News No more Pres.Bush!

  • Thread starter Turtle
  • Start date

damgo

russ, did you happen to read this editorial by Warren Buffet a couple days ago? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13113-2003May19.html [Broken]
Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income -- about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office.

....Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.

And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly. Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.

...

When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party.

Supporters of making dividends tax-free like to paint critics as promoters of class warfare. The fact is, however, that their proposal promotes class welfare. For my class.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
238
0
Originally posted by Zero
What is with this insane hatred of taxes? It sounds pretty unresonable to me.
I wonder the same thing, nobody likes taxes, but would we have security and protection without them?

I don't know about taxing your paycheck so much, we don't work for the government, and I don't know about paying the government for my work. It seems odd that the government taxes you for making money, but I agree wholeheartedly with property tax, sales tax, import tax and such. I would even say up the tax on the above mentioned and lower income taxes etc.
 
Originally posted by russ_watters
Since the rich already pay the vast majority of all taxes, they are of course the ones who are going to "pay it in the end." No one else has the money to pay for liberal largesse. And since the rich are the ones who need the LEAST from the government, their tax burden is actually even higher than the typically quoted numbers.
I think that most rich people use public roads a good deal, whether driving or being chauffered. I think that a lot of rich people benefit a great deal from FAA (Federal Aviation Administration or something like that) guidelines and enforcement. A lot of rich people benefit a lot from copyright, trademark, and patent laws.

Most people don't subtract the handouts from the taxes to get the real net payment. We can't do that because that would turn the bottom 75% or so of the population into freeloaders.
Handouts like welfare, or public services? Most people don't get welfare, and most people, including the rich, use public services.

Also, I know we've been over this already, but since the rich pay the vast majority of all taxes, the vast majority of all tax cuts go to the rich. This should be self evident.
So, because they're richer, they should get more tax cuts? How is it that you should pay less percent in taxes as you make more money?
 

schwarzchildradius

I love that Buffet quote.
Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
Even HE doesn't see that as fair! Why? It's not fair. Nor will it do the things that politicians say. Rather it will do things that economists say.

Also, I know we've been over this already, but since the rich pay the vast majority of all taxes, the vast majority of all tax cuts go to the rich. This should be self evident.
That's exactly why its unfair. If you make over $300,000 per year, congratulations, Bush is your man. Otherwise, you must be a welfare sucking leech. It's no crime to be rich, but y'know, its a privilage to live in this country and benefit from the protection and freedom here.
 
I should have also pointed out all the rich businessmen who get governmental subsidies...big agriculture people and such.
 
1
0
Alright, time to get you people in line... First off if anyone wants to read economic books b4 posting something on a tax cut that would be great... turtle your jumping to a conclusion, a stupid conclusion at that. 26% of our gross domestic product comes from the top 1% of our population... This new tax cut averages at 67$ for joe sixpack on the corner and 90,000 dollars for joe millionaire... knowing that, this tax cut clearly relieves our richest from the overwhelming financial burden which is already upon him.

here is what happens in your tax ideal

1. rich taxed
2. poor become richer due to rich taxed
3. rich are not in capacity to expand there own endeavors because of financial burden of taxing and thus cannot create 500 new jobs at a factory they wanted to build
4. poor temporarily have money but economy halts...
5. poor cant find jobs
6. rich taxed furthermore
7. cycle continues...

ofcourse an oversimplification and YES i do see some advantages to giving the poor money but definately not at the expense of the rich.

this is capitalism turtle, the rich need not to be restrained... if you want a heavy welfare state, go to europe, see what happens when socialism is the principal.

____________________________

as for the death of the democratic party i do not believe this will happen because we have an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the USA and i do believe that the republicans will amnestize them soon so that they can tax them... after being amnestized, the minorities will undoubtably vote democratic as most minorities do...
 

Zero

Originally posted by Mattius_

3. rich are not in capacity to expand there own endeavors because of financial burden of taxing and thus cannot create 500 new jobs at a factory they wanted to build
Well, thanks for your progressive attitudes towards 'minorities'...


And thanks for pointing out teh flaw in the tax-cut reasoning! We already had a huge tax cut for the rich, and what happened? 2 million lost jobs under Bush. That 'tax burden' isn't what is stoppingthem from expanding, trust me. Oh, and I guess the Nobel Prize-winning economists who are agaisnt the tax cut should read some books too?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
1
0
well zero you certainly do enjoy asserting that i am not open to the the perspective that you have presented but the fact is that i am aware that many people see a plausible lower class economic stimulas and i am also aware that some of these people are educated moreso than me.

and im sorry if you took my amensty hypothesis as stereotypical and/or deurogatory but the statistics show that minorities vote democratic by a large scale...
 

Zero

Originally posted by Mattius_
well zero you certainly do enjoy asserting that i am not open to the the perspective that you have presented but the fact is that i am aware that many people see a plausible lower class economic stimulas and i am also aware that some of these people are educated moreso than me.

and im sorry if you took my amensty hypothesis as stereotypical and/or deurogatory but the statistics show that minorities vote democratic by a large scale...
Well..ok. Darn you are polite! Anyhoo, rich people look to shelter their income from taxes anyways, which should count as a big enough tax break already. A good healthy living wage for everyone would do more good than any tax cut...and would be an action on the part of business that would warrant a compensatory tax cut, don't you think?

BTW, your attitude towards immigrants, illegal or not, strikes me as being vaguely racist, just so you know. Wouldn't it be better for everyone to try to avoid even teh impresion of racism?
 
1
0
Yes i do think that racism is LARGELY over-sensatized right now but i think that it is only natural... At my school i turned a paper into my ethnic studies teacher(inherent socialist/democrat) and she inferred that i was racist because i confronted the issue of immigration in a more frank manner than what she considered was acceptable...

in my opinion, most sensative race definitives only add to the division of race by striking out at the people who want to get things done... so to anyone who strongly believes that i am racist by reading 1 sentence i shall remark, kiss my donkey...

btw i am not pointing my finger at you zero...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zero

The race thing is off-topic...(but, if people keep telling you that you might be racist...try to err on the side of caution next time, ok? If you have anything else to say on this, start a different thread, or catch me in a PM, ok?)
 
1
0
lol funny censor... i wonder what i would say for **** , **** , or bastard hehehe
 

LogicalAtheist

The implication that pure racism is purposeless would probably be correct. However actualistic racism is a very positive outlook. It serves purpose on many levels, and is a very succesfull way of viewing a population from the terms of safety issues, which is important in regards to the illegal immigrant problem.
 

Zero

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
The implication that pure racism is purposeless would probably be correct. However actualistic racism is a very positive outlook. It serves purpose on many levels, and is a very succesfull way of viewing a population from the terms of safety issues, which is important in regards to the illegal immigrant problem.
Off-topic, bud...
 

schwarzchildradius

Mattius, I like your style of analysis. You're right, it is capitalism, folks. States are already raising fees and levying taxes, while laying people off. It's what- a service economy? Here's what will happen a-la Mattius's progression:

1) rich and not-rich (defined as <3E5$)invest in big movers like Worldcom and Bechtel. Investment income soars.
2) burden for infrastructure maintenance (teachers, all govt employees&contracts) shifted to state level, paid for by such fees as vehicle registration and minimum wage overtime. Government cuts funds to "non-essential" componants s/a EPA, and internal security.
3) Government debt soars! Interest on debt wipes out national wealth.
4) Stock market plundered by Worldcom and Bechtel. Joke on Saturday night Live is not funny.
5) World Bank fails! Distribution centers in 3rd world countries controlled by al-Qaeda.

Muhallo
 

LogicalAtheist

Originally posted by Turtle
In the 2004 election I hope Pres.Bush does not win. His tax-cut would only benefit the weathly. He is not for all americans ie. his support of senator santorium. When it comes to his campaign Bush will use the murder of people on 9-11 for his own good.

Bushes tax cut will benefit the wealthy more, and the democrats will benefit the poor.

I am in the "wealthy" catagory. You must be in the poor, or average. You won't ever get a democratic president in those two parties. Look for a runner who wants a flat tax % for all. Obviously, it's the only way to be "fair" as they say.

Also, I don't think that Bush will be able to use the war in Iraq in his favor too much, as he did not kill Saddam Hussein, so current news says anyways.

It all depends on who he runs against. Believe me, both major opponents will be as nasty, ruthless, powerhungry, egomaniacal, and anti-humanitarian as ever...
 

LogicalAtheist

It's the nature of power, that one would seek to obtain power only to empower oneself.

It doesn't make sense that one could have such a drive to obtain power only to use it for others.
 
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's the nature of power, that one would seek to obtain power only to empower oneself.

It doesn't make sense that one could have such a drive to obtain power only to use it for others.
I agree that it's the general nature of humanity to gain power for one's own sake, but I disagree with you when you say that it doesn't make sense to have asuch a drive to obtain power only to use it for others. There is a thing called conscience.
 

BoulderHead

Double 'D',
I took it to mean there's no such thing as altruism. In that context even the 'conscience' you spoke of shows that taking power is done with an inward focus.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Double 'D',
I took it to mean there's no such thing as altruism. In that context even the 'conscience' you spoke of shows that taking power is done with an inward focus.
Hmm... But I think there is a difference between power to beget power, and power to eventually benefit the self. I think that power alone without the application of power is useless. In fact, it does not make sense to gain power only to continue the road for more power, if at one point you do not gain some benefit, even indirectly, from it. Not everyone wants to be powerful...
 

Zero

You guys are going pretty far afield on this...
 

schwarzchildradius

I've got something - if you want to see some real cracks at the whole administration, type "wayne madsen" into google. Hey, I'll do it for you:
wayne madsen
 
152
2
Okay, for those of you who wish to discuss racism, discuss it here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2562 [Broken]

This is to avoid getting off topic in this thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ganshauk

What an idiotic statement.

I think the democratats,if they win,will assuredly spark WWIII. We will all be little fried Americans, radiating enough energy to light up LA.

The democrats want to tax the living sh*t out of all of us. They only give lip service to the poor. Their real aim is to subjugate us all with oppression, to tax us so hard we become subsistant upon the government, unable to live w/o the handouts of OUR OWN MONEY that it agrees to give. The democratic party seeks to enslave us as assuredly they enslaved the Africans of the last century - yes, the dixiecrats are the progenitors of the modern democratic party!
 

Zero

Originally posted by Ganshauk
What an idiotic statement.

I think the democratats,if they win,will assuredly spark WWIII. We will all be little fried Americans, radiating enough energy to light up LA.

The democrats want to tax the living sh*t out of all of us. They only give lip service to the poor. Their real aim is to subjugate us all with oppression, to tax us so hard we become subsistant upon the government, unable to live w/o the handouts of OUR OWN MONEY that it agrees to give. The democratic party seeks to enslave us as assuredly they enslaved the Africans of the last century - yes, the dixiecrats are the progenitors of the modern democratic party!
OK, now pull the other one.
 

Related Threads for: No more Pres.Bush!

  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
781
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
331
  • Last Post
5
Replies
110
Views
9K

Hot Threads

Top