weekender

the large internet sellers are pushing this bill. it will be very difficult to collect local sales taxes when there are hundreds if not thousands of different taxes that would need to be collected, held and paid to the IRS. The large retailers, ie Amazon, have no problem because they can afford to hire the people needed to sort this out and write a program to monitor it. Small internet sellers will not and will be forced to pay someone to administer this for them. Take a guess who plans on being the administrator and already has the software? if you guessed large retailers, your correct. " The Tax Foundation estimates there are 9,646 different sales-tax jurisdictions in the U.S., each one of which can have dozens or hundreds of different tax rules." from WSJ column This bill is about Amazon putting the small sellers out of biz by making their cost to operate to high. they want them tied up trying to figure out the different sales taxes in different communities. Dem's are on board because they support higher taxes no matter the consequence. Its their heroin. Republican's will get on board eventually because Amazon and their kind will eventually buy them off. The little guy who you like to buy things from at his Ebay store will soon be gone. Amazon stock will go up and all the taxes will get wasted. yeah, America (edited to add quote) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

didnt you just make a post in another thread that read, "THE LESS YOU KNOW, THE STRONGER YOUR OPINIONS ARE,..." i would also like you to google, "irony" while your doing your research on blue skies and discount rates. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Don't blame the fed for unmitigated greed! "It is now twenty-five years since the Reagan Administration eviscerated America's century-long tradition of antitrust enforcement. For a generation, big firms have enjoyed almost complete license to use brute economic force to grow only bigger. And so today we find ourselves in a world dominated by immense global oligopolies that every day further limit the flexibility of our economy and our personal freedom within it. There are still many instances of intense competition -- just ask General Motors. " The "Banks" were given an unlimited amount of power to do what ever they want. Every "Blue Sky" Law passed to prevent outright deception to protect the unwitting victim from criminal acts were repealed in the 80s' using this type of logic!!! What was a crime in the 20 - 30s' is now consideered deregulation ,...so that our economey can get "started" ??? you should google "discount rate." it would help you understand how interest rates are set in this country and the world. You are not even close by blaming business and Reagan. Please name one "blue sky" law passed or repealed in the 80's that made it easier for banks to commit fraud. i am always looking for ways to deceive unwitting people. i would suggest why you have google open, check out "Blue Sky." they are state securities laws that regulate securities. they do not, nor have ever regulated banks. you are very angry about a topic you do not seem to understand. perhaps you would be less angry if you understood it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

just to put the record straight. humans rights groups have asked garment companies to endorse an agreement calling for better enforcement of safety standards by manufacturers. the only big brand retailer to sign on is PVH. they are the parent of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger. so your title is just plain wrong. they are trying to do the right thing. I wanted more reasonable minded people to know you are smearing the wrong people. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The bankers didnt really make a lot of money. Every firm scrambled to create a climate derivative or carbon credit desk. Guess who once headed up a desk? The problem was that the credits created to fit into the Euro Trading Scheme were too expensive for investors. On the other side, the one's not meeting that standard had a value based on nothing but hopes and dreams and no liquidity. Institutions and corporations were willing to take a meeting because no one understood them and what laws might be coming demanding their use. The bankers were dialed into the pending litigation and were some of the few experts around. So there were some consulting fee's and almost no derivatives traded. Except for celebrities and green dolts who didnt understand how the credits actually worked no one wanted the product. for the record, purchasing a credit does nothing to reduce emissions. only producing less emission reduces less emissions. I'm saying this to Leonardo Dicaprio and his fans. the credits were a mechanism used to implement tighter gov't regulations on emissions. Used away from a disciplined program of reductions, they are meaningless. My point is that no one who educated themselves on what they were bought them, so no bankers i know got rich. pollution credits do work, fyi. google how we reduced acid rain and you will see that. i am specifically speaking of the carbon credit craze around the European Trading Scheme. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

What I am saying is, that guessing what the price of something will be in the future, slapping a contract on it and paying that price is gambling. You know this but are trying to avoid it. You my friend are a shill right now. The derivatives market is in a bubble, just like the stock market is in a bubble... or maybe you are in denial? These things burst and when that many people get it that wrong...the effects can be devastating. This puts the figures into perspective; http://demonocracy.info/infographics/usa/derivatives/bank_exposure.html For the record this is a random website, this chart has been used on several, this was the first I found it on. what you described are what farmers have done for ion's to buy seeds to plant crops for a later harvest. what shipping companies do to protect them from fluctuations in oil and gas prices. what insurance companies do to provide you homeowners insurance. you do not understand derivatives and their uses. calling me a shill is humorous since i have clearly stated numerous times, i am neutral on Bitcoins success or not. it impacts my life zero either way. They are NOT new, they are no threat to any other currency. they are a cute novelty that people with a limited understanding of world finance are excited about. the more you post the more you prove my point. your understanding of derivatives is evidence of your financial knowledge. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I read you post and I am not trying to insult you. All I am saying is that no one can say with absolute confidence what is going to happen here. Central banking 'is' a ponzie scheme, derivatives is gambling. You know this. All these things are subject to failure and success. they will make some rich and others might lose everything. The difference with Bitcoin is it is a pure free market enterprise. The market will decide not some ass-holes in a board meeting. That is what I like about it. i dont think the derivatives that make it possible to insure my home are gambling. nor the ones that helped build the bridges and tunnels i travel over and through. Or the ones used by my airplane carrier to fuel the aircraft i travel on. i could go on but suspect you do not understand what i am saying. i truly hope your Bitcoins take off. I've seen the spread on these trades and i could make a fortune on them. i really doubt it because unlike you, my excitement for them is tempered by my actual knowledge of finance. i hope im wrong, id like to make enough that i could pay John Frusciante to come back to the band. i miss him. Coachella will not be the same without him. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You don't think that stocks are speculative gambles? In any case, I don't think anyone is suggesting that people should speculate or gamble on bitcoins. The concept started as and still is a repudiation of central banks and fiat currencies. It all boils down to trust. You seem to trust the dollar, trust stocks, trust central bankers and trust the politicians that influence monetary policy. There are plenty of other people that do not trust these parties and the numbers are growing daily, it's only natural that an alternative will emerge. Will bitcoins be the predominant alternative? It's possible, but it's going to have to take it's knocks first. If the market grows to a trillion dollars we're talking 40,000 per bitcoin.... so, i could see why some may be interested in speculating. I'm very curious to see treasuries response. you are correct, it all comes down to trust. i do trust my USD's more than most currencies. of course, when in Rome i trust my Euro's more. It comes down to what you are able to transact in. When i go to the car wash, they make me buy their coins. they have a value, if i want to wash my car. so do the carnival tickets i buy if i want to take my girl on the ferris wheel. they are all the same thing, just vary in float and recognition. The problem is there is a tiny Bitcoin float and they are not accepted by my coffee vendor. so they are still very inconvenient for day to day transactions. so, like most, ill keep my local currencies. Bitcoins seem to have gotten a lot of attention. mostly because of the price swing. they are NOT new. this sort of thing is not new. as evidenced by Flooz, car wash coins and carnival tickets. a lot of people seem to be very excited because this is all new to them. i appreciate your enthusiasm but you really should pick up a history or finance book before you make claims to a new world order. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Yet... There are some serious millionaires being produced out of this. The bankers are too busy keeping their fractional ponzie scheme going/afloat to keep up with nerd libertarians that actually have a better system. It will just take more time for others to gain confidence in bitcoin. Seeing millionaires emerge is great for confidence. See how the status quo is opposed to it, though they cannot refute the facts. Growth is growth, even if it spikes and drops as it has, the trend is still upwards. http://www.bloomberg.com/video/bitcoin-value-plunges-after-cyber-attack-HO7aFuM7Q_eDb12g9ow7vw.html Listen to what is said here, are the sataus quo so confident? I don't think so, the young man seems to be the ,most confident here. Please read my post before you attempt to insult me. i do not care either way which way your hippie coins go. Im completely neutral on their success or failure. they are no threat to me and the banking system. if they become some new currency, which goes against all of world history, i will make a market in them and profit. Millionaires being created means nothing. the guy who created Crocs shoes is a multi millionaire and Nike is doing fine. Millionaires are created all the time, it does not mean it will unseat the competition. Especially when the competition is the most recognized, accepted and trusted currency in the world. one that transacts a countless amount of transactions a day. You should listen to me, im a financial wizard. For those who doubt my knowledge just wait till i flip my Flooz, Flattr, Ripple, Ven, WofW, canadian gold sand stocks, russian grocery store shares and all my carbon credits for a huge profit. then im going to buy the Coachella festival and party with the RHCP's. only after i kick out all the vendors and create a barter system using only my new Weekender Coins. then no one can doubt my genius. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

no more ill will than shown towards the World of Warcraft economy. It's just not significant. i can say with absolute confidence that Wall Street does not care nor see's it as a threat to anything. I'm saying this as a professional trader for I Banks for the last 20 years. Your WofW comment is very apt. This is a cute novelty and i'm sure there is money to be made but its not going to be taken seriously. I've been around long enough to see these things pop up numerous times. Anyone remember the adds Whoppie Goldberg did? i do. It also reminds me of many Eastern European issues in the 90's and early 2000's. No liquidity causing huge volatility. Sure there is money to be made but it is more akin to gambling than trading or investing. The other gentlemen's comments on penny stocks is also spot on to me. I'm not against it at all. If a new security comes along that i can trade and profit from, i'm all for it. I traded Carbon Credits until they blew up. Another favorite of hippy types. I'm neutral on their success or failure. I'm bearish on them as a true currency, based on my life experience, though. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Assuming you retire at 67 with $3MM and assuming a low 3% investment return, and assuming you will live to be 92, you would have to live on $180,000 a year. I am not a financial adviser, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn and know how to Google 'retirement calculator' i get 90k a year. assuming i am living off my interest as i clearly stated in my post. i do not understand your math. you are not a financial adviser, agreed. also, you might want to change hotels and search engines. i say with a smile. I think he was assuming you would eat up the principle. That is great if you somehow know exactly how long you will live. Back when I worked for an insurance company and learned about annuities, I thought they were a fantastic idea, and had planned to go with that option at retirement. But the more I read about them over the years, the more leery I am of them. So like you, I intend to live off dividends, appreciation, and interest, and if possible, try to be conservative enough to allow the principle to grow to offset inflation. i think he is using the google calculator wrong. i think the first gentleman was assuming i would draw down my principle. he was wrong and that goes against most financial planning. if i have 3mill and get 3% a year, that is 90k a year in income. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Assuming you retire at 67 with $3MM and assuming a low 3% investment return, and assuming you will live to be 92, you would have to live on $180,000 a year. I am not a financial adviser, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn and know how to Google 'retirement calculator' i get 90k a year. assuming i am living off my interest as i clearly stated in my post. i do not understand your math. you are not a financial adviser, agreed. also, you might want to change hotels and search engines. i say with a smile. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

It is not fair. Argument over. But something to consider, $3 million cash is like having a $70k retirement income for 42.8 years! (Provided at retirement age you take your $3M and deposit it into a checking account that pays 0.00% interest.) life is not fair, i get it. the OP asked what we thought. that was my opinion. ok, i considered your suggestion and am going to fire you as my financial adviser. my plan, as is most, will be to live off the interest and save my principle. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

yes that is true, ive done that a few times. its a rollover. there are limits on 401k's also, for valid reasons. my point is that i while i understand limits they also should be reasonable. to me that means i should be able to amass a sum of money that would allow me to retire at the level of a public employee. that would be over 3 million. a number that is not very high IMO. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

There are limits on what you can put into an IRA already. that is not what the OP was discussing. i do not see how it would be possible to put in that large of an amount given our current limits, anyway. if someone with retail knowledge of IRA's could correct me, please do. i do not believe 3 million is a reasonable limit. not if public employees can be paid for life, with tax payer funds long after they retire as much as many do. it is not hard for police in my area to make 50-70k for life starting at 40 years old. if that is fair then i should be able to hoard much more of my own money for my own retirement. i should at least be able to retire, with my own money, as well as a 40 year old police officer. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

IRAs were set up to be retirement accounts (says so right in the name), not unlimited tax shelters. When I get to the point in my life where I've amassed over 3 MILLION dollars in an IRA, I guess I'll worry about what other tax shelters I can find, but honestly I think most of us aren't ever going to have to worry about that. Which is why limits were imposed on contributions. And only $3 Million bucks Quade? You think too small. I had made my comments without even needing to read the article. I had heard about this earlier today and thought to myself, "Self, when I'm 65 (or whenever the fuck I can dip into my IRA) how much money will I NEED for retirement?" And when I looked into it and saw the $3 MILLION dollar number I thought, "Holy fuck! That's a shit load of TAX FREE money to sit on and just gather dust." Now, I'll admit, at some point, assuming you actually do pull it out and use it, you'd have to pay taxes on it. BUT if you've got $3 MILLION squirreled away like that in your IRA, chances are you also have a fuckin' boatload of money tied up in something more profitable like investments. My entire point is it IS a fucking boatload of money and if it's being tied up in an IRA . . . $3 MILLION is probably enough for that purpose. your opinion is exactly what i see the question and problem is. someone else, the gov't mostly, decides what is too much and what should be taxed. Many can easily exceed the maximum contribution each year but the gov't has picked a number they feel is best and fair and we all must abide by it. the purpose is not punishment but a need to run a civil society. so the question is, what is fair and at what point does it become a penalty for success. I do think they could raise the limit on contributions, it would create more wealthy old people and it is my opinion, liberals are against that. I do not think 3 million is very much. Not when i see police and school teachers in my area retire with pensions that pay an amount that require that much to be in my IRA. So if a Police officer can receive 70k a year for life from a taxpayer funded pension, i should not be hobbled in what i can save with my own money. keep in mind they already limit that amount i can put in. so this is a tax on what ive earned after already meeting the contribution limit requirement. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Excuse my ignorance, but are you talking about a commission for accepting you in the military, or a commission for accepting you in a specific medium/high qualification position? It is difficult for me to believe that for being a private you have to study 4 years. i have a suggestion. perhaps you should not be admittedly ignorant of a topic before you make statements you know will inflame. in your original post you stated that you would be attacked, so you knew your statements were offensive to many. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Key word there is commission. Unless the US military has stopped recruiting anyone but officers I fail to see how your post has any bearing on the OP. he did not make that distinction. he made a broad dishonest stereotype. i disproved him by giving a very simple example of how there are more than physical requirements. No, you didn't. You don't need to become an officer to join the military, therefore any requirements needed to become an officer are irrelevant to a discussion on the most basic requirements needed to join the military. Somewhat ironically, you're being deliberately dishonest. he did not make that distinction you did. i gave an example of how you need to meet more than physical requirements to join. my comments are not excluded from his broad statement. you choosing to exclude them makes me neither wrong nor dishonest. my statement disproves his. with that said, there are more than physical requirements to enlisting in the military. a quick google search will prove that. so excluding my comments about my personal experience does nothing to change the fact that he is wrong. as are you. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Key word there is commission. Unless the US military has stopped recruiting anyone but officers I fail to see how your post has any bearing on the OP. he did not make that distinction. he made a broad dishonest stereotype. i disproved him by giving a very simple example of how there are more than physical requirements. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Nonsense, you're taking exactly the sort of reactionary pro-military viewpoint that he's talking about. He's not saying that the only purpose of the military or the only job they do is go to other countries and kill people. He's saying exactly what he said, which is that the entry requirement is simply to be healthy enough to do that (and presumably smart enough to find the recruitment office) and therefore simply having been a member of the armed forces is not in itself anything special or noble or amazing. So actually, when you look at it without the blinkers, his statement is about not making a judgement either way. You can be a veteran and be an amazing, selfless person, or an ordinary person, or a total dick. It's all open. that is FALSE. there are more requirements than physical. i am defending the military from his and your false comments. my reaction is to a falsehood not an opinion. there is a difference. the fact i side with the DZ and feel the veteran should have covered up or left, should be proof enough i am not reactionary. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

there is more to an adult conversation than the literal translation of words. any reasonable person knows what his intent was and why. those agreeing with his falsehood are piling on and defending him. (edit to add. it is NOT true. there are numerous requirements other than physical to join the military. easy example, for my commission i needed to study Military Science for 4 years. I had numerous academic tests. i am truly amazed i must defend the military from such obvious false claims.) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you are smarter than this. ive read your posts in the past. in order to engage him i must accept his premise that the military has no requirements to join, other than the physical ability to kill. this is an obvious falsehood and meant to inflame and insult. they also imply the purpose is to travel to other places and kill people. while that is an ability it is not the sole purpose. another statement meant solely to insult and inflame. for the record. i think in this situation, the soldier comments are on his personal blog. he is proud of his service and has the right to reflect that on his page. about the tattoo, i feel it was put on his body to insult and inflame. it did that with the DZ's customers and they have the right to ask him to cover it or leave. i side with the DZ on this specific incident. I firmly believe the OP is here with no intention of an honest discussion but to insult and inflame. for the record, im a veteran. as was my father, a WWII vet. I do not feel i deserve any special treatment. (edited to correct material punctuation errors) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

If calling me names will make you feel better or that you are on the right side that is ok for me, whatever floats your boat, I won't win or loose anything by being called dishonest troll. But I, and maybe you, will win something if we engage in a reasonable discussion. I'll be all ears if you want to get to that point. your question is purposely a dishonest stereotype meant to inflame and insult. there is no reasonable response to it, which was your intent. which makes you a troll. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You seem to be avoiding his question though by just calling him a troll. That kind of avoidance tactic is common with people who can't legitimately win an argument, so they just evade. So yeah, that's the impression you're giving with this. his question is phrased with an obvious falsehood, as i pointed out. anyone who responds to me is obviously not busy at work or has anything meaningful to do in life. after all anyone who has the time to type on this forum is unemployed or a worthless moron. Why are you an unemployed moron with time to respond to me? pretty much the same thing "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I would like to know if there is any extra requisite. In my country at least there isn't. If you are complaining about the second part of the sentence, I am sorry but that is what they get credit for. You don't show the same respect (or at least people don't show it so much) to the people in the military that helps in case case of natural disaster for instance. People show respect to war veterans. and the US, as far as I know, was not pushed into a war because it was being invaded. If somebody try to invade my country, and is a menace to my well being and the well being of my loved ones, I would be proud of supporting the soldiers that helped to avoid it. But that is not the case. I am not complaining. i am pointing out what you are. a dishonest troll. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante