Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-27-2010, 06:16 AM
 
880 posts, read 2,021,167 times
Reputation: 637

Advertisements

polo
The 16 billion his fund had invested in no longer worth 16 billion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-27-2010, 07:08 AM
 
24,834 posts, read 37,276,103 times
Reputation: 11538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
Far, far more important to job creation is the corporate tax rate. The income tax on the top tax bracket doesn't matter so much except for those selling high end retail stuff. That's why some of the best economic years of our country's history had a top income tax rate of 92.5%. Compare that tax rate to 35% or even the Clinton era 39% top tax rate and you just have to roll your eyes at their big crocodile tears. Shut up, you're still getting a heck of a deal and especially when you realize that with tax credits the effective average tax rate paid by the top tax bracket is only 16.6%. There is something seriously wrong when billionaires like Warren Buffet pay a lower effective tax rate then his secretary.

Raise the top tax bracket. Double it and then the with all the tax credits they'll still only have an effective average tax rate of 33.2%.
His secretary should make some investments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 07:33 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,504,056 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by city414 View Post
Anybody who lives in reality....Seriously!

Ever get a job working for a poor person?

History has proven over and over, tax cuts boost the economy and employment.


The spending is where government gets in trouble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 07:51 AM
 
Location: it depends
6,369 posts, read 6,394,315 times
Reputation: 6388
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevej64 View Post
polo
The 16 billion his fund had invested in no longer worth 16 billion.
The $5 billion Berkshire Hathaway actually invested in Goldman is getting 10% interest, $500 million per year. Berkshire also received a long-term call option to put $5 billion more into Goldman in the form of common stock, at a price of $125/share. Since the stock is pushing $150, the option has become quite valuable and still has several years to run.

Everybody is mad at Goldman because they were smart and didn't go broke like Bear Sterns and Lehman. Buffett is making a pile of money on Goldman, and if you have $80, you can buy a share of Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway) and get in on it too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:34 AM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,660,352 times
Reputation: 5131
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcopolo View Post
Everybody is mad at Goldman because they were smart and didn't go broke like Bear Sterns and Lehman. Buffett is making a pile of money on Goldman, and if you have $80, you can buy a share of Buffett (Berkshire Hathaway) and get in on it too.
Don't kid yourself.

GS didn't go broke because Obama smiled upon them, while giving a kick for good measure to those who were down and out. It sure looks like GS was highly favored by the Administration for myriad reasons. Just look at where some of their "former" employees are now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:38 AM
 
9,879 posts, read 8,002,733 times
Reputation: 2521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wapasha View Post
You are faulting Reagan for allowing people to retain more of their own hard earned money, because of what you think some people chose to do with their money? Taking away people's wealth to control them and prevent them from being industrious is not a sound tax policy.
Well, I guess that would depend on whether you wanted them to be industrious at home, or abroad The retaining of hard earned money wasn't done for the middle class. It
was done for Corporations. Not to mention the poor of the country pay a heavier price, in any foreign policy, that
clearly is the result of Corporate greed, interests, etc. That seems to me, to be the ultimate lack of control.

Seriously, I never thought I would see the day, when folks
would be defending the ultimate rich (Corporations) for not paying their fair share. Have a flat tax, sales tax, or
get rid of the IRS altogether. Let's be done with it - give
back control to EVERYONE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:41 AM
 
24,834 posts, read 37,276,103 times
Reputation: 11538
Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin View Post
Well, I guess that would depend on whether you wanted them to be industrious at home, or abroad The retaining of hard earned money wasn't done for the middle class. It
was done for Corporations. Not to mention the poor of the country pay a heavier price, in any foreign policy, that
clearly is the result of Corporate greed, interests, etc. That seems to me, to be the ultimate lack of control.

Seriously, I never thought I would see the day, when folks
would be defending the ultimate rich (Corporations) for not paying their fair share. Have a flat tax, sales tax, or
get rid of the IRS altogether. Let's be done with it - give
back control to EVERYONE.
Give what back???

The poor do not pay, they receive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 09:56 AM
 
33,387 posts, read 34,745,522 times
Reputation: 20030
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
Far, far more important to job creation is the corporate tax rate. The income tax on the top tax bracket doesn't matter so much except for those selling high end retail stuff. That's why some of the best economic years of our country's history had a top income tax rate of 92.5%. Compare that tax rate to 35% or even the Clinton era 39% top tax rate and you just have to roll your eyes at their big crocodile tears. Shut up, you're still getting a heck of a deal and especially when you realize that with tax credits the effective average tax rate paid by the top tax bracket is only 16.6%. There is something seriously wrong when billionaires like Warren Buffet pay a lower effective tax rate then his secretary.

Raise the top tax bracket. Double it and then the with all the tax credits they'll still only have an effective average tax rate of 33.2%.
yes the late 40's and 50's were good economic times, but it was a completely different time than now. there were far fewer regulations, all of which cost business money to comply with, and we were also the manufacturing base for the world. europe and japan were still going through rebuilding and had little industry in any shape to produce enough for their own people, let alone provide for the world.

today however there is plenty of competition, excessive regulations, and we dont make as much stuff as we used to, and we have become a service oriented economy rather than a manufacturing based economy. we have to deal with unions that also cost business a ton of money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pollyrobin View Post
Well, I guess that would depend on whether you wanted them to be industrious at home, or abroad The retaining of hard earned money wasn't done for the middle class. It
was done for Corporations. Not to mention the poor of the country pay a heavier price, in any foreign policy, that
clearly is the result of Corporate greed, interests, etc. That seems to me, to be the ultimate lack of control.

Seriously, I never thought I would see the day, when folks
would be defending the ultimate rich (Corporations) for not paying their fair share. Have a flat tax, sales tax, or
get rid of the IRS altogether. Let's be done with it - give
back control to EVERYONE.
you still dont get it do you? corporations, DONT PAY TAXES!!!!! EVER!!!! when you raise taxes on a corporation, they raise prices on their products and services, so their customers pay the taxes. who does this hurt the most? thats right the poor who cant afford to pay the higher prices, and it hits the middle class fairly hard as well, which means you lose a lot of the charity base that helps the food banks with donations. if you want the economy to recover, taxes have to be lowered across the board, assuming that you dont change any regulations, and even then with all the new regulations coming in because the health care reform law, and the financial reform law, business is going to wait and see what the new regs will do to the businesses before they spend any money to expand, and that means we are going to have a 10% unemployment rate for some time to come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 12:30 PM
 
Location: Flippin AR
5,513 posts, read 5,230,375 times
Reputation: 6242
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm View Post
as for cutting taxes by 75%, that is an admirable goal, but it would need to be done over a period of time to avoid serious financial issues.
And how would you describe the Country's financial situation NOW? Serious would be the understatement of the millenium.

Our leaders have already spent FAR past the point of no return. We'll have to start from scratch anyway. Let's do it right next time, and go back to the Founding Father's idea of an infinitesimally small federal government with no power to tax citizens AT ALL, but rather only the ability to raise money for DEFENSIVE (i.e., invaders) wars through tariffs that coincidentally protect our industry.

In other words, Libertarianism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2010, 02:20 PM
 
880 posts, read 2,021,167 times
Reputation: 637
POLO
The point is when a person touts a stock they always say they own it, their fund owns it etc.buffet did not say a word.Have you ever heard the phrase pump it and then dump it?This is why any TV show wants to know if in some way you are financially involved with the company you are touting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:57 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top