but over the years there has been vocal minority, mainly made up of providers, who warn about what the landscape in the hooker world would look like if prostitution were to become legal in the United States. Most of us have pooh poohed them as alarmists and have rightly pointed out how well legalized prostitution works in other countries, BUT
After reading this rather sobering article about online reviews can you even imagine what some BSC hooker might do to you after getting a 7-7 review if this were a legal activity?
I hate FOSTA/SESTA and I absolutely HATE the fact the nanny state is pretending to be looking out "for our own good" by criminalizing activity that is perfectly legal if no money is involved, but maybe as litigious as this country is, maybe we don't deserve to be treated like adults?
this is actually a real question because I've never reviewed anyone but a hooker on line. Isn't it possible to review anonymously? Personally, I would never attach my real name to ANY review, even for a non-hooker, simply as a matter of privacy.
As you know, I have NEVER written a review of a hooker, and like you I have also never written a review of a non-hooker either. I "believe" that you are correct, but just like all but the highest volume hookers can usually figure out who reviewed them, even under an alias, I would suppose that Yelp reviews that are very specific are just as easy to figure out, especially one where the dog died.
Hmmm, I just reread the article and I have to admit it doesn't seem too likely that a theme park could just "figure out" the identity of a reviewer who's major complaint was not having a coupon honored, or a "three star theme park" review. I agree that putting your real name to this kind of thing seems rather foolhardy.
out of my 200+ reviews, I only have two indies (both Asian, of course - Lol). In reviewing Kgirls, I wait two weeks to put up the review. By then she has already seen 70 other guys, so my session is just a blur by then, confirming your assessment that its okay to review high-volume girls. Sometimes I get burned and end up eating a review because she leaves before I get it up and so I have no ad link, but that's a small aggravation in the big picture. I started out on another review site with indies I was seeing, but as you both point out, that can get crazy and threatening if they don't like what you said, so after about 30, I changed my handle and started over with Asians. 450+ reviews there as CDL, and 200+, and counting, here. As Herb says, Life is Good.
Now all we need is IMP and LTM&L to agree with us too. Well at least IMP. I don't think LTM even likes pussy. I can't remember the last time he even talked about it. I will give IMP credit though, he even admitted that he "might" even rent a room at a Trump hotel in order to get laid. That had to be a hard admission for him to make, even if it did come with a few caveats. Would you REALLY expect otherwise from him? lol
Now, if we agreed on a P&R subject that would mean total capitulation on your part.
Soon. LOL!
Gay marriage, abortion rights, Second amendment, I bet I could find a dozen different subjects we can agree on.
But that would be a dozen against literally HUNDREDS of Political subjects where we disagree. lol
If you agree on gay marriage and abortion rights, why did you vote for and still slavishly support someone who opposes both and does nothing but appoint judges who will rule against them? As for the Second Amendment, you are also WRONG. Just because I am a licensed gun owner you should NOT assume I don't want tougher gun laws. If we got some sanity in this country I would gladly turn in my pistol.
Until then, of course, tell gunny not to darken my door unless he wants some .45 caliber ventilation. lol
Not so different. I think Jake has the potential to be a little more conservative, but it will take some shock therapy, like if Bernie becomes president and puts the tax rate for people like us at 90%, like it was about 70 years ago. However, back then, there were so many deductions you could take, that nobody really paid anything close to 90%, but it sounded good to the Socialists who thought the rich were getting soaked. If Bernie becomes President, there are likely to be NO deductions, but still a tax rate that is astronomic. That's when we get capitulation from Jake and he becomes a solid conservative. Until then, we will just have to make do with finding our agreements wherever there is the scent of pussy. All for one, one for all.
-- Modified on 7/22/2019 2:06:17 PM
Under Eisenhower, the highest MARGINAL tax rate was 91%. The EFFECTIVE tax rate on the richest taxpayers was around 40-42%. In interviews, Trump said that the Eisenhower years and the Teddy Roosevelt years are what he (Trump) felt were when America was "great" and what he (Trump) means by MAGA.
.
Given that, every candidates' tax plans are about progressive tax rates and marginal income or wealth taxes on the richest Americans, e.g., a 1% wealth tax on wealth in excess of $50 million. (Everybody's specific numbers are different.)
Not so different. I think Jake has the potential to be a little more conservative, but it will take some shock therapy, like if Bernie becomes president and puts the tax rate for people like us at 90%, like it was about 70 years ago. However, back then, there were so many deductions you could take, that nobody really paid anything close to 90%, but it sounded good to the Socialists who thought the rich were getting soaked. If Bernie becomes President, there are likely to be NO deductions, but still a tax rate that is astronomic. That's when we get capitulation from Jake and he becomes a solid conservative. Until then, we will just have to make do with finding our agreements wherever there is the scent of pussy. All for one, one for all.
I know in your little world, conservative views mean nothing, but not everyone in this country is obsessed with "soaking the rich" the fact that Trump was elected POTUS and is VERY likely to be reelected should be proof enough of that viewpoint.
I know higher taxes won't effect you directly, not yet at least, but just wait until "the rich" extends to people barely making 6 digits, and if someone like Bernie or Pocahontas gets elected the only way to pay for their plans will be to raise taxes on virtually EVERYBODY, even people like you.
Since you posted this as a reply to CDL, what the fuck does any of this have to do with his post that you replied to???
Can you not follow along? Do you just look at the names w/o reading the posts?
.
* CDL wrote: "the tax rate for people like us at 90%, like it was about 70 years ago."
.
** I replied to CDL: "Under Eisenhower, the highest MARGINAL tax rate was 91%. The EFFECTIVE tax rate on the richest taxpayers was around 40-42%."
.
*** GaG challenged me with: "By "every candidate" I assume you mean every DEM candidate"
.
**** I replied to GaG: "every candidate. Even Trump's tax plans are built upon a graduated or progressive tax basis."
.
where the *, **, ... indicate the indentation / reply level.
.
***** And NOW GaG asks:
Since you posted this as a reply to CDL, what the fuck does any of this have to do with his post that you replied to???
.
And I have a further clarification. "How could it be that the tax code of the 1950s had a top marginal tax rate of 91 percent, but resulted in an effective tax rate of only 42 percent on the wealthiest taxpayers? In fact, the situation is even stranger. The 42.0 percent tax rate on the top 1 percent takes into account ALL TAXES levied by federal, state, and local governments, including: income, payroll, corporate, excise, property, and estate taxes. When we look at INCOME TAXES specifically, the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid an average effective rate of only 16.9 percent in INCOME TAXES during the 1950s."
http://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
Just argumentative like Jake, or stupid like fg.
CDL clearly said in a couple of sentences that almost nobody paid that much back then, because of all of the deductions available, but that we WOULD pay that much under the plans by Bernie et al. You knew that, only an idiot could have missed it, so you are either stupid, argumentative, or a liar. Which is it?
what they used to call tax "loopholes." Granted, these were mostly exploited by the wealthy because they usually required a significant investment. Back in the 70's when I was just started my career, I liked to take some of my year-end bonus and invest in speculative tax shelters. They typically went something like this:
A promoter would raise money for the drilling and development of an oil and/or NG project. Investors would put up $20,000 cash and sign a promissory note for $80,000. The promoters would do the test-drilling using the cash portion, and hold the promissory notes in reserve to be used for development if they discovered a commercially viable oil or gas deposit. Investors would write off the whole $100,000 over three tax years against other capital gains, effectively wiping out tax liability on $100,000 worth of profits you made in the stock market, or other investments.
If no oil or gas was discovered, the promoters did nothing with the promissory notes. If they discovered oil, the notes would be discounted to a bank for working capital for development, which means they had to be repaid, but the promoters repaid them out of the profits of the oil or gas operation. Then after they were paid, some of the royalties went to the investors.
Believe it or not, this type of scheme was perfectly legal until the early 80's, when Congress changed the tax laws. So the bottom line was, that for an actual investment of $20,000, you got a $100,000 tax deduction, and so if you were at a marginal rate of 50%, you actually made $30,000 that you didn't pay any tax on. I was in several of these until they outlawed them. Ah, the good old days. Lol
Another of my favorite tax shelters was owning race horses, but I'll save the details for another time.
When you combine tax shelter investing with the allowable deductions in those days (many more than we have now), that's how a maximum rate comes down to a marginal rate of half.
This was before the days of "tax preference" items, the AMT and during the years of non-recourse debt that you describe, often with twice the "leverage" that you spoke of. I remember one deal in the early 80s that allowed an investor to put up $100,000 in cash, leverage it into a $1,000.000 position in the deal by signing a non-recourse note for $900,000, generating an $850,000 tax write of that even at a tax rate of 50% would save him $425,000 off his tax bill. These deals were all over the place back then.
LIbs like IMP and LTM love to talk about the "Giant tax cut for the rich" that Reagan made in the 80s when the truth of the matter was that thousands of truly rich people were FINALLY forced to pay taxes at all after decades of not paying a dime. Any truly rich person that paid any taxes at all needed to fire his accountant as there were so many loopholes back then. It's always obvious to me which people get all their information from the internet and have ZERO actual experience in these matters. As the saying goes "figures don't lie, but liars do figure"
Some things never change.