ChrisWeigant.com

Trump More Progressive Than Democrats On Warren Buffett Problem

[ Posted Monday, August 31st, 2015 – 17:00 UTC ]

Donald Trump made a rather startling proposal last week out on the campaign trail, but few in the media noticed. Perhaps this was due to the fact that Trump says so many startling things that the media can be excused for not paying attention to all of them. Perhaps it was because it wasn't as incendiary as many other Trump campaign promises. But for whatever reason, his words merit a lot more attention than they're so far getting, especially from all the Democratic presidential candidates. Because, as things stand, Trump is now more progressive on this particular issue than the entire slate of Democrats.

Don't believe me? Here is what Donald Trump had to say on one particular facet of the income inequality issue. When asked how he would revise the tax code, Trump answered:

I would change it. I would simplify it. I would take carried interest out, and I would let people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year pay some tax, because right now they are paying very little tax and I think it's outrageous. I want to lower taxes for the middle class.

He was then asked whether this would mean he'd be raising taxes on himself. Trump responded:

That's right. That's right. I'm OK with it. You've seen my statements, I do very well, I don't mind paying some taxes. The middle class is getting clobbered in this country. You know the middle class built this country, not the hedge fund guys, but I know people in hedge funds that pay almost nothing and it's ridiculous, OK?

It really pains me to say it, but Donald Trump is right.

For a long time now, many Democrats have been demagoguing an issue that they refuse to address politically, which they could do by supporting a policy which would actually fix the problem. They love to complain about the problem while campaigning, but fixing it is seen as too tough a lift when they have to vote on tax policies. It's usually known as the "Warren Buffett problem" (although the specific "hedge fund guys and the carried interest loophole" problem is kind of a subset of it). Properly stated (echoing the words of countless Democratic candidates): "It's a problem in this country when Warren Buffett pays a lower income tax rate than his secretary does."

What it boils down to is this: some rich people make most (or all) of their money just trading stocks and playing the market. The income tax code treats this money differently than any other money people make. While pretty much any way of making money (working for a salary, selling stuff on eBay, whatever) is treated as "income," profits made from playing the market are treated as "capital gains." Capital gains are taxed at a much lower rate than all the other forms of making money that are available. The highest tax rate for income is just shy of 40 percent. The highest tax rate for capital gains is 20 percent. This is one big reason why people like Mitt Romney can get away with making tens of millions of dollars a year and only paying 14 percent of it on their income tax forms. This is why Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

As anyone can plainly see, this is both patently unfair and also a big contributor to the entire problem of income inequality. Hedge funds are merely the most egregious examples of it, as they aren't paid "income" but rather share in "profits," thereby avoiding the normal tax rates firefighters and nurses and secretaries have to pay. The only way to make this fair would be to tax capital gains exactly the same as every other kind of income. Period. No loopholes, no special treatment. Income equals income, dollar for dollar.

This is seen as some sort of radical, wild-eyed proposal in Washington. Rich folks have cut a gigantic loophole out for the way they make their money, and they are going to fight to keep that loophole. Normally, Republicans are the ground forces in this fight, and use any hint of a suggestion of changing this situation as "raising taxes" or "a huge tax hike" and all the rest of that song.

The problem, though, has been that Republicans have so successfully pushed their anti-tax agenda that most Democratic politicians quake in fear of the suggestion of raising any taxes, ever, on anything. They know full well that Republicans will beat them over the head with a metaphorical club if they even hint that they're for raising taxes in any circumstance.

Democrats, in this case, love to complain about the problem without ever truly getting behind the glaringly obvious fix to the problem. Don't want Buffett's secretary to pay a higher rate than his or her boss? Then make him pay the same tax rates off the same tax tables for every dollar he makes! It isn't exactly rocket science.

And yet, there is a profound silence on the problem from the Democratic presidential campaign trail. Hillary Clinton is one of those who love to cite the Buffett problem in speeches, but she has nothing on her campaign's website on the subject of hedge fund managers or carried interest. She has a rather vague promise to make the wealthy pay "their fair share" in taxes, without getting specific. As for capital gains tax rates, she has proposed a tweak in what constitutes long-term versus short-term capital gains, but nothing which directly attacks the Buffett problem. Neither does Martin O'Malley. Even Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders does not address the issue directly on his campaign site. Sanders would tax certain Wall Street transactions at very low rates (half a percent, for example), but he doesn't directly address the hedge fund problem. Now, to be fair, I should state that I haven't personally read or listened to every speech every candidate has made, so perhaps the issue has been addressed by one or more of them during the campaign. Even so, the issue doesn't seem to be important enough to include on any of their campaign website's "issues" pages -- at least not directly -- meaning it's not all that high-priority for any of them, even if they do support changing the system.

Democrats are doing one of two things, and neither one of them is very impressive. Democratic presidential candidates are either so scared of being called a tax-raiser by Republicans that they do not support changing the problem at all, or they are secretly for changing it but don't want to say that on the campaign trail in fear of being beaten up by Republicans over the issue. As I said, neither one is exactly a profile in political courage.

The only candidate in the 2016 race who is strongly supporting changing this unfair system (at least for the hedge fund managers) is none other than Donald Trump. He's staked out a position that is now to the left of Hillary Clinton and even Bernie Sanders. This should be seen as a problem by Democrats, and it should be getting more attention from the media. Income inequality is at least partially caused by allowing extremely wealthy people to pay half the tax rate everyone else does. As Donald Trump says, "it's ridiculous, OK?" And it's even more ridiculous that Trump's out there championing the issue while the Democratic candidates are keeping quiet about it.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

55 Comments on “Trump More Progressive Than Democrats On Warren Buffett Problem”

  1. [1] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW-

    Just to clarify about your comments on the quotes, the carried interest and capital gains are two different loopholes. Eliminating the carried interest loophole doesn't mean he supports increasing the capital gains rates to equal the regular income rates... at least, unless the quotes just don't make that clear.

    Regardless, this was a great catch that everybody else missed or one the corporate media didn't want reported.

    In a different forum, I mentioned how much bipartisanship we'd suddenly see if Bernie was elected due to Big Money pressuring congresscritters in both parties against certain policies.

    I imagine the same would be true with Trump.

    I have heard Bernie talk about raising taxes on the rich outside of the transaction tax, so it is surprising, or maybe not as you say, that he hasn't included it in his "issues" page... which is itself a good catch CW.
    His supporters should be asking why that is so.

    Now, if Trump would, like Bernie, just talk about expanding social security instead of privatizing it, implementing single payer health care and not flushing trillions down the toilet on illegal wars, we'd have an interesting election indeed.

  2. [2] 
    altohone wrote:

    Test

  3. [3] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    My first comment failed to appear... is it lost to the ether?

  4. [4] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Great catch, but I believe carried interest and capital gains are two different loopholes the rich abuse. So unless the quotes didn't include part of what he said, Trump only committed to eliminating carried interest, not raising capital gains to be equal to the income rates.

    I have heard Bernie talk about raising taxes on the rich outside of the transaction tax, so it's another great catch CW that it doesn't appear on his "issues" page.
    I hope his supporters pressure him to commit to it.

    I commented in another forum that if Bernie is elected, we'd finally see some bipartisanship by the congresscritters... working against him at the behest of Big Money.

    I imagine the same would be true with Trump.

    Of course, feel free to delete to clean up the mess I made...

  5. [5] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Great catch, but I believe carried interest and capital gains are two different loopholes the rich abuse. So unless the quotes didn't include part of what he said, Trump only committed to eliminating carried interest, not raising capital gains to be equal to the income rates.

    I have heard Bernie talk about raising taxes on the rich outside of the transaction tax, so it's another great catch CW that it doesn't appear on his "issues" page.
    I hope his supporters pressure him to commit to it.

    I commented in another forum that if Bernie is elected, we'd finally see some bipartisanship by the congresscritters... working against him at the behest of Big Money.

    I imagine the same would be true with Trump.

    Of course, feel free to delete the mess I've made...

  6. [6] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    altohone,

    One of my comments from Friday never showed up either.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Did we miss anything good? :)

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sorry, I couldn't resist ... I'm not that strong.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's what I don't understand about all the hateful and hurtful rhetoric against Donald Trump..

    If you take away the ONE issue (immigration) Trump is a Democrat DREAM candidate!

    Many of you have said on more than one occasion that the -D or the -R after a persons name doesn't matter to ya'all...

    Now is ya'all's chance to prove it... Here is a candidate that has some REALLY good Democrat ideas..

    But, because Trump has (at THIS point in time) a -R behind his name, NOW he is Lucifer-Incarnate...

    Ya'all have stated time and time again that you would support ANYONE with good ideas..

    OK, now is ya'all's chance to step up...

    Put yer money where yer mouth is..

    A million quatloos says no one can... :D

    Michale

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hey CW

    My first comment failed to appear... is it lost to the ether?

    They are whisked away to NNL...

    You remember the TOS episode THE PARADISE SYNDROME??

    A certain combination of vowels, consonants and tones opens the door to the anti-asteroid obelisk...

    Here in Weigantia, a certain combination of words, phrases or letters and yer comment is shunted to NNL...

    Possible workarounds are, if it's a long comment, break it up by paragraphs...

    Having said all that, if you put more than one link in the comment, it's held for moderation... :D

    I know, I know.. With me, I always hear zebras.... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    s anyone can plainly see, this is both patently unfair and also a big contributor to the entire problem of income inequality.

    While it may be a big contributor to income inequality, it really isn't unfair....

    Think about it..

    When a person plays the Stock Market, what are they really doing..

    They are investing in someone else's business.. They are giving their money to someone else so that someone else can build something...

    Now, it would be nice if we lived in the Democrat Koom Bye Ya world where everyone did nice things like this out of the goodness of their heart..

    But we don't live in that world... We live in a world were most people need an incentive to do a good thing...

    And the incentive to invest in other people's businesses is a good return with a lower tax rate...

    Don't get me wrong.. I am not defending the practice...

    But, as I am wont to do, I am looking at the issue from the OTHER perspective and acknowledging that there IS logic and fairness to the other side of the argument...

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    s anyone can plainly see, this is both patently unfair and also a big contributor to the entire problem of income inequality.

    While it may be a big contributor to income inequality, it really isn't unfair....

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    While it may be a big contributor to income inequality, it really isn't unfair....

    Think about it..

    When a person plays the Stock Market, what are they really doing..

    They are investing in someone else's business.. They are giving their money to someone else so that someone else can build something...

    Now, it would be nice if we lived in the Democrat Koom Bye Ya world where everyone did nice things like this out of the goodness of their heart..

    But we don't live in that world... We live in a world were most people need an incentive to do a good thing...

    And the incentive to invest in other people's businesses is a good return with a lower tax rate...

    Don't get me wrong.. I am not defending the practice...

    But, as I am wont to do, I am looking at the issue from the OTHER perspective and acknowledging that there IS logic and fairness to the other side of the argument...

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    As anyone can plainly see, this is both patently unfair and also a big contributor to the entire problem of income inequality.

    When a person plays the Stock Market, what are they really doing??

    They are investing in someone else's business.. They are giving their money to someone else so that someone else can build something...

    Now, it would be nice if we lived in the Democrat Koom Bye Ya world where everyone did nice things like this out of the goodness of their heart..

    But we don't live in that world... We live in a world were most people need an incentive to do a good thing...

    And the incentive to invest in other people's businesses is a good return with a lower tax rate...

    Don't get me wrong.. I am not defending the practice...

    But, as I am wont to do, I am looking at the issue from the OTHER perspective and acknowledging that there IS logic and fairness to the other side of the argument...

    Michale

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Looks like this particular commentary is being particularly nasty with the NNL Filters.. :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    My Comment.... :D

    http://sjfm.us/temp/cw_comment1.jpg

    Had ta get creative.. :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Well, lucky for us, Mexico is gonna pay for The Great Wall of Trump. Donald can use this Tax the Rich plan to pay for his terrific war with ISIS and/or Iran.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, lucky for us, Mexico is gonna pay for The Great Wall of Trump.

    I don't see what's all that ridiculous that Mexico will pay for the border wall...

    It's quite simple, actually...

    Michale

  19. [19] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Re Michale [9]

    I'm surprised to find you disagreeing with Trump!

    You don't think Trump invests in businesses by contracting them to work on his projects? Yet you think that hedge fund managers should pay virtually nothing, even though they'd invest in ISIS itself if it turned a profit for them. Wall Streeters couldn't care less about any business but their own. As soon as stocks start to go down, they don't try to help those businesses. No, they seal their fate by dumping them without a second thought!

    Trump has a problem with this which is understandable from a businessman.

  20. [20] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Great catch, but I believe carried interest and capital gains are two different loopholes the rich abuse. So unless the quotes didn't include part of what he said, Trump only committed to eliminating carried interest, not raising capital gains to be equal to the income rates.

    I have heard Bernie talk about raising taxes on the rich outside of the transaction tax, so it's another great catch CW that it doesn't appear on his "issues" page.
    I hope his supporters pressure him to commit to it.

    I commented in another forum that if Bernie is elected, we'd finally see some bipartisanship by the congresscritters... working against him at the behest of Big Money.

    I imagine the same would be true with Trump.

  21. [21] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Great catch, but I believe carried interest and capital gains are two different loopholes the rich abuse. So unless the quotes didn't include part of what he said, Trump only committed to eliminating carried interest, not raising capital gains to be equal to the income rates.

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    I'm surprised to find you disagreeing with Trump!

    It's not so much disagreeing with anyone as it is seeing the logic from a different point of view..

    Yet you think that hedge fund managers should pay virtually nothing, even though they'd invest in ISIS itself if it turned a profit for them.

    Yea, I would imagine some are like that...

    But you can't penalize EVERYONE, just because there are a few scumbags...

    Investing in stocks is a GOOD thing because it allows businesses and companies to grow..

    Where is the incentive for rich people to invest in America if you take away the tax breaks??

    Answer... There is none....

    As I said, I don't particularly agree with one side or the other.. I am just a simple knuckle-dragging ground pounder and hooty-tooty economic theory is like voodoo to me...

    But I do have an abundance of common-sense and that tells me that, unless you give an incentive for people to invest, they won't...

    And, if people don't invest, economies stagnate...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey again CW

    Tried reposting. Vanished.
    Tried breaking it up even though it wasn't long to begin with. Vanished.

    I never include links.
    A comment on a different thread worked.

    ???

  24. [24] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Where is the incentive for rich people to invest in America if you take away the tax breaks??

    Their incentive is that they STILL make a TON of money by investing. Regardless of the rate at which said income is taxed, big-time investors make substantially more money than people who work for a living.

    You don't say "sir" to me, I'm a sergeant, I work for a living.
    Sgt. Hulka - Stripes

    The only people who would be incentivized to invest by a lower tax rate would be the middle to upper-middle class. In that vein, I'd say you're right that capital gains and dividends perhaps ought to be taxed lower for small investors - let's say for argument's sake tax the first 100K of investment income at the lower rate, then anything above that at the regular tax rate...

    but multi-million dollar investors would be making money hand over fist regardless, so for them it's less of an incentive and more of a free hand-out.

    ...and if economic stagnation is really an issue, i'd say lower the corporate tax rate - by taxing corporations instead of the people who own them, it sort-of lends credence to the status of corporations as "people." if only real people paid taxes, maybe only real people would have first amendment protected speech.

    just a point to ponder...

    JL

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    likewise. also just lost a post.

  26. [26] 
    TheStig wrote:

    As Thomas P. Miller from American Enterprise Institute describes Trump: "his hair has been more permanent than his political positions." Miller goes on to say "It's a totally random assortment of whatever plays publicly."

    Miller is not the only one who has noticed this. Due to the "one link only rule" I will only note that a quick Google search of "Trump Shifting Political Positions" gives a wealth of sources supporting this observation:

    Tim Noah, Politico
    Jannel Ross, Washington Post
    Alana Brook, NewsMax
    Condor Friedershoff, The Atlantic
    Jill Colvin, Associated Press
    Nate Cohn, New York Times
    Carol Novielle, Charisma Caucus
    Melannie Tanunbaum, Scientific American

    and on and on, a very eclectic list! The would be emperor is a stark naked political streaker.

    Even the lumbering Meet the Press, which seems to notice very little these days is in on the meme:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/247643-meet-the-press-tracks-trumps-flip-flops

    So yeah, Trump is trumping the Democrats on some elements of tax reform, but will he still hold the same view if he is elected? There is evolution, and there is radiation induced genetic mutation. Trump's political DNA seems more like the latter.

  27. [27] 
    TheStig wrote:

    For fans of the much missed Craig Fergusan Late Late Show, and we all know who "they" is around these parts, Trump gives a very Geoff Peterson-ish response to the question "what's your favorite part of the Bible." Not quite the classic "the middle part," but close enough!

    http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/politics/donald-trump-favorite-bible-verses/

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, Trump saying whatever it takes to appeal to the masses bothers ya'all???

    Since when??

    I mean, it never bothered ya'all when a Democrat does it..

    Why is it a problem when a Republican does it??

    Hmmmmmmm???

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    To Michale [13]

    Where is the incentive for rich people to invest in America if you take away the tax breaks??

    If you give children everything they want as they're growing up, it's true that few of them, if any, ever develop a work ethic because everything comes so easily to them.

    The same is true about rich people - give them more and more money without them having to invest in extending their business or employing any more people and they won't. They will just take more and more from the government that is willing to give it to them for nothing.

    Trump is rich and he knows this is true which is why he expects rich people to pay more in taxes. I also believe he knows far more about hedge fund managers than you and I so I find it odd that you think you know better than he does.

    As for incentive, there's a Republican policy to charge outsourcers less in tax in the totally false belief that this will incentivize them to employ more Americans. Why is this utter nonsense? Because:
    (1) If they did then employ more Americans, they would wind up paying more taxes
    (2) It actually incentivizes other businesses to outsource so they also get the lower taxes.

    Trump is a business man and knows how it works which is why he wants to charge outsourcers an extra 35% tax until they bring jobs back to the US. Now that sounds far more likely to work, don't you think?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for incentive, there's a Republican policy to charge outsourcers less in tax in the totally false belief that this will incentivize them to employ more Americans. Why is this utter nonsense? Because:
    (1) If they did then employ more Americans, they would wind up paying more taxes
    (2) It actually incentivizes other businesses to outsource so they also get the lower taxes.

    I thought we were talking about capital gains tax, not outsourcing??

    Trump is a business man and knows how it works which is why he wants to charge outsourcers an extra 35% tax until they bring jobs back to the US. Now that sounds far more likely to work, don't you think?

    yes, in the instance of outsourcing, that does sound like it's more likely to work...

    But let's apply that model to Capital Gains taxing...

    If you charge people who want to invest in American companies MORE for doing it, less people will be inclined to invest is American companies......

    Keeping in mind my KD/GP status, how is LESS investment in America a GOOD thing??

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    TheStig wrote:

    So how well are individual presidential aspirants doing as of today? I think it hard to tell, and I put little faith in individual "scientific" polls at this early date (relative to actual primaries). I put more faith what I call "political "connoissuership," by which I mean a combination of systematically tracking and evaluating multiple scientific polls, and political chatter in an historical context (The owner of this very site rates high on my list). Frankly, at this point in the process, I put the most faith in the wisdom of crowds expressed as futures investments which convert to implied probabilities.

    Odds of winning the Republican nonimation according to Betfair:

    Trump: 15%, newly trending down
    Bush: 38%, trending up slightly for a week
    Walker 11%, nose dive
    Rubio 13%, flat
    Paul 2%, nose dive, "tell my wife I love her"
    Huck 5%, flatish
    Christie, 3% flatish
    Cruz 3% down
    Kasich 8% sustained up! Ohio, Ohio, Ohio!!
    Carson, 13$, stuka dive, room for recovery?
    Grahmam DOA, little transparent angel ascending
    Jindal DOA, LTAA
    Perry DOA, LTAA
    Fiorina 3%, flameout, nose dive, ground rush,eject!..eject!
    Ryan DOA LTAA

    Over at the Democratic Nomination Field:

    Clinton 70%, sustained descent, from high of 80%
    Sanders, 13%, turbulence
    Omalley 1%, running out of runway
    Web DOA, crashed on takeoff, LTAA

  32. [32] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    My comment was including both capital gains and outsourcing. Maybe I should have split it into two different comments so that was easier to understand.

    I'm still surprised you disagree so strongly with Donald Trump regarding capital gains tax. I thought you of all people would respect his views.

    It will be interesting to see how his followers take his tax proposals. I believe he is due to speak again in Ohio soon and New Hampshire next week.

    Did you see his interview with Sarah Palin?

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm still surprised you disagree so strongly with Donald Trump regarding capital gains tax. I thought you of all people would respect his views.

    As I said, I am not "disagreeing" with Trump.. I am simply making an observation that the other side of the issue is a logical and rational point.

    Having said that, I am not for Trump.. If Trump becomes the GOP candidate, I will likely vote for him..

    I DO like, however, how Trump is VERY pro-America.. I can't see Trump going around the world apologizing for America and bowing to every tin-pot potentate or dictator on the planet..

    I rarely watch anything on TV except for LAST SHIP, FALLING SKIES, SUITS, UNDER THE DOME and DOMINION..

    Eagerly awaiting the return of SUPERNATURAL in October.. :D

    All my news comes from the Web and I go out of my way to avoid videos.. :D

    :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know enough about the issue to unequivocally state that Trump is right or Trump is wrong..

    I am simply saying that the other side has a point..

    As to my being FOR TRUMP??

    Trump appeals to me on a visceral level..

    He is willing to give a big and mighty "FRAK YOU!!!" to those who hate America both inside and outside our borders..

    That appeals to me... :D

    Michale

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    I may not every agree with what you say, but I sure as hell love the way you say it! :D

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    dsws wrote:

    While pretty much any way of making money (working for a salary, selling stuff on eBay, whatever) is treated as "income," profits made from playing the market are treated as "capital gains."

    Capital gains are "income". They're just a more privileged form of income than what the little people make.

    "You must include all capital gains in your income"
    http://www.irs.gov/uac/Ten-Facts-That-You-Should-Know-about-Capital-Gains-and-Losses

  37. [37] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    TS,

    "at this point in the process, I put the most faith in the wisdom of crowds expressed as futures investments which convert to implied probabilities"

    I agree, but I don't really understand BetFair's site. Are they offering odds or is it some kind of exchange wagering? They own TVG and they used to relentlessly talk about exchange wagering for horse races because they were trying to get it legalized in CA. It didn't work out, so they don't talk about it much anymore.

  38. [38] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    TS and David,

    I know this is a long shot. Are either of you going to the Jackson Browne show next week at RiverBend?

  39. [39] 
    TheStig wrote:

    JFC -

    26

    It's matched wagers by any other name. Call it futures if it makes you feel better : ) You can back an event (bet that the event will happen)or "lay" an event (bet against the event happening) by matching an unmatched back stake on the market (matchmaking is automated). Odds are in decimals. For a back position the odds are stake + payoff on a 1 unit stake. The greater the odds, the less likely an event will occur, and the higher the payoff + stake. For a lay position, you inherit the total liability if you lose, claim the pot if you win.

    Implied probability of an even occurring are the inverse of the odds. The site plots odds/probs through time. Total matched bets amounted to a bit less than 1 million British pounds last time I checked.

    Do I wager on BetFair. Not on your life. It would undermine my objectivity, annnnnd my family has a wee tendency towards problem gambling (investing), and that's likely genetic.

    27

    Regrettably, previous commitments and then some.

  40. [40] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I probably should have included Joe Biden in comment 21. He's had a Kachich like climb until recently, peaked at 15% and is more recently trending down closer to 10%. Still this is pretty near to Trump levels, albeit in a much less diluted airspace. Delaware, Delaware, Delaware??? No, designated back-up to Hillary scenario, should she punch out for whatever reason, battle damage, systems failure, shingles...it could happen....1 in 3 people over 55 will get shingles.

  41. [41] 
    altohone wrote:

    CW

    Trump didn't commit to raising capital gains taxes to equal income taxes in the quotes you cited.
    Carried interest is a separate loophole the rich abuse.

    It was a great catch to note what others failed to report though... and any Repub just talking about it is indeed newsworthy.

    As others have noted, his word isn't exactly gold, but let's hope a little fairness in the tax code gets enacted.

    A

  42. [42] 
    Paula wrote:

    My favorite thing about the presidential campaign(s) to date is the complete lack of Newt Gingrich. Hope that continues.

    Meanwhile, I'll be interested to see if Trump continues in this vein or begins to pull back. I suspect he blurted out something (a stopped watch/twice a day, etc.) in one of his word salads and it remains to be seen whether it becomes a true plank for him or just one of the many things he's thrown out there for the hell of it.

    My second favorite thing about the campaign(s) to date is the possibility Trump is doing all this to hasten the downfall of the repub party as currently constructed. Or is he simply the sublime instrument of fate?

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    A third possibility..

    A canny Trump is positioning himself for the General Election by taking positions that are attractive to Democrats..

    "We can't discard a possibility just because we don't happen to like it.."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

    I would have thought after all that we have been thru, ya'all would quit underestimating Trump...

    It's possible that bigotry and hatred are simply too strong to overcome..

    Michale

  44. [44] 
    altohone wrote:

    capital gains are not the same as carried interest

    eliminating the latter doesn't mean the former will be equalized to income taxes

  45. [45] 
    altohone wrote:

    Still won't let me post anything related to the content of this column?

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW will clear out the NNL filters when he gets a chance.. It shouldn't be too long of a wait...

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I've been there, Al ... hope you make copies of your comments, just in case ... :)

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anthony-weiner-slams-donald-trumps-attacks-wife-absurd/story?id=33459696

    Credit where credit is due...

    Weiner deserves kudos for publicly standing up for his wife..

    Considering all the mean and nasty things both the Right *AND* the Left has said about Weiner, I admire his courage..

    Full Disclosure.. I also participated in a bit o' weiner bashing myself...

    But, as I said. Credit where credit is due...

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    dsws wrote:

    test post ...

  50. [50] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I'm really confused by Teabonics. So, politically incorrect speech should only be delivered in the correct language? Would it be OK if JEB speaks Mexican when he visits Puerto Rico, USA?

    Don't tread on me.

  51. [51] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    Paula,

    Meanwhile, I'll be interested to see if Trump continues in this vein or begins to pull back. I suspect he blurted out something (a stopped watch/twice a day, etc.) in one of his word salads and it remains to be seen whether it becomes a true plank for him or just one of the many things he's thrown out there for the hell of it.

    I was very disappointed that Trump didn't mention any of his taxation policy in his latest stump speech. However, he did mention it to Sarah Palin when she interviewed him recently. I'm hoping this is an omen that he will continue talking about it. It will not only be a jolt to the Right but also to the Left. :-)

    My second favorite thing about the campaign(s) to date is the possibility Trump is doing all this to hasten the downfall of the repub party as currently constructed. Or is he simply the sublime instrument of fate?

    I don't think Trump is being in any way untrue to himself and what he believes. I think he is the sublime instrument of fate and that that's a good way of putting it. :-)

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    It will not only be a jolt to the Right but also to the Left. :-)

    Yes it will..

    And to many Weigantians as well..

    Because, if Trump continues along this vein, those Weigantians who claimed that they would support anyone with good ideas will come face to face with their own petard...

    And the only question will be..

    Will they be hoisted by it.. :D

    Michale

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    And just when ya thought Hillary could weather the storm....

    http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/

    *ALL* of Hillary's emails are available to the highest bidder..

    I saids it befores and I'll says it agains..

    HILLARY IS TOAST....

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Trump is going to sign the GOP Loyalty pledge... :D

    Now the REAL fun begins...

    Imagine if Trump wins the primary and all the other challengers are forced to support Trump... :D

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump hits 30 percent in new poll
    http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/252661-trump-hits-30-percent-in-new-poll

    So much for the claim that Trump hit his ceiling at 25%...

    Maybe the extra 5% is from Democrats who are liking what they hear.. :D

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.