Please don't try to argue that Jews are not overrepresented in top law schools (i.e., that only 2% of their law students are Jews). HLS and other top law schools are about 30% Jewish.

Once again, if Jews are overrepresented by about 28% in law schools, what group besides white Gentiles is losing by 28% and thus underrepresented?
All underrepresented groups deserve affirmative action.

Catherine McKinnon taught me that all sex is rape.

But Bill Clinton taught me that blowjobs aren't sex so I guess I'm ok.

Saying that the lower ranked law schools are making it harder for law students to get jobs, is like saying that the University of Phoenix MBA program is making it worse for Harvard MBA students to get jobs.

There will always be top law students making $150k+ a year, regardless of the number of TTT graduates. Having more TTT graduates will only affect your employment if you are already a TTT graduate and thus competing with them, in which case you shouldn't be whining about TTT graduates like yourself.

Third year is a waste of time. Make it optional so people can start working right after 2L summer.

3:33, the charitable deduction is still available under the alternative minimum tax (AMT). That and the home mortgage deduction are basically the only deductions allowed by the AMT.

Get a better tax adviser.

Re: decreasing marginal utility

Let's say that two people, Young Buffett and Young Hilton, both make $50,000 a year. But Young Buffett has saved up $100,000 of hard earned money over the years, while Young Hilton, a profligate spender, saved nothing. Obviously Young Buffet has less marginal utility for his income, since an additional dollar is worth not as much when one already has $100k saved up.

If we want to tax decreasing marginal utility, we should take Young Buffett more than Young Hilton, right? So we want to penalize people who save, now?
It seems like the tax code should encourage certain beneficial activities, like, you know, saving and making more money.

People who argue for progressive taxation based on "decreasing marginal utility" sound like they only took AP Econ for a week and then stopped learning new concepts like "elasticity" and "incentives."

10:50, obviously you don't understand what "profligate" in the phrase "a profligate spender" means. Just so you know, it means "recklessly extravagant or wasteful in the use of resources."

11:07, try buying something online from out of state, or shop in a state without a sales tax. Or shop in a country without a VAT. Or buy any of a number of things that are exempt from sales tax.

Does $50,000 have the same utility to someone who has $100,000 in the bank as $50,000 to someone who has nothing in the bank? No.

So why don't you have progressive taxation based on how much someone has saved.

The top 1% earn 20% of all income but pay 40% of income taxes. The bottom 50% currently pay ~3% of income taxes while earning four times that in income. It will be a long time before they bear a disproportionate burden.

Plus, most services are not subject to sales tax.

It's also funny that you say we can't judge the marginal utility of what someone will use with their money, and then turn around and judge the marginal utility of someone who is earning money.

Does $100,000 have the same utility to someone who makes $1M a year, but is 24-year-old and has $300k of med school debt, as $1,000 does to someone who makes $10,000 a year, but has a $5 million inheritance in municipal bonds? No.
But not in the same direction that you want to advocate.

Um, 2:19, the NY sales tax applies only to online vendors that have a presence in the state (like Amazon and its NY affiliates). Purely out-of-state vendors selling to NY don't have to pay sales tax.

Please learn more about taxation before spouting off. Thanks for trying though.

And the inheritance counting as income in a previous year is completely irrelevant to how much marginal utility the person would get from more income this year. So what you're saying is that two people who are making $10,000 a year have the same marginal utility on that $10,000, even if one had received a huge $5M taxed inheritance last year? Yeah, right.

2:25, saving is good for the individual himself, but spending is good for the economy (i.e., everyone else).

Um, 4:25/4:26/5:04, that was my whole point. Purely out-of-state vendors don't have to pay the sales tax. That's a point that you just acknowledged in 5:04. Thus, there is no tax penalty against consumption (which 1:49 tried to argue the sales tax was) if one cares to avoid it by buying online.

Also, you don't pay the sales or use tax on a 1040. The 1040 is a federal form, and, in case you don't know, only states collect sales or use taxes. Instead of using big numbers to sound impressive, it is better for you to be silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

Nothing I said is wrong, so don't try to tell me to read New York tax legislation. You are the one who said "sales tax is still charged here for goods purchased online, even if purchased from another state" with no mention that the law covers only a small subset of online vendors.

The use tax is not a sales tax. The use tax is a broader tax that can be triggered by both sales and non-sales, so it's comparing apples and oranges. But given your tax ignorance (e.g., paying state sales taxes on a form 1040) this oversight is not surprising.

And the whole critique about sales taxes is moot because my original hypothetical about marginal utility applies to a person that could be in any state, such as the states without sales taxes. Not everyone in the US lives in New York.

2:53, three years ago people in Manhattan were doing fine on $125k a year, and they certainly had social lives and discretionary spending. Now, with the raise to $160k a year, that means an extra $14k of post-tax income each year simply by maintaining the same standard of living.

The only reason people can't pay back their loans within 4-5 years is due to their own inability to keep profligate spending and irresponsible actions under control.

To suggest that people making $160k a year can barely break even is to suggest that people making $125k a year (three years ago) had to incur more debt each year to manage at all. That was not the case.

Ivana Komunjer

http://econ.ucsd.edu/~ikomunje/contact.htm

Note that some languages pronounce a 'j' as an 'h' sound.

28/2:02, if you're a good lawyer and receive high merit-based bonuses, you don't care what all the other underachievers get and whether that sum bonus total is higher or lower than lockstep. And if the firm is underpaying you for what you deserve, you can easily go to another firm.

If you're getting less money based on merit than on lockstep, then perhaps the market is trying to tell you what your labor is actually worth. Only the below average performers argue for lockstep and flattening everyone's incentives.

It's like the ones in school who complain about the grading curve the most. Guess whether these geniuses are below or above the median.

34, may I direct you to this wonderful invention called Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTH
See first line.

618, your entire credibility is shot when you stated that "Affirmative Action will NOT get you onto Harvard (or any) Law Review"

Why don't you read HLR's membership page:

"The remaining editors [20% of total] are selected on a discretionary basis. Some of these discretionary slots may be used to implement the Review's affirmative action policy."

http://www.harvardlawreview.org/membership.shtml

Cliff notes version for those who have better things to do with their time:

Part 1
Some men send their wives away over the summer and don't see them very often. These men would have dinner with other people.

To Be Continued...

Part 2
One of these men had dinner and drinks with the author and her friend. Everyone ate, drank, and went back to their own homes. The summer is almost over.

Insert half-witty quote by famous dead author.

The End.

The "Non-Sequiturs" section means that each entry (or link) is a non-sequitur from the next. For example, a link to an article about tax law can be followed by a tort reform link.

For reasons that should be obvious to everyone except apparently Mystal, "Non-Sequitur" does not mean that the link description should be a sarcastic partisan smear (masquerading in hindsight as a "joke") completely unrelated to the actual link.

I propose that the LSAC change their LSAT scoring system, in order to reduce stress and competitiveness, and ensure that everyone gets into Harvard (the DPW of law schools).

Old scores of 165 to 180: Honors
Old scores of 135 to 165: Pass
Old scores of 125 to 135: Low Pass
Old scores of 120 to 125: Fail

A LSAT taker won't know the actual score of 175 that he got, but merely that he is an Honors recipient.

I'm sure the Harvard students and faculty will be greatly applauding this move.