Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

StatsPlease

Subscribe to StatsPlease's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

"And it's way too early to keep score on it. Fundamentally, I disagree with the tax bill as it's a giveaway to the wealthiest that will generate more deficits."

It's certainly a possibility. The Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts both increased total receipts...whether that happens again has yet to be seen. The difference with the current tax plan is that it appears to accept an increased deficit as an acceptable side effect. Reagan had never intended for deficits to increase, and regarded the increases as a serious disappointment.

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-01-03 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag:| Newsworthy 1

This is misleading, if not an outright falsehood. I didn't really research the Kennedy tax cuts, but I remember the Reagan tax cuts. The cut of 1981 was followed by a huge drop in revenue, forcing multiple tax increases to recover that revenue.

Here is some information on the effects of the Reagan-era "cuts": Fact Checker

More analysis here. I know nothing much about this site, but the analysis seems sound.

The bottom line is the 1981 tax cut clearly resulted in a loss of revenue. The 1986 tax "cut" also included multiple provisions to offset the cuts. Much of the revenue gain during the 80's can be attributed to the increase in the FICA rate (a tax increase) in that 1986 tax "cut". The analysis also tackles the "but it increased GDP" argument. There is simply no statistical evidence of any effect on GDP growth rate from the tax cuts.

If I find the time, I can also dig up some references noting the dramatic increase in the upper 10%'s or 1%'s share of total income relative to the rest of the population, which certainly has some relation to the lowering of the top marginal tax rate. It also demonstrates that the lowering of the tax rates has not resulted in a significant increase in income to the average worker.

"In studies by the federal National Toxicology Program, male rats exposed to cell phone radiation had a greater chance of developing a brain cancer called malignant glioma, as well as developing a tumor found on the heart.

Based on human epidemiological studies demonstrating increased risk of brain tumors, the World Health Organization has declared cell phone radiation a possible carcinogen. Meanwhile, the telecom industry continues to fight efforts to inform the public."

Everything I've been reading about the NTP study show it to be highly flawed. It has not yet been submitted nor accepted by a peer-reviewed journal. The NIH article can be found here, and the study itself can be found here. There were some peer-reviews by scientists picked by the NTP included as an appendix to the study, but even the hand-picked reviewers find the methodology to be questionable. The primary criticism of the study, as it is described in the paper, is it seems to be highly susceptible to false positives.

It is especially important to note that there are no peer-reviewed, repeatable studies showing any significant connection between cellphone use and cancer. There have been some studies, but others have not been able to replicate the findings. The World Health Organizations designation of "possible" carcinogen itself indicates there is no strong link known. This blog seems to be a very well-written discussion of the available evidence. I'm not really familiar with the blog, so I don't know if there is a bias there, but it seems to be a rational discussion.

Personally, I've always felt like holding a radiator like that to your head for a long time just can't be good for you, but there is no real scientific basis for it, including no good proposed mechanism. The wavelengths involved aren't short enough (high enough energy) to cause direct damage to DNA, and thus unlikely to be able to cause cancer. With the amount of cellphone use over the last 20-30 years, you would have expected to see significant effects by now. There is no scientific consensus at the moment, but studies will continue.

To give California credit here, they had to be sued to release these guidelines. The state had determined there wasn't enough credible science behind the risk to release them otherwise.

Whatever the US would tax you, minus what the Saudis taxed you, via the Foreign Tax Credit. Why it is that way? BECAUSE THE US DOESN'T HAVE A RECIPROCAL TAX TREATY WITH SAUDI ARABIA."

Which would be $0 as the income is exempt as it is earned overseas. The Foreign Tax Credit which is you hung up on is irrelevant as the Saudis don't have an income tax, which I already linked to for you. As a result, there is zero need for a reciprocal tax treaty as the Saudis don't have income taxes (for about the 3rd time).

So, again, as I stated from the get go, these government waste of spaces skip out on their tax obligations despite sucking on the government teat. How much more do you want to embarrass yourself today on this issue? Go play internet tax super star with one of your ignorant libbies because everyone else can see you are clueless on this issue.

#32 | Posted by MidtownLandlord at 2017-11-27 11:01 AM | Reply

Sorry to continue this digression, and I won't reply further, but here is the actual words from the IRS:

1. U.S. Government Civilian Employees Working Overseas

If you are a U. S. citizen working for the US Government, including the Foreign Service, and you are stationed abroad, your income tax filing requirements are generally the same as those for citizens and residents living in the United States. You are taxed on your worldwide income, even though you live and work abroad. However, you may receive certain allowances and have certain expenses that you generally do not have while living in the United States.

U.S. Foreign Service Employees

If you are an employee of the US Foreign Service and your position requires you to establish and maintain favorable relations in foreign countries, you may receive a nontaxable allowance for representation expenses. If your expenses are more than the allowance you receive, you can deduct the excess expenses as an itemized deduction if you meet certain conditions. For more information, refer to U.S. Foreign Service Employees.

Found here https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/us-government-civilian-employees-stationed-
abroad

I've read through the section U.S. Foreign Service Employees as well. There is no mention there of exclusion of foreign-earned income, no $102k, no $140k. Primarily because they aren't considered as earning foreign income. If they had a second job earning income from a foreign source (which is generally frowned upon for government employees), they might be able to exclude some of it based on if there is a reciprocal tax agreement; however, the pay they receive from the State Department is not considered foreign income, and is taxed as US-based income. At least that's what it says on the IRS website. Maybe, just maybe, the rules for commercial workers is different from those for State Department employees, maybe?

If not I foresee some major class action suits. Of course what will probably happen is you will get an email with an "updated" TOS. The update will remove the min. guarantee and protect the company from suits.

#235 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2017-11-22 06:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're years too late. Go back and read those agreements again: They've already exempted themselves from class-action or even individual suits. It called the "mandatory arbitration clause," and it's in just about every user agreement you have - credit cards, bank accounts, phone service, cable service, and just about anything else that isn't a straight purchase of goods for cash.

The only protections we as consumers had against these mandatory arbitration clauses were from the Consumer Protection Bureau, but those protections have now been neutered by the Republican Congress. For more information on these clauses and the negative effect they have had on consumers, you can read the thorough report here: 2015 CFPB Arbitration Report

Back on the thread topic, the repeal of net neutrality is a similar gift to the largest corporations. Anyone who has been following this saga would know most of the small ISPs along with most content providers, argued for installing the Title II regulations on ISPs and for maintaining them once they were in place. Unlike what Ajit Pai and the large ISPs have argued, strong regulation of ISPs had actually been in place until 2004. Local Loop Unbundling had been required until USTA v. FCC removed the FCC's ability to enforce it. As last-mile connectivity moved from phone lines (via dial-up and DSL) to cable, this local-loop unbundling was becoming less useful for preventing the large ISPs from forcing out competition anyway. It wasn't long after the last regulatory hurdle had been removed that the cable companies were caught in anti-consumer behaviors. in 2007, Comcast was found to have been blocking or severely limiting BitTorrent traffic since at least 2005. This affected not only the music and video file sharers on the network, but also those who were attempting to share Linux distributions and game clients (like from Blizzard) that depended on BitTorrent to send patches. You can read a good summary of the history on Wikipedia here

Anyone who thinks the market can solve everything really hasn't studied history or economics at all. Last-mile connectivity is a natural monopoly much like electrical power, water, or sewer. There are simply too many physical barriers to entry to allow real competition: How many wires can you really have running down a street. The cost of installation is also prohibitive. When such barriers exist, government regulation or outright government provision is the only way to prevent monopoly rent-seeking behavior from companies.

#15 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-10-25 05:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sorry, but that's another misuse of statistics. You are using poor logic to try and claim others' logic is faulty. The FBI statistics show African Americans are more likely to be convicted of violent crimes, just like they are more likely to be convicted of drug offenses. It does not mean they are committing these crimes at a higher rate. They may be, they may not be, but those statistics cannot show that.

I'm too lazy to dig into all the data that is out there, but here's an article that did some of it: politifact. There are plenty of others, including those that were studying the "stop and frisk" policies. I remember one of the more telling statistics was that while African Americans were more likely to be searched, the rate at which something was found was significantly lower than when a white was searched, but I'm unable to find the references in a quick search. It may be in this report prepared in the NYPD "stop and frisk" case.

My point overall is one must be careful when using statistics - especially if the bias would tend to result in a self-reinforcement. If one group is more likely to be arrested, and when arrested convicted, the crime statistics will look like they are committing more crimes proportionally even though it is a result of bias rather than criminality. The FBI crime statistics therefore shouldn't be used to try and show an inherent criminality, as they can only report those who were arrested and convicted, not those who committed a crime and weren't caught or convicted.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable