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  
•       •       •

4452 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 | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-05-23 02:08:50 PM
you're all fools.
 
2003-05-23 02:09:37 PM
 
2003-05-23 02:10:30 PM
OregonVet
Less taxes will result in less gov't spending...

I think history has shown that what the IRS takes in and what Congress spends are RARELY in balance.
 
2003-05-23 02:11:19 PM
Yellowbeard:

Your a commie!! Does that help?

I started to type a long drawn-out response trying to explain the difference between 'loaning' and 'investing', but decided to just try to explain my own situation instead.

I own a small business. It is not a corporation. When I make a profit it is included in my income and taxed just like yours. (except for the self employment tax that I mentioned earlier) If I form this business into a corporation to protect myself from litigation, why should I be taxed twice just to realise my profit?

You said:

"if I am a small business, and I borrow money from a bank to start my business, does the bank own my business or do I?"

You own it and the bank is a creditor. They have a stake in its' survival until they are repaid, but they do not own it.

"but I still think that we should be doing things that benefit the bottom rung of society more than the top - I think that makes the most business sense."

I think we should do things that benifit all of society, not just the bottom. If giving tax breaks to people who make more money will create jobs and help those who make less then that sounds pretty good.

Personally I would like to see a larger decrease in the income tax rates, but I can see why the dividend tax cut makes economic sense.
 
2003-05-23 02:12:11 PM
BenJaxBchFL:

Russia was fearful that their missles had been rendered useless and obsolete. I am 47 and have always followed the news, politics and current events. I remember this all to well. Reagan pulled one over on the Soviets and it worked.


Reagan pulled one over on the Taxpayers and the Soviets. The taxpayers bought it. The Soviets did not. I am 49 and I have also always followed events. I well remember people giving credit to Reagan for bringing down Communism. The reasoning goes like this.

Reagan launches SDI.
Soviets had to increase military and government spending to compensate. (or so people later said)
Soviet economy and government collapse.
Reagan fans claim that the plan all along was to fool the Soviets into collapsing.

But this is what I remember

Reagan launches SDI
Reagan spends a lot of time selling SDI to the taxpayers.
Soviets make no changes in military spending other then expenses for Afghanistan.
Reputable scientists try to convince Reagan administration that SDI will not work.
Reagan quietly backs away from SDI after spending billions on research.
Soviet economy continues its long 50-year decline. Soviet government finally falls apart.
Reagan supporters credit Reagan and SDI for winning the cold war.
 
2003-05-23 02:12:43 PM
Father_Jack wrote:

What pisses me off is those who have never had to learn to fish condemn those who are learning to do so who havent been able to do so for a variety of reasons as bottom-feeding scumbags who leech off society. Certainly there are those out there who want a free ride, but most arent. My wife teaches the children of this class of people, they bust their asses. But to the rich guy in the 325i, they're just the mexicans who clean the hotel rooms.


ah yes another wonderful left wing slippery slope hypothetical from Father_Jack.

Well that's where the rub is, isn't it. The left say that the ones who abuse the system are out there but are few in number. Well then why in the hell does it cost so much money. You know why J, because there is a shiatload of them.

I am in Florida. I have a buddy who owns fern farms in central Florida. I know that hard work is performed. But I also live in Jacksonville and I also know that many are sitting around doing nothing or are scamming the system.

The problem in the US is not the taxation but the compensation. Corporate laws allow for abuses of compensation that would not otherwise be afforded to others by people who did not have a vested interest in their disbursement. I am speaking of those who can vote their stock. That is the reform that is needed.

As always Father_J a real pleasure.
 
2003-05-23 02:14:19 PM
05-23-03 02:08:21 PM Yellowbeard
OregonVet

Wait - two of these sets of 8?
----

I'm so there. Each of those look like .5 liter glasses (except the one in the front), so....two sets...

Thats about 8liters, or 8 oktoberfest Masskruge (steins).

I put down 5 liters last time i was there, i bet i could 8 this time. :)

I'll get the first round. SHUT UP can drink Weissbier, i'll stick with Helles or Dunkles, and i promise to hold your head when you throw up.
 
2003-05-23 02:15:21 PM
Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed America, your goverment is in control. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their farking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!

/Bill Hicks
 
2003-05-23 02:16:01 PM
Heh, Father you don't get it. What I was saying is that economic conditions have been consistent since the Carter administration.

Carter Administration = economy was ok and really started to suck at the end.

Reagan Admin = economy sucked at first and got better.

Last part of Reagan, first of Bush = resession finally ended from Carter Administration

Clinton = raised taxes, economy fourished

Bush = result of raised taxes made its impact. Bush blamed.
 
2003-05-23 02:16:35 PM
Burn98 -

Do you remember seeing on the nightly news the footage of a target being destroyed from space?

Do you remember later after the collapse that it was admitted to be staged?

You left out the the price of oil. It fell 80%. USSr was the largest producer. Revenues were cut so bad they could not keep up if they wanted to.
 
2003-05-23 02:16:53 PM
"I'll get the first round. SHUT UP can drink Weissbier, i'll stick with Helles or Dunkles, and i promise to hold your head when you throw up."

ya, where were you Oktoberfest 1988 when I passed out in the bahnoff for 2 days?
 
2003-05-23 02:16:57 PM
It seems some very good (and very bad) points were made on both sides. But really folks, it isn't difficult to understand. I'm not here to flame the left (like usual), but on a more serious note:

The tax cuts would put thousands of dollars back into the hands of the people who actually earned that money the top 30% of income earners. And what would they do with that money? Keep it in a drawer for safe keeping? Hardly. They would either invest it or spend it. Either way, our economy would grow. Economic growth would mean more manufacturing. More manufacturing would mean more jobs. More jobs would benefit who? Those on the lower end of the income scale who are suffering from layoffs and wage stagnation, thats who. Trouble is, the very people who would benefit from the increased economic growth that would come from Bushs tax cut are people who, thanks to our government schools, are too economically illiterate to recognize it.

Seriously people, think about it and stop listening to what you hear by the media (right and left).
 
2003-05-23 02:16:58 PM

I have an off-topic quesiton. I can type fark (but you all know what word I really mean) and I can type shiat (but you all know what word I really mean). Why can't we just skip the interpretation and type the actual words? And please give me a better reason than, "because Drew decrees it such." (Actually, I guess I am really asking this of Drew.)

Just curious, really

 
ESH
2003-05-23 02:19:19 PM
Cutting income tax is fine, but as I suspect, most states (who are already cash strapped) will start raising things like property tax, etc. I think this has already happened in KS.

When I worked at IBM, they basically implemented a 20% total compensation reduction. They did not touch salaries and the raises where on a par with the industry at large, but they nickle and dimed us on benefits. In all, in the 4 years I was there, I took a pay cut every year.

So, I don't put too much stock in this taxt cut because I imagine the gov (Fed, State or Local) will milk you for what they can anyway.

And, also, to rant a bit, a person who is unemployed or has a low paying job is not necessarily a worthless, uneducated piece of shait trailer-trash loser on welfare.

Those of you that have good jobs, good for you, but don't piss on everyone else that isn't as fortunate. If you do, don't expect much sympathy if you happen to get 'surplused' this year. Karma is a mean biatch.
 
2003-05-23 02:19:36 PM


The Bush administration vs. its economists
The Economic Report of the President contradicts President Bush and other top officials.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030213.html
 
2003-05-23 02:21:41 PM
Sigh this is so far into the thread no one's even gonna read it but here it goes:

It's OK to cut taxes. The real problem in this country is massive government waste/pork barrel spending. We lose BILLIONS of dollars from pork barrel legislation, tax loopholes, uncollected taxes, and waste. We can cut taxes, reduce waste, and actually have more government revenue than before... but whatever...
 
2003-05-23 02:22:37 PM
hey all you pinkos: we're overtaxed. This tax cut is good. Go back and read Sector_9's entry about 18 more times.
 
2003-05-23 02:23:17 PM
Father_Jack

Mmmmmmm.... Masses. I keep about 8 of them in my cabinents from the Munich Hoffbrauhaus. (Did I spell that right?) You know the worst part? I didn't make it to Octoberfest the year I was in Europe. /Really/ need to go back and experience that. Have heard that Tulsa has a good one - may go this year.

 
2003-05-23 02:23:54 PM
Yellowbeard

because the thread would fill up with horrible profanity, of course. People would write offensive things like

"you cocksmoking asshole cumstain!" and with no filter in place you would be able to actually see those horrible offensive words. See the filter protects you.

Oh, uh... nevermind
 
2003-05-23 02:26:25 PM
BEN
well, i guess we're both products of our environments then arent we. I dont have that same perception here in CA that you do in FL.

If i lived in Jax, maybe id feel the same way.

The view of Jax i get from watching "cops" would sure suggest it. :)

As to "how many" are abusing the system, I dont know. To be honest, i cant say with certainty one way or the other, and i bet you cant either, youve got a gut feeling same as me.

My main point was i dislike the over-all feeling of contempt that Americans in general tend to show for the poor, and i wish people would see eachother in a less adversarial light. But then, thats just part of the american two dimensional experience, everything is "us them", from our politics to our social policies.

---The problem in the US is not the taxation but the compensation. Corporate laws allow for abuses of compensation that would not otherwise be afforded to others by people who did not have a vested interest in their disbursement. I am speaking of those who can vote their stock. That is the reform that is needed.---

Explain a little further?
 
2003-05-23 02:27:23 PM
Billy Willy's got it,
Think of the tax burden that most people (I said people like dems and repubs) face because many large corporations don't pay taxes at all. Enron hadn't paid taxes in a decade and think of the profits (I guess) they made.
Whole "Locked Box" thing sounds pretty good right about now. What's going to happen to S.S. and Medicare when they need to be reformed? Al Gore's so corny.
 
2003-05-23 02:27:38 PM
Carter Administration = economy was ok and really started to suck at the end.
Reagan Admin = economy sucked at first and got better.

Last part of Reagan, first of Bush = resession finally ended from Carter Administration

Clinton = raised taxes, economy fourished

Bush = result of raised taxes made its impact. Bush blamed.

I want proof. Now.
 
2003-05-23 02:28:10 PM
SHUT UP
---ya, where were you Oktoberfest 1988 when I passed out in the bahnoff for 2 days?---

in high school. sorry. :)
 
2003-05-23 02:29:06 PM
i love canada and this is why!

no republicans!

taxes benefit a society. they pay for education, they pay for health care. universal health care. i love those three words. they pay for welfare, they pay for cultural improvements, they pay for roads and police and everything.

of course, it would be nicer if they were lower, but then probably things would not work as well.
 
2003-05-23 02:29:41 PM
OregonVet:

Less taxes will stimulate the economy.


I agree. It is a theory with many logical arguments, but without any proof, to support it. However, it makes sense to me.

Less taxes will result in less gov't spending

This is so very different then historical experience, that I do not see how anyone can believe it. The current government is cutting taxes and spending more! When will spending get cut? This is just wishful thinking.

There is no cause and effect relationship between taxes and spending. There should be! But there is not! Currently we have a cause and effect relationship between taxes and borrowing with spending rising at a constant rate.

if you helpless wimps could figure out how to not rely on the government for every little thing.

I think most of us would like the government to do a lot less then it does. The trouble is we always want the other guys benefits to go away. The politicians try to spend on everybody, so everybody will like them, and re-elect them.

Start with this list. Any person with an IQ holding at room temperature can figure out this list is too long.

Yes! Very true. However, believing that cutting taxes will have any impact on that list is science fiction.

Life will never be like on Star Trek. Get over it and get back to work.
 
2003-05-23 02:32:12 PM
The tax cuts would put thousands of dollars back into the hands of the people who actually earned that money the top 30% of income earners. And what would they do with that money? Keep it in a drawer for safe keeping? Hardly. They would either invest it or spend it. Either way, our economy would grow. Economic growth would mean more manufacturing. More manufacturing would mean more jobs. More jobs would benefit who?

They would invest it *if* they felt it would provide a return. With our economy's already high level of excess idle capacity, why would anybody invest in building yet another factory?

Even if they did, why would they build it here, when the same factory can be built overseas and operated for FAR less money?

If the tax cut spurs investment at all, don't assume that those investment dollars will end up being ploughed back into America.
 
2003-05-23 02:32:36 PM
Carter Administration = economy was ok and really started to suck at the end.

Reagan Admin = economy sucked at first and got better.

Last part of Reagan, first of Bush = resession finally ended from Carter Administration

Clinton = raised taxes, economy fourished

Bush = result of raised taxes made its impact. Bush blamed.


did raised taxes cause september 11th, a consumer confidence crisis, and enron?

hmm.

yeah, no, i didn't think so.
 
2003-05-23 02:33:18 PM
Why is it that poor and homeless people are refered to as less-fortunate and the rich are refered to as fortunate or lucky?

Did they just all win the lottery? You have to win the lottery to get rich? Pleeeeaaase, somebody explain.
 
2003-05-23 02:35:19 PM
Crimethink

Exactly friend. Too many theories on this page make the automatic assumption that money returned will automaticly be spent.

Either way, our economy would grow.

Meaning, even if they did not reinvest the money, the economy would improve, right?

I need some proof to support this claim.
 
2003-05-23 02:35:59 PM
05-23-03 02:16:57 PM Sector_9

Seriously people, think about it and stop listening to what you hear by the media (right and left).


Everything you said has been proven incorrect above. try again.
 
2003-05-23 02:37:32 PM
05-23-03 02:33:18 PM Sector_9

Why is it that poor and homeless people are refered to as less-fortunate and the rich are refered to as fortunate or lucky?

Did they just all win the lottery? You have to win the lottery to get rich? Pleeeeaaase, somebody explain.


It is only a lottery when you're talking about how people can go from being poor to becoming rich. The system is setup so this only happens a small percentage of the time. It is almost always the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. Reagan made the gap between the middle and upper classes the farthest it has been in years.
 
2003-05-23 02:38:18 PM
Assumption,
The economy is driven by people spending money.

If this assumption is true why is giving people more of their own money to spend bad for the economy.

Biggest argument I have seen so far is more Gov. debt, my response is so what? Lets say we run up a huge deficit, what impact does it have on us personally, I can tell you I was not effected by huge deficits in the 80's, I did not benifit by surpluses in the 90's. As I see it worst case scenario would be that all the gov creditors call in the bills at once, gov says sorry money is not here right now, we will pay you over time (much like us normal people do to collection agencys) How is this bad, it is not like they can reposses the white house, the Gov does not own anything that really drives the economy that is what buisness are for. can someone explain with real facts and possibly sources why our nation being in debt is a bad thing?
 
2003-05-23 02:41:01 PM
BenJaxBchFL:

Do you remember seeing on the nightly news the footage of a target being destroyed from space?

Do you remember later after the collapse that it was admitted to be staged?


Yes. I remember. However, I have always believed it was staged because no one wanted to admit to the taxpayers that they had bought a huge failure. Later, after the USSR died, they said they had cleverly fooled the Soviets.

You left out the price of oil. It fell 80%. USSr was the largest producer. Revenues were cut so bad they could not keep up if they wanted to.

Correct. Of course, the price of oil and the Soviet economy had fluctuated before. The fact that the USSR could not survive the downturn that time was a result of a long decline.
 
2003-05-23 02:41:17 PM
Ok, let me see if i get this straight. Give the rich more tax breaks and they will re-invest the money back into the economy making everything better. Using this logic, why wouldn't be a good idea if the rich paid NO taxes at all. That way, the could invest even MORE into the economy making things even better yet. What is wrong with this logic?
 
2003-05-23 02:41:54 PM
For the long term growth of this country, it is more important to pay down the debt than any short term (possible) gain from a tax cut.

Especially since the short-term gain from this tax cut is questionable.

Let's face it, Reagan blew our wad when he raised the debt to unprecedented highs. Clinton paid off some of that. But now, Bush II is trying to build it up again.

And this tax cut is almost the worst of all possible worlds. It has an expiration date, so that investors are unlikely to invest the money or plan long-term; and it's slanted towards the upper levels of income, so that it won't give the economy a boost by increasing commodity purchases or instilling consumers with confidence.
 
2003-05-23 02:42:03 PM
"If it's privatized, it will be less efficient because it will not be publically accountable"

Of all the amazing things written in this thread, this one is the most entertaining.
 
2003-05-23 02:42:12 PM
05-23-03 01:50:43 PM Fenster2

"Good thing Bush is making up for the economic mess that Clinton gave us."

Exactly. It takes 3 to 10 years for economic stymulus to actually start showing results. What we saw in the Cinton days were the results of Reagan and Bush. Now we're experiencing what Clinton gave us. Give us 2 to 5 more years and hopefully things will be looking up. Also, hopefully we won't get another pussy liberal in the Whitehouse to screw things up again.


LOL! Classic! I get it. Its Clintons fault the economy was going down before he took office, right? You right wingers just refuse to put any blame on your lovable Presidents. Its quite hilarious. Clintons policies did not hurt the economy at all, it took its natural downward spiral after the dot-busts. The problem is, Bush Jr. took office and did not help the economy at all. Hence the reason why it continues to fall.
 
2003-05-23 02:42:17 PM
The only things for certain here is that if you are under the age of 40, your Social Security has been voted away and those bvllshiat dems in the government are going to start crying in a month about how they didnt want a tax cut. Kinda like how tom daschle cried about the prez not letting diplomacy work with iraq after he voted to abdicate his powers to the prez to go to war. The tax cut is not going to fuel the economy. If you are living on the paychech to paycheck plan, like most of us, then you are going to save the couple hundred bucks or drink it while you are depressed about the pathetic economic situation.
 
2003-05-23 02:42:35 PM
someone explain with real facts and possibly sources why our nation being in debt is a bad thing?

Dont have any hard data here, but it would diminish confidence in the purchasing power of the dollar, ergo inflation (and hyperinflation) would ensue.
 
2003-05-23 02:42:39 PM
Sector_9: And what would they do with that money? Keep it in a drawer for safe keeping? Hardly. They would either invest it or spend it.
You mean like they did last time? None of them will save money? This plan did not work last time and it will not work this time, in terms of jobs. I'm sure the record-breaking deficits will be real positive for long-term prospects.
 
2003-05-23 02:43:18 PM
BurnDown99

Either way, our economy would grow.

I think the assumption was that the rich would either spend or invest the extra money--i.e. there was no chance the wealthy person would want to keep that money in a savings account...
 
2003-05-23 02:43:24 PM
Sector_9 - Why is it that poor and homeless people are refered to as less-fortunate and the rich are refered to as fortunate or lucky?

Back to political correctness reeducation camp for you!

You should know by now, there's no such thing as people who are poor because they are too dumb and/or lazy to work, or people who are rich because they worked their asses off for years and years.

Some people are magically born rich for no apparent reason. Being a white male has a lot to do with it. And these people also have the ability to exploit other people by..umm..making them poor somehow, which is where class differences come from. Got it? No? Then you're a horrible, greedy, humanity-hating oppressive capitalist asshole. End of discussion.
 
2003-05-23 02:44:22 PM
Crimethink,

I understand you want proof and can respect that because I always like to see proof myself. But you misunderstood my statment "Either way, our economy would grow." What I meant by either way is investing or spending.
 
2003-05-23 02:44:47 PM
To those who support a flat tax:

People who make >1000000 bucks have more to lose if they don't get services like police, fire stations. Who has the most time to drive on the roads? Who goes to the better public schools (okay, maybe they go to private schools, but I'm sure there's some who go to public)?

Who steals/burns things that poorer people own?

Yes, poorer people are more likely to use food stamps/welfare, and things of that nature, but a few years ago Congress did a study on abuse of the welfare system, turns out the study actually cost more than the amount of money lost on the abuse of the system. Most of it is going to people who need it.

Flame on flamers.
 
2003-05-23 02:46:19 PM
Father_Jack -

First, I completely agree with the "us/them" portrayal.

The right always wants to say that the top 1% pay 50% of the tax or something along those lines. Given the tax tables that would mean that the same 1% are earning somewhere around 30-40% of the money made in the US. Is that fair? Probably not, even if it is being done honestly. My contention is that it is not. Wall Street today is primarily controlled by the mutual fund managers. Ask any broker worth his salt and he will tell you they move the market. Most of that money is from pension and retirement funds. Most of that money is owned by our citizens, middle America. However if you were to ask any of those shareholders if they thought that these CEO's, borad members, etc. deserved their compensation levels or golden parachutes they would respond with an emphatic no. So how does it happen? No one is monitoring the corporate structure. Board members agree to these packages because they have sweetheart deals themselves. Joe Smo has no influence since he does not vote his shares on individual stocks because they are part of his mutual fund. It's a "wink and a nod" enviroment for corporate America and it is wrong. We as a nation are suffering greatly from this inequity. Unchecked, it will worsen while we argue taxation. Remember, "it's the economy, stupid"? Well, "it's the compensation".
 
2003-05-23 02:46:31 PM
According to that chart it estimates someone
making 63,000(single) a year pays about 8-1/2 grand
a year. I paid over a 11,000 last in just federal taxes.
Am I reading that chart wrong?
 
2003-05-23 02:46:35 PM
Sector_9

congratulations on one of the best fark posts ever.

unfortunatly you will now be shouted down by people who can see more then "evil republicans" cutting taxes. of course you will never be able to explain to them that it is touggh to give back all the money to people who don't pay much in to begin with.

great post though.
 
2003-05-23 02:46:43 PM
Thanks for deleting my post, mods!


I HOPE YOU DRINK SKUNKED BEER!!
 
2003-05-23 02:47:01 PM
No I'm sorry I was wrong, this is the most entertaining:

"
taxes benefit a society. they pay for education, they pay for health care. universal health care. i love those three words. they pay for welfare, they pay for cultural improvements, they pay for roads and police and everything.

of course, it would be nicer if they were lower, but then probably things would not work as well.
"
 
2003-05-23 02:47:56 PM
I think a lot of poor people are fortunate. Everytime I manage to save a bunch of cash it's so stressful knowing what to do with it. I don't think rich people are more fortunate, I think a lot of them are more priveleged. Now that the stock market is worth half as much now though a lot of that "old money" that people have isn't worth as much. Now that's something "they" can worry about.
 
Displayed 50 of 942 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report