StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I don't get why they say the taxes will benefit the rich...they will benefit anyone who invests. The rich invest more, but what is to prevent anyone from investing? Everyone in America is free to spend their income the way they want. It is not only a tax break for the rich, but for those who are smart enough to do long-term investing.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:I don't get why they say the taxes will benefit the rich...they will benefit anyone who invests. The rich invest more, but what is to prevent anyone from investing? Everyone in America is free to spend their income the way they want. It is not only a tax break for the rich, but for those who are smart enough to do long-term investing.

Smart enough, or have the money to do so?

If you don't have enough money to do long-term investing, then you probably don't have enough money to live adequately, so I wouldn't even worry about it. All you need for long-term investing is a few thousand and picking a stable corporation to invest in.

EDIT: Like GE or GM or maybe....MAYBE...MS...

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:If you don't have enough money to do long-term investing, then you probably don't have enough money to live adequately, so I wouldn't even worry about it. All you need for long-term investing is a few thousand and picking a stable corporation to invest in.

EDIT: Like GE or GM or maybe....MAYBE...MS...

Exactly my point. You make it sound like, then, if you don't have enough money to live, you aren't smart enough for long term investing. To me, anyways.

My turn!

[opens a can of worms on self] Can it be demonstrated?

Easily so, The tax cuts are a damn fine step in the right direction for motivation

Let me put it this way Verilon, If you think your well off, are you more likley to spend?

The stock market is all about Cofendence

Yet we can't be bothered with ending fanatical Christianity at home

They shout hate but then they reguarly don't go around blowing up buildings or shooting US Troops

We can't be bothered with trying to put an end to the fanatics at home that prove to be as much terrorists as those out in the rest of the world, even if of a different sort?

See above, The only decent American Terriorst we have EVER had was Timonthy MicVeigh and even then he did amount as much damage as takes place over your typical week in the Middle East

So is spending money for the well-being of our own nation.

Which is exactly what we are doing Verilon

Let me use the example of the DC Sniper
The Ecnomney after the third victium in that area WENT TO SHIT, If people are scared they don't spend, If the Econmey is not going, its bad all around

And what else is he spending money on? Is he spending money on trying to better the educational system?

Yes as a Matter of fact he is, The Education Bill he passed two years back, co-wrote by Teddy Kennedy was the single largest Education spending EVER

Many Americans will have their taxes released by that much, but how much is that $1000 in comparison to how much they make?

Roughly two and a half percent of their total income
The thing your missing is a thousand dollers goes a LONG way for everything from Car-Payments to investments
And thats EVERY year Verilon
A thousand extra dollers a year until somone rasies taxes agian

Also, WHat about families like mine, where there is a 7-person family (myself NOT included) and my mom has to stay at home while my dad (in the Navy, ranking Chief Petty Officer) goes abroad and out to sea each year for six months? What plans are there for the welfare system?

The Welfare system fokes get extentions, Your Father at his pay graud should not be paying any taxis AS IT IS
The only way I can handle this is as Jessey Ventura did
"Maybe you should though for a second about the fact you can't support three kids before you went and had the fourth, fifth and sixth"

Your family(Unless it was Triplets) made the mistake of going beyond their reach
Fokes have a blindspot for that, If I take out a 200,000 Loan on a 20,000 a Year Income people will call me Baka and rightly so when I'm in debet

But I have six kids? Awww thats so sad! The goverment should help you!

What about people that have no way of earning that much?(To Buy stocks)
*Snip rest of post

Verilon
Do you have thirty Dollers? If you do you can start trading stocks today
FURTHERMORE, More than Fifty Percent of Americans own stocks, The stock divided was an ass-backwards tax to begin with and it hurt the Econmeny, With it out of the way, more investing will happen, More jobs will be created

Its a WIN-WIN situation!

Elaborate.

When the Decmorates ran their Campain
What issues did they have to run on?
They voted WITH the President on the War on Terror and Iraq Resoultes so they can't say they are aginst him, They can't say Heathcare or Education as the President let them have pretty much all they wanted

I caught this quote on election night from Shawn Hanity who said(It was a repeat of Rush L. I think)
"The President gave them two thirds of everything they asked for so come election cycle they had nothing they could legimity complain about



Anything else Verilon?

Durandal wrote:Apparently, the United States is "God's gift to the world."

I don't believe in God, so I guess I don't believe in the existence of the USA then either.

RedImperator wrote:

neoolong wrote:

RedImperator wrote: In other words, just about all meaningful human behavior.

Not if you're trying to come up with some theory in economics that applies to everyone.

Name me a significant population anywhere that does not act in a self-interested manner.

People actually trying to live in a Marxian society. There's a state in India that didn't do that bad a job of it.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Any more tricks used by the government would be welcome. Now if only the news actually explained it this way...

Well, let's see. One of the things they do is try to schedule non-discretionary payments (social security checks, military paychecks, interest payments on the national debt) so the last payment of the year actually falls in the next fiscal year. Those payments, which can amount to billions, are then taken out of this year's budget figures, and next year's budget just factors them in as part of the baseline, so they essentially disappear. I suggest you try this with your last paycheck of the year and see what the IRS says when you attempt to deduct it. Just remember to tell the judge the Federal government does the same thing, so it has to be legal! Don't worry, you'll just be going to tennis prison, not a place where forced buttfucking is part of the daily routine.

Of course, when it's not possible to shift something to next year's budget, just send it back the other way. Don't ask me how they do this, but payments made in the beginning of the fiscal year, with a little accounting hocus-pocus, can be tacked onto LAST year's budget. I'd have a smartass remark about doing this with your taxes and convincing the IRS not to take away your house, but I used that joke already.

Another common trick is to hide the true cost of a program or project by not counting costs that will be incurred further down the road as part of the budget. The government, in essence, saddles itself with an unfunded mandate. Going back to my silly webboard example, let's say the government started the program with $10,000,000 committed to funding rude sci-fi webboards, but promised to increase it to $20,000,000 in three years (for this to work, the promise has to be written into the law). Well, the government just spent $20,000,000 on sci-fi webboards, but it ony has to account for $10,000,000 on this year's budget. It still has a $10,000,000 liability that's going to come due in 3 years, but unlike corporations or private citizens, the government doesn't have to list money it's obligated to spend by law in the future as liabilities (it still has to list debts as liabilities, of course, but this doesn't count as a debt because it technically doesn't owe any money yet).

Social Security is a rat's nest of accounting tricks all by itself. There is, legally, such a thing as the social security fund, but it's filled with government IOUs. The social security tax that everyone pays goes one of two places: first, all the money that is owed to recipients for that day/month/year/whatever is taken out and deposited in the recipients' bank accounts. The rest goes straight into the general fund. Congress spends unspent social security money just like it does money from any other source, and deposits an IOU into the social security fund to compensate. If this seems like calling youself a millionaire because you just wrote a $20,000,000 check to yourself, it's because it's exactly the same thing, and has just about the same value. In about 2032, when Social Security payments exceed Social Security income for the first time, the government is going to have nothing but checks it's written to itself and no money in the bank to draw from. The problem is that the government can't save money in a big vault like you or I can because the government created that money. Locking it in a box under the Treasury building would be the same as dumping it into the Potomac river, from the standpoint of a neutral observer somewhere out in the economy. When you're talking about doing this to trillions of dollars a year, what you get is a restricted money supply, deflation, and a big fat depression. Reissue money to replace the funds in the box, and when it comes time to make those payments, the money supply blooms because you just dumped a trillion dollars into the economy and the value of the dollar crashes--rampant inflation. The only alternative the government has is invest that money somewhere, either directly or by allowing workers to do it. Direct governement investment in industry, banks, and soforth has a questionable track record--go to Key West and ask some Cuban boat people what their opinion of the practice is, if you don't believe me. Investment by workers could work, but that's Capitalism and Private Property and the liberals will shit a brick if that happens, not to mention if the market tanks the week before you retire, well...I hear there's more real meat in Nine Lives than in the store brand. Happy golden years. Or, you can do what the government seems committed to doing, which is sticking your fingers in your ears and singing, "La-la-la, I'll be dead before this becomes a problem". Oh, you're a twenty-one year old college student who'll still be working when the whole Ponzi scheme collapses under its own weight? Hope you like 70% of your income going towards keeping geezers in Atlantic City money. Nine Lives has real meat, but you can't afford it.

neoolong wrote:

RedImperator wrote:

neoolong wrote: Not if you're trying to come up with some theory in economics that applies to everyone.

Name me a significant population anywhere that does not act in a self-interested manner.

People actually trying to live in a Marxian society. There's a state in India that didn't do that bad a job of it.

As soon as you find a way to get 300 million people to live in a Marxist society voluntarily, you let me know. Until then, I'll stick with economics that actually work on occasion.

Darth Wong wrote:Am I just being naive, or is it silly to pledge gobs of money toward various programs and of course, the war in Iraq while taking in less tax revenue? Isn't there a balance sheet somewhere upon which this doesn't work out?

Eh, cut a few billion here, put a few billion over there. This IS the
US Government we're talking about.....the amount of money we can
throw around makes some small countries' GDP look like chump
change.,..

verilon wrote:Exactly my point. You make it sound like, then, if you don't have enough money to live, you aren't smart enough for long term investing. To me, anyways.

Than that was an error on my part and I apologize.

RedImperator wrote:

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Any more tricks used by the government would be welcome. Now if only the news actually explained it this way...

Well, let's see. One of the things they do is try to schedule non-discretionary payments (social security checks, military paychecks, interest payments on the national debt) so the last payment of the year actually falls in the next fiscal year. Those payments, which can amount to billions, are then taken out of this year's budget figures, and next year's budget just factors them in as part of the baseline, so they essentially disappear. I suggest you try this with your last paycheck of the year and see what the IRS says when you attempt to deduct it. Just remember to tell the judge the Federal government does the same thing, so it has to be legal! Don't worry, you'll just be going to tennis prison, not a place where forced buttfucking is part of the daily routine.

Of course, when it's not possible to shift something to next year's budget, just send it back the other way. Don't ask me how they do this, but payments made in the beginning of the fiscal year, with a little accounting hocus-pocus, can be tacked onto LAST year's budget. I'd have a smartass remark about doing this with your taxes and convincing the IRS not to take away your house, but I used that joke already.

Another common trick is to hide the true cost of a program or project by not counting costs that will be incurred further down the road as part of the budget. The government, in essence, saddles itself with an unfunded mandate. Going back to my silly webboard example, let's say the government started the program with $10,000,000 committed to funding rude sci-fi webboards, but promised to increase it to $20,000,000 in three years (for this to work, the promise has to be written into the law). Well, the government just spent $20,000,000 on sci-fi webboards, but it ony has to account for $10,000,000 on this year's budget. It still has a $10,000,000 liability that's going to come due in 3 years, but unlike corporations or private citizens, the government doesn't have to list money it's obligated to spend by law in the future as liabilities (it still has to list debts as liabilities, of course, but this doesn't count as a debt because it technically doesn't owe any money yet).

Social Security is a rat's nest of accounting tricks all by itself. There is, legally, such a thing as the social security fund, but it's filled with government IOUs. The social security tax that everyone pays goes one of two places: first, all the money that is owed to recipients for that day/month/year/whatever is taken out and deposited in the recipients' bank accounts. The rest goes straight into the general fund. Congress spends unspent social security money just like it does money from any other source, and deposits an IOU into the social security fund to compensate. If this seems like calling youself a millionaire because you just wrote a $20,000,000 check to yourself, it's because it's exactly the same thing, and has just about the same value. In about 2032, when Social Security payments exceed Social Security income for the first time, the government is going to have nothing but checks it's written to itself and no money in the bank to draw from. The problem is that the government can't save money in a big vault like you or I can because the government created that money. Locking it in a box under the Treasury building would be the same as dumping it into the Potomac river, from the standpoint of a neutral observer somewhere out in the economy. When you're talking about doing this to trillions of dollars a year, what you get is a restricted money supply, deflation, and a big fat depression. Reissue money to replace the funds in the box, and when it comes time to make those payments, the money supply blooms because you just dumped a trillion dollars into the economy and the value of the dollar crashes--rampant inflation. The only alternative the government has is invest that money somewhere, either directly or by allowing workers to do it. Direct governement investment in industry, banks, and soforth has a questionable track record--go to Key West and ask some Cuban boat people what their opinion of the practice is, if you don't believe me. Investment by workers could work, but that's Capitalism and Private Property and the liberals will shit a brick if that happens, not to mention if the market tanks the week before you retire, well...I hear there's more real meat in Nine Lives than in the store brand. Happy golden years. Or, you can do what the government seems committed to doing, which is sticking your fingers in your ears and singing, "La-la-la, I'll be dead before this becomes a problem". Oh, you're a twenty-one year old college student who'll still be working when the whole Ponzi scheme collapses under its own weight? Hope you like 70% of your income going towards keeping geezers in Atlantic City money. Nine Lives has real meat, but you can't afford it.

Thanks, that was very informative. There's nothing you can do to stop it, too.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Durandal wrote:Apparently, the United States is "God's gift to the world."

I don't believe in God, so I guess I don't believe in the existence of the USA then either.

No, you don't believe in liberty. The correct quote is: "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity." - Bush

RedImperator wrote:

neoolong wrote:

RedImperator wrote: Name me a significant population anywhere that does not act in a self-interested manner.

People actually trying to live in a Marxian society. There's a state in India that didn't do that bad a job of it.

As soon as you find a way to get 300 million people to live in a Marxist society voluntarily, you let me know. Until then, I'll stick with economics that actually work on occasion.

I dare say that since it was a duly elected socialist government, it was voluntary.

I'm just saying that one needs to be aware that economic theory doesn't always match economic fact.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Thanks, that was very informative. There's nothing you can do to stop it, too.

There are ways to stop it, but it would first and foremost require people to get over their sense of entitlement. Most people are libertarians when it comes to other people--they look at this program or that program and they think, "Jesus Christ, what a fucking waste of money." Then when it comes time to evaulate THEIR favorite Federal program, suddenly it becomes a vital necessity. Social Security is an utter fucking quagmire, and I have no confidence at all that anyone's going to fix it before it becomes a crisis, because fixing it would make a lot of people very uncomfortable (the AARP is a great example of the sort of obstructionists that will piss upon any attempt to fix SS, despite the fact that no reform program even considers touching what current retirees are getting), and frankly, it's really hard to get reelected if you fiddle with Social Security. So it's going to come down to a point where Social Security payouts represent 60% of all government expenditures, and finally they're just going to have to kill the system the way they did veterans' pensions in the early part of the century. Which means that people my age who paid in aren't going to see a God damn nickel of it. I've already got over $1000 sitting in a mutual fund (that's been pounded for the last 18 months, but my retirement party is still 43 years away), and I'm going to count on that and other investments to see me through my retirement. I look at my paycheck, and I consider the Social Security tax just money I threw down a Federal rat hole.

That's how everyone that invests sees it. Maybe if Bush gets re-elected, he might do something about it seeing as how that's the end of his political career? Has anyone ever done this? Didn't Clinton mess around with Social Security when he was on his second term?

I like Harry Browne's idea for solving the Socialism Security problem; sell off government assets (chiefly the sovereign nation the size of France we call the Department of the Interior) and buy annuities for those dependent on Social Security, and let the rest of us invest in something that will actually create wealth.

I know this isn't going to happen, as long as there are old farts/Social Security shocktroopers to stop it. But, it would be nice to be able to put my cash into my IRA rather than a risky scheme (touche, Al Gore) like social security.

neoolong wrote:I dare say that since it was a duly elected socialist government, it was voluntary.

I'm just saying that one needs to be aware that economic theory doesn't always match economic fact.

There are lots of duly elected socialist governments. That does not prove socialism works. I'd like the name of this state, if you please, and maybe some facts and figures to justify saying the alleged success of Marxism in one Indian state supports the conclusion that economic models that assume a self-interested consumerate when dealing the the collective actions of hundreds of millions of people are wrong.

And of course economic theory doesn't always match economic fact. History is littered with the bones of failed economic theories (I'm thinking of one that starts with "M" and was quite popular in Eastern Europe for a few years), because unlike physics, which attempts to understand universal constants, economics attempts to understand human behavior, which is much more random and prone to doing things that no theory could have possibly predicted. Nevertheless, I contend that self-interested behavior is the norm for humanity, and that my position is borne out by the universal failure of collectivist economies to outcompete free-market economies in the long term.

EDIT: Fixed some awkward wording.

Ted wrote:

phongn wrote:

Darth Fanboy wrote:omfg, Bush pledging $1.2 Billion towards hydrogen powered cars?

Is this his way of telling Dad he doesn't want to be part of the family business?

GWB did very, very poorly when he was involved in the oil business. I don't recall him doing much more with it after he left.

And you can also get H2 from crude oil, quite a bit of it (but you still get CO2 emissions in the process). I'm not sure how energy efficient it is (at least compared to getting it from H2O).

You also forget that one of the first things that shrubby did was to cut all research into alternative fuel sources by over 60%. $1.2 billion is nothing compared to what it was getting before shrubby.

Source for this (esp. budget before/budget after)? I'm interested, as usual, where you found that information.

RedImperator wrote:

neoolong wrote:I dare say that since it was a duly elected socialist government, it was voluntary.

I'm just saying that one needs to be aware that economic theory doesn't always match economic fact.

There are lots of duly elected socialist governments. That does not prove socialism works.

I never said it did. Just that economic theories aren't always universal.

I'd like the name of this state, if you please, and maybe some facts and figures to justify saying the alleged success of Marxism in one Indian state supports the conclusion that economic models that assume a self-interested consumerate when dealing the the collective actions of hundreds of millions of people are wrong.

Kerala.

Features Kerala India USA
Per Capita Income ($US) 300 340 26,980
Life Expectancy at Birth (years) 72 60.4 76
Infant Mortality Rate per 1000 Live Births 12 82 9
Adult Literacy Rate (%) 93 48 96
Total Fertility Rate 1.8 3.2 2.1

Selected Indicators of Development in Kerala, India and the USA for 1995. Govindan Parayil, "Sustainable Development and the Environment: Lessons from the Development Experience of Kerala State in India." In Growing Pains: Environmental Management in Developing Countries, W. Wehrmeyer and Y. Mulugetta, Eds. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing, 1999


And I never said that ecnomic models that assume self-interest when dealing with hundreds of millions are wrong. I said that one needs to be aware that they are general and don't fit every case.

And of course economic theory doesn't always match economic fact. History is littered with the bones of failed economic theories (I'm thinking of one that starts with "M" and was quite popular in Eastern Europe for a few years), because unlike physics, which attempts to understand universal constants, economics attempts to understand human behavior, which is much more random and prone to doing things that no theory could have possibly predicted. Nevertheless, I contend that self-interested behavior is the norm for humanity, and that my position is borne out by the universal failure of collectivist economies to outcompete free-market economies in the long term.

And for the most part you are right. However, that still doesn't account for a lot of people.

You're standard demand and supply graph for let's say bread, can leave out, what 90% of the world's population.

Do you have thirty Dollers? If you do you can start trading stocks today
FURTHERMORE, More than Fifty Percent of Americans own stocks, The stock divided was an ass-backwards tax to begin with and it hurt the Econmeny, With it out of the way, more investing will happen, More jobs will be created

Cutting the dividend tax might be good tax reform but it is not a stimulus package and it does target the rich almost soley. Why?
* Half of Americans might own stocks, but most have those stocks in retirement accounts, thus they are already tax except. Only richer folks have large porfolios outside of retirement accounts.
* Not all stocks even pay dividends to begin with.
* Only the richest of folks own enough stocks in any one company to make good dividend income, show me someone who owns a thousand shares of LMT or MS and they are probably wealthy.

If you truely want to help people under $100,000K/yr then you reduce payroll taxes or give larger personal execption on taxes. Say 9000 instead of 4500.

I do not mind reviewing taxes on captial gains and dividends, I just dont buy the arguement that eliminating them helps the average american all that much. Not in any immediate sense which is what is needed.

Remember that 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending, ending the dividend tax does not translate into money readily available for spending.

I agree it will mostly help the rich, but the dividend tax was an illegal double taxation on profits. Removing it is only common sense, IMHO.

I agree it will mostly help the rich, but the dividend tax was an illegal double taxation on profits. Removing it is only common sense, IMHO.

I can see arguements both ways for removing the dividend tax. I just hate it being presented as a good thing for the "average" american to help them in hard times. One thing I bet everyone can agree on is our tax system is very complicated and screwed up in many ways.

Mr Bean - not enough time to nitpick right now, but since when is sending troops of to war, where people DIE, for the WELL being of the nation???

I will be back tonight/after class

There are still millions of middle-class Americans out there who receive dividend checks. And while ending the double-taxation of dividends will likely not translate to increased consumer spending, it will increase investment and demand for dividends, encouraging companies to increase profits (can't very well pay dividends if you're not making money).

The fact is, pretty much any tax cut, whether it is spent, saved, or invested, is going to going to have an overall net benefit to everyone, better than having the government spend it, anyway.

If you want to talk about illegal taxation, look no further than income tax.