This is sweet

[Gaspar]

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.

[Hoss]

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

[RecycleMichael]

We have a marker where Washington Irving slept on the ground for a night. What is your point?

[heironymouspasparagus]

I saw the marker where nothing happened here on this date in 1827.

[nathanm]

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?

[erfalf]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[erfalf]

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?

[nathanm]

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.

[erfalf]

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.

[Conan71]

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.

[nathanm]

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.

[erfalf]

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.

[nathanm]

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?

[erfalf]

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.