Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
All irrelevant to the fact that neither the gubmint nor the Fed (a private commercial banking cartel) is Mandrake the fucking magician.Actually, it is what you said...You just don't want to admit it.No, that's not what I said. The government is the only entity that creates net financial assets through deficit spending. This is the only way for the private sector to obtain financial assets so to speak. Those dollars we all carry around in our pockets are assets for the public. Who's talking about a free lunch? Or devaluation?
Gubmint produces not one single thing that others would willingly want to buy, so the notion that it can create "net financial assets" is absurd on its face.
But I'm sure your Keynesian voodoo econ prof gave you an A for regurgitating that free-luncher bunk.
Are dollars assets to public? Yes or no? Is the government the monopoly issuer of the dollar? Yes or no? The government issues the national unit of account. Federal liabilities, whether as currency or bonds, are assets to the public. The private sector isnt an issuer of currency, sorry.
Re: Broken window. The real fallacy is confusing a broken window for actual capital.
Secondly, I'm not a "Keynesian", although that seems to be a favorite in this thread.
There's no law that actually says that.
Unless otherwise provided, gross income is from whatever source derived which is not limited to cash received (or anything else as the real law actually states). It's on the source you provided, now you'd like to claim that it doesn't say it. Hm, okay...
Right. Unless otherwise provided. You keep missing that part. When you sell your home you don't even have to report it unless
Reporting the Sale
Do not report the sale of your main home on your tax return unless:
You have a gain and do not qualify to exclude all of it,
You have a gain and choose not to exclude it, or
You have a loss and received a Form 1099-S.
Sale of Residence - Real Estate Tax Tips
How the fuck is the IRS going to include the sale of your home in your gross income if you don't even have to report it ? LOL!
The income from sale of depreciated rental property is sale price - purchase + depreciation. sale price - purchase price is taxed as a capital gain and the depreciation is taxed as depreciation recapture.
Great. What LINE of the 1040 does it wind up on?
If I buy a house today for 200k and sell it tomorrow for 300k, is it your honest understanding of the tax code that I now owe income tax on the 300k PLUS capital gains tax on 100k? Is that really what you think?
Do you really think businesses compute their incomes by adding up all their revenues and NOT subtracting their costs? Is that your honest understanding of how basic book keeping works?
Didn't you say you did something in finance ?!?!
All irrelevant to the fact that neither the gubmint nor the Fed (a private commercial banking cartel) is Mandrake the fucking magician.Actually, it is what you said...You just don't want to admit it.
Gubmint produces not one single thing that others would willingly want to buy, so the notion that it can create "net financial assets" is absurd on its face.
But I'm sure your Keynesian voodoo econ prof gave you an A for regurgitating that free-luncher bunk.
Are dollars assets to public? Yes or no? Is the government the monopoly issuer of the dollar? Yes or no? The government issues the national unit of account. Federal liabilities, whether as currency or bonds, are assets to the public. The private sector isn’t an issuer of currency, sorry.
Re: Broken window. The real fallacy is confusing a broken window for actual capital.
Secondly, I'm not a "Keynesian", although that seems to be a favorite in this thread.
And if you're not a Keynesian, then you're an outright socialist...Or an achemist....Nonetheless, all have been thoroughly discredited.
Unless otherwise provided, gross income is from whatever source derived which is not limited to cash received (or anything else as the real law actually states). It's on the source you provided, now you'd like to claim that it doesn't say it. Hm, okay...
Right. Unless otherwise provided. You keep missing that part. When you sell your home you don't even have to report it unless
Sale of Residence - Real Estate Tax Tips
How the fuck is the IRS going to include the sale of your home in your gross income if you don't even have to report it ? LOL!
The income from sale of depreciated rental property is sale price - purchase + depreciation. sale price - purchase price is taxed as a capital gain and the depreciation is taxed as depreciation recapture.
You can make a gain and choose not to report it. You can make a loss and choose not to report it. Any unreported income will not be counted towards your gross income. I really don't see how this takes away from anything I said. You don't have to claim income at all. There's a revelation...
Great. What LINE of the 1040 does it wind up on?
If I buy a house today for 200k and sell it tomorrow for 300k, is it your honest understanding of the tax code that I now owe income tax on the 300k PLUS capital gains tax on 100k? Is that really what you think?
Do you really think businesses compute their incomes by adding up all their revenues and NOT subtracting their costs? Is that your honest understanding of how basic book keeping works?
Didn't you say you did something in finance ?!?!
You do realise that there is something called 'adjusted gross income', correct? Everything is adjusted once you have totaled up your sources of income. It's still before-tax income all the same.
Right. Unless otherwise provided. You keep missing that part. When you sell your home you don't even have to report it unless
Sale of Residence - Real Estate Tax Tips
How the fuck is the IRS going to include the sale of your home in your gross income if you don't even have to report it ? LOL!
The income from sale of depreciated rental property is sale price - purchase + depreciation. sale price - purchase price is taxed as a capital gain and the depreciation is taxed as depreciation recapture.
You can make a gain and choose not to report it. You can make a loss and choose not to report it. Any unreported income will not be counted towards your gross income. I really don't see how this takes away from anything I said. You don't have to claim income at all. There's a revelation...
If you have it, you do.
Great. What LINE of the 1040 does it wind up on?
If I buy a house today for 200k and sell it tomorrow for 300k, is it your honest understanding of the tax code that I now owe income tax on the 300k PLUS capital gains tax on 100k? Is that really what you think?
Do you really think businesses compute their incomes by adding up all their revenues and NOT subtracting their costs? Is that your honest understanding of how basic book keeping works?
Didn't you say you did something in finance ?!?!
You do realise that there is something called 'adjusted gross income', correct? Everything is adjusted once you have totaled up your sources of income. It's still before-tax income all the same.
Great! But before you go off redefining another common income related term, what LINE of the 1040 do the gross proceeds of my home sale wind up on?
Huh????All irrelevant to the fact that neither the gubmint nor the Fed (a private commercial banking cartel) is Mandrake the fucking magician.Are dollars assets to public? Yes or no? Is the government the monopoly issuer of the dollar? Yes or no? The government issues the national unit of account. Federal liabilities, whether as currency or bonds, are assets to the public. The private sector isnt an issuer of currency, sorry.
Re: Broken window. The real fallacy is confusing a broken window for actual capital.
Secondly, I'm not a "Keynesian", although that seems to be a favorite in this thread.
And if you're not a Keynesian, then you're an outright socialist...Or an achemist....Nonetheless, all have been thoroughly discredited.
Oh Jesus.
The FED is part of the government. We call this consolidated government model.
The FED banks are privately owned, but they are controlled by the Board of Governors (government). The FED carries out all monetary policy by the Board of Governors. Any and all interest earned by the FED is given over to the Treasury every year. The US government doesn't pay any interest to the FED or anything like that. It's simply an arrangement. Personally, I don'thave a problem with nationalizing the FED.
Uh-huh...A scam...Thanks for the inadvertent moment of honesty.Yes, dude, money creation is essentially a balance sheet operation. It's been this way since we closed the gold window in 1971.
Ownership of the fiat currency is defacto ownership of means of production.Also, where did I ever state that the government should own the means of production? I'm not a socialist. All I've stated is that when the government deficit spends, it creates net financial assets, in the form of currency, which are liabilities of the federal government, but assets to the public at large. It's basic accounting: for every liability, there is a corresponding asset.
Reporting the Sale
Do not report the sale of your main home on your tax return unless:
You have a gain and do not qualify to exclude all of it,
You have a gain and choose not to exclude it, or
You have a loss and received a Form 1099-S.
How the fuck is the IRS going to include the sale of your home in your gross income if you don't even have to report it ? LOL!
The income from sale of depreciated rental property is sale price - purchase + depreciation. sale price - purchase price is taxed as a capital gain and the depreciation is taxed as depreciation recapture.
No, we're not.So we're agreed that Krugman mopped the floor w/ his opponents in the debate? Good
he starts out w/ a msg board meme/put-down too followed by reasons to curtail the current plutocracy
Paul Krugman - C-SPAN Video Library
Former Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman debated former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and former Reagan economic advisor Arthur Laffer on the subject of raising taxes on the wealthy.
So we're agreed that Krugman mopped the floor w/ his opponents in the debate? Good
Apparently what you are trying to describe. That someone makes it into the Top 1% by effectively bringing someone else who use to belong into that income group down into the bottom 99%. It doesn't work that way, at all.
Now to my initial point, surprisingly no one wants to know how they can be in the Top 1% as well. I would figure that the clowns who are always going off about income disparity would be all over this. It's really that easy...
According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.
To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Nicole Lapin, Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!
In NYC, it is possible for a married couple, both police officers, to make that amount.
Sure it is, if they're on the take.
Police Patrol Officer Salaries in New York, NY | Salary.com
First of all, he turned classical economics on its head. He introduced concepts such as liquidity preference, effective demand, consumption function, and marginal efficiency of capital among other things.
His central thesis in the General Theory being that the overall level of employment is directly related to aggregate demand. This throws the neoclassical view out the window. He basically said it was incorrect to assume that economies are capable of delivering full employment. His idea being that underinvestment and underemployment are the norm in an economy and that wage cuts will only exacerbate the problem.
Heres something that may help you: tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases. This is why its disingenuous to say you support deficit reductions but not tax increases. They both remove income from the economy, except they affect different income groups.
No, we're not.So we're agreed that Krugman mopped the floor w/ his opponents in the debate? Good
But it's helpful to know that you have your head jammed up the ass of the "economist" (using the term loosely) who claimed, on the op-ed page of the New York Times, that 9/11 was an economic stimulus for NYC.
As though your credibility, or that of ferret face Krugman, couldn't get any worse.
Correct, as usual. The only thing I would suggest is that you may want to say marginal propensity to consume instead of MPC. The majority of those out there have no idea, nor do they care, what MPC is or why it is important.First of all, he turned classical economics on its head. He introduced concepts such as liquidity preference, effective demand, consumption function, and marginal efficiency of capital among other things.
His central thesis in the General Theory being that the overall level of employment is directly related to aggregate demand. This throws the neoclassical view out the window. He basically said it was incorrect to assume that economies are capable of delivering full employment. His idea being that underinvestment and underemployment are the norm in an economy and that wage cuts will only exacerbate the problem.
If we want to understand the "General Theory", it should be read as a follow-on to the "Treatise on Money". This would solve a lot of the problems of "naive Keynesianism". Keynes does little to change the analysis of classical monetary theory and macroeconomics under full employment. The marginal efficiency of capital appears in the Treatise and is not new to the General Theory. It works just as well in a depression as in a full-employment situation, except for the fact that in a depression the "derived demand" for capital assets is zero as there is a surplus of capital, and thus MEC is meaningless and real interest rates are at a lower bound.
Heres something that may help you: tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases. This is why its disingenuous to say you support deficit reductions but not tax increases. They both remove income from the economy, except they affect different income groups.
There is another consideration. Tax cuts for billionaires are unlikely to stimulate the economy as they see no investment opportunities (lack of effective demand) and are not income-constrained in their consumption. Tax cuts (like an increase in EITC) would likely be spent in its entirety. Both tax cuts and government spending have differing effects depending on the MPC of the groups getting the additional money.
What a load of central planner ignoramus crap...Gubmint has no money of its own, so the deficits it runs have to be taken out of the private sector before they can be returned.Deficits are the only way for the private sector to acquire net financial assets. They add net financial assets to the private sector which provides the demand for real goods and services. This enables Americans to maintain income growth, which has allowed us to accrue financial assets at a much faster rate than would be possible without running deficits. Taxation is basically a way to regulate aggregate demand at the end of the day. If aggregate demand is in the toilet, you can cut taxes to warm up a cooling economy.
Money creation is done through government spending under our fiat system. Government spending gives us the net financial assets (in the form of bank reserves) which are the funds used by the non-government sector. The sovereign government of the United States is the ONLY source of net financial assets created through deficit spending for the non-government sector.
As a matter of accounting identity alone, if the non-government sector desires to net save in the national money of account, then the government must be in deficit, down to the last penny, which is why intergovernmental balance sheets mean squat at the end of the day. The accrued wealth in the national money of account - the US dollar - is also the accounting record of the accrued deficits, dollar for dollar, down to the last penny.
Therefore, if the government runs a surplus, the non-government sector must be in deficit. There are distributional components between the foreign and domestic percentages of the non-government sector; either way, the non-government sector's overall outcome is the the same as the government sector. If you want government surpluses or a "balanced budget", the non-government sector will go into deficit as matter of national accounting. You'll always see this reflected in the domestic private sector deficit. The non-government sector almost always tends to net save in the national money of accounts, so governments have to run deficits on a constant basis. The size and scope of the deficit being a matter of what we deem as public purpose.
I suppose you think you can make the shallow end of the pool deeper by scooping out some water out of the deep end and pouring it into the shallow end, too.
Yeah, there's clearly a fixed quantity of dollars or there.
There was no surplus during the Clintoon era, so the whole premise is out the window.
This is going to be fun.
Huh????
The Fed is part of the gubmint, yet private?
Are you fucking serious?
Uh-huh...A scam...Thanks for the inadvertent moment of honesty.
I need no further proof of this than your posts about how currency manipulation by socialist economic central planners, like you, drives industrial production.....er....I mean "creates net financial assets".
First of all, he turned classical economics on its head. He introduced concepts such as liquidity preference, effective demand, consumption function, and marginal efficiency of capital among other things.
His central thesis in the General Theory being that the overall level of employment is directly related to aggregate demand. This throws the neoclassical view out the window. He basically said it was incorrect to assume that economies are capable of delivering full employment. His idea being that underinvestment and underemployment are the norm in an economy and that wage cuts will only exacerbate the problem.
If we want to understand the "General Theory", it should be read as a follow-on to the "Treatise on Money". This would solve a lot of the problems of "naive Keynesianism". Keynes does little to change the analysis of classical monetary theory and macroeconomics under full employment. The marginal efficiency of capital appears in the Treatise and is not new to the General Theory. It works just as well in a depression as in a full-employment situation, except for the fact that in a depression the "derived demand" for capital assets is zero as there is a surplus of capital, and thus MEC is meaningless and real interest rates are at a lower bound.
There is another consideration. Tax cuts for billionaires are unlikely to stimulate the economy as they see no investment opportunities (lack of effective demand) and are not income-constrained in their consumption. Tax cuts (like an increase in EITC) would likely be spent in its entirety. Both tax cuts and government spending have differing effects depending on the MPC of the groups getting the additional money.
Krugman said that the Right was throwing so many straw men around that they were creating a fire hazard.No, we're not.So we're agreed that Krugman mopped the floor w/ his opponents in the debate? Good
But it's helpful to know that you have your head jammed up the ass of the "economist" (using the term loosely) who claimed, on the op-ed page of the New York Times, that 9/11™ was an economic stimulus for NYC.
As though your credibility, or that of ferret face Krugman, couldn't get any worse.
What a load of central planner ignoramus crap...Gubmint has no money of its own, so the deficits it runs have to be taken out of the private sector before they can be returned.
Money creation is done through government spending under our fiat system. Government spending gives us the net financial assets (in the form of bank reserves) which are the funds used by the non-government sector. The sovereign government of the United States is the ONLY source of net financial assets created through deficit spending for the non-government sector.
As a matter of accounting identity alone, if the non-government sector desires to net save in the national money of account, then the government must be in deficit, down to the last penny, which is why intergovernmental balance sheets mean squat at the end of the day. The accrued wealth in the national money of account - the US dollar - is also the accounting record of the accrued deficits, dollar for dollar, down to the last penny.
Therefore, if the government runs a surplus, the non-government sector must be in deficit. There are distributional components between the foreign and domestic percentages of the non-government sector; either way, the non-government sector's overall outcome is the the same as the government sector. If you want government surpluses or a "balanced budget", the non-government sector will go into deficit as matter of national accounting. You'll always see this reflected in the domestic private sector deficit. The non-government sector almost always tends to net save in the national money of accounts, so governments have to run deficits on a constant basis. The size and scope of the deficit being a matter of what we deem as public purpose.
Yeah, there's clearly a fixed quantity of dollars or there.
There was no surplus during the Clintoon era, so the whole premise is out the window.
This is going to be fun.
Welcome to USMB!
Oddball :facepalm: . He gets to be almost bearable after you get familiar w/ his tactics (deflection & obfuscation) 
