Tax

[Reinier]

I quote from another board:

"And in comparison, leaving a middle class income tax rate still close to 30%, while lowering the richest to 3%. "

Does the USA have a tax system that has richer people pay a lower % of their income to tax?

[Y2A]

Nope, the more you make, the more you pay. Not sure what that quote means :confused:

[Reinier]

its probably just a total sillyhead. I hear they have a lot of those over at X

[Ironman8]

The thing I hate is you gotta pay for alot of useless stuff. Like, recently they added a "9/11" tax in the airports :rolleyes:

[Berserker]

Your income is taxed based on the amount above the brackets. Your not taxesd on the first 14? then taxed a percent on the 14 to 25? and then taxed a differant rate for everything abouve 25 and so on. Those are not the exact numbers.
Tax goes up as your income goes up.

[mantis]

This story you read is true. See this yahoo new link.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=13&u=/nm/economy_taxes_rich_dc

The rich people can create all kinds of Trust and other "stuff" to reduce the actual tax they have to pay. In many cases, the most wealthy pays much less tax in percentage compares to the middle class.

[GonePostal]

Everyone has the chance to take advantage of these tax exemptions. The rich are just more likely and able to do so.

[MrWebb78]

most actual rich people are rich because they understand money, and how it works. im doing my damndest to learn loopholes in the tax system.

but as an employee it is pretty standard that the more you make, the more they take.

[mantis]

We are not just taking about exemptions. Not everyone can take advantage of these "loopholes". You gotta have some money first before if you can do or form "things" to take advantage of these things. For example , you can create a foundation, however, it takes a bit of cash to create one.

[GonePostal]

Bolded for those that cant read

Everyone has the chance to take advantage of these tax exemptions. The rich are just more likely and able to do so.
They are exemptions... it is your own fault if you don't know them and how to make them work for you.

[Reinier]

I know rich business people pay very little tax and cheat their way out. a friend of mine works for shell and he says he sees any tax payd as a loss

[mantis]

Gonepostal,

No need to use word of insult.

I disagee that everyone can benefit from these "exemption" even if they knew how.

I like to form a certain type of founation, but I don't have $500,000 to do it. I know how to do it, but I don't have the money to do it. You can argue that it's my "fault" that I don't have the money to do it.

There are things that rich people are doing to avoid paying taxes "legally" which are not exemptions. They are loopholes. Here is one thing that my boss is doing....

He formed a non-profit foundation and donated some of his own money into it. He hired himself as the president of the foundation, and pays himself a nice salary. Certain assets were aquired under the foundation, and he gets to use them.

You can call the above example "exemptions", but I call them loophole.

[Y2A]

Its true that not everyone can take advantage of the tax rules. For example, you can choose a standard deduction, or itemize your deductions. If you dont own a house, then you dont have mortage interest, which generally (not always) makes or breaks your ability to itemize. On the other hand, if you have a million dollar house with huge monthly payments, you will be able to deduct the interest and lower your tax. You do have to have a certain amount of money in order to take advantage of tax rules.

[GonePostal]

Please read carefully.

I didn't say everyone COULD take advantage of these exemptions but rather everyone has the CHANCE to do so. Is it my fault you don't own a million dollar house? No but if you had one you could take advantage of it. Everyone has the chance to take advantage of the tax laws and should. Most don't and it is their fault. I never said the tax laws were fair to the rich and poor.

[RoidRage]

Table 1. - Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI): Number of Returns, Shares of AGI andTotal Income Tax, AGI Floor on Percentiles in Current and Constant Dollars, and Average Tax Rates, by Selected Descending Cumulative Percentiles of Returns Based on Income Size Using the Definition of AGI for Each Year, Tax Years 1986-2000 [All figures are estimates based on samples]
Descending cumulative percentiles

Year: Total..................Top 1%............Top 5%.........Top 10%.......Top 25%..........Top 50%

Number of returns: [1]
1986: 102,087,623......1,020,876......5,104,381......10,208,762......25,521,906......51,043,811
1987: 106,154,761......1,061,548......5,307,738......10,615,476......26,538,690......53,077,380
1988: 108,872,859......1,088,729......5,443,643......10,887,286......27,218,214......54,436,429
1989: 111,312,721......1,113,127......5,565,636......11,131,272......27,828,181......55,656,361
1990: 112,812,262......1,128,123......5,640,613......11,281,226......28,203,066......56,406,132
1991: 113,804,104......1,138,041......5,690,205......11,380,410......28,451,026......56,902,052
1992: 112,652,759......1,126,528......5,632,638......11,265,276......28,163,190......56,326,380
1993: 113,681,387......1,136,814......5,684,069......11,368,139......28,420,347......56,840,694
1994: 114,989,920......1,149,899......5,749,496......11,498,992......28,747,480......57,494,960
1995: 117,274,186......1,172,742......5,863,709......11,727,419......29,318,546......58,637,093
1996: 119,441,767......1,194,418......5,972,088......11,944,177......29,860,442......59,720,884
1997: 121,503,284......1,215,033......6,075,164......12,150,328......30,375,821......60,751,642
1998: 123,775,831......1,237,758......6,188,792......12,377,583......30,943,958......61,887,915
1999: 126,008,974......1,260,090......6,300,449......12,600,897......31,502,244......63,004,487
2000: 128,227,143......1,282,271......6,411,357......12,822,714......32,056,786......64,113,572

Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (current dollars):
1986: N/A......118,818......62,377......48,656......32,242......17,302
1987: N/A......139,289......68,414......52,921......33,983......17,768
1988: N/A......157,136......72,735......55,437......35,398......18,367
1989: N/A......163,869......76,933......58,263......36,839......18,993
1990: N/A......167,421......79,064......60,287......38,080......19,767
1991: N/A......170,139......81,720......61,944......38,929......20,097
1992: N/A......181,904......85,103......64,457......40,378......20,803
1993: N/A......185,715......87,386......66,077......41,210......21,179
1994: N/A......195,726......91,226......68,753......42,742......21,802
1995: N/A......209,406......96,221......72,094......44,207......22,344
1996: N/A......227,546......101,141......74,986......45,757......23,174
1997: N/A......250,736......108,048......79,212......48,173......24,393
1998: N/A......269,496......114,729......83,220......50,607......25,491
1999: N/A......293,415......120,846......87,682......52,965......26,415
2000: N/A......313,469......128,336......92,144......55,225......27,682


Adjusted gross income floor on percentiles (constant dollars): [2]
1986: N/A......108,411......56,913......44,394......29,418......15,786
1987: N/A......122,614......60,224......46,585......29,915......15,641
1988: N/A......132,828......61,484......46,861......29,922......15,526
1989: N/A......132,152......62,043......46,986......29,709......15,317
1990: N/A......128,096......60,493......46,126......29,135......15,124
1991: N/A......124,919......60,000......45,480......28,582......14,756
1992: N/A......129,654......60,658......45,942......28,780......14,828
1993: N/A......128,522......60,475......45,728......28,519......14,657
1994: N/A......132,069......61,556......46,392......28,841......14,711
1995: N/A......137,406......63,137......47,306......29,007......14,661
1996: N/A......145,026......64,462......47,792......29,163......14,769
1997: N/A......156,222......67,320......49,353......30,014......15,198
1998: N/A......164,427......69,999......50,775......30,877......15,553
1999: N/A......176,119......72,537......52,630......31,792......15,855
2000: N/A......182,038......74,527......53,510......32,070......16,075


Adjusted gross income (millions of dollars):
1986: 2,524,124......285,197......608,467......886,510......1,490,173......2,103,569
1987: 2,813,728......346,635......722,221......1,038,221......1,709,389......2,373,869
1988: 3,124,156......473,527......890,702......1,232,536......1,950,860......2,657,865
1989: 3,298,858......468,079......918,421......1,286,539......2,054,478......2,805,235
1990: 3,451,237......483,252......953,337......1,338,032......2,144,177......2,932,537
1991: 3,516,142......456,603......943,350......1,343,202......2,174,765......2,984,003
1992: 3,680,552......523,586......1,031,093......1,443,784......2,299,401......3,131,400
1993: 3,775,578......520,586......1,048,252......1,474,463......2,357,953......3,212,299
1994: 3,961,146......546,700......1,103,084......1,552,205......2,481,074......3,371,352
1995: 4,244,607......619,610......1,222,723......1,704,513......2,689,820......3,627,542
1996: 4,590,527......736,545......1,393,805......1,909,149......2,952,637......3,944,383
1997: 5,023,457......872,826......1,597,107......2,151,401......3,267,600......4,327,992
1998: 5,469,211......1,010,245......1,796,647......2,393,716......3,589,600......4,721,430
1999: 5,909,329......1,152,820......2,011,763......2,652,835......3,927,308......5,126,164
2000: 6,423,977......1,336,773......2,267,403......2,955,386......4,313,786......5,589,755



Descending cumulative percentiles
Year: Total............Top 1%.....Top 5%.......Top 10%....Top 25%....Top 50%

Total income tax (millions of dollars): [3]
1986: 366,979......94,491......156,240......200,703......278,976......343,289
1987: 369,046......91,559......159,642......205,230......283,857......346,655
1988: 412,761......113,841......188,303......236,411......321,297......389,145
1989: 432,838......109,259......190,188......241,458......334,258......407,599
1990: 447,061......112,338......195,088......247,514......344,340......421,075
1991: 448,349......111,267......194,480......250,282......346,511......423,759
1992: 476,163......131,156......218,479......276,213......373,700......452,070
1993: 502,720......145,836......238,083......297,808......398,516......478,563
1994: 534,754......154,337......254,106......317,902......425,402......509,256
1995: 588,331......178,035......287,741......357,402......472,808......561,225
1996: 658,124......212,626......335,433......411,404......535,164......629,684
1997: 727,303......241,239......377,241......459,639......594,007......696,161
1998: 788,452......274,009......424,506......512,836......651,964......755,240
1999: 877,292......317,419......486,464......583,002......732,890......842,168
2000: 980,521......366,929......553,670......660,150......823,706......942,179


Average tax rate (percentage): [4]
1986: 14.54......33.13......25.68......22.64......18.72......16.32
1987: 13.12......26.41......22.10......19.77......16.61......14.60
1988: 13.21......24.04......21.14......19.18......16.47......14.64
1989: 13.12......23.34......20.71......18.77......16.27......14.53
1990: 12.95......23.25......20.46......18.50......16.06......14.36
1991: 12.75......24.37......20.62......18.63......15.93......14.20
1992: 12.94......25.05......21.19......19.13......16.25......14.44
1993: 13.32......28.01......22.71......20.20......16.90......14.90
1994: 13.50......28.23......23.04......20.48......17.15......15.11
1995: 13.86......28.73......23.53......20.97......17.58......15.47
1996: 14.34......28.87......24.07......21.55......18.12......15.96
1997: 14.48......27.64......23.62......21.36......18.18......16.09
1998: 14.42......27.12......23.63......21.42......18.16......16.00
1999: 14.85......27.53......24.18......21.98......18.66......16.43
2000: 15.26......27.45......24.42......22.34......19.09......16.86


Adjusted gross income share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......11.30......24.11......35.12......59.04......83.34
1987: 100.00......12.32......25.67......36.90......60.75......84.37
1988: 100.00......15.16......28.51......39.45......62.44......85.07
1989: 100.00......14.19......27.84......39.00......62.28......85.04
1990: 100.00......14.00......27.62......38.77......62.13......84.97
1991: 100.00......12.99......26.83......38.20......61.85......84.87
1992: 100.00......14.23......28.01......39.23......62.47......85.08
1993: 100.00......13.79......27.76......39.05......62.45......85.08
1994: 100.00......13.80......27.85......39.19......62.64......85.11
1995: 100.00......14.60......28.81......40.16......63.37......85.46
1996: 100.00......16.04......30.36......41.59......64.32......85.92
1997: 100.00......17.38......31.79......42.83......65.05......86.16
1998: 100.00......18.47......32.85......43.77......65.63......86.33
1999: 100.00......19.51......34.04......44.89......66.46......86.75
2000: 100.00......20.81......35.30......46.01......67.15......87.01


Total income tax share (percentage): 1986: 100.00......25.75......42.57......54.69......76.02......93.54
1987: 100.00......24.81......43.26......55.61......76.92......93.93
1988: 100.00......27.58......45.62......57.28......77.84......94.28
1989: 100.00......25.24......43.94......55.78......77.22......94.17
1990: 100.00......25.13......43.64......55.36......77.02......94.19
1991: 100.00......24.82......43.38......55.82......77.29......94.52
1992: 100.00......27.54......45.88......58.01......78.48......94.94
1993: 100.00......29.01......47.36......59.24......79.27......95.19
1994: 100.00......28.86......47.52......59.45......79.55......95.23
1995: 100.00......30.26......48.91......60.75......80.36......95.39
1996: 100.00......32.31......50.97......62.51......81.32......95.68
1997: 100.00......33.17......51.87......63.20......81.67......95.72
1998: 100.00......34.75......53.84......65.04......82.69......95.79
1999: 100.00......36.18......55.45......66.45......83.54......96.00
2000: 100.00......37.42......56.47......67.33......84.01......96.09


N/A-- Not applicable.
[1] The number of returns with negative adjusted gross income, i.e., returns with an adjusted gross deficit, and the corresponding amounts for adjusted gross deficit, were excluded from Table 1. By excluding deficit returns, alternative minimum tax reported on some of these returns was also excluded. For Tax Year 2000, there were 5,714 returns with no adjusted gross income that reported income tax, mostly alternative minimum tax, totaling $100.6 million.
[2] For Table 1, constant dollars were calculated using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index for urban consumers (CPI-U, 1982-84=100). For 2000 the CPI-U = 172.2
[3] Total income tax is the sum of income tax after credits and alternative minimum tax reported on returns that showed a positive amount for adjusted gross income. Therefore, total income tax excludes alternative minimum tax, Form 8814 tax (tax on a child's interest or dividends), and Form 4972 tax (tax on lump-sum distributions from qualified retirement plans) reported on some returns with a negative amount for adjusted gross income. See also footnote 1.
[4] The average tax rate was computed by dividing total income tax (see footnote 3) by (positive) adjusted gross income.

Note: Unles otherwise stated, money amounts are in current (not constant) denominations.

Source: Internal Revenue Service, Statistics of Income Division, Unpublished Statistics, September 2002.


So you see the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.09% of income taxes. The top 10% pay 67.3% and the top 5% pay 56.47%. The top 50% are those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $26,000 and up in 1999. The top 1% are those making $293,000 and up. So when people say only the rich are getting a benefit from tax cuts, then congradulations those of you that make $26,000 or more YOU'RE RICH!

[Paul Stagg]

First, the reason Buffett is able to pay a 'mere' 3% is that almost ALL of his income comes from tax sheltered investments, which are essentially generated via his vast WEALTH (which is not typically taxed until you die.) He is not a representative sample of the nations top 1% of wage earnres.

Baed on those pesky facts RR posted (which those on the left are want to ignore), the 'tax cuts for the rich' argument holds virtually no water.

The most important stat - the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income taxes.

[the doc]

yes paul but you neglect payroll taxes which fund social security and medicare (technically, although they are manipulated into general fund revenues), and are extremely regressive since only the first ~35000 USD in income are taxed

Regardless, we should move to a consumption based tax (similar to a VAT or sales tax) in which absolute necessitities are not taxed (such as food) but all other goods are. Very simply, rich people buy more useless crap, so they will pay more tax. No more loopholes and tax shelter bullsh it

[the doc]

also, i challenge anyone to refute Warren Buffett's opposition to the tax cuts revealed in hit recent op-ed piece in the washington post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13113-2003May19.html

[GonePostal]

1. Warren Buffett's income does not come from tax sheltered investments. They come from investments period. But under the proposed tax bill the elmination on taxes on dividends and the reduction of taxes on capital gains his taxes could take a serious nose dive to the single digit percentages. The rich hold much more stock both in percentages and monetary value then the average joe so they would disproportionatly benifit from these reductions/eliminations.
2. RR posted data that predates 2001 which has no relevance to any debate on current tax bill proposals.
3. The percentages are calculated based on magnitude which is irrelevant really. For example say Warren Buffet's income for one year is 500million and say the tax rate on this is his stated ~30%. That is 15 million. How many middle class citizens have to file tax returns to equal that 15 million??? A LOT! He being one person seems to be paying a disproportionate amount of taxes if you look at the magnitude. But you need to look at it at a relative perspective. Top 1% pays a lot of money I agree but they make much more...
4. Oh the most important stat really is the trend of tax rates of upper vs middle class. The top is paying less taxes over time... who picks up the slack?

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by the doc
No more loopholes and tax shelter bullsh it
:) If we only lived in a perfect world....
I agree with your view on Warren Buffet. He is a no-nonsense guy that actually cares about someone else's wealth then his. Great guy, and always gives out sound advice.

[RoidRage]

bottom line is that rising taxes are horrible for an economy.

[the doc]

Originally posted by RoidRage
bottom line is that rising taxes are horrible for an economy.

Absolutely no evidence to support this. Do you think the tax money just evaporates? Of course not, it is spent by government to build roads, bridges, sewers, tanks, missiles, pay salaries of workers who buy more goods and services... need i go on?

What is absolutely outrageous is borrowing from my future to fund rediculous tax cuts that only increase the 6.5 TRILLION USD federal debt. Since a significant portion of the bonds that fund the debt are owned by foreigners, the taxes which are spent on debt interest (almost 20% of discretionary spending) leave our country and DO NOT benefit our economy

[Paul Stagg]

There is ample evidence to show that government spending of $$ is far less an impact than private.

A) it costs money to collect and administer the revenue, so instead of the private sector just using the money, the government uses some of it to adinister taking it.

B) Government spending is incredibly inefficient.

I agree the debt is a huge issue, but the solution is to stop borrowing and stop spending so freaking much.

[RoidRage]

Amen paul!

Taxes are just another form of legalized stealing. The only way I would be in favor of any tax is something like a 3% tax that would go strictly to defense as it is written in the constitution that the fed. government provide defense. It is not written in the constituition that the governement supply salary to susie crackwhore for sitting on her ass all day.

So you having people getting there money back and then in turn spending more since they have more your stimulating the consumer expendatures portion of the GDP. Since people have more dough there more willing to invest so the investment portion of the GDP is stimulated and the government is spending responsibly so the government spending portion of the GDP is stimulated. Economics 101. All that from a simple tax cut. So why are they so evil again?

Gone postal answer this, Why is it wrong for the government to give your money back? Do you feel UNDERtaxed?

[Berserker]

Back to the subject of not taxing things we need, I like the idea of tax holidays. No sales tax on purchases up to a certain amount. Some states do it before school starts.

[Berserker]

I get a kick out of people bitching abou there taxes and then bitching when programs get cut. The money has to come from somewhere.
I live out in the county so I pay alot less tax, but I also get less. I am ok with that.

[RoidRage]

Indeed the money has to come from somewhere. US! And it comes from everywhere. Sales tax, income tax, state tax, local tax, in new york your taxed for everything correct? Tax on imported steel, gas guzzler tax on cars, tax in gasoline, tax on cigarettes, luxery tax on cars, payroll taxes, tax on booze , property tax etc.

I'd say the governements get enough money don't you think?

[GonePostal]

RR please read. I am not against tax cuts. Never said I was. Nice try bending my words to fit your arguement. I am all for a tax cut that is even handed or even one that helps the less fortunate more. But I am not for a tax cut that disproportionately helping the rich and that is funded by debt.

[Neil]

lol@"funding" a tax cut.

[RoidRage]

helping the rich? why is helping people who make $26,000 a year or more wrong? Why is it wrong for them to get there money back that they earned and its ok for people who basically don't pay taxes to get money back. Under your guidelines the people that pay the taxes (or as you call them "the rich") would pay more and the people who basically don;t pay anything right now would get even more back. That robin hood mentality is not right IMO. Redistribution of wealth is wrong plain and simple.

I didn't try to bend your words, sorry if you thought I did.

[MrWebb78]

rich vs middle class

middle class work, then pay taxes, then get paid, then spend money

rich get paid, spend money, and pay taxes on what is left

biggest differance right there

and stop hating the rich, no matter what image you have in your mind of an arrogant rich asshole, they are very generous, who do you think signs your paycheck

[the doc]

lmao @ roid rage

a 3% tax would not even come close to covering the bloated national defense budget

[the doc]

lol @ webb. If rich mofos didn't have legions of workers under them they wouldnt be very rich now would they ;)

[RoidRage]

3% times 6 million LMAO and the docs math skills

[MrWebb78]

generous, they create jobs.....jobs provide income......income is to be spent......people spend money......the economy is healthy......this goes on and on......thanks to rich people......


employees are simply 'leverage'. i certainly dont plan on being an employee forever, id like to spend my money on an employee who is in turn making me more money.

[the doc]

Originally posted by RoidRage
3% times 6 million LMAO and the docs math skills

lmao @ roid rages grammatical skills ;)


oh and feel free to teach me your version of mathematics

[Neil]

Originally posted by the doc
lmao @ roid rage

a 3% tax would not even come close to covering the bloated national defense budget

You're not taking into account how much growth we would have with such a low tax.

[the doc]

and you're not taking into account the anarchy of 50 little countries each having their own policies would have on slowing or even shrinking the GDP

we tried the articles of confederation and they didn't seem to work very well

[Paul Stagg]

Might as well bag the constitution, too.

Screw this 'states' thing.

[the doc]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Might as well bag the constitution, too.

Screw this 'states' thing.

yeah they're an outdated concept ;)

[RoidRage]

Originally posted by the doc


lmao @ roid rages grammatical skills ;)


oh and feel free to teach me your version of mathematics

Sure! Lets say everyone makes $25000 a year (for simplicity purposes)

25000*.03=750
750*291,036,800 (www.census.gov)=218,277,600,000

Another point is that tax cuts increase government spending. You have more money ytou spend it, and of course your taxed on that purchase.

[the doc]

Originally posted by RoidRage


Sure! Lets say everyone makes $25000 a year (for simplicity purposes)

25000*.03=750
750*291,036,800 (www.census.gov)=218,277,600,000

Another point is that tax cuts increase government spending. You have more money ytou spend it, and of course your taxed on that purchase.

Ok well you seem to be from the Bush school of mathematics. :D

so where is the other 250 billion USD going to come from (current defense budget = ~ 450 billion USD)

[GonePostal]

It is not wrong to help people that make more then $26,000 a year. It is wrong when you are helping a group disproportionately compared to the rest.
Poor people don't own stocks or any investment really (unless your talking about a home being an asset which i disagree with). So how will eliminating taxes on dividends and reducing the captial gains tax for the short term help people in the low end that are living from pay cheque to pay cheque? They have no captial to work with for investment.
There are other features in this bill that try to help the lower to middle end of the specturm. Don't get me wrong, they are not stupid enough to try to pass a bill that does nothing but help the rich. They need at least the ability to portray this as an even handed or even biased bill to the lower end of the spectrum.
RR you need to think in percentages. They do not account for a large portion of the total tax revenues because the make SO LITTLE. But taking in the perspective of how much taxes they pay compared to their income there is a lot of room for negotiation. Really I would love if they just declared a flat income tax rate where everyone would pay the same rate regardless. But that's not how the system works. With the graduated taxation policy that is in place if you make more you should pay more taxes. That is the "robin hood" mentailty at work but the rich have ways to try to get around this. Stuff like making dividends untaxable is one way... Dividends should be like any other income that you get rather then "free" money. This is what is wrong not making the rich pay more. I'm not infavour of redistribution of wealth. Just taxation of the rich and the poor equally by percentage. Since the ultra-rich can afford it yet they pay the least (percentage wise).

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by RoidRage

is that tax cuts increase government spending. You have more money ytou spend it, and of course your taxed on that purchase.
By far are negated by the revenue lost by the tax cuts themselves. Don't try to tell me by cutting taxes you inturn increase tax revenues LOL. The only way I can see that happening with a tax cut is it spuring (go mavs!) an economic boom.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by MrWebb78
rich vs middle class

middle class work, then pay taxes, then get paid, then spend money

rich get paid, spend money, and pay taxes on what is left

biggest differance right there

and stop hating the rich, no matter what image you have in your mind of an arrogant rich asshole, they are very generous, who do you think signs your paycheck
Just speaking for myself. I don't hate the rich. They play and use the system just like anyone else would if they had the chance. They are generally nice people because they are just like anyone else... minus the worry about money.

[Berserker]

Originally posted by GonePostal
Since the ultra-rich can afford it yet they pay the least (percentage wise).
You need to get past percentages, there mainly used for smoke and mirrors to fool people like you. The actual number is what counts.
It seems society wants to hold people back, they are jealous of the rich. Its not a cime to suceed.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Based on those pesky facts RR posted (which those on the left are want to ignore), the 'tax cuts for the rich' argument holds virtually no water.

The most important stat - the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of the income taxes.

The most important moral imperative:
The top 50% of wage earners CAN and SHOULD pay the GREAT majority of taxes.

The poor pay too much in taxes, due to the payroll taxes as doc pointed out. Conservatives/libertarians ALWAYS forget to mention payroll taxes. Many other taxes in society are regressive as well, such as cigarette, alcohol, etc.

GonePostal and the doc: You are my heros today!

[Berserker]

Originally posted by the doc
lol @ webb. If rich mofos didn't have legions of workers under them they wouldnt be very rich now would they ;)
LOL @ Doc. There rich beacuse they took chances and had visions.
The last company I worked for the guy started out with a few guys and a small shop 50 years later 7 plants and a 2-3 thousand workers.
Your probably one of these guys at work I hate. "The companys makes so much money what about me?" Go start your own mill.
If your not going to go start your own plant be happy you have a job.

[Berserker]

As far as a flat tax I am for it. But see how the poor like it when they get taxed x% when they used to be in the zero bracket.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by Berserker

You need to get past percentages, there mainly used for smoke and mirrors to fool people like you. The actual number is what counts.
It seems society wants to hold people back, they are jealous of the rich. Its not a cime to suceed.
On the contrary they are quite the opposite. Someone's income that say is 500 million and pays 1 million in tax you might be like "wow he pays alot of taxes". While another person's income that is 50 000 while pays 26 000 in taxes. Man that second person doesn't even come close to paying as much taxes as the first guy. It takes 40 of the second guys to equal the first guy. Man the first guy is paying so much taxes it is unfair... better lower his tax rate. RIGHT! WRONG. You have to look at it in percentage form otherwise the numbers mean nothing. They have no context, no value what so ever. So the actual number is not what counts when you are determining if people are being taxed fairly. You are the one stuck in smoke and mirrors.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
There is ample evidence to show that government spending of $$ is far less an impact than private.

A) it costs money to collect and administer the revenue, so instead of the private sector just using the money, the government uses some of it to adinister taking it.

B) Government spending is incredibly inefficient.


Government spend has a much smaller effect on the economy because, ding ding, it is a very small portion of the economy.

(A) It "costs" just as much for private business to collect and administer revenue. What do you think costs are? Personnel, offices, supplies, etc. The government and business are essential the same in this respect, as is the effect on the economy.

(B) You think that Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco spent money efficiently? Funny how corporate malfesiance and corruption is overlooked when comparing "inefficient government" and private business.

BTW, guess who did the most in the past 50 years to streamline government? Clinton and Gore (in particular).

[the doc]

Originally posted by Berserker

LOL @ Doc. There rich beacuse they took chances and had visions.
The last company I worked for the guy started out with a few guys and a small shop 50 years later 7 plants and a 2-3 thousand workers.
Your probably one of these guys at work I hate. "The companys makes so much money what about me?" Go start your own mill.
If your not going to go start your own plant be happy you have a job.
LMAO@ bezerker

You mean "You're" ?

... and what the hell are you talking about? We're talking about taxes here :scratch:

LOL!! Actually i am involved in starting a company that has started from a few ideas of a group of people who thought well enough of me to bring me in. If it takes off there could be one of these plants all around the country. So dont make any judgements about me beserker.

However, no matter how wealthy i might become, i wont forget that none of it would be possible without good schools to train workers, good roads to bring in raw materials, etc. Currently we need these things to sustain the economy. Taxes pay for this

[Berserker]

Excpet you pulled those numbers from your bowel. Its easier to make a point when you skew the number to your end.

[Berserker]

Doc-My point was you saying the rich owe their sucess to the workers. Actually the workers owe there jobs to the rich. There always someone out there to fill boxs, pull the lever and run the assembly line.

[Berserker]

Originally posted by the doc

, i wont forget that none of it would be possible without good schools to train workers
I've been around plenty of production workers, training has nothing to do with it. Most of your plant workers haven't gone past HS. Either way they don't teach zoning out in school anyways, which is one best skills of a production worker.
Any training with value is pretty much on the job. This has nothing to do with coversation. Just thought I would point this out before we went to far with the plight of the down trodden worker.

[Paul Stagg]

Unbelievable.

I'm talking dollar for dollar, government is extremely inneficient at effecting the parts of the economy they are trying to, as opposed to lett ing th market operate without interferance.

The costs are the actual costs of collection.

An example:

Homelss guy needs $5.

I can give him $5.

Or, the government can take $12 from me, spend $4 of it on the IRS, $3 on administering the program that gets homelss guy $5.

Replace 'homeless guy' with anything you wish.

So the government removes $12 from the economy, and puts back $5. Now, certainly the other $7 is out there, somewhere, but it isn't where it belongs - which is where *I* decide it goes, using my profit motive.

Furthermore, since government has no profit motive, there is no incentive for the government to use resources for the best purpose (read: they don't care if they spend too much for something).

Redistribution of wealth will lead to the downfall of the United States.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by RoidRage
helping the rich? why is helping people who make $26,000 a year or more wrong? Why is it wrong for them to get there money back that they earned and its ok for people who basically don't pay taxes to get money back. Under your guidelines the people that pay the taxes (or as you call them "the rich") would pay more and the people who basically don;t pay anything right now would get even more back. That robin hood mentality is not right IMO. Redistribution of wealth is wrong plain and simple.

I didn't try to bend your words, sorry if you thought I did.

First, I thought it was moral, ethical, and righteous to help the poor (which is by definition income redistribution). Are 5000 years of Judeo-Christian philosphy wrong on this matter? And don't tell me it should be up to individuals to decide. If it were, the selfish b*stards wouldn't help anyone.

First of all, G.W.B. TAX CUT, THE SEQUEL is not helping people who make $26,000 a year. It's hurting everyone who makes less than $100-200k. Why? The middle class may get a few thousand back in their federal income taxes, but state and local taxes will have to increase by more than that to maintain services. Get ready for local tax increases!

Let me say it again, PAYROLL TAXES. From now on, if anyone mentions how "taxes" are equitable, and they only refer to income taxes, then they're a bald faced liar.

[MrWebb78]

Originally posted by Berserker
As far as a flat tax I am for it. But see how the poor like it when they get taxed x% when they used to be in the zero bracket.

the poor all share the mentality that their economic status is not their fault. so no matter what tax change, they will feel screwed, and targeted.

[Berserker]

Originally posted by MixmasterNash


First, I thought it was moral, ethical, and righteous to help the poor (which is by definition income redistribution). Are 5000 years of Judeo-Christian philosphy wrong on this matter? And don't tell me it should be up to individuals to decide. If it were, the selfish b*stards wouldn't help anyone.

Get ready for local tax increases!


Who are you to decide weather I should help people? I am as much a citizen as you. I am not saying I am against helping people. But if I want to be selfish its my right.
Rich donate millions of dollars, maybe there motives are not pure, but its the same results.
Since when do you have to read the bible to become an accountant?
As far as taxed going up, let me look in your crystal ball when done.

[Berserker]

Originally posted by MrWebb78


the poor all share the mentality that their economic status is not their fault. so no matter what tax change, they will feel screwed, and targeted.
Its human nature to be jealous. Its this mentallity that hold people back. When I first got out of school I used to feel guilty I was making so much more money then my friends. Now I look and see this is what they have done for themsleves. If I did it so could they. I am not rich, but I am far from hurting.
So when we talk about this tax reform we need a huge reform of welfare to go with it. I wouldn't feel so bad being taxed if the money wasn't going to someone jsut popping at babies to get a check.

[MrWebb78]

agreed

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by Berserker
Excpet you pulled those numbers from your bowel. Its easier to make a point when you skew the number to your end.
Hope your not talking about my numbers. That is called an exagerated example. I do that so others that may not be as perceptive can see my point. If you think in magnitudes without context you always come up with the same conclusion. The rich pay their share because they pay more then you and I. But by definition they should pay more then you or I. In the end you prove nothing and make no point. The point is you have to take taxes in percentages of income. If you don't agree that percentages are the way to view taxes then I will retire from debating t his topic with you and ask you to take some more basic math courses.

[Berserker]

I've taken way past some basic math courses. I am not saying taxs should not be based on %. But I think people throw % around to distract people and muddy the facts.
The problem with an "exagerated example" is that it does more to scare people then actually make a logical point. With your numbers people making 50,000 are paing over 50% in taxs, so this gets people riled up at those rich mofos. A more acurate number would be around 7-8000 for fed.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by Berserker
I've taken way past some basic math courses. I am not saying taxs should not be based on %. But I think people throw % around to distract people and muddy the facts.
The problem with an "exagerated example" is that it does more to scare people then actually make a logical point. With your numbers people making 50,000 are paing over 50% in taxs, so this gets people riled up at those rich mofos. A more acurate number would be around 7-8000 for fed.
I'm Canadian some do pay close to that much :( And others in Canada pay that little :(

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Unbelievable.

I'm talking dollar for dollar, government is extremely inneficient at effecting the parts of the economy they are trying to, as opposed to lett ing th market operate without interferance.

The costs are the actual costs of collection.

An example:

Homelss guy needs $5.

I can give him $5.

Or, the government can take $12 from me, spend $4 of it on the IRS, $3 on administering the program that gets homelss guy $5.

Replace 'homeless guy' with anything you wish.

So the government removes $12 from the economy, and puts back $5. Now, certainly the other $7 is out there, somewhere, but it isn't where it belongs - which is where *I* decide it goes, using my profit motive.

Furthermore, since government has no profit motive, there is no incentive for the government to use resources for the best purpose (read: they don't care if they spend too much for something).


I thought we were talking about macro economics? :D I agree it is locally less efficient for the government to be involved in a market. But when it comes to larger economic effect, the only difference is whether capital is being used to create growth correctly, which I also agree that the government isn't very good at.

The more likely scenario is this: You are NOT giving the homeless guy $5. You're getting a $20 tax rebate because you're rich, and you're SAVING the money for later, not spending it now. Whereas: The government is taking your $5 and spending it, albeit less efficiently than possible.

That is the problem! Giving money back to rich people does not spark economic growth (re: Reaganomics). Giving money to people who will buy washing machines does! I actually liked the $300 across the board tax rebate in the 1st Bush because people spent it.

Again:
What about the profit motive that led to the theft of billions from California by Enron? Is that a "best purpose"?

"Redistribution of wealth will lead to the downfall of the United States."

I agree wholeheartedly. Because the actual redistribution is going from the poor to the rich. The gap between the rich and poor is growing and increases every year.

[Berserker]

The rich spend money. They probably spend it more frivilous then the rest of us, which probably better for the economy. Instead of buying a washer, they pay a maid and buy a washer.
Yes the rich have lots of money in the bank but I think alot of there also living very lavish lifestyles which takes money.

[GonePostal]

Read Warren Buffet example. You could give him 310 million which he would invest and use or you could give $1000 to 310 000 families. Which one would spur more economic growth? I would say the later since everyone seems to agree that a large portion of the economy is driven by the consumerism.

[Berserker]

I think the problem lies in that you would give the 10k to familes who pay less then 10K in taxes. That would be welfare.
My grass isn't getting any shorter. Hopefully it will keep those bastard ticks at bay. Woke up to one in bed with me today. Flipped back the covers and there it was!

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by Berserker
The rich spend money. They probably spend it more frivilous then the rest of us, which probably better for the economy. Instead of buying a washer, they pay a maid and buy a washer.
Yes the rich have lots of money in the bank but I think alot of there also living very lavish lifestyles which takes money.

The rich spend money to a point, and then they stop. Because you only need 5 Bentleys. Period. One for each house. Giving that person another $400 million won't matter.

Don't you think it would be a better idea to make sure everyone has healthcare instead? This tax cut is a local optimization for the rich, but a detriment to the majority of the population. If you don't see that, they Karl Rove owns you and you don't understand math.

Warren Buffett understands it, and I respect him more than any 10 people combined in the executive branch of government. He's one of the few honest businessmen willing to speak out.

[Paul Stagg]

The redistribution can not be from the poor to the rich. That's the line leftists throw you, as if somehow the poor are entitled to my stuff.

The government does not take money from the poor and give it to the rich. In the case of a tax cut, they simply take LESS from the rich and give LESS to the poor.

I can't believe people smart enough to use computers don't understand that.

(I happen to agree that tax policy should have nothing to do with spurring economic growth, that isn't the intent of taxation, or shouldn't be. Niether should government spending, however.)

[GonePostal]

Redistribution though not direct still has the same effect. It is not poor vs rich right now. It is middle class vs rich. The rich are paying less taxes historically and so are the poor (and other cash infusions). Who pays for all of this? Well there is only 1 group left to bear the brunt of this.
The key to your arguement is the rich pay less. If they pay less other people have to pay for this shift in money. The middle class and the maybe the poor have to pay for this shift. Thus by definition there is a redistribution of wealth.

[Paul Stagg]

I'm amazed. Really.

Everyone who pays taxes will pay less, and somehow this is a bad thing, and is redistributing wealth from poor to rich.

I need to stay out of General Chat.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
I'm amazed. Really.

Everyone who pays taxes will pay less, and somehow this is a bad thing, and is redistributing wealth from poor to rich.

I need to stay out of General Chat.
Never argued against this. I stated this above.
" I am not against tax cuts. Never said I was. I am all for a tax cut that is even handed or even one that helps the less fortunate more. But I am not for a tax cut that disproportionately helping the rich and that is funded by debt."
The key is the rich are benifiting more then the rest. Also in the short term we might all be paying less taxes but someone in the future will have to pick up that tab. My money is on the rich not being the ones.

[Berserker]

Originally posted by MixmasterNash


The rich spend money to a point, and then they stop. Because you only need 5 Bentleys. Period. One for each house. Giving that person another $400 million won't matter.

Don't you think it would be a better idea to make sure everyone has healthcare instead? This tax cut is a local optimization for the rich, but a detriment to the majority of the population. If you don't see that, they Karl Rove owns you and you don't understand math.


Its not societies place to decide who has to much money and should fund health care. I am not the rich shouldn't be taxed. But I think its wrong tosay they have to much money there not doing anything with anyways.
Should we put a ceiling on personal income and assets? Your only allowed so much before you have to give it up?
Gonna go finnish the rest of the grass.

[MrWebb78]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
I'm amazed. Really.

Everyone who pays taxes will pay less, and somehow this is a bad thing, and is redistributing wealth from poor to rich.

I need to stay out of General Chat.

lol Paul, realized you were repeating the same information in 10 differant ways to make a point? i get caught up in the same run around, but there is something oddly addicting to general chat!

if anyone wants to bitch about paying tax, go take a course at a local college on how taxes work. then realize how you can pay less taxes....and please, quit worrying about other people and how much they spend.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
I'm amazed. Really.

Everyone who pays taxes will pay less, and somehow this is a bad thing, and is redistributing wealth from poor to rich.

I need to stay out of General Chat.

How can everyone pay less? And keep up the same level of funding? Only possible if you're using Bushinomics, which involves hiding all of that money in... the deficit!!! And don't talk to me about cutting the budget; it's not going to happen, nor should it, during wars.

The Republicans re trying to raise the debt ceiling by $984 BILLION dollars. That's not total debt, which is $6.4 trillion, but the INCREASE in the debt that Bush wants. "The increase alone would be bigger than the entire federal debt in 1980." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23633-2003May21.html)

So, you want your cake. Go ahead and eat it. Don't be surprised when the debt comes back to bite you in the arse.

Bush is acurately characterized as a tax cut and SPEND politician. True fiscal conservatives are rightly horrified. Unfortunately, there are only 3 of them in the Senate.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by Berserker

Its not societies place to decide who has to much money and should fund health care. I am not the rich shouldn't be taxed. But I think its wrong tosay they have to much money there not doing anything with anyways.
Should we put a ceiling on personal income and assets? Your only allowed so much before you have to give it up?
Gonna go finnish the rest of the grass.

It's not our place to have healthy people? So you're happy with the roaring success of the current HMO catastrophe with 40 million uninsured Americans. I can't wait to see how you love it when you're dropped by your provider when you get sick and get stuck with thousands of dollars of bills.

This is penny wise and pound foolish. The uninsured end up costing far more in the long run, using emergency services as primary care, being unproductive, etc. Having an entire underclass of poor AND sick with few opportunities will do more to destroy this country than taxing rich people more.

Answer this question:
Would you rather give rich people more of their money back or give health insurance to all Americans? Bush's tax cut chooses the rich. If you choose the rich, you are either: (1) Rich, (2) fair and righteous to the point of shooting your bad-at-math-self in the foot, (3) gullible, which is a polite phrase for...

[Craig James]

I hate wading into these discussions 3 pages in, because I find so many outrageous statements that I want to respond to.

First off, MixmasterNash - you mentioned something about Reaganomics not sparking economic growth. You are joking, right??? When Reagan cut taxes in the eighties, not only did the economy fly into high gear, but tax revenues rose to an all time new high. Even though everybody was getting taxed at lower rates, people were making more money then before due to the increase in economic growth, and this meant that people in effect were paying more money in taxes because they were earning more.

This talk about Robin Hood and taking from the rich and giving to the poor... I will tell you what, I think that Robin Hood is one of the worst criminals in modern literature. The current iteration of Robin Hood portrays him, not as the benefactor who steals the poor people's money back for them. No, today Robin Hood stands for someone who takes from someone who has work hard for his money and gives it to someone who has not. That is horrible! Our country (that is America) was founded on the ideals that you work hard and smart and reap the benefits of it. Not to be lazy, clueless, directionless and sponging off of the hand outs from the government. Paul was 100% right - this redistribution will lead to the downfall of America. It goes against everything that made this country the greatest in the first place.

Income taxes- why does income need to be taxed? It wasn't always taxed. I suppose now that it is in place, we are most likely stuck with it for a good long time. So, now I wonder why there is such a thing as a changing rate of taxation for different amounts of income? If I make $20,000 and am taxed at 10%, I pay $2,000. If I make $100,000 and am taxed at the same rate of 10%, I pay $10,000, which is 5 times more money at the same rate. Since I am already paying so much more money, why should the rate be higher??? Oh, thats right, because being so called rich I can afford to pay more. Well, I say screw that concept, it is completely idiotic. The best thing that could happen to income taxes in this country, short of eliminating them all together, would be to institute a flat tax that apllies to all people the same with an exemption on the first $25,000 that everybody earns each year. No more deductions, no more earned income credits, no more ridiculous tax code. Flat, simple and fair to everybody. If you don't make more then $25,000, then you pay no taxes. If you make $1,000,000, then you pay the same percent tax on your earnings over the first $25,000 as everybody else.

[Craig James]

Originally posted by MixmasterNash
Answer this question:
Would you rather give rich people more of their money back or give health insurance to all Americans? Bush's tax cut chooses the rich. If you choose the rich, you are either: (1) Rich, (2) fair and righteous to the point of shooting your bad-at-math-self in the foot, (3) gullible, which is a polite phrase for...

..Or belive that health care(insurance) for everyone is not ours to give. You want health care? Then go out, get a damn job, and pay for it.

Health insurance is not a god given right.

[DoubleGulp]

That's it. I'm voting libertarian.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by Craig James


..Or belive that health care(insurance) for everyone is not ours to give. You want health care? Then go out, get a damn job, and pay for it.

Health insurance is not a god given right.

My god people, of course it's not a right (though it should be). IT'S FREAKING COMMON SENSE. Not providing health care is an economic disaster!!! It HURTS our economy to have chronically uninsured.

You don't think we should give people healthcare? So if someone who is shot walks into an emergency room, we should turn them away? We shouldn't vaccinate kids against disease?


Originally posted by DoubleGulp
That's it. I'm voting libertarian.

Libertarians, you guys crack me up. Yeah, it really sucks having all that police and fire protection, those paved roads, safe food and drugs, licensed professionals, safe air travel.

If you're a real libertarian, you'll sign the pledge and move to the state the committee chooses. Don't know what I'm talking about? You're a poorly informed libertarian.

[MrWebb78]

You don't think we should give people healthcare? So if someone who is shot walks into an emergency room, we should turn them away? We shouldn't vaccinate kids against disease?

you wont get turned away, itll just cost you more. a hospital cannot refuse service because of insurance.

[Berserker]

I am with Webb and CJ.
My basic point is who is to decide that someone has to much money. A big arguement in some peoples case is the rich have more money then they know what to do with so they should fund this or that. Its not right to impose a ceiling on wealth.
I wouldn't have to much of a problem with a flat tax over a certain amount. Though I am still for some itemizing.
Why can't I stay away?

[DoubleGulp]

Giving money back to rich people does not spark economic growth (re: Reaganomics).

Actually, my parents made decent money, but according to liberals because my dad made more than $48k/year in the 80's he was rich. We lived in California. Not the cheapest place. 5 kids. Private schooling. Oh, two grandparents lived there too. Yeah, we had soooo much money to throw around. The Reagan tax cuts gave my parents just enough money to start their own business. A rich investor who had some extra money (because of that tax cut) helped them out when it started as well. They live in a $700k house now. Do some more research in the future before you start blabbing.

[MrWebb78]

Berserker just reminded me...

speaking of rich people funding things....how about extreme instances, such as 9/11. who was the first person to make a huge donation to the red cross? Bill gates was, multi-million dollar donation if i rememmber correctly, then it almost became a pissing contest of rich people to see who could contribute more, Rockefeller's, Trump, Kennedy's, Michael Dell, you get my point.

how many poor people donated a large sum of money? oh yeah, none.

and dont say it was simply for the tax cut, or that the red cross didnt use all that money for the desired cause. because the fact still stands that they acted immediately giving very large sums of money. knowing the economy was about to take a dump.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by DoubleGulp


Actually, my parents made decent money, but according to liberals because my dad made more than $48k/year in the 80's he was rich. We lived in California. Not the cheapest place. 5 kids. Private schooling. Oh, two grandparents lived there too. Yeah, we had soooo much money to throw around. The Reagan tax cuts gave my parents just enough money to start their own business. A rich investor who had some extra money (because of that tax cut) helped them out when it started as well. They live in a $700k house now. Do some more research in the future before you start blabbing.

Holy carp, an anecdote. I guess I'm wrong about everything. Here's an anecdote: The Reagan tax cuts had no effect on my parents spending. Except when the huge deficit led to increasing interest rates and they spent a lot more money buying a house.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by MrWebb78
Berserker just reminded me...

speaking of rich people funding things....how about extreme instances, such as 9/11. who was the first person to make a huge donation to the red cross? Bill gates was, multi-million dollar donation if i rememmber correctly, then it almost became a pissing contest of rich people to see who could contribute more, Rockefeller's, Trump, Kennedy's, Michael Dell, you get my point.

how many poor people donated a large sum of money? oh yeah, none.

and dont say it was simply for the tax cut, or that the red cross didnt use all that money for the desired cause. because the fact still stands that they acted immediately giving very large sums of money. knowing the economy was about to take a dump.


Guess what? Private donations had little to do with response and payout for 9/11. The GOVERNMENT paid for almost everything related to 9/11.

The police and fire departments that responded were funded by taxpayers.

The rescue and recovery effort were funded by taxpayers.

Airport security was funded by the taxpayers.

Airline and business bailouts were funded by taxpayers.

The war in Afghanistan was funded by tax payers.

What was the mechanism for all of this? Government. You selfish libertarians can smeg off, because without the government you wouldn't have a free country to bitch about paying taxes in.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by Craig James
If I make $20,000 and am taxed at 10%, I pay $2,000. If I make $100,000 and am taxed at the same rate of 10%, I pay $10,000, which is 5 times more money at the same rate. Since I am already paying so much more money, why should the rate be higher???
Take some real math courses and then your logic will be fixed. Same rate you pay more yes but relatively it is equal. PERIOD. The more you make the more you pay even if the tax rate is the same, or even significantly lower.
The true taxation of income does not even really work the way you calculated it anyways. (Unless the US regressive tax system is different then Canada's) The rich's income gets taxed the same as ours but because they make more each 1000 they make more the tax on that income increases. First 15k (or what ever it is in the States) is free while it slowly increases as you go up.
I don't see the problem with redistributing a little income from above (percentage wise) to the lower brackets. Though it seems like this system is taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it is really not. It is just cushioning the increasing gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" in the States. This gap is if I remember the data right the greatest it has been in decades if not ever. So it is not really a Robin Hood thing going on. But rather the rich are and have been playing on people's stupidity and using to their advantage.

[Rastaman]

Originally posted by MixmasterNash


Holy carp, an anecdote. I guess I'm wrong about everything. Here's an anecdote: The Reagan tax cuts had no effect on my parents spending. Except when the huge deficit led to increasing interest rates and they spent a lot more money buying a house.


LOL! I can not BELIEVE there are actually people out there that believe the Reagan tax cuts are responsible for the last American boom. If you actually did the equations, learned about crazy terms like disposable income and savings per dollar, economic cycles, and all that fancy pancy macroeconomics stuff, I think alot of you would have a better grasp on the actual effect of a tax cut, and in this case a tax cut for the wealthy, on the economy.

Listen to the Doc and MixmasterNash, these guys by all appearances are actually educated on the subjects being discussed.

But what do I know about numbers and taxes, I'm just studying accounting and economics. *shrugs*

[the doc]

Originally posted by Craig James
I hate wading into these discussions 3 pages in, because I find so many outrageous statements that I want to respond to.

First off, MixmasterNash - you mentioned something about Reaganomics not sparking economic growth. You are joking, right??? When Reagan cut taxes in the eighties, not only did the economy fly into high gear, but tax revenues rose to an all time new high. Even though everybody was getting taxed at lower rates, people were making more money then before due to the increase in economic growth, and this meant that people in effect were paying more money in taxes because they were earning more.



C'mon craig, sure the economy grew well under reagan, but in case you dont remember the economy was extremely weak and unemplayment/stagflation dominated! I would know since in 1982 my home town was in the news for having the highest unemployment rate in the nation at ~ 25 %!!!! Its not like it could've gotten any worse

Furthermore, I supported reagans efforts to cut taxes combined with SPENDING REDUCTIONS... REAGAN DID NOT SHRINK THE GOVERNMENT AT ALL (YES I AM YELLING)... well you know what the budget grew exponentially under reagan and so DID THE DEBT!!! Now I resent the idea that it is OK to borrow from other peoples future, Especially any kids that i might have. ANd if this rediculous theoryhold that cutting taxes somehow increases revenues then we should elimate taxes and the debt would somehow magically disappear. SOunds rediculous eh?

The fact remains that we have an enormous federal debt that consumes more than 25 % of discretionary spending. Any sane person would say we need to pay off this debt before we have any kind of tax cuts. Furthermore craig, I would in particular like you to explain what party is going to cut spending since even with the republicans in full control of the polical branches there have been NO SPENDING REDUCTIONS. Thus we must have taxes to fund this spending. It is comp[letely irresponsible to borrow from my own and other young people's futures by mushrooming the federal debt!@!!!!

[Paul Stagg]

Originally posted by DoubleGulp
That's it. I'm voting libertarian.

YES!!!

I knew someone could comprehend. I knew it.

www.lp.org

www.theagitator.com

How about we cut taxes and stop spending federal funds on things the constitution left to the states and to the people?

As far as I know, while we may ignore the 9th and 10th amendments, we have yet to repeal them.

[Gyno Rhino]

Originally posted by Paul Stagg
Redistribution of wealth will lead to the downfall of the United States.

Wrong. This is the only one you got wrong. Everything else is right.

The downfall of the United States is going to be human nature. OR Rocky 6.

[Paul Stagg]

I forgot about Rocky 6.

[RoidRage]

Originally posted by MixmasterNash


Government spend has a much smaller effect on the economy because, ding ding, it is a very small portion of the economy.

(A) It "costs" just as much for private business to collect and administer revenue. What do you think costs are? Personnel, offices, supplies, etc. The government and business are essential the same in this respect, as is the effect on the economy.

(B) You think that Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco spent money efficiently? Funny how corporate malfesiance and corruption is overlooked when comparing "inefficient government" and private business.

BTW, guess who did the most in the past 50 years to streamline government? Clinton and Gore (in particular).



Wow! 4 pages! Nice! Anyways. . .

Let's back the leftist propoganda up for a second man, I feel I have to take a shower after readinf your posts.

A. Maybe true but private business does it from there own pocket.

B. Ok theres 3 bad corporations, how many good ones? Say a few thousand other good corporations? There will always be a few rotten apples in the bunch.

[RoidRage]

I found some nice commentary on Warren Buffet:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87481,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87583,00.html

[Berserker]

Nash-Webbs point was that the Rich did help. Not who helped the most. The point was risch people and corporation do some good with there money. They may not have good intentions but the results are the same.

Were not going to agree on this. Partially guess people get to caught up in parties. Alot of people are so entrenched in there party they can't see if another party has a good point. Personally I am agaist parties in general. I just don't know a better way to do things. I very much against being able to pull a lever and vote all for one party running.

On a tangent in Poland they have cabinet or some other title run the country. Its comprised of the people who ran for office. How many votes the got dictates how much weight there say has. Interesting idea, everyone is represented. So would still have to have some kind of leader to make a call in emergencies ect.

[RoidRage]

Tax cuts are helping the rich, i agree. And the rich being those making 26,000 a year either individually or couple filing joint income tax forms. Go ask a teacher or a firefighter if there rich, listen carefully through the laughing for a "yes" or "no" answer.

Universal healthcare? OMG! Who's goign to pay for it? And how are we going to pay for it? Increased taxes! Was it Kerry who proposed an $80 billion plan for universal healthcare? Maybe it was Dean. AHHHHHHHHHH its horrible!!!!

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by RoidRage
I found some nice commentary on Warren Buffet:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87481,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87583,00.html
Firstly it's from fox LOL. But really now :) The first article is written by an idiot. He says since middle to upper middle income families will get some cash back (several hundered dollars maybe) it's ok to to give away millions to the top 1%.
He claims to be "A guy who is smart enough to know these guys aren't that godly, or that smart, or that infallible. "
He knows nothing about anything really. He critisizes Buffet for not offering dividends on his companies stock.
"Clearly Buffett is no big fan of dividends -- he doesn't offer them. And the cash hoard he’s collected at Berkshire Hathaway has grown so large precisely because he doesn't bother with them.

Maybe what really troubles him is the fact he will have to start offering them if this tax cut goes through. And he won't have as much of a cash hoard."
Buffet does not offer dividends BECAUSE he believes he can grow that money much better then you. So why give $1 to the investers when you can give them 2$ in value from the stock price? This same school of thought is why he does not split his stock price either, because it does not create any more intristic value and may decrease it. An this guy has no real idea who Warren Buffet is or how he runs his company. He has seen man tax/regulation/accounting changes and never has changed his views because of these.

The second article some how tries to discredit financial geniuses by saying they are human. Great LOL. I knew that. I know they can make mistakes but I would trust their opinion much more then that retards. He does not give one solid reason not to listen to Warren Buffet other then he's been wrong in the past.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by RoidRage
I found some nice commentary on Warren Buffet:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87481,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,87583,00.html

That is horrible commentary on Buffett, and I feel compelled to reply. First of all, Cavuto is a typical Fox talking head, so he says whatever will piss off liberals. He succeeds.

The second article says that Soros, Buffett and Greenspan aren't perfect. Three of the most influential financial minds of the latter half of the 20th century and a little peon like Cavuto is denigrating them. Please.

The first article really bugs me, because iit's pedalling more of the same Bushinomics that many of y'all seem to buy into. Cavuto says:

"He dismisses the few hundred or few thousand bucks typical investors will get back. No doubt chump change it’s him, but that's very real dough to them."

So, basically, Cavuto is just lying by twisting reality, much like his buddy Ari "Compulsive Liar" Fleischer. The median "typical investor" is someone who owns stock in a retirement account which is already tax sheltered for dividends. The average "typical investor" is someone with tens or hundreds of thousands in divdending stock and a net worth well north of a few million.

The extremely rich own the great majority of non-sheltered dividending stock. End of story. Tax breaks on dividends help the rich ONLY. Even if it were an economic strimulus with a trickle down effect, it won't happen for years; so much for stimulating the economy NOW.

"Buffett says cutting dividend taxes only benefits kazillionaires like himself. Well, I know plenty of people earning plenty less who'd like to argue that point."

So, Cavuto knows a bunch of poor millionaires who might not get tax breaks on dividends. Boo hoo. Cry me a river.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by RoidRage
Tax cuts are helping the rich, i agree. And the rich being those making 26,000 a year either individually or couple filing joint income tax forms. Go ask a teacher or a firefighter if there rich, listen carefully through the laughing for a "yes" or "no" answer.

Universal healthcare? OMG! Who's goign to pay for it? And how are we going to pay for it? Increased taxes! Was it Kerry who proposed an $80 billion plan for universal healthcare? Maybe it was Dean. AHHHHHHHHHH its horrible!!!!

No! not $80 billion! That's $80 billion we could give back to rich people. It's a whole quarter of the current tax break. (And a ninth of the original Bush tax plan.)

Ask people a sensibly phrased question:
Would you rather have a $1000 tax rebate or guaranteed healthcare for your immediate family?

Again, if you pick the cash, you don't understand basic math.

[GonePostal]

Not bad. Untaxed dividends are much better then universal health care.... Come on mixmasternash don't be stupid... LOL

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by GonePostal

Firstly it's from fox LOL.
...
He does not give one solid reason not to listen to Warren Buffet other then he's been wrong in the past.

Beat me to it! Well done...

The funny thing is, Buffett hasn't really been wrong in any significant sense. For example, he rode out the tech boom under enormous pressure to invest in dot coms. He resisted and saved his investors from the crash. His principles are extremely sound.

[GonePostal]

He doesn't invest in anything he doesn't understand :) Him and charlie the dynamic duo :)

[RoidRage]

You all are hopepless. Maybe its because your so wrapped up in your parties beliefs that you can;t think beyond what the DNC throws at you. Or maybe because you have such a hatred of Bush. Or lastly its because you just can't comprehend common sense or basic economics. But what do I know i'm majoring in finance and economics *shrug* I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree *shudder*

[Berserker]

I got to think some of it is just a dislike for Bush. No matter what the guy did some people would be against him. When he was running for office I saw bumper stickers not wanting beacause his father was president. I don't want royality, ect. Where is the logic in that? What does that have to do with the ability to run a country? But most people make there decision based on feelings.
If you look at alot of the threads on here the majority of the arguements are not based on logic.

[DoubleGulp]

Except when the huge deficit led to increasing interest rates and they spent a lot more money buying a house.

Only because liberals like yourself refused to cut anything in government. According to you, EVERYTHING is needed plus more or we'll have an economic disaster. Yeah, that bike trail in New Jersey and a bridge somewhere else are really helping me.


Here's an anecdote: The Reagan tax cuts had no effect on my parents spending.

It didn't help when they donated it all to the Rodina. :p

[RoidRage]

Good point Double Gulp! Pork barrelling from government officals is out of control. Robery Byrd is the worst of any senator.

Berserker you hit the nail on the head! Liberals think with emotions.

[Rastaman]

Originally posted by RoidRage
You all are hopepless. Maybe its because your so wrapped up in your parties beliefs that you can;t think beyond what the DNC throws at you.


Liberals think with emotions.

Who is the one thinking along party lines? hmmm....

The funniest thing is this:


Or maybe because you have such a hatred of Bush. Or lastly its because you just can't comprehend common sense or basic economics. But what do I know i'm majoring in finance and economics *shrug*

When I start quoting FOX F-CKING news to try to discredit the greatest investor of all time, I'll know I'm in the wrong business school. lol.

[Rastaman]

Originally posted by Berserker
If you look at alot of the threads on here the majority of the arguements are not based on logic.

Hey, at least you're obviously not reading your own posts, cause if you did, then you'd really be confused.

[MrWebb78]

Originally posted by RoidRage
Tax cuts are helping the rich, i agree. And the rich being those making 26,000 a year either individually or couple filing joint income tax forms. Go ask a teacher or a firefighter if there rich, listen carefully through the laughing for a "yes" or "no" answer.

Universal healthcare? OMG! Who's goign to pay for it? And how are we going to pay for it? Increased taxes! Was it Kerry who proposed an $80 billion plan for universal healthcare? Maybe it was Dean. AHHHHHHHHHH its horrible!!!!

actually there is no reason a teacher or firefighter or someone making 25k a year has to be poor. the reason they are poor is because they are poor with money and dont know how it works. if they had a little financial education they would know how to have their money work for them, AND get tax breaks to make them even richer.

oh yeah, im not majoring in anything to do with money or numbers, i can simply spend 50 bux on books and learn more about money than you guys spending 6 figures in school. so dont throw out that you major is economics becuase that arguement holds absolutely no weight.

funny how the most successful people are generally dropouts, or D students.

[Rastaman]

Originally posted by MrWebb78

oh yeah, im not majoring in anything to do with money or numbers, i can simply spend 50 bux on books and learn more about money than you guys spending 6 figures in school. so dont throw out that you major is economics becuase that arguement holds absolutely no weight.

funny how the most successful people are generally dropouts, or D students.


:rolleyes:

Personally, I won't be hiring any dropouts or D students.



:D

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by Rastaman



:rolleyes:

Personally, I won't be hiring any dropouts or D students.

:D

But they're OBVIOUSLY the smartest! (I love Bushinomics. What's up is down and down is up!)

I have to say though, my D+ in chemistry is certain proof that I'm smart enough to get out of chemistry, that evil, evil subject. :D

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by MrWebb78
actually there is no reason a teacher or firefighter or someone making 25k a year has to be poor. the reason they are poor is because they are poor with money and dont know how it works. if they had a little financial education they would know how to have their money work for them, AND get tax breaks to make them even richer.

If you can live comfortably on 25k, then you probably don't:
- Live in a city.
- Have a family.
- Have any health problems.
- Have any expensive hobbies (I'll admit to mine; one must have vices.)
- Have any retirement savings.

Good luck keeping it up forever!

[GonePostal]

Hope you guys love your tax cut cuz it's going to cost you. Senate just approved another close to 1 trillion dollars of new debt... The deficit for the US is going to be above 300 billion dollars for the first time. *Clap**Clap**Clap* Go Bush Go. Borrowing against our future has never been a good policy.

[RoidRage]

*Sigh* keep on thinking fox is conservative rasta, and other liberals for that matter. Let's just forget they have greta van sustren, geraldo, alan colmes, and indepent bill o'reilly.

Webb, 25k can go far if you stretch your bucks. You'll have to live extremely frugal and could hardly slurge on anything but you could live on it. Too bad i'm not spending 6 figures in school or making D's. Everyone that reads a book in a subject thinks there an expert in that field.

[RoidRage]

Originally posted by GonePostal
Hope you guys love your tax cut cuz it's going to cost you. Senate just approved another close to 1 trillion dollars of new debt... The deficit for the US is going to be above 300 billion dollars for the first time. *Clap**Clap**Clap* Go Bush Go. Borrowing against our future has never been a good policy.

LOL, a tax cut goign to cost me lol. So we get money back and its goign to cost us? Its never been proven that deficits are bad. Look at the 80's Reaganomics. Huge defecits but he pulled the economy out of recession and it became stronger than ever. So yeah i say Go Bush Go.

[Neil]

Originally posted by GonePostal
Hope you guys love your tax cut cuz it's going to cost you. Senate just approved another close to 1 trillion dollars of new debt... The deficit for the US is going to be above 300 billion dollars for the first time. *Clap**Clap**Clap* Go Bush Go. Borrowing against our future has never been a good policy.

Your deficits would be even larger without tax cuts. Learn your history and exercise common sense. The government will spend every dime we give them. The Reagan tax cuts increased governement revenues by almost 400 million dollars by the time he left office.

[RoidRage]

Everyone says "Defeits are bad" Really? They are? Why? Some say they cause a rise in interest rates, if that were so then why are our interest rates the lowest in decades? The fed. reserve controls interest rates. Also back in Reaganomics the stock market almost tripled under one deficet year after another. Some would say that the deficits are worse now than ever before, as a percentage of the GDP the deficits now represent one third of what they were 20 years ago. So deficits are not necessarily bad for you or the economy.

[GonePostal]

My face is on fire by the stupidity. For someone that is studying economics you know seem to know very little.
Neil deficits would not be larger without tax cuts. That's just stupid. Deficits are when governement spends more then it recieves. Tax cuts shrink the income part of the equation thus increasing the deficit part (not all the time but when there is not a surplus in a governments budget the money has to come from somewhere). Much of this tax cut money can be used much more constructively by paying down national debt then eliminating the taxation on dividends. Just by the evidence this tax cut is is contradicting your point. They just approved 1 trillion more in debt and the deficit this year is projected to be more then 300 billion (larger then it has ever been before in a year and in total). So why is the deficit so large when we are getting such a large tax cut? HUH?
RR: Deficits are great for brightening up the short term. Borrow as much money as you can to infuse your economy with money. Great way to jumpstart your economy. Worked before and it will work again. The problem is that no one seems to want to pay for them. They assume down the road the future generation will pay for them. This never happens really. That is why deficits are horrible. You get to a point where you are just crushed by the debt load you have accumulated. This has happened to many economies and if the States is not careful it will happen to them.
Oh and GDP is a flawed measuring stick for the economy.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by RoidRage


LOL, a tax cut goign to cost me lol. So we get money back and its goign to cost us? Its never been proven that deficits are bad. Look at the 80's Reaganomics. Huge defecits but he pulled the economy out of recession and it became stronger than ever. So yeah i say Go Bush Go.
Might not cost you but it will cost someone sometime. But that's the American way, screw the rest as long as I don't get screwed.

[Gyno Rhino]

Originally posted by RoidRage
Everyone says "Defeits are bad" Really? They are? Why? Some say they cause a rise in interest rates, if that were so then why are our interest rates the lowest in decades? The fed. reserve controls interest rates. Also back in Reaganomics the stock market almost tripled under one deficet year after another. Some would say that the deficits are worse now than ever before, as a percentage of the GDP the deficits now represent one third of what they were 20 years ago. So deficits are not necessarily bad for you or the economy.

I was just gonna post something similar. Ace post RoidRage. You know your stuff.

[MixmasterNash]

Y'all are right. While we're at it, why not just have an infinite deficit? We can just print more money and it's all free! Bring on the hyperinflation!

With our current anemic growth rate, adding 15 percent to the deficit is not a prescription for stable interest rates.

[Reinier]

Dont bitch, everyone rich
All together for our own ass

[MrWebb78]

Originally posted by Rastaman



:rolleyes:

Personally, I won't be hiring any dropouts or D students.



:D

bill gates and michael dell were dropouts, just to name a couple, maybe they can hire you??

one of the wealthiest people i have ever met was an 8th grade dropout, why? because the school system teaches you how to be an employee, not an employer.

[MrWebb78]

Originally posted by MixmasterNash


If you can live comfortably on 25k, then you probably don't:
- Live in a city.
- Have a family.
- Have any health problems.
- Have any expensive hobbies (I'll admit to mine; one must have vices.)
- Have any retirement savings.

Good luck keeping it up forever!

i personally make more than 25k, im simply stating that with a little financial education, that anyone can live just fine on that salary.

you dont need retirement savings either, if you invest right. savings is just about the most idiotic thing you can do with your money.

[Reinier]

Originally posted by MrWebb78
you dont need retirement savings either, if you invest right. savings is just about the most idiotic thing you can do with your money.

There is a time when agressive investing was absolutely the best thing to do.... it lies in the past

[MrWebb78]

so now leaving your money in a bank account where it will do nothing is the better choice than making planned out worthwhile investments?

[Reinier]

no. You should always make worthwhile investments.

however for a while people just baught **** on the stock like nothing. they did a test here and tried to sell interests in "FA International" a non existing bs company, FA = Fried Air. It sold like warm rolls.

[MrWebb78]

thats not risky, thats just stupid to invest in something you havent researched, obviously if it doesnt exist.

[Gyno Rhino]

Originally posted by Reinier
no. You should always make worthwhile investments.

however for a while people just baught **** on the stock like nothing. they did a test here and tried to sell interests in "FA International" a non existing bs company, FA = Fried Air. It sold like warm rolls.

Jesus. You seriously should learn what you're talking about before you start spouting B.S. like this.

[MixmasterNash]

Originally posted by MrWebb78

i personally make more than 25k, im simply stating that with a little financial education, that anyone can live just fine on that salary.

you dont need retirement savings either, if you invest right. savings is just about the most idiotic thing you can do with your money.

Not many people can live fine on that salary if they have a family. If you're young and single, fine, but most people are not.

You misinterpret what I wrote:
Retirement savings doesn't mean cash in a bank savings account. It means assets, generally speaking, intended for retirement. Sorry for the confusion.

BTW, when you're getting close to retirement, you do indeed want almost all of your money in cash or bonds, and none in stocks. It just depends on how old you are.

[MrWebb78]

not trying to be mr wizard here with money, but i do have to disagree again...

as a home owner, married, with 2 or 3 kids, they CAN live fine on that salary, as long as they know how to have money work for them. with the right "know how", you can buy a home with nothing down, theres one option. or play the stock market with some good knowledge of what to buy. just another of tons of options. the whole point is to be an educated spender, use tax tips, and learn how to have money make money.

as for retirement, having money in cash is ridiculous, because while inflation/cost of living goes up, your cash stays the same, or actually goes down in value. i guess bonds are half way decent if your in a serious market boom, but on the average bonds are a fairly worthless ting to have in a portfolio.

[GonePostal]

Bonds are not worthless at all... They can play a part in any smart investers portfolio, esspecially for retired old people. I have bonds that are paying out 8+%. With inflation aroudn 3% that's not a bad spread. Guaranteed money though not very exciting will give you a constant income overtime which is what old people need. Stocks are great if you can think in the mid to long term.

[MrWebb78]

in an investors portfolio, i dont know about a smart investor, why would a smart investor have his money tied up in bonds when it could be making 10 times that amount in stocks or real estate??

[GonePostal]

Because stocks are risky. There is the possibility of losing your money. I favour stocks heavily too though. But bonds give you a contstant revenue stream. As I stated if your young and are able to wait it out and play the mid to long game then your fine. But, if you rely on your portfolio as a source of income you need a fixed amount of income to live. This is where bonds come into play.
As for real estate, I love that investment vehicle too. But for many this is not a viable avenue until later because of it's capital intensive nature. Though there are many ways to get around this many people do not have the guts nor the dedication to go this route.
The stock market historically has "only" given returns of ~10%. If I can get a guaranteed rate of return of 8+% I will take some of that anyday since there is absolutely no downside. Warren Buffet doesn't seem to be too shy about owning bonds.

[MrWebb78]

i agree with quite a bit, and you used the key word...."guts"

so many people are gutless, and say the word "risky" far too often, it's better to use the risk/reward ratio. the same people who say stocks are risky are the same people who go to vegas thinking they can win a fortune on slot machines....as if that wasnt risky, or smart.

stocks are not risky if you get educated on the right stocks, and get smart about time sensitivie stocks.

one small example to argue the long term point....since im just breaking into the game i'll use a friend who i think is financially brilliant, anyways...one week before last thanksgiving, he bought about 1000 shares of stock in Target(the department store), after thanksgiving weekend, he sold all of it, he made over 5000 dollars...in one week.....without working. not very long term either.

at any rate, this could go back and forth forever about why we think what is worth time and not, but i think the bottom line is education on money and how it works, and like you said...guts.

[RoidRage]

Originally posted by GonePostal
My face is on fire by the stupidity. For someone that is studying economics you know seem to know very little.
Neil deficits would not be larger without tax cuts. That's just stupid. Deficits are when governement spends more then it recieves. Tax cuts shrink the income part of the equation thus increasing the deficit part (not all the time but when there is not a surplus in a governments budget the money has to come from somewhere). Much of this tax cut money can be used much more constructively by paying down national debt then eliminating the taxation on dividends. Just by the evidence this tax cut is is contradicting your point. They just approved 1 trillion more in debt and the deficit this year is projected to be more then 300 billion (larger then it has ever been before in a year and in total). So why is the deficit so large when we are getting such a large tax cut? HUH?
RR: Deficits are great for brightening up the short term. Borrow as much money as you can to infuse your economy with money. Great way to jumpstart your economy. Worked before and it will work again. The problem is that no one seems to want to pay for them. They assume down the road the future generation will pay for them. This never happens really. That is why deficits are horrible. You get to a point where you are just crushed by the debt load you have accumulated. This has happened to many economies and if the States is not careful it will happen to them.
Oh and GDP is a flawed measuring stick for the economy.


Even in times of huige deficits the government has a way of spending. On average the gov't spends up about 10 percent each year on programs. Whens the last time you got a 10 percent raise? And the more tax cuts you give the more money makes its way back into the hands of the government, because people spend more.

The GDP not an accurate measure of the economy!?! You have got to be kidding! They recently switched over to using the GDP instead of the old GNP as it was not too representative of the nations economy. Please tell me that was like an April fools joke in May.

[RoidRage]

Originally posted by MixmasterNash
Y'all are right. While we're at it, why not just have an infinite deficit? We can just print more money and it's all free! Bring on the hyperinflation!

With our current anemic growth rate, adding 15 percent to the deficit is not a prescription for stable interest rates.

Remember the fed reserve? They deicide what interest rates are. They meet 6 times a year. Talk to greenspan on that issue

[GonePostal]

Nope it wasn't. GDP just measure's magnitude rather then magnitude and context. I think Warren Buffet (I love this guy) said it most elegantly:
"Take an extreme example. If we have 100 million people in the workforce and all of sudden, we asked everybody to watch everybody else, we would get only half the output. Now the GDP wouldn't change. Everybody would be working, so unemployment wouldn't go up. But you'd get less output.

So the more people you have inspecting people at airports or whatever it may be, that diverts from other output. It's like in war. In war, GDP does wonderful things. Because you're building planes and ships to go into the ocean. But you aren't getting much in the way of consumer goods. So anytime you have a war, and this is a very limited sort of a war, you redirect resources. And that has some impact. But I don't think it's that dramatic."

[GonePostal]

Webb I think in principle we are on the same page. Just some specifics that we don't see eye to eye on. But that's ok :)

[RoidRage]

Bonds can be good, right now there a horrible invest as interest rates are so friggin low. As are CD's. You'd be buying bonds now at a premium instead of a discount most likey, depending on the bonds coupon rate.

If you want to make money by investment you have to invest in risky ventures, they have the highest payouts, but your also subject to losing your investment. If you really wnat to go with bonds try a Municipal bond, your not taxed on the interest from it.

Webb, your partially right. The only thing i'd disagree with you on is the fact that if you make 25k a year and married with 2 or 3 kids you have to know EXACTLY what your doing! I mean know EXACTLY! because first off your not going to have that much money to invest so yo uneed to make the right decisions and if you loose the money you could loose more than you invested and if you have a family then. . . I personally would not do that to my family.

[GonePostal]

When you invest you don't expect to lose your money. Smart investers only invest what they can afford to lose.

[RoidRage]

Right but you can never predict the market. Thinking you can predict the market will only yield losses. Investing is a double edged sword. If you want to make the big bucks from investing you have to invest in risky ventures. BUt you can play it safe and make mediocre payouts. The best thing to do is diversify, mix your portfolio with risky and not so risky ventures.

As for the Warren Buffet comment yes in war time the economy is great and after the war the economy is great. But people still buy consumer goods and services, they feel better about there living situation and feel safer and therefore there pocket books become lighter. Yes the GDP does have some flaws but it is our best and most accurate measure of the economy. As a side note the GDP ignores the underground economy and it ignores changes in the enviroment. The point of the GDP is for it to be used as a measure, a tool, of our economy. The GDP measures production output.

[MrWebb78]

thats why i mention the risk/reward ratio.....meaning:the risk of losing on ten cosecutive stocks is worth winning on one big one.

or in simpler terms, say you want to start a business, 9 out of ten business' fail in the first year, but the risk of failing 9 times is worth the reward of having that 1 successful business.

and your right RR, you do have to have the know how, which is why even with a family, that should be your motivation, to have the know how and actually do it to provide better for your family.

GP nailed it too, only invest what you can afford to lose, so even someone making dirt for money still has a little bit to start with. nobody gets rich overnight, except for the damned lottery winners

[GonePostal]

You need to expose your self to risk when you invest yes. BUT! to get superior returns you do not have to invest in "risky" ventures. The market does not price all stocks at their true instristic value. This price imperfection is where you can make a killing with minimized down side.
What your suggesting is speculation/gambling on stocks. I would never really invest in a "high risk" stock.

[RoidRage]

you can invest in say Bonds from Ford i think they offered like either A or BBB bonds. That would be a good money earner because the chances of Ford defaulting are pretty slim yet the bonds have a fairly low rating.

[RoidRage]

a stocks intrinsic value? I'm not too sharp on my finace yet but the piese of paper saying you own X amount of shares in Y company is virtually worthless.

[Neil]

Originally posted by GonePostal
My face is on fire by the stupidity. For someone that is studying economics you know seem to know very little.
Neil deficits would not be larger without tax cuts. That's just stupid.

Then why did governemnt revenues explode when the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%? Using your logic they would have decreased. It's called growth, and growth creates more wealth, and wealth is taxed. Think about it real hard before you post again.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by RoidRage
a stocks intrinsic value? I'm not too sharp on my finace yet but the piese of paper saying you own X amount of shares in Y company is virtually worthless.
Stocks are "a small portion of a larger company". So when I talk about a stock's intristic value I am really refering to a company's intristic value.

[GonePostal]

Originally posted by Neil


Then why did governemnt revenues explode when the top tax rate went from 70% to 28%? Using your logic they would have decreased. It's called growth, and growth creates more wealth, and wealth is taxed. Think about it real hard before you post again.
I don't know the American tax history well so I'll take your word for it. But firstly there is pretty much a concensus that there is an "optimal" taxation rate. 70% would stagger growth rather then promote it. The optimal taxation rate to promote growth is debatable but it is in the 15% to 35% bracket. That is why your quoted growth occured. But growth does not happen instantaneously so while we wait for growth to catch back up to spending we continuously try to pay off interest payments from the national debt (god forbid we borrow during this period if the national debt is bloated because that would be disasterous in the future).