http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-talk-obama-kiss-marker-20120816,0,766924.story
Marker placed at Hyde Park shopping center where Obamas shared first kiss
She was an attorney at a big Chicago law firm. He was a Harvard Law student who landed a job there as a summer associate. He was immediately smitten. She wasn't so sure. But he won her over, and the couple sealed their budding romance with a kiss at the Baskin-Robbins ice cream shop in Hyde Park.
So goes the story of how Michelle and Barack Obama fell in love in 1989. And on Wednesday, a historical marker went up at the corner of Dorchester Avenue and 53rd Street noting the exact location where the couple had their first smooch.
This Baskin-Robbins now becomes a historic marker for future generations. . .thanks to the December 2005 purchase of Baskin-Robbins by Bain Capital, The Carlyle Group and Thomas H. Lee Partners LP.
Vulture Capitalists saved the site of the President's first kiss. It also meant thousands of new and saved jobs, but who's counting.
Fairytale ending.
I think no one needs to say this because they already know, but your ODS is showing.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
We have a marker where Washington Irving slept on the ground for a night. What is your point?
I saw the marker where nothing happened here on this date in 1827.
If you want to talk about sweet, you should be talking about the sweet deal Bain and Carlyle get on their taxes when they do LBOs. Wouldn't you like to get a tax deduction for your cost of capital?
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 01:40:32 PM
If you want to talk about sweet, you should be talking about the sweet deal Bain and Carlyle get on their taxes when they do LBOs. Wouldn't you like to get a tax deduction for your cost of capital?
Except they don't. They only get a deduction on interest expense, which is a cost of doing business according to the IRS. They just borrow a bunch.
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 03:00:06 PM
Except they don't. They only get a deduction on interest expense, which is a cost of doing business according to the IRS. They just borrow a bunch.
The debt is rented capital. The interest on that debt is the cost of that rented capital. Ergo, they do in fact get a deduction on their cost of capital.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 03:02:56 PM
The debt is rented capital. The interest on that debt is the cost of that rented capital. Ergo, they do in fact get a deduction on their cost of capital.
So in your mind, if I (a business) lease a delivery truck, none of the cost should be deductible?
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 03:05:10 PM
So in your mind, if I (a business) lease a delivery truck, none of the cost should be deductible?
I didn't say that, at all. I merely said that a business that has an inverted capital structure gets to deduct their cost of capital, which is a fact that you claimed was untrue.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 03:08:57 PM
I didn't say that, at all. I merely said that a business that has an inverted capital structure gets to deduct their cost of capital, which is a fact that you claimed was untrue.
So because some companies take more risk than other, we need to treat them different under the tax code? And no, they cannot deduct borrowed funds, only the cost of those funds. My question was perfectly relevant to your point.
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
So because some companies take more risk than other, we need to treat them different under the tax code? And no, they cannot deduct borrowed funds, only the cost of those funds. My question was perfectly relevant to your point.
The fact that your knowledge comes from having worked in the industry is of no use to Nate. He will simply keep cobbling his own reality.
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 03:12:46 PM
So because some companies take more risk than other, we need to treat them different under the tax code? And no, they cannot deduct borrowed funds, only the cost of those funds. My question was perfectly relevant to your point.
The borrowed funds are the replacement capital. The interest is the cost of capital. Get it straight. Your question seems to imply that we should be subsidizing risk, or did I misunderstand?
Conan, the fact that erfalf is spouting smile that isn't factual is of no use to me. He can't even keep the difference between the cost of capital and capital itself straight so far. He keeps trying to rebut what I'm saying by ignoring what I'm saying, which is factual, and instead substituting something else that I didn't say that can be argued with since it's not factual.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 04:01:21 PM
The borrowed funds are the replacement capital. The interest is the cost of capital. Get it straight. Your question seems to imply that we should be subsidizing risk, or did I misunderstand?
I have it perfectly straight. From my point of view, we are not subsidizing risk any more than we subsidizing advertising purchases.
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 04:04:47 PM
I have it perfectly straight. From my point of view, we are not subsidizing risk any more than we subsidizing advertising purchases.
That's an interesting position. Is it not demonstrably true that greater leverage equals greater risk?
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 04:06:33 PM
That's an interesting position. Is it not demonstrably true that greater leverage equals greater risk?
Yes, greater leverage does equal greater risk. However, your initial point was that somehow LBO firms got some sort of special tax break just for being LBO firms.
You are straying from the subject. You inferred that Bain and the like get some sort of unfair tax treatment. They don't. They get to deduct their cost of acquiring capital just like everyone else. Again, no different than renting office space.
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 04:18:55 PM
You are straying from the subject. You inferred that Bain and the like get some sort of unfair tax treatment. They don't. They get to deduct their cost of acquiring capital just like everyone else. Again, no different than renting office space.
It's quite different from renting office space. It's renting capital. I'm sure IBM would love it if they could deduct their cost of capital, but they can't since it's in the form of equity rather than debt. Whether you agree with it or not, taxing one form of capital differently than another is in fact a tax preference.
Quote from: nathanm on August 17, 2012, 04:39:03 PM
It's quite different from renting office space. It's renting capital. I'm sure IBM would love it if they could deduct their cost of capital, but they can't since it's in the form of equity rather than debt. Whether you agree with it or not, taxing one form of capital differently than another is in fact a tax preference.
It is the same as rent. It is a capital expenditure that they chose to borrow instead of purchase. They only get to deduct the rent paid, i.e. the cost of capital
Funny you mention a company that has a debt to equity ratio of about 157. Considerably larger than any private equity firm could manage by about 40 times. And the get to deduct every penny of interest, just like PE. The only difference being that I would guess a slightly larger portion of the debt is backed by a hard asset, where as PE may have some more intellectual capital as the backing.
Quote from: erfalf on August 17, 2012, 04:48:41 PM
It is a capital expenditure that they chose to borrow instead of purchase.
Rent is a business expense, the ownership of a corporation is not. There's a clear distinction, as much as you want to try to muddy the waters.