0
goofyjumper

Looks like Reagan Economics are back!

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>Good for them. And those 2 billionaires should be allowed to do whatever they want with their money. They should not be required to pay incredible amounts of taxes to support the lazy deadbeats and dead-end government programs.


Yea, those AIDS babies are just a bunch of freeloaders. And those who contract TB and the drones of others who dare get old.....

Nice philosophy.



I think so. I take care of myself and my family and I don't expect handouts. There are already govenrnment programs in place for the aids babies. My point is that there should be no inheritance tax. That money has already been taxed once. Where did I say we shouldn't think about the children?



>>>>>>>They should not be required to pay incredible amounts of taxes to support the lazy deadbeats and dead-end government programs.


Ah, becuase you went outside the reaches of just inheritance taxes, you also include, "lazy deadbeats and dead-end government programs." Inheritance tax refers to the collection and funded programs refers to the disposition of those funds; you wrote about both.

As for lazy deadbeats and dead-end government programs, let's look at where the tax dollars go. They go to pay the interets on the debt, about 20% of all collected taxes I believe go the interest. WHy do we have a debt? Well, your party has decided to run it up to thwart the Ruskies, who, as of 1980 really didn't give a shit about us. We have overspent on the military running the debt so high that our dollar is only sring against the Mexian Pesa and possibly a couple other 3rd world countries. But still you are with the biys you elected and want to continue broad military spending with tax cuts; you must not like America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Difference is that in some countries they actually don't require that you must be one of the people who is good with money to be given medical care other than emergecy care.



Darwin is a Bitch.



Cute to say, I guess we'll naturally select the kids, amputees and others who are just fucking free-loaders. People wo say, Fuck the prro" make the biggest whiners when they come into need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Not actually true, but essentually true. The dollar dropped below the Canadian dollar in 1972 and then from 1952 to 1960. Not knowing how old you are, I think you were alive in 1972. But I agree that generally we have kicked the shit out of the Canadian Dollar, especially when CLinton left office in 2001 where 1 USD = 1.55 Canadian.



I have been travelling to Canada all my life.... and I always remembered the Canadian Dollar being far below the value of the US Dollar.. in the 80's and 90's a Canadian Dollar bought about US .60....which made up for the 50 cents a liter for gas at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Lucky's back and ready to rumble!!!B|

I see in your profile, you list your nickname as:

Nappy-Headed Ho

and your last SC post, six months ago, was in a Don Imus thread.

Yesterday, it's announced Imus is going back on the air.

Today, you return.

Coincidence?



You could have addressed this:

The debt was 1 Trillion when Reagan took office, now it's 8.9 trillion. So what's in a number? Well, to compare the US Dollar to the Canadian Dollar:

1993 1 USD = 1.29 Canadian
2001 1 USD = 1.55 Canadian
NOW 1 Canadian = 1.03 USD

http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic

That's the damage done. Forever people have been saying it's just a number, well, so is the exchange rate. The Republicans have fiscally ruined this country behind the guise of fear.
______________________________________________

But instead you address who I am or might be. Hmmmmm, do conservatives always misdirect or is it just now...... coincidence or?????

Addess the substance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My point is that there should be no inheritance tax. That money has already been taxed once. Where did I say we shouldn't think about the children?



ALL MONEY IS TAXED MORE THAN ONCE**. That is the stupidest argument against an inheritance tax that there is.

**I pay income tax. Then I pay sales tax on the same money when I buy stuff. Then the store pays corporation tax on the same money I spent there. Then they pay the supplier and the supplier pays tax on the same money. The supplier pays the employees. Then the supplier's employees pay income tax on the same money, then they pay sales tax when they buy stuff.... and it goes on and on.

Fucking idiotic argument you make .
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Lucky's back and ready to rumble!!!B|

I see in your profile, you list your nickname as:

Nappy-Headed Ho

and your last SC post, six months ago, was in a Don Imus thread.

Yesterday, it's announced Imus is going back on the air.

Today, you return.

Coincidence?



You could have addressed this:

The debt was 1 Trillion when Reagan took office, now it's 8.9 trillion. So what's in a number? Well, to compare the US Dollar to the Canadian Dollar:

1993 1 USD = 1.29 Canadian
2001 1 USD = 1.55 Canadian
NOW 1 Canadian = 1.03 USD

http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic

That's the damage done. Forever people have been saying it's just a number, well, so is the exchange rate. The Republicans have fiscally ruined this country behind the guise of fear.
______________________________________________

But instead you address who I am or might be. Hmmmmm, do conservatives always misdirect or is it just now...... coincidence or?????

Addess the substance.


And a fine good afternoon to you too. B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

My point is that there should be no inheritance tax. That money has already been taxed once. Where did I say we shouldn't think about the children?



ALL MONEY IS TAXED MORE THAN ONCE**. That is the stupidest argument against an inheritance tax that there is.

**I pay income tax. Then I pay sales tax on the same money when I buy stuff. Then the store pays corporation tax on the same money I spent there. Then they pay the supplier and the supplier pays tax on the same money. The supplier pays the employees. Then the supplier's employees pay income tax on the same money, then they pay sales tax when they buy stuff.... and it goes on and on.

Fucking idiotic argument you make .



You think I don't know money is taxed more than once? I know I will never be as brilliant as you but I get by...At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some. The inheritance tax should be elimated. It is just an excuse fore the governemnt to suck up money that belongs to somebody else.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>>>>>As a scientist you should know the perils of extrapolating from a sample set of two.


That sample size is considerable considering there are only a handful of Billionaires in the US.



About 500 or so.



Why must you exadgerate to try to make a point? There were 371 as of 1 year ago.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/09/news/newsmakers/billionaires_forbes/index.htm

According to Wilkiperdia they say the same:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_billionaires


So perhaps 400, so the size smapled would be .5% of the total populous. If I surveyed people on teh streets and surveyed .5% I would be surveying 15,000 people, a fair sample size. So the fact that only 2 people are cited, it's not as if there are 100's of thousands to survey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Not actually true, but essentually true. The dollar dropped below the Canadian dollar in 1972 and then from 1952 to 1960. Not knowing how old you are, I think you were alive in 1972. But I agree that generally we have kicked the shit out of the Canadian Dollar, especially when CLinton left office in 2001 where 1 USD = 1.55 Canadian.



I have been travelling to Canada all my life.... and I always remembered the Canadian Dollar being far below the value of the US Dollar.. in the 80's and 90's a Canadian Dollar bought about US .60....which made up for the 50 cents a liter for gas at the time.


I agree, but depending upon how old you are, in 1972 the Canadian dollar just edged us, so I was being specific. ea, as I was growing up I recall etailers not taking funny money Canadian due to the exchange loss. Now the Cnucks won't be taking ours :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So perhaps 400, so the size smapled would be .5% of the total populous. If I surveyed people on teh streets and surveyed .5% I would be surveying 15,000 people, a fair sample size. So the fact that only 2 people are cited, it's not as if there are 100's of thousands to survey.



sorry, sampling doesn't work that way. 2 will always be an inadequete sample, esp if not selected randomly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Lucky's back and ready to rumble!!!B|

I see in your profile, you list your nickname as:

Nappy-Headed Ho

and your last SC post, six months ago, was in a Don Imus thread.

Yesterday, it's announced Imus is going back on the air.

Today, you return.

Coincidence?



You could have addressed this:

The debt was 1 Trillion when Reagan took office, now it's 8.9 trillion. So what's in a number? Well, to compare the US Dollar to the Canadian Dollar:

1993 1 USD = 1.29 Canadian
2001 1 USD = 1.55 Canadian
NOW 1 Canadian = 1.03 USD

http://www.oanda.com/convert/classic

That's the damage done. Forever people have been saying it's just a number, well, so is the exchange rate. The Republicans have fiscally ruined this country behind the guise of fear.
______________________________________________

But instead you address who I am or might be. Hmmmmm, do conservatives always misdirect or is it just now...... coincidence or?????

Addess the substance.


And a fine good afternoon to you too. B|


AKA you can't find an argument for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>ALOT OF BS!!

Don't like those numbers? I'll give you some simpler ones:

Cost of Iraq war so far: $450 billion

Estimated total cost: $1 to $1.4 trillion

Refund everyone would get if you took the money spent so far and refunded it to each taxpayer equally: $3460

2007 deficit: $270 billion
2007 deficit without the war: $98 billion



These numbers are accurate, more or less. (The deficit numbers likely still use the SSI surplus to mask the true extent) Those of us not suffering direct personal loss are paying a few thousand to build this nation. Fuck em.

But your citation that argued that 80% of debt maintenance can be categorized as military spending is ridiculous. As Lucky has posted every other minute in this thread, the national debt went from 1T to 9T since the beginning of the Reagan years. Reagan had no significant fighting and tripled the debt. His successor had a relatively short conflict. Clinton merely bombed people, for the most part. And now we have a more substantial war.

No, tax cuts seem to be the number 1 source of deficit growth. Well below would be fighting and social spending. But that wouldn't have allowed the peaceniks on that site to get it over the magic 50% level, would it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

My point is that there should be no inheritance tax. That money has already been taxed once. Where did I say we shouldn't think about the children?



ALL MONEY IS TAXED MORE THAN ONCE**. That is the stupidest argument against an inheritance tax that there is.

**I pay income tax. Then I pay sales tax on the same money when I buy stuff. Then the store pays corporation tax on the same money I spent there. Then they pay the supplier and the supplier pays tax on the same money. The supplier pays the employees. Then the supplier's employees pay income tax on the same money, then they pay sales tax when they buy stuff.... and it goes on and on.

Fucking idiotic argument you make .



You think I don't know money is taxed more than once? I know I will never be as brilliant as you but I get by...At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some. The inheritance tax should be elimated. It is just an excuse fore the governemnt to suck up money that belongs to somebody else.



>>>At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some.

Uh, WHAT????? At some point we will need to elevate taxes to pay for what YOUR candidates have done to this country via tax cuts and inheritance taxes seem to be a great place to start, as we are taxing the money of the dead, often the wealthy dead.

Are you not intune to what's going on with all that debt stuff? We are cooked, 9 trillion bucks. The world is cashing in their bonds for fear of losing their ass, the world has no confidence in our money and soon we won't be able to afford the exchange rate to buy foreign goods and we won't be traveling to anywhere but Mexico.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Fucking idiotic argument you make



Sounds like you would like to live in a Communist society where all money goes to the government and they get to decide what we get and we all get the same.

Many of the rest of us kind of like the idea that those work harder/smarter get more.

Yes, All money is Taxed over and over again but at what point do I get to do what I want to with my share of MY money? How many times should that money be taxed? At some point enough is enough. What some of us are saying is that Income tax, Property Tax, Capital Gains Taxes and Sales Taxes are enough.

Inheritance taxes include the total "Value" of the estate in many cases. Not just cash that is flowing from the deceased to his Heirs.

This tax rate is currently much higher than Capital gains in many states. I understand your point about considering an Inheritance a Capital Gain (I disagree but see your point), Then tax it at the capital gains rate. (Although I would rather they not tax it at all as the person that earned that money already paid all the tax on it and the person inheriting the money will pay more taxes on it. Taxing the inheritance itself beyond all the taxes already paid and that are going to be paid is too much.)

This DOES NOT mean someone else has to pay more. The government already has more than they need yet they continually spend more than they have.

The solution to this problem is NOT to give them more money.

For those arguing about the Billionaires they know that inherited their money. They are the exception and not the rule. See the Forbes example posted earlier (That the leftists choose to ignore). What is the actual ratio of Billionaire that are self made compared to those that inherited??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So perhaps 400, so the size smapled would be .5% of the total populous. If I surveyed people on teh streets and surveyed .5% I would be surveying 15,000 people, a fair sample size. So the fact that only 2 people are cited, it's not as if there are 100's of thousands to survey.



sorry, sampling doesn't work that way. 2 will always be an inadequete sample, esp if not selected randomly.


I agree with the random part, but what if there were only 20 from which to choose? 2 would be 10% and adaquate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

>>>>>As a scientist you should know the perils of extrapolating from a sample set of two.


That sample size is considerable considering there are only a handful of Billionaires in the US.



About 500 or so.


Why must you exadgerate to try to make a point? There were 371 as of 1 year ago.


And 482 as of last month. :P
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/business/main3284771.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3284771

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>ALOT OF BS!!

Don't like those numbers? I'll give you some simpler ones:

Cost of Iraq war so far: $450 billion

Estimated total cost: $1 to $1.4 trillion

Refund everyone would get if you took the money spent so far and refunded it to each taxpayer equally: $3460

2007 deficit: $270 billion
2007 deficit without the war: $98 billion



These numbers are accurate, more or less. (The deficit numbers likely still use the SSI surplus to mask the true extent) Those of us not suffering direct personal loss are paying a few thousand to build this nation. Fuck em.

But your citation that argued that 80% of debt maintenance can be categorized as military spending is ridiculous. As Lucky has posted every other minute in this thread, the national debt went from 1T to 9T since the beginning of the Reagan years. Reagan had no significant fighting and tripled the debt. His successor had a relatively short conflict. Clinton merely bombed people, for the most part. And now we have a more substantial war.

No, tax cuts seem to be the number 1 source of deficit growth. Well below would be fighting and social spending. But that wouldn't have allowed the peaceniks on that site to get it over the magic 50% level, would it?



>>>>>>But your citation that argued that 80% of debt maintenance can be categorized as military spending is ridiculous.

If you add the war costs plus the typical 550B per year, I would say that Bill's article's numbers are close. Look what CLinton did, he increased taxes and cut spending, but that is the argument; which is necessary to balance the debt? I think military expenditures are the key, as they are the easiest to curtail. Tax increases take, well, an act of Congress, ctting military spending can be done by the kindergartener we have called the executive.

>>>>>the national debt went from 1T to 9T since the beginning of the Reagan years. Reagan had no significant fighting and tripled the debt.

He just had huge military expenditures, which is Bll's argument. I agree. He had no war and yet was able to triple the debt, so it is military expenditures. OTOH, he also cut taxes like a true neo-con, so the argument becomes somewhat circular.

>>>>>>His successor had a relatively short conflict.

And finally raised taxes, setting the stage for Clinton's deficit stemming.

>>>>>Clinton merely bombed people, for the most part. And now we have a more substantial war.

And cut the militay as we did need.

>>>>>>>>>>No, tax cuts seem to be the number 1 source of deficit growth. Well below would be fighting and social spending. But that wouldn't have allowed the peaceniks on that site to get it over the magic 50% level, would it?

Interesting argument that I can make for either side, I think both are really important. Under Clinton we had:

1) Balanced budget

2) No war

3) <4% unemployemnt

4) US Dollar appreciation

And in general a peaceful existence in the world. But as far as strict deficit goes, I think it's a toss-up and both are necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I agree with the random part, but what if there were only 20 from which to choose? 2 would be 10% and adaquate.



if you have only 20, you survey all 20 of them. The point of sampling is for sets that are too massive to examine individually. Any conclusions you make from 2 would be of little value save propoganda.

For example, if one member in a family of 10 commits murders (OJ) or is a pedophile freak (Jackson), can you label the rest of the family as the same? Well, you can, but not honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

My point is that there should be no inheritance tax. That money has already been taxed once. Where did I say we shouldn't think about the children?



ALL MONEY IS TAXED MORE THAN ONCE**. That is the stupidest argument against an inheritance tax that there is.

**I pay income tax. Then I pay sales tax on the same money when I buy stuff. Then the store pays corporation tax on the same money I spent there. Then they pay the supplier and the supplier pays tax on the same money. The supplier pays the employees. Then the supplier's employees pay income tax on the same money, then they pay sales tax when they buy stuff.... and it goes on and on.

Fucking idiotic argument you make .



You think I don't know money is taxed more than once? I know I will never be as brilliant as you but I get by...At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some. The inheritance tax should be elimated. It is just an excuse fore the governemnt to suck up money that belongs to somebody else.



>>>At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some.

Uh, WHAT????? At some point we will need to elevate taxes to pay for what YOUR candidates have done to this country via tax cuts and inheritance taxes seem to be a great place to start, as we are taxing the money of the dead, often the wealthy dead.

Are you not intune to what's going on with all that debt stuff? We are cooked, 9 trillion bucks. The world is cashing in their bonds for fear of losing their ass, the world has no confidence in our money and soon we won't be able to afford the exchange rate to buy foreign goods and we won't be traveling to anywhere but Mexico.



Elevate taxes? That solution comes as no surprise. I pay plenty of taxes thank you. I am not in favor of all the wasteful spending that is taking place in Washington. And don't give me the partisan crap. Republicans and Democrats are both to blame. I would like to see the Fair Tax put into place but that will never happen because to many people depend on those taxes too make a living.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

My point is that there should be no inheritance tax. That money has already been taxed once. Where did I say we shouldn't think about the children?



ALL MONEY IS TAXED MORE THAN ONCE**. That is the stupidest argument against an inheritance tax that there is.

**I pay income tax. Then I pay sales tax on the same money when I buy stuff. Then the store pays corporation tax on the same money I spent there. Then they pay the supplier and the supplier pays tax on the same money. The supplier pays the employees. Then the supplier's employees pay income tax on the same money, then they pay sales tax when they buy stuff.... and it goes on and on.

Fucking idiotic argument you make .



You think I don't know money is taxed more than once?



Funny, then you bothered to write:"My point is that there should be no inheritance tax. That money has already been taxed once" Kind of redundant, don't you think?

Quote






I know I will never be as brilliant as you but I get by...At some point we need to elimate some taxes, not all, but some. The inheritance tax should be elimated. It is just an excuse fore the governemnt to suck up money that belongs to somebody else.



All money sucked up by the government previously belonged to somebody else. Another absurd argument.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

>>>>>As a scientist you should know the perils of extrapolating from a sample set of two.


That sample size is considerable considering there are only a handful of Billionaires in the US.



About 500 or so.


Why must you exadgerate to try to make a point? There were 371 as of 1 year ago.


And 482 as of last month. :P
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/21/business/main3284771.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_3284771


Eiher way, irrelevant as we are talking sample size and going from 400 to 482 doesn't change it that much, we are still at .45% sample size, which surpasses many scientific surveys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I agree with the random part, but what if there were only 20 from which to choose? 2 would be 10% and adaquate.



if you have only 20, you survey all 20 of them. The point of sampling is for sets that are too massive to examine individually. Any conclusions you make from 2 would be of little value save propoganda.

For example, if one member in a family of 10 commits murders (OJ) or is a pedophile freak (Jackson), can you label the rest of the family as the same? Well, you can, but not honestly.


I agree with the science behind that, but 2 of 400+ isn't as small as it seems. OK, I agree, most billionaires want the little scum to pay all the taxes, I agree.:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Fucking idiotic argument you make



Sounds like you would like to live in a Communist society where all money goes to the government and they get to decide what we get and we all get the same.

Many of the rest of us kind of like the idea that those work harder/smarter get more.

Yes, All money is Taxed over and over again but at what point do I get to do what I want to with my share of MY money? How many times should that money be taxed? At some point enough is enough. What some of us are saying is that Income tax, Property Tax, Capital Gains Taxes and Sales Taxes are enough.

Inheritance taxes include the total "Value" of the estate in many cases. Not just cash that is flowing from the deceased to his Heirs.

This tax rate is currently much higher than Capital gains in many states. I understand your point about considering an Inheritance a Capital Gain (I disagree but see your point), Then tax it at the capital gains rate. (Although I would rather they not tax it at all as the person that earned that money already paid all the tax on it and the person inheriting the money will pay more taxes on it. Taxing the inheritance itself beyond all the taxes already paid and that are going to be paid is too much.)

This DOES NOT mean someone else has to pay more. The government already has more than they need yet they continually spend more than they have.

The solution to this problem is NOT to give them more money.

For those arguing about the Billionaires they know that inherited their money. They are the exception and not the rule. See the Forbes example posted earlier (That the leftists choose to ignore). What is the actual ratio of Billionaire that are self made compared to those that inherited??



Your argument could apply to any tax, there's nothing particular about inheritance taxes that makes them worse than, say income taxes. Especially when you consider that the first $2MILLION of the estate is exempt anyway.

I can assure you that I don't like paying tax any more than you do. Unlike some of you, I concede that paying tax is the price I pay to belong to a civilized western industrial nation.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sounds like you would like to live in a Communist society where all money goes to the government and they get to decide what we get and we all get the same.

Many of the rest of us kind of like the idea that those work harder/smarter get more.

Yes, All money is Taxed over and over again but at what point do I get to do what I want to with my share of MY money? How many times should that money be taxed? At some point enough is enough. What some of us are saying is that Income tax, Property Tax, Capital Gains Taxes and Sales Taxes are enough.

Inheritance taxes include the total "Value" of the estate in many cases. Not just cash that is flowing from the deceased to his Heirs.

This tax rate is currently much higher than Capital gains in many states. I understand your point about considering an Inheritance a Capital Gain (I disagree but see your point), Then tax it at the capital gains rate. (Although I would rather they not tax it at all as the person that earned that money already paid all the tax on it and the person inheriting the money will pay more taxes on it. Taxing the inheritance itself beyond all the taxes already paid and that are going to be paid is too much.)

This DOES NOT mean someone else has to pay more. The government already has more than they need yet they continually spend more than they have.

The solution to this problem is NOT to give them more money.



The solution is to not vote in people who spend with reckless abandon on ego driven wars.

In the mean time it is a little silly to talk about eliminating taxes when the US is not even close to being able to cover its expenditures. Nor does it look like you might be able to in the future.

Raising taxes would be the most honest way of showing the population what exactly is being spent every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0