[quote][b]keepitsimple[/b] - @skull: They can make or break a sale that's for sure.
[/quote]

Appraisals are so subjective. I've had appraisers that were more than $100,000 apart on the same house (the appraisals were a week apart). The seller is in deep doo-doo when he has a unique property for sale where comparables are not available.

[quote][b]keepitsimple[/b] -
Worth what's one willing to pay as long as they are not financing it. If your buyer is financing a home as most do then problem is in the comparison homes. Say you have a great number of repossed or short sales in your area that are comprable inn size to your home....then you more than likely are screwed. Doesn't matter if your home is worth say $200.. if the banks have been letting the repo's go for $150...Come time the appraiser shows up they have to go with the comps leaving you holding the bag of poo.
[/quote]

Man, don't get me started on appraisers, my blood pressure is too high already. They are a fly in the ointment in free market negotiations. What I really think would get me banned if I posted it here.

[quote][b]E.J.[/b] - Then why can't I sell my house for what it's worth?[/quote]

It's worth what someone is willing to pay. Maybe it's not worth the amount you are asking. It's easy for homeowners to become emotionally attached to their homes and think they are worth more than they actually are. What one paid for a home is immaterial these days, unfortunately.

[quote][b]D.Dublis[/b] - IRA's are a deduction for most folks. What you contribute-duh-reduces your taxable income for the contribution year-by the amount contributed.[/quote]

It's still a "duh" timing difference. You know what that means? A deduction you never have to pay back. A timing difference is something you eventually pay back, be it one year or twenty years. Are you a sock puppet of Avenger? He never shuts up either. I don't have the time nor inclination to educate you on tax nuances, so consider this my last post on it. Have a nice day.

[quote][b]Jerry NeSmith[/b] -
Nice use of fear.
[/quote]

Pretty prevalent these days. Ever see "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"?

Testing in schools has been around since the 1840's, and it was just as controversial then as it is now. Interesting read in the WSJ regarding the history of school testing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/opinion/sunday/the-first-testing-race-...

[quote][b]D.Dublis[/b] -
You haven't stated any facts. The middle class "back then" didn't pay that high of a tax rate. What deductions were you speaking of??? The middle class today has the state income tax deduction, IRA deductions, mortgage interest deduction, charitable contribution deduction, ad valoreum tax deduction, and, recently, as you mentioned, a lot of energy credits, etc.
As to supply side economics, my blame game is factual. The CBO has nailed it; supply side economics was a major cause of our deficits, along with Iraq.
Corporate tax revenue is at a generational low now. Our fairly high corp. rate is rather meaningless as the actual rate, after tax breaks, is much lower--in the middle of the pack among industrialized nations.
True more folks probably paid income taxes "back then," but most folks today pay high payroll taxes, sales taxes, etc. Back then the middle class hadn't been ravaged by right-winger screw the bottom 98% of the population policies.
[/quote]

You need to do some research if you are going to make assertions. You are the one who initiated the claim that taxes were so much higher than now, not me. It's your job to prove it so. But just to help you out, for a start, interest of all kind was deductible then, not just mortgage. All sales tax was deductible, as well as all state income taxes. Medical expenses were 100% deductible, not just the amount over 7%. Casualty losses were 100%. Employee expenses were deductible at 100%. And higher income taxpayers had no limitations placed on their deductions. There are other examples that I'm not going to take the time to look up. Plus, IRA's are not a deduction. They are a timing difference. You pay the tax on the money sooner or later.

[quote][b]Tewise[/b] - Where have you all read that they are Muslim? I haven't seen anything other than they are Russian.
[/quote]

You're batting 1.000. They were Muslims, but were not Russians.

[quote][b]D.Dublis[/b] - But you acknowledge in your earlier post that there were "a myriad of tax deductions that average Americans enjoyed back in those days." Those were for political reasons-to oil companies, big agriculture, housing industry, etc[/quote]

No they weren't. The deductions I'm speaking of were available to all individual taxpayers, including the middle class. These deductions off-set somewhat the high tax rates back then. And most everyone paid taxes back then. Not so now. You want to argue politics and play the blame game. I'm just stating facts, so go right ahead and believe what you believe. Times have changed. It's a global, mobile economy and corporations will just go abroad if you tax them to death here.

[quote][b]D.Dublis[/b] -
All I know is that federal tax collections as a percentage of our economy are at 40 year or so lows.
[/quote]

The IRS code has been transformed into a welfare/entitlement/political agenda give-away program, both to individuals and corporations. We have or have had everything from child credits, earned income credits, rebates for hybrids, rebates for trading in old cars, rebates for electric cars, rebates for high efficiency appliances, rebates for buying huge SUVs, investment tax credits for corporations, and generally everything under the sun. No wonder tax receipts have been affected.

Not to mention that a goodly number of the population no longer pay income taxes, to some extent no fault of their own.

[quote][b]D.Dublis[/b] - Current "leftists" only desire fed tax collections to go back to the level of Nixon and even Eisenhower.[/quote]

I assume you are advocating that the myriad of tax deductions that average Americans enjoyed back in those days would also be reinstated in conjunction with the higher tax rates.

[quote][b]Anonymous Dude[/b] -
Actually, corporations losing their personhood and political power is the new economic literacy...which you are woefully illiterate in, may I add...
[/quote]

The subject of MPD's discussion and my own was about corporate tax deductions. We, nor the article, mentioned "corporate personhood". So go back to picking your nose, and avoid getting the Cheeto dust up your nostrils.

[quote][b]mpd0.59[/b] -
I interpret it as the latter and also ones out of reach of the average taxpayer. The big tax avoidance items appear to be tax deferral on offshore income and accelerated depreciation on equipment and machinery.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-corporate-tax-breaks...
I believe if you eliminated all the special interest tax breaks, the tax code could fit into a magazine.
[/quote]

Thank you for your coherent opinion.

[quote][b]Anonymous Dude[/b] -
Corporate welfare includes ANY tax break a corporation gets that an individual does not.
Would you as an individual just loooooooove to deduct depreciation on your personal vehicles and residence? Sure you would...
Strip away corporate personhood now. Outlaw corporate lobbying. Make all campaign financing public funds only.
Or the above crap will continue...
[/quote]

Brilliant. An economic illiterate. I will say one thing, your ignorance on such a wide range of subject-matter is certainly awe-inspiring.

[quote][b]mpd0.59[/b] - Value of tax breaks enjoyed by corporations in 2011, as measured by the Government Accountability Office: $181 billion.[/quote]

I was a little puzzled by the wording of the statement in the article. "Value of tax breaks enjoyed by corporations in 2011, as measured by the Government Accountability Office: $181 billion."

Do tax breaks include normal business expenses like labor and depreciation, or extraordinary tax breaks only given to some industries and not others? Statements like that taken out of the context of the report are often misleading

[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] -
I think you'd have to be pretty stupid and surround yourself with stupid people to be President of the United States, talk so much about taxes, and not be above board when it comes to them when the information is made public.
And before you say it, no. He's not dumb. This administration hasn't had a large scandal, and I doubt it will.
[/quote]

He associated with a few tax cheats, so some of it might have rubbed off.

[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - 18.4% in taxes, and nearly a quarter of their income to charity[/quote]

A fourth of their income in charitable contributions? Wonder if triggers an audit? Probably would for the average taxpayer.

[quote][b]Millionexus[/b] - I'm sorta sick of Congress deciding to pay for things by 'closing loopholes'.[/quote]

My personal definition of a loophole is a deduction or tax credit that I can't personally take advantage of on my own tax return. One man's loophole is another man's deduction.

[quote][b]guapo[/b] -
There is no charge for "attempted murder" in the State of Georgia. There is aggravated assault if they live and murder if they die, without going into the specific murder statutes.
[/quote]

There is, but it's difficult to prosecute and the maximum sentence is longer for aggravated assault. Read this link for an explanation.

http://www.houstonda.org/houston-county-law-school/why-not-charge-attemp...

[quote][b]8thDwarfSurly[/b] - @skull:
Sorry, I got sidetracked.
I can see that the quasi-dealer issue could be used to circumvent the intent of maintaining an FFL. It has been my gun show experience that I've gotten 4473'd for purchases at gun shows just as if I had gone to my local gun shop and purchased it from them.
As you rightly pointed out, and failed to address, my main concern would be how it is implemented. If it is going to apply the same 4473 process to all sales (After 24hrs. they drop the query, no digital records/ databases that can be traced to an individual buyer etc.) It would be a pain in the a**, and an extra expense (tax) to run it through a dealer, but truthfully not much would change.
That said, my main concern is the incremental push towards universal registration. Today we push for Universal Background checks which make everyone feel warm a fuzzy, but won't alter the fact that criminals will still get guns by any means necessary. When this doesn't stem gun violence, the next call will be for Universal Registration and when that doesn't work, they'll just come and get them.
The history of modern tyranny is replete with examples that started off with some form of gun control. Under the guise of 'safety' and 'security' afforded by the limiting of firearms ultimately led to the extermination of +/- 50 million unarmed civilians in the last century.
With that in mind, I am wary of and opposed to ANY change to current laws.
[/quote]

I'm certainly not arguing the expansion of the background check requirements will deter gun crimes. I personally doubt many criminals or potential criminals purchase their weapons from gun shows or the internet. I think that a bigger abuse are straw purchasers. I have observed numerous young females at gun stores purchasing Glock 17's or similar sized pistols. My suspicions might be misplaced, but I just have a gut feeling they are making purchases for their boyfriend who is otherwise ineligible to purchase a hand-gun. This is a very difficult problem to control. I similarly think controls on assault weapons is tilting at windmills, since I don't think it will accomplish anything.

[quote][b]8thDwarfSurly[/b] -
IF YOU SUSPECT THEY'RE SELLING ILLEGALLY, WHY DON"T YOU TURN THEM IN ?!?!?!?!!?
Punishing the 99.999% of law abiding gun owners isn't the answer
[/quote]

Private sellers are exempted, remember? It's a very narrow interpretation between a legitimate private seller and a quasi dealer. The gun show sponsors know what's going on, but don't won't to lose the sale of a table by cracking down on these guys.

And how is requiring background checks at a gun show affecting the 99.999%? I buy a gun at Franklins and I go through the loops and pay my $25. If you buy a gun from a stranger at a gun show who represents himself as a "private seller" under the law, you don't? That's inconsistent.

@8thDwarfSurly: A neg but no response to my comment about gun show sellers. Let me ask you this: If ALL gun shows and internet sales presently require background checks, as you previously asserted, then what rights are being taken away by a proposed law that basically does the same thing? One might argue redundancy, or argue that the new law might contain new restrictions, but one cannot argue that a right is being taken away by that proposed law requiring universal background checks if that right has already been taken away, as you plainly stated.

[quote][b]8thDwarfSurly[/b] -
They ALREADY do background checks at gun shows and internet sales!!!! Private party (person to person) sales do not require a background check.
[/quote]

"Private" party sales at gun shows is a joke. You contradict your next-to-last sentence with your last. I know guys at gun shows that are "private" sellers who sell way too many guns to be merely casual sellers. Renting a table at a gun show to sell weapons is, to me, a commercial enterprise, and all sellers should be subject to the same ground-rules as regular dealers.

[quote][b]Ben Had[/b] - They are in the form of background checks that the republicans oppose.[/quote]

I wouldn't call expanding background checks synonymous with any kind of mental health bill. The latter would be many times more complex and difficult than the former. Supreme Court decisions in the 1970's gave extensive rights to the mentally ill, or those deemed mentally ill by their families or society.

By the way, I'm for expanding the background checks for gun shows and internet sales, to even the playing field with dealers.

[quote][b]Logical[/b] - Before any of you that think the old system was so great say another word, please read the Time magazine article, " Why our Healthcare Costs are Killing Us." It is the most well research, scathing exposé of the American healthcare industry I have ever seen. Those of you that can't read, at least turn Rush and Hannity off.
[/quote]

I prefer People magazine for my hard news.