Jump to content

x129

Established Member
  • Content Count

    1,171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Moving Up the Leaderboard

About x129

  • Rank
    Long-Time Member
  • Birthday 11/30/1972

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    15
  1. How do +6 woman do on the LPGA tour? Just because they do well on the PGA tour does not mean they would do the same on the LPGA. The first LPGA event of the year was held at Golden Ocala Gold at 6541 which would give a rating of about 72.8/136 (mens). Our male golfer can go out an shoot 73s and be scratch. How would he have done in the tournament? Winning score was -16. The cut was 148. Shooting 292 would have gotten you 53rd place. I wouldn't call that remotely competitive. I have looked at and seen other tournaments done and they all work out about like this. Lets see what the guy needs to do to make the tour. It plays about 70.7/137 from 6240 yard. The woman played from 6389. Qualifying required 4 rounds of par. That is definitely a possibility but it isn't a sure thing by any mean. Yes Wie and Annika missed the cut. Given them 20+ opportunities a year and they will get 2 good rounds in a row and make a cut. Do you think a scratch golfer would have any chance? Care to post any evidence that a scratch golfer would be anything other than a bottom feeding LPGA pro struggling to make cuts?
  2. The same reason why scratch golfers don't show up and qualify for the US open. Because they are not good enough. Just because the LPGA gals are +3 golfers who can spank the scratch golfer 9 times out of 10, doesn't mean they have a shot against the top half of the the PGA who are +6s. If the top LPGA gals played the PGA tour for a full season, they might make a cut or two but they wouldn't be remotely competitive. If a male scratch golfer played the LPGA tour for a seaon, they might make a cut but again they wouldn't be competitive.
  3. What about all the PGA pros who lost to 14 year old boys at the Masters and US Open? I think the take away should be that she has game not that some male scratch golfer is going to dominate. You can look up most of the LPGA courses. The woman tend to play ~6300-6600 yard courses with a 71-73 CR and slopes in the 130-140 range. The players that make the cut generally shot about par (i.e. odds of a scratch golfer putting 2 rounds together like that are very low). The male scratch golfer isn't going to be humiliated out on the LPGA tour but he isn't going to be winning or even making many cuts.
  4. The problem is that you have named Jack competition. Those top 10 or so guys were able to carve up all the majors between them because players 25-150 just were not as good as the guys out their today. Compare people to their peers. Jack was clearly better than his cotemporaries but not by the margin that Tiger was. At this point the only interesting part is going to be when Tiger is sitting on 83 wins and 19 majors and people are trying to come up with reasons why he isn't the best ever as a tour golfer (lets not talk course design and the like.)
  5. I also like hot fudge trickling down my sundae. Doesn't mean I have to believe in trickle down economics since they are unrelated matters. The confederacy approach has been tried 2x in American history. Didn't work too well either time. Just for a random example for something that isn't on your list, I think it would suck to have to deal with 50 different currencies. I am think it would also suck to have 50 different environmental laws. It would suck if every medication had to be approved in all 50 states and the drug manufactor decided to skip mine because it wasn't worth the time. The good news is that all your overhead that you are adding to the system would create a lot of government jobs. Lets see it would also suck to be forced to invest in a state retirement plan with a 20 year cliff. Imagine you want to move to another state to take a job paying 2x as much but you would lose your last 10 years of retirement savings. Or if a state is forced to let in people that never paid into their health care system. Imagine all the texans deciding to retire to CA for the free healthcare after not paying into the system for their working careers. Personally I have always found it better to deal with the feds than the locals. They are more professional. Your experience may vary.
  6. Unfortunately the facts don't back you up. in 2009 the budget defict was 1.4 trillion. It is down to 1.1 trillion. There are 600k less government jobs now than there were in 2009. Private sector jobs are up slightly (something like 500k).
  7. Fine call it majority. Doesn't change the fact that there are very strict limits on what a president can do. If Obama had wanted single payer health care, he couldn't have passed some executive order to do it. A CEO can make those choices. Feel free to name a list of great presidants who were businessman. Here is a partial list of winners choose from: GW Bush, Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover As far as the president abusing executive orders people have been whining about that for 40+ years. I much prefer the current tool to the previous one. But that is because I am self centered. I like that government employment is down and private employment is up. I like that my stock portfolio has gone up instead of flat. I like that our budget deficits have started to shrink (granted that 2009 bush budget set the bar super low).
  8. Why didn't the old person take care of themselves? They had 50 years to prepare for retirement. It is a lot harder for a 3 year old to prepare themselves for being born to a poor mom. No one buys booze or cigs with EBT cards. They buy them with the cash they save from using EBT cards. If the VA has work available, they would have no problem hiring people to fill those jobs. Having the government provide free labor is a real bad idea. Read about the prison work programs to see how well that goes. The studies of welfare suggest there are few long term receiptants (most go on and off as their employment situation changes) and the ones that are long term ones, tend to be stupid (i.e. IQs under 80) and have mental problems. Your graph has nothing to do with tax rates. There is a number that effects actions. Most economists put it at about 60-75%. We are on the backside of the Laeffer curve. Raising rates will raise revenue. Again if someone offered you a job paying a 1 million a year, would you turn it down if you had to pay 60% taxes?
  9. The ordinary income tax rate was over 90%. But it isn't an apples to apples comparision. There was an incredible amount of tax shelters and the like. Great for accountants. Not so much for the economy. If you look at the stats from back then guys making over 1 million paid about 30% (note 1 million back then is probably more like 10 today) while in 2011 the number for that guy (actually 5 million but close enough) was a bit over 22%. The government is not a business. There is a reason why the people with the best business creds have been the worst presidents. A CEO can lead by fiat. The president can't do that. He needs to build consensus and persuade people to follow him. The poor also lean towards the right (look at any election map). At the top it is split. The tech billionaires I know are pretty liberal. The VC's (in the same 10 mile radius) are a lot more conservative (would still be a Texas Liberal though:)).
  10. You must have been under a cliff for the past 6 months and missed all the discussion of how companies like Bain (and every other private equity/hedge fund) use carried interest and the like to get capital gains tax rates instead of ordinary income. Here is a link . Now the practice is more or less legal. You can debate if it is "fair". It is actually pretty hard to get long term capital gains on stock options. With ISOs your run into problems with the AMT (and besides you can only get like 100k/year) and you don't really do it with NQSO or RSU.
  11. Why are you in favor of helping the elderly and the disabled? Shouldn't they have planned better so they wouldn't need help? After all at some point people have to take responsibility for themselves and not expect someone else to pay for their mistakes? Very few people hate the rich and if punishment is making 16 million a year, sign me up. People do hate giving millions of government dollars to private individuals as bonuses though. Funny how the people that are ok with that tend to object to giving 5k to low income people. The debate is what the fair share is. Is it at the level of the 70s (much higher than today), 80s(a bit lower at some points), the 90s (a bit higher), or 00's(a bit lower)? Personally (and there are some studies that suggest this is right but you can disagree with them) that the 39.6 tax rate is too high (35% is better) AND the capital gains tax rate is too low (25-30% is a better number) in terms of stimulating economic growth. The current spread distorts the market by encouraging financial manipulation jobs rather than jobs creating wealth. Making 1 million in a job where you can shift it to capital gains pays a lot better than the doctor making 1 million by doing a ton of procedures. The second tends to be better for society though. And for what is worth, we haven't paid our fair share for the past 30 years. We have left the future a huge debt and unfunded liabilities. I blame the greatest generation and the baby boomers
  12. The number of people who are not tied to an area is super small. You can't relocate your accounting, dental, law, or medical practice without having to build your customer base from zero. Your contracting business is going to be where houses need work. And so on. Phil happens to be a guy that could move. He would still owe CA when he plays in CA but that is a minimal part of his income. For most mortals, taxes are not the problem in CA. The price of housing is.
  13. You might want to look at the video again. Pollack wouldn't have been close to hitting the throat or jaw. And launching is a bit of stretch. Now if it was worth it for Pollack to deliver the head butt or not is hard to say. Maybe he felt that Pollack would have put a helmet on the ball. Or probably the likely result is that he just reacted in the .1th of second and what happened happened.
  14. Most people can't move. That plastic surgeon in LA making 2 million can't move to Houston, Tx. He needs to stay where his customers are. The VC on Sand Hill round can't move to Miami, FL because the companies and people in needs to deal with live in Palo Alto. And so on. There are some people that can move but others than can't. But lets say that plastic surgeon moves. Guess what another plastic surgeon will move in and do the work. There are very few jobs (pro golfer is one of them) where the person doing the work isn't replaceable. Now if that replacement is a good thing for the economy is a different story. This thing has been studied a lot. The general result is that very few people move for tax purposes for the small increases we are talking about. Bump the rates up to 75% and people get more motivated to move. Long term this tax the rich will not work. We also need to tax the middle class. We couldn't afford the GWB cuts for them either. Hopefully they wait until the economy recovers and do it gradually instead of all at once. From a tax point of view a guy like Phil should have left CA 20 years ago, made his millions, and then go live there when he retires. I sort of doubt Phil is going to make huge amounts of money when he stops golfing. He just isn't in the legends category like Arnold, Jack or Tiger. If you still don't want to pay taxes, tax free bonds have a nice return once you do the math.
  15. Would you be happier if she was making 100k and then lost her job? Or if she was married to a guy and they were both laid off? What if she was expecting 1 kid and had triplets? The OP point stands. Phil's life shouldn't (i.e. if he spent all the 100millions he made it might) change if the tax rates went to 90%. He would still have enough money to live a lifestyle in the top .1% for the next 100 years. It just isn't a situation that is going to get a lot of sympathy. If he wants to move to FL. Just do it. Whoops wrong endorsement company.... You can either agree or disagree with his position but it seems to me a stupid position to take. It isn't going to help his situation in anyway. And given we have been through this type of thing (rich people whining about taxes) a couple dozen times in the past year, he has to be clueless to think it was going to end well for him. Quote:
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...