually and paying zero dollars in income taxes, and then, on top of that, getting a billion dollar tax return from the IRS. Not fair. Just because corporations are "not people" doesn't mean they don't earn income. If these large corporations paid the taxes they owed to the government on their enormous profits, think about how much it would drive down the deficit and add to America's safety nets.

You did no such thing. LOL! Huh?? I certainly DID challenge you to read, learn, and engage in critical thinking. Just read my previous post, you babbling buffoon! You're delusional. It's funny. I'm delusional? Uh, which one of us buys all that ridiculously laughable bullshit served up by those Kool-Aid-swilling FairTax cult leaders? Why don't you try telling us again how you can add that 30% sales tax to the price of new goods and services without ultimately raising the price at all, since the FairTax magically removes "embedded taxes" that equal the new tax added on? (No deception involved in that claim, is there, professor?) Oh, and be sure to accompany your confused babble with another claim that you taught university-level economics. LOL! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

For starters, here is a brief lesson for you on corporate tax incidence:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/20...te-income-tax/

I know this will most likely confuse you, but will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Enjoy!
.

Have you ever prepared a corporate balance sheet, consolidated profit/loss statement? Do you understand cost accounting? C'mon, HalfBright. The New York Times? A blog? That's your best? The guy's a nut job.

Have you ever prepared a corporate balance sheet, consolidated profit/loss statement? Not personally. Just not into that kind of grunt work. Too fucking boring! And it doesn't pay much. But I have hired plenty of people who have done so for my companies over the years. And in my capacity as a VC and private equity manager, I have read THOUSANDS of them, across many different industries. Do you understand cost accounting? Yes, perfectly well. I'd bet Benjamins to donuts that I understand it a lot better than you do. C'mon, HalfBright. The New York Times? A blog? That's your best? The guy's a nut job. Really? Just attack the messenger if you don't understand the issue? In the meantime, you buy into everything a REAL nut job (Neal Boortz) says, don't you? (Why, yes, you certainly do!)

Go ahead. Try to tell us that Neal Boortz is not a nut job. Try to defend all that "embedded taxes" bullshit served up in the FairTax book and on the websites. Here's your chance. Go for it, big guy!

And, unlike you, Professor Reinhardt actually HAS studied economics, and he offers a pretty good overview here of corporate tax incidence, a topic about which you are stupefyingly ignorant -- as we all know, of course. Come on, give it up. You cannot intelligently discuss taxation if you don't have the foggiest clue about this stuff. You're in way over your head here in any debate on tax policy or economic issues, and everyone else who has read these discussions knows it. Note that as is the case with your confused FairTax babbling, you cannot rebut anything I link or post, and simply respond with deflection, babbling, and name-calling. Really impressive! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

.

. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

He's one guy, who is wrong. Kinda like you, HalfBright.

Is Carried Interest Simply a Tax Break for The Ultra Rich? (A Great Article):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-s...ak-ultra-rich/

Read at your leisure and enjoy. Originally Posted by SassySue

You do realize that the "poor" don't pay federal taxes. A tax break would do nothing for them at all. For the "poor" you'd have to give away FREE money to make any difference. Something that is being discussed in Switzerland.


http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/24/news...ome/index.html

He's one guy, who is wrong. Kinda like you, HalfBright.

Really? Why? I challenge you to coherently rebut a single thing he wrote. But as usual, you can't, so you won't!
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Don't forget to accompany your next episode of incoherent tax-related babbling with another claim that you once taught university-level economics.

That always bolsters your credibility so nicely!
.

When you have answered the questions I have asked you numerous times, civilly, I may consider answering yours. Later, HalfBright!

When you have answered the questions I have asked you numerous times, civilly, I may consider answering yours. No you won't. You can't! Later, HalfBright! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Bag the obtuseness and check again, you babbling buffoon. I addressed all your questions in multiple threads, and you know it. Unless your aging, addled brain is in even worse shape than I thought!

Again, you cannot rebut anything I have ever posted about the FairTax, or anything Professor Reinhardt wrote about tax incidence in the piece to which I linked earlier, because you know (and everyone else knows!) that you would once again just make a fool of yourself if you tried. You would be better off asking questions, although I realize that you're not interested in learning anything.

As long as you address me in less than polite fashion, I will enjoy ridiculing your ignorance and your dishonesty (as well as your insecurity), Mr. Dunning-Kruger Poster Boy! Better just stick to tossing 4th-grade-style barbs at I'va Biggen and Yssup Rider. That's obviously more in keeping with your level of educational attainment.
.

I can rebut it, but I don't want to. It brings out a lot of vitriol in you, and I don't want to deal with it. Why are you so intent on involving me in some endless pissing contest? I'm not HerFaceChair, or some of the others that enjoy that. Are you so desperate for approval that you think you have to prove yourself smarter than me? I mean, that's kind of sick. So ok, if it will help, you're smarter than me. Issue resolved. That doesn't mean everything you say is right, and everything I say is wrong, even if it were true why do you want to ruin my reputation on a SHMB? I mean, really, I don't post here to enhance my reputation. I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about me on here. I don't care whether you believe my credentials, education or experience.

I support the FairTax, which, btw, will never become law, because it is consistent with my values, and I believe it would work. You don't. And you've listed every MSM argument against it. Fine. We disagree. I've read all the pros and cons, given them serious thought, and I still support it. I think it's a good plan. I will always oppose an income tax, because it violates my values, in form and practice. I will never support it. I will not support tweaks to it to make it more "fair". That's impossible.


All I've asked you is what tax system you support. You have NEVER answered that question. I have even promised to consider it and give an honest, civil opinion. All I get from you is how "stupid" I am for not knowing about MPC or tax incidence. Which is untrue, because I do, but you flew off the handle so far when you brought it up, I figured there was no point.


I must threaten you in some way for you to attack so viciously. I'm no threat. I don't care. I'm sure you're richer than me. Does that help? Your house is no doubt bigger than mine. Your car is newer and more expensive. There. Feel better? Guess what? I STILL don't care.


You need to figure out why some anonymous guy on a SHMB threatens you so. It's not healthy.

I can rebut it, but I don't want to. No you can't, or you would have done so long ago. You are confused and bamboozled by the whole issue. It brings out a lot of vitriol in you, and I don't want to deal with it. Huh?? You're the one who started all the insult-hurling, remember? All I did was punch back, you obtuse hypocrite. Why are you so intent on involving me in some endless pissing contest? I'm not HerFaceChair, or some of the others that enjoy that. Are you so desperate for approval that you think you have to prove yourself smarter than me? I mean, that's kind of sick. Really? Which one of us foolishly tried to boost his "cred" by claiming that he taught (at the university level, no less!) a subject that he clearly knows little about? Is the asininity of that ridiculous little stunt not painfully obvious to you? So ok, if it will help, you're smarter than me. Issue resolved. That doesn't mean everything you say is right, and everything I say is wrong, even if it were true why do you want to ruin my reputation on a SHMB? I mean, really, I don't post here to enhance my reputation. That's a damned lucky thing for you, then, isn't it? I don't care what you or anyone else thinks about me on here. I don't care whether you believe my credentials, education or experience. Then why do my posts seem to bother you so much?

I support the FairTax, which, btw, will never become law, because it is consistent with my values, and I believe it would work. Then why did you never even make the most rudimentary attempt to understand it? Had you done so, you would realize that it would NOT work as claimed by its supporters, and that it's been promoted via blatantly deceptive and fraudulent means You don't. And you've listed every MSM argument against it. Fine. We disagree. I've read all the pros and cons, given them serious thought, and I still support it. I think it's a good plan. I will always oppose an income tax, because it violates my values, in form and practice. I will never support it. I will not support tweaks to it to make it more "fair". That's impossible. Yet after all these discussions, you STILL have no idea how the FairTax works or what its effects would be. For one thing, you obviously still buy that laughably ridiculous 23% "embedded taxes" bullshit. So you either have not paid any attention to the previous discussions or you suffer from a severe case of innumeracy (or both, as is most likely).


All I've asked you is what tax system you support. You have NEVER answered that question. I addressed that in previous threads. You weren't paying attention. I have even promised to consider it and give an honest, civil opinion. All I get from you is how "stupid" I am for not knowing about MPC or tax incidence. Which is untrue, because I do, but you flew off the handle so far when you brought it up, I figured there was no point. I didn't fly "off the handle." All I did was ridicule your dishonesty and insecurity, as well as your ignorance of the issue under discussion. (Which, given all your non-stop insults of my intelligence, I must admit was sort of fun!) You know nothing about MPC and its implications, else you never would have posted (repeatedly!) that the FairTax is a progressive tax system. Come on. This stuff has been taught to every first-year econ student for generations. Further, you openly acknowledged in that long 2013 thread that you had never even heard the term "tax incidence." Thus you have little or no education in the field of economics, and no understanding of how taxation works. So your claim to have taught university-level economics simply doesn't pass the laugh test.


I must threaten you in some way for you to attack so viciously. I'm no threat. I don't care. I'm sure you're richer than me. Does that help? Your house is no doubt bigger than mine. Your car is newer and more expensive. There. Feel better? Guess what? I STILL don't care. Oh, brother. I think that bit of babble rates a hearty, "No comment!"


You need to figure out why some anonymous guy on a SHMB threatens you so. It's not healthy. TFF! You really think anyone would feel "threatened" by someone on an SHMB who comes off as an obnoxious, insecure ne'er-do-well? If my frustration and insecurity drove me to claim that I taught a subject I know nothing about, I think I'd be very, very reticent to broach the subject of what might be reasonably classifiable as unhealthy psychological behavior!

IJS ...
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

.

Good lord, Halfbright, you're making my case for me. Give it up.

Good lord, Halfbright, you're making my case for me. Give it up. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

No, it looks like you've long been hell-bent on making my case for me!

Why don't you explain why you felt compelled to claim that you taught university-level economics? If it wasn't simply a combination of frustration and insecurity, then what was it? Inquiring minds would like to know!

You brought this upon yourself, remember. I told you recently that after all the incivility you've directed toward me over the last three years, you can expect any post addressing me in less than 100% polite fashion to be answered by my making fun of your ignorance and your insecurity.

Since we all know that you'll never change your stripes or apologize for your past behavior, you'd better get over it!
.