<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Reasonable Inference</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.reasonableinference.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.reasonableinference.com</link>
	<description>Synthesizing topics on law, economics and politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:50:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on 2010 NFL Strength of Schedule by Jmartens</title>
		<link>http://www.reasonableinference.com/2010/07/31/2010-nfl-strength-of-schedule/comment-page-1/#comment-31</link>
		<dc:creator>Jmartens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:50:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reasonableinference.com/?p=95#comment-31</guid>
		<description>Great analysis! I&#039;d love to see the data sometime...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great analysis! I&#8217;d love to see the data sometime&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Oregon&#8217;s New Law (HB2377) is Illogical by Jmartens</title>
		<link>http://www.reasonableinference.com/2010/01/25/oregons-new-law-hb2377-is-illogical/comment-page-1/#comment-13</link>
		<dc:creator>Jmartens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:58:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reasonableinference.com/?p=71#comment-13</guid>
		<description>The thing that really gets me is that they law allows hands free operation, implying that the act of holding a phone to your ear is the problem. The real problem is that people take their eyes of the road and using a hands-free device does nothing to solve that problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The thing that really gets me is that they law allows hands free operation, implying that the act of holding a phone to your ear is the problem. The real problem is that people take their eyes of the road and using a hands-free device does nothing to solve that problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Proposed tax structure and the real impact by Mjohnson</title>
		<link>http://www.reasonableinference.com/2009/03/29/new-tax-structure-charities-and-amount-donated/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Mjohnson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 18:47:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reasonableinference.com/?p=31#comment-5</guid>
		<description>Jmartens is right, this proposed change is for families making over $250,000.  In 2006 families earning more than $250K, which represents less than 2% of all taxpayers, were responsible for 28&amp; of all giving.  More than $81 billion dollars in charitable gifts. According to a study by The Center on Philanthropy, based on the 2006 data, the proposal would result in 4.8% reduction in itemized giving...about 3.9 billion.  However, many people believe, including the President, most households who are donors are not going to become non-donors because of this change in policy.  we&#039;ll see</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jmartens is right, this proposed change is for families making over $250,000.  In 2006 families earning more than $250K, which represents less than 2% of all taxpayers, were responsible for 28&amp; of all giving.  More than $81 billion dollars in charitable gifts. According to a study by The Center on Philanthropy, based on the 2006 data, the proposal would result in 4.8% reduction in itemized giving&#8230;about 3.9 billion.  However, many people believe, including the President, most households who are donors are not going to become non-donors because of this change in policy.  we&#8217;ll see</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Proposed tax structure and the real impact by Jmartens</title>
		<link>http://www.reasonableinference.com/2009/03/29/new-tax-structure-charities-and-amount-donated/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>Jmartens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 05:45:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.reasonableinference.com/?p=31#comment-4</guid>
		<description>What I think is interesting is that the proposed change is only for high income individuals and couples. On first glance, one might think it&#039;s appropriate to lower the tax benefit for wealthy folks. However, I suspect that a disproportionate amount of money given to charity is given my small number of wealthy donors. So not only will this tax plan reduce the benefit of giving to charity, it will have that effect only on the people that are most responsible for keeping charities going. Kind of a double whammy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I think is interesting is that the proposed change is only for high income individuals and couples. On first glance, one might think it&#8217;s appropriate to lower the tax benefit for wealthy folks. However, I suspect that a disproportionate amount of money given to charity is given my small number of wealthy donors. So not only will this tax plan reduce the benefit of giving to charity, it will have that effect only on the people that are most responsible for keeping charities going. Kind of a double whammy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
