[PatentGuy]

Everyone who thinks higher taxes should be paid, you are welcome to set an example and pay higher taxes. Otherwise, STFU.

If you just think someone else should pay more, but not you, then STFU.

If you are rich (income over $200K single/$250K married) and you voted for Obama, then STFU unless you pay federal taxes at the 2000 Clinton rates, including the Schedule A phase outs. No write-offs for you.

And, please don’t whine about how someone else should be paying higher taxes unless you pay the “use” tax you owe to California when you buy stuff from Amazon without paying CA sales tax. You know who you are.

[PatentGuy]

Everyone who thinks higher taxes should be paid, you are welcome to set an example and pay higher taxes. Otherwise, STFU.

If you just think someone else should pay more, but not you, then STFU.

If you are rich (income over $200K single/$250K married) and you voted for Obama, then STFU unless you pay federal taxes at the 2000 Clinton rates, including the Schedule A phase outs. No write-offs for you.

And, please don’t whine about how someone else should be paying higher taxes unless you pay the “use” tax you owe to California when you buy stuff from Amazon without paying CA sales tax. You know who you are.

[PatentGuy]

Everyone who thinks higher taxes should be paid, you are welcome to set an example and pay higher taxes. Otherwise, STFU.

If you just think someone else should pay more, but not you, then STFU.

If you are rich (income over $200K single/$250K married) and you voted for Obama, then STFU unless you pay federal taxes at the 2000 Clinton rates, including the Schedule A phase outs. No write-offs for you.

And, please don’t whine about how someone else should be paying higher taxes unless you pay the “use” tax you owe to California when you buy stuff from Amazon without paying CA sales tax. You know who you are.

[PatentGuy]

Everyone who thinks higher taxes should be paid, you are welcome to set an example and pay higher taxes. Otherwise, STFU.

If you just think someone else should pay more, but not you, then STFU.

If you are rich (income over $200K single/$250K married) and you voted for Obama, then STFU unless you pay federal taxes at the 2000 Clinton rates, including the Schedule A phase outs. No write-offs for you.

And, please don’t whine about how someone else should be paying higher taxes unless you pay the “use” tax you owe to California when you buy stuff from Amazon without paying CA sales tax. You know who you are.

[PatentGuy]

Everyone who thinks higher taxes should be paid, you are welcome to set an example and pay higher taxes. Otherwise, STFU.

If you just think someone else should pay more, but not you, then STFU.

If you are rich (income over $200K single/$250K married) and you voted for Obama, then STFU unless you pay federal taxes at the 2000 Clinton rates, including the Schedule A phase outs. No write-offs for you.

And, please don’t whine about how someone else should be paying higher taxes unless you pay the “use” tax you owe to California when you buy stuff from Amazon without paying CA sales tax. You know who you are.

[PatentGuy]

“Once that occurs, California will need to live with the cash in it’s pocket.”

IMO, a more likely scenario is that the feds bail out CA (“TBTF”), plus other states. Maybe the bondholders will be paid in full (ala AGI bailout), or maybe they will take haircuts (ala GM bailout), I don’t know, but I highly doubt the feds make the pensioners take a haircut. (Did any GM pensioners (union or non-union) take a haircut?).

Haircuts and cram-downs have to happen at some point to get rid of the debt. 100% bailouts may happen on a case by case basis, but the net result will be offsetting currency debasement.

[PatentGuy]

“Once that occurs, California will need to live with the cash in it’s pocket.”

IMO, a more likely scenario is that the feds bail out CA (“TBTF”), plus other states. Maybe the bondholders will be paid in full (ala AGI bailout), or maybe they will take haircuts (ala GM bailout), I don’t know, but I highly doubt the feds make the pensioners take a haircut. (Did any GM pensioners (union or non-union) take a haircut?).

Haircuts and cram-downs have to happen at some point to get rid of the debt. 100% bailouts may happen on a case by case basis, but the net result will be offsetting currency debasement.

[PatentGuy]

“Once that occurs, California will need to live with the cash in it’s pocket.”

IMO, a more likely scenario is that the feds bail out CA (“TBTF”), plus other states. Maybe the bondholders will be paid in full (ala AGI bailout), or maybe they will take haircuts (ala GM bailout), I don’t know, but I highly doubt the feds make the pensioners take a haircut. (Did any GM pensioners (union or non-union) take a haircut?).

Haircuts and cram-downs have to happen at some point to get rid of the debt. 100% bailouts may happen on a case by case basis, but the net result will be offsetting currency debasement.

[PatentGuy]

“Once that occurs, California will need to live with the cash in it’s pocket.”

IMO, a more likely scenario is that the feds bail out CA (“TBTF”), plus other states. Maybe the bondholders will be paid in full (ala AGI bailout), or maybe they will take haircuts (ala GM bailout), I don’t know, but I highly doubt the feds make the pensioners take a haircut. (Did any GM pensioners (union or non-union) take a haircut?).

Haircuts and cram-downs have to happen at some point to get rid of the debt. 100% bailouts may happen on a case by case basis, but the net result will be offsetting currency debasement.

[PatentGuy]

“Once that occurs, California will need to live with the cash in it’s pocket.”

IMO, a more likely scenario is that the feds bail out CA (“TBTF”), plus other states. Maybe the bondholders will be paid in full (ala AGI bailout), or maybe they will take haircuts (ala GM bailout), I don’t know, but I highly doubt the feds make the pensioners take a haircut. (Did any GM pensioners (union or non-union) take a haircut?).

Haircuts and cram-downs have to happen at some point to get rid of the debt. 100% bailouts may happen on a case by case basis, but the net result will be offsetting currency debasement.

[PatentGuy]

Is this business (stated all over the media, not just slate) about how the federal government “can step in and put the state into receivership” somewhere in the Constitution?

In any event, the moment the CA bond holders have any real sense of imminent default by California that will not be bailed out by the feds, the interest rates on CA bonds will skyrocket, and CA is done.

We can each speculate if/when this happens and whether the fed will bail out the states (more accurately: whether the fed will bail out the bond holders and government employee pensions).

[PatentGuy]

Is this business (stated all over the media, not just slate) about how the federal government “can step in and put the state into receivership” somewhere in the Constitution?

In any event, the moment the CA bond holders have any real sense of imminent default by California that will not be bailed out by the feds, the interest rates on CA bonds will skyrocket, and CA is done.

We can each speculate if/when this happens and whether the fed will bail out the states (more accurately: whether the fed will bail out the bond holders and government employee pensions).

[PatentGuy]

Is this business (stated all over the media, not just slate) about how the federal government “can step in and put the state into receivership” somewhere in the Constitution?

In any event, the moment the CA bond holders have any real sense of imminent default by California that will not be bailed out by the feds, the interest rates on CA bonds will skyrocket, and CA is done.

We can each speculate if/when this happens and whether the fed will bail out the states (more accurately: whether the fed will bail out the bond holders and government employee pensions).

[PatentGuy]

Is this business (stated all over the media, not just slate) about how the federal government “can step in and put the state into receivership” somewhere in the Constitution?

In any event, the moment the CA bond holders have any real sense of imminent default by California that will not be bailed out by the feds, the interest rates on CA bonds will skyrocket, and CA is done.

We can each speculate if/when this happens and whether the fed will bail out the states (more accurately: whether the fed will bail out the bond holders and government employee pensions).

[PatentGuy]

Is this business (stated all over the media, not just slate) about how the federal government “can step in and put the state into receivership” somewhere in the Constitution?

In any event, the moment the CA bond holders have any real sense of imminent default by California that will not be bailed out by the feds, the interest rates on CA bonds will skyrocket, and CA is done.

We can each speculate if/when this happens and whether the fed will bail out the states (more accurately: whether the fed will bail out the bond holders and government employee pensions).

[Author]

Posts