Now that we Amis have a nice tax cut, how to reduce spending to cover it?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Oerdin

http://www.teleclassinternational.com/articles/stevemattos.html

http://www.profitadvisors.com/millionaire.shtml

Never mind that cite, Che. I now know what I merely suspected before... that the "90%" figure was pulled out of your arse.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Don't you think it would be fair for your dad to pay a little more tax than the other folks who are trying to achieve what he has achieved?

He should be able to keep a good part of the money he earns. The government confiscating about 40-50% of it (federal, state, and municipal) is too much!

And he already is paying more than those poorer than him. He shouldn't have to pay any more than he does now.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Besides... if he had to pay lower taxes, I may not have to take $130,000 in loans to pay for law school .

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia


Ok, I'll believe it.
So why not privitize it then?

Because to privatize it (The USPS) would literally require a Constitutional amendment and most don't think it is worth the effort.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
$130,000 in loans

It's tax money that subsidizes those loans though

[JohnT]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
If we're talking about the wealthiest 5% in the US we're not talking about millionaires and I think its quite clear that most of them are born wealthy.

Again, cite?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because to privatize it (The USPS) would literally require a Constitutional amendment and most don't think it is worth the effort.

Yep... ole' Article 1, Section 8, Clause 6 . Though, thinking about it... it doesn't say Congress MUST do those things, but only has the power to do so.

[Japher]

Taxes suk no matter what you pay. Most ppl get mad at rich ppl because they make more money, period. It has nothing to do with taxes at all. In some aspects those who complain that the rich don't pay enough taxes are just as greedy, if not more so, than those rich bastards themselves.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's tax money that subsidizes those loans though

Only for about half (the rest is private), but so? Higher taxes wouldn't help subsidize them much more (if at all).

[JohnT]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Its not a trend Oerdin. Your book talks about people with reasonably high salaries and savvy investment practices coupled with frugality. This is not a trend for the top 5% of the US. It is a completely different scale and if your starting from scratch it would probably involve killing a few people or a few thousand to amass that much.

Actually, if you truly understood how wealth is created and looked at the back stories of those 5% you would realize that the way to create a billion is to start your own corporation or real estate empire.

You people who use your ideology to create facts just kill me.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Also what do you folks think of Warren Buffet? He went on the record as saying a cut in Dividends probably won't cause companies to invest in greater output nor will most consumers get a meaningful amount of money out of it so they aren't going to spend more thus the single largest part of Bush's tax plan won't do anything meaningful to the national economy. It will give a slush fund to the super rich who traditionally stuff their extra money into the stock market so stocks might go up a bit.

Warren Buffet has a serious vested interest in keeping dividends low... being the owner/controller of a number of companies, any dividends paid will essentially come out of his pockets. Right now, Buffet is able to keep his empire because he is a very effective business manager (i.e., he's not just a passive investor looking for a passive gain, he's an active official in all the companies he owns). A dividend cut would cut into his efficacy by emphasizing and increasing stockholder demands for cash that he wants to use for his purposes.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's tax money that subsidizes those loans though

Only for about half (the rest is private), but so? Higher taxes wouldn't help subsidize them much more (if at all).

But higher taxes stop the deficits

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who ever said deficits are always a bad thing?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by JohnT


Warren Buffet has a serious vested interest in keeping dividends low... being the owner/controller of a number of companies, any dividends paid will essentially come out of his pockets. Right now, Buffet is able to keep his empire because he is a very effective business manager (i.e., he's not just a passive investor looking for a passive gain, he's an active official in all the companies he owns). A dividend cut would cut into his efficacy by emphasizing and increasing stockholder demands for cash that he wants to use for his purposes.

Ok, he's biased just like the rest of us. What does that have to do with the points he brought up?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Who ever said deficits are always a bad thing?

No me. Just when they don't stimulate the economy