Yeah, and that's all Bush's fault. Oh, and Clinton didn't raise taxes on the middle class to balance the budget. Oh, and we weren't attacked on 9/11, costing perhaps 100 billion dollars in damage just in itself. Oh, and we don't have to disarm a dangerous dictator. Oh, and the government doesn't take half of what I earn now.....
What was the economy, the job market, and the deficit under Clinton? Pretty damn good for a change.
What's it been like under both Bush's? :
Pretty damn awful.
Coincidence you say?
I don't think so!
Trickle down economics didn't work in the 80's. It sure as hell isn't going to work now.
Now Rumsfeld is saying that the fact that the inspectors haven't found anything in Iraq is proof that they are hiding something!
If this isn't double speak or think I don't know what is! What a crock! Yeah, yeah black is white.
If you think the economy is bad now just wait and see what happens if we have a war.
Come 2004 let's get that bozo outta there! Before he does more damage. Let's elect someone who can run the country for everyone. I don't care about what he/her does with his ( or her ) private sex life as long as he/she does his/her job! That's what we elect them for after all.
That's a very general statement. In fact, I can't accept it. I think you are over-analyzing the situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it funny that you accuse me of making a too general statement and then say I'm over analyzing.
I am not against getting rid of dividend taxes, but I do believe it should be done if at all with care. There is an interrelationship between the price of stocks and interest rates. Interest rates would have to go up 20% to 30% of their current value to match the yields of dividends. If the goal is to help the US economy, this plan will not do it. The people who will benefit the most from this are more likely to buy a German car than anything American.
edit: That 20% to 30% looks missleading. What I mean to say is if interest rates are say 6% it would have to jump to something like 8% to match the yield of a non taxed dividend.
[quote] am not against getting rid of dividend taxes, but I do believe it should be done if at all with care. There is an interrelationship between the price of stocks and interest rates. <hr></blockquote>
And let's not forget that it will negatively effect municipalities and the rates they have to pay out on their tax free municipal bonds.
There was a great letter in the Chicago Tribune today from someone who is currently paying over $40,000 a year in taxes. He admits he earned his money like Bush---he inherited it. Almost all of his income comes from dividends and under Bush's plan he'll end up paying less than $5,000. He's upset because he'll end up paying less in taxes than the teachers that teach his children, the garbage man, etc. All of these people who work harder than he does.
Scary thought that 1) a person like that exists and 2) they'll end up paying almost no taxes. That's unacceptable.
So you were told. Given the recession, I guess that really wasn't true, was it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well let's see " longest Bull market in history " . I don't think anyone could make that up. Part of this was of course due to natural trends but part also was due to good economic leadership.
However as we all know the economy is cyclic. So it was inevitable that it would take a downturn sometime.
I don't think this recession has anything to do with 9/11. I just think that didn't help.
The problem now is that Bush in typcal fashion isn't doing anything to make it easier or end faster and in fact is doing things that could potentially make it worse and last longer.
<strong>There was a great letter in the Chicago Tribune today from someone who is currently paying over $40,000 a year in taxes. He admits he earned his money like Bush---he inherited it. Almost all of his income comes from dividends and under Bush's plan he'll end up paying less than $5,000. He's upset because he'll end up paying less in taxes than the teachers that teach his children, the garbage man, etc. All of these people who work harder than he does.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
$40,000 is the part he sees. He didn't calculate the taxes that were paid on that money in the form of corporate income taxes before the dividend was distributed. And he won't end up paying only $5,000. Again, that's only the part he sees. The corporate income tax will still be levied. If he's still upset that his tax bill would be too low after the Bush plan passes, there's nothing to prevent him from sending the government more money.
If he's still upset that his tax bill would be too low after the Bush plan passes, there's nothing to prevent him from sending the government more money.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's such a shallow 'argument' it makes me wish you would come up with something decent to respond to.
That's such a shallow 'argument' it makes me wish you would come up with something decent to respond to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing shallow about it. Why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? Because he wasn't really upset about what his new tax bill would be? Because he was just moral grandstanding? Leaving that aside, if you didn't like that argument, there was nothing preventing you from responding to the rest of my post.
Nothing shallow about it. Why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? Because he wasn't really upset about what his new tax bill would be? Because he was just moral grandstanding? Leaving that aside, if you didn't like that argument, there was nothing preventing you from responding to the rest of my post.
That is pretty lame, unlikely, and besides the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bunge was the one who thought this guy had something to say about Bush's tax bill - not me. But I ask once again: if he's so upset about his tax bill, why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? And you too failed to respond to the rest of my post.
But I ask once again: if he's so upset about his tax bill, why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? And you too failed to respond to the rest of my post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Becuase having one person pay extra doesn't help. It's the principle, and he knows there are more in his situation that would not be paying. They're all being allowed to short change the country and he believes it's wrong.
HE shouldn't have to pay more, EVERYONE in his situation should have to pay more. That's his point.
Dividends are taxed twice? Are salaries taxed twice? Just curious.
Comments
<strong><a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=536&e=3&cid=536&u=/ap/20030115/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bigger_deficits"; target="_blank">Major</a> <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61357-2003Jan15.html"; target="_blank">deficits</a>. <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=584&e=2&cid=584&u=/nm/20030115/pl_nm/bush_taxes_daniels_dc"; target="_blank">Bummer</a>.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, and that's all Bush's fault. Oh, and Clinton didn't raise taxes on the middle class to balance the budget. Oh, and we weren't attacked on 9/11, costing perhaps 100 billion dollars in damage just in itself. Oh, and we don't have to disarm a dangerous dictator. Oh, and the government doesn't take half of what I earn now.....
Thanks for reminding me.
<strong>
Yeah, and that's all Bush's fault.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, none of it is Bush's fault.
What was the economy, the job market, and the deficit under Clinton? Pretty damn good for a change.
What's it been like under both Bush's? :
Pretty damn awful.
Coincidence you say?
I don't think so!
Trickle down economics didn't work in the 80's. It sure as hell isn't going to work now.
Now Rumsfeld is saying that the fact that the inspectors haven't found anything in Iraq is proof that they are hiding something!
If this isn't double speak or think I don't know what is! What a crock! Yeah, yeah black is white.
If you think the economy is bad now just wait and see what happens if we have a war.
Come 2004 let's get that bozo outta there! Before he does more damage. Let's elect someone who can run the country for everyone. I don't care about what he/her does with his ( or her ) private sex life as long as he/she does his/her job! That's what we elect them for after all.
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
That's a very general statement. In fact, I can't accept it. I think you are over-analyzing the situation.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find it funny that you accuse me of making a too general statement and then say I'm over analyzing.
I am not against getting rid of dividend taxes, but I do believe it should be done if at all with care. There is an interrelationship between the price of stocks and interest rates. Interest rates would have to go up 20% to 30% of their current value to match the yields of dividends. If the goal is to help the US economy, this plan will not do it. The people who will benefit the most from this are more likely to buy a German car than anything American.
edit: That 20% to 30% looks missleading. What I mean to say is if interest rates are say 6% it would have to jump to something like 8% to match the yield of a non taxed dividend.
[ 01-16-2003: Message edited by: Geddoe ]</p>
And let's not forget that it will negatively effect municipalities and the rates they have to pay out on their tax free municipal bonds.
<strong>
What was the economy, the job market, and the deficit under Clinton? Pretty damn good for a change.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you were told. Given the recession, I guess that really wasn't true, was it?
<strong>
So you were told. Given the recession, I guess that really wasn't true, was it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, Bushites say it was the attacks on September 11th that caused the slowdown, so yes it probably was true....
Scary thought that 1) a person like that exists and 2) they'll end up paying almost no taxes. That's unacceptable.
Okay shameless hype of my own thread
<strong>
So you were told. Given the recession, I guess that really wasn't true, was it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well let's see " longest Bull market in history " . I don't think anyone could make that up. Part of this was of course due to natural trends but part also was due to good economic leadership.
However as we all know the economy is cyclic. So it was inevitable that it would take a downturn sometime.
I don't think this recession has anything to do with 9/11. I just think that didn't help.
The problem now is that Bush in typcal fashion isn't doing anything to make it easier or end faster and in fact is doing things that could potentially make it worse and last longer.
Or at best follow the course of serial recession.
[ 01-18-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>There was a great letter in the Chicago Tribune today from someone who is currently paying over $40,000 a year in taxes. He admits he earned his money like Bush---he inherited it. Almost all of his income comes from dividends and under Bush's plan he'll end up paying less than $5,000. He's upset because he'll end up paying less in taxes than the teachers that teach his children, the garbage man, etc. All of these people who work harder than he does.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
$40,000 is the part he sees. He didn't calculate the taxes that were paid on that money in the form of corporate income taxes before the dividend was distributed. And he won't end up paying only $5,000. Again, that's only the part he sees. The corporate income tax will still be levied. If he's still upset that his tax bill would be too low after the Bush plan passes, there's nothing to prevent him from sending the government more money.
<strong>
If he's still upset that his tax bill would be too low after the Bush plan passes, there's nothing to prevent him from sending the government more money.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's such a shallow 'argument' it makes me wish you would come up with something decent to respond to.
<strong>
That's such a shallow 'argument' it makes me wish you would come up with something decent to respond to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing shallow about it. Why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? Because he wasn't really upset about what his new tax bill would be? Because he was just moral grandstanding? Leaving that aside, if you didn't like that argument, there was nothing preventing you from responding to the rest of my post.
[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
<strong>
Nothing shallow about it. Why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? Because he wasn't really upset about what his new tax bill would be? Because he was just moral grandstanding? Leaving that aside, if you didn't like that argument, there was nothing preventing you from responding to the rest of my post.
[ 01-19-2003: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
That is pretty lame, unlikely, and besides the point.
<strong>
That is pretty lame, unlikely, and besides the point.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bunge was the one who thought this guy had something to say about Bush's tax bill - not me. But I ask once again: if he's so upset about his tax bill, why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? And you too failed to respond to the rest of my post.
<strong>
But I ask once again: if he's so upset about his tax bill, why wouldn't he respond in the way I suggested? And you too failed to respond to the rest of my post.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Becuase having one person pay extra doesn't help. It's the principle, and he knows there are more in his situation that would not be paying. They're all being allowed to short change the country and he believes it's wrong.
HE shouldn't have to pay more, EVERYONE in his situation should have to pay more. That's his point.
Dividends are taxed twice? Are salaries taxed twice? Just curious.