To be the first

[Patroclus]

In a desire to be the first to post in this forum, I am pulling discussion topic out of my rear-end.

The Bush Administration favors tax cuts for helping to boost the economy by putting money in the pockets of Americans who are spending money, thereby indirectly pumping the caufers.

Opponents favor increasing taxes, thereby directly feed the federal fund.

What do you all think.:hrm:

[Solly]

Don't care, I like in Britain :rofl:

[Dee Dee Warren]

Well I am probably pulling this answer out of my rear.. but I was pretty interested when learning about the history of income taxes in this country in general. The information I had is that when it was passed, is that it was touted as something that would only affect a certain upper percentage, and then gradually broadened to include pretty much everybody. I found that typically sneaky....

So, I am all for tax cuts.

[GrayPilgrim]

I have hear that the IRS is an unconstitutional agency, and that the ammendment to the Constitution which would have made it constitutional was never ratified. That being said I think that it is our Christian duty to pay taxes (you know render under to Caesar...), but I think that the Dems plan to give tax rebates to everyone, even those who don't pay taxes is looney!

Can y'all tell what my new favorite word is yet?

[Ryokan]

The thing is by the time we get the tax cut through, and it actually effects the economy, the recession may be over by natural means. If it was up to me, I would just pay off the national debt, which drives down the available loanable funds and hurts growth.

So my position is, all tax cuts are dumb.

[$cirisme]

Originally posted by GrayPilgrim
I have hear that the IRS is an unconstitutional agency, and that the ammendment to the Constitution which would have made it constitutional was never ratified. That being said I think that it is our Christian duty to pay taxes (you know render under to Caesar...), but I think that the Dems plan to give tax rebates to everyone, even those who don't pay taxes is looney!

Can y'all tell what my new favorite word is yet?

After the Civil War, Congress passed an income tax law to pay the war debt. It lasted only about 4 years(or so, I am bad at history :o) A few years later, Congress passed a permanment income tax law, it was challenged and struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional.

Congress amended the constitution. As far as I know, it has not been fully ratified.

[GrayPilgrim]

Cirisme,

Thanks for the details, my constitutional law/history dates back 10 years from a poly-sci course at Texas A&M, so I forget many details.

[Reba]

Taxes are from hell.

[Em7add11]

People's main objection to the plan is typically something along the lines of "it only gives money to the wealthy!" That kind of ignores the fact that, tax-wise at least, that the wealthy pay for most social services.

I can't verify this stat, but I believe that the wealthiest 1% of the nation pay 50% of the taxes.

Why shouldn't they recoup a little of that?

[Carl Smuda]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

ratified February 3, 1913. :read:

[$cirisme]

Em7add11:
People's main objection to the plan is typically something along the lines of "it only gives money to the wealthy!" That kind of ignores the fact that, tax-wise at least, that the wealthy pay for most social services.

I can't verify this stat, but I believe that the wealthiest 1% of the nation pay 50% of the taxes.

Why shouldn't they recoup a little of that?

I agree, but unfortunatly, it doesn't help any politician in the PR department to admit it. :no:

[Carl Smuda]

In the summer of 2001, did anyone else get a $600 government check in the mail? We did. And THANK YOU President Bush. We were very patriotic with that money. i.e. we spent it like a drunken sailor. :yipee:

[$cirisme]

LOL! :yipee:

[Socrates]

Patroclus:

The Bush Administration favors tax cuts for helping to boost the economy by putting money in the pockets of Americans who are spending money, thereby indirectly pumping the caufers.Bush is doing one thing right, and you Americans should get behind him. That is, introducing a dividend imputation system. Australia and New Zealand have had this for years, and we're surprised that the Yanx are so backward (but then they also have antiquated voting systems :rofl:

At present, you have an unjust double taxation system on dividends, and it's appalling that some lefties there think this is a good thing. I mean, an owner of a share (or stock) is a part owner of a company. A dividend may be paid out of the company's earnings, which are therefore the shareholder's earnings. Under your present system, the shareholder's dividend has already been diminished by the tax the company has paid, then the shareholder is taxed again for the dividend.

Under dividend imputation, the tax that has already been paid by the company is imputed, i.e. credited, to the shareholder's account as tax already paid, so is not taxed twice.

This removal of the inequitable double taxation should be very useful to help your economy by making shares/stocks more attractive to long-term investors as opposed to speculators.

And because of the importance of the USA economy to the rest of the world, if it helps you it will help your allies.

[Captain Ochre]

John F. Kennedy cut taxes when he was president to boost the economy. It has worked in the U.S. every time it's been done (unless it didn't work the last time).
Now, some commentators seem oblivious to the fact that there *is* going to be a point where cutting taxes doesn't benefit the the economy enough to increase tax revenue as well. I figure that there is such a point, but it's likely at a lower taxation rate than we've currently got in the U.S. (which is at or near an all-time high once you figure in each government cut).
I think that the Bush plan is a good idea for stimulation of the economy, but I'm disappointed that the Congress (and the Prez, ftm) haven't been more fiscally responsible. IOW, they're allowing the budget to burgeon. I'm not convinced at all of the spending increases are warranted.

[Ryokan]

the recession is mostly about terror fears now. If we can deal with that and the Iraq problem, we probably don't need a tax cut.

[Captain Ochre]

Ryokan:
the recession is mostly about terror fears now. If we can deal with that and the Iraq problem, we probably don't need a tax cut.

Well, that'd be nice, only Iraq is a small part of the picture. The market tanked after the tower attacks, which wasn't Iraq as far as we know. The threat of terror is likely to take years (and years) to deal with. Let the economy lie fallow in the face of terror, to try to prime the pump to get it rolling again?

[Ryokan]

I am just saying in the long run the debt is worse than the slump now, and that we almost had a boom before the war hype. So maybe it'd be good to let the invisible hand try its thing first, then try to "prime the pump".

[Carl Smuda]

So maybe it'd be good to let the invisible hand try its thing first, then try to "prime the pump". Good grief, no! Standing and back and doing nothing, isn't that what happened in the great depression of the 1930s?

[Ryokan]

What happened in the great depression is the crash destroyed peoples faith in investment and banks, so there was literally no way to get capital to start a new business even if you were so inclined, and not many people were. This would of gotten slowly better, but recovery was hampered by the US government eating up some loanable funds with the New Deal (which was excusible) and the monstrous inefficiency of the Fed as it actually raised interest rates to "fight inflation", when it should have cut them to near nothing, as we have now. The Fed made the depression alot worse, not gov inaction, which couldn't really help much.
So, we ought to wait and see if a Keynesian or supply side cut is in order.

[Socrates]

Does anyone actually have a problem with ending the unjust double taxation on dividends? As Ryokan said, the Depression continued when no-one wanted to invest, so removing iniquitous barriers to investment has to be a good thing.

Oh, I know that some economic lefties do object, because of their politics of envy. But it's not just the rich who will benefit — a lot of superannuation funds are invested in the stockmarket too.

Another thing — let's hope your President has enough clout to remove the tariffs on Australian and New Zealand sheep and lamb imports. At the moment, too many congressmen are under the thumb of your greeedy sheep farmers who demand protection of their own inefficiencies. As a result, the American public pays through the nose for lamb. If there were true free trade,
the American public would benefit from cheaper sheep meat
America would show proper gratitude to Australia (if not NZ) for our staunch support for her in the war on terror
America would win moral kudos instead of looking hypocritical for preaching free trade to everyone else but not practising it.

[Carl Smuda]

Socrates,
ending that double tax on dividends wouldn't impact my family in the least. You wanna help little old "joe six-pack" me? End the double taxes on Social Security.

I have nothing against the upper class. God Bless 'em, I say. But tax breaks for the upper isn't helping lower class. Some say they'll use that money to invest. DUH! If the rich get tax breaks they will save the money. Their needs are safe and sound. The standard of living they are use to doesn't change. On the other hand, If someone like me -with two young children and a wife-living in lower middle class, If I get a tax break I'm going to spend the money on new clothes or shoes for my children. Or needed maintence on our car or some unpaid bills.

We, like millions of Americans, are one or two paychecks from homelessness. How is cutting taxes for the rich going to secure our meager existence? :hrm:

respectfully,
Carl

[Captain Ochre]

02-25-2003 @ 05:12 PM
Carl Smuda:

Socrates,
ending that double tax on dividends wouldn't impact my family in the least. You wanna help little old "joe six-pack" me? End the double taxes on Social Security.


Social Security is a bit more complicated than that. I hear from reliable sources that Soc Sec taxation isn't a double tax. The reason might be that your employer's contribution isn't taxed (and that's half of your Soc Sec contribution). So, if they're taxing us half what they would have taxed (lol), then Soc Sec is taxed properly. :wink:

Even though my reply might be funny, it's serious.

[Socrates]

Carl Smuda:

I already explained that double taxation does not just affect the rich, but the main point is that even if it did, it would not make it right. What you say about social security may well be right, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong. Rather, if you're right, then they should eliminate both lots of double taxation.

[Hitch]

At tax rates over 10% is the government playing God?

[Captain Ochre]

02-26-2003 @ 06:08 AM
Hitch:

At tax rates over 10% is the government playing God?

When you look at the history of education and social programs in the US, whatever the taxation rate the federal government is playing church. Maybe I should start a thread on that one.

[Reba]

Man misses up everything

[Carl Smuda]

Socrates,
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say you were wrong. I was lamenting that removing that tax wouldn't help me (and millions of other Americans) in the least. And I don't have details on the Social Security thing. But I don't think my parents' social security should be taxed. As Hitch, Captain Ochre, and Reba alluded to: God only asked for 10%. That SHOULD be more than enough for the U.S. Government. :cheers:
Carl

[Pilgrim]

I'd rather see cuts in spending first. It's just basic math and accounting. You don't spend money you don't have. Our government doesn't seem to understand this and our " I'm lazy, please do it for me" population encourages that misunderstanding.

If the US government was a corporation with publically traded stock then it would have been prosectuted along with Enron and WorldCom for fraudulent accounting and poor management.

Pilgrim

[Ryokan]

I completely agree pilgrim.

[Ryokan]

Also Socrates, I am in agreement with you over both the dividend cut and the end of our stupid tariffs.

[Carl Smuda]

I am all for putting more money in the hands of the people who earned it. we happy and productive citizens know better what to do with our money. The republicans take my money and give it to the rich (corporation welfare) and the democrates take my money and give it to the poor (social welfare). Either way, no matter what, the higher powers take money from the middle class.:whip:

[Pilgrim]

Sucks don't it!

[Carl Smuda]

Sometimes, yes. But I can honestly tell you that I, like the proverb, ask this from our loving heavenly Father and the Lord Jesus Christ:
Two things have I required of thee; deny me them not before I die: Remove far from me vanity and lies: give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: Lest I be full, and deny thee, and say, 'Who is the Lord?' or lest I be poor, and steal, and take the name of my God in vain. (Proverbs 30:7-9) Blessed be Him! :angel:

[Hitch]

If the US government was a corporation with publically traded stock then it would have been prosectuted along with Enron and WorldCom for fraudulent accounting and poor management.LMGAOO





laughmygeneralaccountingofficeoff



Here's one from the PRO; Oregon DOT has turned down a bid for STOP signs at $28 and change in order to pay $37 and change to the OSP,Oregon State Penetentury, for the same signs.

And just in from the Emerald City; (Seattle for you flatlanders) The Washington House has passed as measure to grant state college tuition to illegal immigrants. That means that the SNIPER (cant recall the name) would have been considered a protected student, virtually immune from INS authorities.

H

[Pilgrim]

And I quote from "The Bridge on the River Kwai"

"MADNESS....MADNESS!!"

[Gabby]

In a desire to be the first to post in this forum, I am pulling discussion topic out of my rear-end.

The Bush Administration favors tax cuts for helping to boost the economy by putting money in the pockets of Americans who are spending money, thereby indirectly pumping the caufers.

Opponents favor increasing taxes, thereby directly feed the federal fund.

What do you all think.:hrm:


:pot:

[rogue06]

Bumping/Resurrecting only to show OBP how it's done.