If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   House and Senate pass President's tax plan.   (msnbc.com) divider line 942
    More: News  
•       •       •

4453 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 May 2003 at 10:15 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



942 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-05-23 12:53:02 PM
05-23-03 12:49:39 PM Wayward2

Roads.
State money pays for this. You're lucky you don't pay state income tax.


That comes mostly federal. The money is given to the states from the federal government and the state then distributes the money to all its districts, who then distribute it to their counties.

/transportation planner
 
2003-05-23 12:53:19 PM
Yellowbeard:

I love it when a liberal tries to talk about something he knows nothing about.

The company deducts your wages as an expense and therefore doesn't pay taxes on that portion of its' revenue. When you pay income tax on your pay (probably a miniscule amount) it is taxed for the first time. We're talking federal taxes here, not state or local.

When a company pays dividends they are not able to expense them. Therefore they have to pay income tax on the revenue as though they were able to keep it and utilize it, and the shareholder has to pay income tax on it as well. All to the same taxing entity. This is double taxation.

The greatest benifit to abolishing the dividend tax will be to promote investment in profitable companies, instead of pipe-dreams like most of the dotcoms were. If a company is truly profitable and has a positive cash flow, then it will be able to pay dividends and therefore its' stock will be priced higher. A company that is not profitable, but has a good business plan that should result in future profits will also benifit. Dipsh*t.com that has a business model that will never result in profit will not be funded to begin with.
 
2003-05-23 12:53:24 PM
BenJax

Like StarWars?
 
2003-05-23 12:54:18 PM
"If you wanted to fair about Reagan you might remember 12% unemployment from a guy named Carter. Oh yeah and 21% interst rates and 15% inflation. A defense in the worst shape ever. Reagan did the deal but Congress would not cut spending of the highly protected programs."

Except that if republicans were consistant about their arguments of inheriting economic booms or busts, you would be blaming Nixon and Ford.

But I guess it doesn't work the other way around.
 
2003-05-23 12:54:46 PM
All this "cost" is nothing more than a reduction in the Countrys residual income from its citizens. Someone definitely needs to trim the fat in our government. Starting with removing lifetime payment for some dicks term in public office.

Pisses me off that some senator gets his salary for the rest of his life by working 4 years in office. shiat all you need to do is try to get in office young, work a term, retire.
 
2003-05-23 12:56:34 PM
Efficiency and progress is ours once more
Now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done
Away with excess enemy
But no less value to property
No sense in war but perfect sense at home:

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax to pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light
Jobless millions whisked away
At last we have more room to play
All systems go to kill the poor tonight

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill Kill the poor:Tonight

Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

"Kill the Poor" - Dead Kennedys
 
2003-05-23 12:57:31 PM
SupaDupa
All this "cost" is nothing more than a reduction in the Countrys residual income from its citizens. Someone definitely needs to trim the fat in our government. Starting with removing lifetime payment for some dicks term in public office.


Idiot. The real money comes from the revolving door with the private sector.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/industry/carlyle.htm
 
2003-05-23 12:59:38 PM
I think this tax cut is good.

Dispite what the Democrats (and their media mouthpieces)
say this will spur the economy -- a little (not as much as
the Republicians say).

Besides, I am married this year and was dreading that 'marriage penalty'. Now I get an even lower tax bracket
(yeah!). I also have a little dividend income (not much!).

I also think that Government needs to CUT SPENDING. Get rid of some of those entitlements and subsides (sp?) ESPECIALLY CORPORATE WELFARE.

But, unfortunately I dont expect corporate welfare to be cut -- neither the Reps or Demos will bit the hand that feeds them.
 
2003-05-23 01:00:02 PM
DROxINxTHExWIND
"Boy, step into the light. If the states are struggling now with the money they recieve from the Federal government, what the hell do you think is going to happen when that money diminishes? This is the REAL trickle down.
Tell me how this tax cut helps YOU.
/take time to read something other than the words scrolling under the Fox news reporters."

Here is a radical thought. How about cutting spending? Oh wait, if we try that then people like you will say that the Republicans want old people to die and children to not have milk. The states are in trouble mainly because in the 90s they increased spending so rapidly that when the economy took a downturn they were left in the cold. Look at NYC. They are paying janitors $100k a year for 35 hours a week with enormous benefits. This is the crap I am talking about. This is why the states are in trouble. How this tax cut helps me? Since I am married and we file jointly I will be getting more money in my pocket which will help with bills and saving for a new house.

/try reading something other that Michael Moore books
 
2003-05-23 01:00:44 PM
Hey Modern-

You might want to check your history. The Star Wars program was a hoax to entice the USSR in weapons race that they could not afford. They were the largest producer of oil in the world. Oil went from $38 a barrel to $8 because the US got OPEC nations to pump the shiat out of it while giving them the warplanes they wanted. Reagan brought down the USSR through a multi pronged plan. Cut their revenues and get them to increase defense spending.
 
2003-05-23 01:01:23 PM
NYC has a higher cost of living. They NEED to make 100k or else there would be no janitor who could afford to live in NYC.

SO STFU
biatch
 
2003-05-23 01:01:53 PM
I love watching Farkers discuss tax cuts and the economy. It's like watching my dogs trying to figure out how my car works.
 
2003-05-23 01:02:14 PM
05-23-03 12:53:19 PM Bildo

I agree witht he first two paragraphs,a nd most of the third. Problem with cutting the dividend tax is that dividends are voluntary, anyway. No tax is not an incentive to pay dividends, it just removes one reason not to. Even with the tax, it doesn't effect the company in any great way. They pay the same amoount out whether it's taxed or not. Sure, some shareholders are just in it for capital appreciation, and don't want the income stream, adn they'll likely move to a different company if they really don't like it. However, it's highly unlikely that a group of shareholders will be so mad about getting a taxed dividend that they'll vote out the board or move in such a huge number to affect the stock price, which would recover anyway onceall the income-stream people move in. And yes, I realize that the major stockholders in most companies are institutional, and don't really want to get hit with a dividend tax, but they'll either pass the tax on (by paying out the dividend to fund holders) or change their portfolios.
 
2003-05-23 01:03:07 PM
Of course anyone who is really paying attention should know that what really stimulates the US economy is cheap oil. Why? Expensive oil adds to the cost of almost every good and service in the economy, which benefits no one but the oil companies.

Lets take a look:

Post WWII through 1973 oil crisis: Gas is relatively cheap. Economy is mostly pretty good.

1973-1982

Oil crises of 1973 & 1979 cause gas prices to spike. Economy is in the shiatter - big time. Double digit inflation. Recovery begins when oil prices come down.

1982-1990

Gas prices fall. Economy recovers. Economy even survives nasty stock market crash of 1987.

1990-1993

Gulf War I. Oil prices spike. Recovery begins when oil prices come down.

1993-2000

cheap gas. 1990's boom. People forget that at the height of the so called "internet boom" (1998-99) gas was about $0.75/gal (in S.C. It's now about $1.25/gal) SUV craze starts. This is no coincidence. Economy starts to falter when gas prices go up when OPEC cuts production in 2000.

2000-2003

Gas prices go up. Economy goes down. Now that gas prices are falling, expect prosperity to return around 2004.

As much as they try, the government actually has much less direct control over the economy than people think.
 
2003-05-23 01:03:15 PM
05-23-03 01:00:44 PM BenJaxBchFL

Hey Modern-

You might want to check your history. The Star Wars program was a hoax to entice the USSR in weapons race that they could not afford. They were the largest producer of oil in the world. Oil went from $38 a barrel to $8 because the US got OPEC nations to pump the shiat out of it while giving them the warplanes they wanted. Reagan brought down the USSR through a multi pronged plan. Cut their revenues and get them to increase defense spending.


He almost brought down the USA with the exact same plan, too.
 
2003-05-23 01:04:12 PM
Reagan brought down the USSR through a multi pronged plan. Cut their revenues and get them to increase defense spending.

How...interesing!
 
2003-05-23 01:04:15 PM
NYC has a higher cost of living. They NEED to make 100k or else there would be no janitor who could afford to live in NYC."

I read somehwere that Bloomberg (not my favorite person) could get the unions to work 40 hrs per week, without any pay cuts they couls in reality save $600 million ($?), but the unions refused.
 
2003-05-23 01:04:27 PM
Here's another way to look at it:

The most prolific consumers, and the ones that will do the most to create a demand in industry, are lower to lower-middle income single people with no kids.

The group that will get the least amount of money back is the aforementioned group.

The group that's least likely to vote is, yet again, the aforementioned group.

The people receiving the most money under the tax cuts are the people that vote most frequently.

I think it's pretty apparent what's being done.
 
2003-05-23 01:08:40 PM
ST A -

Actually the US needed to restore its military. I don't know how old you are but I was around then and the military was a joke at the time. What he did was risky, no doubt. What are the savings from the end of the Cold War with them. I don't know but the decision was probably a good investment for us.
 
2003-05-23 01:08:42 PM
BenJaxBchFL

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?
 
2003-05-23 01:09:33 PM
Roads.
State money pays for this. You're lucky you don't pay state income tax.


That comes mostly federal. The money is given to the states from the federal government and the state then distributes the money to all its districts, who then distribute it to their counties.


Then explain why the roads in my state (S.C.) are so much worse than the roads in neighboring N.C., especially considering that N.C. has the largest network of state maintained roads in the country, including many miles in much more mountainous terrain that S.C. has. If maintainance funding was not paid for in a large part by the States, then the quality of roads should be about the same, if not worse in N.C.
 
2003-05-23 01:09:48 PM
Wayward2
Of course anyone who is really paying attention should know that what really stimulates the US economy is cheap oil. Why? Expensive oil adds to the cost of almost every good and service in the economy, which benefits no one but the oil companies.


Don't forget to factor in the costs of national security, acid rain, smog ozone, oil spill clean up, despoilation caused by drilling and global warming.
 
2003-05-23 01:10:10 PM
God Bless America!!
 
2003-05-23 01:10:43 PM
Bildo
Look, let me put it in simpler terms for you, ok?

1. I know that companies are only taxed on net profit, not gross. Nowhere in my previous post did I indicate otherwise. What I, in fact, did say, was that the company that employs me (hypothetically) pays part of my income tax (at the very least, part of my social security, which is money going to the govt for benefit of the masses so I am calling it a tax). So, in fact, they /are/ paying some tax for having me as a worker. If I am wrong on this, please let me know where (I admit sketchiness here) but I want to make clear that I was /not/ making a mistake in the gross/net area you think I was.


2. Look, I work, and make a profit from my work. Yes? Now, I also put my money to work. It also makes a profit form its work. The company in question makes some widgets and sells them. It profits from it's work. Now, anyone who makes a profit (including the money I am putting to work) has to pay some portion of that profit to the governement. Want to not pay a tax on your profit? Have your employees own the company rather than stockholders who have no interest in the company other than as a cash cow and make sure that all the revenues go back into the pockets of the employees (who, after all, are the ones doing all the work) rather than sending it off to stockholders (who are really like a bank, more than anything else - lending money and getting a return on the investment - hmm... do banks get taxed on interest profits? I believe so....).


So - The company makes a profit, and the company is an entity in the eyes of the law so it must pay taxes. Then the company pays back its investors, and they must pay income tax on the income recieved.


All the incomes are taxed only once. And, if you are suggesting that people won't invest because of the taxes they are paying, how to you think that business has thrived all these years?

 
2003-05-23 01:11:10 PM
BenJaxBchFL: I'm sorry, but that's the bat shiat craziest thing that's been said so far in here. If it was a hoax, how did Dubya bring it back and continue work on it? Or was that just a hoax to get N. Korea to drop out of the non-proliferation treaty?
 
2003-05-23 01:11:16 PM
READ THIS YOU LIBERAL COMMIE BASTARDS! Tax breaks benefit the rich because they are the ones paying the taxes! You think you pay a lot of federal taxes with your mall job?
 
2003-05-23 01:12:46 PM
The rich millionares should get a bigger break because they pay a lot more in taxes. Its just fair that way. My small tax break is going to be comparable as a percentage.

/not crying about big bad evil corporations "boo frickin hoo"
 
2003-05-23 01:12:53 PM
Ctenidae:

"People who make, say, $200K a year spend a much lower proportion of their income in general, saving or investing the rest. Savings don't help the economy (at least, not with interest rates this low ), and investments don't do anything but shift money around."

People who make, say, $200K a year buy really expensive sh*t. They buy big houses with hummers in the driveway. they put their kids through college without using financial aid. They eat at nice restaurants. All contributing to the economy. Most households that have that much income do save a lot, but not nearly as much as you would think. If you give them a tax break they might save it, but they might decide to buy that condo in Vail or a new car. The poor tend to spend it on consumables, like beer or food. They both cause economic growth, but in different ways.

Savings helps the economy a lot! The money that banks loan comes from savings. When you buy a house and take out a mortgage, that money comes from thousands of peoples savings accounts and mutual funds. When there is a lot of savings and not enough borrowing, then interest rates drop and can drive housing and auto markets up.

What you need to remember is the top brackets are people making around $125K a year. That is the top 5% of incomes. While it's not chump-change, it's not millions either. A lot of those people live paycheck to paycheck too.

As someone who has the luxury of paying self-employment tax, a lovely 14.5% in addition to income tax, I welcome any tax breaks.
 
2003-05-23 01:13:01 PM
aritificial global warming is only a theory (among many), never proven.

now back to your regularly scheduled comments
 
2003-05-23 01:13:19 PM
After reading a lot of these posts I officially request that someone post the "Arguing on the internet" pic.
 
2003-05-23 01:14:19 PM
Liberals suck... Anyone who is against this new tax plan sucks... The point is, a) we feed our economy and cause a boost b) rich people get more money back because they PAY more in the first place c) if you want more money, don't try to get it for free, get a damn job and work for it. thanks.
 
2003-05-23 01:15:01 PM
Modern-

Do be honest I really do not want to do a search to find the stuff. But seriously, the laser shot from space at a target on earth was staged. It was shown on our network evening news shows. It was later reported that it was a hoax AFTER the fall of the USSR. The US governement sold fighter jets to prominent member nations of OPEC at a time when oil prices were rapidly falling. The former Soviet Union was the largest producer of all at the time.

Check for yourself. I do not think it will be that hard to find.
 
2003-05-23 01:15:43 PM
Good point BILERISE

/damn liberals
 
2003-05-23 01:16:12 PM
WELCOME to 'TINKLE DOWN ECONOMICS' where the rich piss on the not so rich.
 
2003-05-23 01:16:16 PM
Don't forget to factor in the costs of national security, acid rain, smog ozone, oil spill clean up, despoilation caused by drilling and global warming.

I didn't say economic prosperity doesn't come without a price did I?

These are all valid problems (except man-made global warming, which is complete bullshiat). The best solution is to come up with more efficient, clean burning technology. Reduce the demand for oil (and keep productivity constant, or better yet, increase it), the price goes down as well.
 
2003-05-23 01:16:27 PM
What you need to remember is the top brackets are people making around $125K a year. That is the top 5% of incomes. While it's not chump-change, it's not millions either. A lot of those people live paycheck to paycheck too.

So I am supposed to feel as sorry for someone making $125,000 per year who still has to live paycheck to paycheck as I am for someone who makes $5.25 per hour?!


PLEASE.

 
2003-05-23 01:16:53 PM
To everyone pointing out all the government spending we can cut:

Why are you trying to change the subject? Why are you trying to thread-jack? This tax cut has exactly nothing to do with spending. If you think it should,. I agree with you! But no matter how much many of us would like to see some connection between taxing and spending, there is no connection in this bill. The government is cutting revenue at the same time it is increasing spending. And Gee! I guess we just cant blame the Democrats this time.

To every one talking about the government letting you keep more or your money. I would like to point out that your share of the national debt is $22,202 and rising. That figure is per citizen, NOT per taxpayer. I recently bought a new car. Being the frugal type I saved my money and paid cash. Would I be pleased if the dealer turned around and gave me a rebate of some of MY money? Yet I would. Would I be pleased to find out that the refund of MY money and be financed in my name and I will have to pay it back, with INTEREST! No I would not.

The government has taken out a loan in your name so that keep more of your money. But the government will make you pay your own money back with interest.

LETS CUT SPENDING! But we need to do that first. Defending tax cuts based on hypothetical spending cuts is just stupid. Lets cut spending FIRST! Then we can talk about who should get a cut.
 
2003-05-23 01:17:15 PM
Father_Jack

It is that easy. I did it, and so can everyone else with half a brain and a little dedication. After two years of living on $6k a year, I decided I'd had anough of this hand-to-mouth shiat. Four years later I was making $70k. That was three years ago, and now I'm even higher on the foodchain. It all comes down to one thing: "How hard are you willing to work to earn more?"
 
2003-05-23 01:17:38 PM
Alba -

Star Wars - using satellites to shoot laser beams to blow up nuclear warheads before they could leave their missle silos was a hoax. It was broadcasted on our news and later broadcasted that it was a hoax.
 
2003-05-23 01:18:05 PM
IamEvil
READ THIS YOU LIBERAL COMMIE BASTARDS! Tax breaks benefit the rich because they are the ones paying the taxes! You think you pay a lot of federal taxes with your mall job?


Sorry, I tuned out after the typo in the opening sentence.
 
2003-05-23 01:18:06 PM
READ THIS YOU LIBERAL COMMIE BASTARDS!

Ah, the mating call of the rabidly selfish.

Dude, I'm no hardcore leftist (or hardcore right-winger) but please, all of you, come up with better insults. Or better yet, you could actually READ what other people have to say and have an INTELLIGENT debate.

/goes back to reading

Wait, what the hell am I thinking? This is fark....Ah, how I love fark.
 
2003-05-23 01:19:10 PM
"The rich millionares should get a bigger break because they pay a lot more in taxes. Its just fair that way. My small tax break is going to be comparable as a percentage."

Except the point of this tax cut sold on the premise that it would stimulate tghe economy, not give everyone an equal percentage of tax relief.
 
2003-05-23 01:20:32 PM
Albatross: I went the other route and did volunteer work with the poor for a few years. Maybe you should try the same. I'll help you get a better perspective on the reality of the situation.


Unfortunately, because of something called population density, most poor people aren't the quaint appalachian folks you seem to be talking about who eat rice and beans all the time. Inner city poor is the epidemic.
 
2003-05-23 01:21:10 PM
CapnWacky: I did work in and around Detroit. Guess again!
 
2003-05-23 01:21:43 PM
it WILL stimulate the economy you dumb5h1t! the point of everyone getting equal percentage is so that no one gets ticked off bc someone is getting a larger portion of what they pay back. but still, greedy poor liberals want more money back because they feel it is our job to support their lives... BS
 
2003-05-23 01:22:23 PM
05-23-03 01:19:10 PM Shut........UP
...
Except the point of this tax cut sold on the premise that it would stimulate tghe economy, not give everyone an equal percentage of tax relief.


Well met.
 
2003-05-23 01:22:44 PM
TheReject

Wow. Well there you go. And I bet you come from a broken home, have no college education, have an IQ of 100 and no home or car. I can't believe you have made it so far!


Look, you got lucky. You may have worked hard too, but you also got really lucky. First off, I bet you're white - that's a very lucky thing in this country. Second, I bet you didn't start out in the inner city, and thirdly, as you seemt to have good English skills and are able to use that computer so skillfully, I bet you are reasonably intelligent. Plus you got lucky.


Go tell the people working 40 hours per week, 10 hours solid per night from 12:00am until 8:00am that if all they would do is work harder, they could make 70k too - oh, but make sure to do it down there on the line while they all have their filet knives in their hands, please.

 
2003-05-23 01:22:44 PM
Further, I don't think it's a question of which group pays more taxes, it's a question of:

1. Whether a tax cut will work in the first place.
2. If tax cuts will stimulate the economy, which type of tax cut would work best? A tax cut that benefits the rich but does not cut taxes for average Joe, or vice versa.
 
2003-05-23 01:24:03 PM
"it WILL stimulate the economy you dumb5h1t! "

I'll just that speak for itself.
 
2003-05-23 01:24:05 PM
Astute Readers of which there are not many,
Can anyone tell me why 5 out of the last 6 recessions occurred when a Republican was in office?

Typical Conservative Response:
"It's because of legislation from the prior administration", usually pointing to Clinton or other party.

If you don't already know, as far back as 1873, Republicans and thier mangled idea of "Fiscal Prudence" has led America to the unemployment line every time. The only Demoncrat that ever served during a Recession was Carter in 1980.
Some food for the flames.
 
Displayed 50 of 942 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report