response 100 of 113:

Jul 7 21:27 UTC 2003

Re #98:  If you check the IRS publications, there are detailed
instructions for expenses and depreciation related to vehicles.
You have (had) 3 choices for depreciation (now four, with the
option to immediately expense it), and precious little else.
Not at all complex as these things go.

response 102 of 113:

Jul 8 21:38 UTC 2003

Re #101:  As I am on record as favoring carbon taxes, you are quite
wrong; I think that far MORE thought should be given to the consequences
of tax schemes, especially loopholes and exemptions.  AAMOF I was on
record in 1990 or so opposing CAFE standards without fuel-tax increases
(perverse incentives, since borne out by data) and the CARB electric
vehicle mandate (no incentive for consumers to adopt EVs while fuel was
cheap and the subsidy of EVs via conventional vehicle sales amounted
to a hidden tax on new vehicles rather than on use of petroleum, which
was the behavior the policy was allegedly aimed at reducing).

Right now the US has a policy (not sure exactly what form it takes) of
encouraging natural gas-fired electric generation capacity but we have
drilling restrictions and import restrictions on natural gas.  The
result is that NG prices are heading up, up, up and it's going to be
very expensive to heat homes this coming winter (and cool many of them
this summer).  Again, this needed better consideration of tax policy
(I presume it is an investment tax credit or production credit or both,
thus it falls under tax policy) esp. as related to other policy.

Tax policy is a rather blunt instrument, and trying to "narrowly tailor"
parts of it to promote particular ends has proven to be a bad idea.  It
works much better for promoting or discouraging things on a large scale.

response 104 of 113:

Jul 10 04:01 UTC 2003

Re #103:  Oh, of course I do.  That's one situation where the size of
the problem is a decent match to a big, blunt instrument.  Anytime
you're trying to discourage something, a tax works amazingly well;
tobacco consumption, for example.  But you've got to be careful that
the tax isn't too easy and profitable to evade so you don't create
opportunities for organized crime, e.g. smuggling.

As long as we've got to have taxes, taxing things that people should
probably be doing less of seems better than the alternative.

response 106 of 113:

Jul 10 16:05 UTC 2003

There is currently a negative tax on having children.

response 108 of 113:

Jul 16 08:11 UTC 2003

quality conytributions - gotta love it - until the affirmative
action discussin got derailed into , what, irs?
  
start a new item.
  
this is affirmative action.
  
i am glad to hear that some non-recipients have chaffed at the 
suggestion/presumption that they were recipients =  and happier
still that they graduated inthe tip of their class.
  
such preformance does more for eliminating racism than any other
action.

response 110 of 113:

Jul 17 18:49 UTC 2003

Hopefully that will mean the end of undergraduate racism at UofM, since they
can't apply individual scrutiny to the tens of thousands of applicants they
get every year.

response 112 of 113:

Jul 23 14:02 UTC 2003

heard an amusing commercial for Comedy Central's new show this morning:
"There *is* a lot of racial tension on the force.  It's all because of
Andy Garcia.  He can't help it, poor guy--he's a Mexican."  :)