Sunday, March 27, 2011

GE and Taxes

Pete at WRSA links and quotes

...My favorite delusional argument from those still attached to the matrix is that they pay their taxes voluntarily. To these people I ask: when you do your tax returns, do you take as many deductions as the government will allow you? Of course, the answer is always yes. Then I ask them that if they could take enough deductions such that their tax liability was zero would they do so? Again, not surprisingly, the answer is yes. I then ask them that if their preference is to pay zero taxes then why don’t they simply refuse to pay taxes. Inevitably, that’s where their train of thought always runs out of track. Of course everyone knows the answer: because they’re afraid of what the government will do...

A follow up

John Venlet responded, again and as usual, stated with a clarity that I lack in my writing.

I am writing this as a clarification to the post below: My comment at JV's

".....I should have been more specific in my post about what I agreed with Karl Denniger in his post.
“I have long argued that the proper thing to do is make a decision on whether you should pay or intentionally default based on your personal circumstances, including the potential legal and financial repercussions.”
We (John and I) had both said as much the comments of the original post. And John does again above.
“Might this destabilize some banks?  It certainly might.  Is there anything wrong with that?  Not from where I sit.  The bank made the decision to loan the money knowing full well you might choose not to pay and if that happened they’d have to seize and resell the house.  The simple fact of the matter is that you entered into a contract, and that contract contains an “or else” provision if you don’t pay.  Choosing to have the “or else” happen is your right and if the bank didn’t like the odds on that they shouldn’t have made the loan in the first place.  The consequence of the decision to lend you money - whether good or bad - is entirely theirs.”
That was the crux of my argument in the comments of the original post.
“Furthermore the government had every opportunity and ability in 2008 and 2009 to take these institutions into receivership.  The bondholders would have been massacred.  So would have the stockholders.  So what?  That’s what failure is in a capitalist system - you fail, you go out of business, the bondholders and stockholders lose money.  Would “financial Armageddon” have ensued?  For whom?  For Blankfein and friends?  Yes, it would have.  How about for the community and regional banks that didn’t make bad loans and had solid balance sheets?  It would have been a business bonanza unlike any other.”
This is a fantastic point that I think is too often overlooked in our world today.
Warren at Coyoteblog made the point last week about how you cannot view the GM/Chrysler bailouts with out also looking at the material damage that happened to Ford.  Which is still by all appearance thriving while paying off the labor and plant costs they’ve always had....."

Friday, March 25, 2011

Strategic Default

My friend John Venlet at had a post months ago on folks walking away from home loans when they could afford to pay. He titled the post Strategic Default or Pre-meditated Criminal Action

I tried to argue a point in the comments. But as usual someone has done a better job.

I came across this post today and thought it was a good rebuttal to John.

Friday, March 11, 2011

"The friendship and alliance between our two nations is unshakeable"

Said the douchebag in chief.

I understand the sentiment, but really? Really?

It's a bad pun.

It's like saying after a lion attack "We are poised, ready to pounce with assistance."