Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=joec]Was wondering about this…Would it be “better” / “easier” to get to a top university/school if everyone in your high school isn’t as TOP/Overachieving?
Like I would assume if everyone from the top CV high school applies to say Stanford, they aren’t going to take a ton of people from the same school right?
Course, it doesn’t mean they’ll take someone from the lower high school neither, but I’m assuming the admissions will start getting glassed eyed after reading about the 7th Nguyen student from the same CV school and why they should be admitted…[/quote]
Great question. At least some of the UC’s do have limits of how many kids they’ll accept from the same high school. My daughter was accepted at every top school (public and private) in California (and some top private schools out of state) except for UCLA. She was told by the admissions department that they’d already accepted their limit from TP. I have no idea about private schools like Stanford. She was accepted, but chose otherwise.
I doubt it would be a problem for many out of state schools, it’s just not that likely that there would be that many kids applying from a particular school. That’s just a guess.
On the other hand, would a not so good school provide as good of an environment to get into one of the top schools? Maybe for some kids it wouldn’t matter. For others, I think the quality of the high school really does matter.
ParticipantI think you misunderstood BG. I don’t know if a 62 year old house is old. I think 100 year old house is, particularly in SD. 50 years old probably not. I was just asking for opinion. How old is an old house in SD? I don’t know the answer.
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]My god! How can you miss the conclusion SK?
We spend to much. That is the conclusion.[/quote]
Then the conclusion is also that we tax too little. How did you miss that part?
The right conclusion, which is never mentioned, is that the political process involves pressures from all sides. Political idealogies that cross party lines. That democracy is messy and there are always tradeoffs.
Someone here on this site (maybe it was scaredy? or maybe flu?) suggested they were going to vote for whichever party candidate would guarantee that neither party had control of all branches of government. I can’t criticize that that concept. Unfettered ideological control of government hasn’t worked out so good in the past. But the fact of the matter is, what we have is the trade-off from that outcome. Gridlock and a system where party is sometimes more important that policy. The apparent hypocrisy is the result. Little steps are about as good as we can hope for. To quote one of our best fictional presidents of all time:
“Every once in a while… every once in a while, there’s a day with an absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always include body counts. Other than that, there aren’t very many unnuanced moments in leading a country that’s way too big for ten words.
Participant[quote=earlyretirement]SK,
Surely you can’t tell me that you don’t at least agree with many things this author has mentioned in his article? None of them?[/quote]
It’s not that I don’t agree with them. Some of his points are accurate. But the lede is not. What is his conclusion?
Participant[quote=sjk]
SK,you are unable to deal with the facts or the truth on this matter……You are part of the problem….but I wish you a good day never the less.Regards,[/quote]
Be real specific, what is the real truth contained in the article? Calling things jokes and farces are the truth? Real evidence provides a much stronger argument.
Participant[quote=paramount]
When will people learn to stop worshiping other humans: be they athletes, cops, fireman, soldiers, actors, musicians…whomever.Put them on a pedestal and you know what happens….[/quote]
Yeah, I agree. It’s fine to appreciate them for special skills or attributes. But they all get up in the morning and take a dump just like the rest of us. (if they’re regular.)
Participant[quote=earlyretirement]Excellent. Thanks for sharing.[/quote]
No, it’s really not so excellent. It is almost worthless. Much of it is based on a wholly bogus premise:
Just take a look at their [the CBO] 2002 projection, after passage of the Bush tax cuts:
The CBO predicted the FY2012 surplus would be $641 billion, the national debt would total $3.5 trillion, the debt held by the public would total $1.273 trillion, and GDP would total $17.2 trillion. They missed by that much.
The actual FY12 results were:
The true deficit was $1.37 trillion (amount national debt increased – not the phony deficit number reported by the mainstream media).
The national debt was $16.1 trillion.
The debt held by the public was $11.3 trillion.
GDP was $15.8 trillion.
Based on these results, I won’t be asking the CBO for help with my Super Bowl bet. Making ten year predictions is beyond worthless, but public policy in Washington DC is based on these useless CBO projections.Why was that projection off? Well it’s true that projections 10 years out are problematic to begin with. They are based on laws and regulations remaining unchanged. That doesn’t happen. At least 4 different things happened between the 2002 CBO projection for 2012, and 2012.
1. Tax cuts passed in 2002 were scheduled to go into effect in 2006. Subsequent legislation moved those cuts up by 3 years, to 2003, cutting revenues by trillions of dollars.
2. War in Afghanistan ultimately added trillions to expenditures.
3. War in Iraq ultimately added trillions to expenditures.
4. Credit crisis/Mortgage crisis both reduced revenues by trillions of dollars and remediation increased expenditures by trillions of dollars.
When an entire an argument is based on a faulty premise, then the argument itself is of no value. This one fits that description perfectly.
ParticipantI have no idea why I should care about Lance Armstrong.
ParticipantIf you don’t mind my asking, what sort of transaction do you need it for? They’re most commonly used for transfer of securities, and almost invariably done by a custodial agent or bank with whom you have an ongoing relationship. With electronic title, the need is also much less frequent today that it was even 20 years ago. The guarantee is not without risk, so particularly in transactions to which banks are not a party, they’ve stopped providing the service.
January 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM in reply to: Obama re-elected to grow our national pie, not just re-divide it #758036Participant[quote=Arraya][quote=SK in CV]Is energy of any kind being rationed?[/quote]
Yes the ratioing mechanism is called a price point.
[/quote]
So energy is being rationed exactly the same as everything else we buy. Gotcha.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]gzz, this house is going on 62 years old.[/quote]
Is that an old house? It’s funny, the house I grew up in was built in ’57 or ’58 I think. We just sold it a few years ago after my mother died. I never considered it an old house. My sister still lives in the same neighborhood. But the house my grandparents lived in when I was a kid (near 50th and El Cajon Blvd) was built around 1928, and when I was young, I always considered that an old house.
How old is old?
Participant[quote=bearishgurl]
Is that just for the 2012 tax year, until further notice … or forever?[/quote]Until further notice. More complete quote from the FTB:
The letter [from the IRS to the FTB] goes on to state that appropriate revisions to the IRS forms and publications on the subject will be recommended.
Under current law, the deductibility of real property taxes is generally a matter of federal law to which California conforms. As such, the FTB will be waiting to review the revisions to the IRS forms and publications to provide comparable revisions to California tax form instructions. The FTB does not anticipate that these revisions will be made prior to the due date for 2011 tax returns (April 17, 2012). We have removed material from our website that limits the deductibility of real property taxes to taxes imposed on an ad valorem basis. Once the IRS forms and instructions are revised, we will provide revised California forms and instructions that are consistent with the revisions made by the IRS.
I can find no indication any update has been done by the IRS, nor has the FTB issued any new guidance that I can find.
Participant[quote=bearishgurl](emphasis added)
The Chief Counsel seems to be stating here that (MR) assessments may be deductible IF
… they are levied for the general public welfare by a proper taxing authority at a like rate on owners of all properties in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction, and if the assessments are not for local benefits (unless for maintenance or interest charges)…
MR isn’t levied “on all properties in the taxing authority’s jurisdiction.” It’s only levied on the properties within CFD’s in which the bonds have not yet been retired.
In addition, MR assessments in CA ARE for local benefits, not “maintenance” because the local jurisdictions (city/county) maintain the public lands within the CFD’s.
However, some of the MR payments service interest charges.
Without further direction from the IRS/FTB, this issue seems like it could be a quagmire for affected taxpayers.[/quote]
The FTB concluded:
“We have removed material from our website that limits the deductibility of real property taxes to taxes imposed on an ad valorem basis.”
Essentially they conceded that based on the IRS letter, MR is deductible.
Participantyes.
-
AuthorPosts
