I'm certain Jesus was a short term trader..Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
Printable View
I'm certain Jesus was a short term trader..Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
i think the whole idea that you have to energize your base is retarded
capture the middle, capture the whole
To be a little more helpful and a little less sarcastic:Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
The ideas you're putting forth represent an increibly simplistic view of systems that are amazingly complex and the idea that you could pull lever A and that it will have effect X without effects Y or Z and without moving levers B and C is simply not the way the world works.
Besides, your whole Romney voting premise sucks "long as I get mine, fuck all the rest." Well guess what, that's not how the world works the best and it's not even how the markets work the best.
You've made the mistake of believing that taxes are somehow evil or bad. Take about ten steps back with me, taxes are merely the mechanism by which govt. funds its activities, one kind of tax is not per se better than another and you've made this leap to where it is a specific kind of tax holding the markets back and while I disagree with the premise if you hold to that premise than you're being inconsistent in thinking that raising taxes on individual OI to compensate (go back to step one this will have to happen) will not replace that drag on the economy. So as you can see you've borked the whole thing up. Arguing for all these macro changes to the tax side with no corresponding thought to anything else simply doesn't work. It doesn't have the positive effect you claim AND! it has corresponding negative consequences that you've not bothered to consider. If you sincerely believe that it is the taxes that are holding back the economy in some way then there is only one way to fundamentally reduce them but I'm guessing that you have no idea what that is.
As for candidates and the economy, I don't worry about it much. I think there's some things that they can do that are patently harmful (Bush's policies of borrow and spend and brainless war are prime examples) but very little they can do that would be actively positive for the economy. Stable and competent governance is what's IMO best for the economy. Pretty high hurdle though.
I think that deal is broke already for the right half of the party. All that's left now to him is to hang onto the center-left and sheer the right clean off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Jesus would have consulted Ezekiel before borrowing from the MacCabees.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
I'm tired and bored of worrying about what is best for everyone. No candidate is going to do squat for a middle age, single, upper middle class white guy like me. The ONLY thing I have going for me is my retirement savings.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
And you know what.. I'm not saying that a cut in gain and corp taxes is actually a good thing long term but if it's good enough for a two year party in the market and I can bail out. I'm for it. Pure selfishness.
In this market? He'd still have got crucified just like the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
What if it isn't even good for that though?Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
What do you think happens when every investor with LTCGs built into their portfolio decides to cash out while there's no tax?
Even if it does have a 2yr benefit and you take all your money out, how does that help you in the long run? Either you invest it or it doesn't earn money.
Your plan sucks from start to finish.
Where will you put your money - in a mattress?Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
For those treating McCain as a "moderate" or middle of the road guy, please ignore the media spin and explain to me how he has ever been moderate in his politics. If you can do this without mentioning campaign finance reform (his one maverick issue) or his diatribe against the religious right in 2000 (done to try and save a drowning campaign), I will be duly impressed.
When asked if he supports vanilla soft serve or chocolate soft serve at McDowells, he looked at the camera, shook his fist and said..... SWIRL!Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
John McCain also voted against tax cuts that were not paired with any kind of spending reduction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danno
oh wait...does that make him a liberal, a moderate or merely the possessor of a brain? Not sure, sorry.
Ooohh OHHH and his immigration policy is not: "round em all up and ship em out" so that's pretty moderate too!
He goes to McDowells? I could never support a candidate that doesn't like sesame seeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
Here's an article about conservative mistrust of McCain. It's not big-government stuff, it's the people he's aligned himself with (read: he dares to work with non-Republicans!), his votes against the Bush tax cuts, and his past positions on abortion and gun rights. And that other stuff you mentioned.
First, jeebus... my whining is starting to have ME wondering if I'm a far left looney? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
Anyway, I won't comment on your specific question about equity markets above because I'm not an economist/expert in those markets like some here are. But I'll tell you what; I would be SO ROYALLY PISSED OFF if a capital gains elimination let "trust fund babies" live for TAX FREE when the teachers, cops, YOU & ME and rest of those who have to "work" for our money HAD TO STILL PAY, AND PROBABLY EVEN MORE AS A RESULT of letting them off the hook!!! :cussing: :cussing: :cussing:
Comments on that specific issue? Do YOU think that would be "fair"???
No I wasn't! :fuckyou:Quote:
Originally Posted by YourSupremeExcellency
virtually all of the "maverick McCain" stuff postdates 2000, when he recreated himself as a maverick in order to challenge the presumptive nominee, GWB. Prior to that, he was as conservative as it gets, except for campaign finance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
Eliminating capital gains only eliminates the tax when you sell an asset. Any trust fund baby you speak of most likely lives off the interest earned by their assets which would still be taxable income no matter what happens with the capital gains tax. Odds are they do and will continue to pay a much larger percentage of their income to taxes than you ever will, so you can stop crying now.
Or they're living off their dividends, and paying much less in taxes than you ever will. Yes, the rich WOULD pay more taxes than anyone else if there weren't all these wonderful loopholes.
Don't you think if the rules nixed taxes on "capital gains", all the trust fund babies portfolio managers would set up systems where they own appreciating (hopefully) stocks and sell every so often (with profit but without tax), rather than living off dividend type stocks???Quote:
Originally Posted by fatback
Wrong again because my broke ass is in the 15% tax bracket, same as their QUALIFIED dividend rate, but hey it's much easier to say the rich owe you something isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Excellent - so when you finally join the rest of us who pay 45% or more in income tax because we no longer ask if "you want fries with that" for a living you may realize that you've been spoon-fed bullshit.
The middle class - those of us not "broke asses" nor silver spoon trustafarians - provide the bulk of the tax burden in real life, not the truly wealthy.
Now go mow my lawn.
I say fair must be closer to; "income" should be "income"... same rate schedules on it no matter whether it's from hard work, dividends or sale of an asset resulting in a capital gain?
Name calling, sweet, such an adult you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
So the top marginal bracket is 35% on income over $349,700 and you pay 45% in income taxes, I must confess to being confused master,. Soon as you answer I promise to get right on that lawn work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Congrats if you are making over 350K running a camera, I confess to being envious.
Tim, with the notable exception of Mr. Forbes the greatest resistance to a flat tax or simplification of our tax code comes from the wealthy, not the middle class or poor. Why would that be if they stood to gain the most on paper?Quote:
Originally Posted by timvwcom
Fatback: you're the one making a point of how poor you are. I say either get a better paying job or educate yourself on the reality of who pays what. Do you honestly believe that you, at or below the poverty level, should pay the same level of tax as the wealthiest of the wealthy?
My company's CEO restructured his compensation package after that gift from the Bush Administration. He now takes most of his compensation in dividend-bearing stock, thus de-facto cutting his Net tax burden from the top bracket to one of the lowest. He is not alone by any means.
Regarding the 45% number - after deductions I receive 45% of my income as my net pay. Yes, that includes State, Federal, FICA, and Medicare deductions, not just Federal Income Tax. My bad.
Shouldn't you be working to feed yourself?
Dude...he produces porn on the side.
Opps, you caught the quote before I edited in "schedule" just to remove any thought that I was advocating a "flat" tax... :tongue:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Give me a break. As far as I know your Dividends are taxed at 15% as well. Maybe time to shift some more of your assets into dividend paying stocks. Not to mentioned the dividends were already taxed at the corporate level and therefore should not be taxed at all at the individual level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tippster
Hardly what I would call a loophole
I like the underdog McCain a LOT better than the frontrunner.Quote:
Originally Posted by lemon boy
Huckabee being on that ticket is not something I'm willing to ponder.
I just agreed with Mr G on a point he's made in a political thread.
I'm fairly sure our reasoning and sentiments are diametrically opposed but it still makes me want to punch myself in the face. Just in case.
CUBUCK, I've always thought the basic reason the corporation was taxed is because in concept, the ownership of the corporation is creating a new "entity" (akin to a person) often to mainly avoid any individual/personal liability for the corporation financially or elsewise? The penalty for the owners, and benefit for society, for releasing them from that liability is that they have to pay corporate taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CUBUCK
If any of the above is accurate, then removing the corporate tax just gives those owners a "free pass" from their liability in the legal sense, no?
[QUOTE=Tippster;1679865]
Fatback: you're the one making a point of how poor you are. I say either get a better paying job or educate yourself on the reality of who pays what. Do you honestly believe that you, at or below the poverty level, should pay the same level of tax as the wealthiest of the wealthy?
QUOTE]
The same percentage yes. Why should you, making 350K a year be forced to pay a larger percentage in FEDERAL INCOME TAX, which is what the discussion was about, than me who makes 32K a year?
You and the other members of the top 10% of all earners already pay 68% of all the income tax now. You don't think that's enough, you want your taxes to go up?
Not my pitch, but I'll take a swing anyway...Quote:
Originally Posted by fatback
Sounds like you are saying it would be fair for everyone to pay the same rate? Lets pick some number that MIGHT be in the range of what a flat tax rate would need to be; Uhhhh: 25% it is. So you think it would be "fair" to take 25% of the income of a minimum wage earner towards paying the countries expenses? And if you think it's fair, do you think it is practical? Will it really work?
Oh... and ask Warren Buffet about what the rich really pay. He pays a lower percentage than his secretary who makes less than $100,000 a year, if I recall correctly. Our tax codes are stuffed to the gills with ways the wealthy can avoid paying taxes... Our VP Darth Cheney himself used one of the wacko rules about charitable donations to avoid most of his taxes a couple years ago. Etc, etc. etc...
(Leaving for "the google" to find online support of these arguments made from memory.)
I'll give you a simple formula for straightening out the problems of the United States. First, you tax the churches. You take the tax off of capital gains and the tax off of savings. You decriminalize all drugs and tax them same way as you do alcohol. You decriminalize prostitution. You make gambling legal. That will put the budget back on the road to recovery, and you'll have plenty of tax revenue coming in for all of your social programs, and to run the army. - Frank Zappa
and FWIW, Romney was a big phony and McCain is too old.
Exactly my point, Tim.
Fatback: let's use Tim's 25% model. You make $20k, Gates makes $1B
You pay $5k, leaving you $15k to live on.
Gates pays $250M (not likely) leaving him $750M to try to eek by on.
Who paid more dearly? Who could use the money more? Therein lies the disparity of our viewpoints. BTW - that $350k figure is yours. My wife and I earn far less than that, but you don't want to hear that.
Let me do it for you. I'll knock all your teeth out, that way you can start with a clean slate.Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
that aside, it appears as if Romney clearing the way has also eliminated Huckabee's chances as VP. Apparently had Romney stayed in the race, at some point Huck would have been able to offer up his delegates in return for something like being the running mate to insure a McCain nomination.
Tipp, I only came up with 350K because you said you pay 45% of your income to federal tax, which would put you in the 35% bracket. I see you corrected that in an earlier post and I missed it, my bad on that.
Obviously those making below a certain figure say 25K wouldn't pay any tax.
I agree. McCain has a choice in VPs- someone to attract the religious right (like Huckabee), or someone to nail down more traditional Republicans. I think he'll go with what's behind door no. 2 (since the evangelicals would never go for Clinton or Obama anyway).Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
Ooooooh get her. Thinks she's tough she does.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian
:rolleyes2
Actually the old choppers are not far from that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_gyptian