I’ll let you go to the post at the TaxProf blog to see what words I’m talking about.
As my friend Ed says: in any legal matter that involves math, lawyers who aren’t afraid of math have an advantage over those who are. Most legal matters involve at least some math.
You figure it out.
Today brings yet another example of politicians thinking they can solve a market problem by fixing the price of a service.
If you need reasonably-priced credit, try a credit union. Their prices are almost always lower than the banks’ prices, and they are owned by their members, not mean, nasty Wall Street.
In California, natch, several new laws have been proposed to protect us soda gluttons from ourselves, including one that would ban an “unsealed beverage container” capable of holding more than 16 fluid ounces. No more supersize for you!
The message of a post on the Cato blog is that the reporting on how people responded to a poll question about financial preparedness is misleading. Read the post for the whole story, but the upshot is this: the assertion that 40% of Americans can’t handle a $400 emergency expense is not supported by the evidence.
As I predicted, there has not been a peep from its proponent on how “mark-to-market” capital gains taxation would be implemented. It’s a stupid idea that deserves to be not just ignored, but outed as the idiocy that it is. I wonder what political advantage its proponent thought would be gained from its announcement.
You think the federal income tax is unfair? This is not how to fix that.
The contents of this blog, this web site, and any writings by me that are linked here, are all my personal commentary. None of it is intended to be legal advice for your situation.