PDA

View Full Version : Way to go Bush :(



nAz
05-30-2003, 02:00 AM
Full story (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=68&ncid=68&e=1&u=/nyt/20030529/ts_nyt/tax_law_omits_child_credit_in_low_income_brackets)

who wants to step up and defend republicans on this one:

Most taxpayers will receive a $400-a-child check in the mail this summer as a result of the law, which raises the child tax credit, to $1,000 from $600. It had been clear from the beginning that the wealthiest families would not receive the credit, which is intended to phase out at high incomes.

But after studying the bill approved on Friday, liberal and child advocacy groups discovered that a different group of families would also not benefit from the $400 increase families who make just above the minimum wage.

Because of the formula for calculating the credit, most families with incomes from $10,500 to $26,625 will not benefit. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal group, says those families include 11.9 million children, or one of every six children under 17.

eg8r
05-30-2003, 05:44 AM
I guess I will step up and defend this to an extent (my favorite subject right after pool /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif ). You are correct in thinking that these people are the ones that would benefit the most, and I totally agree. I am not going to discount that. I will also mention, that a husband and wife with child that only make 10k to 25k are probably not paying in taxes in the first place.

Before you blame Bush for this, read the first paragraph again.... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Yahoo News:</font><hr> A last-minute revision by House and Senate leaders in the tax bill that President Bush (news - web sites) signed today will prevent millions of minimum-wage families from receiving the increased child credit that is in the measure, say Congressional officials and outside groups. <hr /></blockquote> The final bill, is not the bill that George W. Bush submitted. This very part of the bill, obviously is not what Bush submitted because this is the section that was revised. I do not know what Bush suggested prior but the actual bill is no longer what Bush requested.

I know that my views on this do no make me very popular, but this is a tax cut. You receive the $400 if you paid the taxes. Why in the world should someone get money back if they did not pay any money in? Just because you have a child does not mean you get money back.

Here is a good joke that might be a little more clear than I... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Joke:</font><hr> A young teenage girl was about to finish her first year of college. She considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat but her father was a rather staunch Republican.

One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to taxes and welfare programs.. He stopped her and asked her how she was doing in school.

She answered that she had a 4.0 GPA but it was really tough. She had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party. She didn't have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying.

He asked, "How is your friend Mary." She replied that Mary was barely getting by. She had a 2.0 GPA, never studied, but was very popular on campus, went to all the parties all the time. Why she often didn't show up for classes because she was hung over.

Dad then asked his daughter why she didn't go to the Dean's office and ask why she couldn't take 1.0 off her 4.0 and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0. That way they would both have a 3.0 GPA.

The daughter angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair, I worked really hard for mine and Mary has done nothing".

The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party". <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r

Rich R.
05-30-2003, 06:09 AM
What about those of us, who work very hard, pay a very large pile of taxes, and will not be getting any tax break because we don't happen to have children.

Now don't get me wrong, no one has to remind me how fortunate I am, but when it comes to the current tax system, two income households, with no children, are getting the short end of the stick. It seems like we pay and pay and pay. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Ward
05-30-2003, 06:28 AM
Eg8r

You work for a defense contractor?

Later

TomBrooklyn
05-30-2003, 07:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Rich R.:</font><hr> What about those of us, who work very hard, pay a very large pile of taxes, and will not be getting any tax break because we don't happen to have children. <hr /></blockquote>Agreed. Childless persons are paying more to subsidize those who contribute to overpopulating the country which is stressing the enviroment and creating the need for more spending on schools which requires more spending and raising of tax dollars.

This is not to condemn those that choose to have children, but tax credits should be given to people who don't have children; and increased taxes should be imposed on those that do have them to pay for their schooling and all the other additional costs of supporting them.

The Government is doing what is popular, not what is right; or in other words, doing things arse backwards, ...as usual.

eg8r
05-30-2003, 07:59 AM
Yup. Is that all you want to say?

My working for a defense contractor during a time in which the government is controlled by the Republican party has nothing to do with my beliefs that if you do not pay taxes, then you should not receive tax refunds.

Explain why you feel they should. Also, since you are such a giving person and feel they need your money more than you do, how about giving back some in a month or so. We are being told the tax cut should start showing up after July 1, so at that point why don't you start writing checks and send the money back to the government since they are so much smarter than you when spending your money. For me, I will keep my money and use it the best way I can think.

eg8r

eg8r
05-30-2003, 08:01 AM
I agree with you. I do not make an enormous amount of money, but each year I pay in more and more taxes. This year, the marriage penalty will be reduced but not eliminated. That is what we get for now.

eg8r

05-30-2003, 08:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote TomBrooklyn:</font><hr> [ Childless persons are paying more to subsidize those who contribute to overpopulating the country which is stressing the enviroment and creating the need for more spending on schools which requires more spending and raising of tax dollars.

This is not to condemn those that choose to have children, but tax credits should be given to people who don't have children; and increased taxes should be imposed on those that do have them to pay for their schooling and all the other additional costs of supporting them.

<hr /></blockquote>

Tom, rearing and educating the next generation is one of the basic, defining tasks of any civilization. If you want to be a responsible member of society, you've got to accept a portion of this cost, whether you've got kids or not.

And I don't think the birth rate is much of a problem ... what is, and will lead us deeper into the sort of high-tax kleptocracy, tyranny and environmental disaster we live with now is the relatively uncontrolled immigration we allow, which no other nation on Earth does.

Quoth caddy, with a fat child support bill and two more young'uns on the way. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

05-30-2003, 08:35 AM
eg8r,

Think you're on target on tax giveback. People at the low end of the spectrum not only are not paying in, but they're most likely taking out plenty in the form of subsidized housing, food stamps, etc. Shouldn't get something for nothing all the time.

Also got a kick out of the GPA example. But I recall a fellow Texan, Jim Hightower, made a good point about Bush I, that he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Sid_Vicious
05-30-2003, 08:57 AM
You've been reading my "local tax" notices Tom. I too have no children and yet the impact of just the county and city school taxes coupled with property taxes have continued to rise and rise, and I've gotten absolutely nothing but a closer poverty line staring at me. Someone may argue that the level of education adds to my real estate value...that's true to a point, BUT these rate setters have no limits, and childless wage earners get the screws(IMMHO.)

Mr. Bush has added $40 to my check each month. Whoop-de-do :-( The Republicans feed the wealthy,,,way it's always been. I'm just surprised that there's not a real outcry due to the obviousness of it all. I quess that would make us unpatriotic to disagree with out leader...sid

Ward
05-30-2003, 09:06 AM
Eg8r

My question was just an inquiry... It seems you are very sensitive to working for a defense contractor and being a Republican Cheerleader...Why is that?

Later

eg8r
05-30-2003, 09:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
But I recall a fellow Texan, Jim Hightower, made a good point about Bush I, that he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple. <hr /></blockquote> LOLOL I do not have a problem with that statement at all.

eg8r

eg8r
05-30-2003, 09:08 AM
Why is what? I ask you again, what does having to work with a defense contractor have to do with people receiving tax refunds that never paid in taxes. Ward I guess I know what you are trying to do. It would be nice though to stick with what the thread is about. If you would like to add another angle, then open your own thread. I have no problem discussing any of it.

eg8r

eg8r
05-30-2003, 09:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Bush has added $40 to my check each month. Whoop-de-do :-( The Republicans feed the wealthy,,,way it's always been. I'm just surprised that there's not a real outcry due to the obviousness of it all. I quess that would make us unpatriotic to disagree with out leader...sid <hr /></blockquote> This is wonderful news rhetoric. LOL, could you please show me a tax bracket that actually paid in taxes that was not reduced. Tax law is done in percentages, not actual dollar amounts. Sure those that make more money will get more back, that is because based on the same percentage, they paid in more. Explain your logic instead of resorting the old liberal "rich are getting richer". Who is more important than another person? And why should that person get a better tax cut?

I also wonder why you don't finish your sentence..."The Republicans feed the wealthy" and "the Democrats steal from everyone that pays taxes and gives to the poor.".

eg8r

Ward
05-30-2003, 09:19 AM
Eg8r

I just asked a question... You didn't answer the question...


Later

nAz
05-30-2003, 09:22 AM
Thanks for the replys.
Well It is true that some of these people in this tax bracket will get back most of their income tax, but if your a single parent and living in NYC paying $800-$1000 a month in rent (forget Food,transportation and utilities) you could really use that extra Money . beside its true these people will most likely spend this money on food clothe or maybe even school supply and those items do help to "stimulate the economy" .

eg8r
05-30-2003, 09:26 AM
Ward, it is time you open your eyes... <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Eg8r:</font><hr><blockquote><font class="small">Quote ward:</font><hr> You work for a defense contractor?
<hr /></blockquote> My working for a defense contractor ... <hr /></blockquote> I did answer your question. I do work for a defense contractor. Now that I have spelled it out for you, please by all means return the favor. Answer mine...What does working for a defense contractor have to do with my thinking that a person that does not pay taxes should not receive a tax break?

It seems you are continuing to trip on the little details. Just because the company I work for gets paid by the government (only part of the income) does not sway my views on tax law.

I guess it would go a lot quicker if you would make a point instead of moving one question at a time. I answered your question yet it took you 3 tries to understand the answer.

eg8r

Sid_Vicious
05-30-2003, 09:39 AM
"beside its true these people will most likely spend this money on food clothe or maybe even school supply and those items do help to "stimulate the economy."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Heck, people spend money on those necessities anyway.Ain't no stimulation to be had from something you were already going to buy anyway...sid

eg8r
05-30-2003, 09:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Well It is true that some of these people in this tax bracket will get back most of their income tax, but if your a single parent and living in NYC paying $800-$1000 a month in rent (forget Food,transportation and utilities) you could really use that extra Money . beside its true these people will most likely spend this money on food clothe or maybe even school supply and those items do help to "stimulate the economy" . <hr /></blockquote> Naz, I do not disagree with you at all. These people could use the money. Where they spend it can be another thread all on its own. You are correct though, they will spend it. If you have the chance, go take a walk around the poorer parts of NYC and start counting cigarette butts. In these low income areas of NYC, check the ground for shards of beer bottles. I don't think the question is "Will they spend the extra money" but rather "How?" It is none of my business how they spend their money until it becomes evident they are no longer trying to help themselves with the money.

I have met a couple people that were down on their luck and ended up having to use the welfare system. They both went to work at McDs till they had saved up enough to move to another area with better working conditions and then applied for better jobs. This is not for everyone, but there are too many that sit around and wait for their free checks. Then when a tax cut is put into effect, they want "more" free money. When is enough, enough?

eg8r

SPetty
05-30-2003, 10:22 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote afternooncaddy:</font><hr> Tom, rearing and educating the next generation is one of the basic, defining tasks of any civilization. If you want to be a responsible member of society, you've got to accept a portion of this cost, whether you've got kids or not.<hr /></blockquote>Hi afternooncaddy,

Absolutely. No doubt. I definitely agree.

But the point to be made is that those without children are shouldering a larger portion of this societal cost, individually, than those with children.

Folks without children pay more income tax than folks with children due to not getting the tax breaks that are put into place for those with children. Granted, those with children may have less "disposable" income because they choose to spend their money on their children, but those without children, as responsible members of society, are paying more in taxes for the next generation that they are not creating.

Ward
05-30-2003, 10:39 AM
Eg8r


What I am saying is that the Republicans, spend a disappropriate amount of tax dollars on defense. It is my opinion that those tax dollars could be better spent...

eg8r
05-30-2003, 11:12 AM
OK. Well, that had nothing to do with the thread.

You say disproportionate, I call it security. I guess we could quit spending on the military, give all that money to the real go getters (also called welfare reciepients) and sit back and enjoy our freedom. I am sure freedom will be here for a long time.

eg8r

Ward
05-30-2003, 11:18 AM
Eg8r

Here you are a defense contractor and you are posting on the CCB. Wastefull governemnt spending of my hard earned on tax dollars.... (LOL)

Later

eg8r
05-30-2003, 11:49 AM
Yup, you are correct, however this is how I choose to use my time when not on the clock (per se). I guess I could go out and chat with the smokers, but....that is another thread all together. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
05-30-2003, 12:11 PM
Here is an idea that just came to me. What would happen to the WPBA or the UPA if their perspective boards decided to lower the fees for the players that do not ever finish in the top 16. Then for those that are at the bottom of the standings, how about those same top 16 pay those on the bottom some money because those on the bottom are having trouble paying their bills.

So in effect, Allison will be paying in more money to be a member of the WPBA than say, Tiffany Nelson, and at the same time, Allison will pay Shelly Barnes a pre-determined % of her winnings. This way, Shelly will have help paying her bills and can continue to play on the tour.

eg8r

Wally_in_Cincy
05-30-2003, 01:43 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SPetty:</font><hr>Hi afternooncaddy,

Absolutely. No doubt. I definitely agree.

But the point to be made is that those without children are shouldering a larger portion of this societal cost, individually, than those with children.

Folks without children pay more income tax than folks with children due to not getting the tax breaks that are put into place for those with children. Granted, those with children may have less "disposable" income because they choose to spend their money on their children, but those without children, as responsible members of society, are paying more in taxes for the next generation that they are not creating.
<hr /></blockquote>

I agree. But we need somebody to pay our Social Security /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally~~doesn't vote for school levies, pays enough taxes already

Wally_in_Cincy
05-30-2003, 02:05 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Ward:</font><hr> Eg8r


What I am saying is that the Republicans, spend a disappropriate amount of tax dollars on defense. It is my opinion that those tax dollars could be better spent...
<hr /></blockquote>

I think we should spend more on defense /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

That's one of the few things the Constitution specifically permits the federal government to do. Early in this country's existence there was a huge debate over using federal money to build roads. I don't think there was a federal road built until Andy Jackson was prez. I'm not saying that's good, just demonstrating how far we've strayed from the original intent.

05-30-2003, 02:26 PM
Hello SPetty ...

No argument that taxes, particularly property taxes, not to mention state and local income and sales taxes are outrageous. Probably more onerous than the ones that provoked the Revolutionary War.

But single, childless folks are paying more? Can't be much, considering the marriage penalty ... which is being phased out at what, a rate of a dime a year, maybe?

Your quote:

"but those without children, as responsible members of society, are paying more in taxes for the next generation that they are not creating."

Key word here may be "that they are NOT creating." To the individual, a child can sure be a burden, but society considers em kind of necessary and even a valuable commodity. Think there's a tradeoff here.

I'm all for opting out ... but even if I were to booby-trap the woods around my cabin, amass several crates of M-16s and ammo (damn, my fantasy is leaking out /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif) I'd still have to pay for police protection.

Let's just blame the high cost of everything on the blood-sucking legal profession.

SpiderMan
05-30-2003, 02:44 PM
Sounds more like Lloyd Bentsen, but it's funny just the same. Of course, it could be applied to a lot of folks, as is often done with the "universal ethnic jokes".

SpiderMan

Sid_Vicious
05-30-2003, 03:34 PM
"Key word here may be "that they are NOT creating." To the individual, a child can sure be a burden, but society considers em kind of necessary and even a valuable commodity. Think there's a tradeoff here."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
People make choices, children laden families selected to make a life come into this world, but I didn't. I ain't swallowing ANY of this logic that I'm supposed to realize financial responsibility for the furtherment of the future of the next generation! It all sounds like "convenient reasoning" coming from those who have kids to smooze over the injustice of it all, and the word stinks is all I can seem to surface around that direction of logic....sid

SPetty
05-30-2003, 04:01 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote afternooncaddy:</font><hr>But single, childless folks are paying more?<hr /></blockquote>Oh, no, I wasn't thinking single folks - I was thinking married folks with no children. I recall several years ago comparing tax payments with a co-worker who made a little more than I did, but I have no children and he has six children, and I paid several times more in federal income tax than he did.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote afternooncaddy:</font><hr>Let's just blame the high cost of everything on the blood-sucking legal profession.<hr /></blockquote>HAHAHAHA /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif Agreed!

05-30-2003, 04:16 PM
Hey Sid, every day you decide not to skedaddle up to Montana and live with the Freemen (remember them?), buy an island next-door to Marlon Brando, or quietly slip back into the Chelsea with Nancy, you have, in effect, decided you want to remain an American. Which puts you in jeopardy of maintaining our slightly excessive, but typical, social contract. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

Ward
05-30-2003, 04:24 PM
Wally

That extra spending did a lot of good on 9/11... You got a hella lot better odds getting shot, knifed, mugged going to the grocery store than you do from an external ememy....

Defense spending is good, excessive defense spending (Rep Party) is stupid....

Later

05-30-2003, 04:34 PM
Right on, Ward. I think we spend 7 to 8 times as much of our GDP on defense than European countries. What good does this really do us? Other than jack up our taxes at least to the level they pay with almost none of the benefits they get.

Ward
05-30-2003, 04:54 PM
I am not going to comment on this this subject except to say Defense Spending + Republicans = Bad Deal for Taxpayers

Later

eg8r
05-30-2003, 07:06 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Defense Spending + Republicans = Bad Deal for Taxpayers <hr /></blockquote> Oh Ward don't stop there. How about Democratic theft = Bad deal for taxpayers. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Ward
05-30-2003, 07:13 PM
Eg8r

I said I was through with this post.... I know you are a very serious defense contractor and have the taxpayers welfare at heart but check your post, you guys get must get lot of smoke breaks...LOL. Do you need any help?

Later

eg8r
05-30-2003, 07:23 PM
Well, that is nice. This part of the thread went no where anyways. The thread was about paying taxes and all you came up with was defense spending.

eg8r

Qtec
05-31-2003, 02:25 AM
He never does!

Qtec
05-31-2003, 02:38 AM
Has it ever occurred to you that this might be exactly the way that this tax bill was meant to come out? Now GW can say to the folks that miss out,""sorry guys, i tried to help you, but THEY woudnt let me"". Its called ""spin""

eg8r
05-31-2003, 04:19 PM
Have you ever took a step back and read some of the things you post?

Everyone knew Bush would not get what he asked for, that is why they went through the whole process. As far as the reason I posted the point you missed, was to show the subject heading was not correct. This final section was not Bush's desire in the first place, however it was revised while moving through the House and Senate. (The next sentence is merely a suggestion) Before you reply, take a second the read the prior post to which I have replied to, then read my reply. Then take a second to try and comprehend what I have said. Then make a judgement call.

eg8r

eg8r
05-31-2003, 04:20 PM
Qtec, will you give some examples?

Because you spouted off and once again did not read, here was my reply...In the very next post after Wards....[ QUOTE ]
My working for a defense contractor during a time in which the government is controlled by the Republican party has nothing to do with my beliefs that if you do not pay taxes, then you should not receive tax refunds.
<hr /></blockquote> In case Qtec has a problem like Ward did comprehending the answer, I stated that I did work for a defense contractor. Qtec, If you will follow the thread along, you will also see that I asked a question that took 4 more replies from Ward just to get a crappy answer. He was trying to make a point about something the thread was not even talking about.

This is the problem with Liberal thinking. You have no argument about the topic at hand, so Ward decided that he would try to fit Military spending in to the debate. It is weak and it died after he came clear. Don't change the subject and we will see how long you last.

Qtec, I understand you might not have had the knowledge prior (whether I worked for a defense contractor), however Ward did. I guess without this information there is no way Qtec would know that Ward was being facetious, and rhetorical. It is nice that you tried to help out, but it looks foolish.

I will wait for your examples.

eg8r

Qtec
05-31-2003, 09:14 PM
[ QUOTE ]



If smoking is so bad for your health,why can you still buy them and why are American cigarette companies[the biggest in the world]allowed to flood third world countries with cheap cigs? To be continued. <hr /></blockquote>
Your reply,

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of products that are bad for your health. It is self-responsibility that is the problem. If people would own up to their actions then these types of companies would go under.

I cannot wait till you continue. Maybe in your next post you could try and include all the non-smokers who don't drive. What are they doing to pollute the air. You have shown that smokers don't want to be picked on because they are spewing extra crap into the air, so you tried to bring in car exhaust to help remove some of the blame from the smokers. The car exhaust is lame because we don't have a choice whether or not we go outside, our jobs and recreation are not all located inside our house.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote> smirk:The question was WHY.

eg8r
05-31-2003, 09:20 PM
If you were meaning for a real answer to that question than I am sorry. Is that all you have? The question you ask of me (non-government person with zero US Export decision making powers) seems a bit far fetched and was taken as rhetoric. Would someone really ask that?

I guess, maybe your holding the next question in your back pocket..."Why do we even let them grow the tobacco?" Was that next, because for the same reason given above would not answer it.

What else do you have? This one seemed a bit petty, but you are right, I did not answer it.

eg8r

Qtec
05-31-2003, 09:58 PM
You still haven,t answered the question.

eg8r
05-31-2003, 10:07 PM
And you are a genius. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I told you I would not.

[ QUOTE ]
The question you ask of me (non-government person with zero US Export decision making powers) seems a bit far fetched and was taken as rhetoric. <hr /></blockquote> If you are trying to tell me that you are serious and would like an answer then, I don't have one. The question to me seem stupid. There is no correct answer. You just want to start another argument in which you will be unable to show proof. What else, what other reasons would you ask such a question. The question has no answer.

WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE? Your remark previously sounded like I do this all the time so what else do you have.

eg8r

Qtec
05-31-2003, 10:18 PM
If the $400 is for the kids,every kid that needs it should get it.If GW can find an EXTRA 40 BILLION DOLLARS for more bombs that he doesnt need?????[ever heard of the Carlyle group] Its a matter of priorities.Where is all this money coming from? Could it be that GW has struck oil????Ive been called many things before ,but never a liberal /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
05-31-2003, 10:36 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If the $400 is for the kids, every kid that needs it should get it. <hr /></blockquote> Wrong. The extra money is for the parents that have kids who pay in taxes. This really is not hard to understand. Why should you receive a tax cut if you do not pay taxes? (This is a real question that I would like an answer).

[ QUOTE ]
If GW can find an EXTRA 40 BILLION DOLLARS for more bombs that he doesnt need????? <hr /></blockquote> So you know what we need? As you can understand why, I find this hard to believe.

[ QUOTE ]
[ever heard of the Carlyle group] <hr /></blockquote> Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Where is all this money coming from? <hr /></blockquote> You seem to be straying away again from the point of the thread. Since you are unable to make any sort of logical reasons for non-taxpayers to receive a tax break, you decide to move back to the old tried-and-true liberal stuff. Let's talk about oil and such, we have some stuff on them there (sarcasm).

Stick with the thread.

eg8r

Qtec
05-31-2003, 10:45 PM
I was asking your opinion. If you are the kinda guy you think you are, you cant justify it.Considering the heavy tax on cig and alchohol,these poor people who spend all their money,smoking and drinking, indirectly do pay a lot of tax. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
05-31-2003, 10:51 PM
[ QUOTE ]
was asking your opinion. If you are the kinda guy you think you are, you cant justify it.Considering the heavy tax on cig and alchohol,these poor people who spend all their money,smoking and drinking, indirectly do pay a lot of tax. <hr /></blockquote> The tax mentioned in this thread is income tax, not sales tax (Your example is a use of sales tax). Everyone pays sales tax. The families who will not receive the extra money are in the tax bracket that was posted. That tax bracket is based on income tax. These are two very different taxes.

You do bring up a good point, I stated the same earlier...A lot of these people waste their money cigs and alcohol instead of their children. Instead of saving up and getting off of welfare.

eg8r

Qtec
06-01-2003, 12:05 AM
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the $400 is for the kids, every kid that needs it should get it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. The extra money is for the parents that have kids who pay in taxes. This really is not hard to understand. Why should you receive a tax cut if you do not pay taxes? (This is a real question that I would like an answer).<hr /></blockquote>If its not about the kids,why do you have to have one to qualify. If it was just a tax cut,OK, but the spin is that its for children,and its not. You cant be a parent without a child. " I cant tell you what you need,""but GW can tell the rest of the world what they need! Is that the deal?R.Reagan, Nixon, Clinton all lied on TV and swore they were telling the truth,and we are supposed to blindly follow GW,no questions asked. 9/11 was a tragedy, and as to the USA response ,in regards to Afganistan, everybody could understand the need to take out the Taliban.Iraq is something totally different. [ QUOTE ]
one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter <hr /></blockquote>

nAz
06-01-2003, 12:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> You do bring up a good point, I stated the same earlier...A lot of these people waste their money cigs and alcohol instead of their children. Instead of saving up and getting off of welfare.
eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Dude NYS (rightfully so) has revamped its public assistance program, now you have to work for your money in one of their programs or spend most of the day in a Public assistance center in order to receive any money. they spend 4-5 hours a day in job training and job fares (too bad there are very very few jobs out there)the hope is that after a year or so of this they might have enough work experience to make it on their own.

Hey like you said not everyone is buying cigaret and booze, those that do were probably raised by parents that smoked and drank and we all know they got hooked by watching those TV and magazine ads telling us to do buy these things. (remember Reps/Dems own the Tobacco Co.? /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif)
and if some do spend some of their $ on these thing well hell most of them need some small comfort in their lives, since they can't afford a cruise /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
06-01-2003, 07:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
If its not about the kids,why do you have to have one to qualify. If it was just a tax cut,OK, but the spin is that its for children,and its not. <hr /></blockquote> LOL, I guess I just don't understand what you are trying to say. The tax cut was not for the "children", rather a relief for the parents. The money does not go to the children directly, but rather to parents. If you are a parent and do not pay income taxes, then you do not receive income tax cuts. Plain and simple. You can argue for the children but it goes no where.

I am not sure why you are changing the subject and moving on to Terrorism and our governments way of handling it. Make a new thread.

By the way, I do believe the words politician/lawyer/liar are all synonymous. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

06-01-2003, 11:00 AM
oh brother!

Ward
06-01-2003, 02:39 PM
Eg8r

Can you remember who made this statement "No child will be left behind" GWB I think (LOL). BTH excessive defense spending has a direct affect on taxes, defense spending is paid with taxes. Cut the spending 25% and you have a lot of dollars to apply to other programs....

Later

eg8r
06-01-2003, 09:05 PM
Ward, for real, this will just go round and round. Who are you to say how much spending is enough? (that is a question for you to answer) What source of background gives you the expertise to decide if the country is being defended well enough?

The old answer to you question is one you cannot argue...with out the defense budget you do not get the other "programs", unless...your new country-led government wants to let you. If Russia took over, or Germany took over you would not have your precious "other" programs.

Argue all you want, but we will continue in this same little cycle. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif You want spending that do nothing for this country except give us a warm fuzzy feeling, I rather that same money be spent to defend us so that we can dream about warm fuzzy feelings.

eg8r

Qtec
06-02-2003, 04:17 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What source of background gives you the expertise to decide if the country is being defended well enough?
<hr /></blockquote> What kind of background do you need ?Integrity, ,compassion, intelligence and common sense.? Or were you thinking along the lines of a ...""Rich daddy, Rightwing, Neo-conservative ,never been outside the US etc kinda guy. [ QUOTE ]
its better to have one in the hand than two in the BUSH " <hr /></blockquote> LOL, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
06-02-2003, 07:30 AM
For Wally and eg8r. Lets talk about oil and such <blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> [ QUOTE ]

If the $400 is for the kids, every kid that needs it should get it. <hr /></blockquote> Wrong. The extra money is for the parents that have kids who pay in taxes. This really is not hard to understand. Why should you receive a tax cut if you do not pay taxes? (This is a real question that I would like an answer).

[ QUOTE ]

If GW can find an EXTRA 40 BILLION DOLLARS for more bombs that he doesnt need????? <hr /></blockquote> So you know what we need? As you can understand why, I find this hard to believe.

<hr /></blockquote>
[ever heard of the Carlyle group] <hr /></blockquote> Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

Where is all this money coming from? <hr /></blockquote> You seem to be straying away again from the point of the thread. Since you are unable to make any sort of logical reasons for non-taxpayers to receive a tax break, you decide to move back to the old tried-and-true liberal stuff. Let's talk about oil and such, we have some stuff on them there (sarcasm).

Stick with the thread.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote> Need i say more? Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

eg8r
06-02-2003, 08:15 AM
Yes, where is your point. Wipe the slobber and sit up. You need to pay attention.

For some reason you decided to jump in the middle and replied to a post from Ward, after that part of the thread had expired. You then proceeded with that line of thought till you ran dry.

Then you for some reason tried to associate sales tax with income tax. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote qtec:</font><hr> "Duuuhhh, if the people are buying cigs then they are paying taxes.<hr /></blockquote> Then the brilliance continued. Since that wonderful statement, you still had nothing so you wanted to bring in the issues of war or monies spent for other programs. This thread did not start so that you could blame Bush for over-spending on military, or if he was padding his fathers pocket, with the Carlyle group (in which you act like you are the only person on Earth that has heard about the Carlyle group).

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote qtec:</font><hr> If the $400 is for the kids,every kid that needs it should get it.If GW can find an EXTRA 40 BILLION DOLLARS for more bombs that he doesnt need?????[ever heard of the Carlyle group] Its a matter of priorities.Where is all this money coming from? Could it be that GW has struck oil????Ive been called many things before ,but never a liberal <hr /></blockquote>

You are the stereotype for failing leftist talk shows. Donahue would be proud though (Do you watch his re-runs or something). The reason for the stereotype...You have not explained (actually avoided my questions), why should a person that does not pay taxes receive a tax break? Since you cannot LOGICALLY answer that question, you try to divert attention and bring up other spending issues of controversy. Stick with the question at hand and answer it.

I have asked Ward, and he was unable to do this. When asked the question, all Ward could think about was if I worked for a Defense contractor. You seem to follow the lines. You cannot logically answer it, so the best you have is to bring up military spending and other issues of controversy.

eg8r

Qtec
06-02-2003, 09:46 AM
OK ,you asked for it. Now for something completely different. Im starting a new thread. Ever heard of TULIA???? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r
06-02-2003, 12:02 PM
No I don't think I have heard of TULIA. What/who is it?

Does this help you answer the question...Why should non-tax payers receive a tax break? I am still waiting for that one. Ward, Qtec, Ferris, Ferris?

eg8r

06-02-2003, 05:09 PM
I think us non-breeders are getting screwed. People with kids get to bring home more than we do, they get tax breaks already that we don't. And a small sum of this money should be set-aside to Whitehouse interns. Maybe if GW would get serviced more often, he would stop taking out governments in the Middle East. You could even have Monica run a school for interns. Washington would be a lot mellower place if every politician had a good intern.

Nightstalker
06-02-2003, 05:22 PM
LMAO, good post txshooter! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
06-03-2003, 02:47 AM
All taxes,income or otherwise, go into the pot. Govt then decides how to use that money. If you want to help low income families, you can do this in many ways. This tax break could have been called something else and everyone who could use the money would get it. The way its turned out ,its a gift to Rebuplican voters. Its the thought that counts, or not. Q

eg8r
06-03-2003, 06:19 AM
You are correct, all the taxes do go into one pot, however the part about the tax relief for parents is based on income. Therefore, the name does not mean anything. This is a roadblock for all the Dems, they just cannot explain a decent enough reason for a non-income tax paying individual to receive and income tax cut.

Even if truth is that the tax is a "gift", why don't you ever mention the "gifts" that the poor receive every year. This is the hypocrisy of the Democratic way of thinking. They offer the gift of welfare and a tax free life to every under-achieving American, but get a little miffed when the middle class and upper class get a tax break.

The dems are a little miffed about the tax cut because now there is less money there for the Dems to spend on social agencies to buy new voters.

If you reply about an income tax based cut, do not continue to be ignorant and post about other taxes. It looks foolish.

Once again, Qtec, you have not answered my question. Please tell me, why should a person that does not pay in income taxes, receive an income tax cut?

You have avoided this question just like Ward, yet you blamed me for not answering yours. Face up and give an answer. It should be easy. This could be another example, If a car manufacturer is giving back rebates of $1500 if you buy their car, would you the non-car buyer expect to receive that $1500?

eg8r

Qtec
06-03-2003, 08:06 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You are correct, all the taxes do go into one pot, however the part about the tax relief for parents is based on income. Therefore, the name does not mean anything. This is a roadblock for all the Dems, they just cannot explain a decent enough reason for a non-income tax paying individual to receive and income tax cut.

Even if truth is that the tax is a "gift", why don't you ever mention the "gifts" that the poor receive every year. This is the hypocrisy of the Democratic way of thinking. They offer the gift of welfare and a tax free life to every under-achieving American, but get a little miffed when the middle class and upper class get a tax break <hr /></blockquote> Poverty, maybe? Can you get taxes back that you have not payed in? No. Thats my point and your point! The fact is that this gift is being targeted on a specific part of the population; its electioneering with govt money. Is it coincidence that there is an election coming up? I ask you this, WHY the tax break ? What is the reason behind it?

Wally_in_Cincy
06-03-2003, 08:17 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Poverty, maybe? Can you get taxes back that you have not payed in? No. Thats my point and your point! The fact is that this gift is being targeted on a specific part of the population; its electioneering with govt money.

<font color="blue">No. You're thinking of welfare. Started by FDR and perfected by LBJ. </font color>

Is it coincidence that there is an election coming up? I ask you this, WHY the tax break ? What is the reason behind it?

<font color="blue">It's good for the economy. I ask you- why not a tax break. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>

Sid_Vicious
06-03-2003, 08:34 AM
"It's good for the economy. I ask you- why not a tax break."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who's economy! I seriously doubt that anyone in my class of citizenship or lower will see ANYTHING, except for a few service jobs, like another maid or butler for the rich. This trickle down junk is going the same place as Reagan's did, dismally nowhere, and then we will be left with a deeper debt for the country. In my opinion, this administration is riding on a definite Republican agenda...favor the good ol' boys, and "get it while the gettin' is good!" The thing I really do not understand is, "How can middle class taxpayers be so blind, or "party stubborn" or ignorant to what's happening right before their very eyes?" We are being led into deeper debt, and I definitely find NO indication that the bulk of this nation's people are intended to be helped at all. This is totally a political agenda, and the middle class is left completely out, 'cept for the breeders of course...sid

Wally_in_Cincy
06-03-2003, 09:02 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Sid_Vicious:</font><hr>

This trickle down junk is going the same place as Reagan's did, dismally nowhere, ..... <hr /></blockquote>

Yeah. I long for the good ole days of the Jimmy Carter economy LOL

Qtec
06-03-2003, 09:04 AM
Way to go . Q

Qtec
06-03-2003, 09:07 AM
Wally,if its good for the economy, why not give it to everybody ?Q

Qtec
06-03-2003, 09:09 AM
Just heard on the the news, every body is getting a tax break. GW,s struck oil!

Nightstalker
06-03-2003, 09:14 AM
Good point Qtec, but based on our history most tax breaks have been based upon dependants.

Rich R.
06-03-2003, 09:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Wally_in_Cincy:</font><hr> It's good for the economy. I ask you- why not a tax break.<hr /></blockquote>
You have to explain something to me. I'm a little slow.
If you start with a national deficit, raise spending for national security after the events of 9-11 and then incur the expenses of a war, how is it good for the country to cut taxes, the governments income.

To make a more personal example, let's just say you owe $150,000.00 on your home, then your wife becomes pregnant with triplets /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif and your one and only car breaks down on the freeway. When you go into work the next day, your boss tells you that he is cutting your pay by 10%. I guess this is GOOD NEWS??? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Don't get me wrong, I hate taxes as much as the next guy and I would love a real tax cut. But, at this time, I can't see how it is for the "good of the country". /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Sid_Vicious
06-03-2003, 09:42 AM
"Yeah. I long for the good ole days of the Jimmy Carter economy"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We should learn from out mistakes, if Ronald's and Jimmy's systems failed so miserable, for God's sake, don't repeat either one of them, as GW seems to be wanting to do....sid

eg8r
06-03-2003, 09:52 AM
What does poverty have to do with the question. Poverty does not give someone the right to money in which he did not participate in generating.

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that this gift is being targeted on a specific part of the population; its electioneering with govt money. Is it coincidence that there is an election coming up? I ask you this, WHY the tax break ? What is the reason behind it? <hr /></blockquote> Here is where your starting to sink. First of all the Reps do not have to buy the votes of those paying taxes...Those people already vote for the Republican party. If Bush was going to implement a tax cut in an effort to win votes, he would be giving more money to the poor.

Funny that your memory or logic seems to coincide the current tax cut timing with upcoming elections. I know you did not just crawl out from under a rock. During the months prior and during the Afgan war and Iraq war, the President was paying as much attention to the tax cut issue. He was more focused on the war issues. Bush did say in the beginning of his term he would fight for a tax cut, and now it has happened. You believe it has only happned because an election is coming soon. A little senseless if you ask me. This was promised a couple years ago to happen during this term. Well the term is not over yet, and the tax cut happened.

eg8r

eg8r
06-03-2003, 09:55 AM
A good point? Are you crazy? If it is good for the economy, then you only give it back to the people that paid for it. OMG, you people are very funny. Everybody does not deserve it. If you did not pay for something why do you expect to receive something.

eg8r

eg8r
06-03-2003, 10:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You have to explain something to me. I'm a little slow.
If you start with a national deficit, raise spending for national security after the events of 9-11 and then incur the expenses of a war, how is it good for the country to cut taxes, the governments income. <hr /></blockquote>Well, I do not know the exact reasoning for this, however here is one reason. The tax cut for most people was 2%. The government is expecting the people to spend the extra money. In spending it, they will be purchasing goods, thus paying the sales tax. The sales tax is at a higher level than the 2%, so it is a net gain.

eg8r

Sid_Vicious
06-03-2003, 10:13 AM
Ed I know you're trying to find the positive in this tax cut, but in my case 2% is only going to mean that my savings get hit by 2% less upon month ending balancing to pay the mortgage and the "freshly increased" property taxes. I expect many share the negative balancing act like mine these days, so 2% is going to be a mere wash, and any theories of spending in situations like mine are non existent, and certainly not going to spur any economy...sid

Rich R.
06-03-2003, 10:28 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Well, I do not know the exact reasoning for this, however here is one reason. The tax cut for most people was 2%. The government is expecting the people to spend the extra money. In spending it, they will be purchasing goods, thus paying the sales tax. The sales tax is at a higher level than the 2%, so it is a net gain.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>
Don't forget, the higher level of sales tax is still just a percentage of your 2%.
For example, say your 2% tax cut totals $100. You spend the $100. At a rate of 5% (sales tax in my state), the sales tax is only $5.

Now I know an econimist will tell you that the original $100 gets spent over and over again and will generate more tax revenew than $5. But I still don't believe cutting taxes at this time is good for the country.

Qtec
06-03-2003, 11:20 AM
You are loosing it my friend.


1. ITS NOT A TAX CUT, ITS A TAX BREAK.
2. IF YOU ARE IN POWER,YOU DONT NEED ANY MORE VOTES,YOU ONLY HAVE TO KEEP THE ONES YOU HAVE. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
06-03-2003, 11:24 AM
[ QUOTE ]
1. ITS NOT A TAX CUT, ITS A TAX BREAK.
2. IF YOU ARE IN POWER,YOU DONT NEED ANY MORE VOTES,YOU ONLY HAVE TO KEEP THE ONES YOU HAVE. <hr /></blockquote>

1. Tax cut/Tax Break. The tax rate was cut. That is how I understand it.

2. Look again at what you wrote, then go back and read all the controversy of the current administrations coming to power and tell me if what you just said made any sense.

eg8r

eg8r
06-03-2003, 11:25 AM
The difference is that there is now $105 dollars floating around instead of nothing. You are correct that $5, becomes much more in time, and accordingly, that $100 is an extra $100 that was not in the economy before. It is better for the economy based on your example. Take that one person and multiply it by the amount of people that are eligible for the cut, and the numbers grow enormously.

Only time will tell whether this was a good time or not.

eg8r

Qtec
06-03-2003, 11:29 AM
What controversy.?

eg8r
06-03-2003, 11:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
but in my case 2% is only going to mean that my savings get hit by 2% less upon month ending balancing to pay the mortgage and the "freshly increased" property taxes. <hr /></blockquote> You are right, I am looking for the positive. In your example that is 2% more money going out in the economy. The rest will stay in your savings until you decide to spend it. Thus pushing more money into the economy. Your 2% looks small to you, however it adds up quick when all the people that are eligible start getting 2%.

eg8r

eg8r
06-03-2003, 11:41 AM
This is a clear example of ignorance. You pay so much attention to American news yet you forgot the voting debacle. Bush did not win the popular vote nationwide, however he did win enough votes in the electoral college (the deciding factor). Also, there was a huge controversy in Florida over the ballots.

The Democrats tried vehemently to get a recount that would work in their favor and that still did not work (only recounting votes in Democratic counties, and in those counties only counting the largely democratic precincts). Surlely you would remember this.

It is quite obvious that Bush does need to win more votes. If you have ever heard of the red/blue map, you will see that the majority of the Democratic votes were very centrally located in the major cities (also the highest levels of crime). These areas are mostly the lower income groups, the poor. Bush needs to win these people over so that the next election is not as close. He can not do that with the Tax cut that he proposed which throws your whole idea out the door. The tax cut was not to win over votes from the other side. More important, it was to stimulate a stagnant economy.

eg8r

Rich R.
06-03-2003, 11:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Only time will tell whether this was a good time or not.<hr /></blockquote>
Is it better for the country to owe more money, than it already owes.

I don't think so. JMHO.

By owing so much money, it makes our economy weeker on the world market.

eg8r
06-03-2003, 11:55 AM
Our economy is not directly based on the deficit. The economy is more closely related to the GDP. Our budget deficit is lower as a percentage to the GDP than it was during the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.

Our economy is a little more complicated than the fact that we have a deficit.

We are not producing anything if we are not buying it. With extra money in the system it helps fuel this aspect of our economy.

eg8r

Qtec
06-03-2003, 11:59 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gifYou forgot to mention that GW,s brother was Florida,s Governor at the time! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r
06-03-2003, 12:07 PM
Look the begging dog is back. Put your tongue away. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Could you explain yourself. What does that have to do with anything. I think you just get to one point and fall on your face. Do you also know that the State Supreme court in Florida is Democratic? Jeb Bush, had to step aside and let the courts do their thing. The state courts unlawfully allowed the recount to continue (mind you only in democratic precincts). The Federal Supreme Court said this was wrong and illegal. So tell me again where did Jeb come in to play?

Could you tell me what is legal, fair, and just about only recounting the votes in democratic precincts? The Dems tried to cheat their way in. They were all for the Electoral college when it "worked" for their guy. They were even in the news praising the way the election system was set up when the won against Bush Sr. This time they changed their minds when it did not go their way.

I wonder if you could tell me the law on casting a "VALID" vote in the state of Florida?

eg8r

Qtec
06-03-2003, 12:16 PM
ANOTHER COINCIDENCE ?? You surely didnt think i would,nt know that.? Give me a little credit.? Gotta go.Later .
""I used to be a Republican, but i,m all right now""
Q

06-03-2003, 12:46 PM
Who got the majority of America's vote for president? It wasn't Bush. (i am not talking the Electoral college)

eg8r
06-03-2003, 01:14 PM
No, Gore won the majority vote (Popular vote).

eg8r

nAz
06-03-2003, 01:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
""I used to be a Republican, but i,m all right now""
Q <hr /></blockquote>


Bahahaha funny

nAz
06-03-2003, 01:31 PM
eg8r do you really think a tax cut will help the Economy grow any create some real jobs? I do not think it will work mostly because people do not have and confidence in Bush as a Economic leader.
I think most Americans know of his failures in the private sector and belive that he will bring the economy down more then it is now.

Kennedy was the first Pres. to try to boost spending by cutting taxes but i do not think it work much for him either.

I wish i new the answer to change the economic woes of this country, but i do not think that tax cuts are the it.

Maybe starting a new public works program like FDR did 60 years ago might help.

eg8r
06-03-2003, 02:07 PM
I guess it is hard to say. Only time will tell. His plan was stimulate economy, whether that happens we will see. There are many people that will save the money and not spend it, and there are many people that will spend the money. I personally will not use the money as they hope (I am paying off college debt) however inversely it will help. By paying off my debt, it is putting money back into the hands of the lenders allowing them to lend more.

To be honest, I do not think Bush is blinded by the light and I don't think he really thinks this will save everything. On the other hand, this bill is roughly half of what he asked for. Would any more of a tax cut help, I really do not know. Like I said, we will see. I will continue paying off my school debt with however much extra money I will be getting extra each paycheck. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Qtec
06-03-2003, 02:20 PM
Why did i imagine that you were bald, overwieght and round about 55yrs old ? Now i know why you talk so much c***. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Qtec

eg8r
06-03-2003, 02:32 PM
I have no idea...Is that a fetish of yours?

eg8r

Sid_Vicious
06-03-2003, 07:27 PM
As the brilliantly successful C.E.O. and investor Warren Buffet said in an opinion piece in the May 20,
2003 Washington Post, “In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays.”

This wealthy investment guru doesn’t want the tax cut, even though he would realize huge
benefits from its reduction in taxes on dividends. He pointed out that he and the receptionist in his
office pay the same rough proportion of income – 30% – in combined employer/employee payroll
taxes on salary. After the dividend tax cut, his overall federal tax rate would be 3 percent because so much of his income comes from dividends. His receptionist’s overall tax rate, on an income that I
would guess to be about the size of a grain of sand compared to Warren Buffet’s beach, would be ten times that rate – still at 30%.

06-03-2003, 07:31 PM
I have a fetish for biting your nipples. How about it sexy boy. I evern wrote you a love poem

oh eg8r
lets slap
our wangs
togther

your personal practologist
Moukhtar

eg8r
06-03-2003, 07:33 PM
Doesn't that make you laugh. You have to take some of that with a grain of salt. How many secretaries are making that kind of money.

If you believe he is the kind heart of shows himself to be, lets see if he will give it all back. Don't you think it is odd he pays himself the way he does? I cannot find the link of the article. I read it in another forum. It was pretty interesting. On the other hand, how many people are we talking about. The realization of it all, is that there are not many people receiving their paychecks as dividends. The most common way is to issue common stock or an option similar to that.

Back to this thread, the dividend break has nothing to do with this thread. LOL

eg8r

eg8r
06-03-2003, 07:38 PM
Here is the article, and the subject heading from that forum was....
warren buffett smacks down bush's silly tax plan

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Warren Buffett:</font><hr>
Dividend Voodoo

By Warren Buffett
Tuesday, May 20, 2003; Page A19

The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.

The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.

Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.

She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.

Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.

When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free -- seems a bit light.

Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.

The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.

Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. Indeed, the first President Bush had a name for such activities: "voodoo economics." The manipulation of enactment and sunset dates of tax changes is Enron-style accounting, and a Congress that has recently demanded honest corporate numbers should now look hard at its own practices.

Proponents of cutting tax rates on dividends argue that the move will stimulate the economy. A large amount of stimulus, of course, should already be on the way from the huge and growing deficit the government is now running. I have no strong views on whether more action on this front is warranted. But if it is, don't cut the taxes of people with huge portfolios of stocks held directly. (Small investors owning stock held through 401(k)s are already tax-favored.) Instead, give reductions to those who both need and will spend the money gained. Enact a Social Security tax "holiday" or give a flat-sum rebate to people with low incomes. Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets.

When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party.

Supporters of making dividends tax-free like to paint critics as promoters of class warfare. The fact is, however, that their proposal promotes class welfare. For my class.

The writer is chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a diversified holding company, and a director of The Washington Post Co., which has an investment in Berkshire Hathaway.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company
<hr /></blockquote>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13113-2003May19.html

This really is interesting to read.

eg8r