AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 13:07:41 GMT -5
I remember my first trip to Punta Cana, DR when I figured out that Hugo Chavez, Dick Cheney, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Kofi Annan were all neighbors-- about 10 minutes apart-- the light came on. Tax code? What's that? Standing on Dominican soil, it's nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 20:17:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 13:10:03 GMT -5
And yet the rich keep complaining.
I am no where near rich but I complain about it to. You shouldn't have to pay for slackers just because you aren't one. Add that to the type of welfare system we have (designed to keep people on welfare) & I really have a hard time with it. Yes, if I were rich I would be considering moving to another country & I'm one of the more pro-American people that I know (I must kind of like this country to have spent 20 years defending it). The rich are getting screwed & so are the poor because the incentive to do better in life is being taken away from them. Just my thoughts.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,345
|
Post by swamp on Feb 25, 2011 13:10:15 GMT -5
I remember my first trip to Punta Cana, DR when I figured out that Hugo Chavez, Dick Cheney, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Kofi Annan were all neighbors-- about 10 minutes apart-- the light came on. Tax code? What's that? Standing on Dominican soil, it's nothing. Which ones are Dominican citizens though? I'm not about to relocate to the Dominican, it's not exactly paradise outside the resorts and exclusive neighborhoods.........
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 25, 2011 13:15:58 GMT -5
With all that you said..and I DID consider..sorry friend, your not convincing me... Sorry friend, you're not surprising me. Wow Dezi...sounds like pure envy. Who the hell cares what they buy with the money they earn. The problem here is when you guys think "rich" you think CEO or wall street types. That is not always the case. I knew a contractor in RI that made a damned good living and did it all himself. He only builds high end waterfront homes and pulled in well in to six figures every year...possibly 7 judging by the price tags on the boats they own. He did that over the 30+ years he spent cutting wood and swinging a hammer. That developed into his own company and it eventually built into a nice real estate portfolio. Living on my boat up there for 5+ years, I met more than a few like this guy. You feel people like this make enough and deserve to have more taken away to be squandered by a bloated, inefficient government. I, however, do not. whether he wants another $100k sports car or a $10 million dollar offshore fishing boat, He earned it, let him spend it on whatever he damned well pleases.
|
|
|
Post by privateinvestor on Feb 25, 2011 13:22:09 GMT -5
I liked the rich who know how to give their wealth to the causes or charities they endorse rather than have the government take away their income and re distribute it to the so called poor and needy...Why? Because some of the poor and needy are charlatans or not that poor and needy..
We have cases of the so called poor and needy getting food stamps and rent subsidies while they sit home and watch tv doing drugs or drinking their lives away and feeling sorry for themselves ..Welfare fraud is alive and well and thriving just as well as investment and banking fraud..
I have often watched people in the check out line ahead of me buy a case or two of beer and then use their food stamps or food substance credit cards to pay for their beer.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Feb 25, 2011 16:12:41 GMT -5
They can afford the 35 %...I feel they can also afford, easily the 37 and 1/2 %.. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=3850&page=2#152422#ixzz1F0TeX3RaThey can afford 100%, the question is whether they will pay it, pull their capital in, or move their capital to a capitalistic economy. A couple % can easily be made up by slashing overhead (first), ie reducing labor costs, then increasing prices as the market allows. This was done in preperation for the sunset of the Bush tax cuts, back in 2007-2008 (when the dems would obviously control the WH). Maybe not every business reacts the same way, but my company reduced staff by 10% after conceding a Clinton/Obama presidency. This is a strange coincedence as to the increased unemployment at that time, but maybe it is no coincedence at all. Go ahead and push for higher taxes, most of the rich that I know are prepared to adjust to an economy with higher tax rates, but don't think that doing so will increase revenues, or do anything but hurt the poor.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 16:34:19 GMT -5
I have money outside the country right now-- legally. Everything that I'm required to report, I report. I'm not a big fat cat rich guy, but I refuse to bring my money back here for the same reason they won't: it costs too much to repatriate the funds. Oh, you can run any number of scams-- use of a corporate debit card for small withdrawals, take out a "loan", or just flat smuggle it back as cash in your suitcase; but for the real fat cats-- and those of us not-so-fat cats who like our lives as they are, outside of prison, it's expensive-- and it's all in the name of nailing the rich. If we were to impose NO fees or taxes on the repatriation of funds, OR if we were to charge a very low tax-- 5% or so, offshore money would flood our country and we'd all be better off here at home. But they won't do it because there are people that want the rich "miserable"-- even if it spreads misery to everyone else.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Feb 25, 2011 16:37:21 GMT -5
I am not going into a lot of detail here, but the short story is that I bought a property in another country-- four, in fact. Villas which are rented out. I participate in a Panamanian foundation that opened an office in a third country-- if you do no business in Panama, you aren't taxed there-- and the income flows from the country the properties are in back to the foundation. I use all of the money overseas when I travel-- I don't-- and I won't-- bring the money back here.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 25, 2011 16:48:14 GMT -5
They can afford the 35 %...I feel they can also afford, easily the 37 and 1/2 %.. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=3850&page=2#152422#ixzz1F0TeX3RaThey can afford 100%, the question is whether they will pay it, pull their capital in, or move their capital to a capitalistic economy. A couple % can easily be made up by slashing overhead (first), ie reducing labor costs, then increasing prices as the market allows. This was done in preperation for the sunset of the Bush tax cuts, back in 2007-2008 (when the dems would obviously control the WH). Maybe not every business reacts the same way, but my company reduced staff by 10% after conceding a Clinton/Obama presidency. This is a strange coincedence as to the increased unemployment at that time, but maybe it is no coincidence at all. Go ahead and push for higher taxes, most of the rich that I know are prepared to adjust to an economy with higher tax rates, but don't think that doing so will increase revenues, or do anything but hurt the poor. Possible the 10% decrease was because you management saw that obama had inherited, a recession which was a eye lash from turning into a depression, bank failures, world wide slow down and financial problems, two wars, and on and on...thus, 10 % cut back in anticipation or possible already problems you might not have been aware of,... then possible the POTUS being a different shade then Potus's of the past might have triggered the cut back, who knows. "don't think that doing so will increase revenues, or do anything but hurt the poor" Of course that would have increased revenues..as far as the poor, already affected, see my new Governors budget , Florida, so many cuts so far are on programs that target the poor, disadvantaged, from eyeglasses no longer being supplied , which is important but not life threatening to the stopping of paying for Dialysis and medications for those who have kidney problems..now that one can smart..no kidneys..one dies and a lot of programs in between. I am sure the same thing is going on in other states too.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 25, 2011 17:02:28 GMT -5
I am not going into a lot of detail here, but the short story is that I bought a property in another country-- four, in fact. Villas which are rented out. I participate in a Panamanian foundation that opened an office in a third country-- if you do no business in Panama, you aren't taxed there-- and the income flows from the country the properties are in back to the foundation. I use all of the money overseas when I travel-- I don't-- and I won't-- bring the money back here. Look Palm, I don't care what you have over seas if you do, if you don't, ir just blowing smoke, read about the investment some where and wish you could afford it..we are on the net here..who knows antything..or if you are the second coming of a Rockafeller... If there are laws on the books that prohibit the average person , large corporation, big small, who is invested over seas , whether a business or as in your so called case in rental property in Panama, and the laws are to resterictive , determental to the flow of profits back to the stastes and I am thinking business profits not your little stash, then those are the laws that should be changed. It still doesn't change ny feelings and ideas about the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest...it was stupid not to, the almost 3 % extra was a nice piece of change that would have stpped some criticism of those super, super wealthy you are so big on defending. They can afford it, they have said so. It would have not sent money in boat loads over seas, and to try and defend it, the keeping of th ecuts, with all the comments here, not ONE has addressesd the points I brought up, just yadda yadda about everything and all things but what I brought up. So much beating around the bush you all must be looking to run for office next election, getting in practicce , possible all members of the TEA PARTY.
|
|
skweet
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 13:49:27 GMT -5
Posts: 1,061
|
Post by skweet on Feb 25, 2011 17:12:12 GMT -5
Possible the 10% decrease was because you management saw that obama had inherited, a recession which was a eye lash from turning into a depression, bank failures, world wide slow down and financial problems, two wars, and on and on... Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=3850&page=4#ixzz1F0jrsD1X I did not say that this was a theory had about my company, I said that it was possible my company was an annomoly, but the crystal ball said nothing of the economic crap that ultimately hit the fan, just that my taxes were increasing in 2010, and possibly sooner. I suppose if management were smarter, I would have concluded that other businesses would be cutting overhead, too, and that overhead would have a hard time making rent and mortgage payments without a job, but management was too myopic to see that. All I knew was that my net profit, before taxes, needed to increase by 3.6%, which meant expenses needed to be reduced by 3.6% until my competition increased prices so that revenues could cover the difference. With all do respect I am interchanging management and I for the purpose of letting you know that you don't know what management was thinking, and I do.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 25, 2011 17:15:12 GMT -5
Possible the 10% decrease was because you management saw that obama had inherited, a recession which was a eye lash from turning into a depression, bank failures, world wide slow down and financial problems, two wars, and on and on... Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=3850&page=4#ixzz1F0jrsD1X I did not say that this was a theory had about my company, I said that it was possible my company was an annomoly, but the crystal ball said nothing of the economic crap that ultimately hit the fan, just that my taxes were increasing in 2010, and possibly sooner. I suppose if management were smarter, I would have concluded that other businesses would be cutting overhead, too, and that overhead would have a hard time making rent and mortgage payments without a job, but management was too myopic to see that. All I knew was that my net profit, before taxes, needed to increase by 3.6%, which meant expenses needed to be reduced by 3.6% until my competition increased prices so that revenues could cover the difference. With all do respect I am interchanging management and I for the purpose of letting you know that you don't know what management was thinking, and I do. Have to go , dinner with friends...you still are not , as none are by the way, your not alone, addressing my feelings on Bushes tax cuts...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 20:17:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2011 17:21:15 GMT -5
But the really lazy people don't vote, so I'm not sure why they're catered to. Swamp, neither does all of the illegal aliens & they are catered to too! I don't get that either.
So much beating around the bush you all must be looking to run for office next election, getting in practice , possible all members of the TEA PARTY. I'm not a member of the Tea Party yet.....Still waiting to see if they become just a radical off shoot of the Republican party (& adopt all the bad things that it pushes).
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Feb 27, 2011 21:07:13 GMT -5
I'll try this one more time. Once a person achieves a net worth where the return on the money is more than the person needs for living, then the net worth compounds upward at a very quick pace. This is why it is so important to live below your means so the excess money can grow. Use this over a lifetime and you will gain significant wealth providing you don't make stupid investments. My father worked in the steel mills as a highly skilled tradesman. He often used the example, if all union workers received a 3% pay raise, it overly compensated the higher paid trades, as 3% was evenly spread, to everyone, but if you made $25 an hour instead of $12 an hour, you increased the amount of the spread between the same corporate employees. $25 an hour became $25.75 an hour, $12 became $12.36 an hour increasing the difference between ranks by 29 cents an hour I.E, the rich get richer.......the middle class fell further behind, and the poor, well sorry about that...... Simple economics....... And yet liberals, say, the rich have to pick up the difference, which forces the rich to charge the poor even more for their products or services, creating even more hardship on the lower class...... A truly vicious "Circle of Life".
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 20:17:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2011 21:51:13 GMT -5
Of course that would have increased revenues..as far as the poor, already affected, see my new Governors budget , Florida, so many cuts so far are on programs that target the poor, disadvantaged, from eyeglasses no longer being supplied , which is important but not life threatening to the stopping of paying for Dialysis and medications for those who have kidney problems..now that one can smart..no kidneys..one dies and a lot of programs in between. I am sure the same thing is going on in other states too.
Liberal side (sick baby, someone on dialysis, etc). Conservative side (Social programs excess & corruption).
I don't think anyone on either side really wants to cut someone off a program & have them die. I do think that those that can work need to understand that they have a choice = work or starve (& yes I mean starve to death). Those are the one's that I'm against. I'm also against the government running just about anything & certainly not anything new because they run nothing well. I also think something wrong somewhere when 40% of Americans don't pay federal Tax.
Now the big one: Take from the rich to give to the poor & support social programs. Take 100% no take 200% & see what happens. Sooner or later (like less than 5 years) the rich will either be gone or broke & the middle class (who has always been paying for these things anyway) will take the full brunt of paying for this stuff. You see WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RICH PEOPLE TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING. Take every dime away from ALL the rich & it won't run our government 2 years (not just their pay but every dime they have). GET A CLUE & buy an adding machine if you don't believe it. IT WON'T WORK!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 20:17:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2011 21:54:41 GMT -5
Gale Encyclopedia of US History: Federal Expenditures
AdsFederal Spendingwww.thefiscaltimes.com Budget Coverage From The Fiscal Times. News, Opinion & Analysis. Stop Dems Spending Spreenrsc.org/stopthedebt Don't let Dems use borrowed money For Political Bailout. Join Us! Home > Library > History, Politics & Society > US History Encyclopedia The Constitution of the United States provides, in Article I, Section 9, that "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." There is no constitutional limitation on the amount of federal expenditures. Several efforts have been made to pass a balanced budget amendment, but all have failed. Although Congress is limited by the Constitution to taxing "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States," in practice it has been demonstrated that money derived by the federal government from taxation or borrowing may be spent for any purpose for which it has been made available by an act of Congress.
When the federal government began its operation under the Constitution, its functions were comparatively few and its expenditures small. As new functions were added and old functions were expanded, federal expenditures were vastly increased. Thus, in 1791—when money was spent only for the army, interest on the public debt, pensions, foreign relations, and the salaries of government personnel—the expenditures amounted to only $3, 097, 000. But in the fiscal year 2000—with tremendously increased amounts spent for the above purposes
Table and great sums spent as well for such items as agricultural subsidies, social security, unemployment relief, space research and exploration, veterans' benefits, and education—the net expenditures totaled $1, 788, 045, 000, 000. Whereas the per capita expenditure in 1791 was only 76 cents, in 2001 it was in excess of $6, 000.
Table 1
Federal Expenditures Yearly Average Period (in millions) SOURCE: World Almanac (2001). 1789–1800 $5.7 1811–1820 23.9 1831–1840 24.4 1851–1860 60.1 1876–1880 255 1896–1900 457 1916–1920 8, 065 1926–1930 3, 182 1936–1940 10, 192 1941–1945 66, 037 1946–1950 42, 334 Per Year 1955 $64, 569 1960 76, 539 1965 96, 506 1970 194, 968 1975 332, 332 1976 371, 779 1977 409, 203 1978 458, 729 1979 503, 464 1980 590, 920 1981 678, 209 1982 745, 706 1983 808, 327 1984 851, 781 1985 946, 316 1986 990, 231 1987 1, 003, 804 1988 1, 063, 318 1989 1, 144, 020 1990 1, 251, 776 1991 1, 323, 757 1992 1, 380, 794 1993 1, 408, 532 1994 1, 460, 553 1995 1, 515, 412 1996 1, 560, 094 1997 1, 600, 911 1998 1, 652, 224 1999 1, 704, 942 2000 1, 788, 045 2001 1, 863, 039
Wars have been the chief factor in causing federal expenditures to rise. The Civil War cost the federal government nearly $13 billion; World War I, $112 billion; and World War II, $664 billion. After each war in which the United States participated federal expenditures fell markedly but failed to drop even close to the prewar level. For example, federal expenditures in 1916, just before the United States entered World War I, amounted to $724, 413, 000. After a peak wartime output of $18, 939, 532, 000 in fiscal year 1919, annual expenditures never again fell below $3, 000, 000, 000, more than four times the prewar figure. During the Vietnam War (1962–1973) federal expenditures increased enormously, nearly tripling from approximately $87.8 billion in 1962 to $246.5 billion in 1973. Federal outlays increased to $268.3 billion the following year and never again fell below $300 billion.
The largest percentage of the federal budget since World War II has been allocated to national defense. However, even though the dollar output on national defense has soared ($50 billion in 1965 to $281.2 billion in 2000), the percentage of total national expenditures allocated to defense began to decrease long before the end of the Cold War in 1989–1990. From a height of 41.9 percent in 1965, defense spending sank to 29.4 percent of the national budget in 1974 to 15.1% in 2000). If defense spending was gradually reduced, the cost of the nation's indebtedness rose dramatically. In 1980, the national debt was $909 billion. From the early 1980s to the mid-1990s, the U.S. ran annual deficits in excess of $100 billion. For three consecutive years from 1998 to 2000, a robust economy and spending controls sent the budget briefly into the black, and the national debt was reduced slightly. But the combined effects of a recession in 2001 and the terrorist attacks of that year returned the government to a policy of deficit spending. By 2001, the national debt had ballooned to $5.8 trillion. Simply paying the interest on that debt cost the federal government $362.1 billion—making interest payments the government's largest single expenditure of the national debt (19.4 percent of its total outlays).
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Feb 28, 2011 0:10:41 GMT -5
I see a trend of the rich starting to pull in their horns and just stand pat till there is a clearer picture of what the market is going to do. True the market is up but the rich man down the street is being very cautious. True Buffet is buy happy but he is in a unique position. Most are not.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 28, 2011 1:01:46 GMT -5
Some really well thought out and well written posts, however I still can't understand the rushing to the barrricades, manning the wall of the battlements in the defense of the wealthiest, those who have earnings of a million or more per year, again , not net worth.
Fighting to keep the Bush tax cuts from expiring for those folks.
It isn't like they haven't been there before, Bush pushed them through for his friends, as we were in a war, in fact two, that was costing us and still is , billions, no tax's for them by the way to pay for them, and as all the charts show their wealth is growing up the zing zang, not my blabber, the actual facts and some here are actuallysuggesting , because of the conditions , they, the wealthy are going to take their money and go some where else, and definitly if the tax went to 37 from the 34 % it is today.
And all those manning the castle walls from here, are not any one close to meeting those wealth standards yet all seem so concerned about paying down the debt for their grand kids, great grand kids,No one realizing if so concerned , this would have been a neat way to pick up a few bucks?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 28, 2011 1:06:32 GMT -5
I see a trend of the rich starting to pull in their horns and just stand pat till there is a clearer picture of what the market is going to do. True the market is up but the rich man down the street is being very cautious. True Buffet is buy happy but he is in a unique position. Most are not. Buffett is also looking all you who fought the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts right in the eye, laughing his butt off and saying , you idiots, we, my kind, mine, we wealthy through the nose few, we are paying way to low in actual % in taxes and you have to be complete idiots in not realizing that and having us pay more . When that is brought up we see answers along the lines "well if he feels that way why doesn't he pay more on his own" and other clap trap along those lines.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Feb 28, 2011 7:04:36 GMT -5
<<< And all those manning the castle walls from here, are not any one close to meeting those wealth standards yet all seem so concerned about paying down the debt for their grand kids, great grand kids,No one realizing if so concerned , this would have been a neat way to pick up a few bucks? >>> ...I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, dez... are you asking why we want to drop wealth-draining debt? or any debt? ...and if we drop wealth-draining anything, isn't that akin to picking up a few bucks? ...btw, I suppose I like standing up here on my castle walls because it's a better view than from down below... ;D
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 28, 2011 12:12:46 GMT -5
Been there ..I am simply saying that keeping the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthiest, those with a income of over a million per year, rather then let them expire, was wrong, they should have been allowed to expire. That so many here argued that they were necessary to be kept, and so argued, beat around the bush, did not explain why they were necessary, and when some of the wealthiest them selves said it was nuts to keep them, they are not needed, they are doing fine, no one listened and poo pooed their claim, and usually you would get directed at Buffitt himself, "then why doesn't he just give more on his own to the US", comments along those lines, the same cliche, which isn't a answer. On another thread just this AM, that was said almost exactly regarding Buffitt.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Feb 28, 2011 14:46:27 GMT -5
...okay, thanks...
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 28, 2011 15:26:11 GMT -5
And all those manning the castle walls from here, are not any one close to meeting those wealth standards.... You're correct dezi, I don't know what I was thinking...that's a great idea!! In fact, I say we just bump their rate back up to the 95% range for them evil, rich bastards since it doesn't effect me. A neat way to pick up a few bucks, eh? So do tell....what's the difference if we steal money from the wallet of the rich guy or the wallet of our future American citizens? Despite your belief in a benevolent government dezi, the money would have simply been added to the budget and used to increase spending rather than curb the financial train wreck already in progress.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 28, 2011 15:51:52 GMT -5
And all those manning the castle walls from here, are not any one close to meeting those wealth standards.... You're correct dezi, I don't know what I was thinking...that's a great idea!! In fact, I say we just bump their rate back up to the 95% range for them evil, rich bastards since it doesn't effect me. A neat way to pick up a few bucks, eh? So do tell....what's the difference if we steal money from the wallet of the rich guy or the wallet of our future American citizens? Despite your belief in a benevolent government dezi, the money would have simply been added to the budget and used to increase spending rather than curb the financial train wreck already in progress. " the money would have simply been added to the budget and used to increase spending rather than curb the financial train wreck already in progress." First congrats..at least I didn't get the stealing from..oops, "what's the difference if we steal money from the wallet of the rich guy or the wallet of our future American citizens?" guess i did, {sigh } but lets go back to the second post... your assuming, as far as how the $ would be spent..I think even with it being let expired just for those over the $million per and not considering raising a bit on those who have income of say $750,000 per, a bit less then the million, it still would be a nice chunk of needed revenue, it could be spent rather then put toward, point is it would be found revenue and if it was spent then one could then go after those who were pushing the expenditures but say it just went into the total tax picture, and say it then went toward oh say, the wars..remember we have not increased, added any tax revenues for those..don't you think we should. is that considered new expenditures? The $ would have just gone into the revenues thus reducing the $ spent with less coming in. As far as the post above of going to the 95% rate, that was a long time ago, with lots of no longer deductions allowed, though still to many, and I was suggesting as you know, rate of 34% going to about 37 %, so why bring up something that was so long ago and not going to be considered. just to be a ..OK, C of C... ;D I guess that answer is also my answer to yours on the rich and future generations..not stealing, just in these times, the sleight increase, that was the way to go. Not fair? As said possible but then again as far as fair..you know how it goes and 34 to 37 %, acceptable and you know it.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Feb 28, 2011 16:12:55 GMT -5
your assuming, as far as how the $ would be spent.. Actually, I'm making an educated guess based on the last 50+ years of reckless deficit spending through tax increases as well as tax decreases. I guess I need to borrow your rose colored glasses to see this benevolent government that would actually do the right thing and use a tax increase to decrease our deficit.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 28, 2011 16:15:27 GMT -5
your assuming, as far as how the $ would be spent.. Actually, I'm making an educated guess based on the last 50+ years of reckless deficit spending through tax increases as well as tax decreases. I guess I need to borrow your rose colored glasses to see this benevolent government that would actually do the right thing and use a tax increase to decrease our deficit. No problem, send me the address PM, got a extra pair and will have em in the mail manana..use in good health.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Feb 28, 2011 16:23:38 GMT -5
Dez, I strongly oppose higher taxation on anyone for some fairly simple reasons. 1- The spending most be controlled before any revenue increases make sense. Any increase in revenue right now will promptly be wasted on more spending. 2- Any increases to the "rich" will be paid for by either passing the cost on to the consumer/ middle class worker or will be circumvented by the loopholes that exist in our current laws. People like Buffet prove that point in their claims to only pay 17% while they should be paying at least 34% under current law. 3- Fix our unfair trade agreements that allow advantageous to countries who do not share our regulations and ideals. So do what the people have asked. Fix the out of control spending, get rid of the loopholes that allow the ultra rich and conglomerates buy loopholes, fix our trade agreements and then we can see if tax increases are required or make sense.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 28, 2011 16:50:33 GMT -5
Dez, I strongly oppose higher taxation on anyone for some fairly simple reasons. 1- The spending most be controlled before any revenue increases make sense. Any increase in revenue right now will promptly be wasted on more spending. 2- Any increases to the "rich" will be paid for by either passing the cost on to the consumer/ middle class worker or will be circumvented by the loopholes that exist in our current laws. People like Buffet prove that point in their claims to only pay 17% while they should be paying at least 34% under current law. 3- Fix our unfair trade agreements that allow advantageous to countries who do not share our regulations and ideals. So do what the people have asked. Fix the out of control spending, get rid of the loopholes that allow the ultra rich and conglomerates buy loopholes, fix our trade agreements and then we can see if tax increases are required or make sense. Okay, good response, best one I have seen. Actually Buffitt did pay a chunk in Federal , think it was 26 % on...., over a billion paid, I believe but if was paying at the 16/17 % legally because of the type of investments, then I can't fault him...if all the supers were doing with their wealth what he, gates are doing, yea their choice of where it is spent, hell it's their Money, it would be nice. He doesn't believe in passing such wealth on, enough so his off spring can choose what they want to do but they have to do something.. Right now we'll have to see where the Congress and Executive come up with. President started it..he made the first step, now it's the other sides turn. Now the question is..are they going to really attack the problem or use the budget for the politics of. If the other side refuses to look at the entitlements, then they are playing politics in my estimation. President said he believes the entitlement have to be addressed..he didn't go that route..but has indicated he is game for ut. He's the President..gets the first move, now the other sides turn. Point is, both you and I want them to stop with the politics . I don't think they will, I honestly feel the pubs side are really more interested in the chan ge of government then starting on the real solving of th problems. Youb or others may feel that's the way to go, so we waste two years, but remember , depending how a election turns out, the same game can be played out on the other side , see EI how the game can be plaid out, it can get dirty. No not the eexacr same scenaruo but other tricks, pary of NO, and on and on. I want something concrete now, politics will be there damn it , but it should be later. There fore you or others, don't know where you are here will blame the Dem's, President and I will blame the Pubs for playing politics and neither of us will get what we really both want.{sigh}
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Feb 28, 2011 23:39:08 GMT -5
OR if we were to charge a very low tax-- 5% or so, offshore money would flood our country and we'd all be better off here at home. But they won't do it because there are people that want the rich "miserable"-- even if it spreads misery to everyone else. Read more: You must not keep up with the news. Bush did just this, I thought it was pretty smart of him, rare moment, but it flopped. They stipulated the repatriated money had to be used to add buildings or equipment and could not be used for stock buyback or executive bonuses, but some type of investment in this country. The corporations apparently decided they did not want to invest in America. He tried to get them to bring back billions in offshore money. I am sure money came back , just not in the amounts he hoped for, and I agree with his rules on that, it made sense, in fact they should reenact it and even increrase to 10 %, possible talk to important busness peopl what would be acceptable to them , nio nott he buy back of stocks , bonuss, to reinvest in planrs, new businesses, say alternative energy, anything that might add jobs. possible not all they would want but I am sure some good #'s would happen.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Mar 1, 2011 0:53:15 GMT -5
...I hate to be a killjoy, but it seems to me that these latest posts are advocating wealth/labor confiscation, or indentured servitude of some kind, by the good ole US of A... and that would, be definition, make us the bad ole US of A...
|
|