Skip to main content

Country
It is not my job to supplement other peoples life style to a level they have have applied themselves to make.  Jt I believe is at least reasonable you however would be for taxing a 300k down to 70k.  Then giving someone who dropped out of school or has just a GED a supplemented wage of 70k for bring a casher at a gas station.

The Gates will not leave much to their children. Just a small trust to ensure they have the basics.  So, no inheritance or inheritance tax problems for the kids.  Most goes to the foundation.

------------------

What is a small trust?

Is it gonna be 5 billion to sort of tide them over? That number was in the news when the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation was first being started.

They are doing a lot of good work. I have one more question for you Dire. I am not trying to start anything, I would like to know. If Bill takes money out of america and sends it to Africa to fight diseases, does it affect the american economy?

Jt I believe is at least reasonable you however would be for taxing a 300k down to 70k.  Then giving someone who dropped out of school or has just a GED a supplemented wage of 70k for bring a casher at a gas station.

-------------------

Hi, those are your words. I have never said or suggested to tax at that rate. I have noticed that right wingers love trying to put words into someone else's mouth. What tax rate are you in favor of for $300,000 income?

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

The Gates will not leave much to their children. Just a small trust to ensure they have the basics.  So, no inheritance or inheritance tax problems for the kids.  Most goes to the foundation.

------------------

What is a small trust?

Is it gonna be 5 billion to sort of tide them over? That number was in the news when the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation was first being started.

They are doing a lot of good work. I have one more question for you Dire. I am not trying to start anything, I would like to know. If Bill takes money out of america and sends it to Africa to fight diseases, does it affect the american economy?

Add up what we tax payers send to foreign countries:

 

Foreign aid received in millions of US
Country20142013
Afghanistan6,725.06,884.7
Albania341.6350.7
Algeria144.5190.2
Angola242.3194.2
Antigua & Barbuda2.315.3
Argentina178.986.9
Armenia272.7400.1
Azerbaijan337.6286.4
Bangladesh2,152.01,490.0
Barbados  
Belarus103.2125.8
Belize25.122.5
Benin511.3690.2
Bhutan161.2142.4
Bolivia658.6721.8
Bosnia-Herzegovina571.1625.4
Botswana73.8120.1
Brazil1,288.2815.4
Burkina Faso1,158.5995.1
Burundi522.7574.8
Cambodia807.4790.9
Cameroon596.2611.8
Cape Verde246.1252.1
Central African Republic227.2268.7
Chad478.5460.1
Chile125.5163.9
China194.1702.8
Colombia764.41,017.6
Comoros68.651.8
Congo, Dem. Rep.2,859.35,534.4
Congo, Rep.138.6259.7
Costa Rica32.740.3
Côte d'Ivoire2,635.61,436.0
Croatia-0.28
Cuba87.886.8
Djibouti146.5141.7
Dominica25.624.5
Dominican Republic261.3225.3
Ecuador149.4158.8
Egypt1,806.6414.4
El Salvador230.4285.9
Equatorial Guinea14.224.3
Eritrea133.7129.9
Ethiopia3,261.33,539.4
Fiji107.378.9
Gabon73.272.5
Gambia138.8135.1
Georgia662.2585.7
Ghana1,807.91,810.2
Grenada7.612.2
Guatemala299.4387.9
Guinea339.6204.4
Guinea-Bissau78.8119.6
Guyana114.4158.7
Haiti1,275.11,710.1
Honduras571.5620.4
India1,667.63,228.2
Indonesia67.8419.2
Iran148.8100.9
Iraq1,300.71,908.0
Jamaica21.040.2
Jordan1,416.9978.9
Kazakhstan129.6215.5
Kenya2,654.02,482.4
Kiribati64.663.9
North Korea98.1118.5
Kosovo567.6657.0
Kyrgyzstan472.9525.0
Laos408.9392.4
Lebanon710.2473.6
Lesotho282.6264.7
Liberia570.9764.8
Libya87.0642.1
Macedonia148.9194.9
Madagascar378.6443.2
Malawi1,174.6799.6
Malaysia15.332.1
Maldives58.044.7
Mali1,001.31,280.6
Marshall Islands76.082.5
Mauritania408.3382.2
Mauritius177.8185.3
Mexico417.8971.3
Micronesia, Federated States of115.0134.1
Moldova473.0464.0
Mongolia448.7350.6
Montenegro103.2125.7
Morocco1,480.31,455.6
Mozambique2,096.92,084.9
Myanmar504.0374.2
Namibia264.8290.6
Nauru  
   Nepal769.7884.7
Nicaragua532.3694.2
Niger901.8649.5
Nigeria1,915.81,768.5
Pakistan2,019.03,507.5
Palau15.028.2
Palestine2,001.32,441.9
Panama50.7111.3
Papua New Guinea664.8610.9
Paraguay104.494.2
Peru393.8604.8
Philippines5.1-180.5
Rwanda878.91,264.0
Samoa120.697.8
São Tomé and Príncipe48.772.3
Senegal1,080.11,060.0
Serbia1,089.81,379.2
Seychelles35.322.1
Sierra Leone442.8425.3
Solomon Islands304.9334.0
Somalia998.61,095.6
South Africa1,067.11,403.1
South Sudan1,578.01,088.0
Sri Lanka487.5607.5
St. Kitts & Nevis21.916.0
St. Lucia26.835.3
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines8.517.8
Sudan983.21,123.5
Suriname39.690.5
Swaziland88.1124.9
Syria1,671.5335.1
Tajikistan393.9347.5
Tanzania2,831.82,445.7
Thailand-134.7-153.6
Timor-Leste283.0279.2
Togo241.4542.7
Tonga78.293.7
Trinidad & Tobago  
Tunisia1,017.0921.0
Turkey3,033.13,188.9
Turkmenistan3838.6
Tuvalu24.438.8
Uganda1,655.11,577.8
Ukraine769.2807.2
Uruguay19.319.4
Uzbekistan255.2203.1
Vanuatu101.492.1
Venezuela48.144.8
Vietnam4,115.73,595.5
Yemen709.3476.1
Zambia957.71,035
Zimbabwe1,001.2715.6
Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

The Gates will not leave much to their children. Just a small trust to ensure they have the basics.  So, no inheritance or inheritance tax problems for the kids.  Most goes to the foundation.

------------------

What is a small trust?

Is it gonna be 5 billion to sort of tide them over? That number was in the news when the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation was first being started.

They are doing a lot of good work. I have one more question for you Dire. I am not trying to start anything, I would like to know. If Bill takes money out of america and sends it to Africa to fight diseases, does it affect the american economy?

__________________________________________________________

http://www.independent.co.uk/n...t-funds-9204317.html

 

Best I've read, previously, it will give them about $50,000 annually, per person.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

AS I stated, the Dems have no idea of how to grow an economy -- like teaching  Australopithecus to grow wheat. All either know is take up club and hunt something down. 

======
I don't think I have ever heard of anybody that either ignores facts, disregards them, and makes up his own more than you . Congratulations ! you are the most fact free person I ever heard of.
The economy ALWAYS does better under a Democratic president. Just take the example of job growth, even our worst , Carter, on a yearly basis, had better job creation record than Reagan, your best. 
I don't know what metric you use , but if job creation is an indicator of the economy, check out this chart

Another indicator of the economy may be the Dow. WE know that the largest expansion of our economy in our history was under Clinton, by the time it is all over Obama may even beat him. The worse (in my lifetime) was under W Bush. 
The support for that is not intuitively evident, so they are left to the student being schooled , namely ---- YOU/  

 

We know that chart is a lie, we have more unemployeed working age people now than since the Great Depression.  We also have more on welfare than ever before. The DOW is an overbloated mess at the moment.  The only reason it's so high is due to there not being any other place for investors to go with the interest rates being so low, Dire has already stated this many times in other threads and he is 100% correct. 

 

If you think that simple chart is proof of your assertation, that's all I need to know to understand you don't have a clue.

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

AS I stated, the Dems have no idea of how to grow an economy -- like teaching  Australopithecus to grow wheat. All either know is take up club and hunt something down. 

======
I don't think I have ever heard of anybody that either ignores facts, disregards them, and makes up his own more than you . Congratulations ! you are the most fact free person I ever heard of.
The economy ALWAYS does better under a Democratic president. Just take the example of job growth, even our worst , Carter, on a yearly basis, had better job creation record than Reagan, your best. 
I don't know what metric you use , but if job creation is an indicator of the economy, check out this chart

Another indicator of the economy may be the Dow. WE know that the largest expansion of our economy in our history was under Clinton, by the time it is all over Obama may even beat him. The worse (in my lifetime) was under W Bush. 
The support for that is not intuitively evident, so they are left to the student being schooled , namely ---- YOU/  

 

__________________

If you believe that the economy is driven day-to-day in the short term, you don't know beans. 

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

AS I stated, the Dems have no idea of how to grow an economy -- like teaching  Australopithecus to grow wheat. All either know is take up club and hunt something down. 

======
I don't think I have ever heard of anybody that either ignores facts, disregards them, and makes up his own more than you . Congratulations ! you are the most fact free person I ever heard of.
The economy ALWAYS does better under a Democratic president. Just take the example of job growth, even our worst , Carter, on a yearly basis, had better job creation record than Reagan, your best. 
I don't know what metric you use , but if job creation is an indicator of the economy, check out this chart

Another indicator of the economy may be the Dow. WE know that the largest expansion of our economy in our history was under Clinton, by the time it is all over Obama may even beat him. The worse (in my lifetime) was under W Bush. 
The support for that is not intuitively evident, so they are left to the student being schooled , namely ---- YOU/  

 

First, the economic state under Clinton, that was during the dotcom boom.  Unemployment dropped to almost zero, as people pumped billions into any internet scheme that was proposed,  After that, came the dotcom bomb as the bubble burst and a recession emerged  Clinton had little to do with either the boom or bust, except he didn't place barriers to the boom.  For a Democrat, that is a small miracle,  Bush inherited that recession and with congress implemented reforms to help the nation grow out of it.

 

As to the present stock market boom, I've commented on this about 20 times, but once more:

he Wall St recovery is a bit of a Ponzi scheme instituted by the Fed.  Reducing interest rates to near zero discouraged savings in savings accounts, CDs, money market accounts and other traditional conservative investments -- forcing investors into the only game in town -- the stock market.  Stocks are well above book value -- always a warning sign.  When, the Fed raises the interest rates, stocks will fall in value -- like a popped balloon or a slow leaking tire is the question?  Far from just my opinion, most business and economic media report much the same.

 

One of the best indicators of how an economy is performing is the change in the GDP.  That reveals whether the economy is shrinking or growing.  Only if the GDP is growing will the economy improve.  For the last six years, the average GDP growth was 1.95 percent.  This is the worst recovery since and during the Depression.  The first quarter of 2015 is predicted to be low and will probably drive down the average even further. 

 

Seeweed, as you may read, I do make my statements based upon fact and, yes, cold unyielding facts. 

 

So, pick up your metaphoric club and go get supper.  Liberal survived by hunting the giant sloth -- the only critter slower of speed and wit than themselves Now, they survive by indulging in politics.

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

AS I stated, the Dems have no idea of how to grow an economy ---

---------------

To grow the economy, the bottom half needs to have some money to dispose of 

________________________________________________________

The economy grows when someone builds a business, hires and sells.  Then, the lower half has something to spend. 

 

For over 5,400 years, the natural state of man was poverty -- bone grinding starvation poverty, except for a very small number,  No so today, at least in the first world countries.

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

AS I stated, the Dems have no idea of how to grow an economy -- like teaching  Australopithecus to grow wheat. All either know is take up club and hunt something down. 

======
I don't think I have ever heard of anybody that either ignores facts, disregards them, and makes up his own more than you . Congratulations ! you are the most fact free person I ever heard of.
The economy ALWAYS does better under a Democratic president. Just take the example of job growth, even our worst , Carter, on a yearly basis, had better job creation record than Reagan, your best. 
I don't know what metric you use , but if job creation is an indicator of the economy, check out this chart

Another indicator of the economy may be the Dow. WE know that the largest expansion of our economy in our history was under Clinton, by the time it is all over Obama may even beat him. The worse (in my lifetime) was under W Bush. 
The support for that is not intuitively evident, so they are left to the student being schooled , namely ---- YOU/  

 

__________________

If you believe that the economy is driven day-to-day in the short term, you don't know beans. 

_______________________________________________________________

I might also note that politicians are often picked by the independent electorate to handle coming economic slumps. I expect that the next president and congress will have to contend with what the Federal Reserve and the 111th Congress have wrought. Economic disasters aren't instantaneous and usually those who are most at fault get to skate the blame. I suspect the next president will bear the blame for the stock bubble pop and the resulting flaccid  recovery because of Dudd-Frankenstein.

Originally Posted by direstraits:

The Gates will not leave much to their children. Just a small trust to ensure they have the basics.  So, no inheritance or inheritance tax problems for the kids.  Most goes to the foundation.

Don't believe that for a second who runs the foundation and what assets does the foundation have such as mansions and jets for the children to have access to.  This is the biggest difference between the super rich and other well off people they set up charitable foundations and then set them up for their heirs to run.  The heirs then have access to all the hard assets of the foundation such as housing, jets etc and receive a very big salary to run them.

http://www.savewealth.com/plan.../estate/foundations/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...onaire-fortune-taxes

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...n-Family-Foundation#

No illegal but lets tell it like it is

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×