Not all that long ago nasum was defending knoell and the other clown car passengers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXyB7niEc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBXyB7niEc0
Romney and the tax thing
- Thread starter speedracer
- Start date
not to bring it all into another thread, but yeah. I was mostly 
ing with you at the time because I was pissed off about a lot of other things in life and being the petty son of a bitch that I was at the time I lashed out at you.
My only distinction is that your notion, as presented, is that racism accounts for everything. My general notion is that there is more than simply (granted racism isn't simple) one piece involved. The "new racism" that we both agree on (systemic as opposed to people in sheets hanging people not in sheets, nor the colour of of said sheets) is an entrenched thing (that is oddly older than the old racism of hangings, but your average dopey white guy understands that hating negroes ended when the hangings did) that needs to be addressed via policy. However, the policy can't be one of aggression towards one group to address the "old racism" towards the oppressed group. If you want to call it colourblind racism, then I'll accept that. I just won't take kindly to being called a prick because I think everyone as a whole of society would do better if everyone as a whole of society would do better without being classified in groups.
I'd like to think that's not herp-a-derp, but I've been wrong about other things (see: howitzer). Keep in mind I'm not from here so my perspective has less of a wound attached to it, white immigrant with an automatic advantage or otherwise. My wound, so to speak, has more to do with buildings in my neighborhood getting blown up because different groups had different thoughts about the way things ought to be. Invisible friends come in to play, but anyone that pays a modicum of attention knows of my abhorrence for organized religion.
tl;dr
It's an extraordinarily complex issue that has no clear and simple solution. Simply reversing the initial power structure doesn't absolve the original players (nor is white and black as simple as it was even 50 years ago). Of course the power structure has been in place for so long that you end up with your cartoon. Ignoring US history for a moment, your cartoon can go back to biblical times and gets thrown around in all manner of directions with the Romans ending up on top more often than not. At that point, where does it stop?
On the other hand, this is all for a different thread.
And now I'm off to bathe in the glory of the Mass Effect 3 demo. Box of wine and a box of tissues readily at hand.
ing with you at the time because I was pissed off about a lot of other things in life and being the petty son of a bitch that I was at the time I lashed out at you.My only distinction is that your notion, as presented, is that racism accounts for everything. My general notion is that there is more than simply (granted racism isn't simple) one piece involved. The "new racism" that we both agree on (systemic as opposed to people in sheets hanging people not in sheets, nor the colour of of said sheets) is an entrenched thing (that is oddly older than the old racism of hangings, but your average dopey white guy understands that hating negroes ended when the hangings did) that needs to be addressed via policy. However, the policy can't be one of aggression towards one group to address the "old racism" towards the oppressed group. If you want to call it colourblind racism, then I'll accept that. I just won't take kindly to being called a prick because I think everyone as a whole of society would do better if everyone as a whole of society would do better without being classified in groups.
I'd like to think that's not herp-a-derp, but I've been wrong about other things (see: howitzer). Keep in mind I'm not from here so my perspective has less of a wound attached to it, white immigrant with an automatic advantage or otherwise. My wound, so to speak, has more to do with buildings in my neighborhood getting blown up because different groups had different thoughts about the way things ought to be. Invisible friends come in to play, but anyone that pays a modicum of attention knows of my abhorrence for organized religion.
tl;dr
It's an extraordinarily complex issue that has no clear and simple solution. Simply reversing the initial power structure doesn't absolve the original players (nor is white and black as simple as it was even 50 years ago). Of course the power structure has been in place for so long that you end up with your cartoon. Ignoring US history for a moment, your cartoon can go back to biblical times and gets thrown around in all manner of directions with the Romans ending up on top more often than not. At that point, where does it stop?
On the other hand, this is all for a different thread.
And now I'm off to bathe in the glory of the Mass Effect 3 demo. Box of wine and a box of tissues readily at hand.
[quote name='nasum']...stuff...[/QUOTE]
In other words, we understand each other perfectly.
[quote name='nasum']Pps
ME3 = dayumm!
CAGs we may be, but the CE preorder is fully justified[/QUOTE]
After reading about the problems from ME2, I'm hesitant to pick up 3, which is also the reason why I never got any of the Fallout games. Then again, I'm pretty much backlogged for the rest of the year from purchases from the last 5 months...not a terrible problem to have.
In other words, we understand each other perfectly.
[quote name='nasum']Pps
ME3 = dayumm!
CAGs we may be, but the CE preorder is fully justified[/QUOTE]
After reading about the problems from ME2, I'm hesitant to pick up 3, which is also the reason why I never got any of the Fallout games. Then again, I'm pretty much backlogged for the rest of the year from purchases from the last 5 months...not a terrible problem to have.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='nasum']My only distinction is that your notion, as presented, is that racism accounts for everything.[/QUOTE]
Dohdough is a very reasonable guy and he defends his positions well.
But I think this is a valid critique.
Regardless, I give him alot of credit for shining light on an issue that deserves more attention. He is the board expert on the issue.
Dohdough is a very reasonable guy and he defends his positions well.
But I think this is a valid critique.
Regardless, I give him alot of credit for shining light on an issue that deserves more attention. He is the board expert on the issue.
yeah, it's basically agree to disagree on a few points but all in all we're not too far off from each other. I just wanted to be a dick and you offered a wonderful target. No hard feelings?
Mass Effect problems? Nary a one for me on the 360.
An expert he may be, but he doesn't wash his hands twice after peeing so he doesn't know anything about it!
Mass Effect problems? Nary a one for me on the 360.
An expert he may be, but he doesn't wash his hands twice after peeing so he doesn't know anything about it!
I read that there was some game-breaking stuff related to saves, kinda like Fallout saves getting too big and the game shitting itself after long grinds, but not the same thing affecting ME2. That was a while ago so I don't remember the exact details. This is the PS3 version I'm talking about of course.
And yes, that's a valid critique because I intentionally talk about race and focus on it. Intersections of social and economic statuses just tends to confuse people. That's how we get debates about how if Obama can be president, then any poor black kid from the hoodiest of hoods can be president or that RACISM!, or "soft" racism, doesn't exist anymore.
That said, ME3 is on my list, but with the backlog, I'll wait for a $20 price point before I jump on it unless I have a kid on the way. If that happens, I have a feeling my PS3's will start collecting a lot of dust.
And yes, that's a valid critique because I intentionally talk about race and focus on it. Intersections of social and economic statuses just tends to confuse people. That's how we get debates about how if Obama can be president, then any poor black kid from the hoodiest of hoods can be president or that RACISM!, or "soft" racism, doesn't exist anymore.
That said, ME3 is on my list, but with the backlog, I'll wait for a $20 price point before I jump on it unless I have a kid on the way. If that happens, I have a feeling my PS3's will start collecting a lot of dust.
[quote name='dohdough']
And yes, that's a valid critique because I intentionally talk about race and focus on it. Intersections of social and economic statuses just tends to confuse people. That's how we get debates about how if Obama can be president, then any poor black kid from the hoodiest of hoods can be president or that RACISM!, or "soft" racism, doesn't exist anymore.
[/QUOTE]
Does this mean that Obama is racist against black people because he is taking advantage of and enjoying a system that doesn't do black people justice?
#
And yes, that's a valid critique because I intentionally talk about race and focus on it. Intersections of social and economic statuses just tends to confuse people. That's how we get debates about how if Obama can be president, then any poor black kid from the hoodiest of hoods can be president or that RACISM!, or "soft" racism, doesn't exist anymore.
[/QUOTE]
Does this mean that Obama is racist against black people because he is taking advantage of and enjoying a system that doesn't do black people justice?
#
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']Does this mean that Obama is racist against black people because he is taking advantage of and enjoying a system that doesn't do black people justice?#[/QUOTE]
Stay classy Knoell
#[/QUOTE]Stay classy Knoell
Hannity had a guest host on Tuesday that had a very compelling argument against raising CG/D taxes. Basically, as seniors take 401(k) retirement distributions, we would be punishing their savings by raising said tax. This is a decent argument, I mean, we don't want to tax people who have worked their whole lives and are now scraping by on SSI and 401 distributions.
Both are taxed at income rate and not CG/D rate.
.
So, if our retirement distributions (despite being heavy on CG/D income) are taxed at income rate. Explain why it's bad to tax CG/D at income rate?
I'll save anyone the "A-HA!" pitfall of this argument in that 401(k) is pre-tax, however a Roth IRA is post income tax and also taxed at income rate upon retirement distributions. Face it, 15% CG/D rate is a gift to those who benefit most from it (again, you need $1,500 in this type of income to be taxed on it) and those people are by default quite well to do in the 1st place.
Both are taxed at income rate and not CG/D rate.
.So, if our retirement distributions (despite being heavy on CG/D income) are taxed at income rate. Explain why it's bad to tax CG/D at income rate?
I'll save anyone the "A-HA!" pitfall of this argument in that 401(k) is pre-tax, however a Roth IRA is post income tax and also taxed at income rate upon retirement distributions. Face it, 15% CG/D rate is a gift to those who benefit most from it (again, you need $1,500 in this type of income to be taxed on it) and those people are by default quite well to do in the 1st place.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']Hannity had a guest host on Tuesday that had a very compelling argument against raising CG/D taxes. Basically, as seniors take 401(k) retirement distributions, we would be punishing their savings by raising said tax. This is a decent argument, I mean, we don't want to tax people who have worked their whole lives and are now scraping by on SSI and 401 distributions.
Both are taxed at income rate and not CG/D rate.
.
So, if our retirement distributions (despite being heavy on CG/D income) are taxed at income rate. Explain why it's bad to tax CG/D at income rate?[/QUOTE]
Aren't retirement contributions tax deductable up to a certain amount? That would mean that taxes weren't initially paid on that income, so it would make sense to pay income tax rates just like how Roth is tax deferred. At least, that's my understanding of it and I don't have a huge problem with it. BUT, someone subsisting on SS while supplementing it with 401 should be able to qualify for the low income rates with accompanying refunds anyways? Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Personally, I think this is a better argument to lift the cap on SS contributions, a better healthcare system, and stop stagnating wages.
Both are taxed at income rate and not CG/D rate.
.So, if our retirement distributions (despite being heavy on CG/D income) are taxed at income rate. Explain why it's bad to tax CG/D at income rate?[/QUOTE]
Aren't retirement contributions tax deductable up to a certain amount? That would mean that taxes weren't initially paid on that income, so it would make sense to pay income tax rates just like how Roth is tax deferred. At least, that's my understanding of it and I don't have a huge problem with it. BUT, someone subsisting on SS while supplementing it with 401 should be able to qualify for the low income rates with accompanying refunds anyways? Correct me if I'm wrong here.
Personally, I think this is a better argument to lift the cap on SS contributions, a better healthcare system, and stop stagnating wages.
Yeah, that's how it works.
If it's money that goes into a retirement account pre-tax like a 401(k) or traditional IRA, it gets taxed as income when you withdraw from it in retirement since the principle you put in was never taxed as income.
If it's something you deposit post tax with your own already taxed income like a Roth IRA, then it's not taxed as income when you withdraw from it in retirement.
The argument for capital gains is that the principle was already taxed before it was invested. Now, as we discussed way back in the thread, that's a silly point since it's the gains that get taxed, not your principle. And any losses can be written off.
If it's money that goes into a retirement account pre-tax like a 401(k) or traditional IRA, it gets taxed as income when you withdraw from it in retirement since the principle you put in was never taxed as income.
If it's something you deposit post tax with your own already taxed income like a Roth IRA, then it's not taxed as income when you withdraw from it in retirement.
The argument for capital gains is that the principle was already taxed before it was invested. Now, as we discussed way back in the thread, that's a silly point since it's the gains that get taxed, not your principle. And any losses can be written off.
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, that's how it works.
If it's money that goes into a retirement account pre-tax like a 401(k) or traditional IRA, it gets taxed as income when you withdraw from it in retirement since the principle you put in was never taxed as income.
If it's something you deposit post tax with your own already taxed income like a Roth IRA, then it's not taxed as income when you withdraw from it in retirement.
The argument for capital gains is that the principle was already taxed before it was invested. Now, as we discussed way back in the thread, that's a silly point since it's the gains that get taxed, not your principle. And any losses can be written off.[/QUOTE]
So the guy on Hannity was just being disengenous and talking about a non-issue. Color me surprised!
If it's money that goes into a retirement account pre-tax like a 401(k) or traditional IRA, it gets taxed as income when you withdraw from it in retirement since the principle you put in was never taxed as income.
If it's something you deposit post tax with your own already taxed income like a Roth IRA, then it's not taxed as income when you withdraw from it in retirement.
The argument for capital gains is that the principle was already taxed before it was invested. Now, as we discussed way back in the thread, that's a silly point since it's the gains that get taxed, not your principle. And any losses can be written off.[/QUOTE]
So the guy on Hannity was just being disengenous and talking about a non-issue. Color me surprised!
Roth is also taxed as income and not a special rate, the trick is that you only get taxed on the earnings and not on any principle withdrawn as "retirement distributions". Kinda like what should be done with CG/D. Tax the gains and dividends as income and leave the principal alone. Of course, since the rates are higher, NOBODY WILL EVER USE A ROTH OMG FIRE!!!!! Oh wait, it's an incredibly popular investment vehicle isn't it?
.
.depends on the investment vehicle, but yeah. Traditional IRA and 401 are pre-tax. So you don't pay any income tax at all on what you put in. Roth IRA and 401 are post tax, you put in after your income tax and the distributions are different.
Nope. He stated, as fact, a blatantly false piece of information. Granted I'm not hip to all the current lingo and jive, but I do believe that is called lying.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Aloysius Knoell.
Look him up.
Look him up.
[quote name='nasum']Roth is also taxed as income and not a special rate, the trick is that you only get taxed on the earnings and not on any principle withdrawn as "retirement distributions". Kinda like what should be done with CG/D. Tax the gains and dividends as income and leave the principal alone. Of course, since the rates are higher, NOBODY WILL EVER USE A ROTH OMG FIRE!!!!! Oh wait, it's an incredibly popular investment vehicle isn't it?
[/QUOTE]
The earnings on a Roth IRA aren't taxed (as long as the distributions are qualified - over 59 1/2 years old, account opened at least 5 years ago, etc.)
[/QUOTE]
The earnings on a Roth IRA aren't taxed (as long as the distributions are qualified - over 59 1/2 years old, account opened at least 5 years ago, etc.)
In general yes, if the distribution is a "qualified" distribution and hits other certain parameters. There are fees/penalties for early withdrawal (before 59.5 and 5 year maturation as you mention) and those withdrawals are taxed (on gain only like I said above, contributions aren't taxed). It's a bit murky, but in general you can avoid paying income on *most* of an R-IRA if you plan well enough.
From RothIRA.com:
Are Roth IRA Withdrawals Taxed?
Whether or not your withdrawal from a Roth IRA is taxes depends on a few factors.
when the withdrawal was made
whether the withdrawal was from contributions alone or if it included earnings
what purpose the withdrawal was made for
Withdrawals made after age 59 and 1/2 are normal retirement withdrawals and are not taxed. You paid tax on that income when you first contributed to the Roth IRA.
If the withdrawal is made before age 59 and 1/2 and is only up to the amount that has been contributed to the Roth IRA then no income tax is charged. Withdrawals of contributions are tax-free.
If the withdrawal was made before age 59 and 1/2 and includes amounts above what you contributed (your investment earnings) then you may have to pay tax. There are certain situations where the IRS will allow you to withdraw without penalty. Funds can be withdrawn for higher education expenses or to buy a home. Certain hardship circumstances such as permanent disability also allow funds to be withdrawn tax and penalty free.
----------------------------------
The key part is the mix of earnings and contributions. Contributions are only taxed if they aren't "qualified" but earnings are taxed even if taken as normal retirement distributions.
From RothIRA.com:
Are Roth IRA Withdrawals Taxed?
Whether or not your withdrawal from a Roth IRA is taxes depends on a few factors.
when the withdrawal was made
whether the withdrawal was from contributions alone or if it included earnings
what purpose the withdrawal was made for
Withdrawals made after age 59 and 1/2 are normal retirement withdrawals and are not taxed. You paid tax on that income when you first contributed to the Roth IRA.
If the withdrawal is made before age 59 and 1/2 and is only up to the amount that has been contributed to the Roth IRA then no income tax is charged. Withdrawals of contributions are tax-free.
If the withdrawal was made before age 59 and 1/2 and includes amounts above what you contributed (your investment earnings) then you may have to pay tax. There are certain situations where the IRS will allow you to withdraw without penalty. Funds can be withdrawn for higher education expenses or to buy a home. Certain hardship circumstances such as permanent disability also allow funds to be withdrawn tax and penalty free.
----------------------------------
The key part is the mix of earnings and contributions. Contributions are only taxed if they aren't "qualified" but earnings are taxed even if taken as normal retirement distributions.
Last edited by a moderator:
potentially huge news coming from Apple today. Possibly a split with a special dividend, or one crazy rumour that DJIA is dumping Kraft and will take on Apple if they do something super crazy like a 10:1 split, effectively making the shares $50ish a piece.
If that actually happens, UB The Book won't be far off because a
If that actually happens, UB The Book won't be far off because a
Last edited by a moderator:
bread's done