<rant>
The short answer is that the next president, either Obama or McCain, is going to inherit a world-o-shat. Financially, it would be practically impossible to save our great nation, unless, unless we make giant cuts in all government spending and decrease or eliminate federal income taxes.
Next we'd have to privatize as much infrastructure as possible ASAP. In other words we have to save ourselves, the government can't and the sooner we realize that, the better. Reckless bureaucrats spending like drunken sailors with zero accountability is no way to run a business. The debt, deficit and unfunded liabilities, look like they are going to be addressed by monetizing(government counterfeiting to cover) the debt. And you think the dollars is weak and times are bad now? Just wait. IMHO, unless, we change course drastically and shrink government by at least 80%, we're kidding ourselves....and which politician is going to do that?
</rant>
Tax break? For who? The very rich got the tax break.
quote:Originally posted by JJPAUL:
Tax break? For who? The very rich got the tax break.
Did they get the one third break, or the larger 30 percent break that was reported in alternet.silly?
Show us the documentation from IRS websites of the tax break you speak of.
quote:Originally posted by JJPAUL:
Tax break? For who? The very rich got the tax break.
JJ, a tax break for all.
Since I don't have some freakish fetish for defending the Millionaires and the taxes they pay let me pose this discussion in another simpler form which I believe. If you make the wealthy pay a fair higher tax than now you would gain the advantage of a larger amount of tax revenue per person and it would not put them at any hardship or wealth creation would not be effected, give them a fair capital gains tax rate, thats what encourages investment, not their overall tax rate.
However if you give the vast middle income of America a more significant tax break, more than these pitiful tax cuts for that income range so far, you increase consumer power tremendously. Those making less than 200,000 a year will spend a tax cut on consumable items of all kinds because they have to and want to, it is more likely that those above 200,000 and as you go higher will put the money in mutual funds or savings, investing in the financial side of corporations yes but with not near the impact of a middle income spending spree. And as I said the millionaires and wealthy will continue to invest no matter how much theyre taxed because they do not need consumer spending power, they have more than they will ever need.
However if you give the vast middle income of America a more significant tax break, more than these pitiful tax cuts for that income range so far, you increase consumer power tremendously. Those making less than 200,000 a year will spend a tax cut on consumable items of all kinds because they have to and want to, it is more likely that those above 200,000 and as you go higher will put the money in mutual funds or savings, investing in the financial side of corporations yes but with not near the impact of a middle income spending spree. And as I said the millionaires and wealthy will continue to invest no matter how much theyre taxed because they do not need consumer spending power, they have more than they will ever need.
quote:Originally posted by EvilGenius:
Since I don't have some freakish fetish for defending the Millionaires and the taxes they pay let me pose....... And as I said the millionaires and wealthy will continue to invest no matter how much theyre taxed because they do not need consumer spending power, they have more than they will ever need.
You gotta love people who think that those who make a little more than they do have evrything handed to them, and all the money they need. Those people have bills as well. Why should they pay a higher disproportion of their income than anyone else? 15% of $200,000 is still more than 15% of $100,000, is it not?
quote:And as I said the millionaires and wealthy will continue to invest no matter how much theyre taxed because they do not need consumer spending power, they have more than they will ever need.
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. After JFK sought his big tax cut (the top bracket being 91 percent for all income over $400,000), business and the economy took off. When the Scandinavian countries started taxing at 98 percent and taxing what one had in the bank after the previous year's tax, high income earners left the country and changed their citizenship.
quote:Originally posted by EvilGenius:
Since I don't have some freakish fetish for defending the Millionaires and the taxes they pay let me pose this discussion in another simpler form which I believe. If you make the wealthy pay a fair higher tax than now you would gain the advantage of a larger amount of tax revenue per person and it would not put them at any hardship or wealth creation would not be effected, give them a fair capital gains tax rate, thats what encourages investment, not their overall tax rate.
However if you give the vast middle income of America a more significant tax break, more than these pitiful tax cuts for that income range so far, you increase consumer power tremendously. Those making less than 200,000 a year will spend a tax cut on consumable items of all kinds because they have to and want to, it is more likely that those above 200,000 and as you go higher will put the money in mutual funds or savings, investing in the financial side of corporations yes but with not near the impact of a middle income spending spree. And as I said the millionaires and wealthy will continue to invest no matter how much theyre taxed because they do not need consumer spending power, they have more than they will ever need.
Sorry Yates,
Your analaogy is just plain wrong. No one here thinks that the difference between 200k and 100k is rich and poor.
Try in your analogy 17% of 182 million vs. 33% of 80k, that's what we are talking about.
quote:You gotta love people who think that those who make a little more than they do have evrything handed to them, and all the money they need. Those people have bills as well. Why should they pay a higher disproportion of their income than anyone else?
That is the problem teyates, I think you would find in the real world that they don't pay near the same percentage of taxes as middle income once their loopholes and write offs are taken advantage of. Warren Buffett one of the richest Billionaires in America has admitted publicly that his middle income secretary pays a far higher tax rate than he does. I'm sure everything sounds simple to you but you will find if you ever have to deal with these things in reality that nothing is as simple as general statements on this forum.
That's why the wealthy for the most part aren't for a simple flat rate tax with no loopholes. If they were there would already be one.
And by the way I never said the difference between rich and poor was 200,000 dollars income, the reason I keep using that number is that is the income number Obama uses in his plan to cut taxes significantly for anyone with an income less than 200k individual and 250k joint. I wouldn't think anyone here would disagree with the statement that the more money you make the better off you should be. Now whether you can control your spending is another matter. I wouldn't presume to define rich, there are those that are rich that make very little money.
Also there is a falacy in the argument that goes on here, I for one have never advocated taxing the rich with a heavy burden, they can be taxed fairly and still not effect economic growth adversely. These growth figures are the result of complex equations, its not as simple as tax cut = growth as Howard and others imply, there are other variables. Findling where on that equation the tax should be as compared to spending is significant. Corporations do not like to compete with the government to borrow money.
There was a fair tax policy under the first George Bush and Bill Clinton and we had unparallelled economic growth at higher tax rates than now. So while you all may try to argue black versus white, its a sliding gray area that is what is desirable.
Also there is a falacy in the argument that goes on here, I for one have never advocated taxing the rich with a heavy burden, they can be taxed fairly and still not effect economic growth adversely. These growth figures are the result of complex equations, its not as simple as tax cut = growth as Howard and others imply, there are other variables. Findling where on that equation the tax should be as compared to spending is significant. Corporations do not like to compete with the government to borrow money.
There was a fair tax policy under the first George Bush and Bill Clinton and we had unparallelled economic growth at higher tax rates than now. So while you all may try to argue black versus white, its a sliding gray area that is what is desirable.
quote:Originally posted by Extra260:
Sorry Yates,
Your analaogy is just plain wrong. No one here thinks that the difference between 200k and 100k is rich and poor.
Try in your analogy 17% of 182 million vs. 33% of 80k, that's what we are talking about.
ECKKKKKKK..>Thank you for playing, but if you keep up long enough around here, and you read the current Democratic presidental candidates proposal, his definition of the "rich" is a cutoff of around $200K, which is what many on this board have used, including excel who in one thread said he did not care if the tax rates were higher since he did not make that much.
There are many who may not, but then again look at it from the POV that one day you might, and how will you feel then.
On your second point, those making 182 million a year, have some powerful lobbies and lawyers, they are not going to pay more because they hide that money in trusts. In order to get to the money you will have to effect laws that will get at the trusts owned by the "middle" class as well.
As for the tax rate, I will attest to the fact that 'yes', you will pay the higher rate if you make more, I have dealt with it in "reality" and my general statement reflects my own personal experience. If you think otherwise you are certainly delusional and listening to too many rumors down at the union hall.
quote:Originally posted by teyates:quote:Originally posted by Extra260:
Sorry Yates,
Your analaogy is just plain wrong. No one here thinks that the difference between 200k and 100k is rich and poor.
Try in your analogy 17% of 182 million vs. 33% of 80k, that's what we are talking about.
ECKKKKKKK..>Thank you for playing, but if you keep up long enough around here, and you read the current Democratic presidental candidates proposal, his definition of the "rich" is a cutoff of around $200K, which is what many on this board have used, including excel who in one thread said he did not care if the tax rates were higher since he did not make that much.
There are many who may not, but then again look at it from the POV that one day you might, and how will you feel then.
On your second point, those making 182 million a year, have some powerful lobbies and lawyers, they are not going to pay more because they hide that money in trusts. In order to get to the money you will have to effect laws that will get at the trusts owned by the "middle" class as well.
As for the tax rate, I will attest to the fact that 'yes', you will pay the higher rate if you make more, I have dealt with it in "reality" and my general statement reflects my own personal experience. If you think otherwise you are certainly delusional and listening to too many rumors down at the union hall.
I believe if you check your facts you will see Obama's plan was to increase the taxable income on social Security income from the 105k that it is now and skip to 250k and start there collecting social security on income in excess of 250k.
Thus that wouldn't increase taxes on the middle class, but would force the " Rich" to pay their fair share of the SS load.
A plan, BTW i support.
BTW, since i am ill informed " Down at the union hall" can you explain to me why the CEO of Apple Computers pays himself a measly one dollar bill a year in salary?
Extra,
Don't care if you get your information at the union hall or not, you and the usual delusional cast of zealots fail to see the irony that Obama's plan does not "pin" down where the definition of "rich" begins, much like your previous two statements. Read between the lines where he says that may not be enough...You made the statement that the 100K separation of 100K and 200K does not qualify as rich, yet in your last statement you said Obama's plan does just that, and you support it. Which is it? Are you only after the ones who make a million a year? or just the ones making a dollar or two more than you? When does the "fairness" kick in? When you die and leave your home to your kids, or your trust fund which you have paid into for many years, how much of it should Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi be able to take from your coffers in order to satisfy your jealousy of others?
This is not about greed, and wealth as you so much detest, it is about redistribution of one's hard work and savings to others who may not have done so. That in and of itself is socialism, irregardless of where you get your definition. Suppose year that, oh let's say, the drive shaft business takes off and you make more than you anticipate, are you going to change your definition of the "rich" then?
I have checked my facts, and I have talked to others, other than the unions reps...
....so I feel secure in my vote. The really sad part of the SS discussion, is that the next step will be means testings, so those who pay the most for the SS, will in all eventuality not be able to draw one red cent of the monies they paid into the system.
The CEO of Apple computers , which you love to hate, is ONE inidividual. you don't punish hundreds of thousands and increase their tax burden for one or two people, but then again, I guess some of you would.
Don't care if you get your information at the union hall or not, you and the usual delusional cast of zealots fail to see the irony that Obama's plan does not "pin" down where the definition of "rich" begins, much like your previous two statements. Read between the lines where he says that may not be enough...You made the statement that the 100K separation of 100K and 200K does not qualify as rich, yet in your last statement you said Obama's plan does just that, and you support it. Which is it? Are you only after the ones who make a million a year? or just the ones making a dollar or two more than you? When does the "fairness" kick in? When you die and leave your home to your kids, or your trust fund which you have paid into for many years, how much of it should Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi be able to take from your coffers in order to satisfy your jealousy of others?
This is not about greed, and wealth as you so much detest, it is about redistribution of one's hard work and savings to others who may not have done so. That in and of itself is socialism, irregardless of where you get your definition. Suppose year that, oh let's say, the drive shaft business takes off and you make more than you anticipate, are you going to change your definition of the "rich" then?
I have checked my facts, and I have talked to others, other than the unions reps...
....so I feel secure in my vote. The really sad part of the SS discussion, is that the next step will be means testings, so those who pay the most for the SS, will in all eventuality not be able to draw one red cent of the monies they paid into the system.The CEO of Apple computers , which you love to hate, is ONE inidividual. you don't punish hundreds of thousands and increase their tax burden for one or two people, but then again, I guess some of you would.
quote:Originally posted by teyates:
Extra,
Don't care if you get your information at the union hall or not,
So why did you bring it up? you and the delusional cast of zealots fail to see the irony that Obama's plan does not "pin" down where the defintion of "rich" begins, i think it does, It starts by recognizing that people who make millions of dollars do not pay Social Security, why is that hard for you to understand? much like your previous two statements. You made the statement that the 100K seperation of 100K and 200K does not qualify as rich, yet in your last statement you said Obam's plan does just that, and you support it. Which is it? I think there is a fundamental difference between recognizing that the rich do not pay Social security and recognizing the need to just raise taxes. Clear as a bell. Are you only after the ones who make a million a year? or just the ones making a dollar or two more than you? When the "fairness" kick in? A CEO who makes 182 million dollars a year pays about 17% of his income in taxes since he does not pay SS on anything over 105k, any one under that amount pays about 16% of what they make in SS alone not including Federal taxes. Who is getting a better deal here? When you die and leave your home to your kids, or your trust fund which you have paid into for manyyears, how much of it should Mr. Obama and Ms. Pelosi be able to take from your coffers in order to satisfy your jealousy of others?
This is not about greed, and wealth as you so much detest, it is about redistribution of one's hard work and savings to others who may not have done so. In case you haven't noticed, the wealth of this nation is gravitating upward, this was the cause of the Great Depression, people who lived thru that time and economists wiser than you understood the need to keep those at the upper end of the economic ladder from siphoning off the wealth of this country, and under the days of global trade, then just going somewhere else to rape the economy of other nations. That in and of itself is socialism, irregardless of where you get your definition. Suppose year that, oh let's say, the drive shaft business takes off and you make more than you anticipate, are you going to change your definition of the "rich" then? The greatest danger now is not taxes, it's the 100% inflation we have seen in the last 8 years.
I have checked my facts, and I have talked to others, other than the unions reps...
The CEO of Apple computers , which you love to hate, is ONE inidividual. The artful dodge. The CEO of apple does what EVERY CEO and rich person does, manipulate the system to avoid paying taxes that the average working man cannot use the power of incorporation to avoid. Is this possibly the reason why you incorporated your business? you don't punish hundreds of thousands and increase their tax burden for one or two people, but then again, I guess some of you would.
Once again, JJ and extra, clinton raped everybody on taxes. Even at the current rate for the middle class, a single person making 30,000 a year pays 15%. If that same person makes 50,000 they pay 25%. Under the clinton administration it was higher. If you don't believe me go to the IRS web site and see for yourself. The only fair tax is one rate for everyone.
quote:Originally posted by lazeebum:
Once again, JJ and extra, clinton raped everybody on taxes. Even at the current rate for the middle class, a single person making 30,000 a year pays 15%. If that same person makes 50,000 they pay 25%. Under the clinton administration it was higher. If you don't believe me go to the IRS web site and see for yourself. The only fair tax is one rate for everyone.
Lazee, Are you sitting down? You are voting for McCain right?
You need to read the McCain bio from the FOX websight.......
McCain says tax cuts work best in conjunction with lower spending. He blames excessive spending for Republican losses in the 2006 elections. McCain was one of two Republican senators to oppose the 2001 tax cuts, arguing that too many of the benefits went to the most fortunate at the expense of the middle class. He also opposed the 2003 tax cuts. McCain says he would not raise taxes, but that he would not go as far as to sign a pledge to that effect. He believes a repeal of the estate tax isn't necessary.
He sounds like a left wing marxist commie pinko to me.
Extra,
"The greatest danger now is not taxes, it's the 100% inflation we have seen in the last 8 years."
Can you give a cite for this claim?
"The greatest danger now is not taxes, it's the 100% inflation we have seen in the last 8 years."
Can you give a cite for this claim?
quote:Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Extra,
"The greatest danger now is not taxes, it's the 100% inflation we have seen in the last 8 years."
Can you give a cite for this claim?
Howard,
What planet do you live on?
Did you escape from your cell again?
Uhhmmm, uuhhhmmmm, no i can't think of any.
Thank! I knew you couldn't back up your claim and would hurl insults instead.
quote:Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Thank! I knew you couldn't back up your claim and would hurl insults instead.
Howard,
You can be so idiotic. Something that is so self evident does not even need to be defended.
I could give so many examples, but i guess you are like George Bush senior, you don't know how much milk and bread costs.
quote:ECKKKKKKK..>Thank you for playing, but if you keep up long enough around here, and you read the current Democratic presidental candidates proposal, his definition of the "rich" is a cutoff of around $200K
Tetayes Show me a document where the democratic presidential candidate defines rich as $200k? That is the income level at which he bases a tax cut rate range, cutting taxes below that level. He or any document or proposal has never defined that as rich.
quote:Once again, JJ and extra, clinton raped everybody on taxes. Even at the current rate for the middle class, a single person making 30,000 a year pays 15%. If that same person makes 50,000 they pay 25%. Under the clinton administration it was higher.
Well lazeebum, that disproves this argument you and your cronies are making that extreme tax cuts equal a better economy in every case. We had a more prosperous economy under Clinton by any measure you want to use, the greatest increase in wealth, the most jobs created, and more people taken off welfare programs than at any other recent administration. Thank you for proving my point that there are other considerations besides destroying the revenue generating tax base.
Extra,
Fuel has increased significantly. However, reviewing receipts for other purchases and expenses from the past few years I do not find a doubling of costs. Therefore, I find no sound basis for your claims. Government statistics do not back them up. Are you quoting from another source, your own studies or just from the miasma of your consciousness?
In short, make an outrageous claim, back it up!
Fuel has increased significantly. However, reviewing receipts for other purchases and expenses from the past few years I do not find a doubling of costs. Therefore, I find no sound basis for your claims. Government statistics do not back them up. Are you quoting from another source, your own studies or just from the miasma of your consciousness?
In short, make an outrageous claim, back it up!
Evil,
After the Bush tax cuts, revenue went up!
After the Bush tax cuts, revenue went up!
We're not talking revenue Howard, we're talking about that relationship to an improvement to the economy, the quality of Americans lives, and spending discipline. At least I have been trying to. As I've been trying to tell you people its a more sophisticated equation than just tax cut equals an increasingly growing economy. You people seem to have an odd translation of opinions here and just put every person and posting in one of two categories, against taxes and for heavy taxes. I as one of the few reasonable people here believe in a fair taxing system and a fair spending system focused to the end result of reducing the deficit to a reasonable level.
quote:Originally posted by EvilGenius:
We're not talking revenue Howard, we're talking about that relationship to an improvement to the economy, the quality of Americans lives, and spending discipline. At least I have been trying to. As I've been trying to tell you people its a more sophisticated equation than just tax cut equals an increasingly growing economy. You people seem to have an odd translation of opinions here and just put every person and posting in one of two categories, against taxes and for heavy taxes. I as one of the few reasonable people here believe in a fair taxing system and a fair spending system focused to the end result of reducing the deficit to a reasonable level.
Evil,
It seems politics makes strange bedfellows. Any one not for tax cuts for the rich are socialist, marxist commie pinkos. Well it seems that the revelation from Fox News website shows McCain is abainst tax cuts for the rich.
I wonder how these righties can vote for a commie.
quote:Originally posted by EvilGenius:quote:ECKKKKKKK..>Thank you for playing, but if you keep up long enough around here, and you read the current Democratic presidental candidates proposal, his definition of the "rich" is a cutoff of around $200K
Tetayes Show me a document where the democratic presidential candidate defines rich as $200k? That is the income level at which he bases a tax cut rate range, cutting taxes below that level. He or any document or proposal has never defined that as rich.
Once again Dr.Evil, keep up with the players in the game. I have asked Extra360 an other on here numerous times to define your term "rich", the dreaded "man who is keeping us down", and none of you will give a defintion. Obama's plan, as defined by Extra's posts calls for an increase of taxes on those making more than 250K, so is that or is that not your defintion? I have asked before on here and none of you will give one. The reason being is because most of you that are calling for higher taxes are doing so as long as it does not involve your current income level. When it does effect you, and it will if you read his mantra (that may not be enough, should be a clear sign to you that you need to bend over cause here it comes again), your attitude will change. What I have found most distracting about your arguments is that you never define the middle class. "You" tend to always generalize and talk about how the rich are keeping us down, the rich are holding on to their monies and won't share, the rich this, the rich that....and yet you never can define exactly who is rich and who is middle class. you take one or two corporate bigwigs who pay more for lawyers than most of us will make in a lifetime and think that by manipulating the laws you are goign to catch some more of their monies. I wish it were that simple.
According to the evident economics genius on here I know nothing about economics, but I can tell you this, irregardless of who you elect, no nation has ever been taxed into prosperity, and continuing to put the tax burden on a dwindling percentage of the population is going to drive this economy even further into the abyss.
quote:Originally posted by EvilGenius:
We're not talking revenue Howard, we're talking about that relationship to an improvement to the economy, the quality of Americans lives, and spending discipline. At least I have been trying to. As I've been trying to tell you people its a more sophisticated equation than just tax cut equals an increasingly growing economy. You people seem to have an odd translation of opinions here and just put every person and posting in one of two categories, against taxes and for heavy taxes. I as one of the few reasonable people here believe in a fair taxing system and a fair spending system focused to the end result of reducing the deficit to a reasonable level.
My point is and was, taxation to produce social justice resulting in a loss in revenue is irrational.
quote:Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Extra,
Fuel has increased significantly. However, reviewing receipts for other purchases and expenses from the past few years I do not find a doubling of costs. Therefore, I find no sound basis for your claims. Government statistics do not back them up. Are you quoting from another source, your own studies or just from the miasma of your consciousness?
In short, make an outrageous claim, back it up!
A couple of things that have doubled (or more) since idiot took office.
1> my property taxes
2> milk
3> cheese
4> packaged walnuts
5> TV sets
6> And of course gasoline up almost 400%
A couple of things that have stayed about the same since idiot took office.
1> wages
2>computers and most electronics (except TVs)
Some things that have gone down since idiot took office.
1> Dow
2> Nasdac
3> Interest paid on investments
4> home prices
5> value of the Dollar
6> manufacturing jobs
In summery, The things that you depend on to build wealth, and plan for a fiscally secure retirement has gone down, while the cost of things you need have gone up, all the time wages have remained virtually unchanged.
If you think all this is just a normal business cycle, and that the policies of this administration had nothing to do with it, you are just nuts. On the other hand, if you think that the economic boom that occurred during the previous administration just happened, and that balancing the national budget with sound fiscal policy had nothing to do with any of it, you are even nuttier.
We need fiscal accountability in our government. How crazy is it to spend a billion dollars a month rebuilding Iraq when they have 87 billion dollars sitting around in banks due to the windfall from oil prices, all the while our own infrastructure is crumbling. How crazy is it to provide free health care for the citizens of Iraq, and not for our own people. How crazy is it to build new schools for kids in Iraq and ignore those in our own homeland.
We need politicians who, before they pass any spending increase, will be accountable for where that spending will come from. Will they cut another program to fund this one, or raise taxes? We know that the current administration has the policy to fund it's programs by borrowing money from China. Again, if you think that is a good idea, you are even worse than nuts, you need real help.
Your property taxes are a function of the state and county governments -- not federal. How Bush affects them, I fail to see.
Milk and cheese prices have risen, because of fuel prices and corn into ethanol. But, I don't see a 100 percent price rise.
TV sets are rising in price, because the old ones are being phased out and being replaced by HD and other higher tech sets. There will be a topping off and decrease in prices as for all electronics.
Yes, I agree on fuel. A rpice rise that is world wide. Even Bush isn't master of the world. Note that rise begin about the time of the Democrat majority in Congress. A Congress that refuses any move to increase supply.
Wages in most metropolitan areas showed a steady growth in 6 percent or more range.
Computers prices have remained steady, but capacity such as chip speed, RAM and hard disk capcity have trebled or quadrupled -- you're getting more for the same price. Not to mention better screens, DVD reading/writing capacity, wireless capability.
Drop in home prices is actually a deflationary, not an inflationary indicator. Anyone studying the market for the last few years could predict that the housing value increases were a bubble, much as the old dot com bomb bubble. When you see house flipping shows or everyone with his own dot.com market place, its time to more out of that market.
The cost troops in Iraq will drop as we slowly decrease troop size, which is being finalized as we speak. Construction costs are winding down, as well.
Milk and cheese prices have risen, because of fuel prices and corn into ethanol. But, I don't see a 100 percent price rise.
TV sets are rising in price, because the old ones are being phased out and being replaced by HD and other higher tech sets. There will be a topping off and decrease in prices as for all electronics.
Yes, I agree on fuel. A rpice rise that is world wide. Even Bush isn't master of the world. Note that rise begin about the time of the Democrat majority in Congress. A Congress that refuses any move to increase supply.
Wages in most metropolitan areas showed a steady growth in 6 percent or more range.
Computers prices have remained steady, but capacity such as chip speed, RAM and hard disk capcity have trebled or quadrupled -- you're getting more for the same price. Not to mention better screens, DVD reading/writing capacity, wireless capability.
Drop in home prices is actually a deflationary, not an inflationary indicator. Anyone studying the market for the last few years could predict that the housing value increases were a bubble, much as the old dot com bomb bubble. When you see house flipping shows or everyone with his own dot.com market place, its time to more out of that market.
The cost troops in Iraq will drop as we slowly decrease troop size, which is being finalized as we speak. Construction costs are winding down, as well.
quote:Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Your property taxes are a function of the state and county governments -- not federal. How Bush affects them, I fail to see.
.
You are partially correct, it was done by executive order of the Republican governor of this state who 4 years later got on tv and said he had lowered our taxes- another liar.
But , to some degree, the needed additional taxes collected by the state is in part due to the decrease in money the states get back from the Federal government. Bush has slashed the amt of money Ala gets back, ergo more money needs to be extracted on the local level.
One case in point was an article posted in the Times Daily a year or so ago where Bush had slashed the highway funds for this state so he could spend more in Iraq. This had a direct affect on the 4 laneing of hwy 43 from Killen to the state line. I'm waay too lazy to try to find the article, but it was discussed on these forums.
One could make the informed case, therfore, that YES, Bush has had an affect on taxes at the state level.
Funds for highway repairs are generated from federal gas taxes. The funds are in a seperate fund, which no federal employee would dare move, because any and all involved would be guilty of a crime.
quote:Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Funds for highway repairs are generated from federal gas taxes. The funds are in a seperate fund, which no federal employee would dare move, because any and all involved would be guilty of a crime.
"All I know is what I read in the paper" Will Rogers.
"Me too ! " Excelman
Again, to move funds from transporation to DoD takes an act of Congress -- literally. And, I know Congress lets no one mess with the highway fund -- its one of the biggest pork barrel funds.
quote:According to the evident economics genius on here I know nothing about economics, but I can tell you this, irregardless of who you elect, no nation has ever been taxed into prosperity, and continuing to put the tax burden on a dwindling percentage of the population is going to drive this economy even further into the abyss.
Actually many nations have been very prosperous throughout history with heavy taxes, it would have been better with a more fair tax system. You and others keep saying someone on here is for heavy taxes on a dwindling population, I'm not sure who is for that although I keep see you and others say someone is. The discussion here is about a fair tax asking the more wealthy blessed pay a little more so the poor and middle classes will be able to improve their life slightly. No one is asking "the rich" as you keep calling them pay heavy taxes.
As far as your hang up on a definition of "the rich" look it up in the dictionary, it has nothing to do with this discussion. You're trying to use it as a hot button word. If I was "the rich" I wouldn't care what you said about me lol.
quote:My point is and was, taxation to produce social justice resulting in a loss in revenue is irrational.
Well Howard that depends on what your morals and goals in life are and what kind of quality of life you want the population as a whole to have. I wouldn't set up a tax system to produce social justice whatever that means. If by rational you mean you want corporations and the very wealthy to pay less taxes to a point of placing a hardship on hard working middle class Americans I guess I am irrational
.What you're saying is rational is let the chips fall where they may, the more wealth you have the more you should have an advantage and let the poor starve. I guess Jesus and christianity is irrational.
quote:Again, to move funds from transporation to DoD takes an act of Congress -- literally. And, I know Congress lets no one mess with the highway fund -- its one of the biggest pork barrel funds.
I think what happened and I'm not sure I'd hve to go back and research, but excelman is essentially correct in what he basicly said, was Bush asked Congress then controlled by the Republicans to reduce the amount of money in the transportation budget to the states in order to increase the budget suplements for Iraq. As a result Alabama had to extend many highway projects in the state out 10 or more years. Two of the projects as I recall were local state projects one excel mentioned.
We may have the mechanics wrong but I can confirm what Excel said, it was reported at the time across state newspapers and television news that the projects were put out a significant number of years due to spending on the Iraq war.
Evil,
Wordplay gains you nothing. My point is and was that increasing taxes to tax the rich more can result in less revenue. Its a well known there is a point of lesser returns for such taxation.
Bush's tax cut resulted in more revenue to the government and a tax cut for everyone. You may not perceive it as a fair cut, but the goverment had to borrow less, as a result.
Wordplay gains you nothing. My point is and was that increasing taxes to tax the rich more can result in less revenue. Its a well known there is a point of lesser returns for such taxation.
Bush's tax cut resulted in more revenue to the government and a tax cut for everyone. You may not perceive it as a fair cut, but the goverment had to borrow less, as a result.
quote:Originally posted by EvilGenius:quote:According to the evident economics genius on here I know nothing about economics, but I can tell you this, irregardless of who you elect, no nation has ever been taxed into prosperity, and continuing to put the tax burden on a dwindling percentage of the population is going to drive this economy even further into the abyss.
Actually many nations have been very prosperous throughout history with heavy taxes, it would have been better with a more fair tax system. You and others keep saying someone on here is for heavy taxes on a dwindling population, I'm not sure who is for that although I keep see you and others say someone is. The discussion here is about a fair tax asking the more wealthy blessed pay a little more so the poor and middle classes will be able to improve their life slightly. No one is asking "the rich" as you keep calling them pay heavy taxes.
As far as your hang up on a definition of "the rich" look it up in the dictionary, it has nothing to do with this discussion. You're trying to use it as a hot button word. If I was "the rich" I wouldn't care what you said about me lol.
It is not me that is hung up on the "term" rich, it the self proclaimed genius economist on here who keeps touting that Bush gave tax cuts to the "rich", all I am asking for is a little clarification since the way I read the statistics, the tax cuts were for everyone, yet the songbird keeps singing the same mantra, that all the tax cuts were for the rich, which is just plain ridiculous.
quote:Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Again, to move funds from transporation to DoD takes an act of Congress -- literally. And, I know Congress lets no one mess with the highway fund -- its one of the biggest pork barrel funds.
Again "All I know is what I read in the newspapers " Will Rogers and excelman.
http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20.../NEWS/706290322/1011
Here is the discussion we had at the time.
http://forums.timesdaily.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5521043...201049336#1201049336