Terrie...open discussion is America! Stand up...Speak up...be proud!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Terrie:

the way to encourage job growth is to stimilate the economy by lowering taxes to both individuals and corporations. I know it's "trickle-down" but that's how our economy works.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes & no. Seems there's enough going on at this thread without my 2 cents, but since I prepare tax returns & deal with corporate heads for a living & understand the mentality & I thought I might have a unique take on this.

The problem with relying on tax cuts to stimulate jobs is that a large portion (i.e., most) of the tax cuts go to executive compensation or overseas jobs; very little is used to create jobs in the US. I believe Kerry has proposed tax credits for companies who increase their employment in the USA, which would work better than tax cuts across the board.

I consider myself a liberal guy, but I would also like to pay less in taxes. I question the following about Bush's tax cuts. Why did the top tax bracket (i.e., the wealthiest) get a cut of over 4% while the rest of us got 2 or 3% Why couldn't it have been the same for everybody?

Why was there a need to cut the tax rate on dividend income to 15%, thus benefitting only those wealthy enough to invest in stocks? The rationale given was that corporate dividends were subject to 2 federal taxes, i.e., a tax on the corporation that made the earnings & a tax on the individual who received the dividends as a result of those earnings.

Why not a reduction in the tax rate on wages? After all, these are also subject to 2 federal taxes, an income tax & a Social Security tax. This is even worse than the "double taxation" of dividends, coz this is double taxation on the same taxpayer!

I also find that my clients mostly exaggerate when they discuss what they will do in the event of a tax cut or a tax increase, & I imagine politicians have to listen to this BS a lot more often than I do. I had a wealthy client tell me that if Clinton were elected he would hafta lay off his chef. No way that was gonna happen! His wife of 40+ years had never even been in their kitchen, let alone know how to prepare a meal!

You've triggered a lot of responses, Terrie, but as I said I figured I had a unique perspective on this one point. Please don't think I'm "piling on." This is all submitted respectfully.

Yes, Pat, you are absolutely RIGHT! There but for the Grace of God go I. I've been there, was stuck for a LONG time, no job, no money... no car.

My life has been the exact opposite. I started out in marriage poor, broke, desparate. I'm lucky, I guess. It's not that I can pat myself on the back or be self-righteous. I guess it's just luck and perseverance that brought me to this point.

One neighbor is out of work, another's in jail (he was a lawyer, accountant... long story) and some own their own businesses and are doing well while others in similar businesses are scraping by.

Pat, I know all too well about not being able to afford housing in the area in which one currently lives. We had a little 2-bedroom apartment for 13 years with 2 kids. We had to move 1-1/2 hours away from our families to live in the house we have now. My dad's dying. I get back to Philly every chance I get, but he hates that I have such a long drive so he tells me not to come down. My sister also moved out this way and he doesn't let her or my brother come to visit because "it's too far." So I know about having to move far away from what one's used to just to be able to afford to buy a house or get a decent apartment. And I feel bad for those people who really don't want to leave their area but have no choice. Again, I was lucky. I lucked into this house, it's in a great area (albeit no decent jobs exist) and a great school district and the ONLY college that has connections to the Navajo Nation as its "sister college" and hooked up with the prof who lives on the Rez every summer. It was just the luck of the draw, I guess.

I do agree that things are terribly wrong in this country and that there's a lot that needs fixing. And I was totally unaware of a lot of things y'all have written in and for your posts I am VERY grateful. It's been very enlightening hearing your opinions and the research and sources you've offered.

And I want you all to know that I consider all of you real friends for taking the time to educate me in areas in which I was totally ignorant. If I didn't feel comfortable opening up my mouth, I wouldn't have shared so many of my opinions and shown you how short-sighted I can be.

Thank you all for opening my eyes and forcing me to shut my mouth!

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by star:

You know, maybe if GW had been bright enough to get through law school, and had worked in a trial or two, he'd be able to create a sentence that could be understood.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Believe me, you don't hafta be smart to get thru law school.

Hi, Joe! I totally agree about the tax cuts. It should be that the cuts were subject to reversal if they weren't used in the way they were intended... to stimulate job growth HERE... not job growth in a foreign country.

I used to be certified to do taxes by H&R Block... not the greatest credentials, I guess, but a grueling course nontheless.

However, I don't think that one has to be "rich" to invest in the stock/bond market (commodities, yes). My father always dabbled, even when he really couldn't afford to, simply because he was investing for the long term. Some years he made money, some he didn't. But it paid off cos he can supplement his SS with his interest and dividends, on which he relies heavily now.

Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to think that the "capital gains" tax is a tax only assessed on rich people and that the "little guy" can't benefit from any cut in the capital gains tax. It's been a long time since I took my tax classes, but I do recall that when selling your primary residence you had to pay a capital gains tax if you didn't roll over your gain within a certain amount of time into another primary residence. For those people who were "downsizing" from a house to a retirement apartment, they get hit hard with the tax on the gain. From what I understand from my sister (who does taxes privately from home), there is no capital gains tax if the house sells for under $250,000. Is that correct? I won't have to roll over my sale?

I'm very curious about this because I bought my huge house for $78,000 and I may be able to sell it for around $115,000 next year when (if) I get to Albuquerque. I don't want to buy another house. I'd rather live in campus housing, at least for the first few years.

This is good, Terrie. What we've learned today is..you're not a Republican. At least not by the standards of today's Republicans which are a different animal than any I've seen in my 54 years on earth. My mother says she's never seen anything as bad as this aministration and she's 83.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pat:

This is good, Terrie. What we've learned today is..you're not a Republican. At least not by the standards of today's Republicans <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pat, I'm not? You mean I've blown my cover? Does this mean I'm welcomed back into the fold? I hope so cos I'd hate to be really uncomfortable in October at The Church.

Maybe I really need to get my nose out of my books, my hands off the keyboard and start paying more attention to current events. This whole experience has been an eye-opener.

I think I've been in academia for too long when it comes to what's going on all around me.

Thanks, everyone! For your patient explanations of stuff I've never been exposed to.

<FONT size="1">damned typos <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/smile.gif" width=15 height=15></FONT s>

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by Terrie on Jul 10, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

Well, of course that's just my way of talking. You're whatever you decide you are. It's just my own personal belief that compassion for others and voting for the current incarnation of the Republican party can't go together. Actually it's also my personal belief that concern for the rights and well being of anyone except that top 2000 or whatever the number is doesn't go well with voting Republican.

In response to Terrie, 4 posts ago:

The taxes on capital gains & dividends are not assessed only on rich folks, of course, but the wealthy are more likely to have these types of income than anybody else, & more of it.

Of course, the middle class should be able to save money without paying any taxes, like I do. What little I've saved is in my kids' names, my company 401(k), PA's TAP fund, & life insurance---none of it currently taxable. Stock market dabbling can take place in a 401(k).

I just don't buy into the myth that reductions in the tax rate on capital gains will automatically cause the rich folks to sell their stocks & new businesses will then pop up everywhere, thus creating employment. This didn't happen when Reagan reduced the capital gains tax rate from 35% to 30% & again to 28%, or when Clinton reduced it to 20%, or when Bush II reduced it to 15%. The Republicans say that one of their objections to social programs is that history shows that they "don't work." But why do they trot out tired old theories about tax reductions that have never worked?

They have everybody in this country thinking that a tax on capital gains is the most evil thing that could happen. I had an elderly client who was planning a vacation & asked me if he should get the money from selling stocks or from his IRA. I told him that he'd pay a lot less in taxes by selling stocks; he'd pay a lower tax rate & the tax would be imposed only on the gain, not the entire amount. In the end, he took it out of his IRA & paid more than twice as much in taxes. He had heard on Rush Limbaugh that every time we pay a capital gains tax, we weaken the nation.

Yes, it's true that a primary residence can now be sold tax-free. The $250,000 exemption you mention is <u>per taxpayer</u>, so that if you file a joint return with your husband the tax-free profit increases to $500,000. Here in PA, we live in one of the few states that isn't tied into the federal tax code, but the good news is that in this case, PA has followed suit & doesn't tax the gain from the sale of a primary residence. If you've ever rented out your home or claimed home office deductions, however, these tax breaks could go out the window.

BTW, in my last post I may have been guilty of an unintentional sexist remark. No, my client's wife could never have cooked them a meal, nor could he have cooked one himself.

(Edited to add the 1st sentence & clarify what I'm addressing. I shouldn't post until I've had one coffee.)

<center><FONT COLOR="#000080">--- Edited 1 times, lastly by P. Pittsburgh Joe on Jul 10, 2004 ---</FONT></center>

Terrie,

Traditionally, Republicans say that they are for 1) reduced taxes, 2) less laws/government intervention and 3) smaller government.

They are also recognized (as a group, not individually, generally) for intolerance for certain freedoms - freedom of choice, freedom to wed who you choose, and other "bigotries."

The truth, of late (like, since Reagan) - Republicans raise taxes on the lower and middle class, and give tax breaks to the "top 1%" and to corporations.

During Clinton's administration, they changed the taxes to remove (some of) the burden from those who cannot afford it, and raised taxes on the top 1%. This was part of what helped to slash the Reagan/Bush deficit, and actually give us a surplus.

Gore, under Clinton, realigned areas of the government - so that it was the smallest it has been in 30 years.

Bush II pissed away the surplus, and now has us back into trillion dollar deficits. He has expanded the government, larger than it was. He has removed the "death tax" - which only ever affected people with VERY large estates. His "tax breaks," harm the people he promises to help, and help out his buddies like Kenny Boy Lay, and the rest of the obscenely rich. They've increased legislation, to take away constitutional freedoms, under the name of "Patriotism".

I understand the Republican "party line," I believe... and the fact that they have stepped on EVERYTHING a Republican is supposed to stand for makes me wonder what kind of hypoctite one must be to run for office as a Republican - or work on a Republican's campaign.

Star, for a BlunderVirgin it sounds like you've been around the block a few times. You hit all the nails on their respective heads with your recent post.

Now, let's get out there and let the millions of Terrie's in the US know what's going on!

ty, mikey. I have to say that I was one of the democrats with my hands over my ears saying "LALALALALA" - even as a blunderite - because I despise politics. Always have, always will.

But I started listening to Air America Radio, read Al Franken's books, looked up the stuff he said about media (decidedly *NOT* liberal, for many, many years), learned to spit in O'Reilly's general direction, etc.

Randi Rhodes, though... What a hellcat. You love her or hate her, and I love her - she can be enormously obnoxious, but dear Lord, does she know what she is talking about. Because of Randi I posted the tinfoil thread - she was why I started looking at timelines of 9/11 (the one Moore featured in the movie.) Lying Liars reminded me of that first Bush admin lie, after the election - remember? "Even the W's were removed from the typewriters... SUCH vandalism..." This from the group coming in to "change the tone."

We went from a president who told one lie about something that *never* should have been asked in decent company, and then learned that he had had a blowjob from an intern...

To a crowd of bankrobbers (check the old Savings and Loan scandals) and corporate shills - in Saudi Arabia's pocket - who have done nothing *but* lie, since day one.

I'd much rather have a President who screws an intern than one that screws the country.

I truly believe that Bush (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell and Blair) should be tried for war crimes, and when convicted, they should face the same punishment as those in Nurenberg.

And any who make it home then should be tried for treason (shuffling 70 million dollars from Afghanistan to Iraq without congressional approval, showing "NOFOR" war plans to foreigners, etc, etc, etc) along with Ascroft and Rice - and should face the same punishment as the Rosenbergs.

Yeah. I'm not bitter.

And I really miss Todd. <img src="http://www.arlo.net/ubb/smilies/frown.gif" width=15 height=15>

"Damn hippies."

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by star:
He has removed the "death tax" - which only ever affected people with VERY large estates. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The estate tax repeal is one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated on the American public.

It was never a big revenue-raiser at all, it's fair to point out, so the repeal has little effect on the deficit.

However, the purpose of the estate tax was never revenue-raising as much as it was ease in record-keeping. Without getting overly technical, the theory was to tax the assets of a large estate at death so the government could get their money at death & beneficiaries needn't be concerned about how much their parents, grandparents, etc. originally paid for the assets for purposes of computing the taxable gain on sale.

Now the estate tax has been repealed & replaced with a capital gains tax on liquidating an inheritance. There is an exemption from the tax for the first $1.3 million inherited from an estate, but still, one can see who is gonna primarily benefit from this.

And while $1.3 million sounds like a lot of money, it's not hard for an estate to approach that if the decedent had a decent life insurance policy, a retirement account, & a paid-for house.

BTW, Star, you've unwittingly fallen into using one of the right-wing buzzwords yourself. There has never been a "death tax", which sounds like a horrible tax on the very act of dying, but there has been an "estate tax," i.e., a tax on transferring assets by death.

Randi Rhodes..yeah. She's the only one I get to hear on a regular basis. She's on when we're on our way home from work. For me, she was an acquired taste. Bob would have it on when I got in the car and sometimes her voice, even though the accent is totally familiar in these parts, was not what I felt like hearing after a very stressful day. Now, however, I love her and listen to every word.

As far as taxes go, Joe knows a lot more than I do but it sure sounds right to me. I think a one time exemption on capital gains for a primary residence is a good thing. It was already in place for people over 55 and I see nothing wrong with making it more flexible than that. As far as supply-side economics in general are concerned, it wasn't always thus and I don't see any reason in the world why it should be that way now. Trickle down is the right term for it all right. People who actually work for a living are getting pissed on right and left.