State of the Union, 2003

[TXCAP4228]

Could someone help me out here? I don't understand the double taxation of dividends point. It was my understanding that dividends paid out by a corporation were a business expense like employee salaries and such. Such payments would reduce corporate income and the tax liability. If that is not the case, then they must be paid after taxes and then the double taxation argument would make sense.

Does the payment of dividends affect the taxes a corporation pays or not?

Before you define dividend you have to understand what "stock" is. I appologize if this is too elementary but this is to answer you as well as other people who don't know but have the same question.

"Stock" represents a small ownership stake in a company. Public companies (where anyone is eligible to own stock) have a fixed number of shares issued, and then each share represents some small fraction of the total ownership of the company.

Now, "corporate profits." A corporation that makes a profit at the end of the year pays taxes on that income. Once that income tax has been paid, the corporation may decide to RETAIN those earnings (stick them under the matress or invest them or whatever) or they may decide to pay a "divedend" to the owners of the company - all the stockholders. So a divedend is just those "corporate profits" being distributed to the owners of the company.

The reason that the current system is "double taxation" is that the divedend is profit that has already been taxed as a "corporate profit". What justifictaion is there for txaing it AGAIN when you pay it out to the owners?

Now you ask about expense. No, a divedend payment is not an expense in the sense that it is incurred from the business operations of the company. A divedend is a decision by the company to disburse its profits to the owners (the stockholders).

I hope that helps.

 

[TXCAP4228]

I should also add that the company will pay the SAME income taxes whether it pays a divedend to its stockholders or not.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Originally posted by FastPilot
Killing innocent children in the womb because you refuse to take responsibility for your actions is respecting life?

I've been in the position more than once of drawing down on someone and being wholly prepared to take their life (once in the defense of myself and my family, and another to protect two innocent people who were being attacked). It was not easy or fun, or motivating, just necessary. How in the world can people get fired up and excited about delivering an eight month baby (except for the head), flipping it over, splitting open the back of its head with a medical instrument, and suctioning out the baby's brain with a vacuum cleaner. Yea, that's respecting life.

Steve, you're right. As I already said (which you didn't notice because you were too pissed to be able to read clearly) I'm not hot about the idea of any abortion. Having children does that to you, I guess.

So who's going to care for all the unwanted children that show up after abortion is made illegal? You? I hope not; you sound a little scary.

Look, I don't know what the solution is, but making abortion illegal is not going to stop teenagers (for example) from having sex. You can't legislate human nature. The harder you make it for kids to pursue abortion, the more you're going to end up with unsafe "back-room" abortions and abandoned babies.

I agree that we should strive to make people understand and accept the consequences of their actions. (My wife has said more than once that if she could travel to area middle and high schools and show the girls what it's like to be six months pregnant, this whole teen pregnancy thing would grind to a halt!) But that's not realistic in the short-term. Think about when you were a teenager. How easily were you told what to do?

I don't know anything about "partial-birth" abortion...but I'll bet it's not nearly as painful for an infant as slowly starving or freezing while wrapped in a wad of newspapers in a dumpster.

 

[Timebuilder]

The dividends a corporation pays come from the profits earned by the corporation, for which taxews were paid.

The argument is that the dividend money has already been taxed once, and to do so twice, the second time being when it becomes a part of your income, is unfair.

I am a great beliver that money should be taxed ONCE. For instance, you are building a family estate to leave to your children from money which has already been taxed when you file every April 15th. Currently, the government will tax that money AGAIN when you die.

I like the idea of a flat tax or a use tax, take your pick. Everyone pays the same proportion of their personal money. The ultimate fairness of such a system scares many people in Washington, since much or our current tax structure is based on social engineering and constituent favors, and none of that would be possible under a truly "fair" system.

 

[Timebuilder]

Look, I don't know what the solution is, but making abortion illegal is not going to stop teenagers (for example) from having sex. You can't legislate human nature. The harder you make it for kids to pursue abortion, the more you're going to end up with unsafe "back-room" abortions and abandoned babies.

Certainly, stopping abortion will not stop teens preganancies, in fact there will always be SOME teen pregnancies. The question is "what can we do as a society to REDUCE teen pregnancies to a managable level, making teen abortions uneccessary?"

The answer is cultural. It has to be seen as BAD, not cool, profitable, acceptable, supported by schools (daycare) and politicians (this twelve year old has reproductive and sexual rights!) in order for teen preganancies to be reduced. Stigma has gone down, government support programs have increased, and social accceptablity has increased. A girl has to feel ASHAMED at the thought of an out of wedlock preganancy, and this is far from the case in most social groups today.

We have removed all of the "suffering", that includes personal, emotional, and economic suffering from teen pregnancies. I doubt if shame can ever become politically correct.

 

[chawbein]

On a lighter note, Timebuilder, are you typing with gloves on? I don't think I've ever seen you fat finger so many posts!!

Seriously,

There is no arguement for legal abortion. How does the risk associated with a "back-alley" abortion justify legalized abortion? How does the fact that some young women abandon their newborn infants justify legalized abortion? Let's jump back to the "back-alley" arguement. Let's make all drug use legal, there are people who do it anyways, and they are putting themselves at risk. That makes for a pretty gay arguement, and it makes no sense. The same goes for that "back-alley" abortion nonsense. Now for abandonment, that arguement doesn't hold water either. Women abandon their children now with legal and safe abortion, do you really think that the number of women who abandon newborns will go up if there is no legal abortion? Oh yeah, as for the who's gonna take care of these extra kids arguement.... There are millions of people in this country who want to adopt. I have family who adopted, but from out of the country, because there is the chance in this country that the biological mother can come back and say I want my child back. With so many people who are willing to adopt a child how can you ask who will take care of them. I wish I could argue this better, but there are limitations to typing.

 

[Timebuilder]

Is my typing that bad??

I often proof my posts after I put them up intially. It seems to me that it's easier to spot errors in the final font. Also, I know that I am attempting to type faster than I usually type, since I just got home for the first time in almost two weeks, and there is much to do.

(I'll try and do better)

 

[BoDEAN]

The speech was very strong in my opinion. Look's like we'll be at war by Mid March.

 

[abenaki]

Typhoon,
You were the one who brought your opinion into the fray about the State of the Union Address not being an appropriate forum for passionate references to faith in God......of course, you didn't say WHY.....and then you bailed out on answering any more comments about the one that you opened the door to.

And I ask, why not? This nation was founded by people with fervent Christian religious beliefs and the foundational principles upon which those people wrote the basis for our contry's government and its values are rooted in those beliefs and the founding fathers beliefs and faith in God.

I applaud the President for passionately stating his faith in God........Without that faith and that of the millions of Christians who were the majority in the conception and building of this country, we would not be where we are today.

And frankly, the decay of family values, the moral degredation of the country, and many other maladies that afflict our society today are, in my opinion, a result of not focusing our faith on God.

Good for you President Bush......

 

[Typhoon1244]

How does the risk associated with a "back-alley" abortion justify legalized abortion?

I didn't say it does...but it will happen. I guarantee it.

Now for abandonment, that arguement doesn't hold water either. Women abandon their children now with legal and safe abortion, do you really think that the number of women who abandon newborns will go up if there is no legal abortion?

Yes.

Oh yeah, as for the who's gonna take care of these extra kids arguement...there are millions of people in this country who want to adopt.

Maybe I should tell you something. My wife used to work for the state as a social worker. She worked with abused and abandoned children, and she assisted with adoptions. I've seen a lot of these things first-hand.

There are millions of Americans who want to adopt? Where are they? There sure as heck not in Texas, Arkansas, Arizona, and Oklahoma. Oh, if you're talking about families who want to adopt healthy white children, that's a different story. But the fact is that most of these unwanted children we're talking about are sick or black or both. Nobody's lining up to adopt them. They bounce from foster home to foster home until they're eighteen, and then they follow in their parents' footsteps.

Do you know how offensive, how maddening it was when my wife and I spent three years unable to have children of our own (not eligible for adoption due to my wife's employment) while women on crack waltzed into our downtown hospital, had babies, and then waltzed out without them, leaving it to the state to decide what to do with these children?

I have family who adopted, but from out of the country...

Well, good for them...but also shame on them. There are far too many children right here in the U.S. who need parents for people to go shopping overseas. And as for the biological parents returning, yes it can happen...but it doesn't happen that often. It's not a good reason to abandon American children.

With so many people who are willing to adopt a child how can you ask who will take care of them?

You gotta believe me, these alleged people who are willing to adopt just aren't out there. I wish they were! It would make this issue a lot easier to address.

Originally posted by Timebuilder
The answer is cultural. It has to be seen as BAD, not cool, profitable, acceptable, supported by schools (daycare) and politicians (this twelve year old has reproductive and sexual rights!) in order for teen preganancies to be reduced. Stigma has gone down, government support programs have increased, and social accceptablity has increased. A girl has to feel ASHAMED at the thought of an out of wedlock preganancy, and this is far from the case in most social groups today.

This is exactly the answer. We have to make societal changes before laws banning all abortions (and drugs, for that matter) will be enforceable.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Typhoon, you were the one who brought your opinion into the fray about the State of the Union Address not being an appropriate forum for passionate references to faith in God...

Your're right, and I wish I hadn't.

...of course, you didn't say WHY...and then you bailed out on answering any more comments about the one that you opened the door to.

I did say why. If you knew how to read as well as you knew how to pontificate, you'd realize that.

So, I'll repeat myself. I don't like it when people use "God" to describe everything that our society doesn't understand yet. I don't like it when people wear their faith on their sleeve, as our president often does. I don't like it when people substitute religious faith for sound judgement (i.e. the Taliban). And I don't like it when people surrender responsibility for their lives to the "Almighty God."

This nation was founded by people with fervent Christian religious beliefs and the foundational principles upon which those people wrote the basis for our contry's government and its values are rooted in those beliefs and the founding fathers beliefs and faith in God.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the "Founding Fathers" also believe in everyone's right to choose what they believe and how they worship?

The President represents ALL Americans...not just the ones who happen to be Christians. If he can't acknowledge everyone's faith in a speech, he shouldn't bering it up at all...

...just as I shouldn't have here.

And frankly, the decay of family values, the moral degredation of the country, and many other maladies that afflict our society today...

...have been going on for three hundred years or more. Wait, don't tell me: you're one of those people who believe that "moral decay" is somehow new in America, right? There was no rape, drug use, child abuse, etc., while Leave it to Beaver was on the air, right?

What garbage!

 

[dmspilot00]

If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that the current infrastructure (meaning pipelines) can easily carry hydrogen. In fact they often use the same pipeline for many different types of fuels. One interesting thing to note is that all gasoline companies get their gas from the same sources and pipelines. It is also standard practice for, say, BP to place an order to a refinery for X gallons, and then immediately "retrieve" whatever comes out of the pipeline, even though the trip through the line takes several days. Also keep in mind how dangerous gasoline is now.

I suspect W has alterior motives. To me his speech sounded more like a campaign speech. He is telling us what he thinks we want to hear. Don't believe it until it happens. For example, while Bush is trying to look environmentally friendly, he has been the torch-bearer for the Yucca Mountain project, in which all the nation's nuclear waste goes to the site in Nevada, which is in a notorious earthquake area, in a volcano.

It's the easiest way out although safer solutions have been proposed. In my opinion, I truly think that nuclear power is the biggest mistake we have ever made. All Nuclear Power plants should be closed. We have proved that we can clean up air pollution; cleaning up nuclear waste is impossible. It will be there for millions of years.

Today, on my way to school, I got into a traffic jam because of two trucks carrying very large containers (so large the trucks took up 2 lanes). I was turning off the highway they were on, and as I passed them, I saw cute little signs on the containers, saying "RADIOACTIVE" and having the little atomic symbol on them. Great. So what happens when Yuccan Mountain opens for business?

"Waste shipments would be so frequent that Atlanta, Cleveland and San Bernardino would see shipments traveling through their neighborhoods on a daily basis. Chicago would see one shipment every 15 hours; St. Louis, Kansas City and Denver, every 13 hours; Des Moines and Omaha, every 10 hours; Salt Lake City, one shipment every seven hours. "

"According to one DOE estimate, there will be as many as 310 accidents in the course of transporting this highly radioactive waste across the country."

The waste containers cannot be designed so as to not leak, and they are expected to emit the equivilant radiation in one hour of one chest x-ray.

"In gridlock, however, a person sitting in a car next to a cask containing nuclear waste could get a radiation dose equal to that of four chest X-rays if the traffic jam lasted long enough."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments on the terrorism issue: Do you really know what was happening in the years and months leading up to 9-11-2001?

"President Clinton ordered two attack submarines to stand watch over the Taliban and bin Laden's terrorists. Bush ordered the subs to stand down. [See: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden: Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks, The Washington Post: 12/19/01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18&notFound=true] Clinton warned the Taliban he would hold the Taliban leadership personally responsible for any attack by bin Laden against Americans. Bush lifted that decree. [See: Clinton's War on Terror: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden, The Washington Post, 12/20/01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62776-2001Dec18?] But Bush eliminated these safeguards."

"Greg Palast reports Bush ordered national security agents to "back off" the bin Laden terrorists. "

"Bush sent $43 Million to the Taliban. His administration supported negotiations with terrorists on behalf of his campaign contributors. These included corporations seeking to build a pipeline [pipeline...now how could you not believe that!] through Afghanistan."

All of this came from http://www.bushoccupation.com/welcolumn.html. However that site is a little over the top so I suggest you go to the individual news articles instead.

If you disagree with the comments, don't kill the messenger.

 

[FastPilot]

Comments on the terrorism issue: Do you really know what was happening in the years and months leading up to 9-11-2001?

"President Clinton ordered two attack submarines to stand watch over the Taliban and bin Laden's terrorists. Bush ordered the subs to stand down. [See: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden: Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks, The Washington Post: 12/19/01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...ode=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18&notFound=true] Clinton warned the Taliban he would hold the Taliban leadership personally responsible for any attack by bin Laden against Americans. Bush lifted that decree. [See: Clinton's War on Terror: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden, The Washington Post, 12/20/01. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62776-2001Dec18?] But Bush eliminated these safeguards."

"Greg Palast reports Bush ordered national security agents to "back off" the bin Laden terrorists. "

"Bush sent $43 Million to the Taliban. His administration supported negotiations with terrorists on behalf of his campaign contributors. These included corporations seeking to build a pipeline [pipeline...now how could you not believe that!] through Afghanistan."

All of this came from http://www.bushoccupation.com/welcolumn.html. However that site is a little over the top so I suggest you go to the individual news articles instead.

If you disagree with the comments, don't kill the messenger.

If you believe all this **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**, you are smoking crack

 

[TXCAP4228]

I suspect W has alterior motives. To me his speech sounded more like a campaign speech. He is telling us what he thinks we want to hear. Don't believe it until it happens. For example, while Bush is trying to look environmentally friendly, he has been the torch-bearer for the Yucca Mountain project, in which all the nation's nuclear waste goes to the site in Nevada, which is in a notorious earthquake area, in a volcano.

It's the easiest way out although safer solutions have been proposed. In my opinion, I truly think that nuclear power is the biggest mistake we have ever made. All Nuclear Power plants should be closed. We have proved that we can clean up air pollution; cleaning up nuclear waste is impossible. It will be there for millions of years.
If you disagree with the comments, don't kill the messenger.

I have two observations.

1) About campaign speech/ulterior motives. All political speeches are campaign speeches because politicians continually have to "sell" their constituents on their ideas. What you have said is in this case is not a criticism. Further, you go on to say that Bush must have ulterior motives because of the Yucca Mountain thing (that I talk about below) but you fail to provide any reason why the two would be linked.

2) About Yucca Mountain/spent nuclear fuel. You say Bush supports Yucca and you list reasons why this is bad, and then go so far as to list problems that will coe from the transport of Radioactive material. If you are going to criticize Yucca, show me a better alternative. I'm all ears.

You go on to say that all nuke plants should be closed down. This does not resolve the problem of current spent nuclear fuel. You have not addressed it.

I have said before on this board that it is disingenuous to criticize in a way that prevents a solution. You have made a criticism and then painted yourself into a corner. You are being disingenuous.

I am tempted to comment on your terrorism bit, but no. I think FastPilot called you on that somewhat eloquently.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Typhoon,
You were the one who brought your opinion into the fray about the State of the Union Address not being an appropriate forum for passionate references to faith in God......of course, you didn't say WHY.....and then you bailed out on answering any more comments about the one that you opened the door to.

And I ask, why not? This nation was founded by people with fervent Christian religious beliefs and the foundational principles upon which those people wrote the basis for our contry's government and its values are rooted in those beliefs and the founding fathers beliefs and faith in God.

I applaud the President for passionately stating his faith in God........Without that faith and that of the millions of Christians who were the majority in the conception and building of this country, we would not be where we are today.

And frankly, the decay of family values, the moral degredation of the country, and many other maladies that afflict our society today are, in my opinion, a result of not focusing our faith on God.

Good for you President Bush......

There have been at leat 5 threads in the last 3 months where this particular subject was discussed at length, ad nauseum. As much as I am tempted... I think this topic has been worn out.