sherpa

This is a post that demonstrates that its author has absolutely no idea of this issue. Absolutely no idea.

I thought the Milky Way Galaxy was named after the candy bar.

"71. That was my first year on the job. Bad year for libraries. Bad year for America. Hippies burning library cards. Abby Hoffman telling kids to burn books. I don't judge a man by the length of his hair or the kind of music he listens to. Rock was never my bag. But you put on a pair of shoes when you walk into the the New York public library fella."

I've been there a lot. If you have specific questions pm me.

We've used VRBO a bunch of times in Europe. No problems. Used AirBnB twice in the US. No problems with any, but AirBnB piles on the service charges at checkout. The listed price is just a start.

I don't think anybody's "going crazy" about it. It's just getting the usual "what?" response. Steve Bannon wasn't a Congressman. The worst justification for taking people's money is the claim that it only applies to few. It's quite easy for "the few" to become "the none." CNBC was just talking about this proposal. They also mentioned that Canada raised the marginal rate on it's top 1%, expecting to raise 3b, but instead it resulted in a 4.6b revenue decrease. Source not provided, but they're almost always accurate on these matters.

Because in a great deal of instances, infinitely more than what was available in the 50'60's boom years in the US, the business environment is such that a great deal of that personal income can be duplicated abroad. A good deal of income from many operations is ultimately taxed at personal income levels. I know of bunch of people who do just this, offshore. Extremely uncompetitive rates also discourage off shore entrepreneurs from locating in the US, a source of job creation we have really benefited from.

"We" don't need to discourage them, the market will. "We" need to let them make their own decisions. Any idea what property taxes and insurance rates are in those areas? California is a bit unusual because the effects of Prop 13, eventually the market corrects. In fact, "we" (gov intervention), have encouraged them by racing FEMA down there everytime there is an incredibly predictable weather disaster. I hope nobody takes that as an objection to humanitarian aid, because it isn't. It is simply a claim that "we" do silly things with counterproductive results, and jacking marginal tax brackets to 70%, as proposed by this goof, has already been tried, rejected and adjusted to more reasonable levels. TO do so to fund an evolution to a no fossil fuel economy in twelve years is the stuff of folks who just don't understand the situation worldwide.

It didn't "discourage me." I lived there for 12 years, seven spent serving as a Navy pilot, though a good deal of that time was spent out of the state on aircraft carriers, met and married my wife there, had two children, and I used my "God given feet" to leave there, just as I used my "God given feet to leave your state. It certainly isn't "whiney" to make decisions based on what is in the best interest of your family. We don't "need to discourage people from the coasts," anymore than we need some inexperienced Congresswoman proposing idiotic tax policy to fund impossible and ridiculous fossil fuel policy. You should stop giving advice. It isn't sought nor valuable.

What a silly post. By the way, I "got over it" when I moved from California. My wife and I "got over it" when she gave up her nursing career because our federal burden and that state's tax burden, combined with child care costs would have netter her about 43 cents on the dollar to work as a nurse. For that 43 cents, we would have given up our kids for eight hours per day to someone else. Tax burdens have consequences, and it is much easier now to opt out of any countries' tax burden if it is judged confiscatory. 70% is absurd, and her scheme to swipe that money so that we can be fossil free in twelve years is the stuff of morons, as is silly name calling.

Such a cost for the "services" the victims of such a confiscatory tax policy would likely cause many actions not benefitting our little experiment here, and there is a reason such tax policy has been rejected and changed in the past. I always find it amusing when past growth rates are connected to old days tax rates, like in the 50's, where they were outrageously high. To draw such a conclusion is ridiculous. The world was vastly different in the 50's. Europe was still trashed for the war. China was still in an ancient economic state, Japan in infancy and still not recovered from the war. The USSR was taking out all of eastern Europe as a viable competitor, and South Central America had no exportable products except raw materials which took months to get to North America and in the chain. In short, there was no competition, and the percentages are distorted because of a vastly different base. It makes as much sense to say that our '50's smoking rate of about 45%, or the fact that there were no seatbelts in cars of that era were responsible for the US growth rate in that time.

70%? Ya "Her way of thinking," which is taking other peoples money, has been around for years. She is not an original, and it is called stealing.

Her 70% idea is to fund her "green deal," which is all fossil gone and no carbon emissions in 12 years. We can use all of our airports as wind farms and solar fields, since there sure isn't going to be any air transport industry.

A true legend in the industry and a great guy.

To be accurate, its a revenue shortfall, meaning sales. Not profit.

I want to be the first person to make the "I'll leave the country" promise.

I'd be surprised if the OP wasn't arrested by tomorrow.

Am I the only one that thinks this five screen thing that ESPN is running for the ND Clemson game is idiotic? It looks horrible.

You should have raised every penny possible and bought as much of 1960's Ormond Beach as possible.

I saw Apollo 17, the night launch, fro Titusville. It was delayed a bit, but eventually launched. Simply the most sensory thing I've ever seen, and that includes about 320 catapult launches from an aircraft carrier. Before the noise hit you, the water rippled ferociously, and that was after the incredible light show started that lasted about three minutes. Simply indescribable, though I remember my cheeks vibrating. I remember being speechless, along with my college freshmen friends.

If by the "Charlottesville protestors" you are referring to the white supremacists who travelled from other communities in our nation to do that idiotic display, they were pretty much "all hicks." I drove by their staging area prior to the beginning of that calamity, had to stop while they crossed a major road here, and in my lifetime I have never seen such a group that was more obviously "hicks." They showed up and ran an incredibly stupid, intentionally provocative and intentionally racist march the night prior which had no other purpose than to incite trouble. The folks who showed up as counter protesters were local by a vast majority and hardly the radical left. Thanfully, the murderer has been convicted, and there are more convictions to follow.

So what happens to the money from stock buy backs?

I was the youngest of five, so the last to know. During my sixth year, I started planning to find this Santa Claus guy. Around Thanksgiving, I came up with an idea. My room was at a location where anyone watching TV could not hear. I correctly figured out that I had never fallen asleep while jumping, so when I was told to go to bed, I would simply jump on my bed all night until the guy showed up. I jumped for a very long time, expending lots of energy. A long time. I got so tired from this that eventually I collapsed, and my siblings had to wake me up on Christmas day. When I told them of my failed strategy, they exposed the thing, in sympathy.

Yep. We do. Nothing wrong with that. It's what makes markets.

I'm quite aware of how the Fed works and its open market operations. I'm also aware of the "prime rate," and that the Fed does not "control" it. Of course it has a huge influence over the rate, but interest rates are still "controlled" by supply and demand. "The third rate, called the Prime Rate, is the rate that most people falsely believe the Fed changes. In truth, this is the one rate the Fed has no direct control over. Even more surprising to many investors is that the term "prime rate" doesn't refer to any single rate. The term simply refers to the rates banks give their best customers on borrowing money. This rate can and does vary slightly from bank to bank and may indirectly fluctuate as the Fed changes the other two types of rates. https://www.thebalance.com/what-interest-rates-does-the-federal-res795259erve-control- Central Banks have immense control over these issues, as long as things are "normal." Nonetheless, when things get abnormal, it is supply and demand, as always. Argentina and Venezuela have proven this. The US has many advantages over those, but it is not absolute.