The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Originally posted by original Hank@judged.com
Vince Foster was in season at the time of his shooting, right?

He was clearly a better shooter than the Vice President.



Practically a contortionist.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Does Wonk ever post here?

Atlernative Minimum Tax repeal is front burner. At one level I understand why, because it's a secondary tax that now is hitting a lot of people.

But, isn't the AMT a lot closer to a flat tax? Why not scrap the regular income tax and use the AMT, which seems easier to figure, other than for the fact you need to figure it from your regular income tax, rather than straight up. Is there something wrong with the AMT in principle?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by original Hank@judged.com
Vince Foster was in season at the time of his shooting, right?

You're thinking of that melon.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Atlernative Minimum Tax repeal is front burner.

In Congress, or among people figuring out what they're going to owe this year?

Is there something wrong with the AMT in principle?

You mean, assuming that you think progressive taxation is a bad idea?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by original Hank@judged.com
I remember as kid one of my favorite disco hits was "love to love you baby". That and Bee Gees, but in in 1979 my dad took me to the Disco Demoliton Twi-Night doubleheader in Chicago. Sox versus Detroit. we needed disco records to burn to get entry. my dad took my Saturday Night Fever album and burned it. the night ended in a near riot with fights and worse. i couldnt listen to disco after that.

same with Carter after the "killer rabbit" incident.

Wonk, you at that game too?

Yep. I brought something by Gloria Gaynor. It was probably the most seminal event in what was to become a lifetime of cynicism and a belief in the limitless stupidity of Man.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Does Wonk ever post here?

Atlernative Minimum Tax repeal is front burner. At one level I understand why, because it's a secondary tax that now is hitting a lot of people.

But, isn't the AMT a lot closer to a flat tax? Why not scrap the regular income tax and use the AMT, which seems easier to figure, other than for the fact you need to figure it from your regular income tax, rather than straight up. Is there something wrong with the AMT in principle?

The biggest problem with the AMT is the fact that it is a "stealth" tax; you only know if you are subject to it after you calculate the regular FIT and the AMT. It's also viewed as unfair because it strips out a lot of so-called preferences, like state taxes, accelerated depreciation, and things that taxpayers foolishly believed that they are entitled to because Congress enacted them.

As for it being on the front burner, it's been there for at least the last three Congresses and has never gotten anywhere. That's largely because it raises a shitload of revenue that will have to be made up for by raising the regular FIT.

You have a point that it is somewhat closer to a "flat" tax than the regular tax, but it can't be used on its own as written, because the AMT is only about three sections in the Code that key entirely off of the regular tax.

We've already beaten the alleged flat tax proposals to death about a dozen times, so I won't go down that road again.


Unless I'm provoked.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Raggedy Ann Coulter
The bigger inconsistency is Hillary Rodham daring to point a finger at Cheney, with a straight face, for not timely coming forward about the hunting accident, when last I recall the black pant-suited bitch was still hiding those Rose Law Firm billing records and Webb Hubbell's love letters.

Ann you have really gone off the reservation. What is with your latest column? I have two Muslim employees and a Muslim business partner. Is there any rational justification I can give them for the comments in bold down below? Bombing Syria into the Stone Age equals genocide does it not? I will be surprized if any legitimate papers will run your column now.

MUSLIM BITES DOG
February 15, 2006

The amazing part of the great Danish cartoon caper isn't that Muslims immediately engage in acts of mob violence when things don't go their way. That is de rigueur for the Religion of Peace. Their immediate response to all bad news is mass violence. That's a "dog bites man" story and belongs on page B-34, next to the grade school hot lunch menu and the birth notices.

After an Egyptian ferry capsized recently, killing hundreds of passengers, a whole braying mob of passengers' relatives staged an organized attack on the company, throwing furniture out the window and burning the building to the ground. Witnesses say it was the most violent ocean liner-related incident since Carnival Cruise Lines fired Kathie Lee Gifford.

The "offense to Islam" ruse is merely an excuse for Muslims to revert to their default mode: rioting and setting things on fire. These people have a serious anger management problem.

So it's not exactly a scoop that Muslims are engaging in violence. A front-page story would be "Offended Muslims Remain Calm."

What is stunning about this spectacle is that their violence is working. With a few exceptions, the media won't show the cartoons that incited mass violence around the globe (cartoons available at www.anncoulter.com). And yet, week after week, American patriots endure "The Boondocks" without complaint. Where's the justice here?

Perhaps we could put aside our national, ongoing, post-9/11 Muslim butt-kissing contest and get on with the business at hand: Bombing Syria back to the stone age and then permanently disarming Iran.

The mass violence by Muslims over some cartoons reminds us why we have to worry when countries like Iran start talking about having nukes. Iran is led by a lunatic who makes a big point of denying the Holocaust. Indeed, in response to the Muhammad cartoons, one Iranian newspaper is soliciting cartoons about the Holocaust. (So far the only submissions have come from Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau and The New York Times.)

Iran is certainly implying that it has nukes. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but you can't take chances with berserk psychotics. What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with a nuclear bomb?

If you don't want to get shot by the police, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, then don't point a toy gun at them. Or, as I believe our motto should be after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that's offensive. How about "camel jockey"? What? Now what'd I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?

In addition, I believe we are legally required to be bombing Syria right now. And unlike the Quran's alleged prohibition on depictions of Muhammad, I've got documentation to back that up!

Muslims in Syria torched the Danish Embassy a few weeks ago, burning it to the ground. According to everyone, the Syrian government was behind the attack — the prime minister of Denmark, Condoleezza Rice and White House spokesman Scott McClellan. I think even the gals on "The View" have acknowledged that Damascus was behind this one.

McClellan said: "We will hold Syria responsible for such violent demonstrations since they do not take place in that country without government knowledge and support."

We are signatories to a treaty that requires us to do more than "hold Syria responsible" for this attack. Syria has staged a state-sponsored attack on our NATO partner on Danish soil, the Danish embassy. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, the United States and most of Europe have an obligation to go to war with Syria.

Or is NATO — like the conventions of civilized behavior, personal hygiene and grooming — inapplicable when Muslims are involved? Liberals complain about "unilateral action," but under the terms of a treaty created by Dean Acheson and the Democrats, France, Germany, Spain and Greece are all obliged to go to war with us against Syria. Why, it's almost like a coalition! OK, Mr. Commie: Saddle up!

COPYRIGHT 2006 ANN COULTER

DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In Congress, or among people figuring out what they're going to owe this year?



You mean, assuming that you think progressive taxation is a bad idea?

Both. It will be even more front burner on Apr. 17.

It's progressive. the $58k standard deduction takes care of that. But if you don't think so, why not start with the model of the AMT, and then make it progressive by having a higher tax rate for income over a threshold?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You have a point that it is somewhat closer to a "flat" tax than the regular tax, but it can't be used on its own as written, because the AMT is only about three sections in the Code that key entirely off of the regular tax.

Could it be rewritten with similar results? I realize the calculation is a mess, at least as I understand it from my accountant, because it appears that you take your regular tax, then back out a bunch of things (the prefernences you cite), apply different rates, and then come up with a surtax.

But that's just a calculation method keyed off the current code. Couldn't one rewrite the code to impose the AMT, allowing only deductions for charities and home mortgage (and whatever else)? Would there be a massive revenue loss because the major deduction would mean no poor people would pay any tax?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ann you have really gone off the reservation. What is with your latest column? I have two Muslim employees and a Muslim business partner. Is there any rational justification I can give them for the comments in bold down below? Bombing Syria into the Stone Age equals genocide does it not? I will be surprized if any legitimate papers will run your column now.

She's clearly losing it. She forgot to call them camel schtuppers.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Could it be rewritten with similar results? I realize the calculation is a mess, at least as I understand it from my accountant, because it appears that you take your regular tax, then back out a bunch of things (the prefernences you cite), apply different rates, and then come up with a surtax.

But that's just a calculation method keyed off the current code. Couldn't one rewrite the code to impose the AMT, allowing only deductions for charities and home mortgage (and whatever else)? Would there be a massive revenue loss because the major deduction would mean no poor people would pay any tax?

The massive revenue loss I was referring to is the loss that would result from simply repealing the AMT, as most have proposed.

If you were to rewrite the AMT, you would have to start from scratch, for instance, by defining what is income. As you can imagine, the horse-trading and lobbying would be in full bloom from the get-go, and we'd wind up with a new tax code that might look different than the one we have now, but it would be just as complex.

But maybe I'm just being cynical. I blame Steve Dahl and the Disco Demolition.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Raggedy Ann Coulter
The bigger inconsistency is Hillary Rodham daring to point a finger at Cheney, with a straight face, for not timely coming forward about the hunting accident, when last I recall the black pant-suited bitch was still hiding those Rose Law Firm billing records and Webb Hubbell's love letters.

Oh, come on. Hillary and Dick are soulless soulmates. They'd make an excellent team, except that Hillary doesn't like Dick.

[Raggedy Ann Coulter]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
She's clearly losing it. She forgot to call them camel schtuppers.

"Towel Head" is the new Camel Schtupper.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The massive revenue loss I was referring to is the loss that would result from simply repealing the AMT, as most have proposed.

If you were to rewrite the AMT, you would have to start from scratch, for instance, by defining what is income. As you can imagine, the horse-trading and lobbying would be in full bloom from the get-go, and we'd wind up with a new tax code that might look different than the one we have now, but it would be just as complex.

But maybe I'm just being cynical. I blame Steve Dahl and the Disco Demolition.

Well, I'd never quarrel with an argument that Congress will fuck things up.

A couple of years ago someone (Economist or WSJ) had a chart showing that it would cost more to repeal the AMT than the income tax by 2009. That is, so many people would be in AMT-land that it would be easier to keep that tax than the regualr income tax. That's what got me to thinking.

But I guess "repeal" wouldn't really work (although I suspect one could define income similarly without much problem, but then again I don't work on the hill).

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, I'd never quarrel with an argument that Congress will fuck things up.

A couple of years ago someone (Economist or WSJ) had a chart showing that it would cost more to repeal the AMT than the income tax by 2009. That is, so many people would be in AMT-land that it would be easier to keep that tax than the regualr income tax. That's what got me to thinking.

But I guess "repeal" wouldn't really work (although I suspect one could define income similarly without much problem, but then again I don't work on the hill).

Just a quick little parable on why you should enter into major tax overhaul with extreme caution. This is the sort of shit tax lawyers can get hung up on.

I belong to a discussion group that meets once a month to talk about current problems we're having or issues we want the group to brainstorm. The meetings always seem to kick off with somebody throwing out a goofy question "just out of curiosity."

We met last week, and the goofy question was whether someone who exchanges his timeshare for another timeshare has income. The problem is this: the person has received something of value (the use of a different timeshare) but because the timeshare use is personal, the cost of giving up his own timeshare isn't deductible. Since the exchange was only for one year's use, say two weeks, there was no sale or exchange. Therefore the taxpayer cannot even offset his basis against teh value.

And that's why you don't want anybody to try to define "income" under a new tax regime.