This is MJW's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following MJW's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
MJW
Recent Activity
Oh, look. Leaks from the DOJ (supposedly) about Steele's testimony. That Politico article is from two months ago.
Toggle Commented 5 days ago on The Dem Debate at JustOneMinute
jim nj, why do I suspect that the taxes would be structured so that the deductions for unrealized losses won't compensate for taxes on unrealized gains? During large market drops, would the IRS send big losers a refund check to make up for all the previous years' taxes on unrealized gains? Somehow I doubt it. Most likely they'd just get (likely time-limited) credits to apply to future gains, should they ever occur. In regard to the handling of future contracts, it seems to me comparable to the rule that stock dividends are taxable if a cash-dividend option is available, even if the shares are kept.
Every time TM starts flogging this mark-to-market "income" tax idea, I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln's riddle: If I call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. The 16th Amendment allows for taxing income; calling something "income" does not make it income Let me repeat what I said earlier about the matter: ============== TM: Mark-to-market accounting is already part of the tax code (eg, futures and index options, not to mention the charitable deduction for appreciated assets with a long term gain.) This idea side-steps the Constitutional puzzle of Warren's wealth tax. I'm not so sure the Constitutional puzzle is side stepped. Though it's nearly 100 years old, as far as I can tell, Eisner v. Macomber is still good law. In it, the court says regarding what is and isn't 16th-Amendment "income": For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the Amendment; and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue. After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185) — "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case (pp. 183, 185). The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. Unless there's some wrinkle I'm not aware of, the supposed exception for the taxing on charitable deductions of appreciated assets seems to me to have nothing to do with to mark-to-market taxes on held assets. Taxing depends on the fair market value of the asset at the point it's transferred to the charity. The claimed exception for futures contacts is somewhat closer. However the taxing is based on a specific and special aspect of future-contract accounting. Quoting a decision by the 9th Circuit court: Section 1256 [the tax section dealing with future contracts] is premised on the doctrine of constructive receipt because the taxpayer who trades futures contracts receives profits as matter of right daily. Id. at 157, 1981 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 256. Under this doctrine, "[i]ncome although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is ... made available so that he may draw upon it at any time...." Treas.Reg. § 1.451-2(a) (as amended in 1979). . . . Because of the unique accounting method governing futures contracts, the gains inherent in them are properly treated as constructively received. The increase in a future contract's value is somewhat equivalent to dividends that are paid daily into the owner's account. They are immediately available for cash withdrawal. The gains (and losses) on future contracts are essentially realized daily.
The belief that sweet tastes elicit a significant insulin response in humans is controversial. Consider this discussion and this negative experimental evidence.
Toggle Commented Sep 3, 2019 on Labor Day at JustOneMinute
Oops, I see Melinda already mentioned that. Back to lurking mode.
Toggle Commented Aug 28, 2019 on Lost Track Of Time at JustOneMinute
Undercover Huber forwards (retweets, or whatever the term is) a tweet from Lawrence O'Donnell backing of his Russia claim
Toggle Commented Aug 28, 2019 on Lost Track Of Time at JustOneMinute
In some ways, I'd like to see Nadler go after Kavanaugh's records the way he has Trump's. That might focus the supreme court's attention on the issues of privacy, abuse of power, and separation of powers in a way that going after the president wouldn't.
Toggle Commented Aug 7, 2019 on Let's Assault Logic at JustOneMinute
My guess is when AOC met with Pelosi she told her to ditch that jerk that was trashing other Democrats. My question is whether she's actually ditching him, or just trying to move him out of the spotlight, due to the allegations of campaign-finance violations. The guy's rich, so it's not like he needs the job, and AOC is still free to take advice (or instruction) from him, chief of staff or not.
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2019 on Let's Assault Logic at JustOneMinute
MJW, who is this TOM R, that you speak of?? I somewhat apologize. I respond to Tom R. because the dishonesty of his comments irk me; but perhaps that's a reason I shouldn't respond.
Your argument was, very directly, if Mueller isn't "the absolute worst corrupt, evil Deep State Black Hat in US history" then Norte is wrong. That's a false strawman argument. LOL. That wasn’t my argument at all. You completely missed the point. ============================================ Original comment: Tom R. quotes: He lied. He knows what Fusion GPS is, and who Glenn Simpson is, and who paid for the dossier, and why Trump called out his 19 Angry Democrats dozens of times. And I agree with Nolte: his performance yesterday was not that of a senile man, but that of a guilty man forced to testify. Tom R. responds: If you are correct, the only logical follow up conclusion that can be made is that Mueller is the absolute worst corrupt, evil Deep State Black Hat in US history.
What exactly is your point? Corrupt, evil. member of the Deep State, and Black Hat are all labels used by Mueller haters here over the past two years to describe him. Your argument was, very directly, if Mueller isn't "the absolute worst corrupt, evil Deep State Black Hat in US history" then Norte is wrong. That's a false strawman argument.
The redacted criminals referrals are in their own separate annex that has nothing else but the referrals in it. That in no way contradicts or weakens the argument I made that the referrals are likely related to the "ongoing matter" redactions.
Jack the Ripper and Hitler? WTF are you talking about? This: "If you are correct, the only logical follow up conclusion that can be made is that Mueller is the absolute worst corrupt, evil Deep State Black Hat in US history."
Thank you for providing your speculation on what the redactions refer to. I think it goes beyond speculation. First, any ongoing matter referred to in the report is almost certainly related to a criminal investigation. Second, the context of the redactions leaves little doubt about the type of persons are under investigation. If a redaction is in the middle of a section on Wikileaks, it isn't merely speculation to suggest is concerns those associated with Wikileaks, and not, say, Fusion GPS.
Did you defend Mueller’s character by mistake? By suggesting he could testify as he did, without being worse than Jack the Ripper and Hitler? My theory is that there were two types of people working for Mueller: those who hated Trump, but nevertheless had some integrity, and those who hated Trump, and had no integrity. In the end, those with integrity kept those without honest enough not to frame Trump for colluding with the Russians. They also wouldn't fully buy into the phony obstruction charge, but weren't willing to fight to have it totally rejected. They probably felt Trump had morally, if not legally, obstructed the investigation. I suspect Mueller was probably more on the "integrity" side, but lacked the will and the intellect to determine the much about the report. The factions nominally under him fought it out among themselves. None of that is inconsistent with the belief that he was a man with something to hide. However, unlike Norte, I attribute his testimony more to lunkheadedness than guilt.
If you are correct, the only logical follow up conclusion that can be made is that Mueller is the absolute worst corrupt, evil Deep State Black Hat in US history. That's not close to being true. You do love your strawman arguments.
I base that off the fact that Mueller made 14 criminal referrals to the DOJ for them to handle. I again remind you that there are numerous redactions in the "Mueller" report for "ongoing matters." Almost certainly some of the criminal referrals are related to these redactions; perhaps all. All the redactions concern people associated with Russia, Trump, or Wikileaks.
Does anyone still think losing control of the House in 2018 hurt Trump and the MAGA movement? Oh, of course not! Too bad they couldn't manage to lose the Senate too. What a grand victory that would have been!
Toggle Commented Jul 14, 2019 on Saturday Morning at JustOneMinute
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment merely re-iterates what Article 1 says, omitting the no-longer-relevant 3/5-ths phrase.
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2019 on How About That World Cup? at JustOneMinute
... a case to me made ...
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2019 on How About That World Cup? at JustOneMinute
Yes, the courts have used the 14th amendment to make it based on persons. Not really the courts. It's what the Constitution says: Article I, section 2, clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. I do think there's and case to be made that people in the country illegally shouldn't count, just as foreign visitors shouldn't count, but that's an argument against the literal words of the Constitution.
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2019 on How About That World Cup? at JustOneMinute
The most aggravating news of the day is that the government has apparently thrown in the towel in the census case, and will print the census form without the citizenship question. I hope they reconsider.
Toggle Commented Jul 2, 2019 on Dow Poised To, Well, Pounce. at JustOneMinute
Now you are just quibbling. Nunes revealed the redacted part of the scope memo dealt with the Steele dossier. The scope memo itself specified to Mueller what he was tasked to investigate. You are just refusing to put two and two together because you don't want to admit I have a valid point. Nunes said, “And remember, I had these concerns that it was based upon the Steele dossier.” No one who speaks English could reasonably interpret that to mean Mueller was investigating the Steele dossier. If Mueller were investigating the dossier, rather than basing his investigation on it, why would Nunes be concerned? He'd be pleased. Putting two and two together? I sometimes wonder if you even believe what you say.
JiB: At one time I subscribed to both The Economist and Scientific America and watched over the years how they devolved into progressive B.S. with a wrinkle of efficacy. There's a mistaken belief that Scientific America's descent into liberal propaganda is recent. However, I clearly remember back in the 80s when they regularly printed articles proving with scientific precision that Ronald Reagan's defense policies would lead to nuclear annihilation.
Keep in mind there are 12 redacted criminal referrals we still don't know any of the details on. My bet is Durham had plenty of evidence already on hand provided by Mueller for him to act on. My bet is, most if not all of the referrals relate to matters discussed under Ongoing Matter redactions. As I mentioned previously, I carefully went through the report, and determined that all of those redactions refer to people related to the Russians, Trump, or Wikileaks.