Close

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 4
Results 91 to 108 of 108
  1. #91
    Moderator belgareth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Lower Slovobia
    Posts
    7,961
    Rep Power
    8516

    Default

    visit-red-300x50PNG
    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    Franki?

    Thank you! Guess I need another cup of coffee this morning.
    To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.

    Thomas Jefferson

  2. #92
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by belgareth
    However,

    the way we are doing it, about 15% of every tax dollar taken from the wage earners to help the needy actually gets

    to the people it's intended for. The rest goes to support the machine. There's something terribly wrong with that

    and no matter who is paying the larger portion, no matter who gets the better tax breaks, we are all getting

    screwed.
    If you want a good analogy:

    That's the way telemarketing for donations work (used to work,

    at least) as well. I'm not sure if they have those anymore with the "Don't Call List" initiative, but when people

    used to call you to ask for donations, 85% would go to the telemarketing company and 15% would go to the charity.

  3. #93
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    #2 proves my

    point, however, since the rich pay so much more taxes then they would benefit from a tax cut...You can't say that

    Bush's tax plan didn't benefit the rich.
    You're right. When I wrote, "No tax cut can ever benefit the

    rich", I should have said, "no tax cut can ever favor the rich". The initial point was whether the Bush tax cut

    favored the rich, which it did not do, since the rich benefitted less from the tax cut than everyone else.



    ...In fact, if the rich have more money to spend, then they invest it into the economy and help get us out

    of a recession....
    I wish that were always so, but it's not. The Bush tax cut has been criticized because

    part of its reasoning is exactly that: if you give back more money to everyone, then everyone will spend more, and

    more jobs will be created.

    But the more money you have, the less likely you'll actually spend it on consumer

    goods and services.

    A Houston area financial expert runs an afternoon talk radio show where he and other people

    in his industry give callers free analysis of stocks, mutual funds, the markets, and the economy.

    One day, Lance

    Roberts (the show's host/chief expert) got a call from someone about stock options. I am paraphrasing from memory,

    and may not remember this correctly, but Lance made a comment about how the CEOs of corporations manage their

    companys' reputations so their stock prices remain healthy so that the (the CEOs) can cash out their stock options

    and make money.

    A CEO's primary obligation is to his company's shareholders. The shareholders want their stock

    to either pay dividends or have a consistent trading range so that they can buy low and sell high on a regular,

    profitable basis. Most of the large shareholders in the Fortune 1000 are mutual funds, pension funds, etc.

    Now,

    Lance also told the caller that he had just recently helped a CEO cash out $100 million in stock options. What we

    (the listeners) learned from that call was that the stock market is being used by the major funds to scrape profits

    from the trading ranges and by the major executives of the corporations to make money off their stock options.



    Pretty much, everyone else who invests in the market loses money (which is where the profits come from for those

    who do make money). That includes schmucks like you and me who hope our 401(k) plans will keep increasing in value.

    In a market experiencing consistent expansion (such as happened in the 90s when the tech stocks went crazy), 401(k)

    and other retirement funds will increase in paper value. But as soon as the market deflates, that paper value

    vanishes (it happened in the 1980s, too -- Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, lost $2,000,000,000 in one day and he

    laughed it off, saying it was all on paper anyway).

    Lance said that the CEOs who cash out their stock options

    know all this, and they therefore don't trust the stock market.

    Well, this got me to thinking. So, I called

    Lance and I asked him, "Do rich people invest in the stock market?"

    He said, "No. Except for speculators and

    people like T. Boone Pickens, rich people don't invest in the stock market. It's too volatile."

    So, I said,

    "Well, if a CEO goes to all the trouble of managing his company's reputation so that he can make $100 million on

    stock options, where does he put all his money?"

    Lance replied with one word: "Bonds."

    Usually, he

    explained, U.S. Treasery bonds, which are sold in $10,000 blocks.

    1. referring to interest income

    vs. non-interest income, and even if the rich invested all of their money in tax-deferred plans would still

    have to pay taxes on their non-interest income
    No. You don't pay taxes on government bonds. At least

    not all of all them. Many municipal bonds are tax-free, too.

    You see, all the working people are advised to put

    X per cent of their portfolio into stock funds, Y per cent into bond funds, etc. We feed the market with our

    gullibility. A few of us are lucky on occasion and we make a little money. In fact, I have 100 shares of a company

    which are worth $2-3 a piece. I paid 15.5 cents per share for them. Oboy.

    So, basically, this is all a huge

    digression, but generally speaking, the wealthy are not favored by tax plans because most of them manage not to pay

    taxes on large portions of their incomes anyway.

    Tax free and tax deferred investments benefit AND favor the

    wealthy because they CAN and DO invest more money in those kinds of investments.

    I am about ready to give up on

    401(k) plans myself. I have bailed out of them several times and have paid that 10 per cent penalty every time. It

    about eats up whatever I had made.

    I could do like other people and leave the money alone, but the market is so

    volatile you have to manage your money carefully to maintain any growth.

    Lance Roberts does explain how he helps

    his stock investing clients make money. Presumably, he is telling the truth. But there is so much analysis involved,

    that the average person just cannot do the job right.

    From now on, I may just put all my extra money into U.S.

    Savings Bonds. Not quite as good as Treasuries, but they are easy to get and you don't have to worry about market

    volatility.

  4. #94
    Full Member HK45Mark23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    SouthWestern Indiana
    Posts
    135
    Rep Power
    7190

    Default

    Rich people do not use stocks or bonds to insulate their selves from taxes or even to hold their

    money. Corporations have a tax filter and real-estate have a tax filter. So you make a living to invest in your

    corporation that holds real-estate. Employees and self employees like Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants and small

    business owners pay the highest taxes because the tax laws are written against them. If you own a company or invest

    into other companies, then you have the tax advantage. So, either you work a system, or are the system like

    Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants and small business owners, (in both cases you pay high taxes,) or you own a system or

    invest in systems, (In which you pay less taxes.) I think that this may be the reason that people think Kerry only

    paid 17% taxes. I think that is the amount they said. Any way if you look at the tax deferred income that comes in

    through corporations and real-estate holdings you can easily account for the 12 or 17% total tax consequences. They

    only have to pay taxes on actual salary, and only on what is left over in the corporations’ after all non taxable

    expenses.


    I am

    conservative and would support a flat tax. Your feelings of why people are upset with rich people are correct, the

    Robin Hood model and entitlement mentality are not going to promote anything but communism and socialism. I prefer

    to produce for my self instead of the government rationing to me. I also prefer to educate my self instead of being

    “educated” by the government for their purposes, (propaganda and mind control as history reveals is common in these

    government and economic models). Capitalistic democracy is the best government / economic model in the world. Even

    after hurricanes, war and the Twin Towers we are still the strongest and most envied nation on the planet. To those

    who wine about it Whaaaaaa hiccup cough Whaaaaaa!






    HK45Mark23

  5. #95
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    I wish

    that were always so, but it's not. The Bush tax cut has been criticized because part of its reasoning is exactly

    that: if you give back more money to everyone, then everyone will spend more, and more jobs will be created.

    But

    the more money you have, the less likely you'll actually spend it on consumer goods and services.

    Keynes believed that there was a ratio for this. In other words, with every additional dollar a person receives

    (whether it be in income or tax return), they'd save x% and spend y%. I assume you're referring to the point

    where x = 100 (rich who have enough money already don't spend any more). However, investments may lead to

    investing in other companies that will be spending that money to try to create a profitable business. Although one

    person/company isn't spending, another one is. Government bonds are a means to lend money to---guess who?---the

    government. Who's spending more in the recession? The government! So you see, someone is spending more

    thanks to the additional investments!

    (Conspiracy theorists can now use that logic to claim that

    Bush made tax breaks to fund the war he was planning to begin with as a means to get us out of the

    recession...although that's a stretch even for the paranoid )

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    No. You don't pay

    taxes on government bonds. At least not all of all them. Many municipal bonds are tax-free, too.
    I know

    you don't pay taxes on government bonds. As I said, that's interest income. The rich are still taxed on

    non-interest income, which is a fancy way of saying their salary. What I was trying to say was that it

    doesn't matter if all of their investments are tax free because the government's still taxing them on that $100K+

    they're making from their job that allow them to make those investments. All of that money they're investing with

    tax free returns is money they already paid taxes on when they accumulated it from working (exceptions are IRA/401K,

    which are taken before taxes but eventually get taxed when you take that money out, anyway). In other words, the

    rich can't completely avoid taxes on their own income because the government takes it out of their paycheck (okay,

    so Al Capone did it, but what happened to him? ). They can do the little tricks that lower the amount of their

    total income (deductions, exemptions, etc.), but eventually they have to claim whatever's left of their salary. I

    stuck with salary for all of my examples with benefitting from tax breaks because the poor don't have anything

    saved to be taxed and the rich find ways of sheltering their interest income from tax.

  6. #96
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    7125

    Default

    You guys are way off the

    topic of the thread. What is the matter is Kerry's winnning body language too much for you to discuss? Your like

    Bush, change the topic = a change in reality. Time for a reality check instead of tax babble that never goes

    anywhere.

    Elk

  7. #97
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Last time I checked, this was

    the Open Discussion forum and a political thread at that. Talking about the possible tax legislation that may ensue

    from a candidate's election is pretty relevant on that topic. I could easily bring that back to the first topic by

    saying, "Does Kerry's body language suggest that he is telling the truth/lying about his plans on taxes?"

    I

    believe that criticizing and even insulting other posters/discussions is more off the topic of a thread than talking

    about the potential tax laws from the candidates.

  8. #98
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Default

    It could be worse. We could be

    debating whether to re-elect Al Gore, Father of the Internet.

  9. #99
    Sadhu bjf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    3,781
    Rep Power
    8182

    Default

    hmmmm.... how would this world be

    different if Gore were in office?

  10. #100
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Possibilities:

    No war in

    Iraq
    No/Less tax cut
    No trillion-dollar deficit
    Not having every nation hate us
    More threats or terrorist

    activity
    Less jokes about tripping over words in speeches
    A lot less voting in 2004 - No Fahrenheit 9/11, Mosh,

    Vote or Die, etc.







    Oh, yeah, and Kerry's body language speaks well when he shoves Bush's own

    words in his face.

  11. #101
    Journeyman
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    63
    Rep Power
    7125

    Default

    Now its getting interesting

    again, Thanks.



    Elk

  12. #102
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    Possibilities:

    No war in Iraq
    No/Less tax cut
    No trillion-dollar deficit
    Not having every

    nation hate us
    More threats or terrorist activity
    Less jokes about tripping over words in speeches
    A lot less

    voting in 2004 - No Fahrenheit 9/11, Mosh, Vote or Die, etc.
    Nonsense. 9/11 was going to happen regardless of

    who was President.

    Gore, being the wuss he is, would have screwed up everything completely.

    Afghanistan

    would probably still be in the hands of the Taliban, training more suicide bombers to attack us, and we'd probably

    still have 10s of thousands of troops committed to the Persian Gulf for the sole purpose of enforcing sanctions

    which killed more Iraqi children than hurt Saddam Hussein.

    We would still have had the same intelligence picture

    about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (meaning, everyone would still believe they were there), or else we would

    have invaded Iraq to find out whether Saddam did indeed have the WMD.

    We probably would not feel as safe in our

    homeland as we do today.

    And we'd still be enduring endless complaints about Gore's having stolen the

    election, his claims to have founded the Internet, and the loss of jobs his environmental policies would have

    resulted in.

    But Gore would undoubtedly blame the economic slump on Clinton. He would have had no one else to

    blame it on.

  13. #103
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Friendly1
    Nonsense.

    9/11 was going to happen regardless of who was President.
    You're absolutely right. Please note that I

    said no Fahrenheit 9/11, which meant the movie wouldn't have been made. I do not contest 9/11 for a moment.

    It would've happened. The movie, however, was to trash Bush. Had Bush not been in office, there wouldn't be a

    need to trash him...and I don't think Moore would've attacked Gore like that.

    I do believe, however, that we

    would not have invaded Iraq like Bush did (maybe eventually the same outcome, but not like it is

    now...would've taken longer to enact). I still think Bush was all too excited to take him out because of his

    father. Gore wouldn't have had that bias. Secondly, Bush was on a crusade to take out whoever presented even a

    remote threat. I do not think that Gore would've had the same intensity. These are hypotheticals, however, and

    could be wrong. We'll never know, so I guess it doesn't really matter, does it?

  14. #104
    Bad Motha Holmes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,004
    Rep Power
    7990

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    Secondly, Bush

    was on a crusade to take out whoever presented even a remote threat.
    Absolutely. The operative word

    being remote.
    If a guy's a cocksucker in his life, when he dies, he don't become a saint. - Morris Levy, Hitmen

    Holmes' Theme Song

  15. #105
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Holmes
    Absolutely. The

    operative word being remote.
    Ironically, this is his strongest selling point. The very

    'mistakes' Bush made that everyone criticizes are the same ones that make everyone who is not related to/attached

    to a soldier sleep easy at night. Sure, he's ignoring everyone's rights and freedoms (I'd say a country has a

    right to a government other than a US-clone...and the US could 'let sleeping dogs lie'), but we sure do

    feel safe now. By the time Bush is through, every country that used to oppose the US will be like the US and will

    think like the US and therefore would never want to attack the US. I think Bush would be well to give Jack

    Nicholson's speech in A Few Good Men. After all, who are we to reap the benefits of the protection he

    provides and then question the means by which he provides it? We can't handle the truth!

  16. #106
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    You're

    absolutely right. Please note that I said no Fahrenheit 9/11,
    I wasn't picking on your selection

    of the movie. Almost every major decision the Bush Administration has made since that fateful day has been driven

    by the intensity of the attacks.

    Gore would have been similarly driven. He just would not have been as

    effective as Bush in quashing further attacks.

    We have to pay a price, as a people, for the swiftness of the

    Bush Administration's response to 9/11. Most people aren't yet ready to acknowledge that, and Kerry is now trying

    to distance himself from his own support for that response.

    But in our government's zeal to prevent further

    attacks on American soil, a few thousand Arab-Americans (and probably some other minorities) saw their rights vanish

    over night. Some of them were undoubtedly linked to Al Qaida, but I doubt many of them were.

    The "Fahrenheit"

    movie is just balderdash -- partisan half-truths and innuendos preying on people's fears and guilt. It

    misrepresents the truth and is only refective of the kind of backlash Gore would have suffered from the other side,

    had he been in place.

    No one would have been prepared to handle 9/11 in the surgical, sterile way Kerry is

    falsely arguing he would have.

    An invasion of Iraq was inevitable. Saddam Hussein threw out the U.N. weapons

    inspectors and had no intention of allowing them to return. Bush's being President the past four years only means

    we had a decisive, swift-acting administration in place.

    Although I said we will pay a price for some of the

    things the Congress authorized the Administration to do, we are nonetheless safer at home today than we would have

    been under Gore or Kerry.

    Bush takes care of his people. He doesn't posture and change his position just

    because it's politically expedient to do so.

    He's not the most articulate person to ever hold the Presidency,

    but he at least took on a very difficult task without reservation. We don't need all the agonizing Kerry would put

    us through when times get tough.

  17. #107
    Phero Pharaoh
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Power
    7681

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Pancho1188
    By the time

    Bush is through, every country that used to oppose the US will be like the US and will think like the US and

    therefore would never want to attack the US.
    I don't think so. Bush's policies have definitely

    irritated the Muslim world. You're talking about hundreds of millions of people.

    By the time he is finished,

    if he is allowed to finish the job, people will respect America about the way they did right after World War II.



    They won't like us, they probably won't want to be like us, but they will understand better that we only

    occasionally elect bad leaders to office -- and that we will do whatever it takes to correct such errors, if anyone

    takes advantage of them.

    That doesn't mean the rest of the world will believe we turn around and elect good

    leaders. I just mean that they'll understand that if they try to take a hard line with us, we'll back a President

    who stands up to the bullying and says, "Forget it. We aren't going to put up with this."

    In a major crisis,

    such as the War for Independence, the War Between the States, the World Wars, and now the War on Terrorism, we have

    demonstrated a remarkable ability to blur the lines we have spent hundreds of years drawing -- and in the aftermath

    we come back and say, "Well, maybe we should have done something different."

    It's always easier to look back

    and see the swath of destruction you created than to understand the harm you are inflicting while you are forging

    ahead in a crisis.

  18. #108
    Man of La Pancha
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The Pancho Villa
    Posts
    2,077
    Rep Power
    7943

    Default

    By 'country' I meant

    government. Would you bite the hand that fed you? (translation: We take down governments we don't like, put in

    ones that are like ours, and those governments will of course like/support the US because it put them into power)



    Those hundreds of millions of people you're referring to will, of course, still hate the US as you said.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 4

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Question about body language
    By lordcrazyd in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-11-2004, 03:51 AM
  2. Body Language
    By nemx2000 in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 09-10-2004, 01:13 PM
  3. Reading body language
    By ironration in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 09-01-2003, 01:05 PM
  4. Pheromones and Body Language
    By Alquimista in forum Pheromone Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-27-2003, 05:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •