weekender

Not "angry," simply explaining the facts and yes, some of this is new when it comes to credit default swaps. Before the Reagan era of deregulation, they could not have existed in the economy they way the did as pertaining to the housing market. This is not to place blame at the feet of any one individual, but rather to attempt to explain that the US economy is extremely complex and actions taken in one area that sound "good" can have huge unintended consequences later. The current problems in the US are a result of dozens upon dozens of these unintended consequences. I dont understand your point about Reagen and deregegulation. Not saying your wrong or right, do not understand what your trying to explain. credit default swaps have nothing to do with deregulation. These derivatives are not regulated. never have been and probably never will. this is because they are not traded in an open markets like stocks, futures and commodities. they are transacted institution to institution and by contracts. there are no exchanges and clearing agents. one party asks another to create the instrument so he can hedge his portfolio or increase his return. the other party obliges so he can profit from the sale. If they trade in an unregulated arena how are they effected by regulations? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

It's "fun" to point a finger at a guy or an event and say "There! That's the thing!" However, I think you're right in calling it a chain of events. Parts of this were in the control of the US and parts were not. Parts of this can be traced to specific people and events, but in the grand shame of things you'd have to look at it as a whole going back at least until the end of WWII. I personally think a big chunk of the reason the US likes to think of itself as being hugely successful really had to do with what happened at the end of WWII. The rest of the world was in ruins and while the US did have to fight the war, it was largely untouched on its own shores. This gave the US a HUGE advantage in taking over the economy of the world and we rode that up to about the 1970s. Honest to god, things were going AWESOME even with with very high taxes on the rich and LOTS of union labor. The middle class was BOOMING! However, it was a false advantage because eventually other countries would dig themselves out and begin to manufacture again. So now we had a lot of countries that were able to build competitive products and the US started to see a dip. Along comes Reagan in the 1980s and he starts busting out deregulation and opening the way for union busting. We also see a bunch of companies starting up the "global economy" and this again creates a HUGE wave of money because companies that can take manufacturing jobs overseas are seeing a bigger profit. Again, it's boom time, but just as before it's unsustainable because it's a false boom due to exploitation of the shifting economy. Things begin to snowball and eventually more and more companies ship jobs over seas to keep up with the competition that's doing it. Meanwhile companies also start busting unions right and left because they also claim they can't compete with non-union workers and they're right -- because other companies are also doing the same thing. The whole thing snowballs. However, people still remember the good old days of being able to buy houses and stuff. Also, houses and stuff is where people think the economy is at. It's a major indicator of standard of living and whatnot. So . . . and this is where it starts getting really bad . . . in order to allow people to buy houses interest rates start doing funny things. What's driving this is that there are some very clever people that have figured out that it's possible to make money by insuring other people's mortgages. This isn't just true of normal people's mortgages, but also a sort of insurance against companies going bankrupt. This is way complicated and well beyond the scope of what I can possibly write tonight, but what you're looking for is a thing called a "credit default swap." The insidious thing about all of that is, it promotes giving people loans at almost no interest and with almost no oversight because, and this is the important part, you want them to default. That's right, you're betting against the market and attempting to ensure it fails. READ THAT LAST LINE AGAIN. In short, some greedy fucks figured out a way to make money on other people defaulting on their loans AND had the power to make loans that would be guaranteed to go bust. I know this sounds crazy, but it's absolutely true. AND . . . that's not the only reason the US is in bad financial straights . . . it's just ONE reason. Wars also cost a LOT of money and while I could go all conspiracy theory on how the wars started, the truth is a crazy rich fucker living in a cave decided he'd finance some other even crazier fuckers to run airplanes into buildings. Here's the stupid part. While war sucks ass, for some people it's highly profitable. So, that's another reason; a LOT of money is going from the government to people that profit from war. Like I said, I think you've hit the nail on the head by calling it a chain of events. Taking the other side of a trade, such as in a credit default swap is common and normal in the financial world. unlike equities, many transactions are zero sum. meaning for each winner their is a loser. Futures and options trade this way. They are used to hedge and the loser normally factors this loss into the cost of hedging a larger position. Nothing new or insidious about it. credit default swaps were created recently, early 90's due to the demand for such a derivative to help PM's hedge their mortgage portfolios. The buyer bought them to hedge and seller sold them for the return. It might sound odd to a layman but this type of transaction is common accross multiple markets and sectors. you seem to be shocked and outraged at a very common type of product. No comment on your anger just that its missdirected. right now people are doing the exact same thing and have been since the inception of the modern world. this is nothing new, nor unique as you seem to think "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i know there is fraud in the industry. my point is that its not the industry standard to purposely defraud people. i also get you dont agree. you and i will never agree. i think its silly of you to assume i am ignorant of the industry without knowing me. I'll help you. my job for the last 20 years is to read and understand public companies balance sheets. i have followed the healthcare industry, i know how they work. maybe even more than you, not sure, dont know what you do for a living. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

We can't pay for it *NOW* as you say, because there is not enough tax revenue coming in. We COULD pay for it easily. as far as covering the cost of the doctor's visit, -doesn't that doctors visit also include a bunch of overhead and staffing required to deal with the insurance companies? Sorry but I call bullshit. My doctor has no time nor respect for insurance companies. They promise him and fail to deliver. They promise me and fail to deliver. Sounds just like the govt that you continuously complain about. I would rather see my 'wasted money' going to pay for some poor fucker than has not health care than helping to pay the backyard zoo and private jet that some CEO owns..... i am the opposite. i would much rather put my trust in the CEO. he wants to stay rich and in order to do so must continue to deliver a product people want to buy. As it is now i can complain and if not happy switch to another company run by some other CEO. I've seen the gov't run no competition model as stated in an earlier post. dont like it much. if some CEO needs to get rich for me to have good healthcare i'm fine with it. besides zookeepers and private jet pilots need jobs too. Are you good with that CEO getting FAR FAR richer because he made sure he got bonuses and his upper management got their bonus based on NOT paying for peoples claims.. with my favorite all time phrase..." pre-existing condition"?? It has happened to millions of Americans.. and unless you get free legal by being a lawyer... you are just pissing up a rope when they tell you to sue them because they know you wont because it will cost you more to sue them than what the bill is. Ya know.. at least when a thief robs you in your home... you have recourse.. you can shoot the muther-fucker.... The thieves at the insurance companies.... not so much. I pay for a product and expect them to deliver. I am ok with them getting as rich as possible as long as they deliver the product to me as promised. I am NOT concerned with their wealth, just that they fulfill the contract we have. That's my only concern. the rest of your post i cannot address because you implied that bonuses are awared by defrauding customers. I do not believe that is the industry standard as you do. Ah ok.. so ignorance is bliss.. got it. of course, that is it. I don't agree with your premise so i am ignorant. or stupid. not really sure how you meant to use the word. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

"Ask any CEO of a health insurance company what their primary objective is. I bet it is "Paying shareholders", definitely NOT "delivering health care". That is the responsibility of all businesses. they exist to make a profit for the owner. I dont see that as a problem because they must provide a product that people want to buy in order to exist. it could be shoes, apples or healthcare. the motives are all the same. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

We can't pay for it *NOW* as you say, because there is not enough tax revenue coming in. We COULD pay for it easily. as far as covering the cost of the doctor's visit, -doesn't that doctors visit also include a bunch of overhead and staffing required to deal with the insurance companies? Sorry but I call bullshit. My doctor has no time nor respect for insurance companies. They promise him and fail to deliver. They promise me and fail to deliver. Sounds just like the govt that you continuously complain about. I would rather see my 'wasted money' going to pay for some poor fucker than has not health care than helping to pay the backyard zoo and private jet that some CEO owns..... i am the opposite. i would much rather put my trust in the CEO. he wants to stay rich and in order to do so must continue to deliver a product people want to buy. As it is now i can complain and if not happy switch to another company run by some other CEO. I've seen the gov't run no competition model as stated in an earlier post. dont like it much. if some CEO needs to get rich for me to have good healthcare i'm fine with it. besides zookeepers and private jet pilots need jobs too. Are you good with that CEO getting FAR FAR richer because he made sure he got bonuses and his upper management got their bonus based on NOT paying for peoples claims.. with my favorite all time phrase..." pre-existing condition"?? It has happened to millions of Americans.. and unless you get free legal by being a lawyer... you are just pissing up a rope when they tell you to sue them because they know you wont because it will cost you more to sue them than what the bill is. Ya know.. at least when a thief robs you in your home... you have recourse.. you can shoot the muther-fucker.... The thieves at the insurance companies.... not so much. I pay for a product and expect them to deliver. I am ok with them getting as rich as possible as long as they deliver the product to me as promised. I am NOT concerned with their wealth, just that they fulfill the contract we have. That's my only concern. the rest of your post i cannot address because you implied that bonuses are awared by defrauding customers. I do not believe that is the industry standard as you do. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

We can't pay for it *NOW* as you say, because there is not enough tax revenue coming in. We COULD pay for it easily. as far as covering the cost of the doctor's visit, -doesn't that doctors visit also include a bunch of overhead and staffing required to deal with the insurance companies? Sorry but I call bullshit. My doctor has no time nor respect for insurance companies. They promise him and fail to deliver. They promise me and fail to deliver. Sounds just like the govt that you continuously complain about. I would rather see my 'wasted money' going to pay for some poor fucker than has not health care than helping to pay the backyard zoo and private jet that some CEO owns..... i am the opposite. i would much rather put my trust in the CEO. he wants to stay rich and in order to do so must continue to deliver a product people want to buy. As it is now i can complain and if not happy switch to another company run by some other CEO. I've seen the gov't run no competition model as stated in an earlier post. dont like it much. if some CEO needs to get rich for me to have good healthcare i'm fine with it. besides zookeepers and private jet pilots need jobs too. what about the competition model of the military? - generals don't need to get rich... the military isnt in the business of providing a good or service to the public like healthcare. not apples to apples to me. You might not agree, i wont try to change your mind. its wired differently than mine if you cannot see my point. i am curious though. if you think the military is similiar to the healthcare industry what about grocery stores? What could be more important than the supply of food? how do we trust our food service delivery to profit motivated individuals? what keeps them from hoarding food to drive up the cost? after all, we NEED food. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

We can't pay for it *NOW* as you say, because there is not enough tax revenue coming in. We COULD pay for it easily. as far as covering the cost of the doctor's visit, -doesn't that doctors visit also include a bunch of overhead and staffing required to deal with the insurance companies? Sorry but I call bullshit. My doctor has no time nor respect for insurance companies. They promise him and fail to deliver. They promise me and fail to deliver. Sounds just like the govt that you continuously complain about. I would rather see my 'wasted money' going to pay for some poor fucker than has not health care than helping to pay the backyard zoo and private jet that some CEO owns..... i am the opposite. i would much rather put my trust in the CEO. he wants to stay rich and in order to do so must continue to deliver a product people want to buy. As it is now i can complain and if not happy switch to another company run by some other CEO. I've seen the gov't run no competition model as stated in an earlier post. dont like it much. if some CEO needs to get rich for me to have good healthcare i'm fine with it. besides zookeepers and private jet pilots need jobs too. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Ok, some pure anecdotes but wanted to share for the fair minded readers. i have had gov't healthcare when i was young i the military. it was horrible. saw a PA and was told i had no right to ask for an actual dr. her nurse was an emt. it was everything i hated about the DMV in a medical setting. i visit my family in Rome every year. i dont admire their "free" system at all. my cousin is diabetic as is my wife. my private insurance provides her more modern procedures and she can see any Dr at anytime. I do not envy them one little bit. ive had private insurance for 20 yrs. and have a wife with a chronic illness(juvenile diabetes). no complaints other than its expensive. considering my experience with "free" healthcare i gladly pay it. our current system is working fine for me. i dont like paying more every year but do not like the alternatives i have experienced. also, i do NOT trust the politicians to set a a better system for MY family. i have no faith in our gov't and trust private industry over them everytime. i know others disagree. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

"He was viewed by the High Command as being a Nazi syncophant, since rising to his level of command without a "von" in one's name was rather unlikely until the bully boys from Bayern took over." I guess i dont believe because he was a nazi syncophant he was a true believer in national socialism. he could have just been sucking up to his boss's for a larger role in his chosen profession. after all, it was a one party town so he would have to please the Nazi's to move up in the Army. sucking up to the social democrates wouldnt get him anywhere. I read you loud and clear, fyi. your argument is totally valid and i'm being a bit pedantic. maybe deep down i do kinda admire him as military man. seeking to distant him from his earlier workings with the party. like being in charge of security at rallies. I am an ex Infantry officer and we studied his book. i dont want anyone to think im a closet nazi lover, though. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you can smell the money. is that a bad thing?? who works for free? how many jobs will be created by companies like Halliburton? it hink its good. who cares if they believe or not. Why do you think the investment banks wanted the cap and trade law passed? because they believed in global warming? they saw a huge over the counter(read unregulated) new market. they were going to create complex derivatives around the Carbon Credits. Its done in Europe now but the US market would have been huge. Why do you think GE and Walmart support CFL's? Because they are green? maybe because there is not alot of money in 30cent lightbulbs. How about builders building LEED buildings? is it to create green buildings or possibly because you can charge more for the construction? So are they all evil because they see an opportunity to make money? I dont think so. they see a need and fill it. the entire world works this way. if all these evil companies decided to not seek new opportunities and make money, where would everyone work? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Feldmarschall Erwin Rommel ignored the dictate to separate jewish POWs for "special treatment," despite being a devout Nazi. Somehow, that still leaves me shy of a warm, fuzzy feeling regarding the bulk of the movement (Godwin, I know...). Similarly, I know upstanding individuals of a variety of groups that have earned very negative reputations; like the individuals though I might, I still disapprove of the groups in general. Prejudice is bad, but postjudice is a reality. BSBD, Winsor i understand the point your making but Rommel was not a Nazi as far as i've ever read. He was a German Wehrmacht Field Marshal. Was not even known to be a large advocate of national socialism. Am i wrong? I'd like to stress i get your point. Just making a historical comment. Not a Nazi or Rommel lover. I studied military science in college and was not taught that Rommel was as you described. a Nazi or devout national socialist. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

If no one gets back to you, the bus to New Paltz and then a cab is pretty easy and common. Also, there is a shuttle bus advertised at the Ranch, to and from the city. i dont know the details but perhaps you can call and ask. You should be able to hook up with people to carpool once you get to the Ranch. its a big friendly place. If your an attractive young lady who likes middle age married men, call me. I will give you a ride. There is no room for your friend, unless she is attractive too. Then its not a problem. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i would imagine most people, rich and poor, would find it difficult in the scenario you described. our experiences differ. i live in one of the wealthiest counties in the US. Just outside of NYC. it would be silly to assume they are any less able to shoot a gun or grow food. Not based on the number of hunting and garden clubs in the area. hunting is common among the rich. so is bragging about your zuchini and tomato's. Do you live Springfield?. Is that you Smithers? Be honest. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i agree they will fall the farthest in the sense they have the most to lose if there is a collapse. what do you mean they will be incapable of life in the reality....? i honestly dont understand your point. if you think because someone is rich or succesful they are unable to live without money, i think your out of touch. have you ever met a wealthy person? in my experience, they are normal people that just have more money. they are no more or less capable of surviving a disaster than anyone else. also i find most come from modest or slightly upper middle class backrounds and are not that out of touch with their past. the President is a perfect example. he is only a few years removed from a normal life. I find reading your posts that you have a cartoon image of rich people and bankers specifically. do you really think rich people are like Mr Burns? how many wealthy people do you know personally that are like that? "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i have noticed it fogs up but only right after opening shock. i reach up and open it. no problem unless there is a malfuction. then i will hope all my practice pays off. Gee glad i just shelled out for the G2 which they seem to admit has fogging issues and will correct on the new helmet. which i knew that a week ago. would have waited for the G3, hah "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

"Where do you think these companies get their money from? Those same little old ladies and other people producing something but just a lot more of them. It's a volume game." this is where i will respectfully dissagree. individual investors are a negligible part of the primary market. this is where companies raise their money through initial public offerings. they are also negligible in the venture capital markets. dont believe me? call your local broker and ask him for a share of Facebook and let me know how that conversation goes. call a venture capital firm and ask them if you can buy into one of their private equity holdings. i can guess the response. those markets are dominated by the institutions. its a volume game but not made up of little old ladies. short interest has no bearing on how a company will perform. it can effect how the STOCK will perform but i'm afraid your confusing the two. fyi, you could have said it can also effect their ability to raise capital because of their poor stock performance thus effecting the day to day operation. But you didnt, so i get credit for that one. hah i dont think we need to get this granular on the financial markets though. i feel that raising taxes is not always such an easy fix. others dissagree. i try to explain how its not so easy. others dissagree. i get it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

But in this case we're talking about the carried-interest loophole which allows hedge fund managers to consider the money that they receive for their services as capital gains instead of income. i get that, sorry if that wasnt clear. i think going forward they will find a way to tax the managers pay as regular income. they just need to do it in a way that they dont crush the entire industry and cause massive layoffs. hthis spring the hedgefunds, for market reasons, are trading less. banks have laid of alot of people, regular people because of this. my point all along has been that it isnt so easy to just raise the taxes on hedgefund managers. you must consider that the current tax code is benefitting many others. regular people. Just how much money do hedge funds bring into the economy? They aren't producing a good and in some cases their short positions mean they make huge money when businesses decline or fail. We need to get past this, "We don't want to destroy an industry/company" that's either been propped up or lived in loopholes. If it's economically viable without gov't assistance or protection, it'll survive. If not, then good riddance. At the same time if an industry/company is no longer viable because it's overregulated than we change the regulations. If cutting the purse strings, we also have to cut the tethers too.

But in this case we're talking about the carried-interest loophole which allows hedge fund managers to consider the money that they receive for their services as capital gains instead of income. i get that, sorry if that wasnt clear. i think going forward they will find a way to tax the managers pay as regular income. they just need to do it in a way that they dont crush the entire industry and cause massive layoffs. this spring the hedgefunds, for market reasons, are trading less. banks have laid of alot of people, regular people because of this. my point all along has been that it isnt so easy to just raise the taxes on hedgefund managers. you must consider that the current tax code is benefitting many others. regular people. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Red herring - they get the same treatment form the tax code as anyone else who invests. Nope - they get TREATED as if it is their investment but in fact they are working for other people, using other people's money. It is intellectual dishonesty to say that their income is their capital gain. this is your interpretation of the law. i can respect this is how you feel the law favors them. its your opinion and one shared by many. unfortunately, today, its not how the IRS interpretes the tax codes and they are the ones that matter. The law is the law. no intent to deceive from me. i find it odd that you feel if i dont agree with your personal interpretation im dishonest somehow. again, all i can suppose is that your just way to angry. if you read my post i never stated anywhere that the tax law should not be changed. I just pointed out that there will be some unintended circumstances that effect normal working people and it wont be so easy to do. you didnt get that because your way to angry. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Its not so easy to just raise taxes on the rich hedgefund managers. the hedge fund industry is just that. an industry. it employs thousands and thousands of people. very few of which will ever become rich. regular people doing regular jobs you'd find in any office. adjusting the tax rates could have a material impact on that industry and them. this is why in NY its rarely called upon to change that section of the tax code. regular people could lose their jobs. it seems to me that outside of NY people have this image. they see hedgefund managers as mean old men with top hats and monocles that arrive to work in chauffeur driven cars, throwing coins on the ground and laughing at homeless children chasing them. Picture Mr. Burns from the Simpsons. In NYC they are just viewed as your boss or somebody elses boss. NOTHING you wrote justifies hedge fund managers getting special treatment from the tax code. NOTHING. I cannot argue with you because your entire premise is factually wrong. they dont get special treatment. they are taxed the same as you. income is income and capital gains are capital gains. thats the law. you dont like it, i get that. but your entire premise that they get something special is wrong. all i can suppose is that your anger is making it impossible for you to accept what is a fact of law. the entire hedge fund industry is based on the current tax code. my point is very clear. adjusting the tax code could negatively impact the lives of regular working people. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Its not so easy to just raise taxes on the rich hedgefund managers. the hedge fund industry is just that. an industry. it employs thousands and thousands of people. very few of which will ever become rich. regular people doing regular jobs you'd find in any office. adjusting the tax rates could have a material impact on that industry and them. this is why in NY its rarely called upon to change that section of the tax code. regular people could lose their jobs. it seems to me that outside of NY people have this image. they see hedgefund managers as mean old men with top hats and monocles that arrive to work in chauffeur driven cars, throwing coins on the ground and laughing at homeless children chasing them. Picture Mr. Burns from the Simpsons. In NYC they are just viewed as your boss or somebody elses boss. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I disagree, because like communism, it sounds kinda nice on paper but will not work in real life. It's a disingenious "you first" argument from the GOP, to be followed by "Meh, your sacred cow was good enough, let our's live". Remember, these are the same people who don't consider a tax break "spending", but do consider the removal of that break a tax "hike". There needs to be some serious concessions on both sides of the deficit, and it ought to hurt the the rich, poor, and middle class somewhat equally. Massively simplify the tax code, primarily by eliminating loopholes that allow corporations/individuals to declare their income to be tax exempt. Also reduce welfare benefits substantially (again, to individuals AND industry). Cut defense spending to, say, the combined total of our 5 biggest national security threats, and road construction to only those highways that are necessary for trade between major economic hubs...let the states handle smaller stuff. Stop paying the poor to have more babies, stop giving tax breaks to those who pay them for having more babies. We've been screwing up our economy since World War 1, and it's been spiralling out of control for the last 30 years. It's time to admit our mistakes, face the reality of the situation, take a second job, eat some top ramen, and fix this. To say "let the poor tighten their belts first" is simply unrealistic, and unfair. All of us have been eating at this buffet, and we all need to do our share of the dishes to cover the tab. Blues, Dave When they finish cleaning all the crap out of the budget I'll be willing to discuss giving up more of my income. Not before. . So are you one of the top 25 hedge fund managers that this thread is about? Or are you one of the middle class that's getting screwed by the super wealthy having preferential tax treatment? You dont have to be a hedgfrund manager to benefit from the tax treatment. what about all the employees that work there? What about all the people who benefit from their employement? people who own business's that those employees grace? or the banks that provide research and execution for the fund. Not to mention all the back office people that clear the trades. mail room guys, door man, coffee guy.... list goes on. None of them are rich and all benefit from the hedgefund industries growth. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

"Your understanding of the tax code is quite the parroting of the mass media marketing of what has has really hosed up the US economy. Take a step back and do some research on the history of the tax code and what has changed over the past thirty years. Don't forget to take into account just how well the economy did when taxes were radically different than they are now." you need to reread my post. i was stating facts of the situation and not advocating for a side. i basically said hedgie bosses are taxed as capital gains and not income because thats the law. dont like it, change the law. i was addressing the OP who was purposely mingling the two to advcocate for raising taxes. you post is honest. you want taxes raised. your implication i don't understand taxes, the economy and parrot the media is a bit off. but no hard feelings, you dont know me. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

http://www.alternet.org/story/151479/if_the_top_25_hedge_fund_managers_paid_taxes_like_you_and_me%2C_we%27d_cut_44_billion_of_the_national_deficit_/ They're paid a percentage of the capital gains of the fund. Is that considered income or capital gains? Right now the tax code says this is capital gains, just like a corporate exec that sees his stock price soar so he sells some and takes the capital gains. So, the tax the hedge fund managers are paying is just like the rest of us. Capital gains are the main part of executive management compensation, not actual income. exactly. hedge funds managers pay the same and most likely more in Income Tax than most. They also pay the exact same in capital gains that everyone else pays. people like to say that their capital gains are equal to income. it is not, according to the law. If people want to change the law so they pay more, fine. Then say that. Implying that they pay less in income tax is wrong and most likely purposely dishonest. by the way, anyone here can do the same thing. take a bunch of your money and talk your friends into giving you more. invest it and take a %. thats all there is to it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante