Saturday Afternoon Open Thread

Still working.

Open thread.

< Friday Night Open Thread | A Lazy Sunday and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Speaking of healthcare & taxes (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by jbindc on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:46:41 AM EST
    Yesterday's NYT had an interesting article about how the administration is finally owning up to the fact that the mandate penalty WILL be a tax, showing their hand that maybe they don't think their early dismissals of Commerce Clause challenges will hold up:

    WASHINGTON -- When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government's "power to lay and collect taxes."

    And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

    Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

    Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain "minimum essential coverage" starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

    In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is "a valid exercise" of Congress's power to impose taxes.

    Congress can use its taxing power "even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions" of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

    While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

    "For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program "This Week."

    When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, "I absolutely reject that notion."

    Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation's economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.

    Seeing Inception in IMAX tonight (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 05:02:10 PM EST
    I expect to be impressed.

    Better than Lawrence? (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 05:26:53 PM EST
    Inception is pretty good, (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 06:02:09 PM EST
    not usually enamored with sci-fi-ish, but think you will like it. Similarly, saw Ondine with Colin Farrell worried a bit that it was of that stripe from ads of his finding a Mermaid in the Irish seas, but not as expected--Dark and great filming.

    Saw it last night (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 06:11:29 PM EST
    Liked it.

    No IMAX but we saw it this afternoon (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 10:14:08 PM EST
    One of those movies you have to see again.  It seems like between my husband and I we saw two different movies too :)  Tom Berenger has an amazing screen presence in it too.  He was never an actor I have ever been very impressed with before, but something has happened to him as he now has some age on him.  It was startling for me. As with Avatar I ask myself how some critics can say it isn't that good.  He has utterly captured what dreams look like and feel like in my head.  I was completely absorbed in the movie.

    I'm still processing (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:59:18 PM EST
    My first reaction is that the concept seems ripped off from "The Inner Light" (one of the best Star Trek TNG episodes).

    I don't remember the inner light episode (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 02:58:19 PM EST
    I'll have to look it up.  I did love Star Trek when I was a kid.

    And that is why I don't remember it (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 03:04:48 PM EST
    It was The Next Generation episodes and a time in my life when I watched almost no television.  My husband watched it though.  I'll have to ask him if he saw the episode and see if it is on Hula.

    House Res to protect videotaping of cops (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    Inhtroduced by Edolphus Towns, D (NY)
    H. Con. Res 298

    Expressing the sense of Congress that the videotaping or photographing of police engaged in potentially abusive activity in a public place should not be prosecuted in State or Federal courts.

    Whereas prosecutors in several States are applying State wiretapping laws in the prosecution of individuals for the videotaping of police engaged in potentially abusive activity;

    Whereas State and Federal wiretapping laws were not intended to be used for such charges;

    Whereas some police departments have been using national security as a justification for the harassment, charges, or an arrest of individuals, based solely on a citizen recording, with no additional factors considered;

    Whereas a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2000 indicated that 22 percent of police officers claim their fellow officers sometimes, often, or always use excessive force; and

    Whereas the privacy and safety rights of the police officers in the line of duty must be balanced carefully with the public's right to transparency and accountability of public servants: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that-
    (1) citizen recording fills in gaps in existing checks against law enforcement abuses, when balanced with the needs of law enforcement, police privacy, and citizen privacy;
    (2) national security alone is insufficient justification for harassment, charges, or an arrest for otherwise innocent behavior, such as videotaping; and
    (3) members of the public have a right to observe, and if they choose, to make video or sound recordings of the police during the discharge of their public duties, as long as they do not physically or otherwise interfere with the officers' discharge of their duties, or violate any other State or Federal law, intended to protect the safety of police officers, in the process of the recording.

    Sounds Great (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 05:15:18 PM EST
    And about time...  the post 9/11 frenzy to enact new security laws, has made us less safe.

    Nothing to do with 9/11, (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 06:11:51 PM EST
    just protecting rotten cops.

    Only 22 % of the cops thought (none / 0) (#9)
    by hairspray on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 07:21:36 PM EST
    some of their brethern used excessive force.  That may be an improvement. It doesn'nt seem high.  I read recently that doctors don't report their incompetent colleagues either.  Same with congresspersons, and the list goes on.

    According to the BTD (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by observed on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 07:30:11 PM EST
    theory, all elected politicians are competent, by definition. :)

    Well Yeah (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:45:51 PM EST
    Although the arguments, and sentiment, against photographing cops, rotten or not, are about national security.... the 9/11 catch all...

    About to eat a Chicken Vindaloo (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 07:20:00 PM EST
    which I made using Vann's Vindaloo spice mix.
    It tastes quite authentic to me, and I didn't use any other spices except ginger.

    From death panels to fat panels............ (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 07:53:24 PM EST
    The new regulations are one of the first steps towards the government's goal of universal adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014, as outlined in the 2009 economic stimulus law.  Specifically, the regulations issued on Tuesday by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Dr. David Blumenthal, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, define the "meaningful use" of electronic records. Under the stimulus law, health care providers--including doctors and hospitals--must establish "meaningful use" of EHRs by 2014 in order to qualify for federal subsidies. After that, they will be subjected to penalties in the form of diminished Medicare and Medicaid payments for not establishing "meaningful use" of EHRs.


    OMG! Your doctor recording ... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 08:53:29 AM EST
    ... your height, weight and BMI in your health records?!?!

    What's next?

    Blood pressure?!?!


    Obesity rating for every American by 2014? (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 10:13:14 AM EST
    This doesn't bother you?  You don't find this a terrible intrusion on your life?

    As the article states (or at least some articles I've seen on the topic state) that many REAL scientists believe that BMI is a TERRIBLE measure of weight levels.

    In addition, it's a slippery slope that leads to discrimination against people on. the. basis. of their. genetics.  People like me with autoimmune diseases like thyroid disease will be discriminated against.

    If this doesn't bother you, all I can say is, what have "progressives" become?



    Rational? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 10:43:50 AM EST
    It doesn't bother me, and I don't think it's a reflection on what progressive have become:

    1.  There's no such thing as an "obesity rating" regulation ... That's just the CNS (formerly Conservative News Service)/Jim's spin on the regulation.

    2.  I have no idea about whether BMI is a good or bad measure of weight/obesity levels, but it's a classification/statistical analysis tool based on a simple height/weight calculation.  Medical records already include this information, so including BMI in health records merely puts the burden of the simple calculation on the doctor.

    3.  Obese people are already classified and discriminated against when it comes to health insurance, life insurance, etc.  Leaving aside the arguments for/against such discrimination, I don't know why you think this will automatically lead to some new form of discrimination (even CNS isn't making that claim), but if it does, then the discrimination argument might hold some merit.

    The issue is not whether (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 11:51:48 AM EST
    measuring BMI is needed, or whether it is meaningful.

    The issue is that it is LAW that it be done and if it is not done the health care deliverers will be fined.


    Under the stimulus law, health care providers--including doctors and hospitals--must establish "meaningful use" of EHRs by 2014 in order to qualify for federal subsidies. After that, they will be subjected to penalties in the form of diminished Medicare and Medicaid payments for not establishing "meaningful use" of EHRs.

    At what point are you willing to stand up and say NO to the government taking control of the most minute part of your life?


    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    Health care providers already take weight/height information.  How is the government telling health care providers they must include a BMI calculation (weight (lb.) X 4.88, divided by height (ft.) squared) "taking control of the most minute part of your life"?

    BTW - The issue of whether BMI is a useful measurement (actually, my entire answer) was in response to Theresa's post.


    Perhaps they are creating new jobs! (none / 0) (#30)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:23:15 PM EST
    Do you really not understand the (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    difference between someone doing something voluntarily and doing it because it is a law?

    Do you really not understand ... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Yman on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    ... the concept of "distinction without a difference"?

    Once again, How is requiring health care providers to take information that's already part of your medical record and run a simple calculation mean they're "taking control of the most minute part of your life"?  It's like the government requiring my doctor to take my DOB and calculate my age.  The info is already there, so what's the difference?


    What is the penalty for ignoring this law? (none / 0) (#48)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:26:49 PM EST

    diminished federal subsidies (ouch!)

    Do you think any (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:44:04 PM EST
    Doctor/clinic/hospital will?

    Besides, there is something called principle.


    or greed (none / 0) (#51)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:44:54 PM EST
    Look at the first part (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    (CNSNews.com) - New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records--that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year--must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity.

    Wow! (none / 0) (#26)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:09:56 PM EST
    The part I find stunning is


                 FEDERAL SUBSIDIES'

    GM, the doctors and hospitals who virtually are raping people for the mighty dollar - where does it all end?  Will be giving federal subsidies to Apple, Google, etc., and then, perhaps, BP!

    My opinion only

    (emph mine)


    Just more of the same (none / 0) (#41)
    by dead dancer on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:00:01 PM EST
    Banks , Oil Companies, Insurance (Medical) ....

    All big business, and our (get it OUR - so not) government is here to serve. Dem or Rep - its just more of the same.

    Someone just said it - if u dont like it - dong go!

    We R conditioned to think we need them - sometimes we do - on the other hand - dying is something i can do on my own. (no flames for that please - just putting it out there).


    Already there... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:06:17 PM EST
    you gotta pay me to go to a doc unless I'm spewing blood or got a broken bone...to deal with all that hassle just to get checked out?  Screw that...my copay just went up.

    What control are you talking about? (none / 0) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:35:07 PM EST
    Have you ever been to the doctor?  They are the ones taking your weight and height.  You aren't forced to go to the doctor if you don't want to know.

    I'm pretty sure most people can guess my height and weight.  It's not something I consider a 'privacy' issue.


    HIPAA (none / 0) (#37)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:48:20 PM EST
    Is supposed to protect the patient from distribution of any of their personal records.

    How there can suddenly be exceptions - one never knows.  Perhaps tomorrow it will be another exception - and therein lies the problem - further extensions of private health information over the world wide net.


    Wait for the "Fatty Tax"... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:10:03 PM EST
    once they know all our BMI's like they know our incomes, they'll tax you "x" per pound over BMI.

    You are too funny! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 05:43:20 PM EST
    (but could be right!)

    But what if some people feel it is a privacy issue (none / 0) (#59)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 05:52:51 PM EST
    for instance with regard to identity theft - besides knowing have the person's financial records they now would be able to have a physical description.

    I could say also that I don't care as I am not overweight either, but I give credit to my genes.

    When we start putting everything into categories we are dividing people and, in my opinion, that isn't very good.


    Many in the medical community consider (none / 0) (#38)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    BMI nothing more than junk science.

    Genes do factor in and that doesn't seem to ever be taken into consideration in a common sense manner.


    Why would you be subject to (none / 0) (#18)
    by observed on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 10:20:04 AM EST
    discrimination if doctors had information on your BMI?

    Deep discounts (none / 0) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 10:42:30 AM EST
    I am glad there is incentive/disincentive structure to the electonic records.  Obesity rating is just a calculation to be included in the records.  Taking your weight/height is required at each visit..... don't want to know, don't go to the doctor.

    I like the push because my insurance company offers deep discounts to those that lose weight and this will increase the pool of doctors I have to choose from.  We will save over $1000 by meeting our weight goals.


    does your insurance (none / 0) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:20:35 PM EST
    start with a deep discount for those of us who are thin?  :)

    Yes.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:27:02 PM EST
    Yes, from the get go.  I was just with one insurer and switched... both provide the discount to those who are at an ideal weight and while you are losing weight you get great discounts until you get to the max.

    My last insurance actually did phone calls and the new one is online.   The new one has weight watcher program and the hospital facilities have free gyms on site for employees.

    I want voluntary drug testing to show no drugs or nicotine if it means I can save another $1000 bucks.  Oh, and rebates for exercise equipment would be great.   :)


    Ah, I have a family member (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    who would have done great with that insurance setup, as he has been losing a lot of weight for a few years now.

    We just found out why:  He has cancer.

    Oh, and it's inoperable, so he starts chemo and radiation daily tomorrow to try to get operable.  

    Hmmmmm, could this be a bit of a flaw in the insurance company plan to reward for weight loss?


    Was he actively dieting? (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:55:24 PM EST
    And isn't the whole thing about having insurance is the ability to go to the dr regularly and things like unexplained weight loss could be explored?

    Yes, he was dieting, and yes (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 06:16:26 PM EST
    he was exercising, and yes, he was seeing his physicians regularly.  But they seemed to think the weight loss was good, within range if "a bit on the low side," etc. . . .

    I thought that he was starting to look awful, but whadda I know in the face of health fanaticism?  

    I think it is important to come up with our own comparisons -- what we were and what we are -- rather than to make judgments about individuals based on millions.  But too many physicians, they just look at the government's charts based on millions, I guess, rather than looking at a patient's charts in past.


    Sorry to hear about your relative's health (none / 0) (#64)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 09:47:46 AM EST
    Seems we have to take a 101 class in whatever it is we happen to be engaged in - dieting, plumbing, electrical, yard work, doctors, hospitals, etc.  Otherwise, there is a great possibility of getting ripped off.  

    Wonder what his blood work was showing all the time he was losing weight - or were they not keeping up with that?


    Blood work was okay (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:12:02 PM EST
    and he gets annual and very complete physicals.  He has great insurance as part of his retirement -- from an insurance company.  So as well he learned there, he is religious about getting regular checkups.

    It's interesting to me how much faith is put in tests of the invisible, when the naked eye told me that something was wrong, that he ought not to have been so skinny.

    Silly me.


    Could encourage... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    eating disorders or unhealthy dieting to save a few bucks.

    Hope your kin pulls through and the insurance co isn't a hinderance to his getting well CC.


    or an opportunity (none / 0) (#46)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    These programs are monitored so it seems it would be an excuse to go to the doctor if a person chose to participate.  It could have caught unexplained weight loss...

    Good luck to your family member.


    Monitored by whom? (none / 0) (#65)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 10:00:41 AM EST
    Some file clerk got promoted to do this paperwork much as in the medical research on drugs! The physician gets paid for both - office visits (which may be totally unnecessary if one were not dieting - and in the drug research, gets a check for $25,000 for 'Research Development' tax free -- while, that promoted file clerk is the only one that ever looks at any of this 'documentation'.

    Love Squeaky's quote, and find it appropriate in these matters of getting ripped off under the appearance of saving money!

    My opinions and thoughts only.


    That makes sense :) (none / 0) (#63)
    by Untold Story on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 09:42:49 AM EST
    The insurance company is being reimbursed by Weight Watchers on this junk science!

    Wonderful - just as one would expect.  This junk science is associated with diet companies, physical fitness companies, etc.  It is a marketing tool to bring in the customers.

    One can imagine the lobbyist for insurance companies pushed this through - obviously, our 'good' people in Washington were paid directly or indirectly for handing this to the insurance companies.

    To quote Squeaky - BS!


    I just looked at the video about the (none / 0) (#16)
    by observed on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 09:46:36 AM EST
    89 sq ft house. Pretty stylish!

    What's a new 1099 reporting requirement.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    for $600 or more coin sales/purchases doing in the healthcare reform bill?

    Doesn't the IRS have enough reasons to f*ck with people?  What business is it of government if we buy some gold or coins?  Banks only gotta report transactions of 10 large, the coin shop has gotta do it at $600 eff. 2012?  WTF?

    Paying taxes (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 11:44:27 AM EST
    It's requiring people to pay taxes on transactions.  1099's are at $600 they are just adding a group that is avoiding the 1099.  If you buy coins for $25 and sell them for $800 then you are required to pay taxes on the gain.  Seems to me they are trying to treat investment gain as an investment gain.

    Other than being anti-tax, I don't see the issue.


    I see.... (none / 0) (#34)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:28:03 PM EST
    just like the 1099 on 600-1 winners at the track...makes more sense now.  Still don't know what that's got to do with healthcare, or if it is just...the tax on big track wins never seemed fair to me, the state gets their end out of the mutuel pool before winners ever get paid out, and they offer no rebate on losses.

    I just hope the coin gambling community has their version of IRS Harry like my local OTB..his rates are much more reasonable:)


    You can deduct (none / 0) (#47)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:21:10 PM EST
    your gambling losses and not pay taxes on the portion lost.  The only restriction is that you cannot take off more in gambling losses than your winnings for that year.  

    the restriction is more narrow (none / 0) (#49)
    by ding7777 on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 01:33:31 PM EST
    you can only deduct documented losses from the same category as the wins... you can not offset a $1000 casino slot loss from a $1000 state lottery win

    True (none / 0) (#53)
    by Zorba on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 02:13:12 PM EST
    I was thinking of people winning and losing only at the race track.  Of course, wins and losses must all be documented.

    I know.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 02:32:03 PM EST
    I've scrounged for losing tickets to document losses in case I got audited in years where I had a nice hit...I'm thinking of the poor slobs who don't hit a 600-1 shot in a tax year...they get nothing back on their losses.

    If Uncle Sam wants a slice of a winner, he should kick in to offset losses...if he wants to be a square gaming partner:)


    Stay away (none / 0) (#57)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 03:05:20 PM EST
    From the ponies; they're all rigged.

    Do the math: most races (not counting the premier events) have a purse of $1000-$2500. One jockey wins, 10%=$100-$250, the rest get zilch. If they get together and determine who wins, ALL the jocks get $1000+. All they need is someone to place their bets.


    Maybe the trotters... (none / 0) (#62)
    by kdog on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:32:43 AM EST
    and the real sh*t thoroughbred tracks have their shadyness...but I think the major thoroughbred tracks are generally on the up and up...too much to lose for the top jocks and trainers.  Jocks like Johnny V make a real nice living, I don't see why they'd risk it.

    You may be right....... (none / 0) (#67)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:23:58 PM EST

    But I could tell you a story from years ago, a Kentucky Derby Story, that might have you scratching your head.

    I hope I'm wrong, and you're right.


    And the casino (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 11:52:27 AM EST
    You have to pay taxes on anything won over $1,000 (none / 0) (#31)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:26:42 PM EST
    when you win you get a W-2G (original they send to the IRS).  However, you can (if you have a Players Membership Card) contact the casino and they will send you a profit and loss statement (which also includes their comps as profits).

    In International Waters, such as on a cruise (none / 0) (#33)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:27:51 PM EST
    there is no reporting.

    Speaking of which.... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:51:31 PM EST
    the final 9 are set at the WSOP...biggest winner, Uncle Sam.  Doesn't even have to dodge any bad beats or make any tough calls. Nice "work" if you ca get it, I tell ya:)

    Gold coins do have regulations as per tax (none / 0) (#27)
    by Untold Story on Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 12:14:56 PM EST
    However, the American Liberty and Eagle can be purchased without records being kept.  They have a little less gold, somewhere about 92 percent with other alloys.  The Maple Leaf and Australian coins are 99.999 or something like that of gold - but the amount you purchase must be recorded for IRS purposes.

    American Liberty and Eagle can go into IRA.