Originally Posted By queenbee DVC you can't cut taxes forever. Most economist believe there is a delicate balance between taxes being too low, not providing the necessary infrastructure to grow the economy and taxes being so high as to inhibit growth. As far as raising taxes in a recession. It depends. If the taxes are spent wisely it could actually pull a country out of recession.
Originally Posted By dshyates "There are those out there but they are very very few, " The Ivy league schools are full to the brim with them. They start off in a place of fortune. You will not convince me that everyone in Harvard comes from meager backgrounds and got there on hard work. I got accepted at Harvard, Yale and Duke. I went to Marshall University in WV because that's what I could afford. I have an IQ of 178, used to be a member of MENSA, and am unemployed now because of recent downsizing. I have found that in a world of mediocrity, talent and intellegence is not advantages unless coupled with soulessness and ruthlessness.
Originally Posted By queenbee I should say though that I agree more with Warren Buffet than Barack Obama. The super rich should pay more and I don't think 250K is super rich by a long shot. P.S. China wants their money, too. (oops)
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< I have found that in a world of mediocrity, talent and intellegence is not advantages unless coupled with soulessness and ruthlessness.>>> 178. Wow. Sucks to be you. My wife has an EXTREMELY high IQ too,and boy does she get frustrated with the rest of us "normal" people, and I am being totally serious about that. However, in spite of her IQ, and wow I think her's is ONLY around 160'ish, she can be wrong just like you can be wrong. Sounds to me like you should have made a better career choice. The "I'm broke and it's not my fault" argument doesn't fly with me, ESPECIALLY if you have a 178 IQ - which I really do believe you do have. I've no reason to doubt that. My wife is far from <<<soulessness and ruthlessness>>> in fact she is often the exact opposite. Are you telling me that you have personal issues with people who go to Harvard? I know of 4 kids from around here that are accepted to Ivy League schools and will attend in fall. They do not come from rich families. My only real question is why did you apply to Harvard and Yale if you knew you couldn't go there? Duke---- well yeah its elite but hardly Harvard. (Plenty of tongue in cheek, but no offense intended.) I appreciate your IQ, but I run around with a crowd where most of them are far more intelligent than I am. Having a high IQ (and your's is extremely high) has lost it's lusture to me. Intelligence and wisdom are so very different. I am impressed though. You are in the like top 100th of one percent in the US.
Originally Posted By dshyates "she can be wrong just like you can be wrong." Absolutely. That is why I try to make a point of saying, "My Bad". Anyone can be mistaken, misguided, or overly passionate. "You are in the like top 100th of one percent in the US." I call it (no offense anyone, even thouigh I know there will be some), "retarded smart". And the reason why is, that intelligence across society can be plotted on a simple bell curve. With most people being lumped in the middle as the "norm". When you get to the extreme ends of the spectrum there are far less individuals. Yet those on either end are equally far from the "norm". And I think you will find are equally as dysfunctional in regards to social norms in behavior. Eienstien walked around central park in feb. in his bathrobe and barefooted. "Sounds to me like you should have made a better career choice. The "I'm broke and it's not my fault" argument doesn't fly with me" Oh, I know. Video prodution isn't a gold mine. But alot of it has to do with My ex chosing to put my kids int eh coal fields of WV and me being dumb enough to try and move there when my skills lie in an arean that doesn't exist here. I will getting my financial house back inline now that I have no choice but to move back to the big city. I have just been reluctant to move away from my kids. But you do what you gotta do. i have reumes in all over the East Coast and will be working in short order. I just won't see my kids but like twice a year.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<And the mysterious "rich" already pay so much more it's pathetic. Oh but yes, lets raise taxes on that high middle class business owner who gives us jobs.>> DVC... the fact of the matter is that the rich DO NOT PAY more in taxes than the middle class. People point to the marginal tax rates and say "see... the rich already pay more than anyone else". But that is a bunch of hooey. If you look at the overall taxes paid the rich pay far less. Who says so? Only the third richest man in the world: Warren Buffett. <<Warren Buffett, the third-richest man in the world, has criticised the US tax system for allowing him to pay a lower rate than his secretary and his cleaner. Speaking at a $4,600-a-seat fundraiser in New York for Senator Hillary Clinton, Mr Buffett, who is worth an estimated $52 billion (£26 billion), said: “The 400 of us [here] pay a lower part of our income in taxes than our receptionists do, or our cleaning ladies, for that matter. If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.†Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation. >> Source: <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/money/tax/article1996735.ece" target="_blank">http://business.timesonline.co...6735.ece</a>
Originally Posted By dshyates Let me clarify the above gibberish. I am fully aware that my situation is my fault. Caused by some bad decision making on my part. But some things are beyond our control, like getting laid off. That is one of those Stuff Happens things and you deal with it. But I have skills and things will be OK. But I have put myself in a situation with few options.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I have an IQ of 178, used to be a member of MENSA>> <<<<This arguement is so full of crap. People don't give people jobs out of philanthropic desires. That ludicris. They give people jobs because they need sh..stuff done. Regardless of how much capitol gains taxes they personally paid. In this age of giving rich people everything they want we have seen the slowest job growth since the depression. But don't let facts deter your mindset.>>>> IQ of 178? Arguement instead of Argument? Ludicris instead of Ludicrous? Capitol instead of Capital? Sorry dude... I'm not buying it. Or if you really are that intelligent, you don't appear to be very well educated.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I really didn't mean for my post #125 to sound as snotty as it did. I know everyone can make spelling errors in posts; it just seemed like an awful lot of them to appear in only one paragraph. I also realize that people can be geniuses and still be deficient in some areas compared to a person of average intelligence. Sorry.
Originally Posted By dshyates I am aware that I am a horrible speller. There is no excuse to not use the spell check that's right there on my google bar. And I also never proof read. Really bad combo for someone that claims to be smart. I never said I wasn't lazy. "geniuses" I'm not even sure what that word means. Other than it means your not normal. And as far as educated, no I wouldn't consider myself well educated. I started out after high school (WV public school)with 3 years as an evolutionary biology major, but switched to music performance. I have a bachelors degree in Classical Guitar (wow that's helpful). I am also an accomplish percussionist. I then attended a trade school and got an assoc. in video/film. I have worked as an video editor in Denver for 10 years and a photographer for CBS for the last 4 years. But yes, back to the spelling issue. I did say I was "retarded smart". It doesn't help you be more "right" than anyone else. But it does help you see things other don't.
Originally Posted By Mrs ElderP To totally change the subject, but still about taxes: I would like to see a proposal that somehow limits the size of bills. I don't like these big omni-bus bills!! All too often it seems that that is the only way anything can get done in DC, load a bill so full that no one can vote against it, 'cause everyone gets a goodie. I understand, "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" and I don't think you could ever stop that totally. Instead of, "you can your amendment and I can add mine" you'd get, "you vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours". However, something is wrong about a system where at least some of the time legislators don't even know what they are voting on, completely because the bill has gotten so big! The amendments all get crammed in and then they get these 500+ pages of the final bill a couple of hours before they're supposed to vote on it. I have no idea what loophole proof measure you could do to stop it. And I have no idea exactly how much it would help. But, I just don't think it can be good to have these congress people voting on bills that there is no way that they or their staffs have read.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<THAT's the evidence.>> <That's only part of the evidence.> What a weak attempt at a comeback. The all-GOP 2001-2007 period was less financially responsible than the immediately preceding Dem. President/GOP congress period. Pretty simple. <<They're just not so blinded by ideology that they can't see it.>> <Or they are being mislead by other ideology.> MY parents? I wasn't aware you knew them. Oh, that's right, you don't. My folks are lifelong loyal Republicans. I'm sure they'll vote for McCain this year. But they're not so blind as to deny the facts of the all-GOP period in DC. It was terribly irresponsible fiscally, and they see that. <<He is, though. And these historians think history will bear THAT out.>> <Perhaps it will, perhaps it won't.> Going out on a limb there. The future is yet to be written. But one undeniable thing historians will know is that this president has been the most unpopular with his own people for longer than any other president since the advent of polling. And that at the end of his presidency, a full 82% of Americans (!) think the country is on the wrong track.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But, I just don't think it can be good to have these congress people voting on bills that there is no way that they or their staffs have read.> Good point.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tax-percent-federal-2077390-taxes-tiger" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/arti...es-tiger</a> (Selected segement only, make sure and read the entire article at the link above...) <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/tax-percent-federal-2077390-taxes-tiger" target="_blank">http://www.ocregister.com/arti...es-tiger</a> >>When Tiger Woods collected his $1,350,000 check for winning the U.S. Open golf championship this month, his federal and California taxes approximated $586,000. So, Tiger got to keep about $764,000, or 57 percent of his winnings. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has said: "That's why I think the best way forward is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more, and people in need are protected." He's also advocated "rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent of people who don't need it." It was fortunate for Tiger that his most-recent U.S. Open win occurred in 2008. Under twin tax proposals from Obama to 1) remove the "cap" from Social Security taxes for individuals earning over $250,000, a plateau Tiger has long since surpassed in 2008, and 2) eliminate the "Bush" tax cuts, thereby raising the top marginal federal income tax rate to 39.6 percent, Tiger's taxes on his winner's check would have increased to approximately $776,000, a boost of almost $190,000. Instead of Tiger keeping 57 percent of his earnings and the government taking 43 percent, under the twin Obama tax proposals, Tiger's federal and California taxes would have amounted to 57 percent of his winnings, leaving Tiger with just 43 percent. Prefer baseball to golf? The New York Yankees have a 2008 payroll of approximately $208 million. Under the twin Obama tax proposals, the 24 Yankee players would be hit with an aggregate increase in federal income taxes of just over $22 million, with slugger Alex Rodriguez single-handedly getting dunned with $2.6 million in additional federal taxes. The owner of the Yankees would owe an additional $7.5 million of federal taxes. Ticket prices would need to be increased by about $65 million so that the owner and players could have the same after-tax income as before. The increase in ticket prices would amount to an average $16 per ticket. Given that the least-expensive ticket in Yankee Stadium currently is $14, this would more than double the cost of a seat in the bleachers. The twin Obama tax proposals would result in an increase in federal income taxes for self-employed people earning over $250,000 of about 39 percent and would take the top federal tax rate on self-employment income to its highest level since 1971. It would also take the top marginal tax rate (federal and state taxes combined) in some states to over 57 percent on self-employment income. For employees, the top federal tax rates would increase by about 30 percent. Only once since 1917 has there been a tax-rate increase equal to or greater than the two twin tax proposals being made by Obama. That tax increase, the Revenue Act of 1932, was proposed by Herbert Hoover. The result was an even greater budget deficit, plummeting tax revenue and a lengthier Great Depression.<<
Originally Posted By dshyates Give me a minute while I work up a tear for Tiger and A-Rod. OK, I think I'll be ok. I agree we should just bowwor more money from China to give to Halliburton. I don't want to give'em my money anyway.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<<Give me a minute while I work up a tear for Tiger and A-Rod.>>> You are missing the point. Its not about A Rod and Tiger, its about the economy as a whole. More taxes in a recession would absolutely spin us deeper and deeper toward depression. Tell me I am wrong and give evidence.
Originally Posted By dshyates Thats a talking point and politics of fear. There is no eveidence that would happen. No, I don't have to give evidence to disprove your claim. Thats not how it works. You have to show evidence to prove your point. What we have found is that cutting taxes has caused that exact problem you cliam the higher taxes will cause. So how does cutting taxes cause it and raising taxes does to. And under Clinton the taxes on the wealthy were higher and the country went gang busters. The right wing ideology is so tied to the "trickle down" theory. And it doesn't work. Giving rich people more money doesn't create jobs. It creates more science buildings for Ivy league schools due to beneficent philanthropists. Giving poor people more money creates jobs. They go out and dump the money back into the economy. Needing production of more goods and services. The amount of disposable income the poor/lower middle class has determines the strength of the economy. That is why we have gotten 2 stimulus checks. They know the score. Thats why they didn't send the top 1% a billion apiece.
