Prada Steampunk for Men

[The Newswire]

I follow cyberpunk, cool-hunting author William Gibson on Twitter. The other day, he tweeted, "It would be so cool if the 1% dressed exclusively in steampunk Prada. Even just for a week." I retweeted his post and asked, "Who do I know who'd rock this too?" I'm pretty sure I know a lot of people who would be very happy to wear high end couture Prada steampunk, so it wouldn't be effective as a way to spot 1%-ers. Mind you, surveys have shown that 12% of Americans believe they are members of...

Read the full article

[One Eyed Cat]

I could see this being marketed to Gen X attorneys. These garbs are even Court kosher. I'm kind of amazed at how much that term has caught on. I genuinely like some of the bands that get categorized as such, but I find it all quite bizarre beyond that. The 1% can actually be quantified. It would indicate a certain income per annum or net wealth. It is, of course, nonsensical. A professional athlete would generally meet the raw criteria. I find it ridiculous they made it about individuals as opposed to the banks etc.

[Amelia G]

I could see this being marketed to Gen X attorneys. These garbs are even Court kosher. I'm kind of amazed at how much that term has caught on. I genuinely like some of the bands that get categorized as such, but I find it all quite bizarre beyond that. The 1% can actually be quantified. It would indicate a certain income per annum or net wealth. It is, of course, nonsensical. A professional athlete would generally meet the raw criteria. I find it ridiculous they made it about individuals as opposed to the banks etc.

Gen X attorney Prada steampunk sounds hot to me in a way which I am sure is deeply wrong.

I agree with you so so so much that the whole framing of the debate re: individuals, rather than for example banks, is ridiculous, so much so that it invalidates the whole discussion. Talking about taxing gen x attorneys and professional athletes higher is going to fix absolutely nothing, although I suppose it does stick another pin in the American Dream.

[One Eyed Cat]

Gen X attorney Prada steampunk sounds hot to me in a way which I am sure is deeply wrong.

I agree with you so so so much that the whole framing of the debate re: individuals, rather than for example banks, is ridiculous, so much so that it invalidates the whole discussion. Talking about taxing gen x attorneys and professional athletes higher is going to fix absolutely nothing, although I suppose it does stick another pin in the American Dream.

Well, Alan Shore (Jimmy Spader) surely had his appeal I could go on and on about taxes. I wrote a paper just on California state and local taxes. 25 pages that could have been 250. Now mind you, I don't mind paying a bit more to live here. Looked at pragmatically, relying primarily on higher income and cap. gains taxes is a recipe for volatility. You will never fix a structural deficit that way. The way to go is to lower rates (but close deductions, loopholes, and expenditures). Expand the tax base. Folks will see that as somehow benefiting the wealthy these days. Negative. The point is to grow the economy. It would also create a steady revenue stream to balance the budget and fund vital services. Marginal tax rates / = / effective tax rates. The same holds true for the country to some extent. I can't say I know the federal code in great detail, but that alone gives me pause. Tax reform would have to be revenue positive at this point, but that has to include growing the economy. We can't just tax or cut our way out of this mess. We have to do a bit of both, while taking great caution to protect vital services.

[Amelia G]

Well, Alan Shore (Jimmy Spader) surely had his appeal I could go on and on about taxes. I wrote a paper just on California state and local taxes. 25 pages that could have been 250. Now mind you, I don't mind paying a bit more to live here. Looked at pragmatically, relying primarily on higher income and cap. gains taxes is a recipe for volatility. You will never fix a structural deficit that way. The way to go is to lower rates (but close deductions, loopholes, and expenditures). Expand the tax base. Folks will see that as somehow benefiting the wealthy these days. Negative. The point is to grow the economy. It would also create a steady revenue stream to balance the budget and fund vital services. Marginal tax rates / = / effective tax rates. The same holds true for the country to some extent. I can't say I know the federal code in great detail, but that alone gives me pause. Tax reform would have to be revenue positive at this point, but that has to include growing the economy. We can't just tax or cut our way out of this mess. We have to do a bit of both, while taking great caution to protect vital services.

Well, you've got my vote

I'm actually fine with my California state taxes. Sure, they sometimes buy things I feel we don't need, but I feel like California provides a lot of value for most of its denizens. I like having firemen, police, libraries, parks, roads, etc. -- basically, I value the kinds of things California provides and so I don't resent ponying up to support them, whether or not I agree with all of them. I think that the hash the Federal government has made of things may end up hurting California residents more than those elsewhere, when we already subsidize a lot of more . . . let's call them less progressive states. What would be buckets of cash in Alabama isn't going to go far in California and some of the ridiculous tax plans folks have been bandying about could really decrease California's population worse than it is already shrinking.

[Mr Karl]

those suits actually look quite alright. I'd actually take someone wearing a suit like that a lot more seriously than I would the standard cookie cutter suit wearer

[One Eyed Cat]

Well, you've got my vote

I'm actually fine with my California state taxes. Sure, they sometimes buy things I feel we don't need, but I feel like California provides a lot of value for most of its denizens. I like having firemen, police, libraries, parks, roads, etc. -- basically, I value the kinds of things California provides and so I don't resent ponying up to support them, whether or not I agree with all of them. I think that the hash the Federal government has made of things may end up hurting California residents more than those elsewhere, when we already subsidize a lot of more . . . let's call them less progressive states. What would be buckets of cash in Alabama isn't going to go far in California and some of the ridiculous tax plans folks have been bandying about could really decrease California's population worse than it is already shrinking.

Oh yeah, I'm fine with the aggregate rate of state taxation. We do have some structural issues. We're still a bit too volatile on the revenue side. The feds are definitely hurting us. We subsidize them to the tune of .79 back on our federal tax dollar. Any major leaps on the federal side would hurt us. I just don't see convincing Alabama (2.03 back on their tax dollar) that we some how reformulate matters. They may actually have to pay!

[Mr Karl]

yeah, if I get a suit, it'll be that one willem dafoes wearing.....very nice cut

[Pleth]

These are some nice suits. Agree with Mr. Karl, DeFoe's is the best. I would definitively wear that one out on the town.