Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=SK in CV]Wouldn’t it be nice if there was something….anything…that could be done to reduce the likelihood of these kinds of events happening. I can’t imagine what it might be. But whatever it might be, we can’t ever dare mention the elephant in the room.[/quote]
SK: I’m presuming you mean gun control? How would a gun ban have prevented this? The .223 Bushmaster he used was a pre-ban weapon acquired legally in 1993.
Metro cities like NYC and Chicago that have extremely stringent gun laws still unfortunately have high rates of gun violence (because the criminal element is acquiring the guns elsewhere.). Which would mean a nationwide ban on ALL guns, which I’m guessing is that proverbial elephant in the room.[/quote]
I think there is something between what we have now and a nationwide ban on all guns. The fact that it may have been acquired legally is the point. Is there a good reason why that particular gun is legal?
I do understand the inherent problems in gun control. Make them (or some of them) illegal, and only criminals have them. This gun was owned by a non-criminal. If it was illegal to own, would she have owned it? I’ve seen no evidence that she was a criminal. (Though there have been some allusions that she may have been a bit whacked.)
I am somewhat sympathetic to the RKBA arguments. In theory anyway. Though many seem hollow, inconsistent, and often hypocritical.
SK in CV
ParticipantWouldn’t it be nice if there was something….anything…that could be done to reduce the likelihood of these kinds of events happening. I can’t imagine what it might be. But whatever it might be, we can’t ever dare mention the elephant in the room.
SK in CV
Participant[quote=Rich Toscano]
HA!Everyone needs to click this link:
http://www.sdlookup.com/Pictures-120051483#9%5B/quote%5D
sadly, words you very rarely see in listings….”pig does not convey.”
December 13, 2012 at 11:08 AM in reply to: “Rich” people should pay more taxes….Just not me….. #756261SK in CV
Participant[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV]I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?[/quote]
It’s only fair right? Why only make it harder for people who are trying to get rich. Why not also make current rich people not rich anymore like the rest of us or make it harder for them to stay rich.[/quote]Go with that. See how far you get. Not something I’d be in favor of.
SK in CV
ParticipantNot exactly the rich, but certainly the connected. IPO sponsors (investment banks) get the shares and distribute them at the IPO price as they want. It’s not unusual for IPO’s to be over-subscribed. More buyers than there are shares. You almost always have to know somebody to get over-subscribed IPO shares at the offer price. Everyone else gets them on the open market.
December 13, 2012 at 10:30 AM in reply to: “Rich” people should pay more taxes….Just not me….. #756255SK in CV
Participant[quote=AN][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu]
Buffett, Soros Join List of Billionaires Calling for Tax Hikes They Won’t Pay[/quote]
This isn’t true. I have no idea about Soros, but Buffett released his 2010 tax return info. He also made a pretty specific proposal. And his rule would have increased his tax by over $5 million, almost doubling what he actually paid.[/quote]
$5M from a net worth of $40B+? That’s less than 0.01%. chump change? What’s your average joe tax burden compare to their net worth?[/quote]I have no idea. I’ve never seen annual income tax liability compared to net worth. Are you proposing an annual estate tax?
December 13, 2012 at 10:10 AM in reply to: “Rich” people should pay more taxes….Just not me….. #756250SK in CV
Participant[quote=flu]
Buffett, Soros Join List of Billionaires Calling for Tax Hikes They Won’t Pay[/quote]
This isn’t true. I have no idea about Soros, but Buffett released his 2010 tax return info. He also made a pretty specific proposal. And his rule would have increased his tax by over $5 million, almost doubling what he actually paid.
December 13, 2012 at 9:29 AM in reply to: Quantitative Easing Benefits the Super-Elite … And Hurts the Little Guy and the American Economy #756245SK in CV
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Obviously Bush is behind all of this, even QE4, 5, 6 and 7![/quote]
I’m quite sure nobody has ever claimed that Bush is behind it. It’s as ridiculous a claim as that which charges this is Keynesian economics at work. It’s not. Keynes, at most, was agnostic on monetary manipulation as a means of economic stimulus.
I’m not so sure that it doesn’t benefit the economy as a whole, but there’s no question that the biggest beneficiaries are debt holders. That’s the big banks. Is there a better way to do the same thing or better for the economy as a whole without particularly benefitting the banking industry? I could be convinced, but I haven’t seen any ideas that meet the requirements.
December 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM in reply to: State of CA public employee psychiatrist gets paid $822,000 salary #756211SK in CV
Participant[quote=paramount][quote=SK in CV][quote=paramount]The only way this gets fixed is if California goes bankrupt.
IMO most on this board have a moral obligation to now leave California.[/quote]
Huh? Why would there be a moral obligation to leave? And why most? Who gets to stay?[/quote]
If you work in the private sector, leave. Otherwise, you’re an enabler.
California must go bankrupt.[/quote]
12 million people out of work. There’s a good idea. That should help a lot.
December 12, 2012 at 6:31 PM in reply to: State of CA public employee psychiatrist gets paid $822,000 salary #756209SK in CV
Participant[quote=paramount]The only way this gets fixed is if California goes bankrupt.
IMO most on this board have a moral obligation to now leave California.[/quote]
Huh? Why would there be a moral obligation to leave? And why most? Who gets to stay?
December 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM in reply to: Bond holders vs. Calpers – who gets priority when CA cities go BK #756205SK in CV
Participant[quote=SD Squatter]CALPERS trying to rewrite city bankruptcy rules
Bloomberg:
“The California Public Employees’ Retirement System is trying to rewrite the rules for bankrupt cities, claiming that it should get paid before almost everyone else, including bondholders.”
That’s opinion that is not consistent with bankruptcy law. Chapter 9 is pretty unique, and there isn’t all that much in the way of precedent. But the rules regarding priorities of claims remains. And debts to employees are priority claims, even in chapter 9. Calpers is not trying to rewrite any existing law. The law simply does not exist.
December 12, 2012 at 3:44 PM in reply to: State of CA public employee psychiatrist gets paid $822,000 salary #756202SK in CV
Participant[quote=UCGal][quote=AN]UCGal, just so I read your post correctly, you’re saying that the guy’s pay is $400k but after vacation payout, his pay went up to $822k? That’s 100% increase from vacation pay? Who can save a year’s worth of vacation?[/quote]
The state apparently doesn’t have a “use it or lose it” policy.
And he “apparently” was working 17 hour days because they cut back staff and increased patients… so he had more shifts.I just read the article.
I have coworkers who would have way more than a years salary in vacation pay if we didn’t cap at 1.5x the annual accrual. They’ve stopped accruing because they hit the cap a long time ago. They are workaholics who never take time off.
(I don’t have that problem. LOL)[/quote]I don’t think that’s uncommon at all at employers who allow unlimited carryover, though this is probably at the high side. I think it’s pretty rare now to allow for unlimited carryover. I know a guy who retired and still had over 18 months of unused vacation pay. He expected the employer to offer him a buyout, but they didn’t. He stopped working at about 55, started using his vacation, continued to have full health benefits, contribute to his 401K (with some matching), and didn’t technically retire until he was almost 57. Just kept getting his direct deposit paychecks twice a month or whatever. He’d worked for the company for over 30 years and got something like 6 weeks paid vacation annually by the time he retired and rarely used 2 weeks.
SK in CV
Participant[quote=flu]Well Goldman has spoken… Gee i feel so much better now (sarcasm)
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blankfein-investors-face-big-risk-193728002.html
“Lloyd Blankfein is worried that investors think low interest rates will last forever.
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, discussing how ‘Cliff’ deal may work.
“One of the big risks that’s looming is complacency. People are once again complacent about the low level of interest rates,” the Goldman Sachs CEO said at the New York Times DealBook conference Wednesday.
As a result, there could be losses for investors with portfolios heavy with low interest loans, Blankfein predicted.”[/quote]I’ll bet he’s short LT debt obligations. Wouldn’t be the first time that GS did that. Sell the hell out of something, then short it, then bad mouth it. Everyone loses but them. And nobody goes to prison.
SK in CV
ParticipantI read about that today at a different site. The funniest part…
And Hester goes on … claiming the show even gave less than photogenic cast members money for plastic surgery to “create more sex appeal”.
Darrell? The plastic surgery didn’t help.
Barry is still my fav.
-
AuthorPosts
