• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CT CCXLV - Where TK reimagines Tom Sizemore as a woman

Status
Not open for further replies.
Donkey Deac Doug said:
I have to park in the city. I still need a truck bed. It was a ridgeline or a Taco, and the ridgeline has a spot for my golf clubs. I have a 2014 SE; it's perfect for me. If I could buy a 2021 with the 2014 body style, I'd do it tomorrow.

Thanks to Takata airbags, I've driven F-150s, Rams, Frontiers, Silverados and more for months at a time. All of them have pros and cons. I'd likely drive an F-150 if they weren't so fucking huge. It was certainly the most "fun" of all the trucks I've driven.
Click to expand...

Change for a buck ?
 
 
TownieDeac said:
Click to expand...

There’s a reason we have all the best and most innovative companies in the world working here, and it’s not because they all came hoping for increased tax rates
 
Meh, I can’t. I don’t know if it’s bad.

I’m 99% sure this pandemic response of just giving businesses money was bad and just artificially propped the stock market.
 
From a policy perspective, I think the idea was that encouraging people to invest in growth is worth the tax incentive. Over time, I'd say that has gone well (by satisfying that purpose), but it also justifies a reassessment of it now. Things are askew, as the bulk of the wealth subject to cap gains is held by the super-wealthy who could clearly afford to pay higher tax, and who will invest regardless based on the historic performance of equities.

The issue with implementing the change is that it absolutely will cause huge market upheaval if enacted on a cliff - if people know the rate is skyrocketing tomorrow, they will sell today. That will tank the market, which isn't good for the overall economy.

That could be managed by allowing people to "lock in" their built-in gain as of the date of the changeover, so that only prospective gains are subject to the higher tax. People that care about that issue would be able to afford to deal with the nuisance of tracking it. Another alternative would be a slow escalation - increase by 2%/year to the new level.
 
Chat Thread CCXLV: JimmySokolove's Woke Mob puts vaccinated people ON NOTICE!!!

I have a truck and use the bed several times a month. It’s nice to throw wet towels after the pool in addition to hauling things from weekly trips to Home Depot.
 
DeacDiggler said:
From a policy perspective, I think the idea was that encouraging people to invest in growth is worth the tax incentive. Over time, I'd say that has gone well (by satisfying that purpose), but it also justifies a reassessment of it now. Things are askew, as the bulk of the wealth subject to cap gains is held by the super-wealthy who could clearly afford to pay higher tax, and who will invest regardless based on the historic performance of equities.

The issue with implementing the change is that it absolutely will cause huge market upheaval if enacted on a cliff - if people know the rate is skyrocketing tomorrow, they will sell today. That will tank the market, which isn't good for the overall economy.

That could be managed by allowing people to "lock in" their built-in gain as of the date of the changeover, so that only prospective gains are subject to the higher tax. People that care about that issue would be able to afford to deal with the nuisance of tracking it. Another alternative would be a slow escalation - increase by 2%/year to the new level.
Click to expand...

I’ve yet to see much proof that the market being high helps “the economy”. It does seem to help asset inflation and probably helps keep outdated pension plans from imploding, but do we really need to be paying cops $100k/yr to retire at 50 anymore?
 
On Saturday my wife is taking the kids to hang out with one of her besties for the day, so I have the entire day to myself and I think I'm gonna spend it hiking. I'm good to drive anywhere within a 3 hour radius of Wilkes and hike up to 25 miles. Where should I go, Pit buddies?

ETA I'd really like for this to bust my ass physically and push my endurance limits.
 
Last edited:
DeacDiggler said:
From a policy perspective, I think the idea was that encouraging people to invest in growth is worth the tax incentive. Over time, I'd say that has gone well (by satisfying that purpose), but it also justifies a reassessment of it now. Things are askew, as the bulk of the wealth subject to cap gains is held by the super-wealthy who could clearly afford to pay higher tax, and who will invest regardless based on the historic performance of equities.
Click to expand...

Agreed -- the problem with increasing taxes on "high earners" is that they are not aiming high enough.
 
When my wife gives me the day off I generally try and test my alcoholic intake endurance
 
Shooshmoo said:
Agreed -- the problem with increasing taxes on "high earners" is that they are not aiming high enough.
Click to expand...

Yeah, reducing a $400K income (Diggler's number), mostly earned in wages, by half in federal, state, and local taxes is ridiculous when compared to someone bringing home millions of dollars by whatever methods, and shielding much of it.
 
mako1331 said:
On Saturday my wife is taking the kids to hang out with one of her besties for the day, so I have the entire day to myself and I think I'm gonna spend it hiking. I'm good to drive anywhere within a 3 hour radius of Wilkes and hike up to 25 miles. Where should I go, Pit buddies?

ETA I'd really like for this to bust my ass physically and push my endurance limits.
Click to expand...

Mt Mitchell is a great hike - start at the campground at the base and go up and down.

stone Mountain is also a good tough hike.

Crowders Mountain ridgeline trail is a good hike but not particularly strenous - but you can make it up to 25 miles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top