SteaminWillieBeamin

Sure, if you define "went well" as paying six figures to talk to 800 people in a venue that holds 100k. If you define trash talking university systems except being able to congratulate UNT on keeping its party schooooooolness. So awesome. So well. So much time well spent.

There is a big ole difference between someone showing up to talk (aka Free Speech) and a university paying someone to come and talk. I don't care about some kook on campus rambling about abortion or god. Never did. I listened and argued back -- back when I felt like my opinion matters. I do care about my university, that I invest a lot of time and money, PAYING a dude to come and bad mouth institutions like the one I love. Trump Jr. is not an intellectual, he is almost admittedly an anti-intellectual. But alas -- setup these strawman arguments about not paying him to speak is akin to being anti-speech and no one can argue the contrary in good faith. Edit: I know you will say this was not UNT paying him, but it was. They did pay something for him to come. Not the whole fee, but other costs (per the rider released via FOA request). They also drag UNT's name through the press -- that costs something.

"Government name" -- I like it.

It's a good headline, but it is just moving around. If the previous office that internally handled it managed to get $1M a year, then this deal to outsource the merchandising is just a lateral move. The only difference would be if this company somehow managed to earn $3M over a year and then UNT would be splitting the profits after $2M... as I see. We potentially could be losing out on that extra $1 (to get to $2M) -- assuming that is even possible for a school like UNT. So really, this company is betting they can do that and pull in some profit. Time will tell. So unless we know how much the previous positions pulled in under RV, then we can't judge this move accurately. If RV's staff pulled in $500k and this deal is up to $1M -- then it has the potential to get us $500k. If they sell $1.5M of license/merch, then we still only get that $500k, no more. Either way, it is really inflated numbers and I hope this company lives up to their expectations.

By your logic we should switch illegals for legals and have lower crime incidents. You know, since illegal immigrants are 44% less likely to commit a crime that a native. http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/aug/03/antonio-villaraigosa/mostly-true-undocumented-immigrants-less-likely-co/

That is just awesome. Well done.. Well lived. I am always a little sad at what Voertman's store has turned into in the last 15 years.

That play stands out to me as well. Then a bunch of OL jumped in on the pile (since the ball came out -- though clearly whistled dead)... and UNT ended up with an unsportsmanlike conduct call. It was all very crazy. Gave me puppy head.

I think old his old kooky self before every season starts. I really liked him and his rambling ways. I hadn't heard from him in a long time, but casual scanning of the obits leaves a lot to be desired. I hoped it would have shown up in the "friends we'll miss" second of the North Texan, but I may have missed it.

Harry, when did he die?

He is a proven moron, which means the sum of all his previous 'candid lighthearted' comments are continuing to be judged. Each time he selects another segment of people to joke about, it make the next time even more. If it were a one time thing - sure - it would be laughed off. This isn't about "PC culture." It is about a guy that can't read his audience and maybe doesn't understand.

I can see how you may feel it is punitive in nature, but it really is all about revenue and the fairness of collection. If a person manages to earn $200k a year digging ditches (somehow) and ends up paying the tax bracket of 33%, then it makes no sense that a person who makes $200k on investments can pay 15% income tax. In my opinion, work is work. Money earned is money earned. It isn't punitive at all. It's just trying to stop the preferential treatment for the types of income that most the wealthy can maximize. There is this false economy that raising the taxes on investment income will stop investments -- which is completely not true. There is no other place to invest like the American economy. If you want to go to China and invest in their markets because you can pay 4% less taxes... have at it. You can take that risk. Bottom line: If you raise the revenue from other areas (tax havens/dodges) it is logical that you can then lower the other tax brackets or start offering more social programs for our aging population.

I know that Mississippi Valley State has used the term "Mean Green" in relation to their marching band for a number of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Valley_State_University#Mean_Green_Marching_Machine

No, you said that you can do the same as Romney and walk away a multi-millionaire. When I clearly, maybe verbosely, pointed out that you cannot do the same thing as Romney. That is the point. If you max out and do everything you should do (minus tax dodges) you will end up with 1.2M or 2.9M at retirement in inflated money. You miss the whole context because you want to be right. 1. With a Roth IRA you will *not* walk away a multi-millionaire. (Nor will a million mean in 40 years what it means now) 2. You will have 2.9 if you max out 401k. Whew. Far from ultra rich. Also, not many people can afford to cut out 18k from their annual salary and still pay for private school, college funds or vacations... So... If that is the best we can do as 'working' person ... how the hell do we working people justify all the super wealthy tax dodges? You are convinced that you can do the same thing, when you just can't at your income.

I will go ahead and assume this means you are not in the super wealthy category. The Roth IRA is post tax -- so you already paid taxes going in. This is *not* how Romney avoids taxes. But let's continue. The yearly contribution limits on a Roth IRA is $5,500 for a married couple making less than $196k a year. Above that and you cannot contribute -- but you can back door money (legally) into a Roth IRA but you have to move money from 401k (tax on exit) to Roth IRA yearly on a schedule. It is a complete rule for rich people wanting to avoid taxes completely on money you put into the 401k (pre-tax). So let's assume you max out your Roth IRA from age 20 to 65 and get an average of 6% return over that span. You will walk away with (drumroll!!!!): $1,264,967! You'll then be able to withdraw $77,211 annually for 45 years. Hardly walking away as a 'multi-millionaire' as you put it. 1.2 is not multiple millions. But I digress. Let's take my other favorite 401k tax trick -- forming an s-corp and and doing an individual 401k. You pay yourself $75 a year. Max out 18k 401 limit then have your s-corp match up to $56k a year into the 401k (tax-free). Then you can backdoor it on a schedule to ROth IRA and pay 0 taxes. With this arrangement over the same period of time, you will have $12,139,528.58. Back to your suggestion: So if you max out your 401k and end up with 2.9M OR you max out your Roth IRA and end up with 1.2M -- does that not point out how insane lopsided the wealth curve is? If you play by the rules of retirement accounts and max them out right out of college until you are 65 -- you will still not be in what most would call the 'really wealthy' category. Sure, $77k + Social Security will put you near $100k a year in retirement, but that is pre-inflation calculations. I can't say how long $100k a year will go in retirement 20 years from now -- not can we predict cost of healthcare on a fixed income. Now.. tell me... Who can really afford to live off no income and pack it all away in tax advantaged accounts the build wealth over time...? Who? The super wealthy. Not the $250k household. Not the $100k household. How can Romney end up with $106M in his account when you physically can't? Rich rules.

That isn't valid logic. All earned money has already been taxed. Using that money to make more money is a separate transaction - it does not compound. My salary was taxed. I go to a casino. I win $20k. I get taxed on that $20 as income -- despite the fact that I earned it by using already taxed dollars. My salary was taxed. I go buy a house as my primary residence ($100k in cash). It appreciates $100k in 5 years. I sell my house and rent an apartment. I am taxed on that $100k (since it was not applied to a new primary residence) -- even though I used my already taxed salary to afford that house initially. All money is already taxed. Romney in particular worked in an industry that uses ludicrously corrupt style of tax dodging. He would get his 401k stacked each year to the $18k limit (like you and me) -- but since his company ran that 401k, they stack it with penny stocks that were going to 100% gain after their acquisition and sale of their companies. So 18,000 penny worthless stocks now worth $20M *effectively* avoids paying taxes. That is how Romney ends up with a $106M size IRA/401k (and avoids taxes on it) with the same limits that you and I have (18k per year) -- when I would end up with nowhere near that amount of wealth if I were actually able to max every year of my working life. If I save 18k per year from age 20 - 40 and assume a 6% return over that 40 years -- I end up with: $2,952,858.30 That is hardly wealth in retirement. The game is rigged to avoid taxes and to select winners. It's a good question Rick. I define it as having the ability to park income in some other vehicle that can remain untouched for however long it takes to turn it into a lesser|no taxed income. If you can afford to turn investments into long term capital, or invest in real estate and assume (non-real losses) to then maximize your deductions over a decade to avoid paying taxes in the future -- then I think have crossed into the super wealthy category. I don't have an exact figure, since incomes spends and all different levels in various locales. $300k in Dallas goes a long way, but in Manhattan it doesn't. Either way, the rules are setup to allow a segment of the population to not pay taxes on gains while others have a higher rate. It values one type of work over the other by rewarding with lower taxes.

Obviously. They control the largest portion of the income. The largest wealth holders/earners will always pay the largest portion. If we had 80% of the population holding 80% of the wealth/earnings - you would see that the 80% pays the largest portion. It isn't rocket surgery. The 'I pay my share' doesn't really cut it when you aren't taxed at the same rate as everyone else. We have a progressive tax for a reason -- the GOP has done their best let the super wealthy get around it with not equating capital gains, real estate profits, etc etc with lower rates.. and allowing to pass off income through s-scorps... it lowers their taxable income and rates way below a person who digs ditches or teaches in a classroom. But let's not let that get in the way of a good narrative about wealth trickling down.

Interesting source for the story...

https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html -- Dr. King

Um. Yep. Already said that. Shall I schedule time to say it again?

Yes, I think guns at a protest make it not peaceful. If you want a violent protest, bring the weapons. If you are wanting to intimidate someone, bring the weapons. If you want to make a point, bring yourself.

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't ever look at the 'other' side as justifications for my actions. That is very childish. I will say that BLM marchers *rarely* are carrying assault rifles. They know they are more likely to get shot - the whole point of their marching. In the DPD shooting, there was a black guy with an AR-15, but I don't know that he was a "BLM" activist of just the normal Texan showing his right to carry. When the Black Panthers carried guns in the 60's while protesting, it was a *HUGE* deal.

This is the same way I find modern pictures of 'patriots' wearing camo, carrying AR-15s and holding a confederate flag trying to protect a Confederate trophy monument. I hope my children in 20 years will look back on it and find them very disturbing and they are put to bed.

That "asian sportscaster" decided to not do the game. He was not prevented from doing it. Funny enough, the people complaining about spending that money to right a wrong are the same people that say the government shouldn't be in the business of helping the homeless... Anyhow, yes, since 1950 we have come a long way. Why stop? We can keep improving.

Can't we all just yearn for the good ole days and be happy? Klan day at the Texas State Fair was a blast! https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth31223/ More State Fair fun! CSA area of Six Flags over Texas: I mean... what is the harm in indoctrinating children into a false narrative and glorification? Seriously! The good ole days!

..I thought that is the answer for everything. no? If all those guys had guns, they would have been able to protect themselves. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯