The Prez.'s Economic Speech....

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, his economic "plan" continues to stroke his rich contributors but does little or nothing for most Americans. We've been down this path, before. All that happens is, the rich get richer, and the poor will have more children with less education and health care. :disgust:

Maybe the poor should stop having so many children.

Hitler tried to control who had children also, seems to be a popular fascist solution.

And Hitler also taxed the hell out of the German people. He also restricted gun ownership, inforced a policy of forced abortions, controlled what the press could say/print, and gave lip service to the poor while all the time fattening himself and what he considered the elite of society.

Hey....you know what....that sounds just like the Democratic platform.

Right.... except hitler was a fascist, as are Republicans in general. Democrats typically are socialists remember. Or maybe Democrats are both fascists and socialists in your eyes?!?! If that's the case you need to get commited. Next thing you're going to start spouting about is how the Republican's want less governemt and are fiscally responcible.

I'll agree with you that a large portion of the Democratic party is Socialist. To say that Republicans are Fascist though it retarded. You're so blinded by your hated of Republicans that you can't see the truth before your eyes.

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Why don't we just do this? Everyone that makes under $100k immediately no longer has to work, and everyone that makes over that will be responsible for giving 75% of their income to pay for those who don't have to work!! Yeah, that sounds good....

Sounds like Thera's dream world......she'll be thrilled.....

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Peetoeng

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, his economic "plan" continues to stroke his rich contributors but does little or nothing for most Americans. We've been down this path, before. All that happens is, the rich get richer, and the poor will have more children with less education and health care. :disgust:

Maybe the poor should stop having so many children.

Are you suggesting that China's one-child policy be forced on the poor. Hail Chairman Mao!

I think he's suggesting that the poor take some personal responsibility and not have children they can't afford.

Example: My wife's aunt has a son who is on his second child. He doesn't have a job and lives in a boarding house. How responsible is that? Should the government reward him for his lack of responsibility?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

How about actually reading about the $3K unemployment account. You don't draw on it until after all your normal benefits are used up . . .

Well it was such a secret until Bush lifted the veil an hour ago. During this extended period of rising unemployment (and the expectation that it will continue to rise through 2003) a lot of people will exhaust normal benefits. My point is unemployment should function like cash welfare benefits a limited safety net in times of need. The fund should ONLY provide said benefit. If you want people to access education expand HOPE, if you want to pay for childcare give a credit for it, if you want to subsidize healthcare write a program.

Productive people don't need a bonus for being productive when those in need could use the same resource (without having to further drain government coffers) . . . I mean government borrowing.

 

[UltraQuiet]

I have to agree though, I do not strongly agree with a child credit (and I have 4). It encourages a practice, sort of like welfare.

You would have a hard time convincing me that the $1K you would get for your kids would ever encourage anyone to have children. Anyone with kids knows you spend a lot more on them thatn the gov't gives you credit for and what kind of cold hearted SOB would have kids just for the tax break?

The poor need education and healthcare. The small business owner (that indeed drives US job growth) is not offering health coverage . . . but I guess they will take their windfall and invest it in . . . paying Aetna? Yeah , right

Question. Are the premiums that businesses spend on employee health care tax deductible?

 

[thebestMAX]

Boy, I wish the zero tax plan on dividends was retroactive to about 1967 when I got out of the Air Force.

Earning 7K a year and working 60-72 hours a week made me feel "Rich" so I invested my "great surplus" and have paid for it ever since.

Harvey and Mooney, 😉

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, his economic "plan" continues to stroke his rich contributors but does little or nothing for most Americans. We've been down this path, before. All that happens is, the rich get richer, and the poor will have more children with less education and health care. :disgust:

Maybe the poor should stop having so many children.

Hitler tried to control who had children also, seems to be a popular fascist solution.

And Hitler also taxed the hell out of the German people. He also restricted gun ownership, inforced a policy of forced abortions, controlled what the press could say/print, and gave lip service to the poor while all the time fattening himself and what he considered the elite of society.

Hey....you know what....that sounds just like the Democratic platform.

Right.... except hitler was a fascist, as are Republicans in general. Democrats typically are socialists remember. Or maybe Democrats are both fascists and socialists in your eyes?!?! If that's the case you need to get commited. Next thing you're going to start spouting about is how the Republican's want less governemt and are fiscally responcible.

I'll agree with you that a large portion of the Democratic party is Socialist. To say that Republicans are Fascist though it retarded. You're so blinded by your hated of Republicans that you can't see the truth before your eyes.

So you'll agree with saying something negative about the Democrats but not Republicans. Let me guess....you're a Republican?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Peetoeng

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, his economic "plan" continues to stroke his rich contributors but does little or nothing for most Americans. We've been down this path, before. All that happens is, the rich get richer, and the poor will have more children with less education and health care. :disgust:

Maybe the poor should stop having so many children.

Are you suggesting that China's one-child policy be forced on the poor. Hail Chairman Mao!

See my response above. My statement was not intended to mean a government sponsored population control policy, rather better decision making by some people.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What do successful people do with $25,000? They buy a home. What do idiots do? They buy a Cadillac Escalade.

Damn, housing and cars are cheap in your neighborhood. Would you mind buying 2 Escalades and a house for me? I've got some money coming to me.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: Peetoeng

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, his economic "plan" continues to stroke his rich contributors but does little or nothing for most Americans. We've been down this path, before. All that happens is, the rich get richer, and the poor will have more children with less education and health care. :disgust:

Maybe the poor should stop having so many children.

Are you suggesting that China's one-child policy be forced on the poor. Hail Chairman Mao!

I think he's suggesting that the poor take some personal responsibility and not have children they can't afford.

Example: My wife's aunt has a son who is on his second child. He doesn't have a job and lives in a boarding house. How responsible is that? Should the government reward him for his lack of responsibility?

Thank you, someone understands.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Question. Are the premiums that businesses spend on employee health care tax deductible?

I believe so . . . but I would ask a CPA. Most small businesses aren't offering healthcare for some reason.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

I have to agree though, I do not strongly agree with a child credit (and I have 4). It encourages a practice, sort of like welfare.

You would have a hard time convincing me that the $1K you would get for your kids would ever encourage anyone to have children. Anyone with kids knows you spend a lot more on them thatn the gov't gives you credit for and what kind of cold hearted SOB would have kids just for the tax break?

The poor need education and healthcare. The small business owner (that indeed drives US job growth) is not offering health coverage . . . but I guess they will take their windfall and invest it in . . . paying Aetna? Yeah , right

Question. Are the premiums that businesses spend on employee health care tax deductible?

Who knows Dave, but the fact is it does reward for a specific practice.

I have known at least one couple in my lifetime that specifically had another child in order to reap the benefits from welfare. I'm not saying they were smart for doing it, but some people look at this stuff differently that you and I.

 

[Michael]

BaliBayDoc - The poor have free education until the end of high school and there are so many benefit programs around for low income students that they could make it through University if they made it that far.

The poor also have free healthcare. The segment most at risk are those who earn enough to not qualify for free healthcare but who do not have medical benefits.

I'm of the opinion that a stable family and parents with jobs would maginify the benefit of the free education.

Creating a stable family is more of a religious or moral issue and the government has very limited power here.

That leaves job creation. I'm of the opinion that the government is a poor job creator. I have always felt that limiting government spending and reducing the tax burden on the population (with the "richer" people creating more jobs as statistics show) is about the best that the government can do.

Stimulating consumer demand (short-term paybacks) gets even more complicated these days as so much of our consumer goods are manufactured overseas. Creating jobs in service industries (transportation and retail) doesn't seem like the best balance for the longer term.

This is a difficult quandry and I have yet to see either party address it in any of their proposed plans.

Michael

ps - I am for tax reform on dividend payments

The choices boil down to:

1) No income tax for individuals

2) Allow comapnies to deduct dividend payments for their taxes

Of the two, I prefer to give the relief for individuals. This is mainly because that spreads the benefit around the furthest. Individuals tend to pay taxes all the time whereas companies swing from profit to loss pretty often and their tax situation also varies.

This benefit will be somewhat muted because of pension plans and 401(k)'s holding much of the stock wealth of the average person (401(k) money eventually gets taxed as ordinary income. In some ways, the capital gain tax reductions and the dividend tax deductions will make them a less lucrative option).

I know that I have been using DRIPs for close to a decade as another savings means. Not paying taxes on the dividends I'm getting will help me much more than even my peers who do not own many dividend paying stocks.

pps - Medical Insurance premiums are deductable. Mnay small businesses do not offer them because of the cost and because of the administrative headache. I'm talking about 5 - 15 person firms or partnerships (this is a big portion of the workforce). I have found that the trend is more of these companies offering benefits (a product of the boom in the late 90's when they were trying to attract workers).

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Question. Are the premiums that businesses spend on employee health care tax deductible?

I believe so . . . but I would ask a CPA. Most small businesses aren't offering healthcare for some reason.

Yes they are, but the reason that many small (less than 50 employees) don't offer healthcare is the outrageous cost of the premiums. Which, in my opinion, could be done away with by getting rid of third-party payors, not by the feds throwing more money into medicare and other medical programs.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Peetoeng

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, his economic "plan" continues to stroke his rich contributors but does little or nothing for most Americans. We've been down this path, before. All that happens is, the rich get richer, and the poor will have more children with less education and health care. :disgust:

Maybe the poor should stop having so many children.

Are you suggesting that China's one-child policy be forced on the poor. Hail Chairman Mao!

See my response above. My statement was not intended to mean a government sponsored population control policy, rather better decision making by some people.

Damn those anti-good decision making people!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I'll agree with you that a large portion of the Democratic party is Socialist. To say that Republicans are Fascist though it retarded. You're so blinded by your hated of Republicans that you can't see the truth before your eyes.

I dislike Democrats, Republicans, socialists, and fascists. But I've met more fascist Republicans than socialist Democrats . . . then again I also hung out with a lot of Republicans.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Thera

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, his economic "plan" continues to stroke his rich contributors but does little or nothing for most Americans. We've been down this path, before. All that happens is, the rich get richer, and the poor will have more children with less education and health care. :disgust:

Maybe the poor should stop having so many children.

Hitler tried to control who had children also, seems to be a popular fascist solution.

And Hitler also taxed the hell out of the German people. He also restricted gun ownership, inforced a policy of forced abortions, controlled what the press could say/print, and gave lip service to the poor while all the time fattening himself and what he considered the elite of society.

Hey....you know what....that sounds just like the Democratic platform.

-Let's see Hitler patriotism and a strong military. Conservaives love patriotism and a strong military.

-Hitler Germany Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. Conservatives want to abolish minimum wage which would essentially do the same.

-Hitler's Germany's Racism over racial tolerance. Trent Lott 2002.

-Hitler's police state. John Ascroft/Bush/DHLS all conservative agenda.

Hitler also favored merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, Capitalism over Marxism, and the gun control is a myth since the treaty of Versailles (written by us) required all guns confiscated from the public. To argue Hitler was a leftist ignores all his beliefs put him on the far right. Read some of his readings on Karl Marx, he hated to man, and was generally thought to be very catholic in his social belief system.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: Michael<
This benefit will be somewhat muted because of pension plans and 401(k)'s holding much of the stock wealth of the average person (401(k) money eventually gets taxed as ordinary income. In some ways, the capital gain tax reductions and the dividend tax deductions will make them a less lucrative option).

I know that I have been using DRIPs for close to a decade as another savings means. Not paying taxes on the dividends I'm getting will help me much more than even my peers who do not own many dividend paying stocks.

Not necessarily true. When 401K is withdrawn, the gains would benefit from the capital gain tax reduction. It's just a matter of now or later.

BTW, I also use DRIPs for most of my stock investing. Much cheaper than using a broker.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Yes they are, but the reason that many small (less than 50 employees) don't offer healthcare is the outrageous cost of the premiums.

I was pretty sure that was the reason most didn't offer them, because of affordability. I wonder if it would be possible to figure out an incentive for small business to be able to do this. By incentives I mean tax credits or direct subsidies. I wonder what that would do to the premiums though. Hmmm.......

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Peetoeng

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, his economic "plan" continues to stroke his rich contributors but does little or nothing for most Americans. We've been down this path, before. All that happens is, the rich get richer, and the poor will have more children with less education and health care. :disgust:

Maybe the poor should stop having so many children.

Are you suggesting that China's one-child policy be forced on the poor. Hail Chairman Mao!

See my response above. My statement was not intended to mean a government sponsored population control policy, rather better decision making by some people.

Damn those anti-good decision making people!

Hey, some people would say that me having 4 kids is not a good decision, but I didn't do it without understanding whether I could afford it or not.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

I'll agree with you that a large portion of the Democratic party is Socialist. To say that Republicans are Fascist though it retarded. You're so blinded by your hated of Republicans that you can't see the truth before your eyes.

I dislike Democrats, Republicans, socialists, and fascists. But I've met more fascist Republicans than socialist Democrats . . . then again I also hung out with a lot of Republicans.

Socialism has never been tried. How do you know if you'd like it?

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Yes they are, but the reason that many small (less than 50 employees) don't offer healthcare is the outrageous cost of the premiums.

I was pretty sure that was the reason most didn't offer them, because of affordability. I wonder if it would be possible to figure out an incentive for small business to be able to do this. By incentives I mean tax credits or direct subsidies. I wonder what that would do to the premiums though. Hmmm.......

I manage the benefits accounting department of a Fortune 125 company and we don't even pay premiums. Instead, we pay actual claims because it's CHEAPER! :Q That's without any subsidy or tax credit.

 

[Michael]

CPA - Gains in the 401(k) are not taxed when they occur. When you withdraw money, it is taxes as ordinary income. You don't track the gains and losses in the plan for later use in applying for capital gains rates.

You get the benefit of the original investment not being taxed (a big benefit for me) until you later withdraw it.

Michael

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Once again, his economic "plan" continues to stroke his rich contributors but does little or nothing for most Americans. We've been down this path, before. All that happens is, the rich get richer, and the poor will have more children with less education and health care. :disgust:

How is it a tax cut for the rich harms the poor? 😕 If the rich has more money, they create more jobs either by spending the money or investing the money into business. They're the ones that pay the taxes, have you ever heard a democrat say "Tax cuts for the poor!" right... as if the "poor" pay taxes, let alone work at all...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Yes they are, but the reason that many small (less than 50 employees) don't offer healthcare is the outrageous cost of the premiums. Which, in my opinion, could be done away with by getting rid of third-party payors, not by the feds throwing more money into medicare and other medical programs.

My father offered his employees health insurance for a while but dumped it due to the increasing premiums. Our system is a patchwork of third-party payers. I assume you are advocating fee-for-service? I think that's great as long as it is illegal to refuse services b/c someone can't pay. Medicare and Medicaid have lower overhead than private carriers. The major problem is the BS documentation imposed by Medicare and the reduction in reimbursement from the Feds.

Premiums are exploding b/c of the bum market. Carriers were happy to lose money on policies when the market was booming . . . insurance was like a side business. Now they can't make money unless their premiums are jacked up. Which has made small business optioning go from difficult to nearly impossible.