Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Is arsenal going to get relegated? Crazy to think about it.
Yes. It speaks mainly to two things:
—The utter incompetence of the Trump administration
—The absolute selfishness of Americans
I would have thought that any nursing home would shitcan any staff that refuses the vaccine.
they should.
I appreciate all of your thoughts on real estate as they make me think about it as a driver of wealth.I've never heard that specifically, but I'm not a tax professional. I'm guessing you're speaking about true losses where my note on taxes is talking about depreciating the property to offset positive income. Only buy priory that positively cashflow.
One thing I think you should point out is that you can't keep taking losses forever on a rental property. I think the rule is something like 2 out of the 5 previous years, you have to make money on it or you are not allowed to claim a loss. You are only allowed to claim it as zero income without offsetting other income if you aren't making making money the required number of years.
The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.
If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.
They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.
Is there anything clear on how PPP loan distributions to partners in a partnership should be treated and be reported on a partner's K-1?
You got a PPP loan and distributed the funds to yourself instead of paying rent, payroll, etc.? That is beyond the scope of this here blog.
The article you linked explains that the IRS has taken the position that these expenses are not deductible. The Revenue Rulings just "help" in determining when they aren't deductible. Congress intended for the forgiveness to be tax exempt. There is a section of the Internal Revenue Code that states that expenses are not deductible to the extent they are paid with tax exempt funds. The IRS took this section and applied it to PPP loan forgiveness and decided that these expenses are nondeductible.
If you have tax exempt forgiveness but the expenses paid with the loans are nondeductible, you have taxable forgiveness. Again, I'm not arguing that these loans should be forgiven tax-free for all - there are absolutely people who abused them, just look at some Sedgwick County Commissioners - but Congress clearly meant for these loans to be "free." Employers would not have retained workers with these loans when business was down if they knew they would be paying 40% of their wages in taxes. Congress didn't think things through with their bill, per usual, and the IRS overstepped.
They are idiots but it's not a loophole in the new relief. Dealing with these stupid PPP loans is part of my job.
Rep. Kathleen Rice has captured a prized seat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee after a contentious showdown with fellow New Yorker, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Rice and Ocasio-Cortez have been battling behind the scenes for weeks to secure one of the few open seats on the exclusive committee, which oversees everything from health care policy to climate issues. Tensions spilled into the open Thursday in a private meeting of the Steering and Policy Committee, where Democrats were forced to choose between the two members in a tense — and awkward — secret ballot vote.
Rice ultimately won in a lopsided vote of 46-13, though it wasn’t without some drama after some moderate Democrats openly criticized Ocasio-Cortez.
"I'm taking into account who works against other members in primaries and who doesn't,” Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) said on the call, according to multiple sources. Cuellar successfully fended off a primary challenge from Jessica Cisneros, who Ocasio-Cortez supported.
Progressives both inside and outside of the Capitol said it would be critical to have Ocasio-Cortez on the Energy and Commerce Committee to help influence critical policies in the early days of the Biden administration.
But some senior Democrats, including on the Energy and Commerce panel, had privately voiced concerns about Ocasio-Cortez landing the seat. Some feared that the firebrand Democrat, who backs progressive priorities like the "Green New Deal" and "Medicare for All," could cause issues as Congress attempts to draft bipartisan health and climate policies next year.
I bet Massachusetts changed behavior for Thanksgiving a lot more than Kansas or Ohio
In the sense that Kansas and Ohio generally were not socially distancing etc. before Thanksgiving, so their behavior on Thanksgiving was no different, whereas Massachusetts socially distanced before Thanksgiving, and then for one day said screw it, we're not socially distancing for this one day?
yes
Wish he would have done California but I think we were starting to spike sooner
I bet Massachusetts changed behavior for Thanksgiving a lot more than Kansas or Ohio
pretty crude, but better than nothing, look at a thanksgiving effect.
https://twitter.com/trvrb/status/1339683889510379520
yeah that's all fairly reasonable for you, and I certainly don't begrudge you that choice at all.
I still think it is pretty crazy to judge people for being upset when their benefits system that they had nothing to do with setting up or choosing goes bad. The fact that I was born and raised in Kansas determined that I was probably going to get a job in Kansas. For nearly everyone this is the case, so acting like people have all these choices and that they are using this as rational, when in reality that isn't what is going on. I shouldn't get credit for lucking in to a good system.
The teachers in a state that did not opt in to social security are at the whim of their state government not fulfilling their obligations and that is a much more likely scenario than Uncle Sam.Not everyone has that. In fact, in several states teacher pension system kicks people off of social security. Not Kansas, but still pretty garbage tbh.
You think it's shitty for someone to not be allowed to benefit from Social Security when they didn't contribute to it? The states don't kick people off Social Security. The federal government does.
The states set up agreements with the federal government so that people in their pension systems don't have to pay the Social Security portion of FICA taxes. The money that would have gone to Social Security then goes to fund the pension system. My wife's mom had this when she taught in Nevada. The return on what she put in for NVPERS is a lot greater than what she would have got from Social Security.
Illinois is a state that opted out and it worked out fantastically for my father in law, but I would be at least a little nervous if I were a mid career teacher. But even Illinois isn’t the state that I am thinking of as being a worst case scenario, that would be Kentucky where the state has perpetually underfunded the pension, teachers have much lower average salaries and a much less generous pension than most illinois teachers and on top of that the state seems even more hell bent on not funding it than Illinois.
Also since you brought up Nevada my sister in law worked there for a few years, the Clark County education funding was a nightmare although I honestly don’t know how specific that was to LV vs the rest of the state. I will ask her about what the LV pension looks like for someone that leaves before fully vested, which is another huge issue.
In Kansas I have a decent pension, social security, and have saved money for retirement with a Roth. Teachers don’t get a great salary, but the financial security of knowing that I have 3 different retirement savings is good piece of mind that is worth more than the actual cash benefit and I also love the job.
So again, while it doesn’t impact me I think it is a pretty bad deal for a lot of teachers (though some have no doubt done better).
My wife's mom worked in CCSD and her pension check clears every month. I haven't read anything about NVPERS being underfunded.
If states are paying less to a pension than they would pay for the employer's contribution to Social Security, then I agree that is shitty.
However, I have a pretty low level of sympathy for public employees when it comes to the financial viability of their pensions. In most cases, they have been promised benefits which are actuarially unsound often times through what I consider to be corrupt bargains between elected officials and public employee unions. It's not my fault you believed fantastical promises. However, I would be ok with public employees that have pensions in place of Social Security being guaranteed the Social Security equivalent in any court cases that are going to come in terms of public pensions and state bankruptcies.
I made the conscious choice to work at places that have defined contribution rather than defined benefit primary retirement plans. If you sign on to a defined benefit plan, you knew that going in. You also knew the risks and thus should suffer the consequences if those risks come home to roost.
I think you have a pretty warped view about how normal people make decisions about their lives.
The idea that you sought out your career path for defined contribution plans is hilarious. If you are private sector then it is a really funny statement. If you are public sector I would love to hear how this was a deciding factor.
The teachers in a state that did not opt in to social security are at the whim of their state government not fulfilling their obligations and that is a much more likely scenario than Uncle Sam.Not everyone has that. In fact, in several states teacher pension system kicks people off of social security. Not Kansas, but still pretty garbage tbh.
You think it's shitty for someone to not be allowed to benefit from Social Security when they didn't contribute to it? The states don't kick people off Social Security. The federal government does.
The states set up agreements with the federal government so that people in their pension systems don't have to pay the Social Security portion of FICA taxes. The money that would have gone to Social Security then goes to fund the pension system. My wife's mom had this when she taught in Nevada. The return on what she put in for NVPERS is a lot greater than what she would have got from Social Security.
Illinois is a state that opted out and it worked out fantastically for my father in law, but I would be at least a little nervous if I were a mid career teacher. But even Illinois isn’t the state that I am thinking of as being a worst case scenario, that would be Kentucky where the state has perpetually underfunded the pension, teachers have much lower average salaries and a much less generous pension than most illinois teachers and on top of that the state seems even more hell bent on not funding it than Illinois.
Also since you brought up Nevada my sister in law worked there for a few years, the Clark County education funding was a nightmare although I honestly don’t know how specific that was to LV vs the rest of the state. I will ask her about what the LV pension looks like for someone that leaves before fully vested, which is another huge issue.
In Kansas I have a decent pension, social security, and have saved money for retirement with a Roth. Teachers don’t get a great salary, but the financial security of knowing that I have 3 different retirement savings is good piece of mind that is worth more than the actual cash benefit and I also love the job.
So again, while it doesn’t impact me I think it is a pretty bad deal for a lot of teachers (though some have no doubt done better).
I think a lot of people in this thread should learn about the labor theory of value. I’m not saying you have to agree with it, but to understand it would be helpful.
Not everyone has that. In fact, in several states teacher pension system kicks people off of social security. Not Kansas, but still pretty garbage tbh.
Math time!! To show plainly what I said above with nice round numbers. You buy a fixer for $50k. Being a fixer, you may or may not go to a traditional bank for it. Let's just assume you did, but IRL, just know there are other private lenders for this. Your down payment would be around 20% or $10k. You put $25k into it to get it all fixed up. Maybe you had that money or maybe it was lent. Doesn't matter, let's stay on topic. So all in, you and your lender have put $75k into it. But, now it's worth $100k. Banks will usually lend around 75% of the value of a property. What does this mean? You go to a new bank and refinance. They do the appraisal, and sure enough, it appraises for exactly $100k. So, they loan 75k on the property, which first goes to the previous lender to pay them out and what's left over goes to you which comes out to exactly your down payment. What are you left with? A free house that someone else will pay the mortgage for if you did it right. Take that money and do it again.
I have done that before with apartments too. So you're able to recycle your money over and over again. It just needs to positively cashflow so you don't lose the property to the bank. It's a longer process with apartments, but still do-able. The term you'll hear a lot is "value-add".
If I left anything out, please ask. I feel like most people stopped reading long before this sentence, so I'll stop here.
Only fair thing to do is have another vote
I don't know what exact evidence you're looking for. Isn't it obvious that vaccinating the groups of people who have the greatest percentage of deaths the best way to prevent more deaths?
Sys is right
I thought the people disagreeing with him were just kidding. Not wanting the elderly and those with comprising heath issues to get the vaccine first is just as ghoulish as justwin's kill the weak for the greater good talking point that kicked this pandemic off.
Sys may be right about what the public is willing to accept, but you're not necessarily going to get the best bang for your buck by vaccinating the old and those with comorbidities first. It is quite possible you'll get a better bang for your buck by vaccinating those most likely to be spreaders. Also, if you vaccinate younger people first, you'll probably be able to open more businesses sooner.
The idea that having comorbidities, that are a result of your own lifestyle choices, gets you privileged access to the vaccine is not uncontroversial to everyone.
My talking point about weighing the economic impacts is not ghoulish, but is rational. There are all kinds of people, including Peter Singer, that were discussing these kinds of issues. Your attempt to shut down the debate by characterizing it that way is the ghoulish behavior. It's quite possible that the economic consequences of shutting down were worth the benefits, but it doesn't just immediately follow that it is the case because some people may die.
A couple of things, most importantly is most comotbidities aren't a result of lifestyle choices.
The people that you want to vaccinate first, people most likely to be spreaders, is the segment of the population least likely to get the vaccine. Old people spend money too and are much more likely to get the vaccine.
You want to seemingly punish people with comorbidities and the elderly, but reward people with the greatest means to sit home for a couple of months while continuing to contribute to the economy.
You want the economy helped, let the government do that, not science. A stimulus will keep people going for two more quarters, a stimulus won't keep our most vulnerable citizens alive.
Sys is right
I thought the people disagreeing with him were just kidding. Not wanting the elderly and those with comprising heath issues to get the vaccine first is just as ghoulish as justwin's kill the weak for the greater good talking point that kicked this pandemic off.
As figure 1 illustrates, 45% of Republicans with degrees, compared to 23% of Democrats with degrees, said they feared that their careers could be at risk if their views became known.
...
According to a Pew survey on October 9, Trump was leading Biden by 21 points among white non-graduates but trailing him by 26 points among white graduates. Likewise, a Politico/ABC poll on October 11 found that ‘Trump leads by 26 points among white voters without four-year college degrees, but Biden holds a 31-point lead with white college graduates.’
The exit polls, however, show that Trump ran even among white college graduates 49-49, and even had an edge among white female graduates of 50-49! This puts pre-election surveys out by a whopping 26-31 points among white graduates. By contrast, among whites without degrees, the actual tilt in the election was 64-35, a 29-point gap, which the polls basically got right.
On this election day, I sit and ponder, what is the one compelling argument that Donald J Trump has shown the past 4 years or says he will do over the next 4 that compels any rational voter to say "yes, I choose him".
I can legit every election see something in another candidate that I think, yeah okay I can see that point, not important to me or my point of view but it is for that voter, got it. I can't see one thing in Trump. It drives me mad because I know not every person voting Trump is a mindless "I vote for R only" voter.
also I apologize for not remembering but which one of you was the death opportunity cost strong econ guy out of the gates on Covid? would like to revisit all that again (your takes could have possibly owned, I don't remember) but those were good talks.
Posted in another thread but KU med docs have repeatedly stated that infections as a result of school openings/other large events aren't typically known for 6-8 weeks due to the speed of infection cycle.
No idea when the first schools started reopening but I don't think most have been open for more than a few weeks.