Politics & Current Events

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 70795
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 6016
x 8017

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:13 pm

It's simply the right thing to do; the high road doesn't have to be taken simply to gain votes. No need for the Democrats to take a cue from Flake and only do the bare minimum to not be a [expletive].

Plus it's not like letting Franken serve out his term with accusations mounting and THEN trying to hold the seat is a better option than a special election; hell, it arguably would make their chances much worse. Unless you're suggesting that Franken should run again and could win...
2 x

squally1313
All-Star
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:34 pm
x 554
x 428

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby squally1313 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:16 pm

Yeah, not a big fan of the 'well, of course it's wrong, but the vote' arguments. He should resign, full stop. Once that happens, then you worry about the future of the seat. Luckily, the Democrats are in a pretty good position to maintain it for the foreseeable future. If they were to lose it, that would suck, but not as much as counting on a Franken vote.
0 x

User avatar
CyHawk_Cub
All-Star
Posts: 4614
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm
x 50
x 654

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby CyHawk_Cub » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:16 pm



0 x

User avatar
TruffleShuffle
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 53081
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: Perth, W.A.
x 893
x 1330
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby TruffleShuffle » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:18 pm

there should be a celebratory parade when grassley dies.
0 x
Fred Hornkohl wrote:Go CUBS !!

User avatar
TruffleShuffle
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 53081
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: Perth, W.A.
x 893
x 1330
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby TruffleShuffle » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:20 pm

if moore gets elected it would be the ultimate troll move to replace franken with keith ellison.
1 x
Fred Hornkohl wrote:Go CUBS !!

User avatar
jersey cubs fan
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 56508
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2007 6:38 pm
Location: Hoboken squat cobbler
x 1574
x 5158

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby jersey cubs fan » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:30 pm

0 x
longhotsummer wrote:I realize now, any opposing viewpoint, will not be tolerated.

User avatar
TruffleShuffle
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 53081
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: Perth, W.A.
x 893
x 1330
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby TruffleShuffle » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:30 pm

0 x

User avatar
Sammy Sofa
Licks Butts
Posts: 70795
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 3:45 am
Location: Washington DC
x 6016
x 8017

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Sammy Sofa » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:35 pm

CyHawk_Cub wrote:


When you're a Republican and you're accusing the notoriously/infamously conservative FBI of having a "Left Wing bias," well, that's certainly something special.
0 x

User avatar
javy knows my name
previously Beertown Cubbie
Posts: 8549
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:46 pm
Location: Chicago
x 865
x 253

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby javy knows my name » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:36 pm

squally1313 wrote:As an accountant, the total and complete AMT botch makes me so happy. What incompetency.


Can you broad stroke this one for us?
0 x
neely wrote:but in reality
2006 .364
2007 .351
2008 his one big year
2009 .347
2010 90 games played
2011 .323
what do you call that?

User avatar
TruffleShuffle
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 53081
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: Perth, W.A.
x 893
x 1330
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby TruffleShuffle » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:40 pm

jersey cubs fan wrote:https://twitter.com/Stowydad/status/938459824106409984


he's switching parties to salvage his political career.
2 x
Fred Hornkohl wrote:Go CUBS !!

squally1313
All-Star
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:34 pm
x 554
x 428

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby squally1313 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:49 pm

javy knows my name wrote:
squally1313 wrote:As an accountant, the total and complete AMT botch makes me so happy. What incompetency.


Can you broad stroke this one for us?


I'll try to keep it brief...for the last 30 years, the regular business tax rate was 35% and the AMT (alternative minimum tax) was 20%. Companies had to calculate their tax liability under both sets of regulations (regular and AMT) and pay the larger amount. There are a bunch of small differences, but the overall theme is that for AMT purposes, you are allowed less deductions (with the trade-off that you are taxed at a lower rate). The biggest one that I usually see if the Net Operating Loss deduction. For regular purposes, you can use past losses to offset up to 100% of your current taxable income (which you might remember from the Trump tax return from the 90s). For AMT purposes, you can only offset 90% of your current income, and then are taxed on the rest. From my experience, AMT existed to ensure companies making money had to pay tax, even if they had large losses in the prior year.

The botch came because of the new corporate tax rate of 20%. When it was first pitched, it always came with the repeal of AMT, given the rates would line up. Somehow, for budgetary purposes and the fact that the bill was a sh*tshow that got thrown together in a matter of hours, AMT remained in the tax code. Now it's in there as an alternative tax at the same rate, but with much less deductions/credits, which essentially means businesses will almost always end up having to pay the AMT. Newest estimates is that it's going to raise tax revenue by about $300b, which means businesses (ie, the people that wrote this bill) are not pleased. And because it's such a large screw up, it seriously complicates getting the two bills reconciled/passed.

Hope that helps and wasn't too boring.
4 x

User avatar
javy knows my name
previously Beertown Cubbie
Posts: 8549
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:46 pm
Location: Chicago
x 865
x 253

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby javy knows my name » Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:55 pm

squally1313 wrote:
javy knows my name wrote:
squally1313 wrote:As an accountant, the total and complete AMT botch makes me so happy. What incompetency.


Can you broad stroke this one for us?


I'll try to keep it brief...for the last 30 years, the regular business tax rate was 35% and the AMT (alternative minimum tax) was 20%. Companies had to calculate their tax liability under both sets of regulations (regular and AMT) and pay the larger amount. There are a bunch of small differences, but the overall theme is that for AMT purposes, you are allowed less deductions (with the trade-off that you are taxed at a lower rate). The biggest one that I usually see if the Net Operating Loss deduction. For regular purposes, you can use past losses to offset up to 100% of your current taxable income (which you might remember from the Trump tax return from the 90s). For AMT purposes, you can only offset 90% of your current income, and then are taxed on the rest. From my experience, AMT existed to ensure companies making money had to pay tax, even if they had large losses in the prior year.

The botch came because of the new corporate tax rate of 20%. When it was first pitched, it always came with the repeal of AMT, given the rates would line up. Somehow, for budgetary purposes and the fact that the bill was a sh*tshow that got thrown together in a matter of hours, AMT remained in the tax code. Now it's in there as an alternative tax at the same rate, but with much less deductions/credits, which essentially means businesses will almost always end up having to pay the AMT. Newest estimates is that it's going to raise tax revenue by about $300b, which means businesses (ie, the people that wrote this bill) are not pleased. And because it's such a large screw up, it seriously complicates getting the two bills reconciled/passed.

Hope that helps and wasn't too boring.


Businesses would pay more in taxes than before if the bill were passed as-is? That's hilarious
0 x
neely wrote:but in reality
2006 .364
2007 .351
2008 his one big year
2009 .347
2010 90 games played
2011 .323
what do you call that?

User avatar
Banedon
Curse You!
Posts: 63933
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 9:36 pm
Location: Kidding Myself
x 3009
x 3163

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Banedon » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:00 pm

javy knows my name wrote:
squally1313 wrote:
javy knows my name wrote:
Can you broad stroke this one for us?


I'll try to keep it brief...for the last 30 years, the regular business tax rate was 35% and the AMT (alternative minimum tax) was 20%. Companies had to calculate their tax liability under both sets of regulations (regular and AMT) and pay the larger amount. There are a bunch of small differences, but the overall theme is that for AMT purposes, you are allowed less deductions (with the trade-off that you are taxed at a lower rate). The biggest one that I usually see if the Net Operating Loss deduction. For regular purposes, you can use past losses to offset up to 100% of your current taxable income (which you might remember from the Trump tax return from the 90s). For AMT purposes, you can only offset 90% of your current income, and then are taxed on the rest. From my experience, AMT existed to ensure companies making money had to pay tax, even if they had large losses in the prior year.

The botch came because of the new corporate tax rate of 20%. When it was first pitched, it always came with the repeal of AMT, given the rates would line up. Somehow, for budgetary purposes and the fact that the bill was a sh*tshow that got thrown together in a matter of hours, AMT remained in the tax code. Now it's in there as an alternative tax at the same rate, but with much less deductions/credits, which essentially means businesses will almost always end up having to pay the AMT. Newest estimates is that it's going to raise tax revenue by about $300b, which means businesses (ie, the people that wrote this bill) are not pleased. And because it's such a large screw up, it seriously complicates getting the two bills reconciled/passed.

Hope that helps and wasn't too boring.


Businesses would pay more in taxes than before if the bill were passed as-is? That's hilarious


It may not be more, but it's not as much less. I'm no expert, by any means, but businesses set themselves up to take advantage of tax breaks and loopholes. By leaving the AMT, those breaks/loopholes don't matter, because it's essentially a tax "floor" that they're hitting.
2 x
Image

squally1313
All-Star
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:34 pm
x 554
x 428

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby squally1313 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:04 pm

javy knows my name wrote:
squally1313 wrote:
javy knows my name wrote:
Can you broad stroke this one for us?


I'll try to keep it brief...for the last 30 years, the regular business tax rate was 35% and the AMT (alternative minimum tax) was 20%. Companies had to calculate their tax liability under both sets of regulations (regular and AMT) and pay the larger amount. There are a bunch of small differences, but the overall theme is that for AMT purposes, you are allowed less deductions (with the trade-off that you are taxed at a lower rate). The biggest one that I usually see if the Net Operating Loss deduction. For regular purposes, you can use past losses to offset up to 100% of your current taxable income (which you might remember from the Trump tax return from the 90s). For AMT purposes, you can only offset 90% of your current income, and then are taxed on the rest. From my experience, AMT existed to ensure companies making money had to pay tax, even if they had large losses in the prior year.

The botch came because of the new corporate tax rate of 20%. When it was first pitched, it always came with the repeal of AMT, given the rates would line up. Somehow, for budgetary purposes and the fact that the bill was a sh*tshow that got thrown together in a matter of hours, AMT remained in the tax code. Now it's in there as an alternative tax at the same rate, but with much less deductions/credits, which essentially means businesses will almost always end up having to pay the AMT. Newest estimates is that it's going to raise tax revenue by about $300b, which means businesses (ie, the people that wrote this bill) are not pleased. And because it's such a large screw up, it seriously complicates getting the two bills reconciled/passed.

Hope that helps and wasn't too boring.


Businesses would pay more in taxes than before if the bill were passed as-is? That's hilarious


Not quite...the rate would still be 20%, which is less than the 35% they were paying before, but the bill as written now has a 20% rate with a ton of favorable deductions/credits (the regular system), and a 20% rate with not many deductions/credits (AMT), and businesses have to pay whatever system results in a higher tax (which, theoretically, would almost always be the AMT liability now). Basically, based on the $300b figure above, if the tax bill was supposed to save businesses $1 trillion over ten years, now it might be down to $700b.
0 x

User avatar
DiceMan4221
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:05 am
Location: Denver, CO
x 1407
x 501
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby DiceMan4221 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:12 pm

I saw some coal company CEO cryiing on CNBC a few days ago that this bill will significantly hurt comanies with a lot of debt and cap ex spending, and that nearly all coal companies might go busto because of it. I assumed he was just full of horsefeathers...but was he telling the truth? If so, lulz.
0 x
"None of these signal alarm bells to me"-Boris
"Sublime was driven by their frontman, who was, quite probably, a musical savant." -Anonymous

User avatar
SouthSideRyan
is ELL
Posts: 48937
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 6:08 am
Location: Chicago Loop
x 328
x 935

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby SouthSideRyan » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:15 pm

Should be pointed out that no corporations were actually paying 35%
0 x
Exile on Waveland wrote: IU smells like poop.

User avatar
DiceMan4221
All-Star
Posts: 1994
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 6:05 am
Location: Denver, CO
x 1407
x 501
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby DiceMan4221 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:21 pm

Also just watched noted liberal blowhard Alan Greenspan say that the bill would put the US into a state of stagflation...
1 x
"None of these signal alarm bells to me"-Boris
"Sublime was driven by their frontman, who was, quite probably, a musical savant." -Anonymous

User avatar
minnesotacubsfan
Superstar
Posts: 14949
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 2:27 pm
Location: da Salish Sea
x 247
x 317

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby minnesotacubsfan » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:23 pm

DiceMan4221 wrote:I saw some coal company CEO cryiing on CNBC a few days ago that this bill will significantly hurt comanies with a lot of debt and cap ex spending, and that nearly all coal companies might go busto because of it. I assumed he was just full of horsefeathers...but was he telling the truth? If so, lulz.


horsefeathers coal
0 x
Image

squally1313
All-Star
Posts: 2194
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 7:34 pm
x 554
x 428

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby squally1313 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:24 pm

SouthSideRyan wrote:Should be pointed out that no corporations were actually paying 35%

Well they were paying 35% on their taxable income, but obviously there huge differences between their financial reporting income (whatever term you want to use for it) and their tax income. AMT income was almost always higher than regular taxable income, and so with both rates at 20%, most companies would end up having to pay a larger AMT liability than the amount they were expecting/projecting (20% of taxable income)
0 x

User avatar
javy knows my name
previously Beertown Cubbie
Posts: 8549
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 10:46 pm
Location: Chicago
x 865
x 253

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby javy knows my name » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:25 pm

DiceMan4221 wrote:Also just watched noted liberal blowhard Alan Greenspan say that the bill would put the US into a state of stagflation...


UGH
0 x
neely wrote:but in reality
2006 .364
2007 .351
2008 his one big year
2009 .347
2010 90 games played
2011 .323
what do you call that?

User avatar
TruffleShuffle
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 53081
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: Perth, W.A.
x 893
x 1330
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby TruffleShuffle » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:30 pm

DiceMan4221 wrote:Also just watched noted liberal blowhard Alan Greenspan say that the bill would put the US into a state of stagflation...


how is that guy still alive
0 x
Fred Hornkohl wrote:Go CUBS !!

User avatar
UMFan83
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 73191
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 8:42 pm
Location: Southport Ave
x 1983
x 2797
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby UMFan83 » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:45 pm

wtf

1 x
Win it for Fred

User avatar
Derwood
Stall Monitor
Posts: 65070
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:44 pm
Location: 375 Miles East of Wrigley
x 491
x 1164

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby Derwood » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:49 pm

For 30ish years, US Presidents have been unwilling to chose sides on Jerusalem. Trump says horsefeathers it and pokes the Muslim bear once again
0 x

User avatar
TBS Playoffs Insider
Turdologist
Posts: 30859
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 7:57 am
x 1460
x 3355
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby TBS Playoffs Insider » Wed Dec 06, 2017 6:49 pm

UMFan83 wrote:wtf



how do i make this my ringtone
3 x
Image

User avatar
TruffleShuffle
Inner-Circle HOF
Posts: 53081
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2004 2:47 pm
Location: Perth, W.A.
x 893
x 1330
Contact:

Re: Politics & Current Events

Postby TruffleShuffle » Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:14 pm


4 x


Return to “Social”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Hairyducked Idiot, SpongeWorthy and 6 guests