What would I do with $550 million? I will never have that problem, even if I win the "$550 million" Powerball drawing at 11:00 pm EST this evening. But it's fun to think about I would do with all that money.
(1) Choose the cash option not the annuity option. The cash option is estimated at $360.2 million. To get the full $550 million I would have to take it in annual installment payments over 30 years. The first installment would only be around $9,806,555 (before taxes) and grows each year to a final payment in 30 years of around $30,583,225. In the meantime, the state sits on my money, forget that.
(2) Pay the income taxes. I don't want to end up in jail like Survivor winner Richard Hatch who failed to report his $1 million in winnings. Assuming I have to pay a combined federal/state rate of 38.45%, that would chop off $138,478,890 and leave me with $221,721,110. That sucks but I knew that going in.
By the way, if I don't get the check until next year, I would potentially get hit with an extra $29,378,632 in federal taxes at the higher 46.6% rate that may apply. The fiscal cliff just stopped being funny.
And, if I took the annuity option, the total taxes over 30 years adds up to $256,306,600, an additional $88,449,078, so it's not like I'd really be getting the full $550 million that way either.
(3) Set aside $20 million or so for charity, by creating a private foundation or donor-advised fund. That will save me $7 million in taxes up front and let me dole out $1 million a year to worthy causes.
(4) Get a thousand $100 bills I can pass out for a couple of days like Rockefeller used to hand out dimes, and a couple hundred $1,000 bills for close friends and family. OK, they took the $1,000 bill out of circulation so maybe it will have to be gold coins for the friends and family.
(5) Move to Oregon, which has no sales tax, the government already took its cut. Portlandia, here I come. If I am going to spend this money, I want to do it from a nice condo in the Pearl District. Nothing too fancy, $1 million should do it.
(6) Put $3 million into farmland, perhaps a few hundred acres in Yamhill County, something I can tell all my Cambridge friends is a winery and all my Iowa friends is a ranch. Then, because grapes and cattle are too much work, I'll find some lazy farmer to seed it down and cut it for hay a few times a year.
(7) Buy a Ford Escape Hybrid SUV, $32,320 MRP, 31-34 mpg and no bailout.
(8) Buy a new laptop, $2,000 should cover a 13 inch MacBook Air with retina display and a few accessories.
(9) Buy a case of Dark Chocolate M&Ms. I can't find them anywhere but on the internet. It looks like I could get a gross of 12.6 ounce packages from Amazon.com for $469.20.
(10) That would leave me with $175 million, which if I invested in the stock market would give off about $3.5 million in dividends each year. The tax man's cut could be as much as $1.6 million, leaving me with $1.9 million a year. I could live on that.
I bought 2 QuickPicks for $4 earlier this evening. I don't consider it gambling because I know I'm almost certainly going to lose. It's a $4 entertainment, more than 2 trips to RedBox, less than going to a movie.
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Add the Anti-Tax Pledge to the Mayan Prophecy
Fiscal cliff, taxmageddon, you'd think Washington, DC was about to slip into the abyss of the Mayan prophecy. But rather than the world ending on December 21, 2012, the U.S. Congress will probably just take its usual Christmas vacation.
Will they have a deal? Won't they have a deal? A lot is being made to depend on whether enough Republicans break the Grover Norquist Americans for Tax Reform Pledge not to raise taxes. Here's why you should add that to the list of things you don't really need to follow:
The Pledge is toothless. How toothless? Well just compare the Pledge asks from U.S. Senators and Congressman to the Pledge he asks from state legislators:
Any real promise to hold spending in line so taxes won't have to be raised has already been broken. We've already run up $16 trillion in debt under the not-so-watchful eye of the Pledge. Since deficit spending = future taxation we've already decided to raise taxes. When and how is just a detail.
Consider this. The Bush tax cuts were extended from their original expiration date of 12/31/2010 to expire on 12/31/2012. Would letting them expire and thereby allowing tax rates to rise on 1/1/2013 break the Pledge? Grover Norquist didn't seem to think so in July 2011:
The so-called Buffett Rule doesn't break the Pledge. Warren Buffett's latest version is for Congress to enact a minimum tax on high incomes at 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million and 35 percent on income above that. That's less than the current top marginal income tax rate of 35% so no Pledge to break here folks.
The Pledge doesn't even have enough adherents to stop a tax increase. The Democrats have a majority in the U.S. Senate along with 6 Republicans who haven't signed the pledge and a few others who say they don't feel bound by it any longer. Grover Norquist can't even mount a filibuster. In the U.S. House, only 17 Republican votes are needed to go with the Democrats and at least 16 Republicans declined to sign the Pledge with several others publicly ready to sign off. As long as Republican Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor are on board the deal, it can't be stopped in the U.S. House.
So don't worry, Pledge or no Pledge, President Obama and the U.S. Congress will save us from going off the fiscal cliff and into taxmageddon, they just haven't decided whether to "save" us before we reach the precipice or "catch" us on the way down. This is just Daylight Savings Time. The extra hour we get back is the one they previously took away.
So what's really a stake here? The question is what kind of reform Republicans can get in return for giving up their Pledge. They want entitlement reform but I would have them go for constitutional reform.
You do have to admire Grover Norquist for his tenacity:
Will they have a deal? Won't they have a deal? A lot is being made to depend on whether enough Republicans break the Grover Norquist Americans for Tax Reform Pledge not to raise taxes. Here's why you should add that to the list of things you don't really need to follow:
The Pledge is toothless. How toothless? Well just compare the Pledge asks from U.S. Senators and Congressman to the Pledge he asks from state legislators:
State: "I pledge that I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes."Anyone can plainly see the big gaping difference between "any and all efforts to increase taxes" in the state pledge and that mishmash of words in the federal pledge. The U.S. Congress can pass any tax in any amount it wants without breaking with Grover Norquist, as long as it's not a "marginal" income tax rate increase or a "net" reduction in deductions and credits.
Federal: I pledge that I will ONE, oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses; and TWO, oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates."
Any real promise to hold spending in line so taxes won't have to be raised has already been broken. We've already run up $16 trillion in debt under the not-so-watchful eye of the Pledge. Since deficit spending = future taxation we've already decided to raise taxes. When and how is just a detail.
Consider this. The Bush tax cuts were extended from their original expiration date of 12/31/2010 to expire on 12/31/2012. Would letting them expire and thereby allowing tax rates to rise on 1/1/2013 break the Pledge? Grover Norquist didn't seem to think so in July 2011:
"Not continuing a tax cut is not technically a tax increase."If Republicans can just let the tax cuts expire without breaking the Pledge, then they can also agree to set the income tax rates on 1/1/2013 at any level up to the higher rates that would otherwise apply. They don't have to wait until 1/1/2013 to make such a deal and exempting even one person would make it a "tax cut."
The so-called Buffett Rule doesn't break the Pledge. Warren Buffett's latest version is for Congress to enact a minimum tax on high incomes at 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million and 35 percent on income above that. That's less than the current top marginal income tax rate of 35% so no Pledge to break here folks.
The Pledge doesn't even have enough adherents to stop a tax increase. The Democrats have a majority in the U.S. Senate along with 6 Republicans who haven't signed the pledge and a few others who say they don't feel bound by it any longer. Grover Norquist can't even mount a filibuster. In the U.S. House, only 17 Republican votes are needed to go with the Democrats and at least 16 Republicans declined to sign the Pledge with several others publicly ready to sign off. As long as Republican Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor are on board the deal, it can't be stopped in the U.S. House.
So don't worry, Pledge or no Pledge, President Obama and the U.S. Congress will save us from going off the fiscal cliff and into taxmageddon, they just haven't decided whether to "save" us before we reach the precipice or "catch" us on the way down. This is just Daylight Savings Time. The extra hour we get back is the one they previously took away.
So what's really a stake here? The question is what kind of reform Republicans can get in return for giving up their Pledge. They want entitlement reform but I would have them go for constitutional reform.
You do have to admire Grover Norquist for his tenacity:
"Deadlock or gridlock is better than moving in the wrong direction. Stasis for the last two years has been a big improvement over heading in the wrong direction."However, the strategy of allowing federal budget deficits to run up crippling debts by not raising taxes in the hopes that somewhere years down the road some future Congress and President will agree to spending cuts simply doesn't work. What would work is giving the people a direct say in major tax and spending decisions via a ballot question process.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Her Best Understanding of the Intelligence
President Obama gave a spirited defense of his U.N. Ambassador yesterday:
I will say this about Susan Rice and that Sunday she made the rounds with the spontaneous demonstration to an anti-muslim YouTube video story. The four dead Americans, including fellow Ambassador Christopher Stephens, were the least of her, and our, problems.
The U.S. faced demonstrations against our embassies in Egypt and some 23 countries all told, with the Palestinians waiting in the wings to press their statehood demands at the U.N. session that was about to begin. The demonstrations were pretextually about the YouTube video, her statements essentially accused the demonstrators in those other countries of complicity in the Benghazi deaths, and her work helped defuse the crisis.
Susan Rice's problem is she can't be praised for that directly, as doing so would undermine her exemplary work. Was there coordination between the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the 9/11 demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo? Think about it. A planned attack is made against a U.S. diplomatic facility and spontaneous demonstrations erupt against other U.S. diplomatic facilities.
Yes, the YouTube video was a pretext, as was the "spontaneity" of the demonstrations, but it was their pretext not our pretext. I see what Ambassador Rice did as blunting the enemy attack. Essentially, she was parroting back the enemy's dishonest cover story, and in the process made their purported cause look ridiculous. Her fault is that she did that a little too well.
"But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill and professionalism and toughness and grace. As I’ve said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I’m happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received and to besmirch her reputation is outrageous."I'm not sure if I were Susan Rice I would like being thrown under the "her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her" and the "simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received" bus.
I will say this about Susan Rice and that Sunday she made the rounds with the spontaneous demonstration to an anti-muslim YouTube video story. The four dead Americans, including fellow Ambassador Christopher Stephens, were the least of her, and our, problems.
The U.S. faced demonstrations against our embassies in Egypt and some 23 countries all told, with the Palestinians waiting in the wings to press their statehood demands at the U.N. session that was about to begin. The demonstrations were pretextually about the YouTube video, her statements essentially accused the demonstrators in those other countries of complicity in the Benghazi deaths, and her work helped defuse the crisis.
Susan Rice's problem is she can't be praised for that directly, as doing so would undermine her exemplary work. Was there coordination between the 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the 9/11 demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Cairo? Think about it. A planned attack is made against a U.S. diplomatic facility and spontaneous demonstrations erupt against other U.S. diplomatic facilities.
Yes, the YouTube video was a pretext, as was the "spontaneity" of the demonstrations, but it was their pretext not our pretext. I see what Ambassador Rice did as blunting the enemy attack. Essentially, she was parroting back the enemy's dishonest cover story, and in the process made their purported cause look ridiculous. Her fault is that she did that a little too well.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
The Inviolable Jill Kelley
Jill Kelley's business card reads:
The one I feel sorry for is the hapless FBI agent. As a favor to the foxy brunette with the twin sister he initiated an FBI cyberstalker investigation. In the course of said investigation his colleagues found that he had previously sent said foxy brunette pictures of himself shirtless.
A 911 call Jill made Sunday to get rid of the reporters camped out at her house exposed the South Korean connection:
The South Korean government had this to say:
Personally, I blame Hollywood. Jill is just playing the Julia Roberts character in Charlie Wilson's War, the slutty Houston socialite with an honorary ambassadorship intent on world domination. Jill just moved the location from Houston to Tampa.
Update: The shirtless FBI agent has been identified as a Frederick W. Humphries II. The New York Times has posted this curiosity:
Social Liaison, Unpaid, TampaSo far Jill has ruined the careers of two four-star generals, one the CIA Director and the other the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, a lieutenant colonel, an FBI agent, and very likely a South Korean diplomat.
The one I feel sorry for is the hapless FBI agent. As a favor to the foxy brunette with the twin sister he initiated an FBI cyberstalker investigation. In the course of said investigation his colleagues found that he had previously sent said foxy brunette pictures of himself shirtless.
A 911 call Jill made Sunday to get rid of the reporters camped out at her house exposed the South Korean connection:
"I'm an honorary consul general, so I have inviolability, so they should not be able to cross my property. I don’t know if you want to get diplomatic protection involved as well, because that’s against the law to cross my property because, you know, it's inviolable."Jill has been driving her Mercedes around Tampa with license places that say "Honorary Consul" and no doubt exercising her inviolability to park in handicap spaces and in front of fire hydrants. That was courtesy of some yet-to-be-named South Korean official.
The South Korean government had this to say:
"She will be relieved from the symbolic post if she is found to be problematic."And you know that word "if" is just being diplomatic.
Personally, I blame Hollywood. Jill is just playing the Julia Roberts character in Charlie Wilson's War, the slutty Houston socialite with an honorary ambassadorship intent on world domination. Jill just moved the location from Houston to Tampa.
Update: The shirtless FBI agent has been identified as a Frederick W. Humphries II. The New York Times has posted this curiosity:
"On Wednesday afternoon, a man standing in the driveway of Mr. Humphries's home who appeared to be him said, in response to questions from a reporter for The New York Times, that his first name was not Fred. The man then walked into the house, closed the front door and did not respond to the door bell's being rung several times."Even I could tell you that men named Frederick W. Humphries II do not answer to Fred. Humphries does have something the usual Frederick W. Humphries II would not have, a union rep. Lawrence Berger, the general counsel for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has taken up Humphries defense.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
David Frum Tells Conservatives to Not Despair
David Frum addressed this CNN article to conservatives, but it should also be addressed to libertarians.
We have crossed a line, and it isn't about makers and takers. Too many women voted Democratic on the single issue of reproductive freedom for the last two Republican nominees to reach Presidential viability.
As far as the Hispanic immigration menace, I'm not worried. A full 40% of my nieces and nephews are Hispanic. Akin and Mourdock can't be blamed for losing the Hispanic vote.
Election returns are the one objective fact in politics. But still, even after 2012, I suspect Republican candidates will continue to self-abort and self-deport.
"The United States did not vote for socialism."Don't despair he says, and how right he is:
Compare the United States of 2012 to the United States of 1962. Leave aside the obvious points about segregation and discrimination, and look only at the economy.It is unclear with whom libertarians should align at this moment in our nation's political history, and many split the difference by aligning with Obama and Boehner. Reid, by the way, is just the impeachment nonsense stopper.
In 1962, the government regulated the price and route of every airplane, every freight train, every truck and every merchant ship in the United States. The government regulated the price of natural gas. It regulated the interest on every checking account and the commission on every purchase or sale of stock. Owning a gold bar was a serious crime that could be prosecuted under the Trading with the Enemy Act. The top rate of income tax was 91%.
It was illegal to own a telephone. Phones had to be rented from the giant government-regulated monopoly that controlled all telecommunications in the United States. All young men were subject to the military draft and could escape only if they entered a government-approved graduate course of study. The great concern of students of American society -- of liberals such as David Riesman, of conservatives such as Russell Kirk, and of radicals such as Dwight Macdonald -- was the country's stultifying, crushing conformity.
We have crossed a line, and it isn't about makers and takers. Too many women voted Democratic on the single issue of reproductive freedom for the last two Republican nominees to reach Presidential viability.
As far as the Hispanic immigration menace, I'm not worried. A full 40% of my nieces and nephews are Hispanic. Akin and Mourdock can't be blamed for losing the Hispanic vote.
Election returns are the one objective fact in politics. But still, even after 2012, I suspect Republican candidates will continue to self-abort and self-deport.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Paula Broadwell Claims "I'm Not in Love with David Petraeus"
Was Paula Broadwell all in? Cue the video to 10:08. Paula Broadwell tells interviewer Arthur Kade back in February 2012:
I considered buying her book, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. It's authored by Paula Broadwell with Vernon Loeb.
A lot of other people knew too. And that may explain the recent books on Dwight Eisenhower and their fascination with Kay Summersby.
"It's not a hagiography. I'm not in love with David Petraeus"
I considered buying her book, All In: The Education of General David Petraeus. It's authored by Paula Broadwell with Vernon Loeb.
Q: Since when does a biograher need a ghostwriter?I didn't buy the book. I guess I knew.
A: When she needs a beard.
A lot of other people knew too. And that may explain the recent books on Dwight Eisenhower and their fascination with Kay Summersby.
The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhower by Stephen E. Ambrose (reissued in paperback January 2012)I might buy one of those. Or I might go straight to the source:
Eisenhower in War and Peace by Jean Edward Smith (February 2012)
Ike's Bluff: President Eisenhower's Secret Battle to Save the World by Evan Thomas (September 2012)
Eisenhower Was My Boss by Kay Summersby (reissued in paperback September 2012)
Eisenhower: The White House Years by Jim Newton (October 2012)
Crusade in Europe by Dwight David EisenhowerToday is Veteran's day. I, for one, will take this moment to thank David Petraeus for his service to our country. His immediate tender of his resignation shows he would not subject his CIA tenure to blackmail or compromise.
Counterinsurgency Field Manual by Lt. General David Petraeus and Lt. General James F Amos
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Florida, the West Hasn't Gotten Its Vote In Either
It's two days after the election and we aren't just waiting for Florida. Take a look at the estimated percentage of the vote that is in the Western states.
What difference does it make? John McCain polled roughly 60 million votes in 2008, so that is the difference between McCain's total decreasing or increasing for the Republicans.
It could also be the difference between a 2% or 3% margin of victory for President Obama, a betting proposition at Intrade. Better read the fine print, bets settle at midday Friday but who knows when the votes will come in.
Where are the rest of the ballots? In the mail. The effect of vote-by-mail is that the Post Office gets to hold the ballots from Election Day until it feels like getting around to delivering them.
68% in AlaskaThat is a lot of missing votes, as many as 7 million in my estimation. That's not going to change the outcome of the election. It will increase the vote totals, both for Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Right now, the popular vote is at 61 million to 58 million, but it could really be 65 million to 61 million.
75% in Oregon
55% in Washington
69% in California
71% in Arizona
What difference does it make? John McCain polled roughly 60 million votes in 2008, so that is the difference between McCain's total decreasing or increasing for the Republicans.
It could also be the difference between a 2% or 3% margin of victory for President Obama, a betting proposition at Intrade. Better read the fine print, bets settle at midday Friday but who knows when the votes will come in.
Where are the rest of the ballots? In the mail. The effect of vote-by-mail is that the Post Office gets to hold the ballots from Election Day until it feels like getting around to delivering them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)