18 minutes ago, rambo said:

I 100% agree.  I'd start by banning corporate donations to politicians and political organizations. 

ted cruz is gonna fix this...no worries. 

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

The thing that kills me is all the states that didn't conform to the Federal tax code with the latest changes. So now we need a full-time staff working on minimizing our tax liability with up to 50 sets of different rules. Now, we can afford that and the savings are more than justified by the cost. But a small business owner can't spend what we spend on staff, experts, attorneys, etc. It's patently unfair.

I feel like a lawyer.  Reading and interpreting tax code is the equivalent anymore.  It's like law books with crappier wording because politicians and numbers people wrote it.  Sometimes I read something and just think a 5 year old wrote it.  Somethings are just clear as mud.

11 minutes ago, rambo said:

Well art sales is an easy way to launder money.  Real Estate exchanges are method of simply kicking the can down the road for as long as possible.  They're a pain in the ass to me and I hate them.

This reminds me.  @vikas83, my wife's an artist if you ever need any..........art.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

You and I will never agree on certain things, like the scope of government services. But most rational people can agree that the current tax system is bat ish insane and built to benefit those with political influence or those participating in activities considered virtuous by politicians. It's just utterly insane and has given rise to an entire industry dedicated to finding ways to push the envelope. 

FFS, why are we treating married people different than single people? If we didn't use the tax code for this, then the government could be out of the marriage business and same sex marriage wouldn't be an issue. But politicians want to use the tax code to try and control human behavior, so we get this insanity.

Accounting for stay at home parents is part of the rationale, no? Married couples often lump all assets together, along with roles and responsibilities. Philosophically, you can argue that shouldn't matter, but at the end of day, I would think filling jointly should be a net simplifier than a net complicator. 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Accounting for stay at home parents is part of the rationale, no? Married couples often lump all assets together, along with roles and responsibilities. Philosophically, you can argue that shouldn't matter, but at the end of day, I would think filling jointly should be a net simplifier than a net complicator. 

They're not really treated different.  They're treated as two people instead of one.  That's why everything is doubled including tax bracket income.  Now married filing separate is a different story.  Can't tell you how many couples going through a divorce can't come to terms to file joint instead of separate and it costs them tons out of spite for each other.  I guess that's why they're getting divorced. 

11 minutes ago, rambo said:

They're not really treated different.  They're treated as two people instead of one.  That's why everything is doubled including tax bracket income.  Now married filing separate is a different story.  Can't tell you how many couples going through a divorce can't come to terms to file joint instead of separate and it costs them tons out of spite for each other.  I guess that's why they're getting divorced. 

I guess I'm not understanding the hypothetical scenario. If we have an unmarried couple living together with one of the parents staying home to raise the kids, how would they file vs a married couple in the same situation? Aren't they treated differently when it comes to things like claiming the CTC? 

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

I guess I'm not understanding the hypothetical scenario. If we have an unmarried couple living together with one of the parents staying home to raise the kids, how would they file vs a married couple in the same situation? Aren't they treated differently when it comes to things like claiming the CTC? 

That's the point. There shouldn't be a child tax credit. 

Dad works, makes money, pays taxes as a % of gross income. Mom stays home, doesn't work, doesn't pay taxes. How you choose to live your life shouldn't advantage or disadvantage you in the tax code.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

That's the point. There shouldn't be a child tax credit. 

Dad works, makes money, pays taxes as a % of gross income. Mom stays home, doesn't work, doesn't pay taxes. How you choose to live your life shouldn't advantage or disadvantage you in the tax code.

Then that's an even broader philosophical discussion. Whether couples should be incentivized to have kids and start families. I don't necessarily disagree, since any form of social engineering will naturally have negative consequences of some sort on society, but not one that I've put a lot of thought into. My gut reaction is to say there's a clear benefit for a nation's population to increase (at least in our case) so it stands to reason that the national government would want to incentivize couples to start families, but that's about as far as I've thought about it.

43 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Raise the retirement age on social security

 

I think this has to be done sooner or later, not only in the interest of saving the program, but it also just makes sense. People are living a lot longer today than they were 90 years ago.

10 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Then that's an even broader philosophical discussion. Whether couples should be incentivized to have kids and start families. I don't necessarily disagree, since any form of social engineering will naturally have negative consequences of some sort on society, but not one that I've put a lot of thought into. My gut reaction is to say there's a clear benefit for a nation's population to increase (at least in our case) so it stands to reason that the national government would want to incentivize couples to start families, but that's about as far as I've thought about it.

I think it only makes sense if there are supports in place to make sure the kids are adequately provided for in terms of education, nutrition, and healthcare. There's no benefit to encouraging people without the means to just keep having kids, otherwise we're filling up society with dolts and dependents. This is where the preschool thing comes into play. We need population to expand at a healthy rate, but we also need the next generations to be smart and healthy. So, if you're going to give people tax breaks for childbirth, you also need to make sure those kids are raised well to be productive members of society. You can't be half in and half out.

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

I think it only makes sense if there are supports in place to make sure the kids are adequately provided for in terms of education, nutrition, and healthcare. There's no benefit to encouraging people without the means to just keep having kids, otherwise we're filling up society with dolts and dependents. This is where the preschool thing comes into play. We need population to expand at a healthy rate, but we also need the next generations to be smart and healthy. So, if you're going to give people tax breaks for childbirth, you also need to make sure those kids are raised well. You can't be half in and half out.

Or, we could have better education and no tax breaks for children. Want kids -- you pay for them. Don't punish people who decide not to have children. 

You can't be just a little bit pregnant (to torture the metaphor). Thinking using the tax code to incentivize SOME behavior is OK, because you think it is noble, is what opens Pandora's box. Because then someone else is elected with different priorities. Just stop using the tax code to try and engineer societal outcomes.

2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I think it only makes sense if there are supports in place to make sure the kids are adequately provided for in terms of education, nutrition, and healthcare. There's no benefit to encouraging people without the means to just keep having kids, otherwise we're filling up society with dolts and dependents. This is where the preschool thing comes into play. We need population to expand at a healthy rate, but we also need the next generations to be smart and healthy. So, if you're going to give people tax breaks for childbirth, you also need to make sure those kids are raised well to be productive members of society. You can't be half in and half out.

Oh, believe me, I think reform is surely overdue. There absolutely need to be caps and phase outs as well, I have so many issues with the CTC. Like claiming the CTC for your 4th and 5th child is ridiculous on its face, but more so when it's literally a credit for those who pay no taxes rather than just a deduction on any taxes owed. I was speaking to a broader point about any invectives of any kind for couples to start families, not on the current state of perverse incentives we already have.

5 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Or, we could have better education and no tax breaks for children. Want kids -- you pay for them. Don't punish people who decide not to have children.

I largely agree. The problem is that they're going to have kids anyway, and we're going to be stuck with them in society. Look at it from national security perspective. How can we compete with China going forward if the next generations are weak and stupid?

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

I largely agree. The problem is that they're going to have kids anyway, and we're going to be stuck with them in society. Look at it from national security perspective. How can we compete with China going forward if the next generations are weak and stupid?

Universal pre-K

Stop funding school districts with property taxes, which perpetuates the opportunity gap

Get rid of the CTC and we just paid for it

I agree with Vikas. Social engineering through the tax code is wrong on so many levels. However, the republicans seem really into the idea now so with both parties on board, it isn't going anywhere.

 

Embarrassment to the country:

 

7 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Embarrassment to the country:

 

This b|tch just won't die, will she?

Siri, what's a neoliberal?


 

Quote

Hillary Clinton warns of 'huge consequences' in Afghan US troop withdrawal

Former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has warned of "huge consequences" of President Joe Biden's decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan.

Mrs Clinton told CNN there was a risk the Taliban - the Islamist group ousted in 2001 by the US-led invasion - could retake control.

The US aims to complete the withdrawal by 11 September.

However, the Taliban have been carrying out more attacks.

"This is what we call a wicked problem," Mrs Clinton told CNN. "There are consequences both foreseen and unintended of staying and of leaving," she said.

Mrs Clinton, like Mr Biden a Democrat, was a strong supporter of the US intervention in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

Mr Biden wants to complete the withdrawal by the 20th anniversary of the attacks later this year.

At least 2,500 US troops are currently deployed as part of the 9,600-strong Nato Afghan mission.

The president said the US pull-out was justified as American forces had ensured that the country could no longer be a base for foreign jihadists to plot against the West.

Asked about the president's decision by CNN's Fareed Zakaria on Sunday, Mrs Clinton said, "Our government has to focus on two huge consequences", notably the resumption of activities by extremist groups and a subsequent outpouring of refugees from Afghanistan.

She said the potential collapse of the Afghan government and a possible takeover by the Taliban could result in a new civil war.

Mrs Clinton said it was also important to protect the "many thousands of Afghans" who had worked with the US and Nato during the conflict, and said a large visa programme should be set up to provide for any refugees.

The remaining US troops in Afghanistan began formally withdrawing on 1 May, amid escalating violence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56966473?fbclid=IwAR0obigMeM673yvA2Nkiy9lBLSZRMnr1WOjUSRkE_d9BkEZVoD8NbkrC3e8

 

There was a good story on the NBC nightly news about the consequences. Women in Kabul are now business owners, and working women with careers. Girls are being educated and going to college. That all ends if the Taliban retakes the country. Afghan men who acted as translators and helped our military are being left behind to their likely deaths. I'm no Hillary fan, but I agree with her on this.

27 minutes ago, Gannan said:

There was a good story on the NBC nightly news about the consequences. Women in Kabul are now business owners, and working women with careers. Girls are being educated and going to college. That all ends if the Taliban retakes the country. Afghan men who acted as translators and helped our military are being left behind to their likely deaths. I'm no Hillary fan, but I agree with her on this.

Obviously, there are going to be "consequences." The threat of backsliding is real, but at this point, there is nothing more we can do. At face value, you have to take what she's saying as an indirect suggestion that we shouldn't be leaving, but if we stayed another 20 years, we'd still basically be where we are now. The things you mentioned are great accomplishments. In this kind of an endeavor, all we can hope for is to stabilize the situation and then give Afghanis the tools, skills, and resources they need to finish the job. We can't win this fight for them; all we can do is give them a fighting chance to win it themselves. They are in an immeasurably better position to take control of their destiny than they were 20 years ago. Time to let it go (and stuff Hillary in the broom closet).

1 hour ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Obviously, there are going to be "consequences." The threat of backsliding is real, but at this point, there is nothing more we can do. At face value, you have to take what she's saying as an indirect suggestion that we shouldn't be leaving, but if we stayed another 20 years, we'd still basically be where we are now. The things you mentioned are great accomplishments. In this kind of an endeavor, all we can hope for is to stabilize the situation and then give Afghanis the tools, skills, and resources they need to finish the job. We can't win this fight for them; all we can do is give them a fighting chance to win it themselves. They are in an immeasurably better position to take control of their destiny than they were 20 years ago. Time to let it go (and stuff Hillary in the broom closet).

We've been occupying Germany for over 50 years. So what? To say it's a "forever war" is just rhetoric from the cowardly right. It's not like we have troops engaging in front line warfare on a daily basis. We are occupying Afghanistan because its in our best national security interests to do so... theirs too. My opinion is that we need to stop looking at it as an ongoing war or a fight to win. We have troops all over the world stationed to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. This is especially important because of renewed Chinese and Russian aggression. There are loud voices for appeasement on both the right and left and we shouldn't be caving to them. 

12 minutes ago, Gannan said:

We've been occupying Germany for over 50 years. So what? To say it's a "forever war" is just rhetoric from the cowardly right. It's not like we have troops engaging in front line warfare on a daily basis. We are occupying Afghanistan because its in our best national security interests to do so... theirs too. My opinion is that we need to stop looking at it as an ongoing war or a fight to win. We have troops all over the world stationed to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. This is especially important because of renewed Chinese and Russian aggression. There are loud voices for appeasement on both the right and left and we shouldn't be caving to them. 

I appreciate the point, but most of those German bases were established as part of our Soviet containment strategy in concert with the establishment of NATO. When it comes to our presence in Afghanistan, the argument for the strategic interest would be stopping the Taliban from re-creating a safe haven for terrorist groups. I don't think that holds water anymore because the terrorist networks decentralized and metastasized to other places (Syria, Northern Africa, etc.) -- they don't need just one safe haven. So I'm not sure I see the strategic interest in our continuing presence. 

As for the humanitarian aspect, it is terrible what may happen. But we can't force people with a 7th century mindset to adopt western values through military force. It may be unfortunate, but we simply can't force enlightenment on the unwilling.  

51 minutes ago, Gannan said:

We've been occupying Germany for over 50 years. So what? To say it's a "forever war" is just rhetoric from the cowardly right. It's not like we have troops engaging in front line warfare on a daily basis. We are occupying Afghanistan because its in our best national security interests to do so... theirs too. My opinion is that we need to stop looking at it as an ongoing war or a fight to win. We have troops all over the world stationed to protect our interests and the interests of our allies. This is especially important because of renewed Chinese and Russian aggression. There are loud voices for appeasement on both the right and left and we shouldn't be caving to them. 

 

We are not "occupying" Germany; we have troops stationed there, which is part-and-parcel to backing up any NATO ally. Our military presence there is according to an official pact. We're also culturally similar to Germans. The situations are totally different from a geopolitical and cultural perspective. Part of the problem is that we are always seen as invaders and imperialists when we try to structure the internal affairs of faraway lands. Look at Vietnam. The Vietnamese people never fully got behind the American presence because, ultimately, we were foreigners subverting their self-determination. We looked little better than the Vietcong militias who were terrorizing their villages, but at the end of the day, at least the VC looked like them, spoke their language, and understood their values. The communists were able to successfully portray us as new-age colonizers, and it effectively sapped any real chance of enlisting the population's support. You have a similar situation in Afghanistan. Our presence there is a windfall to terrorists, because it plays into their narrative of the West as a bunch of arrogant foreigners trying to destroy their way of life. Our withdrawal would remove a huge source of legitimacy for their extremist propaganda.

 

33 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I appreciate the point, but most of those German bases were established as part of our Soviet containment strategy in concert with the establishment of NATO. When it comes to our presence in Afghanistan, the argument for the strategic interest would be stopping the Taliban from re-creating a safe haven for terrorist groups. I don't think that holds water anymore because the terrorist networks decentralized and metastasized to other places (Syria, Northern Africa, etc.) -- they don't need just one safe haven. So I'm not sure I see the strategic interest in our continuing presence. 

As for the humanitarian aspect, it is terrible what may happen. But we can't force people with a 7th century mindset to adopt western values through military force. It may be unfortunate, but we simply can't force enlightenment on the unwilling.  

 

This, ALL of this. Fareed Zakaria touched on the bolded part this weekend. He's pretty much the only guy on CNN that I seriously listen to. GPS is a must-watch for me with my Sunday morning coffee.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/ten-years-later-islamist-terrorism-isnt-the-threat-it-used-to-be/2021/04/29/deb88256-a91c-11eb-bca5-048b2759a489_story.html

 

I don't know what the solution to Afghanistan is. Unfortunately this was always the situation since 2001; the Taliban will not have control as long as US is a lasting presence. But our troops were never going to stay there forever. 20 years is a blip compared to the centuries it took to make Afghanistan the way it is today. I do not want the Taliban to retake the country but it's out of my hands. I can only hope the Afghan government holds.