I hope he has a slow, miserable death

nooshinjohn

gdb wrote: »

I love it ! It has allowed me to "reunite" with lost friends from a period 30+ years ago in my life. Approx. 30 of us enjoy a closed group devoted to music appreciation (zero talk of gear or **** length) where we have a lot of fun posting songs and reminiscing about the "glory days" of our lost youth. And.....it hasn't cost me one thin dime !:cheesygrin: In my estimation, that's useful.

Yet another useless BS post... you HAVE no friends!:cheesygrin:

pitdogg2

shack wrote: »

Royal Philips Electronics is a Netherlands Corporation. If it received a refund it is because it's US subsidiary lost money. As much as they would like to...even the IRS can't tax a foreign company's worldwide income.

It was an American company and that is what came to mind for what reason i don't know. I remembered that Philips was from across the pond after it was too late to edit. Could of been GE or Westinghouse it was a bigger electronics company that was based in the U.S. and all profitably companies are now over sea's mostly in Europe....It was a very good 60 minutes show that was in depth of what is wrong with our taxing bodies which is costing our country jobs and dollars.

gdb

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Yet another useless BS post... you HAVE no friends!:cheesygrin:

Guess what, the ones I supposedly don't have.........are in no way similar to you !

A true reason for JOY !

newrival

pbs aired a very interesting look into the exportation of intelligence throughout the world to the countries that are experiencing booming economies (the countries conveniently left off deronb's list like china, japan, malaysia, india, emirates, etc. which ALL have lower tax rates. While nearly all countries on his list are doing far worse than us.).

I agree taxes are about redistribution of wealth, but not how has been previously pointed out. It is the redistribution from the citizens pockets, to the pockets of the politicians. Nearly all bills are about keeping the current politicians employed, and making maney. Does anyone else find it crazy that this year a bill was passed that made it illegal for policy makers to benefit off of their policies? Again, I said this year! up until now insider trading was legal in the legislative branch! These people are crooks, but as long as they point the finger at others, and push some scraps from their table into our bowls we go about our lives being pissed at the straw men on behalf of our antagonists. It's divide and conquer in the most sinister application I can imagine.

cnh

SDA1C wrote: »

That sucks! I feel ya there. I irritated one of mine when hitting the parade deck. Nothing too serious at the time but 15 years later I wrecked my MTB and hyper extend the same tendon. It is truly a bi..ch now. Go after a big shot of cortisone! It'll fix ya right up. If it is still attached that is.

Thanks guys, not to intrude on the current discussion but I am here with my foot up and waiting for an appointment with the orthopedist ASAP. My foot is fairly immobilized and I'm not really in any pain. But I'm pretty sure I have a significant tear or more in there.

As for where're we are at above. I have no problems with Tax Reforms, and I also "understand" the conservative position, disturbance at raising taxes (it makes perfect sense from that set of ideas concerning what helps or hinders economic growth).

It is also true that many have lower tax rates than we do. The only real problem this Facebook guy has is that he wants to be able to be abroad so he can't tap all the incredible tax breaks that are available to many in the U.S. already. The entire loophole issue is part of the problem. But, though "taxes" are an issue, guys. The world economy is far more complex than how much a particular nation taxes its well off members. Incredibly more complex. And I'm not saying we can document all that. But we should think about some of that. One thing I can tell you, although, I'm not going to go into it here--not the time or place when it involves an entire course. What is going on in China is very very complex and without a thorough understanding of its history, politics and reforms, etc. Along with a deeper understanding of foreign investment as it behooves each corp. or country in China and its relations with the Chinese state it's almost impossible to really understand what has happened, what is happening, and what might happen in the future. And even those of us who study this don't agree 100 percent of the time. lol

So taxes, yes!...AND?

cnh

cnh

drumminman wrote: »

I feel for you! I ruptured mine 2 1/2 years ago, had surgery and started rehab. Still not 100%, but the pain/soreness is gone.

Crutches suck! Best advice re: mobility I can give is get one of those 3 wheel knee walkers. Can't use 'em everywhere, but where you can they're so much better than crutches. Faster too!

Also, if your crutches have rubber grips on the arm and handles cover them with cloth. It'll keep you skin from being rubbed raw.

Are you having surgery?

Thanks. I misused the multi-quote feature above and your post didn't show up!

Have no idea about surgery yet. But I believe so! From the extent of what I see from the injury.

I'm out of here for a bit, have to attend to my crutches. lol

cnh

tonyb

newrival wrote: »

I agree taxes are about redistribution of wealth, but not how has been previously pointed out. It is the redistribution from the citizens pockets, to the pockets of the politicians. Nearly all bills are about keeping the current politicians employed, and making maney. Does anyone else find it crazy that this year a bill was passed that made it illegal for policy makers to benefit off of their policies? Again, I said this year! up until now insider trading was legal in the legislative branch! These people are crooks, but as long as they point the finger at others, and push some scraps from their table into our bowls we go about our lives being pissed at the straw men on behalf of our antagonists. It's divide and conquer in the most sinister application I can imagine.

That insider trading bill was another wash to pacify you into thinking they are doing something. Ok, make it illegal for the legislative branch, whats to stop a phone call to someone not in the legislative branch ? Always a back door for these people, always. Plus, before legislation is even voted on, positions are adjusted accordingly prior, which is why the big push and the demonizing right before a vote. Divide and conquer....check, sinister...to a degree, check. More bailouts to come....check. Who will pay ? Why you of coarse, one way or another.

amulford

Why do you think a large majority of these people want to get into politics in the first place? Do you honestly think that someone who was rather successful in the private sector is doing it out of some altruistic compulsion to right the wrongs and protect the meek? Yeah, ok...

Now as far as this original topic, I say bugger off. I see his point, to a degree. Therein lies the problem.

You see, this country's government has created the conundrum at the behest of the power behind the curtains. And the only people getting the short end of the stick is Mr. and Ms. Everyday Citizen.

I don't remember who said it, but the saying is that a little revolution every once in a while is a good thing. I think they were right and the time is coming quicker than you think. Things can't keep going like they are, there will come a time when there won't be anything else to lose...

LeftCoast

WilliamM2 wrote: »

Did anyone notice that he wasn't born here, and hasn't lived here in years? Maybe if the government didn't feel they were entitled to 50% of his income, he would have remained a citizen.

During the 1950's and early 1960's the top bracket income tax rate was over 90 pct, and the economy, middle class, and stock market boomed.

....And though they were taxed at that rate, they were STILL much better off than the middle class. Do the math.

obieone

pitdogg2 wrote: »

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-co-founder--america-is-ok--it%E2%80%99s-the-rules-that-are-a-pain.html

sounds like he'll still pay a hefty sum to renounce citizenship

I can't believe the IRS has the power to collect taxes from foreign banks?! If I was that bank, I'd tell the IRS to GFY!

tonyb

LeftCoast wrote: »

During the 1950's and early 1960's the top bracket income tax rate was over 90 pct, and the economy, middle class, and stock market boomed.

....And though they were taxed at that rate, they were STILL much better off than the middle class. Do the math.

Just because thats the percentage in the top brackets doesn't mean they actually paid that. Whats the point, 35-50-90%, if your given multiple ways to get out of it or lower it substantialy ?

Markets fluctuate no matter the tax bracket percentage, it really has little to do with the stock market going up or down but both sides of the fence want you to believe their side so you get these silly talking points.

LeftCoast

tonyb wrote: »

Just because thats the percentage in the top brackets doesn't mean they actually paid that. Whats the point, 35-50-90%, if your given multiple ways to get out of it or lower it substantialy ?

Markets fluctuate no matter the tax bracket percentage, it really has little to do with the stock market going up or down but both sides of the fence want you to believe their side so you get these silly talking points.

Nope. Actually generated revenue for the government. They didn't avoid paying. Want proof? You drive on it every day. The freeway systems were built with that revenue. Obviously, it also created alot of jobs.

tonyb

LeftCoast wrote: »

Nope. Actually generated revenue for the government. They didn't avoid paying. Want proof? You drive on it every day. The freeway systems were built with that revenue. Obviously, it also created alot of jobs.

LOL.....so when the government spends money, your telling me it's all from revenue collected in taxes, is that the jist ?

It wasn't the upper earners higher taxes that paid for highways, it was everyones, think gas taxes, automobile taxes, that go into the highway fund, thats why they were created in the first place.

Eisenhower did a great thing by building highways, no doubt, but it didn't happen because he decided to tax the rich, LOL !!

heiney9

Don't forget the Illinois Toll Roads Tony, all that money goes back into the roads................lmao. Remember when the tolls were supposed to be gone in the 60's after they paid for the roads....

bmbguy

tonyb wrote: »

LOL.....so when the government spends money, your telling me it's all from revenue collected in taxes, is that the jist ?

These days, almost half of gov't spending is borrowed money. We've all heard about US Treasurys and the bond market. And we'll hear a lot more about it when others finally stop lending us money -- knowing there's no way we can pay it all back - and interest rates start cruising higher again.

See Europe for a little sample of what will happen here.

tonyb

Well Brock, that flys with my notion that once a tax is initiated, it never goes away.

I was watching Magic City a few nights ago, the main character, the owner of the hotel was having a discusion with his son. Basically told him that after love, love of a good woman, love for family, for blood, everything else in life, everything....is about money. I sat there thinking about that and ya know, I have to agree to a certain extent.

tonyb

bmbguy wrote: »

These days, almost half of gov't spending is borrowed money. We've all heard about US Treasurys and the bond market. And we'll hear a lot more about it when others finally stop lending us money -- knowing there's no way we can pay it all back - and interest rates start cruising higher again.

See Europe for a little sample of what will happen here.

Thats the downside of a fiat currency, it's not backed on a commodity such as gold/silver but on confidence. This transition usually happens when debt is greater than your reserves of gold or silver and in our case, under Nixon, it had to happen to avoid a collapse of the monetary system. All fiat currencies are doomed to fail sooner or later, we are not immune to that. Now that I think about it, I think every currency now on the planet is a fiat currency. What does that tell you ?

bmbguy

tonyb wrote: »

All fiat currencies are doomed to fail sooner or later, we are not immune to that. Now that I think about it, I think every curreny now on the planet is a fiat currency. What does that tell you ?

You are correct sir. All major currencies are now merely paper.

LeftCoast

tonyb wrote: »

LOL.....so when the government spends money, your telling me it's all from revenue collected in taxes, is that the jist ?

It wasn't the upper earners higher taxes that paid for highways, it was everyones, think gas taxes, automobile taxes, that go into the highway fund, thats why they were created in the first place.

Eisenhower did a great thing by building highways, no doubt, but it didn't happen because he decided to tax the rich, LOL !!

Don't be obtuse. Look at my original statement. In the 50's and early 60's, the top tax bracket was being taxed at over 90 pct. THE TOP TAX BRACKET. Did everyone contribute? Yes, of course. But the rich were being asked to pay more, and they were. The extra revenue generated from this paid from the freeway system, which created middle class jobs, which stimulates spending, which drives the economy.

At least you didn't reply with, "the rich didn't actually pay 90 pct."

cnh

I don't disagree. But I believe that if you look at America's position in the world during these "golden years" it was very different from what we have today.

According to some rather well-known economic historians the U.S. economy has "never" really been the same since the second term of the Nixon administration. Taxes were not the primary issue in that time period. Conservatives argue that Gov't expansion under Johnson was the problem along with high wages created by Unions. The other side looks at the decline of American Hegemony and the inability to control the flight of capital from the U.S. plus increased competition that the U.S. was not ready for from the East and some from Europe after that date.

We do know that by the mid-70s (the actual date is tough to pinpoint) it was getting less and less possible for a family to have ONE breadwinner. The statistics show that only with the entry of more and more women, etc. into the economy was the middle-class life-style still possible in the U.S. after this time or sometime close to it--it's difficult to put an exact date on this. What happened to the one headed household family? We don't see a discussion of buying power and value decline in almost a continuous streak "regardless" or who was in power, the right or the left?

Globalization changed the playing field. And is slowly making the nation state an irrelevant economic player. One that cannot do much to defend its economic territoriality if there is such a term.

Capital has always flown to where cheap labor is, there is nothing unique about that process. I'm not really trying to end up anywhere here except to suggest that both the right and the left don't seem to have complete explanations of what is causing and furthering the crisis. I tend to tread lightly here. And I can't just "knee jerk" my way through economic arguments because I start from a preconceived set of assumptions. I do not.

cnh

LeftCoast

bmbguy wrote: »

These days, almost half of gov't spending is borrowed money. We've all heard about US Treasurys and the bond market. And we'll hear a lot more about it when others finally stop lending us money -- knowing there's no way we can pay it all back - and interest rates start cruising higher again.

See Europe for a little sample of what will happen here.

Depends on which part of Europe you are talking about. Northern Europeans are doing quite well. They pay very high taxes btw.

tonyb

LeftCoast wrote: »

Don't be obtuse. Look at my original statement. In the 50's and early 60's, the top tax bracket was being taxed at over 90 pct. THE TOP TAX BRACKET. Did everyone contribute? Yes, of course. But the rich were being asked to pay more, and they were. The extra revenue generated from this paid from the freeway system, which created middle class jobs, which stimulates spending, which drives the economy.

At least you didn't reply with, "the rich didn't actually pay 90 pct."

No, while the tax rate was indeed what you claim, it has no bearing on the actual revenue brought in. You do understand tax deductions, right ?

If I read your post correctly then, the economy only gets stimulated by government taking from one group of people and giving it to another ? The public sector can't create jobs without taking from the private sector. So without government subsidizing jobs, all is lost ? Do you not see thats how we are in the financial situation that we are today, partly anyway, because of subsidized jobs ? Why do you think unions love big government ? You can't keep sticking up Peter to pay Paul. When they figured out you can pay debt with more debt, it was all downhill. I know that sounds 'effed up, but in essense thats what we do.

The freeway system was a great idea regardless of how it was funded, that we can agree on. Revenue for freeways was and still is raised from the gas tax in part, a simple google search should point that out.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question8

There ya go....read up.

bmbguy

tonyb wrote: »

You can't keep sticking up Peter to pay Paul.

Because when the Peters decide to say 'no more', you're screwed. Which is kinda how this thread got started in the first place.

tonyb

Let me point out I'm not against government subsidizing some jobs. They can do good things with our money when they want to. Think Hoover Dam, Panama canal too along with our highway system as just 2 more examples. Unfortunately those things are far and few between while spending our money on B.S. and social engineering.

LeftCoast

tonyb wrote: »

No, while the tax rate was indeed what you claim, it has no bearing on the actual revenue brought in. You do understand tax deductions, right ?

If I read your post correctly then, the economy only gets stimulated by government taking from one group of people and giving it to another ? The public sector can't create jobs without taking from the private sector. So without government subsidizing jobs, all is lost ? Do you not see thats how we are in the financial situation that we are today, partly anyway, because of subsidized jobs ? Why do you think unions love big government ? You can't keep sticking up Peter to pay Paul. When they figured out you can pay debt with more debt, it was all downhill. I know that sounds 'effed up, but in essense thats what we do.

The freeway system was a great idea regardless of how it was funded, that we can agree on. Revenue for freeways was and still is raised from the gas tax in part, a simple google search should point that out.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/faq.htm#question8

There ya go....read up.

Taking from one group of people and giving to another? No, everyone contributed. The rich were asked to contribute more. I agree that job creation via the public sector is preferable. But over the last decade, we have had record low taxes and deregulation, both of which make it easier on corporations and that wealthy. In essence the government "stepped out of the way". So where are the jobs? Where is the reinvestment? Is the answer to cut taxes even further? They are already at record lows. At some point, someone has to be wise enough to understand and admit that this is not working. At some point, they government has to step in, just like in the days of Hoover and FDR. Government can be used for good.

As for the freeway system, yes, it was a great idea. As for how it was funded? Whatever you believe, you cannot deny it was tax dollars that built it. So the government, in the hands of responsible people, can be used for good.

tonyb

LeftCoast wrote: »

Whatever you believe, you cannot deny it was tax dollars that built it. So the government, in the hands of responsible people, can be used for good.

Absolutely to the second part of that statement, but the first part....did you not read the link ?

Man, your memory is pretty short my friend. Over the last decade ??? How about just 5 or 6 years ago, when we had 5-6 % unemployment, lots of jobs, reasonable food prices, etc. Did you happen to forget those years ? Things turned south when leftwingers, sorry, couldn't resist, won both houses in Bush's last 2 years. The 6 prior years were not too shabby were they ? God knows I'm not a huge Bush fanboy, lots of things he could have done better for sure, but most people worked at least. Now we have a worldwide debt problem with investors sitting on their coin because the risks are too high. In the last 3.5 years we added 5 trillion to our debt with nothing to show for it. In all fairness too, Bush added his own pretty well also to fund wars which Obama is just continueing. So please tell me how throwing more money at a problem will make it go away. Thats the answer to every problem we face, just ask Jerry Brown, he'll tell ya, throw more money at it. Let me see if I understand this, correct me if I'm wrong, it's been known to happen a time or two. I'm an investor, sitting on billions to invest but given the markets, given the currency problems, european problems, I'm a tad skittish. So you think by charging me more money, that will get me off the sidelines and start investing ? Is that right ?

It's not the tax rates keeping investors on the sidelines, it's the uncertainty that makes them pause. Markets like stability, you see any ?

BTW-here's a part of that link that spells it out.

The president favored a toll highway network financed by bonds, but his aides convinced him that traffic volumes would not generate enough revenue in most corridors to repay bondholders with interest. Therefore, the plan the President submitted to Congress called for establishment of a Federal Highway Corporation to issue bonds to pay for the Interstate System up-front, with the Federal excise tax on gasoline and lubricating oil (which then went to the general Treasury without a linkage to highways) was dedicated to bond retirement. Congress rejected this plan, but adopted a proposal to finance the Interstate System on a pay-as-you-go basis with revenue from highway user taxes. The revenue was credited by the Department of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund established under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.

You don't happen to think, maybe...just maybe the 90% tax rate in the 60's was to fund a war, remember that cluster f&ck ?

mrbigbluelight

tonyb wrote: »

Now that I think about it, I think every currency now on the planet is a fiat currency. What does that tell you ?

China's yuan is a fiat currency.
However, China is sitting on a MOUNTAIN of gold, a mountain that they've accumulated over a long period of time.
If push came to shove, they'd be able to back some/all of their currency with gold.
Shoot, that kind of puts the yuan in a pretty strong postion to become the currency of international trade ! :rolleyes:

And, from what I've read, China's has begun paying for some of their oil imports in gold. (Iran, specificaly).

Hmmm. The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) have had meetings over the past several years to discuss economic issues, one of which is the use of the yuan as the currency of choice for international trade. That shouldn't matter to us, should it ? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
As long as it doesn't interfere with China/Russian joint military operation in the China Sea, then it's all good. :eek:
Or interfere with our country's joint military exercises with Russian Spetsnaz (Spetsnaz: Russian for "Gawdawful nasty, straight from Hades) troops on American soil, then ....
It's all good ? :eek::eek:


Anyhow, back on topic:

As billionaire Mark Cuban has written on his blog, the most patriotic thing you can do is bust your **** and get rich. Make a boatload of money. Pay your taxes.

In this case, F1 and Mr. Grand are dead on the money.
You should be willing to pay back something to the game that made you the money (for the Ferrenghi crowd).
Or
You should be willing to do the right thing.
Or
Get out of the ******* boat.

obieone

And just how much did Mr. Cuban pay in taxes last year. I'm sure he didn't use EVERY loophole available.

schwarcw

Talk about tax dodgers, Apple paid less than 13% in taxes. Mainly because their intellectual property is held by foreign subsidiary companies. Just another reason I won't buy an Apple product.

Look Here

LeftCoast

tonyb wrote: »

Absolutely to the second part of that statement, but the first part....did you not read the link ?

Man, your memory is pretty short my friend. Over the last decade ??? How about just 5 or 6 years ago, when we had 5-6 % unemployment, lots of jobs, reasonable food prices, etc. Did you happen to forget those years ? Things turned south when leftwingers, sorry, couldn't resist, won both houses in Bush's last 2 years. The 6 prior years were not too shabby were they ? God knows I'm not a huge Bush fanboy, lots of things he could have done better for sure, but most people worked at least. Now we have a worldwide debt problem with investors sitting on their coin because the risks are too high. In the last 3.5 years we added 5 trillion to our debt with nothing to show for it. In all fairness too, Bush added his own pretty well also to fund wars which Obama is just continueing. So please tell me how throwing more money at a problem will make it go away. Thats the answer to every problem we face, just ask Jerry Brown, he'll tell ya, throw more money at it. Let me see if I understand this, correct me if I'm wrong, it's been known to happen a time or two. I'm an investor, sitting on billions to invest but given the markets, given the currency problems, european problems, I'm a tad skittish. So you think by charging me more money, that will get me off the sidelines and start investing ? Is that right ?

It's not the tax rates keeping investors on the sidelines, it's the uncertainty that makes them pause. Markets like stability, you see any ?

BTW-here's a part of that link that spells it out.

The president favored a toll highway network financed by bonds, but his aides convinced him that traffic volumes would not generate enough revenue in most corridors to repay bondholders with interest. Therefore, the plan the President submitted to Congress called for establishment of a Federal Highway Corporation to issue bonds to pay for the Interstate System up-front, with the Federal excise tax on gasoline and lubricating oil (which then went to the general Treasury without a linkage to highways) was dedicated to bond retirement. Congress rejected this plan, but adopted a proposal to finance the Interstate System on a pay-as-you-go basis with revenue from highway user taxes. The revenue was credited by the Department of the Treasury to the Highway Trust Fund established under the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956.

You don't happen to think, maybe...just maybe the 90% tax rate in the 60's was to fund a war, remember that cluster f&ck ?

Start first buy examining yourself, my friend. You want to assert that the building of the freeway system was funded by a gas tax. Ok, let's start there (sorry. couldn't resist) In the 1950's and early 60's before the freeway system, there were far fewer cars on the roads. Gas was...what? 25 cents per gallon? How much gas do you imagine there is on 25 cents per gallon.
But no. That's not absurd. What's absurd is that the top tax bracket paid more than 90 pct in taxes and loopholed their way to what 16 pct?
Sure. history is wrong, but you are right about the tax 25 pct gasoline and relatively few cars on the roads paying for the the funding of the freeway system. Yeah. Whatever.