It’s a downright stupid position to say X people have been _______. That’s meaningless. People are born, people die. Those numbers change on literally a minute by minute basis. That number is used to obscure the data so those without the capacity for critical thought can chant it.

You realize that someone doesn’t stop being a sexual assault victim at the end of the year, right? That there is a difference between saying “.16% of Americans are victims of sexual assault” and “.16% of Americans are victims of sexual assault each year”

Well, you know anecdotal evidence that “I and everyone I know has been raped or molested” is not a source either, right?

While that’s true, you’re a stupid asshole if you prejudge people based on the word of a single person. So, there’s that.

we now live in a society where victims of rape and sexual abuse are questioned or dismissed every step of the way, if they have the gall to report their abuser.

So... what? It was 1776, not 2017. If you’re going to try to make an argument saying that Founders were morally wrong based on 2017 morals, you’re going to be wrong, every time. It’s just fact.

But, that’s a very stupid and ignorant point. Typically, those instances you’re discussing are between two people without witnesses. In the absence of physical evidence it comes down to he said/she said. We have a concept in criminal justice called “innocent until proven guilty.” If you cannot tip the bar for guilty…

So... you think it’s ok to judge someone solely based off someone else’s singular opinion?

We do have a concept called “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Considering most of these issues take place between two people with typically few witnesses, it’s hard to get a conviction.

Yeah... fuck that whole “innocent until proven guilty” concept. We definitely should believe accusers 100%. It’s not like the Founders saw any problem with that concept at all.

Oh yeah, I’m not saying it’s good money saving advice by any means. But, if you use charitable giving correctly, it can actually result in massive tax savings, particularly if you have a non-liquid asset that you donate to offset actual liquid gains.

You are correct. A deduction for a donation to a 501(c)(3) is basically reducing the purchase price by your tax rate. So, let’s say each threw in $45 million, and between state and federal they pay 50%, they’d basically have bought the thing for $22.5 million.

There was definitely a reason why always called the quiet kids in law school the sandbaggers. They were quiet the entire time, no one really knew if they were smart or not, then they’d ace all the tests.

Not raising your hand out of fear is a silly thing at any age.

Absolutely. This was exactly me growing up. I would absolutely not raise my hand unless I was 100% sure I was correct. Even then, I really didn’t do it. That continued through law school. It wasn’t until I was doing my LLM in Tax and had been practicing for a couple years that I started raising my hand. Even then, it…

I’d say, lower corporate taxes to 27% (that’d be OECD average) and then tax them on worldwide income at 27%, no waiting until the money is repatriated.

Except, others are switching to our system because it really is the only one that makes sense. We’re a global society and a tax code that doesn’t recognize that actively encourages businesses to move to low tax jurisdictions and it harms those countries that have actively invested in helping a business grow.

They already do that. It’s not a deduction it’s a credit, in fact, it’s called the “Foreign Tax Credit” and it’s Section 901 of the Internal Revenue Code.

I truly hate when people blatantly lie about things like this because they rely on the fact that the average person doesn’t understand taxes enough to catch them in a lie. Unfortunately for them, I do.

Ah, yeah it really only does email, tasks and calendar. We had initially gotten it when my wife had a Nexus 5 that did not have a finger print reader so entering the password every time was a giant pain in the ass.