Tax Cuts: A political victory?

[billvon 3,132]

> And that means the economy is bad huh?

Nope, the economy is good. Just like the "personal economy" of the guy next door is improved if he gets yet another credit card - he can buy more stuff! (And buying stuff defines our economy.)

I had a friend that wanted a rig, a new TV etc. but had a poorly paying job. So he got credit cards, bought them all, then declared bankruptcy. A judge then decided which company would get paid back when; due to the repayment schedule some of his debts would essentially never be repaid. And he got lots of stuff!

And really, why shouldn't he do that? It's what we're doing as a country.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I cannot debate with someone who thinks corporations pay taxes. The fact that Clinton was President at a time the budget was balanced and the debt paid down does not mean he had anything to do with it. I already posted several sources that refuted your claim he did, which you immediately claimed were "right wing" without so much as giving a reason why. I can post direct quotes from Clinton where he claims the deficit, and the govt. running deficits isn't a big deal but it would just amount to an endless debate.

I am in a hurry now so I will replly to rest later, but here is your most bold assertion. I will post this so you chew on it.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/objectID/D557CF7D-3BAE-4550-93F37C97C455A2D4/111/182/241/ART/

Corporate Tax Payments
The corporation must file a corporate tax return, IRS Form 1120, and pay taxes at a corporate income tax rate on any profits. If a corporation will owe taxes, it must estimate the amount of tax due for the year and make payments to the IRS on a quarterly basis -- in April, June, September, and January.

Corporations are taxed differently than other business structures: A corporation is the only type of business that must pay its own income taxes on profits. In contrast, partnerships, sole proprietorships, and limited liability companies (LLCs) are not taxed on business profits; instead, the profits "pass through" the businesses to their owners, who report business income or losses on their personal tax returns.

__________________________________________________

OK, YAWN.

You're too easy .... now go skydive and leave the tough stuff to us

As I said, I cannot have an intelligent debate with someone who believes Corporations pay taxes. Corporations are simple a conduit for the govt. to take more of your money. If govt raises my companys taxes by 10%, we raise our prices by that much. If you can't see thru the BS, then yes, I think it's time to skydive.

Oh, I noticed you have no comment on what I posted about the facts of Clintons budgets. That's OK though, I knew you wouldn't respond. Easier to take a parting shot as you slink away, huh?

-

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

My point was we were not in a recession when Clinton came into office. He started that with the tax increases.....

Next thing you know someone will try to convince us corporations pay taxes.

-

Got a headace yet??

Remember when Clinton was trying to sell his 15% tax increase on corporations and he claimed businesses like a pizza parlors could simply raise the price of pizza to cover the increase. Clintonomics at it's best.

-

And the result wassssssssssssssssss???? Most sustained furtile economic growth in US history.

Not making your argument....

Sure I am. I just undermined your assertion that Corporations pay taxes. I am still amazed at the seemingly intelligent people who fail to understand this.

-

How so? Again, you failed to even look at other issues that I've posted. Just a lot of one-liners witth no reference posted.

I established that the rich and corporations had tax increases as he first came into office, this contributed to his great economic success. Are you going to argue Clinton's economic success?

I cannot debate with someone who thinks corporations pay taxes. The fact that Clinton was President at a time the budget was balanced and the debt paid down does not mean he had anything to do with it. I already posted several sources that refuted your claim he did, which you immediately claimed were "right wing" without so much as giving a reason why. I can post direct quotes from Clinton where he claims the deficit, and the govt. running deficits isn't a big deal but it would just amount to an endless debate.

***CBO Puts Clinton Deficit at $69 Billion


Clinton's 5th Unbalanced Budget Shows Why America Needs the BBCA
"I would present a five-year plan to balance the budget."

(Bill Clinton, Larry King Live, June 4, 1992)

America must have misunderstood. Evidently what Bill Clinton meant five years ago was that he would plan for five years to balance the budget -- but never do it. At least that's the way it has worked out. Every year he has been in office, President Clinton has submitted a budget that does not balance. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Clinton's FY 1998 budget leaves a deficit of $69 billion in 2002. It's time for him to admit that there's only one way to achieve true, lasting balance -- a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Instead of doing what it takes to balance the budget, the White House did what it took to increase spending. According to CBO, President Clinton's latest budget spends nine trillion dollars over the next five years -- $132 billion more than the White House admitted to. In order to hide this fact, the White House budgeteers produced favorable economic assumptions and a gimmicky automatic-spending-reduction mechanism that they claimed would allow for more spending and still balance. When these are stripped away, as CBO has done, we are left with a budget that leaves the deficit higher than last year's $107 billion for the next four years.

In the last Congress, after shutting down the government and vetoing the first balanced budget bill since 1969, President Clinton promised three things: To balance the budget, to balance the budget by 2002, and to balance the budget by 2002 using CBO's numbers. With his latest budget, he has not kept even one of those three promises.

Clinton's budget spends $9.119 trillion over the next five years.
In its first year, Clinton's budget increases the deficit $38 billion above last year's, $30 billion above the estimate of this year's, and $24 billion above the estimate of next year's.
Clinton's budget leaves a $69 billion deficit in 2002 and adds $586 billion in deficit spending over the next five years.
98.5 percent of the deficit reduction occurs after Clinton leaves office. In fact, under Clinton's latest budget deficits will not go below last year's deficit ($107 billion) or even below $100 billion until 2001 (when it will reach $95 billion).
During his term, Clinton's budget reduces the deficit just $1 billion from CBO's currently projected levels.
Clinton's budget only eliminates 35% of last year's $107 billion deficit from 1998-2002.
More Spending = More Deficits

President Clinton's budget will spend $9.119 trillion over the next five years. That is $132.2 billion more than the White House admitted to when they released it.
To hide that spending, the Administration relied on favorable assumptions, one-time savings, and a gimmick providing that all but $1 billion -- 98.5 percent -- of the necessary deficit reduction will be made in the next century -- and by another President.
As CBO demonstrates, without these devices, there is no balance, only more deficits -- $69 billion in 2002, and $586 billion over five years; the deficit even increases over what it was projected to be both this year ($116 billion vs. $115 billion) and next year ($145 billion vs. $121 billion).
Clinton's budget leaves spending higher throughout his final term than it was last year -- in 2000 the deficit would be $137 billion vs. $107 billion in 1996. During his last term, Clinton's budget would add $110 billion in additional deficits on top of last year's $107 billion deficit: $116 billion in 1997, $145 billion in 1998, $142 billion in 1999, and $135 billion in 2000 -- $28 billion higher in Clinton's last year than last year's deficit.
Under Clinton's budget, the deficit will not go below last year's $107 billion level until the next century and the next President -- when it hit $95 billion in 2001.
Hiding these Deficits Behind Phony Assumptions Won't Work

Despite OMB's best efforts of optimistic obfuscation, CBO stripped away the gimmicks. While Clinton recognized CBO as its official estimator last year, CBO now states: interest rates (10-year Treasury rates: 5.5% vs. 5.1%), inflation (CPI-U: 3.0% vs. 2.7%), and unemployment (Civilian Unemployment: 6.0% vs. 5.5%) will all be higher and GDP lower (Real GDP Change: 2.3% vs. 2.1%) in 2002 than Clinton forecast.
According to CBO, one-time asset sales -- like selling part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which can only be sold once and therefore reduce spending just once -- will bring in less than the President claims (for the spectrum, $11 billion less in 2002).
After increasing the deficit to $135 billion over the next four years, Clinton then claims to eliminate it in the next President's first two with a so-called trigger mechanism that would reduce spending he increased and end the tax cut he barely delivered (just $18 billion from FY97-02, according to the Joint Tax Committee).

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1997/FY98CBOR.JT.htm

HEY, stop it!!! No facts allowed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

To stuff the tax cuts into a $70 billion package, lawmakers used a gimmick that not only disguises the true cost of the tax cuts but also ends up, down the road, dramatically increasing it. A change in retirement savings rules would allow upper-income taxpayers to convert their ordinary individual retirement accounts into what are called Roth IRAs, in which savings are taxed at the time of deposit but can then grow tax-free. This would bring in money in the short run ($6.4 billion over the next 10 years) but cost billions more in the long term. Indeed, because the legislation doesn't specify that the converted accounts already exist, the change appears to be a backdoor lifting of all income limits for Roth IRA contributions for those clever enough -- or with clever enough accountants -- to exploit the loophole.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002067.html

My god- finally an on topic posting.

This thread has been lamer than usual. Instead of the usual circular bullshit, can we talk about the specifics here - AMT taxes and dividend income, along with Roth IRA changes?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

And that means the economy is bad huh?

whatever bill...

I honestly don't know what to make of our current economy but then again, I'm not an economist. Stock market looks ok, but gold is soaring, the dollar is weaker, our national debt is up by almost $4 trillion and we're paying $2 billion/day on the interest, wages haven't improved dramatically, manufacturing jobs are disappearing (we just lost a Ford plant), we're paying higher health care deductibles, gas is twice what it used to be which means that we pay more for everything in the grocery store...I don't know man. I sure could use a little Greenspan crystal ball action on this one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

As I said, I cannot have an intelligent debate with someone who believes Corporations pay taxes.

Perhaps you should clarify that Corporations do 'officially' pay taxes, but it's not real as those costs are passed on to the individual consumer. Thus in 'reality' your position is that the consumer pays taxes in end (usually the back end).

It's really your basis for saying that all tax cuts benefit the individual and generate overall revenue which helps fill the coffers to pay the debt, etc. I agree, but this particular mechanism is really the weakest one of all them and most subject to exploitation by the few. I'd focus on tax cuts for the individual, it's a bit more intuitive and doesn't get into the semantics game your playing and he's ignoring.

If you are willing to pay $2000 (including tax) for a rig. Then the taxes are cut on that rig by $300 dollars. I still bet that your are still willing to pay $2000 for that rig. Thus even after the $300 cut, the 'net' price will still drive to $2000. The manufacturer will get that $300 - It won't always be passed onto you. With the relatively high wealth in the country, prices are more demand driven than supply driven - look at gasoline........

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Channman 2]

> I had a friend that wanted a rig, a new TV etc. but had a poorly paying job. So he got credit cards, bought them all, then declared bankruptcy. A judge then decided which company would get paid back when; due to the repayment schedule some of his debts would essentially never be repaid. And he got lots of stuff!

Yep, seen that happen here in Houston, but also know of several people who tried it and received 1099's from those companies they refused to pay and ended up owning Income Tax to Uncle Sam.

Those Companies write off the dept and cut you a 1099 as income to you.

But all in all the economy is doing quite well. We are currently experiencing 95.30% employment in this country which is better than any European Country at this time. 95.30%, thats pretty darn good, if you are the 4.7% un-employeed not so good.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

As I said, I cannot have an intelligent debate with someone who believes Corporations pay taxes.

Perhaps you should clarify that Corporations do 'officially' pay taxes, but it's not real as those costs are passed on to the individual consumer. Thus in 'reality' your position is that the consumer pays taxes in end (usually the back end).

It's really your basis for saying that all tax cuts benefit the individual and generate overall revenue which helps fill the coffers to pay the debt, etc. I agree, but this particular mechanism is really the weakest one of all them and most subject to exploitation by the few. I'd focus on tax cuts for the individual, it's a bit more intuitive and doesn't get into the semantics game your playing and he's ignoring.

If you are willing to pay $2000 (including tax) for a rig. Then the taxes are cut on that rig by $300 dollars. I still bet that your are still willing to pay $2000 for that rig. Thus even after the $300 cut, the 'net' price will still drive to $2000. The manufacturer will get that $300 - It won't always be passed onto you. With the relatively high wealth in the country, prices are more demand driven than supply driven - look at gasoline........

I was playing a semantics game hoping he would pick up on it. That's why I kept hinting that I couldn't have an intelligent debate.
I the case of the rig, you are right to a degree. If one manufacturer has an extra $300 profit to pay for the rig, he may decide to offer lower pricing to attract more business or he may spend it on more advertising. Either way the money goes back into the economy without the govt. getting their cut. That's a good thing IMO.

-

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051002067.html

My god- finally an on topic posting.

This thread has been lamer than usual. Instead of the usual circular bullshit, can we talk about the specifics here - AMT taxes and dividend income, along with Roth IRA changes?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

As I said, I cannot have an intelligent debate with someone who believes Corporations pay taxes. Corporations are simple a conduit for the govt. to take more of your money. If govt raises my companys taxes by 10%, we raise our prices by that much. If you can't see thru the BS, then yes, I think it's time to skydive.

Oh, I noticed you have no comment on what I posted about the facts of Clintons budgets. That's OK though, I knew you wouldn't respond. Easier to take a parting shot as you slink away, huh?

If you're going to deny the reality that there was a surplus in the 90s, yeah, it's probably going to be part to have a conversation with Lucky. By what form of intelligent design math are you going to avoid the marked difference between the deficit now and that of 1999-2000?

And the remark wrt corporations is screwed up too. Corporations aren't non profit enterprises. Profits go to the shareholders either in the form of dividends or higher capitalization, not to consumers in the guise of lower prices.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

But all in all the economy is doing quite well. We are currently experiencing 95.30% employment in this country which is better than any European Country at this time. 95.30%, thats pretty darn good, if you are the 4.7% un-employeed not so good.

Not to mention the shrinking middle class and the increasing number of working poor.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

As I said, I cannot have an intelligent debate with someone who believes Corporations pay taxes. Corporations are simple a conduit for the govt. to take more of your money. If govt raises my companys taxes by 10%, we raise our prices by that much. If you can't see thru the BS, then yes, I think it's time to skydive.

Oh, I noticed you have no comment on what I posted about the facts of Clintons budgets. That's OK though, I knew you wouldn't respond. Easier to take a parting shot as you slink away, huh?

Quote

If you're going to deny the reality that there was a surplus in the 90s, yeah, it's probably going to be part to have a conversation with Lucky. By what form of intelligent design math are you going to avoid the marked difference between the deficit now and that of 1999-2000?

I never denied their was a surplus in the 90's or that there is a deficit now. Apparently you need to go back and read the thread. The debate was over who was responsible.

Quote

And the remark wrt corporations is screwed up too. Corporations aren't non profit enterprises. Profits go to the shareholders either in the form of dividends or higher capitalization, not to consumers in the guise of lower prices.

Apparently you have very little knowledge of what corporation do with their profits. Do you even know the difference between Preferred Stock and Common Stock? Did you know that corporations invest most of their profits back into the company? Do you know when the last time Microsoft paid a dividend?

Corporations don't pay taxes. Any moneys the Govt. recieves thru a Corporation has been accounted for in the Corporations profits. Heck, if you really believe Corporations pay taxes, then lets just raise the rate to 90% and we will have the deficit paid off in no time.

-

• Quote

[Channman 2]

Hey Zippy,

You must have your rectom nerves crossed with your optical nerves giving you a shitty outlook on life

Give me something positive going on in your life. There has to be something that gives you hope to live yet another day.

The increasing number of working poor, that would'nt have anything to do with illegals coming across the boarder would it? I see and hear of more people coming up the ladder than going down.

Find something that makes you happy and do it on purpose. Looking forward to hearing good news from you in the future.

[billvon 3,132]

>You must have your rectom nerves crossed with your optical nerves giving you a shitty outlook on life

Your one warning.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Give me something positive going on in your life. There has to be something that gives you hope to live yet another day.

The increasing number of working poor, that would'nt have anything to do with illegals coming across the boarder would it? I see and hear of more people coming up the ladder than going down.

Find something that makes you happy and do it on purpose. Looking forward to hearing good news from you in the future.

My life is awesome. I have a good job, I either paddle, hike, climb, or skydive every week.

As far as going up the ladder goes, that's the one thing that is currently suffering. When I started my current job a few years ago, the opportunity for advancement was great. In the last couple years, it has completely dried up. Currently, no hiring, and when people retire they are not being replaced.

What concerns me is the general direction this country is headed, economically and politically. Also, I don't assume that since my life is great, everyone else must be doing just as well.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Channman 2]

> Your one warning.

Warrented and diserved, I'll behave better, and place myself in timeout for the remainder of the day.

Just a note though: not much gets past you does it, you have a keen eye.

[Channman 2]

Good to hear, however I have to go to the corner, I've been placed in time out. Sorry my joke was not very friendly.

[Zipp0 1]

Don't sweat it. I've been warned before when I stepped over the line.

It didn't bother me though - you misspelled rectum.

Zipp0

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

> Your one warning.

Warrented and diserved, I'll behave better, and place myself in timeout for the remainder of the day.

Just a note though: not much gets past you does it, you have a keen eye.

Yes, it kind of was a veiled insult; hard to read thru it. Almost a compound metaphore.

[airdweller 0]

It has worked and it is working now.

Let's say you have two neighbors.

Neighbor A has a house that he rents. He has a Camaro, a boat and a big SUV. He owes $75,000 in credit card debt, and has two kids that need to get through college. His plan for that is to get some more credit cards.

Neighbor B owns a similar house. He has $30,000 left to pay on his mortgage. He has a Camaro and a bicycle. He has $25,000 in his IRA, and is going to grad school. His kids will be going to college soon, and his plan to pay for that is to work some overtime and apply for a better job.

Which one is doing better?
______________________________________________


It depends, who has the hotter wife?

------------------------------------------------------
"From the mightiest pharaoh to the lowliest peasant,
who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" C. Montgomery Burns

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

And the remark wrt corporations is screwed up too. Corporations aren't non profit enterprises. Profits go to the shareholders either in the form of dividends or higher capitalization, not to consumers in the guise of lower prices.

Apparently you have very little knowledge of what corporation do with their profits. Do you even know the difference between Preferred Stock and Common Stock? Did you know that corporations invest most of their profits back into the company? Do you know when the last time Microsoft paid a dividend?

Certainly. They pay 9 cents per quarter. 18 months ago they paid out $3/share in a one time dist due to that large cash pile they have.

What else you got? I know you'll want to restate your comments again to keep it rolling.

[nate_1979 9]

Quote

Quote

These people who shaped America and wiped our asses are old and poor and we need to support them into comfortable death. You will support Viet Nam vets, who are entering retirement, but then say fuck SS. We know what you really mean

Hey its not the rest of Americas fault that they were not born into families that could afford to send them to college.
They could have pulled themselves up by their boot straps.
They should have gotten a better job and saved and invested so they could be comfortable in their old age.
Why support vets.. they knew what they were getting into when they joined the military.

Can you think of any other cliches I missed??

I think you missed the fact that alot of these "fucked up" vietnam vets that are on the streets got pulled from their normal lives with good futures and FORCED into the military, have you forgotten that? These people fight for your country and you still continue to spit on them, even when it was not their choice.

You have other vets, even volunteer vets, which may not have compeltely known what they are getting into.. War does fucked up things to people, things that most will never understand. I feel that it is our responsibility to do everything we can to help them when they need it.

But, go ahead and feel how ever you want, it is afterall a lot easier to just turn your head and look the other way... It's ok.

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

These people who shaped America and wiped our asses are old and poor and we need to support them into comfortable death. You will support Viet Nam vets, who are entering retirement, but then say fuck SS. We know what you really mean

Hey its not the rest of Americas fault that they were not born into families that could afford to send them to college.
They could have pulled themselves up by their boot straps.
They should have gotten a better job and saved and invested so they could be comfortable in their old age.
Why support vets.. they knew what they were getting into when they joined the military.

Can you think of any other cliches I missed??

I think you missed the fact that alot of these "fucked up" vietnam vets that are on the streets got pulled from their normal lives with good futures and FORCED into the military, have you forgotten that? These people fight for your country and you still continue to spit on them, even when it was not their choice.

You have other vets, even volunteer vets, which may not have compeltely known what they are getting into.. War does fucked up things to people, things that most will never understand. I feel that it is our responsibility to do everything we can to help them when they need it.

But, go ahead and feel how ever you want, it is afterall a lot easier to just turn your head and look the other way... It's ok.

Woaw, chill brother. Amazon was sarcastically agreeing with me; being sarcastic to the opposing views.

She wrote:

Quote

Can you think of any other cliches I missed??

As a rhetorical question forwarded to the righties who believe social welfare is a bad thing. Alrighty? Amazon's cool, she wouldn't propose right-wing rhetoric that eliminates social services so the rich can pocket the difference.

[nate_1979 9]

My bad Sorry Amazon!

It was off topic anyway

FGF #???
I miss the sky...
There are 10 types of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

right-wing rhetoric that eliminates social services so the rich can pocket the difference.

Please explain THIS one... I'd love to hear it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706