Tuesday Highlights

Good morning.

  1. Self discipline and child rearing … self-discipline is indeed a learn-able trait … an interesting thing to note at the start of Lent.
  2. Occupy Whatever (is) Suggested embarrasses itself again.
  3. AA and Lent.
  4. A road less traveled.
  5. Our state department deportment.
  6. Democrat election tactics of which I’m sure they’re proud … and the lack of self-criticism makes their disparagement of Mr Rove hypocritical.
  7. Uhm, because its not actually illegal to lie to a reporter.
  8. Taking a stand against indirect consumer use taxes.
  9. Only 11 years?!
  10. Praise for grad school in the context of reasons why not.
  11. I think I not only haven’t considered those bullet points but don’t know anyone who has (not to speak of doing them). Hollywood has a strange (unreal) impression of Christian culture.

6 responses to “Tuesday Highlights

  1. 8.Taking a stand against indirect consumer use taxes.

    Lots of pretty conventional wisdom here, most of it wrong but the sort of stuff that gets repeated over and over again because it sounds good….sort of like the story of the QWERTY keyboard being purposely inefficient but not we can’t get rid of it because it’s been ‘locked in’ by generations of people who learned to type on it…..

    For example, I don’t think that a serious amount of resources is really spent “arranging their affairs to be lower-taxed, rather than more productive. ” For one thing, most of the income earned doing ‘tax planning’ has next to nothing to do with arranging affairs, instead it’s a mind game where ‘professionals’ fool people into thinking you need them to enter very little info into only a few boxes and then conducting simple addition and subtraction…possibly a division once in a blue moon. For another thing, most ‘complexity’ in taxes goes towards rewarding behavior that would have happened anyway.

    Consider 401K’s which are probably the most notable example of trying to arrange behavior via tax rules. Most of the money in 401Ks comes from high income people with a savings orientated mentality. In other words, people who would use save their money in retirement funds even if 401K’s didn’t exist. Likewise Exxon does not drill for oil because it gets tax incentives to do so, it drills for oil because if you can pump a barrel of oil out of the ground for less than $100 while it sells for more than $100 you will make a profit.

    Eliminating corporate income taxes seems built on a fiction of a fiction. Corporations are fictional people and that legal fiction seems to generate real value (if it didn’t why bother incorporating?). But in arguing for corporate taxes to be abolished, Megan seems to be saying that the fiction is itself fictional. But that’s not sensible because her argument is premised on rational economic actors. If the legal fiction of a corporation had no value, then stockholders would simplly not bother creating a corporation and needlessly incurring corporate income taxes. If, though, creating a corporation tends to create value in itself, then its creating income and, tada, if you have an income tax it should hit on things that generate income. The argument becomes about as sensible as arguing that people whose name begins with “M” shouldn’t have income tax.

  2. 5.Our state department deportment.

    Pretty much confirms what I said before. Syria’s gov’t is allied with Iran in whom Russia and China have common interests in supporting. Syria’s opposition is Sunni Muslim which creates the odd image of Saudi Arabia adamently supporting a democratic revolution there. Likewise it’s a matter of public record that Al Qaeda supports overthrowing the gov’t of Syria.

  3. 6.Democrat election tactics of which I’m sure they’re proud … and the lack of self-criticism makes their disparagement of Mr Rove hypocritical.

    Come come now, certainly you think Mr Rove is much more capable of producing tricks much more dirty than that. Why is this blog so biased against Republicans, trying to depict their leading political strategist as some type of amateur!

  4. Boonton,
    I see. Interesting that you don’t offer any criticism of the tactic itself, except that it’s amateurish. What? You prefer your dirty tricks to be slicker?

  5. Boonton,
    So we support Assad, why? Because we have common interests with Russia and China? Because we think calling for disarmament of those being attacked by their own state by mortar fire is a good idea in principle? Why?

  6. We support Assad? Where? Last time I heard Hillary Clinton was going ballistic in the UN because Russia and China vetoed an anti-Assad resolution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>