Looks like Reagan Economics are back!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

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.

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.", Leona Helmsley.

...

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

[AWL71 0]

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?

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.

Another absurd case of you stating the obvious. You do it quite well. You always have to have the last word, much like my 5 year old.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

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.

>>>>Elevate taxes? That solution comes as no surprise.

Why, because it's true? Or because I'm a Dem?

>>>>>>I am not in favor of all the wasteful spending that is taking place in Washington. And don't give me the partisan crap.

Which kinds of spending bother you the most? Oh, let me guess.....social spending? But the war, well, we are getting something from that, right? Partisan? Well it is partisan. Who do you think was in office when it escalated?

http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/National-Debt-GDP.gif

How is it NOT partisan? Here is another graph:

http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

How is it not partisan?

>>>>>>>>Republicans and Democrats are both to blame.

Really?

>>>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.

Oh, you're talking military contractors. Oh, did you mean welfare recipients? I ee you bought into all that right wing stuff depicting welfare recipients as freeloaders.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>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.

I thought you were American, which civilized nation to you live in?

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

OK, I agree, most billionaires want the little scum to pay all the taxes, I agree.

This isnt just about Billionaires here. It is about people that work hard, make good choices in life, Save a some money and then the government stepping in after they paid their share of the taxes on that money and taking even more.

Inheritance tax kick in at 2 million (much less in some states) and that is the value of the total Inheritance. Most family farm would exceed this value, Most Small family Business would exceed this value, and In California some "Middle Class" homes alone exceeds this value.

Billionaires already set up trusts and other tax dodges and are really that effected by this. The ones that are hit hardest by this this is the upper middle class. The ones that generally played by the rules, Got a good education, were moderately successful at what they did and built something they wanted to leave for their children that will hopefully grow it further.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

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.

If we quit this pathetic so-called war, cut military spending in 1/2, we would still be #1 four times over, we could balance the budget immediately. Then we could think about ensuring our own people have medical coverage......oh wait, we don't want that, fuck our fellow countrymen/women.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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.

Seems like the government needs to sell war bonds again. No special allocations, fund it out of the normal allocation and via 10 year Treasuries.

Or better yet, put the line item on the 1040 - war surcharge. Not sure how you make it equitable, but if everyone has to pay several hundred to thousands each, support will be more measured.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

This isnt just about Billionaires here. It is about people that work hard, make good choices in life, Save a some money and then the government stepping in after they paid their share of the taxes on that money and taking even more.

Isn't that the price to pay for living in the US? It was your president who decided to invade Iraq, why shouldn't it be US residents who pay for it? Some of that personal responsibility many here like to talk about.

With the giant deficit and debt blaances you should be talking about where best to increase taxes, not talk about decreasing taxes.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

OK, I agree, most billionaires want the little scum to pay all the taxes, I agree.

This isnt just about Billionaires here. It is about people that work hard, make good choices in life, Save a some money and then the government stepping in after they paid their share of the taxes on that money and taking even more.

Inheritance tax kick in at 2 million (much less in some states) and that is the value of the total Inheritance. Most family farm would exceed this value, Most Small family Business would exceed this value, and In California some "Middle Class" homes alone exceeds this value.

Billionaires already set up trusts and other tax dodges and are really that effected by this. The ones that are hit hardest by this this is the upper middle class. The ones that generally played by the rules, Got a good education, were moderately successful at what they did and built something they wanted to leave for their children that will hopefully grow it further.

Actually it was about billionaires and their intentions. Some of the people on the conservative side prefered to talk about that rather than talking about how Bush's cut tax and quadruple spending sceme has caused the US dollar to shrink below the Candian buck, at the same time, I just checked and we are over 9T in total debt, not 8.9T. This is the issue teh neo-cons run from and engage in semantic arguments about what one billionaire said/feels over another.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

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.

Yet there is so much wasteful spending. Our government COULD do its job with much less than it currently gets if it was in any efficient. It is not.

It seems the real difference here is the left saying.. Just give them more money.

And the right saying. NO!! Give them less money and make them spend it more wisely.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Isn't that the price to pay for living in the US? It was your president who decided to invade Iraq, why shouldn't it be US residents who pay for it? Some of that personal responsibility many here like to talk about.

I didn't see any postings suggesting that foreign citizens pay. Where did you see that? Though it does seem high time for the US to do what the rest of world says they want - stop playing the world cop. It would save us money, and send some of the responsibility for order on the rest. Would be interesting to see if that's what they really want.

His point is that the demand for spending is set by the supply, plus 1-30%. Cut down on the taxes, and there is less money to play with, making it much harder to put in a new cost center that can't be eliminated.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Seems like the government needs to sell war bonds again. No special allocations, fund it out of the normal allocation and via 10 year Treasuries.

Or better yet, put the line item on the 1040 - war surcharge. Not sure how you make it equitable, but if everyone has to pay several hundred to thousands each, support will be more measured.

So what, only 3 of 10 geniuses support Bush's hobby in the desert, it's an executive move, not a popularity move. We are going to be out of the war and with a Dem in Jan 09, the war bond deal would be meaningless and only give congress and teh idiot a reason to further pursue it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

Yet there is so much wasteful spending. Our government COULD do its job with much less than it currently gets if it was in any efficient. It is not.

It seems the real difference here is the left saying.. Just give them more money.

And the right saying. NO!! Give them less money and make them spend it more wisely.

The left is saying, "Let's have a pesident like Clinton, one who balanced the budget and killed the deficit."

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

With the giant deficit and debt blaances you should be talking about where best to increase taxes, not talk about decreasing taxes.

No. We should make them stop spending more money that they have. They have more than enough money, they just waste way too much of it.

Right now it doesnt matter how much we give them, They will spend more that that anyway.

The problem with democracy in general is that the politicians know they can buy your vote with your own money.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

This isnt just about Billionaires here.

It was at the start ... the Yahoo article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/bs_nm/irs_income_dc) that initiated this thread was about an IRS study that found that a small group of billionaires in the US are "earning" a larger percentage of overall US income than ever before.

Turns out (credit to Bob Litan, AEI & Brookings) that it's due to Wall Street hedge fund managers. These guys aren't Bill Gates-esque or Google-esque entrepeneurial folks that generate growth in the overall economy; they aren't CEOs either.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Amazon 7]

Quote

With the giant deficit and debt blaances you should be talking about where best to increase taxes, not talk about decreasing taxes

You will NEVER get the right to agree to that... Trillions of dollars for war ....SWEET

Hundreds of dollars in a tax rebate... SWEEEET

Hundreds of dollars to a young single mother for food and housing... NO WAY>. that IMMORAL SLUT does not need help.. she is sponging off the hard working americans who pay taxes.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

It seems the real difference here is the left saying.. Just give them more money.

At this point I think the left is saying more along the lines of stop some of the giant wastefull spending on a war we can't win.

[billvon 3,120]

>It seems the real difference here is the left saying.. Just give them more money.

I am saying spend less, and pay what we owe. Not much different than using a credit card.

If you stop using your credit card so much, and they pay it off, are you a fool for "giving them more money?"

If your plan for credit card debt is to get three more credit cards, spend more money on the latest fad and hope your credit card company gets more "efficient" and charges you less interest - are you a good financial planner?

[kallend 2,150]

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.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It was at the start ... the Yahoo article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071012/bs_nm/irs_income_dc) that initiated this thread was about an IRS study that found that a small group of billionaires in the US are "earning" a larger percentage of overall US income than ever before.

Turns out (credit to Bob Litan, AEI & Brookings) that it's due to Wall Street hedge fund managers. These guys aren't Bill Gates-esque or Google-esque entrepeneurial folks that generate growth in the overall economy; they aren't CEOs either.

VR/Marg

if true, then there's nothing to worry about. This would be a group of guys making billions off a larger number of fat cats making millions who were stupid enough to agree to pay 2 and 20. It's the super rich stealing from the rich.

There is an interesting side discussion here about the tax treatment on hedge funds - whether they should be taxed as individuals rather than investment companies.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Seems like the government needs to sell war bonds again. No special allocations, fund it out of the normal allocation and via 10 year Treasuries.

Or better yet, put the line item on the 1040 - war surcharge. Not sure how you make it equitable, but if everyone has to pay several hundred to thousands each, support will be more measured.

So what, only 3 of 10 geniuses support Bush's hobby in the desert, it's an executive move, not a popularity move. We are going to be out of the war and with a Dem in Jan 09, the war bond deal would be meaningless and only give congress and teh idiot a reason to further pursue it.

Well, make up your mind, Lucky. Are you against increasing the debt? War bonds is a method the US used in the past. And I wouldn't presume that we'll be out in January for two reasons:

1) the Democrats won't get us completely out of the war in month 1, not when you have billvon types that declare we have a responsibility to Iraq. Or did they only mean that in 2004-06 to extend the embarassing war up to the elections?

2) the current Democrats don't look to have a chance of winning. (Neither side inspires voting, but the Dems seem to want to test American's tolerance of minorities, an ill thought experiment)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.", Leona Helmsley.

True for any business as well - the cost gets passed down to the customers.

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