[SK in CV]

[quote=paramount]I don’t agree with what Sterling apparently said and he’s probably an a hole, but based on the media frenzy and the equally frenzied reaction from the clueless masses/O voters, I’d say the O administration has deployed:

SCORCHED EARTH POLICY

Because they would rather have the world talking about Sterling rather than:

1. Using the IRS against political enemies
2. Benghazi
3. The VA/Administration Veterans Secret Death List

etc, etc….

Aren’t we all entitled to private thoughts and conversations?[/quote]

Is this the twilight zone?

[SK in CV]

[quote=livinincali]This guy is a former lawyer and will sue the NBA into the orbit of Mars. If he wants to keep the team I’m pretty sure he’ll exhaust all his legal options and still be holding the team when he dies. The best strategy from his perspective is to name a really high price i.e. > 1 billion. Then the pressure is on the NBA. If they want him gone they better help a buyer come in and buy at that price.[/quote]

My prediction….won’t happen that way. The league will set a deadline. Probably a year from now, he will not own the Clippers. Probably before the next season starts. If he still owns the team at the beginning of next season, he won’t have a local TV or radio contract. And he will not be able to name his price. He will sell or his franchise will be revoked and he gets zero.

[SK in CV]

Someone is gonna throw away half a billion just to screw with the NBA?

No he can’t. New ownership has to be approved by the board of governors.

[SK in CV]

He wasn’t exactly stripped of his team. He still owns it. And will, more likely than not, be required to sell it. For somewhere between $.5 and 1 billion. The fine is incidental, but it’s the most that the commissioner has the authority to impose.

[SK in CV]

[quote=zk]
And if the revenge thing is true, that’s disgusting also. Revenge for suing her for stealing from them? Bitch.[/quote]

What if it is revenge. For suing her. But she didn’t steal a thing, and everything she has, he gave her? I think that’s just as likely.

[SK in CV]

There have been a number of reports out there that the recording was not done without his consent. In fact, it was done at his direction. That he requested that she record their conversations because he commonly forgot what he’d said.

[SK in CV]

It is taxed. Depending on the type of land (personal use or held for investment), and the exact nature of both the easement and exclusions, the calculation might be a little complicated.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flyer] Nothing will change my mind concerning my beliefs[/quote]

Everyone should read those words. Over and over again. And then ask themselves if they really want to be associated with “beliefs”. Evidence be damned. Hold on to those beliefs, keep them safe, and ignore everything that renders those beliefs false. That is the difference between beliefs and science.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredyclassic]and if there were a G-d, I would not like him anyway. He is an asshole. I would tell him so to His face. the whole flood thing was unforgiveable. picture innocent babies, their sinful mothers desperately clutching them, watching them drowned out like rats as the water rose, for no reason, other than that the Big guy lost his temper. You’ve got to be kidding me. Fuck Him. Even if He did exist, his behavior was in my view unforgiveable, extremely bad parenting, and I don’t want anyhting to do with Him. I’m also still angry about the holocaust.[/quote]

And then there’s the whole mess with the dinosaurs having their calendars marked for the wrong departure date, and they all missed the boat. Does anyone really think that they all got the date wrong by coincidence? A-hole.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]Maybe they actually IPO’ed it at a sensible price?[/quote]

Kinda like Facebook did.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Blogstar]The atheists, agnostics, and Freethinkers are motivated to prove that you don’t need religion to be good and the religious people think they are good enough without really doing anything for the homeless guy. The results are skewed by these things.[/quote]

Not all atheists are out to prove anything at all. In fact, I think most aren’t. It’s an egocentric claim from the point of view of a believer. Believers seem to think that anyone who thinks differently has a burden to support that view. Atheism is the absence of belief. As an atheist, I have no burden to support a non-belief. Some, like me, really just don’t give a shit.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]FLU’s new rule for thyself… Never enter the markets one way or the before the 2-3 weeks before of tech earnings report…..Too much unpredictability..

[/quote]

There is an alternative. Play the volatility before earnings, on both sides. It will crash after earnings.

[SK in CV]

[quote=scaredyclassic]
it’s interesting to look at old docs. wouldn’t it be fun to see your dad’s first tax returns? i keep thinkgs i think might be interesting ina box. maybe some offspring, or offsprings offspring might someday be intrigued.[/quote]

Yeah, it is interesting. It’s hard to throw away old stuff. I was just going through a box of old papers a few weeks ago. I came across a very official looking legal document that said “Chattel Mortgage” (ever seen that term since law school?). It was a loan my father made to the owner of the Ken Theatre in Kensington so he could buy a new coke dispensing machine, secured by all the theatre equipment. The loan was $200. It was dated 1946. The most surprising part was that my father had $200 to loan in 1946.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu]
2. Even if they were to take out a loan, it wouldn’t be reported as mortgage interest deduction on schedule A. Again it would be investment interest expense on schedule E.

[/quote]

Not to be pedantic or anything, but interest paid while a property is being rehabbed may be investment interest, but it is not reported on schedule E. It would be reported on sched A (after a detour on Form 4952 where it’s limited to investment income) as investment interest, or probably more properly, capitalized as part of the cost of the property. Sched E is for reporting income for a trade or business that doesn’t go on Sched C or F. So if the property isn’t available for rent, the expenses shouldn’t (or at least legally can’t) be deducted there. “Investment interest” has a very specific meaning under the tax code, and it’s never deductible on schedule E.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Hatfield]I always liked the idea of a flat tax for individuals. Get rid of all deductions and AMT entirely. Everyone gets a standard deduction of say, $80k, and then tax perhaps 25% of all income above that. You’d have to tinker with these numbers but I bet you could dial it in where overall revenues are about what they are today with a much fairer tax structure overall.[/quote]

Most of the complications in the tax code have nothing to do with graduated marginal rates. They have to do with defining income. Under your flat tax idea, are the following items income?

Student loans

Cash out home refinance proceeds

Medical Insurance reimbursement

Medical insurance premiums paid by an employer on behalf of an employee

Other insurance reimbursements

Gross income from a trade or business (before any expenses)

Life insurance proceeds

I could go on. I hope you get my point.

[Author]

Posts