Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $72,846
82%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $15.2k to go!! Let's git 'er done. Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by Norseman

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 10:42:42 AM PST · 76 of 124
    Norseman to Mariner

    Simple answer: I have nowhere stated that I supported the tax break for having children.

    And you have nowhere justified demanding that both of us work for a wage, instead of letting us decide how to divide our own labor according to our wants and needs.

  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 10:40:07 AM PST · 75 of 124
    Norseman to Mariner

    You’re smarter than that and just being thick-headed in this case because you have no reasonable argument to counter the fact that a marriage is one economic unit. Even when a couple doesn’t marry, common law awards a non-working spouse many rights granted to a married spouse after a suitable passage of time in the arrangement.

    You continue to refuse to address the main point that how they choose to divide their labor in the marriage is their own business, and not yours.

  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 10:24:53 AM PST · 71 of 124
    Norseman to Mariner

    >>“I don’t see how my deducting taxes I’ve already payed is a burden on you.”

    I agree wholeheartedly and that’s the very point of my oblique postings.<<

    So if your state legislators have spent like drunken sailors and provided you with all sorts of personal amenities along the way, you “agree wholeheartedly” that the rest of us should let you pay less federal tax, thereby subsidizing that drunken sailor spending.

    I think we’re getting to the point where you need to stop calling everyone else a hypocrite.

  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 10:17:51 AM PST · 68 of 124
    Norseman to wildwoodla

    Yes, on the whole I think it’s a good approach, but I think they should be clearer in explaining that the child tax credit is intended to offset the loss of the child personal exemption. If they did that, it also wouldn’t have to be as large.

    For example a $4,000 personal exemption saves $1,000 in taxes at the 25% rate, so a $1,000 tax credit would replace it, since a credit is applied to your taxes owed. (If you owe $5,000, it would be reduced to $4,000, and if you owed nothing, you’d get $1,000 back for each child.)
    Maybe that’s what they’re doing with the $1,600 number in the House bill, but trying to protect everyone, since a 40% rate would equal a $1,600 credit (40% of the $4,000 child exemption)

    I view the House bill as having two main goals. For business, cut taxes primarily. And for individuals, simplify the process primarily.

    So we get some significant simplification and businesses get significant tax cuts. Then business booms as a result and individuals benefit from the increase opportunities that result. (This is the part liberals definitely don’t get, or at least deny strenuously.)

  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 10:09:45 AM PST · 64 of 124
    Norseman to Mariner

    >>I’m here to expose their hypocrisy.<<

    But you’re not exposing any hypocrisy. What you are doing is avoiding the reasoning that a marriage generates an economic unit with two working spouses. How they choose to divide their labor in that arrangement is none of your or my business.

    Yet you would penalize them if one chose not to earn a formal income, apparently because doing so would, from what you claimed, simply generate more tax dollars, thereby lowering your own tax bill.

    That’s not hypocritical? Forcing two people to earn their “income” the way you decide they should, while all the time claiming that personal responsibility is paramount?

  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 10:05:40 AM PST · 62 of 124
    Norseman to Mariner

    >>Responsible citizens provide for their own retirement.<<

    Have you considered the possibility that “responsible citizens” realized long ago that some people would not be able to save for retirement and that it made sense for a responsible citizenry to set up a system by which at least a basic retirement income would be guaranteed for all who paid into it?

    Don’t misunderstand me. I’m conservative and see a lot of problems with Social Security. But your assessment seems to leave out the possibility that laws can be passed by “responsible citizens” that will affect us all. Not everything responsibly done has to be done by an individual acting outside government.

    That said, I’m in no way trying to defend the current mishmash of legislation we currently live under. It’s a godawful mess.

  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 9:55:06 AM PST · 57 of 124
    Norseman to wildwoodla

    >>BUT, seems to me, even though standard deduction is increased, isn’t this in a way double taxation? With deductions gone, we will now be taxed on tax paid to state as income? <<

    True, provided you pay enough state and local taxes, including property taxes, to exceed $24,000. Everything over that $24,000 would now be taxed, whereas before it wasn’t.

    But now the standard deduction for a couple is just $12,700 and even in low tax states it’s not that hard to find enough deductions to get above that. For example, if I pay all of my 2016 property tax in January of 2017 and all of my 2017 property taxes in December of the same year, I can build up a lot of property tax. Adding in the state tax for 2017 brings me close to the $12,700, or even a bit above it.

    Once the level is raised to $24,000, there’s no amount of jiggering payments that will get me to $24,000 of itemized deductions so I can forget the whole thing. Surprise, I like that.

    But people living in million dollar homes in CA or NY and paying extortionate state income taxes besides, well, they won’t like it, because all those taxes might exceed $24,000, and by a lot in the cases of high earners. But, you know, that might just get them putting pressure on their legislators to quit raising taxes, also a good thing. Personally, I don’t like subsidizing high state taxes in the primarily blue states, which is what’s happening now.

  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 9:46:44 AM PST · 53 of 124
    Norseman to Mariner

    Married couples are viewed as one economic unit with two deductions by the tax code. How they choose to split up their responsibilities within that marriage is up to them. If they both choose to work, so be it. They would each “earn” their standard deduction.

    But if one chooses to maintain the house and care for the family and the other chooses to earn all the income for the family, that’s their joint decision.

    Your suggestion would penalize people for deciding to designate one spouse as a family caregiver and would encourage both parents to get out of the home and earn money. Is there really a good reason for doing so?

    I can imagine reasons, like both spouses attaining and maintaining job skills, but essentially, your proposal would drive both to work or they’d be penalized. You really favor that?

  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 9:36:14 AM PST · 48 of 124
    Norseman to wildwoodla

    A serious omission from the chart that everyone should be made aware of is the treatment of the personal exemption.

    Current treatment: Every family member gets a $4,050 exemption. Taking just a couple with no children, they pay no tax on the first $12,700 (standard deduction on a joint return) and then pay no tax on the next $8,100 (two personal exemptions), so the current 10% tax effectively starts (for the couple) at $20,800.

    What is left out of the chart in the article is the disappearance of the personal exemption, making the doubling of the standard deduction look much better.

    And, if you have three children, you will lose 5x$4,050 in personal exemptions, or $20,250 in all. This year your taxable income would start after you earned $12,700+$20,250, or $32,950, and would be at the rate of 10% for a bit after that. Under the House bill, your tax would start after $24,000 and would be at a rate of 12%.

    That said, the personal child credit is, I believe, intended to offset the loss of the personal exemption for your children, and might even more than offset it, which is why I favor the overall simplifying process in the House bill. But, still, the personal exemption loss should be being made clearer to people.

  • One Chart Shows Differences Between House & Senate Tax Reform Bills

    11/19/2017 9:08:40 AM PST · 42 of 124
    Norseman to boycott

    The jump to 25% in the House bill takes place at $90,000 of taxable income$114,000 of total income when the increased standard deduction is considered. I don’t consider that level to be that of a “low income earner.”

  • Supreme Court Justice Bill O'Neill, responding to Franken allegations, claims bedding 50 women

    11/17/2017 5:22:36 PM PST · 27 of 75
    Norseman to springwater13

    He’s right about the feeding frenzy, but he’s better hope that one of those fifty women doesn’t come forward now and point out that she was underage when she was with him. After all, he’s talking actual sex here, not just dating them.

    I’m sticking with my projection that the next iteration of this nonsense will be outing lesbian bosses who harassed or mistreated their employees, both female and male. They’re out there. Someone just needs to put their “Time to Get Even” hat on and call the Washington Post.

  • Iím a feminist. I study rape culture. And I donít want Al Franken to resign.

    11/17/2017 9:58:13 AM PST · 98 of 101
    Norseman to SoFloFreeper

    Here’s what liberals are really afraid of, and why they’ll protect Franken to the end:

    The next logical progression of the current sexual witch hunt is for a harassed female, or even a male, to step forward and claim that a lesbian boss harassed her (or him.)

    And don’t think that doesn’t happen. Plus, there are plenty of people who have failed to advance because they were passed over in favor of a fellow lesbian. What better way to even the score than to start leveling unprovable allegations, or, better yet, provable ones.

    The Washington Post started this fire. I hope it takes down their entire organization before they can put it out. Franken could be just the beginning.

  • Iím a feminist. I study rape culture. And I donít want Al Franken to resign.

    11/17/2017 9:50:15 AM PST · 97 of 101
    Norseman to ek_hornbeck

    Good point. If you read Scott Adams’ explanation of Trump’s tweets “talking past the sale,” you’ll realize that’s exactly what she did here.

    “I’m a feminist and the author of a book on rape culture (the sale) and I don’t think Al Franken should resign.” (To focus on the Franken issue, you first implicitly, without even realizing it, accept the sale.)

    To your credit, you didn’t.

  • Researchers go after the biggest problem with self-driving cars (database decides who lives & dies)

    11/16/2017 9:39:01 AM PST · 25 of 68
    Norseman to MarchonDC09122009

    The free market will take care of it in the following manner.

    Say Ford, for example, sells a car in which the AI is instructed to prioritize the life of the driver and the occupants of the car, perhaps even in some specific order.

    And say Chrysler sells a car in which the AI is instructed to prioritize the number of lives lost or threatened, no matter whose lives.

    Fords would dramatically outsell Chryslers, at least until Chrysler re-instructed its AI.

    And car companies will easily figure this out. What will screw it up royally is if the legislature gets involved.

  • Ron Johnson first GOP senator to say he'll oppose tax reform bill

    11/15/2017 3:19:59 PM PST · 25 of 30
    Norseman to rrrod

    I’d rather call you on it. Why is Senator Johnson’s claim “completely false.”

    Because I’m betting he knows exactly what he’s talking about and that as a result small business owners will find they have a problem with the bill as structured.

  • Ron Johnson first GOP senator to say he'll oppose tax reform bill

    11/15/2017 3:17:32 PM PST · 23 of 30
    Norseman to Rapscallion

    Why is it a phony reason? Senator Johnson actually ran a business before becoming a Senator and is probably one of the more savvy Senators in office today.

    If he’s concerned about the impact on small businesses of this tax bill, as currently structured, then owners of small businesses will very likely learn that they have a problem with it too. Better that they learn it today than after it’s passed.

  • Sessions feels the heat! AG appoints federal prosecutors to look into Clinton Foundation

    11/14/2017 8:39:33 AM PST · 50 of 51
    Norseman to moonhawk

    the headline is misleading in two ways, and in opposite directions to boot.

    First, he didn’t appoint a federal prosecutor, as the headline claims (a headline that seems to be being misinterpreted as “appoints special prosecutor” besides.)

    Second, the headline implies that Sessions is only now looking into the Clinton Foundation, etc., but his letter mentions “matters currently under investigation” which could mean that the Clintons are already under investigation. If that’s the case, the headline is misleading in the opposite direction, implying that nothing’s being done when it already is.

  • Sessions feels the heat! AG appoints federal prosecutors to look into Clinton Foundation

    11/14/2017 8:30:42 AM PST · 49 of 51
    Norseman to righttackle44

    I don’t think he’ll appoint a special prosecutor, nor do I think he should.

    Note that in his letter he refers to matters currently under investigation. I think we’ll find that he’s already dealing with most of these concerns through normal channels, but having to avoid too much overt activity because most of the Justice Department, including a lot of the investigators, are still holdovers from the Obama administration.

    We don’t need a special prosecutor. We do need an honest, hard-working, AG who is willing to go where the trail leads. I think in the end we’ll be pleasantly surprised at what Sessions accomplishes although it’s been very frustrating waiting for something to happen.

  • Bitcoin Passes $7100

    11/02/2017 9:27:43 PM PDT · 62 of 95
    Norseman to scrabblehack

    the mining is a problem. It takes a lot of electricity to verify a set of transactions and to thereby earn some additional mined bitcoin. I can’t see how this could ever scale up to where it could handle serious transaction volume. It would seem to be too inefficient.

  • Department of the Navy Final Report on the USS FITZGERALD and USS JOHN S MCCAIN collisions.

    11/01/2017 3:35:36 PM PDT · 46 of 56
    Norseman to gandalftb

    The Fitzgerald happened more or less the way I proposed it happened after the initial reports. The Wan Hai (and one other ship) were the ones the OOD was concerned about to the point where he even thought the reports coming to him about the ACX Crystal were reports of a different ship he was observing. In the confusion, he never realized the Crystal was there until it was too late.

    The McCain turned out to be due to a steering problem as some initial reporting indicated, although it wasn’t so much loss of steering as it was confusion over who was steering what backup system, apparently. By the time it was figured out, it was too late to avoid the collision.

    The appendix to each report lays out the minute-by-minute, and at times the second-by-second, positions of the ships involved and the decisions being made (or not made that should have been made.) All in all, not good advertising for today’s Navy.

    If I had a son or daughter on a Navy ship today, I would be very concerned for their safety given the obvious lack of training, and probable over assignment, of the sailors on those ships.