Neo

From somewhere, Irv Weinstein is looking down ....

The suspense is killing me .... I know, I just know, pA's gonna nail it.

I believe it was the homework. I sensed a great familiarity with the kids, their clubs, their leagues and their current status. Call it informed? Maybe I praise too easily. I'm closer to NHL clubs, so talk of the Erie Otters and how the season s going for their kids was noticeable / enjoyable.

I liked the color and the play by play.

Six foot tall goalie and he looks like a Bantam. Strong game, I think, for the kid. Canada's not the four line highlight real team it is in some years, but strong game.

Awfully important. However, if team USA knows anything, it's that Team Canada's not dead until the final whistle. Time after time ...

Spearing major and a game misconduct. I went to the box score.

I have this lingering memory of a match penalty meaning you're tossed this game and next. I seem to recall it in the WJC context. Google's not been my friend ...

I can't believe Canada's not calling a time out. Edit - they did. A full line change on the cycle by the US followed by two icings ....

I'm sure you're right. I'm laughing, though, at Chelios telling someone not to sneak a spear in after the whistle.

I put DeBrincat on an airplane this evening. How dumb can you be?

My kid reads this, so I'll not use your language. You're not alone in your boat. I'm out ... I'm arguing math and ease to the same ends. I cede compassion to no one.

The non-partisan Philanthropy Roundtable couldn't agree less. http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/topic/excellence_in_philanthropy/the_flat_tax It's not about me, but I've served on a handful of charitable boards and a larger number of donor cultivation and development committees. Ask about a flat tax in those rooms, with the professionals. Tax code uncertainty is a major giving obstacle. Simply a read for your consideration. Tax income appropriately, and you don't need the machination of a deduction.

Morning chuckle ... Vine (click Continue Reading for large screen view) ... https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/12/25/fan-makes-crybaby-motion-near-lebron-and-gets-caught/0ZjKS9xUTij9PKlPGr2NmK/story.html?p1=Article_Recommended_ArticleText

Methinks you're not alone. Lesser of two evils is often a theme. The prominence of extremes is a bit different, this year. It's early. Vote!

Belated - enjoyed this! "Put it on your list!"

You vote, just like you do today. I'm not leaving it out. It's the same answer for any question regarding government. I don't understand how that applies differently for different tax systems. Ahhhhh ... I was unaware it was designed for compassion. I will re-read my Christmas Tree question and the IRS Code regarding "Timber", above, and look for the compassion. Perhaps it's in the sub-section on Stumps. General thoughts, not necessarily to Mr. Swamp: Your tax obligation is compassion. The Ministry of Truth! It's here. All we have to do is use the right language. The code is compassionate and it provides for our various circumstances. 2+2=5 Winston, er, Neo, why can't you see it? I thought the code was designed to get money to the government where our representatives could, on our behalf, work for us and use it compassionately. I didn't realize we were actually running the country with the code. My take away for which I'm grateful ... You know Big Brother's here to stay when you point at him and those around you don't even see him, let alone discuss his characteristics. I hope tin foil's deductible. Probably not. There's little compassion allocated to those snooping around the Leviathan. Before you rail against the special interests in Washington, and the lobbyists, and preferential treatment for the monied interests ... consider whose case you make with your compassionate code. What a sublime example of a well intentioned liberal idea morphing into a Progressive Byzantine behemoth and becoming an unrecognizable and ineffective resource sucker all the while continuing to enjoy the support of the well intentioned liberal thinker. Herr Kafka, have a look at this. I want code to get money to accountable legislators most efficiently, fairly and simply. I learned this can be considered a controversial statement made by an uncompassionate fool running an errand.

To Swamp: better language, because of your comment -- I do make the code work for me. I take deductions. When I say the code doesn't work for me, I mean that's not its purpose. It HAS to only because it's a mess. It shouldn't work for me. I want to shed the benefit you're describing for another, at no cost or gain. The purpose of the code is to raise revenue for the government. I don't want deductions, adjustments, complications, and modified choices. Why give a deduction if the rate's correct in the first place? If you tax a dollar correctly, you don't have to adjust the dollar to tax it incorrectly. I want to lose my deductions and pay the same dollars in flat taxes. Better said - a code shouldn't serve me. Maybe I'm reading everyone wrong but I don't think so. I'm reading examples of how I use it, how it serves me, how experts can use it best for me. I agree as it stands now. That is exactly the problem. I pass. I want to pay the same. I want the government to collect the same. I want the same income groups to pay the same as they do today - no more, no less. Today: $100 income, $28 of complicated deductions, $72 of taxable income, 25% rate, $18 in taxes. An army of beaurocrats and advisors. Tomorrow: $100 income, 18% flat rate, $18 in taxes. A calculator, piece of paper, envelope and a stamp. I don't want the deductions and complications to serve me if the ultimate rate gets me to the same place. The rub in our communication - Our starting points are different. If I read correctly, you and D4rk are looking at the monstrosity and saying "we can adjust things and those adjustments helps you". I'm looking at it and saying "lower the rates to their flat simple equivalents, and I don't need the monstrosity of adjustments". I'll pay the same. I broke my vow and continued posting - oops! I can do no better ... it's really not as complicated as it sounds. Nor as disruptive. I think you'd have three big conversations upfront: 1). Mortgage interest: this is a large deduction and people bought homes assuming one thing. Eliminating it day one would do damage to people who bought homes under one set of rules. I'd phase it out to a flat tax over, say, ten years (I make numbers up; bring in the actuaries). 2). Capital gains: We have that dialogue now. Make it ordinary income, again at some different rate. 3). Corporate versus Personal and double taxation of income. We have that dialogue now, too. I don't want a code that serves me. It has better things to do.

Concussion. Saw it this afternoon between Swedish pancakes and a magnificent turkey! Great movie, powerful (Mike Webster, for those of my vintage), and thought provoking. I've talked about sports sanitizing themselves as kickoffs are eliminated in football and as fights and certain hits become more rare in hockey. See this film, and you'll understand why. "Are you not entertained?" I will now Google to see the NFL's responses to the film.

Yes to everything you said. That's the problem with the complicated code, to me, and the reason to keep it, to you. I don't want citizens needing specialists to make the code work for them. There is an approach to government behind this concept, behind what you said, that is at the heart of where we're different. It's why we occasionally don't understand one another despite best efforts. The code doesn't serve me. It shouldn't. It's not a benefit, a tool, a gift from Washington. It's intended to collect revenue for the government. It's not a tool for me. I use a specialist because it's a nightmare. To what end? I want it to collect revenue for the government. You're warning me away from lost opportunity to make it work for me and my lack of appreciation for the benefit complexity provides. Name one. To your question about abiding. Same goal posts for each. I believe as many would abide under simple as complicated. With simple, it'd be easier to find the non abiders. I hear you say "simple's not perfect". Well, no. Who claimed either was perfect. If you tell me the incremental value of incremental complexity, I'll consider it. I've heard none. I've heard that I can hire lawyers to walk me through it. Well, we could make mailing a letter that complex and an industry of postal lawyers would arise. To what end complexity? You know me ... It grows, we feed it, industries arise to walk us through it. To what end? Lastly ... I have spent a lifetime listening to the entrenched describe the different as a fool's errand. Fortunately, the fools don't listen.

My edit crossed your post. I'd ask someone other than a tax professional whose living is sourced in the code.

Phewwww ...I'm glad I learned that! I spoke with TWO tax professionals, a shaman, and an auto mechanic who confirmed MY view. I'd be interested I his/her "why". I have more than a casual relationship with the code, it's history, and its application. I might continue my research beyond the individual whose livelihood relies on interpretating the monstrosity under consideration. Buggy whip consultants didn't think auto assembly lines would work, when asked.

wjag - great idea and thank you. I can't wait. Most of my kids (3/4) are with us for a week or so, so we'll see some hockey together. Link to roster highlights, if not an analysis- http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=794104

Here goes ..... I think a few attempts will refine ... And self rising may be the way to go ... Delicious ... MODO, my entire family loved your video .... Grateful we are.

Merry Christmas to all!