Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktAdmin note: the Link Dump, despite being unsorted, still puts your new addition in alphabetical order. So, if you add something, think about pressing the little teeny arrow buttons to bump it up in the link rotation. Otherwise, over time, any link that doesn’t start with the number “1” won’t get displayed. Just a suggestion.
The Daily (despite being a Rupert Murdoch publication) seems to have pretty good coverage of the OWS. Not in depth, perhaps, but seems pretty fair to me. Worth a look.
More than a dozen protesters were arrested at a downtown Citibank branch near New York University — including a suit-clad woman who exited the bank and insisted to an apparent police officer dressed in civilian clothes that she was a customer.
As she was thrown up against a wall and handcuffed, she screamed, “I’m not doing anything wrong! This is wrong!” The incident was caught on video and quickly went viral on Twitter.
Some Daily editorial opinionating on Occupy Wall Street to be found here.
Barack Obama may have an uphill climb when it comes to winning re-election in November, 2012—but he’s going to have a lot of cash, and a lot of deep-pocketed celebrity donors, to help me make that climb.
An odd but important indicator of a potentially rebounding economy: more people are quitting their jobs in search of greener pastures.
Do millionaires really pay a lower effective rate than us regular folks? The Daily (thus, Rupert Murdoch) says it’s so!
As Sunday’s often are, this is pretty much an all The Daily share-fest. And this link is no different, but comes with a question for all: any particular reason Rupert Murdoch or NewsCorp would have it in for Raj Rajartnam? Because I’d never heard of him before The Daily began to constantly pummel him with critical coverage from trial to punishment.
Women’s Museum closes in Dallas, Texas. Not enough coverage of feminism, or an inability to control costs?
Finally: Sure, Single Payer healthcare might help keep healthcare costs down. But would it protect our senior citizens from robot attacks? I don’t think so.
— KW
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Kevin:Do millionaires really pay a lower effective rate than us regular folks? The Daily (thus, Rupert Murdoch) says it's so!No it doesn't. It says that the vast majority (75%) of millionaires do not pay a lower effective tax rate than those making less than $100k.There are some problems with what they say. For example, they compare the average rate of the lowest 25% of millionaires to the average of 100% of sub-100k earners, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. They also include "all federal taxes" which means they are including they payroll tax, which is capped, meaning higher income earners necessarily pay a lower percentage of total income. But since the tax goes towards a specific individual benefit rather than generic government revenues, and the benefit is capped precisely like the contributions, it doesn't make sense to measure contributions as a percentage of total income. Beyond all that, the article doesn't provide any actual information as to how the numbers were calculated, so it is difficult to judge what relevance it has. For example, are the calcing percentages based on all income, all taxable income, adjusted gross income, or something else? It matters, since, for example, standard deductions represent a much bigger percentage of lower incomes than of higher incomes, so if the percentages are calculated after all standard deductions, that will tend to inflate the percentage paid by lower incomes.In other words, despite the hype, the article really doesn't tell us anything of much use at all.
LikeLike
There was a good study that I linked a while ago at PL showing that, despite the hype and alarmism, the country's tax system is still progressive even considering payroll and all the other forms of taxation that supposedly favor the rich.
LikeLike
I can always count on Scott for the straight dope on financial shtuff. Thanks much.
LikeLike
Kev,Apparently this means the link dump is of limited capacity, and it will not show X links with 'Older Links" underneath?Kinda weak. What's the use of a dump if we can't dump a lot of stuff in there? We're always saying, "there once was a link …."
LikeLike
We can dump it unlimited, but I'd still suggest you put new stuff up top–otherwise it's going to be missed, even if we expand link dump capacity. Because of the lame insertion of the new link alphabetically.
LikeLike
I guess I need to look at how the dump works. No settings to arrange chronologically? Why wouldn't we set it to be unlimited? Does it just show the entire list on the home page then?
LikeLike
qb:Unfortunately it will show the entire list on the main page. There is no (easy) way to get it to collapse the way the comments list does. We could increase the number to make it effectively unlimited, and then move it to the bottom where it won't be so visible or push other stuff in the sidebar down as it grows. Or put it on its own page, which may be a better solution.
LikeLike
Or we could just delete them after they've been up for a week or two and maybe keep it to 10 or 12 at one time.
LikeLike
Isn't there another place we could stash links long term, even if it is hidden somewhere where at least administrators can find them? That seems to me to be a value of the list.On the other hand, I suppose that we can use searches and labels to find old posts and comments. Oh well, whatever.
LikeLike
I put up a little post on CLASS and its denouement.I will likely be out most of the day now.
LikeLike
qb:I'll try to figure something sensible out.
LikeLike
Or figure out something sensible, even.
LikeLike
Or even figure something sensibly out. :-)I like the idea of putting it on a page, like the RofE and FAQ.
LikeLike
I'll try to get that done by tonight.
LikeLike
test
LikeLike