Mcrain/ B2TM:

Discussion in 'Community' started by mischief, Jan 6, 2003.

  1. mischief macrumors 68030

    mischief

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Location:
    Santa Cruz Ca
    #1
    The impossible may have happened....

    I think the three of us may agree on the Bush stimulus package. Less taxation on dividends would reduce profiteering and generally improve capital investing patterns.

    Flame on... ;) :D
     
  2. pivo6 macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #2
    Dividends are distributed from after tax dollars and should be not taxed at all in my opinion. I haven't read all of Bush's plan, so I'll hold off on that for the time being.

    Glenn
     
  3. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #3
    i will have to read up on this issue

    wow, you all agree on something? that is amazing

    i am not a typical democrat since i think that richard nixon was given a raw deal since he did more to help us than hurt us

    but like many democrats though, i was not a fan of ronald reagan

    people criticize this president we have now as an idiot, but he's way better off than the gipper was in the 80s:p
     
  4. SPG macrumors 65816

    SPG

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Location:
    In the shadow of the Space Needle.
    #4
    There are a lot of things that could use fixing, but no matter how you slice it this looks like one thing...a tax break for the rich.
    $600 billion over ten years going to people who can afford to buy stocks.
    An economic stimulous it ain't. Why not give the extension on the unemployment benefits? This money goes right into the economy and would produce a real stimulous, and besides this is for people who have been working and paying taxes, not people looking to shove some money away.
     
  5. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #5
    Re: Mcrain/ B2TM:

    Might not work as well as the Clinton economic stimulus package which was, turn you back on criminal behavior in public companies.

    But less taxation of divedends MAY shift the focus from wild speculation back to the old-style dividend producing stocks - imagine that a buy-and-hold mentality (shocking).
     
  6. pivo6 macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #6
    If I'm not mistaken, the rich pay taxes as well. Not that I know, but I think I read that somewhere. ;) Actually, anyone who owns a mutual fund will benefit somewhat from the elimination of taxes on dividends. Like I said before, dividends are distributed after taxes are taken out. Taxing dividends again is just wrong in my opinion.

    Glenn
     
  7. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #7
    Wow, I don't agree with that at all.

    Taxes are by definition a cost placed on the transfer of money. A dividend is a transfer of money from a company to its shareholders. To the shareholder, that is "new money," and I can't think of any reason to treat that any differently than money transferred as a result of labor (i.e. salary).

    Sure, a company paid taxes on the money when the money was transferred to it by one of its customers. Sure, another tax is applied with that money is transferred to the shareholders in the form of a dividend. But, wasn't the money taxed when the customer received it? Wasn't the money taxed when the customer's employer received it? Wasn't the money taxed when the employer's customer received it? And so on, and so on.

    The double taxation is fundamentally flawed. Every dollar is taxed repeatedly, but, only (usually) once per transaction/transfer.

    Double taxation is one of the major spin arguments used by people who want to reduce or eliminate taxes on dividends, capital gains and estate taxes. Strange how, when you think about it, nearly everyone who has to worry about dividend income, capital gains and estate taxes already has a hole sh*tpot of money. Hmmmm, you think that is a coincidence?
     
  8. Roger1 macrumors 65816

    Roger1

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Location:
    Michigan
    #8
    Taxes are by definition a cost placed on the transfer of money. A dividend is a transfer of money from a company to its shareholders. To the shareholder, that is "new money," and I can't think of any reason to treat that any differently than money transferred as a result of labor (i.e. salary).



    Another way to put is when you pay your baby sitter for watching your kids, he/she is supposed to claim it as income. Hmmm... Wasn't there a big news thing about this recently (within a year or two)? Yeah I know, it's not exactly the same, but the theory is the same (money transfers from one person to another).
     
  9. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #9
    Well, two things. 1 I am floored that Mischief and I agree on a political issue. 2. mcrain would never support tax cuts ;)

    The only thing about this that bothers me is that the democrats are running around saying that this is the Charles Schawb tax cut, and that this is only for the rich.

    Well, no offense to the democrats, but the dividend cut would reduce tax for 92 million Americans. Now, that is not the weathiest 1% as they claim because that is almost 1/3rd of the nation.

    Think about that 92 million people invest in the stock market in this country, and would receive a tax break.

    I think the extra money that he is wanting to put up for poor families, single mothers, and the unemployeed is a record for a republican.

    Compassionate conservative :)
     
  10. drastik macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #10
    I have to agree here too. Misspending is rampant in government and there is no reason for it. I think the ax cuts will do a great deal of good. Saying that this tax cuts only reaches the top two thirds of income may be mostly true, but the bottom third doesn't pay income taxes. Anyone who does pay taxes gets a deal with this package. I just hope it puss the economy back up.

    Next order of business, find someone who can actually manage government agencies efficently. That will be a one massive task, though.
     
  11. drastik macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #13
    Yes, but why is that a good thing?

    Why are people penalized for success? If you have a ****pot of money, good for you. Most millionaires in this country worked for all that money. Most also drive used cars and have relatively small homes. Just an interesting side note.

    [edit] I forgot to add that this package also increases marriage deductions and childcare tax, as well as addressing unemployment benifits that have run out. These breaks benifit more than the upper class.[/edit]
     
  12. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #14
    i was listening to the pete wilson show (kgo radio, sanfrancisco, 810 AM) and he was interviewing lynn jimenez (a business analyst) and they were talking about this bush plan

    unlike other past republican plans, this one does help the elderly somewhat

    now, one has to ask: "why haven't past plans from the republicans helped our older generation?"

    they are the people who tom brokaw calls the greatest generation...the same people who saw us through a depression, wwII, the cold war, and the expansion of american business interests in the 50s

    the gop seems so interested in such a narrow, rich few that it leaves out the average citizen or large numbers of the american populace...to the point that the republicans seem uncaring

    why do the republicans have to use the term "compassionate conservative"?

    is it to make up for all the years of caring for money/big business and not for the people of america?

    but if it is true what lynn jimenez said about the bush plan and the benefit for the elderly, then i give W a lot of credit...it's about time the gop helps its older people...while they are still alive

    i still believe the democrats, the reform party, the green party, and the libertarian party have a better chance to help those of us who are upper middle class or poorer

    still, only the very rich have to gain from the gop being in office...and as a big believer in the right to bear arms and being very religious, it is a shame that the republicans cater to lesser intelligent gun owners and religious people and try to dupe them into getting votes

    gun owners and/or religious people who know better will vote for or against george w bush based on the president's economic and foregin policy issues...not from a few fake buzzwords from some predatory gop strategists in order to scrounge up votes playing with feeble minded, but otherwise decent people

    btw...any other special interest group has its intelligent and feeble minded members...even us mac users:eek:
     
  13. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #17
    while there a hundreds of thousands of people in america that have worked for every penny of the million or more they have now, 2/3 of all american millionaires were born that way (the miilionaire next door)

    and of the estimated four million millionaries in the usa, (number during the height of the dot.com craze) only one fourth or so of those will be worth over one million dollars after taxes, and death taxes

    i am not trying to bolster either side of the political aisle with these facts, but one could use them either way;)

    with over 270 million americans, a million dollars, after taxes is still a sh**load of cash and very few, way less than one percent, have that in the bank after uncle sam gets a hold of them

    when have you, or anyone you know, been one prcent of anything?

    that would be like getting 690+ on the sat in math, having an iq over 160 and being smarter than the vast majority of people in mensa, who need about a 135 or so to get in, or who have, according to a medical show on the radio (dr dean edell) ...having a ***** over 8 inches in length

    one percent is not common
     
  14. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #18
    oh come on, ovi!!!

    that is ridiculous and you know it

    if you proved that, (that the rich tend to vote democratic), you would literally get the noble peace prize in economics the same way any physician would if they came up with a fat burning pill that was cheap and safe

    it would be the biggest economic-political oversight in the history of...well, history!!!

    i could hook you up with the head golf pro at cypress in pebble beach and maybe he could hook you up with its ultra rich members and you could try and pitch them your theory of the rich being democrats

    well, at least you would be able to beat most of these 70+ year old rich, all male members in golf...they don't know how to hit a ball but have the second highest rated private course in the usa...next to augusta...another all male, and once all white, private golf club

    i could see some democrats over there, however, due to it being the south and having had old money so tied up in the democrats, but in general the rich tend to be republicans

    off topic...pebble beach is still better than cypress but i would love to one day at least see augusta...but too bad it's all male still
     
  15. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #20
    i think someone who is ultra rich and wants to hang onto their money, and voting republican, does so for defenedable reasons

    but why would someone who is not worth a million, or even half a million, vote for the gop?

    ...unless they don't care about their pocketbook and feel it is absolutely necessary to help the fellow brother...in that top one, two, or five percent

    when i give a handout to someone, they are poorer than me...and you don't see me at the local beach and yacht club waving down a mercedes so i could give the driver a dollar
     
  16. drastik macrumors 6502a

    drastik

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2002
    Location:
    Nashvegas
    #21
    I actualy have the solution to Augustas problem, but no one is asking for my advice. They need to ease in, and they need to allow Martha Ingram frst. Her position is beyond reproach. She's a Billionairess, a charity nazi, an incredible businesswoman in her own right. Both of her sons and her late husband are members. ALmost ever member of Augusta probably knows her, any that are actiely playing there at least. This would be the way I would go.
     
  17. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #22
    and the claim is true

    who else are the republicans catering to?

    the religious, gun owners, libertarians?

    nope...that's just lip service

    how many full on gun owners/hobbyists and judeo/christian believers are a part of that ultra rich 1 percent?

    to me, anyone in the top one percent, in other words, worth somewhere upwards of 400 or 500k in cold hard cash, after taxes, is rich or ultra rich

    someone who makes 50k a year, personal or household income, is benefited far more by the democrats

    when you start being able to live off of interest from dividends, then i could see your reason to vote republican for "economic" reasons

    but i just don't understand how a regular working person like you, of which i am, has any business voting for a president who wants to help his rich texas, harvard, yale, or andover buddies

    are you one of them?
     
  18. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #23
    i would admit condoleeza rice...but i don't know if she plays golf...but that doesn't matter in these clubs...i get to hear a lot of the dirt from another well known rich club...damn rich people, they just don't ever learn how to swing a club...why am i giving them lessons? he he

    actually, myself being a democrat, i would jump the political fence and vote for her

    condoleeza rice is liked and well respected by everybody and she would be the first monority woman to join augusta and forever end the debate....i think augusta admitted its first minority member not too long ago...relatively (1969 i think) so they are still living in the past and it still may be a decade or more before augusta wakes up...but it's still the world's greatest course, followed by the british open, some courses in hawaii, and maybe some courses where i live in monterey county, CA

    but you golfers out there know how subjective rating a golf course is!!!

    in theory, it would be the coolest to play a course designed by jack nicklaus himself...or by tiger woods
     
  19. sturm375 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2002
    Location:
    Bakersfield, CA
    #24
    Key word here is "individuals." Check to see who, and how much was spent by corporations to each party.

    By the way, this is why I want Corporate funds out of politics completely. I believe GWB set the record in 2000, by having a little over $1 Billion in campaign funds. Think about that, He could have given each voting american at least $5 to vote for him. Or bought himself a Stealth Bomber to take out Gore.

    Not that I am condoning the Dems, as they were close runners up coming in at just under $1 Billion.

    That's around $2 Billion spent just on 2 Canadates for president, and how much spent to fix the brokent election process discovered in the 2000 fiasco.

    Too much money!
     
  20. jefhatfield Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #25
    corporate giving is too much for sure

    at least the democrats earned their keep with 7 or 8 good years of economic growth

    with bush sr we had a recession

    and with this president, it looks the same so far
     

Share This Page