Dan Kahneman wrote:
You often use "old" in the context of a pejorative. Ageism can detract from an otherwise effective post.
Age is not related to the quality of the idea or the quality of the person.
Oh he’s just someone that continues to do nothing with his life then come on here and beat his meat.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
. . . rioting and looting was occurring nationwide.
No, it wasn't. It really wasn't.
*Some* incidents most definitely did occur, and were hyped mercilessly ("If it bleeds, it leads"), but they were scattered and few. There was no nationwide wave of rioting and looting. The overwhelming majority of communities experienced none of that.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
Old Japanese saying, "the hunchback sees every hump except his own"
Suddenly you become interested potential illegal activity?
Your the guy with the hunchback. Joe Biden has been a scumbag since he was exposed plagiarizing speeches during his first presidential campaign. He and his family are not even good crooks. Trump was much better. Anyway, pretty sure there will be four years of this, so don’t get a knot in your panties.
Yikes
Dan Kahneman wrote:
I have to agree with you two (and Obama by the way) on this. Defunding the police not only is a bad idea it was horrendous politics. Your can't ask for a better situation for Republicans than to yoke all democrats to the defund the police movement during a time that rioting and looting was occurring nationwide.
The defund the police movement was born out of anger and revenge not out of well thought out policy to improve the situation.
Were there any actual politicians campaigning on defunding the police?
That's an idea from citizens and activists to allocate more resources to social programs to help diffuse a lot of police activity that deal with people with mental issues. And to take it down a notch on the large scale weaponry some police carry.
It gets attached to Democrats who have not uttered a word in support of the slogan.
It's a terrible slogan from a political view. I cringed when I saw it become popular and I knew Republicans would run with it. But these aren't politicians coming up with this.
So, I agree it's a bad slogan, But I disagree when you say it is not a well thought out policy to improve the situation.
Camden, NJ is an example of a crime ridden city that has improved with a redirection in its approach towards policing.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/12/camden-policing-reforms-313750People aren't looking at the details, they are looking at the slogans.
Republicans are usually better at that, because most of their ideas are simple. Do nothing and let the "free market" work things out is their favorite.
Where Democrats have complex solutions to complex problems.
Racket wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Your the guy with the hunchback. Joe Biden has been a scumbag since he was exposed plagiarizing speeches during his first presidential campaign. He and his family are not even good crooks. Trump was much better. Anyway, pretty sure there will be four years of this, so don’t get a knot in your panties.
Yikes
What’s that line from a Few Good Men about not being able to handle the truth?
agip wrote:
Is it good or bad the Biden wing of the party is alienating the AOC wing of the party? I dunno.
Probably best if they all just shut up about it.
WILMINGTON, Del. — President-elect Joe Biden appeared to blame the "defund the police" movement for contributing to surprising Democratic down-ballot losses last month, telling civil rights leaders this week that they should proceed carefully on criminal justice issues.
"That's how they beat the living hell out of us across the country, saying that we're talking about defunding the police. We're not. We're talking about holding them accountable," Biden said Tuesday in a virtual meeting with civil rights leaders, according to audio excerpts posted Thursday in a podcast from The Intercept.
This is inconsequential. Biden will support fundamental changes in policing, which is what progressives actually want.
And Biden is taking an aggressive stance on the climate crisis, which is the other thing the AOC wing cares about most.
I don't see Biden taking an aggressive stance on financial reform, which is what the Warren wing of the party wants. So I think he's going to be upsetting the Warren wing more than the AOC wing.
But overall I'm not too worried about Democratic infighting at this point. Biden is looking like a pretty good unifying force so far.
agip wrote:
let's play!
NYT:
Two separate New York State fraud investigations into President Trump and his businesses, one criminal and one civil, have expanded to include tax write-offs on millions of dollars in consulting fees, some of which appear to have gone to Ivanka Trump, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
The inquiries — a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., and a civil one by the state attorney general, Letitia James — are being conducted independently. But both offices issued subpoenas to the Trump Organization in recent weeks for records related to the fees, the people said.
Here's a little tax primer for you:
In order to expense (write-off) consulting fees, the other side, in this case Ivanka, would have to claim the fees as income. These arrangements are very common and very legal and are essentially income splitting schemes. They only make sense when the payment of fees brings the person paying them down to a marginal rate below that of the person receiving the fee. Given the low corporate tax rate in the states is 21%, only the first $100K or so paid to an individual would be in a lower tax bracket. This would depend also on many other factors such as non-capital loss carryforwards the receiver may have.
Dan Kahneman wrote:
You often use "old" in the context of a pejorative. Ageism can detract from an otherwise effective post.
Age is not related to the quality of the idea or the quality of the person.
It's an inside joke on Igy, but come to think of it he really is senile. I'll use that term next.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Racket wrote:
Yikes
What’s that line from a Few Good Men about not being able to handle the truth?
Take your pills so you'll remember? Alright I'll stop but only if you stop being delusional. But Hunter's laptop!
PresidentTrump wrote:
agip wrote:
let's play!
NYT:
Two separate New York State fraud investigations into President Trump and his businesses, one criminal and one civil, have expanded to include tax write-offs on millions of dollars in consulting fees, some of which appear to have gone to Ivanka Trump, according to people with knowledge of the matter.
The inquiries — a criminal investigation by the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., and a civil one by the state attorney general, Letitia James — are being conducted independently. But both offices issued subpoenas to the Trump Organization in recent weeks for records related to the fees, the people said.
Here's a little tax primer for you:
In order to expense (write-off) consulting fees, the other side, in this case Ivanka, would have to claim the fees as income. These arrangements are very common and very legal and are essentially income splitting schemes. They only make sense when the payment of fees brings the person paying them down to a marginal rate below that of the person receiving the fee. Given the low corporate tax rate in the states is 21%, only the first $100K or so paid to an individual would be in a lower tax bracket. This would depend also on many other factors such as non-capital loss carryforwards the receiver may have.
That is irrelevant to this discussion. Ivanka has been an employee of the Trump Org, so they are not allowed to pay her both as a consultant and employee at the same time. That is definitely fudging the books. She owns a consulting company and had previously reported the same income of $750k as not coming from the Trump Org, and the Trump Org is also showing that same expense being paid out to an unnamed consultant... sounds clean to you?
Keep wasting your time loser.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Keep wasting your time loser.
Why in the world would you keep wasting your time to come back here, read posts you don't like and make posts like this?
Trollminator wrote:
PresidentTrump wrote:
Here's a little tax primer for you:
In order to expense (write-off) consulting fees, the other side, in this case Ivanka, would have to claim the fees as income. These arrangements are very common and very legal and are essentially income splitting schemes. They only make sense when the payment of fees brings the person paying them down to a marginal rate below that of the person receiving the fee. Given the low corporate tax rate in the states is 21%, only the first $100K or so paid to an individual would be in a lower tax bracket. This would depend also on many other factors such as non-capital loss carryforwards the receiver may have.
That is irrelevant to this discussion. Ivanka has been an employee of the Trump Org, so they are not allowed to pay her both as a consultant and employee at the same time. That is definitely fudging the books. She owns a consulting company and had previously reported the same income of $750k as not coming from the Trump Org, and the Trump Org is also showing that same expense being paid out to an unnamed consultant... sounds clean to you?
What is missing by the Trump Org are 1099-MISCs sent to the consultant. Those 1099-MISCs forms include SSNs. The amounts payed out on 1099-MISCs supposed to match with with a 1099-NEC (Non-Employee Compensation) summary form for which the company sends the IRS, these . That way the IRS can do a payment–income matchup to make sure taxes are properly paid by individuals based on SSNs, and the deduction taken by the company is accounted for. That Trump Org does not seem to know who they paid the consulting money too is a hard red tax flag.
The following is worth reading to those interested in understand better who can be a consultant. Ivanka does not qualify being a consultant to Trump Org, because she is also an inheritor of part of the company.
The following explains pitfalls of claiming someone who does employee work (Ivanka as part owner/inheritor making direction decisions for Trump Org), and consultant (Ivanka also contracting to clean the toilets).
https://www.thehrspecialist.com/12644/can-employees-also-be-independent-contractors-at-the-same-companyTrollminator wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
This kind of relates to our previous discussion. Over 100 Republican congressmen signed a document indicating support for a case where votes should be thrown out. And having the supreme court award the presidency to Trump. It is a total denial or ignoring of reality. Trump lost this election. That is reality.
Although reality denialism has always existed, I have never seen it so wide spread in the general population AND so widespread even among some educated and elected officials.
What the Republican congressman did, is to attack our democracy. They felt no shame over it either.
There is another reality though, that they successfully brainwashed 74m people. That gives them plenty of power. The main focus of trumpism will continue: own the libs. If they start a petition for splitting the country you can bet most of the 74m would sign up to live in a trumpian utopia.
There are not 74 million Trumpers. Sure, that's how many people voted for him, but my guess, is that a third of that are the hardcore trumpers who would follow him no matter what. I seriously doubt that 74 million Americans would think disbanding the USA would be a good thing. Then again, maybe I'm a hopelessly optimistic patriotic American.
I should add that treating an employee as a contractor has tax advantages to the company (no benefits paid, no payroll taxes paid) and the contractor (greater tax deferrable money placed into a 401Ks).
Trump Org screwed this up (intentionally, because they have been in business far too long to not know), then the IRS and the state of New York, are due money on improperly avoided taxes, plus interest, plus penalties. The company would have place money properly into the social security accounts, and the employee would have to take out money from improper amounts placed in a 401k and pay taxes on it; and losing the tax benefit they tried to improperly claim).
For 2019 the maximum someone can contribute to a 401k:
Employee: $19,000
Consultant: $56,000
MelRnr wrote:
There are not 74 million Trumpers. Sure, that's how many people voted for him, but my guess, is that a third of that are the hardcore trumpers who would follow him no matter what. I seriously doubt that 74 million Americans would think disbanding the USA would be a good thing. Then again, maybe I'm a hopelessly optimistic patriotic American.
A case in point are hardcore Trumpers like jamin and hardloper. They live in a very nasty blue state that has them living in fear. Neither will ever move to a Trump loving red state because people living there are nasty and dirty. It unlikely that more than a few million Trumpers would ever move themselves to a red state that split off from the U.S. Trumpers won't walk their talk.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Racket wrote:
Yikes
What’s that line from a Few Good Men about not being able to handle the truth?
What's that line in Tropic Thunder about never going full retard?
Racket wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
What’s that line from a Few Good Men about not being able to handle the truth?
What's that line in Tropic Thunder about never going full retard?
In July 2008 right before the Housing Bubble collapse I saw the outdoor advertisement in Downtown L.A. No need to go full retard and watch the film. Similar to watching “investors” in ARNB.
kibitzer wrote:
Dan Kahneman wrote:
. . . rioting and looting was occurring nationwide.
No, it wasn't. It really wasn't.
*Some* incidents most definitely did occur, and were hyped mercilessly ("If it bleeds, it leads"), but they were scattered and few. There was no nationwide wave of rioting and looting. The overwhelming majority of communities experienced none of that.
40 people dead and over one billion in property damage. That's not to mention all the lost wages etc. If one tenth of that had happened because of conservative protests you would never ever hear the end of it. Even the election day boarding up of businesses in the case of a trump win and lefty riots was essentially election interference. Even the head of BLM was saying things like "it's a very small percentage" like he's a stats expert but when less than 10 unarmed black people die as a result of police interactions; a number smaller than white deaths in the same circumstances; it's evidence of wide spread racism. No it isn't. It really isn't.
But of all the ways in which the ruling class's various levers worked in tandem to pave the way for Biden, none was more galling than Big Tech's weeks-long censorship of the New York Post's bombshell reporting on prodigal son Hunter Biden's unsavory exploits overseas. On consecutive days in mid-October, the Post published stories about how Hunter leveraged his father's lofty perch to unjustly enrich himself in Ukraine and China, respectively.
Facebook promptly blacklisted the story. Twitter nearly banned access to the story in toto and had the chutzpah to lock out the Post—the nation's oldest continually operating daily newspaper, which was founded by Alexander Hamilton—from its own account for over two weeks. Outside Silicon Valley, media lackeys carrying water for the Biden campaign unanimously decried the Post's reporting as "Russian disinformation."
https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-biden-saga-personifies-ruling-class-power-conceit-opinion-1553972