Florida State Seminoles

[Bklyn]

Everything I listed was in violation of most (if not all) company policies. Actually, I am kind of shocked that you find no issue with the laptop scenario, as that is the one that is most able to be pursued criminally. All of them can get you fired for cause. The gist of everything is that (you are right on this) even with rigorous compliance and policies, the system can still be gamed. What it does is minimize the occurrence. Either way, the point is not about the most effective way to fight gaming, it's that it occurs on both sides...and yes it still can impact you.

Headline risks, stock share price impacts and product price increases are all real possible consequences of these items...and they can directly or indirectly impact your wallet or retirement. I did not even go into the possibility that lax controls on inventory and expenses could be a canary in the coal mine for larger issues that make things even more serious.

The truth is gaming happens, in both public and private institutions and the way to deal with it is to tighten/change policies to things that make sense and are enforceable. It's wasted focus to simply sit there and use the "gaming" label on the government program, like that is the problem.

[10ac]

BRM 3 - GP 0

[Owlman]

Speaking of gaming: Should insider trading be illegal and why?

[innocentbystander]

Everything I listed was in violation of most (if not all) company policies. Actually, I am kind of shocked that you find no issue with the laptop scenario, as that is the one that is most able to be pursued criminally.

What are the damages? Who is the victim? Certainly not the company. Those are used laptops that the company grabbed 2 years ago for $500. They are now worth $0. Some guy walked down to IT and asked the help desk if he could have something they were throwing away. Maybe someone will pay $50 for them on eBay, but to the company they already consumed all their value, they are worth $0. The company is not going to waste its valuable time trying to sell them on eBay. You would be hard pressed to press any charges against a thief that stole someone of yours that is worth nothing.

[Bklyn]

Interesting logic. However, it's not a debate. It happened in my office...and taking company property (regardless of your assessment of value) can be seen as a crime. Whether it is a decommissioned laptop or a ream of paper, it's not yours to take and use as your own.

ACA

All true editorial, but it means little if someone's budget gets blown on a premium increase. No one is thinking about possible future bankruptcy if it means their insurance expenses are covered at the expense of their cable bill...


http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/co ... ml?hpid=z6

[Bklyn]

Speaking of gaming: Should insider trading be illegal and why?

Yes. Transacting on material nonpublic information should be illegal because it does not foster a level playing field and disadvantages other investors...and threatens the view of the markets overall.

[Toemeesleather]

Gaming that costs both public and private sectors.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opi ... 52940278/1

[eCat]

[Bklyn]

Heh.

[Jungle Rat]

If the Pope was giving that speech in New York City that little boy would probably have been shot dead.

[sardis]

Hedge must not be doing it right.

http://www.cnn.com/video/standard.html? ... cnn.com%2F

[Jungle Rat]

That's what she said

[Bklyn]

Excellent article breaking down the tax issue...and clears up the fallacy of our "highest corporate tax rates in the world" argument and details how things could be changed (but probably won't be).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... stop-them/

[sardis]

Just because a guy is politically neutral and avoids the egomania that is DC doesn't exactly make him right on all matters. Admirable, certainly, but not necessarily genius.

I agree with him from a macro standpoint. Something does need to be done to generate more tax revenue from these large multi-national corporations. There also needs to be a tightening up of these large private hedge funds that are utilizing the flow though entities, not from a tax avoidance reason, but from a compliance standpoint. I disagree with him that these large hedge funds get off scott free on taxes. Even though the entity does not pay a tax the owners do, and at 42% federal and up to 10-15% state. It is not that flow-throughs are paying too little, it's that the corporate structure is prohibitive and thus more subject to avoidance. Not because of the tax rate, but because of the double taxation when paying out dividends. Here's what needs to be done: (1) Close up these international loopholes by taxing all income by domestic companies and give them credits for taxes paid to other countries. That's what they do to individuals. (2) Don't change the corporate rate, but allow corporations to deduct dividends paid to shareholders to eliminate the double taxation issue. (3) Limit LLCs and partnerships to 200 investors just like S Corps are limited. There you go.

I definitely disagree with him on the idea that loan interest is not an expense. There is a difference between that and return on investemnt of the company owner. That's a head scratcher to me.

[Bklyn]

I am largely in line with everything you said, but I think his position on loan interest is driven largely by ideology (economic, not political...his neutrality is pretty much exclusive to the latter). He appears to be a big proponent of "fairness" when I read his positions, in terms of the application of the tax burden. He looks at the loan interest deduction as a subsidy of debt financing but no corresponding subsidy exists for equity financing.

[eCat]

and this pretty much puts a bow on it

--------------
If you read the Affordable Care Act when it was passed, you knew that it was dishonest for President Obama to claim that “if you like your plan, you can keep your plan,” as he did—and continues to do—on countless occasions. And we now know that the administration knew this all along. It turns out that in an obscure report buried in a June 2010 edition of the Federal Register, administration officials predicted massive disruption of the private insurance market. [...]

[T]he administration’s commentary in the Federal Register did not only refer to the individual market, but also the market for employer-sponsored health insurance.

Section 1251 of the Affordable Care Act contains what’s called a “grandfather” provision that, in theory, allows people to keep their existing plans if they like them. But subsequent regulations from the Obama administration interpreted that provision so narrowly as to prevent most plans from gaining this protection.

“The Departments’ mid-range estimate is that 66 percent of small employer plans and 45 percent of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfather status by the end of 2013,” wrote the administration on page 34552. All in all, more than half of employer-sponsored plans will lose their “grandfather status” and get canceled. According to the Congressional Budget Office, 156 million Americans—more than half the population—was covered by employer-sponsored insurance in 2013.

51 percent of the employer-based market plus 53.5 percent of the non-group market (the middle of the administration’s range) amounts to 93 million Americans.

---------------------------------------

but those 14 million that get insurance now that didn't have it before - thank god the government stepped in, right?

[Owlman]

right

[sardis]

eCat, he had to lie for the overall good of the American people. Many were suffering. Children were growing up unhealthy. Good lord, we ranked last amongst civilized countries in healthcare. Don't you know we are in a war, a war against poverty and the ignorance of the American people, and in a war, sometimes we must use desperate means.

[eCat]

Obama is a moron

I'm not saying that in a light hearted , internet meme way.

He seriously is in over his head. This has fucked the country - we may adjust to it long term but there is going to be some serious short term pain.

He's known this program is fundamentally broken and pushed it forward anyways just to save face at the expense of the working people.

Anyone supporting this has something to gain from it.



"most people will get to keep their insurance" - horseshit

[Toemeesleather]

[youtube]wfl55GgHr5E[/youtube]