Will Obama help or hurt Fractionals

[Bronco Buster]

The reason true conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt and Warren Buffet have supported the estate tax is because without it democracy is doomed to fail. If the rich can pass all of their wealth from generation to generation you always wind up with a concentration of wealth that is incompatible with democracy. The playing field doesn't have to be completely level, but there is a point beyond which the concentration of wealth and democracy become incompatible. That is the situation you see throughout Latin America and in some parts of Asia. This idea that higher taxes and a sound economy are incompatible is hogwash. The 1950s were one of the most prosperous times in the Us and the marginal tax rate for the top 1% was a ridiculously high 90%. Also in those years corporations paid almost a third of taxes. The rich and corporations can afford great layers and lobbyists so their taxes have gone way down. When the income tax was first instituted it truly was an income tax including all income. Over the years it has become a wage tax as dividends and capital gains were given special treatment. 40 years ago when I was a young man, a family of four could live comfortably on one wage earner's salary. Sadly today that is an unatainable dream for many Americans as inflation adjusted wages have dropped steadily since the mid 70s. The same powerful interests that suceeded in changing the distribution of the tax burden also had great success in eroding the regulatory structure that the 2 Roosevelts (one a democrat and the other an old style republican) had put in place. The hard earned lessons of 1928 were forgotten, and President Reagan others of like mind convinced a large segment of the public that the government was the problem and that the markets would self regulate and wealth would flow down. Well it doesn't really work that way and that's why we had the economic collapse at the end of the gilded age (1897) the 1928 disaster, and now our current imbroglio.

 

[rettofly]

A return to the marginal tax rates of the 90's will not break this country. In fact, we might even prosper if we get our fiscal budget back in order.


Any tax rate increase WILL break this country, because career politicians are characteristically incapable of doing the right thing. They are motivated by self-interest.. i.e. - endless re-election.

G.H.W. Bush learned this the hard way when he traded a tax increase for spending cuts. He kept his end of the bargain. Unfortunately, the spend and spend, elect and elect legislative crowd did not.

This problem will not go away until we have term limits for legislators, say two six year terms for Senators and six two-year terms for Representatives. Since term limits would have to be enacted by the legislature, I suspect my grandchildren will be old and gray before this happens. Sad state of affairs!

 

[Bulldog Price]

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MGViZWYwYTgwZjE2NWNmNGVlMWJmYzNjMjA4NTc3Mzk=

Last month, a new study from the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) shows that for the 17th consecutive year, the U.S. corporate tax rate is now 50-percent higher than the average among our counterparts in the industrialized world. Nine key trading partners cut their rates during 2007, and only Japan has a higher rate than the U.S. among OECD nations.

This comes on the heels of another recent OECD study showing that corporate taxes are the single most harmful tax to GDP growth, more so than personal income taxes or consumption taxes. That’s why the Tax Foundation has launched CompeteUSA, a campaign to raise the public’s awareness of America’s high business tax rates and how those taxes have an impact on our competitiveness, wages, and living standards.

 

[gunfyter]

Its a Republic, not a Democracy...

A real democracy leads to tyranny of the masses...

like people voting to tax the rich to redistribute wealth to the poor.

instead of Rule of Law.

No one has a right to someone elses property (money) ... no matter how rich that person may be.

For further information on what "Real" Conservatives believe... see

The Law by Frederic Bastiat.

excerp:

"See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. "
​

 

[Sparse]

Why is flying down 10% now?

What costs "the rich" more ... repeal of the taxcuts for the rich ... or the increased price of Jet Fuel?

The price of jet fuel is miniscule compared to the tax increases to come.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

 

[DAS at 10/250]

Yeah, let's elect the two biggest deregulators in Washington (McCain and Phil Gramm) since the great depression who directly contributed to the mortgage crisis and the deregulation of Wall Street which has resulted in the horrible state of the economy.

The McSame guy that is now blaming the regulators for not doing their jobs and has asked Chris Cox to resign after someone had told him that the president can't actually fire him.

This is the result of McCain economics and people want to vote this guy into office.

Sorry Captain D but a little research is in order before you post.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75717

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

 

[Sparse]

Yeah, let's elect the two biggest deregulators in Washington (McCain and Phil Gramm) since the great depression who directly contributed to the mortgage crisis and the deregulation of Wall Street which has resulted in the horrible state of the economy.

The McSame guy that is now blaming the regulators for not doing their jobs and has asked Chris Cox to resign after someone had told him that the president can't actually fire him.

This is the result of McCain economics and people want to vote this guy into office.

More reading for you Dad.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDZiMjkwMDczZWI5ODdjOWYxZTIzZGIyNzEyMjE0ODI=

 

[gutshotdraw]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Sparse,

Stop confusing them with the facts!!!!!



Great post.

 

[hammer2]

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20', declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!' 'Yeah, that's right', exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!' 'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!' 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!' The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

What happens when they see some chic, who buys her a drink?

 

[blueridge71]

The reason true conservatives like Teddy Roosevelt and Warren Buffet have supported the estate tax is because without it democracy is doomed to fail. ...

The estate tax is inherently unfair and can even snag small business owners and farmers who want to pass along their family business. When you start adding real estate to the mix, it doesn't take long to reach the threshold for the tax.

The estate tax is unfair because the money has already been taxed multiple times. It has already been the subject of income tax, capital gains tax, payroll tax, property tax, sales tax, dividend tax, etc.