dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 20, 2019 13:52:02 GMT -5
|
|
spartyparty
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 12:34:41 GMT -5
Posts: 1,605
|
Post by spartyparty on Feb 20, 2019 15:45:41 GMT -5
If corporations are people, why don't I get to write off all the expenses of being me?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,354
|
Post by Tennesseer on Feb 20, 2019 17:14:25 GMT -5
If corporations are people, why don't I get to write off all the expenses of being me? spartypartyINC.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 20, 2019 17:22:19 GMT -5
From the article in the OP: The latest head-shaking factoid about our red ink is that the federal government next year will spend more on interest on the debt than it will on children. As one critic put it: more on the past than on the future. Let that sink when you are considering the 2020 election.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2019 12:51:20 GMT -5
From the article in the OP: The latest head-shaking factoid about our red ink is that the federal government next year will spend more on interest on the debt than it will on children. As one critic put it: more on the past than on the future. Let that sink when you are considering the 2020 election.
Reminds me of Obama running up of 9.3 trillion dollars in debt during his administration. Equal to all the previous presidents combined. Those chickens are roosting. With an interest payment. That sunk in at the last election. Quote; B y the close of business on Wednesday, the amount of new debt accumulated under President Barack Obama topped $9.3 trillion dollars, nearly doubling the national debt (now at just under $20 trillion) and almot twice the amount of debt accumulated under President George W. Bush. "Unsustainable" doesn't quite say it.
CNS News crunched the numbers and came up with an increased debt as of the second to last day of Obama's presidency of $9,334,590,089,060.56. That number nearly doubled the total national debt figure, which started off at $10,626,877,048,913.08 on the day Obama took office. As Donald Trump takes the oath, the total debt will be over $19.961 trillion. www.dailywire.com/news/12602/how-much-national-debt-was-accumulated-under-obama-james-barrett
|
|
MN-Investor
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,937
|
Post by MN-Investor on Feb 21, 2019 13:49:59 GMT -5
The Balance has an article about Obama and the national debt - National Debt Under Obama. It calculates Obama's effect on the national debt using three different methods - 1) Debt added since Obama took office - $9 trillion 2) Summing up the budget deficits while Obama was in office - $8.588 trillion 3) How much did Obama's specific policies add to the deficit - in other words, exclude things such as increased in social security, exclude Bush's tax cuts, etc. over which Obama had no control - $983 billion.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,134
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 21, 2019 13:59:48 GMT -5
From the article in the OP: The latest head-shaking factoid about our red ink is that the federal government next year will spend more on interest on the debt than it will on children. As one critic put it: more on the past than on the future. Let that sink when you are considering the 2020 election.
Reminds me of Obama running up of 9.3 trillion dollars in debt during his administration.
Equal to all the previous presidents combined.Those chickens are roosting. With an interest payment. That sunk in at the last election. Quote; B y the close of business on Wednesday, the amount of new debt accumulated under President Barack Obama topped $9.3 trillion dollars, nearly doubling the national debt (now at just under $20 trillion) and almot twice the amount of debt accumulated under President George W. Bush. "Unsustainable" doesn't quite say it.
CNS News crunched the numbers and came up with an increased debt as of the second to last day of Obama's presidency of $9,334,590,089,060.56. That number nearly doubled the total national debt figure, which started off at $10,626,877,048,913.08 on the day Obama took office. As Donald Trump takes the oath, the total debt will be over $19.961 trillion. www.dailywire.com/news/12602/how-much-national-debt-was-accumulated-under-obama-james-barrettMore than a bit disingenuous when perhaps two-thirds of it was due to the Bush tax cuts, recovering from the Bush recession, and the Bush military entanglements.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2019 14:03:49 GMT -5
Reminds me of Obama running up of 9.3 trillion dollars in debt during his administration.
Equal to all the previous presidents combined.Those chickens are roosting. With an interest payment. That sunk in at the last election. Quote; B y the close of business on Wednesday, the amount of new debt accumulated under President Barack Obama topped $9.3 trillion dollars, nearly doubling the national debt (now at just under $20 trillion) and almot twice the amount of debt accumulated under President George W. Bush. "Unsustainable" doesn't quite say it.
CNS News crunched the numbers and came up with an increased debt as of the second to last day of Obama's presidency of $9,334,590,089,060.56. That number nearly doubled the total national debt figure, which started off at $10,626,877,048,913.08 on the day Obama took office. As Donald Trump takes the oath, the total debt will be over $19.961 trillion. www.dailywire.com/news/12602/how-much-national-debt-was-accumulated-under-obama-james-barrett More than a bit disingenuous when perhaps two-thirds of it was due to the Bush tax cuts, recovering from the Bush recession, and the Bush military entanglements. Like Trump, all presidents are responsible for what happens on their watch.
|
|
MN-Investor
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:44 GMT -5
Posts: 1,937
|
Post by MN-Investor on Feb 21, 2019 14:14:11 GMT -5
Like Trump, all presidents are responsible for what happens on their watch. Obviously you haven't listened to Trump. Trump is not responsible for anything bad which happens while he is president. Anything good which happens while he is president is due to his actions.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,134
|
Post by tallguy on Feb 21, 2019 14:16:45 GMT -5
More than a bit disingenuous when perhaps two-thirds of it was due to the Bush tax cuts, recovering from the Bush recession, and the Bush military entanglements. Like Trump, all presidents are responsible for what happens on their watch. For the most part I do not disagree. At the very least, though, recall that he tried to roll back the tax cuts and was denied. The other two should not have been nearly as costly as they were, and may not even have been necessary, if not for Bush' actions.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 21, 2019 15:46:43 GMT -5
From the article in the OP: The latest head-shaking factoid about our red ink is that the federal government next year will spend more on interest on the debt than it will on children. As one critic put it: more on the past than on the future. Let that sink when you are considering the 2020 election.
Reminds me of Obama running up of 9.3 trillion dollars in debt during his administration. Equal to all the previous presidents combined. Those chickens are roosting. With an interest payment. That sunk in at the last election. Quote; B y the close of business on Wednesday, the amount of new debt accumulated under President Barack Obama topped $9.3 trillion dollars, nearly doubling the national debt (now at just under $20 trillion) and almot twice the amount of debt accumulated under President George W. Bush. "Unsustainable" doesn't quite say it.
CNS News crunched the numbers and came up with an increased debt as of the second to last day of Obama's presidency of $9,334,590,089,060.56. That number nearly doubled the total national debt figure, which started off at $10,626,877,048,913.08 on the day Obama took office. As Donald Trump takes the oath, the total debt will be over $19.961 trillion. www.dailywire.com/news/12602/how-much-national-debt-was-accumulated-under-obama-james-barrettThose chickens have been roosting since President Reagen tripled the debt. We haven't stopped spending since, but I don't remember President Obama making a promise like this:
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-09/trump-promised-to-eliminate-national-debt-in-eight-years-good-luck-with-that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told the Washington Post he would get rid of the national debt “over a period of eight years.”
But, the debt has grown 2 trillion in 2 years.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 8:32:47 GMT -5
Like Trump, all presidents are responsible for what happens on their watch. Obviously you haven't listened to Trump. Trump is not responsible for anything bad which happens while he is president. Anything good which happens while he is president is due to his actions. Obviously
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 9:06:31 GMT -5
Reminds me of Obama running up of 9.3 trillion dollars in debt during his administration. Equal to all the previous presidents combined. Those chickens are roosting. With an interest payment. That sunk in at the last election. Quote; B y the close of business on Wednesday, the amount of new debt accumulated under President Barack Obama topped $9.3 trillion dollars, nearly doubling the national debt (now at just under $20 trillion) and almot twice the amount of debt accumulated under President George W. Bush. "Unsustainable" doesn't quite say it.
CNS News crunched the numbers and came up with an increased debt as of the second to last day of Obama's presidency of $9,334,590,089,060.56. That number nearly doubled the total national debt figure, which started off at $10,626,877,048,913.08 on the day Obama took office. As Donald Trump takes the oath, the total debt will be over $19.961 trillion. www.dailywire.com/news/12602/how-much-national-debt-was-accumulated-under-obama-james-barrettThose chickens have been roosting since President Reagen tripled the debt. We haven't stopped spending since, but I don't remember President Obama making a promise like this:
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-09/trump-promised-to-eliminate-national-debt-in-eight-years-good-luck-with-that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told the Washington Post he would get rid of the national debt “over a period of eight years.”
But, the debt has grown 2 trillion in 2 years.
Smaller numbers equal bigger % change. (Reagan) Want to post the % difference between Obama and Reagan ? I bet not. Trump is on average with Obama as amount as far as the number. He's actually doing a little better if you figure in inflation. The Fed isn't doing any quantitative easing during Trumps administration. We are paying the higher interest rates on Obama's 9.3 billion during Trumps administration. Which originally started this conversation in reference to spending more on debt maintenance than children. I want no deficit spending. I don't think my wish will be forthcoming.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 9:11:28 GMT -5
What this comes down to, is that all those times you heard that kicking the debt can down the road will eventually be paid for by our children, is starting to happen.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 9:14:12 GMT -5
It isn't because of this one president or that one, as the media presentations flow.
It's the overspending of decades piling up.
It's coming in as a quiet, not much media coverage whimper.
As in, hey, we're spending more on debt maintenance than children !
Soon it's going to be more than a lot of things.
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 22, 2019 12:14:10 GMT -5
It isn't because of this one president or that one, as the media presentations flow. It's the overspending of decades piling up. It's coming in as a quiet, not much media coverage whimper. As in, hey, we're spending more on debt maintenance than children ! Soon it's going to be more than a lot of things. The point of the article in the OP, it is under this President that a billion dollar profit company is paying $0 in federal taxes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 12:28:28 GMT -5
It isn't because of this one president or that one, as the media presentations flow. It's the overspending of decades piling up. It's coming in as a quiet, not much media coverage whimper. As in, hey, we're spending more on debt maintenance than children ! Soon it's going to be more than a lot of things. The point of the article in the OP, it is under this President that a billion dollar profit company is paying $0 in federal taxes. Exactly why I find all those taxing the rich efforts to be laughable. Trying to tax rich people is like saying you're going to catch those snakes that are breeding in the everglades. Not going to happen. As an aside, if you were to confiscate 100% of all the assets of every billionaire, it would last about 8 months at the rate our government spends money, lol. I'm sticking with overspending as the problem.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Feb 25, 2019 13:02:27 GMT -5
Exactly why I find all those taxing the rich efforts to be laughable.
Trying to tax rich people is like saying you're going to catch those snakes that are breeding in the everglades.
The problem, as this editorial showed, is the UN-taxing of the rich. Amazon made $11 billion and we owe them money. How is that a "spending problem"?
|
|
tbop77
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 8:24:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,504
|
Post by tbop77 on Feb 25, 2019 13:25:50 GMT -5
Exactly why I find all those taxing the rich efforts to be laughable.
Trying to tax rich people is like saying you're going to catch those snakes that are breeding in the everglades.
The problem, as this editorial showed, is the UN-taxing of the rich. Amazon made $11 billion and we owe them money. How is that a "spending problem"?
Dondub, I give up! I'm going to the everglades to see if those breeding snakes are smarter than conservatives.
|
|
phil5185
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 15:45:49 GMT -5
Posts: 6,409
|
Post by phil5185 on Feb 25, 2019 13:39:07 GMT -5
"But, the debt has grown 2 trillion in 2 years."
If you are an investor or a business person you will recognize that as "recency", ie , extrapolating a recent trend into the far future - and getting incorrect results.
Eg, if you are a cattle grower who wants to expand, you make the decision to get more cows pregnant - then you wait 9 1/2 months for the calves - and then you wait 14 months for the calves to attain market weight. Meanwhile you need to buy feed for that 2 year wait (while receiving no new revenue). Or, maybe you want to expand your manufacturing operation. You add a new building, facilitate it with new machines, hire 50 new workers, build product, build a sales network, and start actualizing the revenue from the expansion - 2 years?
"The problem, as this editorial showed, is the UN-taxing of the rich. Amazon made $11 billion and we owe them money. How is that a "spending problem"?"
That UN-taxing helps fund future growth of new business, ie new tax revenue to the Treasury. How is that a 'problem'?
"As in, hey, we're spending more on debt maintenance than children !"
lol, an odd comparison. How about " GM spends more on building new cars than on children?" IMO, the "it's for the children" gets way overused. Often the real reason is that we don't like something so we play the "it's for the children card" cuz it's easy to defend. The intellectual honesty is dismissed.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 14:05:48 GMT -5
Exactly why I find all those taxing the rich efforts to be laughable. Trying to tax rich people is like saying you're going to catch those snakes that are breeding in the everglades. Not going to happen. As an aside, if you were to confiscate 100% of all the assets of every billionaire, it would last about 8 months at the rate our government spends money, lol. I'm sticking with overspending as the problem. You're not gonna tax 'em if you don't even try, that much is for sure. The problem is once you reach a certain tax rate, it becomes cheaper for anyone with wealth, to create confusing financial arrangements. To coincide with the problem of what the government has to pay people to unravel it, versus just taxing less and getting paid. The sweet spot moves around a bit, but not that much. The Democratic Party is counting on naivete on this subject to satisfy the farther left base voting blocs that contain mostly the 50 and unders. Using class warfare to get votes, it's been around as long a capitalism. As an aside, I haven't paid one dollar in Income tax in 19 years, so you can guess where I place in the scheme of things, and seem so familiar with how it works. The government has a spending problem.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 25, 2019 14:10:59 GMT -5
Exactly why I find all those taxing the rich efforts to be laughable.
Trying to tax rich people is like saying you're going to catch those snakes that are breeding in the everglades.
The problem, as this editorial showed, is the UN-taxing of the rich. Amazon made $11 billion and we owe them money. How is that a "spending problem"?
I’m still waiting for a rational answer to that question
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 14:10:59 GMT -5
"But, the debt has grown 2 trillion in 2 years."
If you are an investor or a business person you will recognize that as "recency", ie , extrapolating a recent trend into the far future - and getting incorrect results.
Eg, if you are a cattle grower who wants to expand, you make the decision to get more cows pregnant - then you wait 9 1/2 months for the calves - and then you wait 14 months for the calves to attain market weight. Meanwhile you need to buy feed for that 2 year wait (while receiving no new revenue). Or, maybe you want to expand your manufacturing operation. You add a new building, facilitate it with new machines, hire 50 new workers, build product, build a sales network, and start actualizing the revenue from the expansion - 2 years?
"The problem, as this editorial showed, is the UN-taxing of the rich. Amazon made $11 billion and we owe them money. How is that a "spending problem"?"
That UN-taxing helps fund future growth of new business, ie new tax revenue to the Treasury. How is that a 'problem'?
"As in, hey, we're spending more on debt maintenance than children !"
lol, an odd comparison. How about " GM spends more on building new cars than on children?" IMO, the "it's for the children" gets way overused. Often the real reason is that we don't like something so we play the "it's for the children card" cuz it's easy to defend. The intellectual honesty is dismissed.
Which I took right from tbop77's reply #3 (bolded, underlined) Odd comparison indeed. Intellectual honesty isn't the only thing missing.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Feb 25, 2019 14:45:55 GMT -5
You're not gonna tax 'em if you don't even try, that much is for sure. The problem is once you reach a certain tax rate, it becomes cheaper for anyone with wealth, to create confusing financial arrangements. To coincide with the problem of what the government has to pay people to unravel it, versus just taxing less and getting paid. The sweet spot moves around a bit, but not that much. The Democratic Party is counting on naivete on this subject to satisfy the farther left base voting blocs that contain mostly the 50 and unders. Using class warfare to get votes, it's been around as long a capitalism. As an aside, I haven't paid one dollar in Income tax in 19 years, so you can guess where I place in the scheme of things, and seem so familiar with how it works.
The government has a spending problem.The gov't has a problem because people like you don't pay their fair share of taxes while the rest of us shoulder the burden.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 14:50:19 GMT -5
The problem is once you reach a certain tax rate, it becomes cheaper for anyone with wealth, to create confusing financial arrangements. To coincide with the problem of what the government has to pay people to unravel it, versus just taxing less and getting paid. The sweet spot moves around a bit, but not that much. The Democratic Party is counting on naivete on this subject to satisfy the farther left base voting blocs that contain mostly the 50 and unders. Using class warfare to get votes, it's been around as long a capitalism. As an aside, I haven't paid one dollar in Income tax in 19 years, so you can guess where I place in the scheme of things, and seem so familiar with how it works.
The government has a spending problem.The gov't has a problem because people like you don't pay their fair share of taxes while the rest of us shoulder the burden. Cry me a river. You did read this in a previous post of mine didn't you ? Quote; As an aside, if you were to confiscate 100% of all the assets of every billionaire, it would last about 8 months at the rate our government spends money, lol.Easily verified. So is the governments spending problem.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 14:53:00 GMT -5
The problem is once you reach a certain tax rate, it becomes cheaper for anyone with wealth, to create confusing financial arrangements. To coincide with the problem of what the government has to pay people to unravel it, versus just taxing less and getting paid. The sweet spot moves around a bit, but not that much. The Democratic Party is counting on naivete on this subject to satisfy the farther left base voting blocs that contain mostly the 50 and unders. Using class warfare to get votes, it's been around as long a capitalism. As an aside, I haven't paid one dollar in Income tax in 19 years, so you can guess where I place in the scheme of things, and seem so familiar with how it works. The government has a spending problem. It does, but those "confusing financial arrangements" are fostered by our very own tax code. They can be unraveled. If anyone with wealth wants to create more wealth in our country it can most certainly be taxed, I assure you. Congratulations on not paying income tax. You work the system well. However if you do make money in the United States, whether it is via passive income, RE depreciation and costs, dividends or whatever method(s) you use, you would be paying tax on it if the laws were not set up to allow that money to go through either untaxed or deferred. Basic fairness would seem to demand it, in fact. Of course you will understand I won't be answering any of your questions on avoiding taxes. I will respond that your statement on basic fairness, is a double edged sword.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Feb 25, 2019 14:57:09 GMT -5
You're not gonna tax 'em if you don't even try, that much is for sure. The problem is once you reach a certain tax rate, it becomes cheaper for anyone with wealth, to create confusing financial arrangements. To coincide with the problem of what the government has to pay people to unravel it, versus just taxing less and getting paid. The sweet spot moves around a bit, but not that much. The Democratic Party is counting on naivete on this subject to satisfy the farther left base voting blocs that contain mostly the 50 and unders. Using class warfare to get votes, it's been around as long a capitalism. As an aside, I haven't paid one dollar in Income tax in 19 years, so you can guess where I place in the scheme of things, and seem so familiar with how it works. The government has a spending problem. And I pay at least $50k in federal income tax a year. I still think we have a revenue problem. I'd gladly pay more if freeloaders like you paid their fair share.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 15:01:25 GMT -5
The problem is once you reach a certain tax rate, it becomes cheaper for anyone with wealth, to create confusing financial arrangements. To coincide with the problem of what the government has to pay people to unravel it, versus just taxing less and getting paid. The sweet spot moves around a bit, but not that much. The Democratic Party is counting on naivete on this subject to satisfy the farther left base voting blocs that contain mostly the 50 and unders. Using class warfare to get votes, it's been around as long a capitalism. As an aside, I haven't paid one dollar in Income tax in 19 years, so you can guess where I place in the scheme of things, and seem so familiar with how it works. The government has a spending problem. And I pay at least $50k in federal income tax a year. I still think we have a revenue problem. I'd gladly pay more if freeloaders like you paid their fair share. OK. I probably make up more than the difference in property tax. I can't do nothing there.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,306
|
Post by swamp on Feb 25, 2019 15:03:18 GMT -5
And I pay at least $50k in federal income tax a year. I still think we have a revenue problem. I'd gladly pay more if freeloaders like you paid their fair share. OK. I probably make up more than the difference in property tax. I can't do nothing there. property tax funds local operations. apples to oranges. we're talking about federal income tax. I also pay a big chunk in property tax. waterfront property isn't cheap.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 19:18:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2019 15:06:33 GMT -5
OK. I probably make up more than the difference in property tax. I can't do nothing there. property tax funds local operations. apples to oranges. we're talking about federal income tax. I also pay a big chunk in property tax. waterfront property isn't cheap. Tax is money out. I don't care about the label, or where it goes.
|
|