Mackie, whether you want to admit it or not, GWB is just a macrocosm of society at large. Just as Bill Clinton was a mirror image of the declining morality in this country, GWB is no different then most Americans. The average family in this country makes something like 34k a year, yet owns a home they can't afford, has credit cards maxed out to the hilt, spends way too much on cars, and is two weeks away from bankruptcy. The only difference between GWB and us is that we can file Bankruptcy, and the Treasury can just print more money or borrow and endless supply of money from the public. You see the government has a good credit rating, the american public does not. If you want to make this into a political propaganda speech fine. You can be intellectually dishonest all you want. But the fact of the matter is, if Kerry is elected President, nothing will change. If Guliani runs in 2008 and wins, nothing will change, had Gore won in 2000, nothing would have changed. I have said this before and I will say it again, only after a great depression will people in this country learn to value the dollar including our government.
Maverick, I did NOT say "poor people don't vote". What I said were the indigents you described....the "deadbeats" and the "welfare smucks (sic)" probably do NOT vote in droves. I could be wrong certainly. But it is doubtful that the homeless and the "deadbeats" (whatever you meant by that) make much of an effort to cast their ballots. Voting does take effort. It also takes being registered, having an address, etc. Being "poor" is a relative thing. And I am sure you are probably right. The less affluent are probably more likely to vote for Democrat candidates than they are to vote for Republican. It is probably in their best interests to do so. However, what is your delineation line? Where are the "rich" and the "poor" separated as to income/politics? Is a $100K income enough to make it advantageous to you to have a Republican government? $50K? $1million? Where is the line? I'll tell you this. In the reality of the Bush family (and the Kennedy family, and the Kerry family as well....there are very rich Democrats as you know), a family with a $500,000 yearly income is POOR! A family with a $1million income is POOR. I think this is something you don't seem to grasp. YOU AND I are POOR in the grand scheme of things. So YOU AND I based on economics (as your thesis suggests) should BOTH be Democrats. But amazingly NEITHER OF US IS. How does voting Republican help YOU? I know full well it doesn't help me. And like I said, I will benefit from the tax cut. But not enough to make a difference. Besides, what I save on April 15th, I will give back over the course of the year in other ways. There are no free rides for those of us who earn an income. The only people I know of who truly get a "free ride" are those who clip tax free coupons. Preserving wealth is a whole different thing than creating it. These people get the same deal no matter who is in the Oval Office. It never ever mattered to them. You said that the very rich have it in their best interest to vote Republican. OK, let's assume you are right. But what about all the other's who vote Republican? I mean what percentage of voters really benefit (due to income) by having a Republican in the Whitehouse? I see homes here in South Florida that require unimaginable wealth. Homes with 6,000 sq. foot guest houses. Homes with 12 car garages. THESE are the people who benefit most from the Bush tax cuts. Do they need these tax cuts? You would say yes....they provide jobs. Trickle down economics. George Bush Sr. said "no". He called that "voodoo economics". Who is right? More importantly, in what way does the wealth factor of politics affect guys like you and me? And 99% of the American population? My contention is it doesn't. The reality is that these super rich in more cases than not do NOT create jobs anyway. They inherited their money. Or in the case of a guy like John Henry, they are super traders, and just make money for themselves without creating goods or services (like we at ET basically aspire to do). Then of course, there are a good number of the super rich that attained their wealth by exploitation. Even outright criminal endeavors. There is a country club community here in Boca called St. Andrews. Very wealthy neighborhood. You would be shocked to know what percentage of the homeowners in St. Andrews have been to prison. It is almost comical. It's practically a badge of honor there. I know some of these people first hand. This is not just some "urban legend". This is very real. The most expensive neighborhood in Boca Raton is a small enclave called La Lac. This is where Scott Sullivan from Worldcom was building his 20,000 sq. ft. home. You probably saw aerial photos of the home in your local newspaper when he was indicted. The home can be yours now at a huge discount. Marked down from $22.5 million to a mere $13 million. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/busine.../wednesday/business_0454c4bde1ce908d10b2.html By the way, if you buy the house, you can be John Henry's neighbor. I bet you could get better trading advice from him than even from "Scientist" or "Aphie". Maybe even from MrMarket (I could be wrong about that too...but at least you might get some good baseball tickets....he does own the Marlins). Peace, RS
Look, it's not about how rich you are, it's about a set of beliefs. Do I really benefit by having Bush in power? Hmm, that's not the right question to ask because it's relative. The real question is, do I benefit more by having Bush in power then Kerry? The answer to that is yes. Let me opine. The trading account I trade out of is a professional options account. I have a very unique tax status. My income from trading equity options is taxed very favorably in this account. Sixty percent of my income is taxed at the long term capital gains rate which is 15%. Forty percent of my income is taxed at the short term rate which is 35%. Now here's the deal, Kerry has said that one of the things he wants to do is raise the long term capital gains rate to 25%. In fact, I think, I might be wrong about this, to those making over 200k i think he wants it raised to 35%. This is huge for me!!!!! Are you kidding me? Bush actually wants to cut the long term rate to 10%. Now let me think here. Do I want to pay 35% or 10%? Hmm, I don't know you tell me. On top of that, Kerry wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts. So now the ordinary income rate would go back to 39.6% from 36% now. So I stand to lose a lot of money if Kerry is elected. So yes capadre, having Bush in office does benefit me. Do you have a rebuttal?
Wow, moral and fiscal deterioration, redeemed only through the crucible of utter ruin. The White House was a veritable Gomorahh during the 90s. Bill Clinton mirrors a declining morality? Or was he the target of a an ascendant hypocrisy? You don't know American, or human history, too well. Sin is as old as Adam. Clinton didn't invent it. But I love the way the contemporary finger pointing Puritan writes about it, undergoing his warped ablution after he has had a session of hot sex with an minor of the same gender.
Do I have a rebuttal? I guess like everything else we "debate" you can decide if what I have to say is a "rebuttal" or a different perspective to express. Obviously you are more informed than I am in who is saying what in order to get elected. However I will take your numbers and use them since I have none of my own (not that I am disinterested, it's just that I don't think anything said now is relevant to what will be....the President does not set tax rates. He (or she) can only campaign on these topics. And make promises and usually not live up to them ("Read my lips; no new taxes")...sound familiar? You also have an advantage arguing tax status with me. 2003 will be the very first year I will not be paying primarily on a W2 basis. I talked about this change with my accountant back in 2002, and he said (and this seemed to make sense) just to make as much money as I can, and worry about the taxes later. He has filed quarterly for me, and I don't see much of a difference so far. But of course quarterly filing and doing the actual 1040 can be very different. When I was a trader on the CBOE, AMEX, PHLX and PSE, I was a W2 employee. I could have gone the route you did, but I preferred to be an employee for many reasons. Even when I owned my restaurant, I was a W2 employee. It was just cleaner. I believe the majority of small business owners go this route. Pay yourself, and take a dividend when applicable. When I was a retail broker, I of course had no choice. I was again a W2 employee. At THAT time, it was a true pleasure. EVERYTHING seemed to be deductible. Then came Reagan's tax reform of 1986. My income taxes went up enormously. It was supposed to be a "tax cut" if I recall correctly. But if my taxes went down on my adjusted gross income, my taxes PAID went up in a huge way. My expenses were no longer deductible. Nothing. Prior to that, my lunches were deductible (entertaining clients). My car lease was deductible. My home office was deductible. My charitable contributions were tax credits rather than deductions (I think....can't remember exactly, but that sounds right). My credit card interest was deductible. Gone. All interest was deductable until then as a matter of fact. Interest on car payments, name it. So that is why I fully expect any "savings" I may see in this years tax cut to be offset somehow, somewhere else. Do I know how? No, I am not a CPA. And if I were, chances are I would still not know until I filed my return. Now as I have said before, nobody wants to pay more taxes than they have to. Let's take a case similar to yours but a little less complex. Which makes it easier to do, and also, since your situation is more likely to change than the tax situation of a W2 type employee, I think it's reasonable to use a W2 situation rather than your particular situation. Or mine...since I will also have a complex return. Some 1099 income, some K1 income, some 1099R income, and dividend and interest income. Also long term capital gains (sadly less than they would have been had my timing been better). And some passive income. Also I sold my home in 2003, but won't be closing on my new home until 2005, so that's something else that is over my head. No idea what effect, if any, that will have on my return.
So let's take a guy with a straight salary of $200 K. (BTW, there are VERY FEW $200K salaried employees). Now if his/her nominal tax bracket (using your numbers) is 39.6% instead of 36%, that is going to cost (you) $7200, correct? Not an insignificant amount. So I side with you there. Less is better. But let's take it a bit further. When a change is made to the tax on your adjusted gross income, a lot goes along with it. What will happen to your adjusted gross income? In what way will it be arrived at? As I understand it, the Democrats want to raise the raw number, but give a greater standard deduction. So if, for example, you can fully deduct your health insurance premiums, what is that worth to you? What if your insurance premiums are not deductible, but rather a tax credit? What about tuition costs? As far as I know this is not an issue for you specifically yet. Hopefully it will be someday. But it is for me...big time! My stepdaughter's college costs are around $40k per year. How would a $40k tax credit affect me if I were making $200k per year? Well, that alone would take me down to an income of $160k. Sounds good to me! What about a tax deferred savings account? Where do they come up with the limits on a Roth IRA? How many times should I be taxed on the same money? (On the other hand, should anything I earn in a Roth account be completely tax free? Is that fair?) So I guess there are no easy answers. Every plan will look good to some and unattractive to others. It's all a matter of how you can qualify. And for what. Unfortunately, one size does not fit all. I will tell you what I agree with you on 100% (I think). And that is that long term capital gains should be taxed lower. If it were up to me, they would be taxed at zero percent. But then, they would have to qualify as REAL long term cap. gains. ...You cannot have a zero percent tax bite on a technicality like in your options account. So the break you get needs to be re-named. If I am in an investment for 10 years, why should I not get some more preferential tax treatment than you do on 60% of what you can be in for a minute? Does this really contribute to encouraging INVESTMENT? I know it helps you, so you feel like it's a good deal. But is it really stimulating the economy? Now remember.....whatever Kerry and whatever Bush say about what they want to do about taxes is just so much hot air. They can't just change the tax structure. That is not what the President can do. It's just talk. Any of them will say whatever they feel will make sense to the voters. It's about coming off as reasonable enough to sound pleasing and get votes. Nothing more and nothing less. You cannot have a candidate state he will eliminate income tax. No matter how attractive that may sound, reality and credibility are intertwined. So we will hear some interesting ideas bandied about, but none of them will come to pass exactly as expressed in a campaign. So really, the bottom line is that we will be taxed however we need to be to pay the bills. Simple as that. Unless of course, someone would be willing to stand up and say "fuck the unborn....lets spend THEIR money now and party it up. Live for today! Party on!!" (no, that won't happen, Reagan can't run again) LOL But to sum up, if your numbers are right, and you are facing a choice of a 35% LTCG tax or a 10% tax on the same (hypothetical) $200K, then yes, I too would vote for the guy that was going to save me $50k in taxes. (But of course, this is an over simplification....it is NOT on your entire hypothetical $200k). And just as this is an over simplification, so is it all. Maverick, you have worked with balance sheets. Take from here, take from there.....but somehow it has to balance out by the time you are finished. You cannot fight a war on terror on several foreign fronts, and domestically. While saving social security, shoring up our deteriorating infrastructure, paying our military, etc., etc. Oh, and of course, the Federal govt. now needs to "leave no child behind", so that's another expense that has to come from our federal income tax. Or are we going to dictate to the states how they have to spend their money? Sure doesn't sound like the Republican Party I grew up knowing. I was never good at economics in high school or college. I was supposed to be, 'cause I was a "math wiz" (according to my boards, not my grades). But I had no interest. However, now that I have existed in the real world and owned several businesses, traded, done some import and export work, some real estate stuff, etc....it has become abundantly clear that a BALANCED BUDGET is crucial. If it takes taxing, that's that. We cannot run our country on smoke and mirrors. We can't just print money (contrary to what a lot of people believe). We are part of a world economy. We need to have our dollars actually be worth something. You mentioned our "credit" That is true. The full faith and credit of the US Treasury is our ONLY real credibility. We lose that, we lose our ability to participate. We need to be able to defend ourselves, yes, but we need to be able to do business too. It is what makes the world go round. We can't do it with "Reich marks". So taxing our income is a necessary (and admittedly unpleasant) part of how the world works. Come up with a better idea, and then I will vote (and campaign for) you. Peace, RS
Too funny! Look, here's the deal. Bill Clinton was the best thing that ever happened for the Republicans. 9/11? Clinton's fault Bad economy? Clinton's fault Got a flat tire on your way to work? Clinton's fault Cheney's Daughter is a lesbian? Clinton's fault Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart? Same deal I can't wait for the Presidential debates: "Mr Bush? Do you have a response?" "Yessir Mister Russert, it was my predecessors fault y'all, heheheh" Peace, RS
.....In short, the justification for bigoted comments directed at those with whom the educated Left disagrees politically is based on two foundations: 1) We're a lot smarter than they are; and 2) We're better people than they are. That logic leads to three inescapable conclusions: We're right. They're wrong. QED: All Republicans are a**holes. Willie Stern _____________________________________________
The educated left is the demographic that is least enthusiastic about democracy for precisely that reason. They know better and should be making the important decisions, like can two homosexuals get "married", not a bunch of ignorant, bigotted legislators. Ironically, the Founding Fathers more or less agreed. They envisioned the state legislatures establishing qualifications for voters, and at that time it was typically restricted to land-owning white males. In Baker v. Carr the Supreme Court found something in the invisible ink clauses of the Constitutiton that somehow gave the courts the right to take over this explicit state function.
RS, can't you say the same about George Bush? 9/11? Bush's fault Bad economy? Bush's fault Got a flat tire on your way to work? Bush's fault Cheney's daughter is a lesbian? Bush's fault Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart? Same deal Look RS, I think you must be a pretty bright guy, at least I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are. Why can't we both just agree that people in this world should take responsibility for themselves instead of blaming other people? Surely we can both agree on this.