Ok Aldeth, what did you think of last night's debate?

Fine. Here is the definition of a perquisite.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perquisite

per·qui·site
   [pur-kwuh-zit]
noun
1. an incidental payment, benefit, privilege, or advantage over and above regular income, salary, or wages: Among the president's perquisites were free use of a company car and paid membership in a country club.

2. a gratuity or tip.

3. something demanded or due as a particular privilege: homage that was once the perquisite of royalty.


Emphasis mine. Take away those things I claim are not perks and the job is impossible to do. Split hairs all you want, but I don't consider secret service protection to be "incidental." It is an essential component of the job. Just because the President isn't paying the Secret Service out of his open pocket doesn't mean it's a perk in the commonly understood sense.

 

Anything that is not a perk is then part of the salary we pay him. That his "take home" is less than what we, the taxpayers, pay for his total compensation package is simply a sacrifice someone who wants to be the president must make. Most of the rich and famous must pay for their own security, it's a price for fame. Not the president, or to a lesser extent member of congress.

His multiple living accomodations (and completely covered five star vacations); his fleet of vehicles; his multiple aircraft waiting to take him, his staff, or his family anywhere in the world on a moment's notice; his full wait staff anywhere he goes (the kitchen staff alone is quite impressive); his immediate and exclusive use of any country club; unlimited expense account; the list goes on. Granted, he needs an armored vehicle and an aircraft for his job ... the rest of the fleet seems to be more a convenience than a necessity (especially when you consider the number of flight crews constantly on standby).

We (the taxpayers) spend a boatload of money on the president's comfort and to make things more convenient for him -- those are not necessities of the job but probability justifiable perks (or benefits ... whatever ... argue semantics all you want).

An important distinction between Buffett and the President (any president -- I'm not just talking about Obama here) -- Buffett is in the business to grow money, he must be somewhat frugal to keep all assets available. The president is in the business of spending money, he must fully spend what is given to him by congress or they will cut back during the next fiscal cycle.

 

@ BTA,

Only if you confuse "overhead" with "compensation." I have no doubt that PoTUS is one of the most expensive jobs in the world. His staff, his security detail, his facilities, his protection, his transportation, the technology he has personal access to, etc. That's the nature of the job, as we - the citizenry - have come to define it over the years. The Presidency is an expensive public institution which WE fund. But that's not the same thing as compensation. His lavish accommodations, his and his family's wardrobe and their personal comfort, etc. – those I'll grant you are definitely perks and they certainly add up.

 

You had me until the last sentence. The President doesn't get the Secret Service. He requires them. Without them, what he gets is assassinated. It isn't "how I want to look at it," it's how it is.

If you want to argue that anything over and above bare minimum bodyguard protection (1 secret service detail, 1 plane, 1 armored car) crosses into "perk" territory, then be my guest. But the job doesn't exist without that protection. That's not a "benefit." Staying alive to run the country IS the job.

 

Semantics. I think we are confusing the office and the individual. The office of the President of the United States of America requires certain things be provided. We require the President to live in the White House. We require the president to have the Secret Service. He can't go out for a stroll without a bodyguard, neither can his family. These are requirements of the job. He does not have a choice in the matter.

Yes, the cost of the office of the President is high but the actual remuneration to the individual is not high in comparison to Corporate heads. Corporate heads also get extras,

 

I want to weigh in on a slightly different matter. I don't think it's fair or accurate to label politicians as "idiots", "morons", or whatever. I know I have done it in the past, and I'm admitting I was being a hyperbolic twerp. Neither Obama nor Romney can be accurately described with that label. You do not get law degrees being an idiot. Yoyu do not get to be a successful governor of a state (Illinois or Massachusetts) by being an idiot. You do not amass million dollar fortunes (which applies to both of them, IIRC) by being an idiot.

Disagree with their policies and campaign tactics all you wish, but please be realistic.

And lest anyone say the Conservative is being all whiny, I believe this applies to both Obama and Romney. I like them both. You may recall that last election I said I would possibly have voted Obama were I an American citizen.

 

I'm not so convinced. Plenty of idiots become lawyers, get medical degrees, and even graduate from ivy league schools. While Idiocy is certainly an impediment to earning a degree, it isn't an insurmountable one. Idiots graduate all the time. They just ....aren't competent when they do.

 

What do you call the person who graduates at the bottom of their medical school class?


.... Doctor.


QED

 

Fair enough, but based on their successful track records after school, do you really think the epithets are accurate? I have a hard time buying into that. I know that mockery is part and parcel of all political contests, but I think it's a bit silly when it gets ad hominem.

For the record, both Presidential candidates are intelligent and worthy of respect in my books. The sad thing is that many people will vote based on a caricature of each man rather than on what he truly is.

 

When I first read the news it seemed like Obama suffered a complete debacle. Then I watched the debates (ok, I watched half of it and listened to the other half while reading) and it seemed pretty okay. Romney did come out as more aggressive and slightly more confident, although I would say the difference wasn't huge. Both weren't above exaggeration or twisting a point, though I think Obama was a bit better on substance. I am surprised the debate's results were so one-sided, though - as far as I have checked debate results are usually a lot closer than this.

Anyway, I think Obama might be hurt worse by the administration's poor PR handling of the attacks in Benghazi, which they initially linked with that anti-Islamic movie. This will make the foreign relations debate a lot harder for Obama.

By the way, do you think the VP debate will be worth watching? I think it may be a sleeper hit of sorts .

 

Sorry if I have offended you, LKD but anything I say is meant to be taken with a grain of houmour.

The informal meaning of idot is a foolish or silly person or act. IE: I have a fairly high IQ rating but have done many idiotic things in my lifetime.

On the subject of Romney I really do not think he is to be taken seriously and I do not understand why he is.

I do take Obama seriously.

 

A lit pitpicking, but Obama was never governor of Illinois - he was a senator.

While it's accurate to say both of them are millionaires, I do not think that their personal fortunes are all that similar. I think Romney's personal wealth dwarfs Obama's (who is quite wealthy compared to just about anyone else).

I doubt I will watch it. I mean, maybe if there's nothing else on, but I would personally rather watch the baseball playoffs.

 

I may be a bit picky, but it's been bugging me for a while... Mr. Romney's plan calls for across-the-board 20% decrease in income tax cuts, on top of the 2001/3 ones (which would be made permanent). The 20% extra cut is projected to cost roughly 450 Billion per year, as far as I know, but the measure would supposedly be revenue neutral due to elimination of loopholes in the tax code. I've been checking the top 10 list of "loopholes,", and it adds up to around 700 Billion per year, so it is theoretically possible... but so far I haven't seen any details. Looking at the big 10 I have a hard time believing any of them would be easy to remove, much less 4 or 5 of them. Considering the political cost, it just doesn't seem possible.

10 largest tax "loopholes", as per http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/09/13/Top-10-Tax-Breaks-that-May-Be-Elimated.aspx#page1

Spoiler

Tax-free health insurance contribution

This exclusion for employer-sponsored health insurance and medical care is far and away the most popular and expensive tax expenditure and broadly subsidized the nation’s health insurance system.. Contributions are excluded from the employee’s gross income, while the employer may deduct the cost as a business expense.
Cost to the budget (Billion USD): $184.4

Mortgage interest deduction

Under this bedrock of the housing industry, the mortgage interest paid by owner-occupants of homes may be claimed as a non-business deduction, up to a limit. But the more expensive the home, the larger the tax benefit.
Cost to the budget: $98.5

Capital Gains and Dividends

These are profits and gains from financial instruments that are taxed at a 15 percent rate, and go disproportionately to high income households. Three-fourths of the benefit in reduced taxes went to the top 1 percent of U.S. households in 2011.
Cost to the budget (Billion USD): $77

Tax-free contributions to savings and retirement plans

Federal tax policy encourages long term savings, including the net exclusion of contributions to and earnings of employer-provided and individual pension plans. Those include 401(k) plans, Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), the savers’ credit, and Keogh plans.
Cost to the budget (Billion USD): $67.6

Favorable treatment of capital gains at death

This so-called step-up in basis of capital gains provides a boon to heirs by precluding assets from being taxed on any gains accrued, but not realized, at the death of the owner. In short, heirs escape taxation on the amount that an asset in an estate appreciated from the time it was purchased.
Cost to the budget (Billion USD): $61.5

Exclusion of net imputed rental income

While homeowners obviously don’t have to pay themselves rent, there is an implied rental income benefit of ownership that normally would be considered taxable income. The current law allows an exclusion from taxable income for the implicit gross rental income on housing services.
Cost to the budget (Billion USD): $50.6

Deductions of state and local property taxes on owner-occupied homes

Homeowners who itemize may deduct the amount of property taxes they paid, while non-itemizers may take a deduction in addition to the standard deduction of $250 for single filers and $500 for joint filers. The biggest beneficiaries are wealthy property owners and residents of high-tax states.
Cost to the budget (Billion USD): $48.6

Employer Plan Deductions

These apply to employment-based retirement plans, such as defined-benefit plans, other than 401(k)s and IRAs.
Cost to the budget (Billion USD): $45.2

Charitable contribution deductions

The Internal Revenue Service allows taxpayers to deduct charitable contributions to nonprofit educational institutions, nonprofit health institutions, and organizations Because of the progressivity of the tax system, the deduction is worth more to wealthy taxpayers than to poorer one.
Cost to the budget (Billion USD): $43.1

Capital gains exclusion on home sales

When you sell your primary residence, you can make up to $250,000 in profit if you're a single owner and twice that if you're married, and not owe any capital gains taxes.
Cost to the budget (Billion USD): $35.2

Read more at http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Artic...that-May-Be-Elimated.aspx#VGbHorBORRebLXzE.99

 

I think a Biden-Quayle debate would be awesome. I would watch that.

 

I see one of my pet peeves has risen it's ugly head again - the mis-use of the term "loophole".

A loophole is something which provides unintended consequences; eg, Merriam Webster defines it as "an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded". A loophole implies abuse of a provision, so someone using a loophole is basically being sneaky.

None of the things politicians are looking at are loopholes - they are intentional provisions of the tax code that provide a benefit. Sure, the reasonableness of the benefit might be debatable (for example, why should one person get a larger deduction than someone else just because they have a larger mortgage), but people aren't abusing the tax code by taking the benefit.

Of course, calling them loopholes makes it easier for politicians to justify getting rid of them.

 

It also enables class warfare. It lets people think that all the rich people hire people like me to find all these loopholes so they don't pay any taxes. When that couldn't be further from the truth (not the part about people hiring me).