can you name the years in which federal spending was reduced relative to the previous year? If you can't then it's not how it works in a down economy (as you claim). It's how it works in every economy. Spending go up. Occasionally taxes go up. The increase in quality of service is NOT correlated with increase in spending.
all the money you give to charity is not taxable. at all. and it's not a random blindly selected charity. it's the charity which spends money essentially as he directs it. money is not about being there in the bank. it's about who gets to spend it. if he is the one spending it, then it doesn't quite matter that how he spends it. if doesn't pay taxes on it, then he should shut up about taxing everyone else.
yes, his taxes are lower because he is a known tax dodger. you know, before contradicting me, you might bother to read the actual comment i made. perhaps THEN you can accuse me of not reading the article (my comment was MUCH shorter). Warren Buffet hides his money in a "charity". Charities don't pay taxes. He's avoided LITERALLY billions in taxes by doing this.
no, they are not. warren buffet has dodged billions in taxes. he is not saying "tax me". he is saying tax everyone else who might be catching up to me.
well, probability of a 1 time event is technically 0. all the risk management is based on ask what's the worst case scenario in case of an event like similar to events which have already happened. this makes impossible to even price a 1 time historical event of switzerland giving up control over its sovereign currency. if you can't price it, you can't hedge it.
not sure how much oversight he had. he was at a director level. and he is charged with false record keeping. so it's pretty certain that he stayed under the radar of risk management.
the taxpayer money was repaid with interest. and they didn't gamble with it. they were loaned that money. if you don't like the fact that your government lends money to big banks (and i don't), then take the issue with the government.
it's not illegal. the trades were not authorized by the bank itself (ie, the owner of the capital the trader was spending). the crimes that he is charged with do not stem from illegality of trading. he is charged with false record keeping.
credit cards only have to find dubious transactions in a sea of transactions where all transactions are independent. the fact that you buy a sweater does not reduce the price you pay for your car. The risks in financial transactions are generally very much hedged. So the fact that you have bought item A may, in fact, have reduce the risks involved in buying item B.
Well, the summary does mention that they cartels are also into extortion business. How do you suppose legalization will change the fact that they extort (essentially tax) teachers on their salaries?
They have created a certain technological ability and they are selling it to whoever would buy it. They seem to be ethics neutral rather ethical or unethical. They just sell the expertise to the highest bidder. I would argue that companies making radar detectors have a much shakier ethical standards (since their product can only be used to avoid detection).
Can we please stop re-naming economists you don't agree with "neo-Marxists" (or the more popular "socialist")
Ok. But can, please, please, still call everyone who is "Keynesian" by the proper name "neo-Marxist"? Or at least just plain "Marxist?" They do believe in the labor-driven theory of production. That's the basis of the Marxist view, so can we call them by the proper name? Even though I disagree with them? Or do we have to invent some name that would be less honest in order to make sure they are not laughed out of the room?
Slashdot Mirror
What if you don't get better services? Do you get to pick?
That's how it works in a down economy.
can you name the years in which federal spending was reduced relative to the previous year? If you can't then it's not how it works in a down economy (as you claim). It's how it works in every economy. Spending go up. Occasionally taxes go up. The increase in quality of service is NOT correlated with increase in spending.
all the money you give to charity is not taxable. at all. and it's not a random blindly selected charity. it's the charity which spends money essentially as he directs it. money is not about being there in the bank. it's about who gets to spend it. if he is the one spending it, then it doesn't quite matter that how he spends it. if doesn't pay taxes on it, then he should shut up about taxing everyone else.
yes, his taxes are lower because he is a known tax dodger. you know, before contradicting me, you might bother to read the actual comment i made. perhaps THEN you can accuse me of not reading the article (my comment was MUCH shorter). Warren Buffet hides his money in a "charity". Charities don't pay taxes. He's avoided LITERALLY billions in taxes by doing this.
no, they are not. warren buffet has dodged billions in taxes. he is not saying "tax me". he is saying tax everyone else who might be catching up to me.
don't think he said anything about "anything". providing $1 of services for $100 of taxes is still flushing money down the toilet.
tax you today for and promise to cut spending tomorrow.
well, probability of a 1 time event is technically 0. all the risk management is based on ask what's the worst case scenario in case of an event like similar to events which have already happened. this makes impossible to even price a 1 time historical event of switzerland giving up control over its sovereign currency. if you can't price it, you can't hedge it.
not sure how much oversight he had. he was at a director level. and he is charged with false record keeping. so it's pretty certain that he stayed under the radar of risk management.
the taxpayer money was repaid with interest. and they didn't gamble with it. they were loaned that money. if you don't like the fact that your government lends money to big banks (and i don't), then take the issue with the government.
he got wiped out by the peg of swiss frank to euro. it's a 1 time political event. there is no realistic way to quantify political risk.
that's all fine and good. but he's charged with false record keeping. so the value of your weeklyLosses variable will be wrong.
umm... they gamble with billions of THEIR money. not YOUR money. you suffer when they lose because they can't lend you THEIR money anymore.
it's not illegal. the trades were not authorized by the bank itself (ie, the owner of the capital the trader was spending). the crimes that he is charged with do not stem from illegality of trading. he is charged with false record keeping.
He's been charged with false record keeping. So it does look like he cooked the books.
credit cards only have to find dubious transactions in a sea of transactions where all transactions are independent. the fact that you buy a sweater does not reduce the price you pay for your car. The risks in financial transactions are generally very much hedged. So the fact that you have bought item A may, in fact, have reduce the risks involved in buying item B.
How would that stop extortion of teachers?
Well, the summary does mention that they cartels are also into extortion business. How do you suppose legalization will change the fact that they extort (essentially tax) teachers on their salaries?
"Designed" is so much more appropriate here than "invented." Cause these "energy harvesters" have been in watches for decades now.
To put it in terms you'd understand: girls born in Russia that isn't soviet are of legal now. So I am gonna have to ask, "what's a Soviet Russia?"
No, it's 3 votes short of being hacked.
They have created a certain technological ability and they are selling it to whoever would buy it. They seem to be ethics neutral rather ethical or unethical. They just sell the expertise to the highest bidder. I would argue that companies making radar detectors have a much shakier ethical standards (since their product can only be used to avoid detection).
Can we please stop re-naming economists you don't agree with "neo-Marxists" (or the more popular "socialist")
Ok. But can, please, please, still call everyone who is "Keynesian" by the proper name "neo-Marxist"? Or at least just plain "Marxist?" They do believe in the labor-driven theory of production. That's the basis of the Marxist view, so can we call them by the proper name? Even though I disagree with them? Or do we have to invent some name that would be less honest in order to make sure they are not laughed out of the room?
The question of deficit vs. excess spending is orthogonal to the effect the spending itself has on the economy.
That is absolutely categorically untrue.
Are you talking currently? Or 3 months or months ago? At what difficulty?