Mlle. Zabzie

Members
  • Content count

    5,525
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Mlle. Zabzie

  • Rank
    Well-Informed Doorstop
  • Birthday 08/25/1977

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Recent Profile Visitors

8,043 profile views
  1. X-ray - You are who I aspire to be if I could just manage to be I little cooler. (I can’t, so I’m stuck with looking up to you). Thanks for the Birds, the gin, and the flaming sword of righteousness wielded justly.
  2. I agree he deserves the benefit of an investigation. Separately, the husband point is not really all that compelling. In my own experience, while going around with my husband reduces stuff like street harassment (though not entirely - have definitely had the "whatcha doing with that loser" variety aimed at me) it/being married/etc. doesn't necessarily stop other stuff. I was flat out propositioned by a client once at a client event. My rings are not inconspicuous, and we had been talking about our respective children.
  3. Which culture was the Western European culture until relatively recently (like late 18th, 19th C recently).
  4. Do I get a parasol and a cool hat? Cause I'd be down with that. Do I have to wear a corset? Cause that's a deal breaker.
  5. Or been skinny dipping, or streaked, or ... We could all go on. Also, Freud is full of $hit.
  6. I think that's right, but I'm not sure. But you are right on there not being 50 Senators in favor of a bill, and I don't think the recent changes helped that. I actually think they could have gotten the original version more or less through....
  7. So yeah - that's going to happen then. So everyone should take a good look at the Senate Bill. And if you don't like it, call your congressperson ASAP. Because the train is rolling. I personally think they do it, warts and all.
  8. I am wondering how long they will actually adhere to their own rules. I actually really wonder this. But yes, I have a similar understanding (that it is too expensive). So it may be largely symbolic so that House R's can go back to their districts and say that they tried. But I'm really struggling with the game theory and the messaging here. If I had to guess, the Senate will pass its own bill by next Tuesday. Then the question is whether the House will take it up.
  9. So in a theoretical world, these kind of expenditures through the tax code are actually terrible policy. First of all, you have to know they exist. Second of all, unless they are refundable credits like the EIC, you have to make enough and have enough deductions so that it makes sense to itemize. Then, you have to make not too much so that the benefit of the deduction isn't phased out. Much better is to get rid of the noise and complexity and, you know, ACTUALLY RUN AN EFFING PROGRAM FOR VETERANS THROUGH THE VA OR HUD OR OTHER RELEVANT AGENCY THAT PEOPLE KNOW EXISTS AND CAN BE ACCESSED. But we don't live in a theoretical world, sadly. Probably not true. I don't know for sure, but I bet he carefully counts the days he spends in NY (and I bet that number is fewer than 182), so that takes care of the city tax. To the extent NY resident, his entities probably pay some NY unincorporated business tax - so that is something he would be somewhat hit with. However, he will still be able to deduct those under the House Bill. Then, given the fact that most state business taxes follow the federal model (with some exceptions), I bet he wouldn't have much taxable income to start with, and then you'd have to run through the apportionment rules - though many of his properties are in high tax states, so there is that. And if you don't think he and his family wouldn't be HUGE beneficiaries of the 25% rate in the House Bill, you'd be dead wrong. If you think actually touching skin is necessary for something to be violative, you'd be wrong. Really curious to see what happens next in the tax saga. There had been a lot of speculation that folks wanted to avoid two votes. So the question is whether the Senate sort of drops everything and kind of accepts the House Bill, or, instead plows ahead. I'm guessing the latter, which is sort of curious, because as constructed, it's not clear that the Senate bill can pass. Maybe the strategy is to have the Senate bill bomb, then have the Senate just take up the House bill after they have proven that ACA repeal isn't happening? Don't know.
  10. I'm actually relatively certain that when I see a bird of prey out my window it is a falcon. There is a relatively famous pair that nests near Central Park and my office is not that far away. Watching the drama is usually 110% more interesting than whatever conference call I'm supposed to pay attention to.
  11. Here's step 1: get rid of the stupid capital gains preference. Here's step 2: except for amounts left to minor children dependents (which would become taxable upon achieving age 25 with some exceptions for qualified educational trusts) and for the care of disabled adult dependents, inheritors pay a hefty tax on receipt of estate proceeds. This includes amounts left to charity. Can have installment plans/exceptions for certain illiquid assets
  12. Johnson is a no. So that's interesting.
  13. Yes - Democrats seem to believe that a magical pixie fairy will fill in the gaps once they tax the rich enough because taxation of the rich alone is enough to cause enough growth to fill in the gap. So.much.magical.thinking. And look, I'm not as bought in on the welfare state as you are. I think that large parts of it as currently constructed are inefficient, counter-productive and create perverse incentives. That doesn't mean I think there should be NO welfare state, but I'm skeptical of it in its current form. That's interesting. So who else gets to be a no vote and are there too many?
  14. Really depends. I think overall, offshore "stashing" (meaning never comes back to the US) is probably reduced, particularly as it is much easier for a foreign corporation to be treated as a "controlled foreign corporation" subject to anti-deferral rules because of the way they are changing the attribution rules.
  15. Actually lot of 7 figures people HATE it because of the SALT thing. A person making 7 figures in NY/NJ/CA/etc. is looking at a tax increase of ~500 bps. Those folks living in TX are laughing all the way to the bank. And owning the large business - it depends. It's honestly case by case. The interest deductibility limitations are actually HUGE, and could take some folks with a lower effective tax rate up to the 20%. And look, maybe that's not a bad thing, but this isn't one where there are clear winners (except real estate folks) or losers (except blue state high income service providers).