Tax changes / proposals - discussion

It absolutely added weight. If it sold a few thousand copies, no one would give a crap.

Correct, but i’m taking it one statement at a time. Liberals don’t want to execute the rest of us (abortion notwithstanding). But colleges ARE hotbeds of communist indoctrination. To be more precise, I would substitute neo-marxist for communist.

Yes, and my point is that politicians aren’t famous for their ideas. They’re famous for their party membership and status. Trump is a good example even though he isn’t a typical politician. He didn’t become famous for his ideas. He was famous before anyone ever cared about what he thought about any issue. Warren is famous because the party chose her to run against Scott Brown. It literally could have been any number of people in her seat that would be equally famous (or less if they didn’t pretend to be an Indian).

Firstly, communism != neo-marxism != liberalism.

Secondly, indoctrination implies some sort system to convince people to accept a belief without reason. That’s certainly not what colleges are. At best, colleges are full of liberal people with liberal ideas that tend to be convincing to people who are around them.

Thirdly, using these kinds of words (“hotbed”, “communist”, “indoctrination”) is purposefully designed to incite people on both sides and seriously detracts from any rational discussion.

5 Likes

correct. which is why i made my wording about my views more precise. but when someone says “communism” on campus is a problem and then someone else responds “nonsense,” the person saying “nonsense” is the one that I take issue with more-so that the one who used the word “communism” instead of what I believe is actually neo-marxism.

At worst, they’re full of post-modernist neo-marxist professors who’s ideas are too radical for them to ever be elected to office, so they are doing their best to share those ideas with the next generation in hopes that some of them will run for office and the rest will be okay with electing them.

In actuality, they are somewhere in between the best you describe and the worst I describe.

I agree.

But I mean… who’s hiring those professors? It’s not like there’s some conspiracy to put really radical professors in charge of college classes. If their views play a role in their hiring, it’s because they tend to align with the rest of the college population.

Alternatively, maybe academics just tend to be more liberal in general. (I use “liberal” here, because you’ve provided no evidence that a lot of college professors are post-modernist neo-marxist.)

And, in that context, I don’t really think most are particularly radical.

Yes, but do they align with the rest of society? If not, shouldn’t those of us that oppose them the most be upset with what they are teaching to kids who don’t know any better?

There are some exception to that, like womyn’s-study, for example.

There is a very apparent left tilt in the social-science side. this is a problem recognized even by some left-leaning academic. However, with the recent alt-right movement, they are pushing the moderate science-literate conservative over to the “other side”.

2 Likes

I mean… it’s market selection. These aren’t kids; they’re young adults who are fully capable of choosing where to go to school.

1 Like

OK then…

Do you have any actual data or proof for this kind of claim?

Do you live next door to Reed college maybe?

1 Like

sigh. ok.

Kindle books = ebooks. == very large % of books sold. The most sold list does include ebooks. Its a huge part of the market. SO the # of books sold via ebooks gives Amazon clear data on what books are read. Not that it really matters. I was just being snarky pointing out that Fire & Fury is most read.

Yes OK that guy wrote the #1 current selling book. I wasn’t sure I was supposed to acknowledge such an obvious fact after you pointed to the best seller list. My references to Fire & Fury were not meant to seriosly argue that. I was making a point, jokingly. You see the point at all??

BTW, why exactly are we talking about Peterson and his book exactly?

I’ve got some good kale salad recipes if we’re just doing total non sequiturs now.

1 Like

Who cares if he’s number one or number two. Who cares if we use most read vs most sold. He’s in the top 2 in both categories. End of debate on whether his book is well known.

That said, that doesn’t make him famous. Perhaps the book is famous, but author fame may not go hand in hand. I’ve never heard of him (but I’ve also never heard of the book).

5 Likes
1 Like

Anyway.

The Congressional GOP was in such a rush to shovel trillions to the Rich & Corporate, they incompetently created large glitches in the tax legislation.

There are dozens of snafus, impacting everything from real estate investments to multinational corporations to farmers.

~ One glitch allows people investing in real estate to claim a new deduction for pass-through income, but only if they own real estate stocks directly. If they own them through mutual funds, as many Americans do, they don’t qualify for the intended break.

~ Another glitch would allow farmers who sell grain to cooperatives to avoid taxes entirely, which was included in the legislation at the insistence of multiple Republican senators despite warnings of its implications. Eighty-seven House Republicans have signed a letter urging congress to address this issue.

~ There are conflicting instructions on when new restrictions on businesses using losses to reduce their taxes take effect. An official report explaining the legislation says it starts in taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, but the actual text of the law states it takes effect for taxable years that end after Dec. 31, 2017.

~ Another glitch allows hedge funds, private equity firms, and others to dodge a crackdown on the rules surrounding so-called ‘carried interest’ by taking advantage of a vague reference in the law excusing corporations from the new rules. The legislation appears to have been meant for C corporations, but legal experts say it could also excuse S corporations, which could be easily used to duck all restrictions.

~ Real estate businesses making various types of improvements to non-residential real estate are prevented from immediately deducting the entire cost, as lawmakers had intended. Instead, the language of the legislation requires those breaks be taken piecemeal over the next 39 years.

~ One provision inadvertently denies restaurants, retailers and many others generous new write-offs for things as simple as remodeling.

These are not your normally expected drafting errors or typos, these are just a sampling of the major errors and conflicts.

WHAT A MESS.

Apparently the congressional GOP has been quietly reaching out to the Dems asking if they would assist in correcting these glitches, as they cannot act under reconciliation themselves, which is LAUGHABLE. They should repeal this ridiculous monstrosity and merely implement the tax cuts for the Middle-Class and small businesses without the SALT limitations.

huh.

Its almost as if real estate owners had some sort of influence on the government.

1 Like

Do you have the sections of the bill for each of those? Would be interested in reading them. I’m confused about the carried interest specifically. I thought all the bill did was change the holding period of the asset from 1 to 3 years. But from what I’ve seen private equity funds generally hold their holdings for longer than 3 years. And hedge funds are made up of institutional investors which would disqualify them from electing S Corp status.

I agree that the whole thing should be repealed and we should start over. Even if you’re someone who agrees with what they want to get done, I think you should want it repealed and to actually reform.

But, need to remember history. When the democrats passed the ACA republicans attacked it from the beginning. They spent the next several years just trying to get rid of it instead of fix the problems. Democrats went to republicans to try to fix the problems, but they were so focused on getting it repealed that they weren’t interested in helping fix the problems. Now we have a less than stellar bill.

If what you say is true (and I believe you it is, just haven’t heard about that), maybe democrats should consider working with republicans. With all these moderate republicans leaving, it leaves room for democrats, but it also leaves room for the far right, so who knows what happens.

1 Like

HEH.

But that’s not the glitch. Even the V.S.G. doesn’t own real estate directly. Actually, he owns very little, as evidenced by his name being crow-barred off yet another building.

But there’s two major distinctions:

~ The parts of the ACA that required tweaking were unforeseen due to the SCOTUS, and insurance companies not keeping promises, etc., whereas the problems in the tax bill would have been obvious if it had gone through the proper committee and hearing process.

~ Repeal of the ACA would have stripped 30 million Americans of health coverage and spiked the premiums for everyone else.

Yes, they are distinctions, but that doesn’t really matter much. With respect to the first, it would seem to me to be irrelevant what got the bill to the place its in when deciding whether to fix it or hold out.

With regard to the second, that’s fair. And I think you’re saying that’s why it would be less difficult to repeal the tax law than repeal of ACA. I’m not convinced that in 3 years people are going to give in to a repeal after they’ve gotten some form of direct personal benefit.

More of that awesome Chinese capitalism: