philippe
FYI, I chase trains.
Stopping some secret army projects....
State of the Union - as it happens
- Thread starter Richard III
- Start date
The Troquelet
Conscious
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 1,950
Deficit spending, obviously. You elected a Republican, now you get your just desserts.
Originally posted by Richard III
on the dividend tax proposal, long overdue.
Most of the working class who own dividend paying stock hold them in retirement accounts. When this money is taken out of the retirement account, it will be taxed as ordinary income. Only those wealthy enough to hold stock outside of a retirement account will benefit. And to get any significant tax benefit, one would have to own a quite a load of dividend paying stock.
If the rich reallocate their stock holdings to take advantage of the tax cut, money will flow from smaller cap stocks (the growth companies that need to do well if the economy is going to do well) to blue chip stocks. Prices for growth stocks will fall and these companies will have a more difficult time arranging their financial structure to succeed. Another pimping out of the entreprenurial and working classes to the idle rich and big business elite. Maybe the worst possible tax cut for the given situation, if you assume tax cuts are going to turn the economy around.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
I agree with your assessment in the short term; but I've always supported this because the double-taxation is totally distortionary in the long term to corporate behavior, with impacts that far outweigh the impact of the trouble you describe above. For years now, companies have emphasized unstable capital gains and poured resources into acquisitions rather than do what they're supposed to do - provide decent returns with earned income to stockholders. While the Net Bubble was driven by many forces, it was made worse by the ease with which the Kevin Kellys of the world could argue that "dividends are dead," a perspective supported by a stupid tax law that treats capital gains different from capital income gains.
Economically sound measures should not be avoided solely because the change has a short term impact as people shift behavior. If phasing short term changes in is the solution to minimize the impact of the change, so be it.
Oh, and you might have noticed, but ordinary investors have suddenly remembered the value of income...
* * *
Again, I agree guys, little "new" is usually said, but I'm in the business of making shifts in how it's said, and of knowing why to make that shift. So it's kind of inside baseball for me
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Back Greadius et al vis a vis the democrat rebuttal:
It was interesting, how Locke had to say things like "we democrats have a clear message". My first thought was "bullsh#t!" Yes he did have a salesman air about him. But America is looking for something new to buy.
I am thoroughly amazed at the hordes who base their judgement of our current regime over what they might do to Iraq. We didn't elect the people who appointed the people who appointed this president to service Iraq, we asked for American leadership. One and a half pages on our economy, four on the evils of Saddam Hussein. And what is humorous, about half of America and the rest of the world still aren't convinced about Hussein, regardless of the fact that Bush acts like he is running against him.
So we are left with competing plans for how to handle America; one of which, the Democrat one, is a pipe dream for at least two years. Do we want to tax cut the top two percent (Bush) or everybody (Locke)? Do we want to attack Iraq because it is our duty to police dictators that our president doesn't like (Bush) or if and when the world asks us to and agrees that Saddam can somehow threaten us (Locke)?
And on a more fundamental level, towards the end of the speech, Locke touched base with the basics of the democratic party platform: we are pro-woman (pro-choice being the antiquated term he chose), pro- diversity, pro-people. I was darkly amused that the president who is ready to indiscriminately fire 400 cruise missiles at Baghdad to "make them surrender fast" and who executed ******** people when he was governer of Texas is somehow concerned about unborn foetuses, as if a life not yet lived is worth more than the thousands of lived lives he has already taken off of the globe.
It was interesting, how Locke had to say things like "we democrats have a clear message". My first thought was "bullsh#t!" Yes he did have a salesman air about him. But America is looking for something new to buy.
I am thoroughly amazed at the hordes who base their judgement of our current regime over what they might do to Iraq. We didn't elect the people who appointed the people who appointed this president to service Iraq, we asked for American leadership. One and a half pages on our economy, four on the evils of Saddam Hussein. And what is humorous, about half of America and the rest of the world still aren't convinced about Hussein, regardless of the fact that Bush acts like he is running against him.
So we are left with competing plans for how to handle America; one of which, the Democrat one, is a pipe dream for at least two years. Do we want to tax cut the top two percent (Bush) or everybody (Locke)? Do we want to attack Iraq because it is our duty to police dictators that our president doesn't like (Bush) or if and when the world asks us to and agrees that Saddam can somehow threaten us (Locke)?
And on a more fundamental level, towards the end of the speech, Locke touched base with the basics of the democratic party platform: we are pro-woman (pro-choice being the antiquated term he chose), pro- diversity, pro-people. I was darkly amused that the president who is ready to indiscriminately fire 400 cruise missiles at Baghdad to "make them surrender fast" and who executed ******** people when he was governer of Texas is somehow concerned about unborn foetuses, as if a life not yet lived is worth more than the thousands of lived lives he has already taken off of the globe.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
The speech went as I expected, the Aids stuff, and the Hydro-car were a little surprissing.
The democrats disagreeing is no surprise, and I watched Locke also, the man was wood, and he bored the hell out of me.
The nation gave up on the Democrat message of "WE know better then you, trust us!".
The Dems have a silly one year give-back, and no plan to stimulate the economy.
WE ARE OVER-TAXED.
Also, the president usually gets between 50-60% of what he proposes, so we will see.
All this nonsense about rising deficeit is a Canard, WITHOUT buisness, the economy is dead, and the back-breaking taxes are destroying buisness.
The taxes MUST be cut.
The Dems have NO PLAN to give relief where it's MOST needed, to stimulate buisness, just more class warfare about the rich getting cuts.
I think Frisk is delusional about getting a heath care bill the way he described it, it won't happen.
As a speech, Bush gets an -A, good content, well delivered.
Also, Saddam is dead, and BOTH Bush and Powell said there is an Al Aeda link with Saddam, we will see.
The democrats disagreeing is no surprise, and I watched Locke also, the man was wood, and he bored the hell out of me.
The nation gave up on the Democrat message of "WE know better then you, trust us!".
The Dems have a silly one year give-back, and no plan to stimulate the economy.
WE ARE OVER-TAXED.
Also, the president usually gets between 50-60% of what he proposes, so we will see.
All this nonsense about rising deficeit is a Canard, WITHOUT buisness, the economy is dead, and the back-breaking taxes are destroying buisness.
The taxes MUST be cut.
The Dems have NO PLAN to give relief where it's MOST needed, to stimulate buisness, just more class warfare about the rich getting cuts.
I think Frisk is delusional about getting a heath care bill the way he described it, it won't happen.
As a speech, Bush gets an -A, good content, well delivered.
Also, Saddam is dead, and BOTH Bush and Powell said there is an Al Aeda link with Saddam, we will see.
De Lorimier
North American Scum
Slightly off topic... what do you mean by Canard AoA?
Canard = a deliberately misleading fabrication.
Sultan Bhargash
Trickster Reincarnated
Let me know how YOUR tax break goes for you, and how your business' tax break helps you and your fellow employees.
The economy is stimulated when people buy stuff. People don't buy stuff just because you give them money back (and that isn't a problem for most Americans who will NOT be seeing any money back- Bush's $45 dollars for a family of four was a joke that a few Senators actually laughed at). People buy stuff when they are free from fears that the economy will worsen.
AoA, you shouldn't be fooled; the plunderers are in power. They don't give a rat's a$$ whether richer people, poorer people, middle class people, big businesses or small businesses thrive. They are looking for the magic ticket for themselves and themselves only: those businesses such as defense and oil construction that they can set up the conditions for themselves and their cronies to profit now and after office.
A missile shield? A bio shield? Like you say the pres gets 50% of what he asks for, I wonder if the 50% will be tax cuts for the rich and a ban on partial birth abortion or curing aids in Africa and private nuclear cars?
The economy is stimulated when people buy stuff. People don't buy stuff just because you give them money back (and that isn't a problem for most Americans who will NOT be seeing any money back- Bush's $45 dollars for a family of four was a joke that a few Senators actually laughed at). People buy stuff when they are free from fears that the economy will worsen.
AoA, you shouldn't be fooled; the plunderers are in power. They don't give a rat's a$$ whether richer people, poorer people, middle class people, big businesses or small businesses thrive. They are looking for the magic ticket for themselves and themselves only: those businesses such as defense and oil construction that they can set up the conditions for themselves and their cronies to profit now and after office.
A missile shield? A bio shield? Like you say the pres gets 50% of what he asks for, I wonder if the 50% will be tax cuts for the rich and a ban on partial birth abortion or curing aids in Africa and private nuclear cars?
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Really Sultan?
Because of the Tax code, in the last six years my staff went from 120 to 31.
31!!!!!
Our operating expenses are ENORMOUS, and we have zero dollars to afford any new people.
Clinton and his little friends fixed the deficit alright, fixed it so that nobody but a billion dollar corporation can operate.
The Dems better get into the real world, our buisness and industry is on it's LAST legs.
If we have a shortfall, SPENDING must be cut, NOT the raising of taxes, which only leads to rising inflation.
The Clinton myth of great economy is a joke, in REAL dollars, my salary bought no more in 2001 then it did in 1991, as the inflation rate rose EVERY year, right along with salery increases.
If this doesn't stop, we will be RUINED.
Because of the Tax code, in the last six years my staff went from 120 to 31.
31!!!!!
Our operating expenses are ENORMOUS, and we have zero dollars to afford any new people.
Clinton and his little friends fixed the deficit alright, fixed it so that nobody but a billion dollar corporation can operate.
The Dems better get into the real world, our buisness and industry is on it's LAST legs.
If we have a shortfall, SPENDING must be cut, NOT the raising of taxes, which only leads to rising inflation.
The Clinton myth of great economy is a joke, in REAL dollars, my salary bought no more in 2001 then it did in 1991, as the inflation rate rose EVERY year, right along with salery increases.
If this doesn't stop, we will be RUINED.
SirJethro
Paterfamilias
Just a reminder about the Democrats' plan that the Democrats make a point of avoiding. ALL of the tax relief they are proposing expires after (wait for it) ONE YEAR. It is a one shot deal that they have no intention of committing to any longer than they have to. Beleive me, one year from now they would ignore that fact and say, we don't need tax relief, we already addressed tax relief.
Additionally, the whole argument that Democrats give a break to everyone and the Republicans only to the top 2% is COMPLETELY wrong. In fact, if the Republican bill would pass, because of the way they change taxes across the board, the rich would end up paying a larger percentage of all taxes than they do now (and, yes, that means the poor would pay less). This is not spin, it is a fact.
The Republican plan actually offers significant benefit to the poor and middle class. And most importantly, it does so for more than just one year. It does so for 10 years currently, and preferably (if the Dems would support it) permanently.
Additionally, the whole argument that Democrats give a break to everyone and the Republicans only to the top 2% is COMPLETELY wrong. In fact, if the Republican bill would pass, because of the way they change taxes across the board, the rich would end up paying a larger percentage of all taxes than they do now (and, yes, that means the poor would pay less). This is not spin, it is a fact.
The Republican plan actually offers significant benefit to the poor and middle class. And most importantly, it does so for more than just one year. It does so for 10 years currently, and preferably (if the Dems would support it) permanently.
Obssesed Nuker
Resident Nuclear Launcher
Is it just me or did his talk bout Iraq take the last 15 minutes of the speech?
Also: So nice that he is focusing on FORIEGN AIDs problem rather than the outbreak ON THE COUNTRY HE (not really)RULES!(my dad is working on the AIDs epidemic... come to think of it AIDs would be a good bio chemical weapon..OOPS dont want too give Saddam ideas, after all with his "nuckulear weapons" we have enough problems alread) reminds me of a funny audio I listened too.
Also: So nice that he is focusing on FORIEGN AIDs problem rather than the outbreak ON THE COUNTRY HE (not really)RULES!(my dad is working on the AIDs epidemic... come to think of it AIDs would be a good bio chemical weapon..OOPS dont want too give Saddam ideas, after all with his "nuckulear weapons" we have enough problems alread) reminds me of a funny audio I listened too.
SirJethro
Paterfamilias
Of course Iraq took the last 15 minutes of his speech...and the left (and the rest of the world) should appreciate that. Iraq is one of the most controversial and devisive debates in the world right now, and our president is right in the middle of it leading the way. It would have been truely unforgivable for him to ignore the matter altogether and not make his case for it in the speech (and then the next day continue business as usual).
For months everyone has asked...."why now, why war?" Even supporters from a few months ago are starting to get uneasy. If the President didn't have 15 minutes worth of justification that he is willing to present to the country and the world, then we should in fact leave Saddam to himself. I am actually somewhat puzzled that W. didn't make some of the points he made last night much, much earlier (or at least make them more often).
For months everyone has asked...."why now, why war?" Even supporters from a few months ago are starting to get uneasy. If the President didn't have 15 minutes worth of justification that he is willing to present to the country and the world, then we should in fact leave Saddam to himself. I am actually somewhat puzzled that W. didn't make some of the points he made last night much, much earlier (or at least make them more often).
For the working class, the tax cuts beyond the $300 that has already been given (did you notice that most of the 15% marginal tax bracket stayed intact and was not lowered). All other tax cuts aimed at the working class pretty much encourage excessive population growth (child tax credits, etc.).
I am for some of the tax cuts in Bush's proposal as I think they offer some benefit to small businesses, but the dividend tax cut is not the way to go. If you claim it is double taxation (and I can make at least five arguments that it is not), then the appropriate way to solve it is to make dividend payouts deductible to the corporation.
If we are cutting out double taxation, why am I paying income taxes on "income" that is confiscated from my paycheck in the form of social security and medicare taxes? Shouldn't that amount be deducted from my taxable income for federal income tax purposes?
I am for some of the tax cuts in Bush's proposal as I think they offer some benefit to small businesses, but the dividend tax cut is not the way to go. If you claim it is double taxation (and I can make at least five arguments that it is not), then the appropriate way to solve it is to make dividend payouts deductible to the corporation.
If we are cutting out double taxation, why am I paying income taxes on "income" that is confiscated from my paycheck in the form of social security and medicare taxes? Shouldn't that amount be deducted from my taxable income for federal income tax purposes?
SirJethro
Paterfamilias
If you don't mind posting your five arguments that dividend taxation is not double taxation, I would like to have a chance to respond to those.
And for the working class tax cuts...you make reference to those cuts already been given as if they don't count. They DO count for two reasons: (1) Bush's proposal would accellerate them to take effect much sooner, and (2) they were part of a RIGHT WING plan to begin with (thus counter to the argument that Republicans are only focusing on the rich).
And for the working class tax cuts...you make reference to those cuts already been given as if they don't count. They DO count for two reasons: (1) Bush's proposal would accellerate them to take effect much sooner, and (2) they were part of a RIGHT WING plan to begin with (thus counter to the argument that Republicans are only focusing on the rich).
There are no plans to cut the 15% bracket any further. The cut has already been made. $300 per year is all that will be given. Wouldn't be prudent to give anymore. There is no more cut in that bracket to accelerate.
As for the five reasons, I think that I have gone as far on the tax issues in this thread as I dare. I might open a thread on the dividend tax cut not being double taxation. Don't have time right at this moment and I've been reluctant to open such a thread as I'm sure it has probably been done before. Just as a little preview, however, a corporation is a separate legal entity from its shareholders. It is taxed on its net income. That income, before it is distributed to shareholders, is now an asset of the corporation subject to potential liabilities of the corporation (think creditors and litigants). Once it is distributed to shareholders, the shareholders are now enjoying that income free from claims from the creditors and litigants. It has been converted from an asset of the corporation to personal income to the shareholders. If a business owner (in this case shareholders) want to avoid the so-called "double taxation", then he should choose a pass-through entity (such as sole proprietorship or partnership) where distributions are taxed at only one level but personal responsibility for debts and litigation is spread to both levels.
As for the five reasons, I think that I have gone as far on the tax issues in this thread as I dare. I might open a thread on the dividend tax cut not being double taxation. Don't have time right at this moment and I've been reluctant to open such a thread as I'm sure it has probably been done before. Just as a little preview, however, a corporation is a separate legal entity from its shareholders. It is taxed on its net income. That income, before it is distributed to shareholders, is now an asset of the corporation subject to potential liabilities of the corporation (think creditors and litigants). Once it is distributed to shareholders, the shareholders are now enjoying that income free from claims from the creditors and litigants. It has been converted from an asset of the corporation to personal income to the shareholders. If a business owner (in this case shareholders) want to avoid the so-called "double taxation", then he should choose a pass-through entity (such as sole proprietorship or partnership) where distributions are taxed at only one level but personal responsibility for debts and litigation is spread to both levels.
SirJethro
Paterfamilias
This is not an argument that dividend taxation is not double taxation. This is an argument that the double taxation of dividends is justified. I disagree, but that isn't the point. Corporate dividends (except in S-Corps or other types of legal entities such as partnerships or sole-props.) are double taxed. Once as net income to the corporate, and second as investment income to the individual (at a rate higher than capital gains....at least for most folks who earn them).
meldor
Deity
This one is a bogus arguement. No one has children based on the piffle a a tax break you get for them. Thats like buying a house so that you can pay $10,000 interset to save yourself $1,000 in taxes. They tax credits you get for children don't even come close to the expenses.
You also leave out the marriage penalty which is a bigger deal to me than upping the child tax credit to $1000 and I have two children.
I actually agree with this one. We have all forms of double, triple and even more taxation, why this one. The one plausible reason is to encourage corporations to give more dividends. It would do this by having the investors yell for more of them. It isn't any incentive for the company to actually give them. If youturn it around and give the company the tax break for the dividends then they would be more likely to pay them out. But even that isn't a real given.
These are actually jsupposed to be insurance and retirement accounts not taxes. They are supposed to have seperate funds. Congress and the President (not just the current versions but all the way back) have never been able to leave them only.
But why stop there, that gallon of gas you just put into your car carries import tariffs, and get taxed for value added all the way up the chain. Then they charge you a double helping of tax when you actually buy it. And how do you pay for it, with money that has already been taxed. All consumer taxes are double or more taxation. IF double taxation is unfair, then we have a lot worse things than the dividends to complain about. All creative ways to seperate us from our money while making us think we are getting some usefull benefit.
Once they lower the income tax, they will find some other creative way to get it back and more. No one can argue with usage taxes right, after all aren't they all fair?
meldor
Deity
[Deleted double post]
Similar threads
- Poll
