The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. Adjust
that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I don't
think we are getting our money's worth.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
"dadiOH" wrote:
> Add in local and state increases and I bet it is back up to 10X
> overall. Probably more.
------------------------------------
I still remember standing in my hobby shop and listening to the owner
bitch about taxes and how federal, state, and local consumed 35%-37%
of GDP.
Particular emphasis was placed on the amount of hidden taxes placed on
a loaf of bread.
The year was 1947-48 time frame and HST was president..
More than 60 years later, federal, state, and local taxes still
consume 35%-37% of GDP.
11 presidents later, nothing much has changed.
Government is how we choose to regulate our society.
It has a cost which is less than the cost of anarchy.
Lew
"dadiOH" wrote:
> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about
> 360 billion.
>
> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to.
> I don't think we are getting our money's worth.
Where does the cost of gov't services for the more than 50 million
population increase from 1950 to today factor into the above?
BTW, there was a budget surplus when Bush came into office.
Lew
On Feb 2, 8:50=A0am, Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:41:42 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
> >The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. =A0=
Adjust
> >that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
>
> >That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. =A0I=
don't
> >think we are getting our money's worth.
>
> I wonder...Will the United States declare bankruptcy? =A0 No way
> possible to pay back 9 trillion, no way! =A0
It's over $12T and that doesn't include unfunded mandates like SS and
federal pensions. In reality it's well North of $50T.
> So what does our leader do? NOTHING! =A0
No, he's spent *lots* more.
> We are in desperate need of a leader who is serious about
> financial responsibility. =A0 I've flipped from Democrat to Republican.
> Bless you Scott Brown!!!
Carter did that for me. Every Demonicrat since has dug the hole
deeper. Though, to be fair, the Rs haven't done a wonderful job with
the budget either. The lesser of evils has to go to the R's, though.
On Feb 3, 6:51=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> We conservatives believe that if we could ever get the tax rate to zero, =
the
> government would have infinite money. Also that tax cuts cure cander and =
bee
> bites.
Finally, an honest Tory.
:-)
Luigi
On Feb 2, 8:15=A0pm, "Denis G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:41=A0am, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
> > The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. =
=A0Adjust
> > that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
>
> > That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. =A0=
I don't
> > think we are getting our money's worth.
>
> > --
>
> > dadiOH
> > ____________________________
>
> > dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
> > ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
> > LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
> > Get it athttp://mysite.verizon.net/xico
>
> Actually we are not paying for what government spending is going to
> cost us. =A0If we ran balanced budgets, our taxes would need to be much
> much higher.http://www.pgpf.org/about/nationaldebt/
No, our spending would need to be much much lower.
And what they don't say is the incremental tax - the tax between
one Adjusted gross income to anther can be nearly 50%. That 20k
bonus you got is down to 11k .
Martin
HeyBub wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:
>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>
>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360
>> billion.
>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I
>> don't think we are getting our money's worth.
>
> But the administration is TRYING to reduce the deficit. On Jan 1st, 2011 the
> following tax increases will take place:
>
> * Top bracket goes from 35% to 39.6%
> * The 25 percent tax bracket will revert to 28 percent;
> * The 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent
> * The 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent.
> (If you have $50,000 of adjusted gross income, your tax goes up by $1,500
> (3%). It's for the children.)
> * The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated
> * The tax on dividends will rise from 15% to 39.6%
> * Capital gains from 15% to 20%
> * The estate tax will rise from 0% to (as much as) 45%, perhaps
> retroactively for 2010
> * The Alternative Minimum Tax will latch in at $45,000 (joint return)
> * The state sales tax exemption will no longer be available
> * $250 tax credit for teachers expires
> * College tuition deduction of $4,000 disappears
> * The first $2,400 of unemployment compensation will be taxed (it's not now)
> * Standard deduction for property taxes vanishes.
>
> All of the above will take place unless the Democrats in control of the
> government vote to reduce taxes or the sun suddenly expires.
>
>
>I agree that the Bush years saw an increase of $1.4 trillion in the national
>debt. Of course his administration started with a modest recession,
>experienced 9-11, Katrina, and two wars.
One of which was discretionary and a HUGE blunder.
>
>Then came the Obama administration which, in it's first year, hit about $1.8
>trillion, more than all eight years of the Bush administration combined.
>
Of course, Obama's administration started with a MAJOR recession
(damn near a depression), continues to fight the terrorist onslaught,
and fight two wars.
I'm just saying, despite the increase during Obama's first year, it's
the Republican admistrations that have rung up the first 10 trillion
since 1980.
I'm a staunch independant and blame anybody who deserves it.
-Zz
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> writes:
>>HeyBub wrote:
>>> dadiOH wrote:
>>>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>>>
>>>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>>>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360
>>>> billion.
>>>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I
>>>> don't think we are getting our money's worth.
>>>
>>> But the administration is TRYING to reduce the deficit. On Jan 1st,
>>> 2011 the following tax increases will take place:
>>>
>>> * Top bracket goes from 35% to 39.6%
>>> * The 25 percent tax bracket will revert to 28 percent;
>>> * The 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent
>>> * The 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent.
>>> (If you have $50,000 of adjusted gross income, your tax goes up by
>>> $1,500 (3%). It's for the children.)
>>> * The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated
>>> * The tax on dividends will rise from 15% to 39.6%
>>> * Capital gains from 15% to 20%
>>> * The estate tax will rise from 0% to (as much as) 45%, perhaps
>>> retroactively for 2010
>>> * The Alternative Minimum Tax will latch in at $45,000 (joint return)
>>> * The state sales tax exemption will no longer be available
>>> * $250 tax credit for teachers expires
>>> * College tuition deduction of $4,000 disappears
>>> * The first $2,400 of unemployment compensation will be taxed (it's
>>> not now) * Standard deduction for property taxes vanishes.
>>>
>>> All of the above will take place unless the Democrats in control of
>>> the government vote to reduce taxes or the sun suddenly expires.
>>
>>The above list was taken from a Reuters news report. Reuters has, at the
>>request of the White House, taken down the report.
>>
>>
>
> we should restore the tax brackets from the 50's - 70's until
> we're no longer at war.
>
You do realize that very few people paid at that 90% rate don't you? Only
those who happened to suddenly come into wealth without a good tax lawyer
paid that rate. During those years, the rich had numerous loopholes and tax
shelters. Taxing at 90% sounds like a great idea to someone who goes for
the class-envy card, but the reality is that no one with a lick of sense is
going to expend the time and effort required to make that kind of money only
to get 10% of the fruits of their labor.
What the Kennedy tax cuts and later Reagan tax cuts did was make it
worthwhile again for people to succeed and not have to hide their money in
tax shelters that did little for growing the economy.
> scott
--
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Rob Leatham
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:08:39 -0700, HeyBub wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):
> Zz Yzx wrote:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
>>
>> Look at the graphs of debt vs. time.
>>
>> Note the HUGE increase during Reagan's tenure (1981-1989)
>> Note the CONTINUED rapid rise during Bush Sr's tenure (1989-1983)
>> Note the leveling off during Clinton's tenure (1993-2001)
>> Note the astronomical rise during Bush Jr's tenure (2001-2009)
>>
>> I'd say EVERY F'N REPUBLICAN since 1980 has fucked us. Not the
>> Democrats.
>>
>
> I agree that the Bush years saw an increase of $1.4 trillion in the national
> debt. Of course his administration started with a modest recession,
> experienced 9-11, Katrina, and two wars.
Minus the $500B still left over from the bailouts (supposed to be paid back,
probably will be spent)
>
> Then came the Obama administration which, in it's first year, hit about $1.8
> trillion, more than all eight years of the Bush administration combined.
>
> Here's a chart from the CBO
>
> http://www.captainscomments.com/images/675-20090321DeficitGraph.jpg
>
>
"Douglas Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>But - thanks to that very same irresponsible administration
>>and party now in power - I think, come November, I'm going to do
>>something I've never done - pull a straight R vote. It's not that
>>I love the Rs - they're mostly as lousy as the Ds. It's just that
>>with a more balanced distribution of power, they'll spend more of
>>their time arguing and actually doing less, which will be very good
>>for the nation.
>
> My tentative plan is to vote against the incumbents regardless of party.
> Some
> people need to get fired. -- Doug
I may be doing exactly the same thing.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Phisherman <[email protected]> wrote:
>I wonder...Will the United States declare bankruptcy?
It looks like Greece might soon.
>No way possible to pay back 9 trillion, no way!
Actually, it is more like $12T. But we've been in worse debt before. Not in
absolute amounts, but relative to GDP, which is a better reflection of our
ability to repay. That $12T is about 80% of GDP. We got to 120% of GDP in the
late '40s.
So my take is that the debt is higher than it ought to be, we need to do
something about it, but we are not in trouble yet.
-- Doug
dadiOH wrote:
> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360
> billion.
> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I
> don't think we are getting our money's worth.
But the administration is TRYING to reduce the deficit. On Jan 1st, 2011 the
following tax increases will take place:
* Top bracket goes from 35% to 39.6%
* The 25 percent tax bracket will revert to 28 percent;
* The 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent
* The 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent.
(If you have $50,000 of adjusted gross income, your tax goes up by $1,500
(3%). It's for the children.)
* The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated
* The tax on dividends will rise from 15% to 39.6%
* Capital gains from 15% to 20%
* The estate tax will rise from 0% to (as much as) 45%, perhaps
retroactively for 2010
* The Alternative Minimum Tax will latch in at $45,000 (joint return)
* The state sales tax exemption will no longer be available
* $250 tax credit for teachers expires
* College tuition deduction of $4,000 disappears
* The first $2,400 of unemployment compensation will be taxed (it's not now)
* Standard deduction for property taxes vanishes.
All of the above will take place unless the Democrats in control of the
government vote to reduce taxes or the sun suddenly expires.
Zz Yzx wrote:
>> Presidents don't do budgets, congress does. Which party controlled
>> congress during the spending sprees?
>
> GOOD point Doug, I'd have to check.
>
> Sooooooo, Reagan didn't win the cold war? Congress did?
>
> -Zz
Right, congress went to Reykjavik and told Gorby to "tear down that wall".
On Feb 2, 6:41=A0am, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. =A0A=
djust
> that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
>
> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. =A0I =
don't
> think we are getting our money's worth.
>
> --
>
> dadiOH
> ____________________________
>
> dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
> ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
> LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
> Get it athttp://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Actually we are not paying for what government spending is going to
cost us. If we ran balanced budgets, our taxes would need to be much
much higher.
http://www.pgpf.org/about/nationaldebt/
Zz Yzx wrote:
>> Right, congress went to Reykjavik and told Gorby to "tear down that wall".
>
> Yeah, THAT'S what convinced them, fer sure. After they watched his
> B-movies, and hearing that, they were shaking in their boots. And
> after Congress bankrolled the real victory? Which is it?
>
> -Zz
Ah, you mean words don't matter - like "Ask not..."? Or the voters of
2008 buying into the "Yes we can, Hoax & change, etc" after untolds of
millions came in from unknown donors? Which is it?
[email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 2, 6:41 am, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>
>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about
>> 360 billion.
>>
>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to.
>> I don't think we are getting our money's worth.
<snip lots of interesting stuff>
> Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...
> And our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
>
> We had absolutely no national debt...
> We had the largest middle class in the world...
> And Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
>
> What happened?
> Can you spell 'politicians!'
Nope, it was us. Example...
POLITICIAN: We want to amend the constitution so we can tax income. That
way, we can do more good stuff for you.
VOTER: I don't want more taxes.
POLITICIAN: Oh, don't worry, it isn't going to affect *you*, just an eensy,
weensy, tiny percentage of the really, really rich people.
VOTER: Oh, OK. I don't mind you ripping off the fatcats as long as *I* get
some.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Zz Yzx wrote:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
>>>
>>> Look at the graphs of debt vs. time.
>>>
>>> Note the HUGE increase during Reagan's tenure (1981-1989)
>>> Note the CONTINUED rapid rise during Bush Sr's tenure (1989-1983)
>>> Note the leveling off during Clinton's tenure (1993-2001)
>> Due to:
>>
>> The peace dividend thanks to Reagan ending the cold war.
>
> Or was it due the vastly increased productivity associated with the
> adoption of desktop PC's and the internet? Or was it due to the
> documented decreased crime rate resulting from Roe v. Wade 17 yrs
> previously (ugly as the conclusion is)? And why didn't the peace
> dividend kick in during Bush Sr's administration? Heard of beer
> goggles? You got partisan goggles on. THe fact is that since 1980,
> the first $8 to $9 trillion were added on mostly by Republican
> administrations.
>
> -Zz
Presidents don't do budgets, congress does. Which party controlled
congress during the spending sprees?
Phisherman wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:41:42 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>
>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about
>> 360 billion.
>>
>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to.
>> I don't think we are getting our money's worth.
>
>
> I wonder...Will the United States declare bankruptcy? No way
> possible to pay back 9 trillion, no way!
Sure there is. Inflation, current dollar worth a dime.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
"Phisherman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:41:42 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>
>>The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>>Adjust
>>that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
>>
>>That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I
>>don't
>>think we are getting our money's worth.
>
>
> I wonder...Will the United States declare bankruptcy? No way
> possible to pay back 9 trillion, no way! So what does our leader do?
> NOTHING! We are in desperate need of a leader who is serious about
> financial responsibility. I've flipped from Democrat to Republican.
> Bless you Scott Brown!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIcDdWgBELY&NR=1
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> We conservatives believe that if we could ever get the tax rate to
> zero, the government would have infinite money. Also that tax cuts
> cure cander and bee bites.
>
:)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
Zz Yzx wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:29:21 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Every Demonicrat since has dug the hole deeper. Though, to be fair, the Rs haven't done a wonderful job with
>> the budget either. The lesser of evils has to go to the R's, though.
>>
>
> I'd suggest a little fact checking:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
>
> Look at the graphs of debt vs. time.
>
> Note the HUGE increase during Reagan's tenure (1981-1989)
> Note the CONTINUED rapid rise during Bush Sr's tenure (1989-1983)
> Note the leveling off during Clinton's tenure (1993-2001)
> Note the astronomical rise during Bush Jr's tenure (2001-2009)
>
> I'd say EVERY F'N REPUBLICAN since 1980 has fucked us. Not the
> Democrats.
>
The question is not who was in the White House,
it's who controlled Congress.
"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
>The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. Adjust
>that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
>
>That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I don't
>think we are getting our money's worth.
Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for.
-- Doug
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:10:49 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>HeyBub wrote:
>> dadiOH wrote:
>>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>>
>>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360
>>> billion.
>>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I
>>> don't think we are getting our money's worth.
>>
>> But the administration is TRYING to reduce the deficit. On Jan 1st,
>> 2011 the following tax increases will take place:
>>
>> * Top bracket goes from 35% to 39.6%
>> * The 25 percent tax bracket will revert to 28 percent;
>> * The 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent
>> * The 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent.
>> (If you have $50,000 of adjusted gross income, your tax goes up by
>> $1,500 (3%). It's for the children.)
>> * The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated
>> * The tax on dividends will rise from 15% to 39.6%
>> * Capital gains from 15% to 20%
>> * The estate tax will rise from 0% to (as much as) 45%, perhaps
>> retroactively for 2010
>> * The Alternative Minimum Tax will latch in at $45,000 (joint return)
>> * The state sales tax exemption will no longer be available
>> * $250 tax credit for teachers expires
>> * College tuition deduction of $4,000 disappears
>> * The first $2,400 of unemployment compensation will be taxed (it's
>> not now) * Standard deduction for property taxes vanishes.
>>
>> All of the above will take place unless the Democrats in control of
>> the government vote to reduce taxes or the sun suddenly expires.
>
>The above list was taken from a Reuters news report. Reuters has, at the
>request of the White House, taken down the report.
>
The White House pointed out to Reuters that the article was based on a
"cough, cough" inaccuracy.
Reuters made the decision to pull the article completely because it
could not be corrected.
On 2/2/2010 11:36 AM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dadiOH" wrote:
>
>> Add in local and state increases and I bet it is back up to 10X
>> overall. Probably more.
> ------------------------------------
> I still remember standing in my hobby shop and listening to the owner
> bitch about taxes and how federal, state, and local consumed 35%-37%
> of GDP.
>
> Particular emphasis was placed on the amount of hidden taxes placed on
> a loaf of bread.
>
> The year was 1947-48 time frame and HST was president..
>
> More than 60 years later, federal, state, and local taxes still
> consume 35%-37% of GDP.
>
> 11 presidents later, nothing much has changed.
>
> Government is how we choose to regulate our society.
>
> It has a cost which is less than the cost of anarchy.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
You mean like the 50+% of the Federal budget spent on:
- People refusing to take responsibility to save for their
retirement, medical care, and wellbeing in old age?
- People repeatedly making bad personal choices and then demanding
the everyone else pay to remediate the consequences?
- People having far more children than they can afford and expecting
us all to pay for their cost of care?
The government consumes what it does because FDR and his minions have
repeatedly, aggressively, and blatantly ignored the doctrine of enumerated
powers and arrogated power to the Federal government it does not have.
They do this to support the culture of mooching that elects them.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "dadiOH" wrote:
>
>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>
>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about
>> 360 billion.
>>
>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to.
>> I don't think we are getting our money's worth.
>
> Where does the cost of gov't services for the more than 50 million
> population increase from 1950 to today factor into the above?
Good point. I meant to factor it in and forgot to do so. Actually, it is
about 150 million increase...about double. Which means the feds are doing
*much* better than I originally stated...they are only spending 5 times as
much, not 10.
Add in local and state increases and I bet it is back up to 10X overall.
Probably more.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
On Feb 2, 6:41=A0am, "dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote:
> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. =A0A=
djust
> that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
>
> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. =A0I =
don't
> think we are getting our money's worth.
My wife just sent me this (a little dated, but still relevant)...
The next time you hear a politician use the
Word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about
Whether you want the 'politicians' spending
YOUR tax money.
A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
But one advertising agency did a good job of
Putting that figure into some perspective in
One of its releases..
A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were
living in the Stone Age.
D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes,
at the rate our government is spending it.
While this thought is still fresh in our brain...
let's take a look at New Orleans ..
It's amazing what you can learn with some simple division.
Louisiana Senator,
Mary Landrieu (D)
Is presently asking Congress for 250 BILLION DOLLARS
To rebuild New Orleans . Interesting number...
What does it mean?
A. Well ... If you are one of the 484,674 residents of New
Orleans
(every man, woman, and child) You each get $516,528.
B. Or... If you have one of the 188,251 homes in
New Orleans , your home gets $1,329,787.
C. Or... If you are a family of four...
Your family gets $2,066,012.
Washington , D. C
HELLO! Are all your calculators broken??
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax (Fed)
Federal Unemployment Tax (FU TA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Tax
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service charge taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone20Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Tax
Vehicle License Registration T ax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
(And to think, we left British Rule to avoid so many taxes)
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago...
And our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt...
We had the largest middle class in the world...
And Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?
Can you spell 'politicians!'
And I still have to
Press '1'
For English.
I hope this goes around the U S A
At least 100 times
What the heck happened?????
On Feb 3, 8:51=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
> > "dadiOH" <[email protected]> writes:
> >> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
> >> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
> >> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about
> >> 360 billion.
>
> > In 1950, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. =A0For those that pine for
> > the 50's and 60's, and wonder how the moon program and the interstate
> > highway system were paid for, that's how.
>
> > That rate existed from the depression to the 80's ranging from 70 to
> > 95% (high end during war times).
>
> > Is it no wonder that with two wars and bush's tax cuts, we've a record
> > deficit (not to mention a bad recession).
>
> It's not the tax cuts. Every time, every single time, that taxes have bee=
n
> cut, government revenue goes up.
>
> We conservatives believe that if we could ever get the tax rate to zero, =
the
> government would have infinite money. Also that tax cuts cure cander and =
bee
> bites.
Why stop there? Doesn't everyone want their mortgage paid and a new
car?
Swingman wrote:
> On 2/3/2010 11:41 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> You do realize that very few people paid at that 90% rate don't
>> you?
>
> There is another side to this issue that I experienced personally.
>
> During the late 70's, and until Reagan came into office in the early
> 80's, the amount of money available for investing in entrepreneurial
> enterprises - money looking for investments in businesses to take
> advantage of tax deductions for things like IDC's (intangible drilling
> costs), depletion allowances, and other business ventures - was
> amazing plentiful.
>
> Folks in those higher tax brackets would had much rather legitimately
> invested in an enterprise, that money which would have otherwise gone
> to taxes if they did not.
>
> The net result of that period of high tax rates, coupled with tax code
> incentives, was a plentiful supply of money for the entrepreneur and
> new businesses, some otherwise too risky (like drilling for oil/gas)
> without the choice of being used to pay taxes, or of investing.
>
> Immediately upon Reagan taking office, that money literally vanished
> from the table ... I remember around '82, that it was like someone
> turning off a faucet.
>
> Like I say, I lived this, intimately and to my detriment as a
> businessman ... AAMOF, were it not for that money drying up, my
> dreamed of 30 well drilling program in SE Colorado (of which only
> three "geologic successes, but hydrocarbon failures" were drilled
> before this money dried up) may well have succeeded in finding
> another Sorrento Field, making us that much less dependent upon
> foreign oil, and I would be typing this from the French Riviera
> instead of waiting for the rain to stop so I can go to the shop to finish
> a chicken coop (of all
> things), or not. :)
>
> IOW, it was, prior to Reagan, the HIGHER individual tax rate, and the
> tax code, not lower taxes, that indeed drove investment in small
> business.
> Just something for the proponents of Reaganomics to consider ... there
> is ALWAYS unintended consequence to the best of intentions.
Yeah, I remember those provisions of the tax code.
I was invited to buy into a sand pit. The money worked as follows:
* As the sand was sold, you took a depletion allowance on the diminishing
resource (the sand).
* Ultimately, you had one big honkin' hole in the ground. You then charged
people to dump stuff in the hole (trees, concrete, etc.). As the hole
filled, you got another depletion allowance as the resource diminished (the
hole).
* When the hole filled up, you covered the site with top soil and sold the
ten acres for low-cost housing.
This reminds me of the old parable that bears repeating (maybe sending
it to Washington??)
Your Taxes Explained!
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 on 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 pay $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.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do
not understand, no explanation is possible.
"HeyBub" <[email protected]> writes:
>HeyBub wrote:
>> dadiOH wrote:
>>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>>
>>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360
>>> billion.
>>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I
>>> don't think we are getting our money's worth.
>>
>> But the administration is TRYING to reduce the deficit. On Jan 1st,
>> 2011 the following tax increases will take place:
>>
>> * Top bracket goes from 35% to 39.6%
>> * The 25 percent tax bracket will revert to 28 percent;
>> * The 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent
>> * The 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent.
>> (If you have $50,000 of adjusted gross income, your tax goes up by
>> $1,500 (3%). It's for the children.)
>> * The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated
>> * The tax on dividends will rise from 15% to 39.6%
>> * Capital gains from 15% to 20%
>> * The estate tax will rise from 0% to (as much as) 45%, perhaps
>> retroactively for 2010
>> * The Alternative Minimum Tax will latch in at $45,000 (joint return)
>> * The state sales tax exemption will no longer be available
>> * $250 tax credit for teachers expires
>> * College tuition deduction of $4,000 disappears
>> * The first $2,400 of unemployment compensation will be taxed (it's
>> not now) * Standard deduction for property taxes vanishes.
>>
>> All of the above will take place unless the Democrats in control of
>> the government vote to reduce taxes or the sun suddenly expires.
>
>The above list was taken from a Reuters news report. Reuters has, at the
>request of the White House, taken down the report.
>
>
we should restore the tax brackets from the 50's - 70's until
we're no longer at war.
scott
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:31:48 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 2/3/2010 11:41 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
>
>> You do realize that very few people paid at that 90% rate don't you?
>
>There is another side to this issue that I experienced personally.
>
>During the late 70's, and until Reagan came into office in the early
>80's, the amount of money available for investing in entrepreneurial
>enterprises - money looking for investments in businesses to take
>advantage of tax deductions for things like IDC's (intangible drilling
>costs), depletion allowances, and other business ventures - was amazing
>plentiful.
>
>Folks in those higher tax brackets would had much rather legitimately
>invested in an enterprise, that money which would have otherwise gone to
>taxes if they did not.
>
>The net result of that period of high tax rates, coupled with tax code
>incentives, was a plentiful supply of money for the entrepreneur and new
>businesses, some otherwise too risky (like drilling for oil/gas) without
>the choice of being used to pay taxes, or of investing.
>
>Immediately upon Reagan taking office, that money literally vanished
>from the table ... I remember around '82, that it was like someone
>turning off a faucet.
>
>Like I say, I lived this, intimately and to my detriment as a
>businessman ... AAMOF, were it not for that money drying up, my dreamed
>of 30 well drilling program in SE Colorado (of which only three
>"geologic successes, but hydrocarbon failures" were drilled before this
>money dried up) may well have succeeded in finding another Sorrento
>Field, making us that much less dependent upon foreign oil, and I would
>be typing this from the French Riviera instead of waiting for the rain
>to stop so I can go to the shop to finish a chicken coop (of all
>things), or not. :)
>
>IOW, it was, prior to Reagan, the HIGHER individual tax rate, and the
>tax code, not lower taxes, that indeed drove investment in small business.
>
>Just something for the proponents of Reaganomics to consider ... there
>is ALWAYS unintended consequence to the best of intentions.
True, but that money only went to the VERY few small business ventures
that could take advantage of tax deductions that exceeded cash
invested (like oil drilling with depletion allowances that could
exceed costs incurred). They were buying losses to take tax deductions
that exceeded the losses. A rational approach is to encourage
investment in businesses designed to actually make money, not designed
to make tax deductions.
A rational taxing system is one where all decisions are made for
business purposes, not tax purposes - I do not know of any country
with such a rational system, though :-(
HeyBub wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:
>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>
>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360
>> billion.
>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I
>> don't think we are getting our money's worth.
>
> But the administration is TRYING to reduce the deficit. On Jan 1st,
> 2011 the following tax increases will take place:
>
> * Top bracket goes from 35% to 39.6%
> * The 25 percent tax bracket will revert to 28 percent;
> * The 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent
> * The 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent.
> (If you have $50,000 of adjusted gross income, your tax goes up by
> $1,500 (3%). It's for the children.)
> * The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated
> * The tax on dividends will rise from 15% to 39.6%
> * Capital gains from 15% to 20%
> * The estate tax will rise from 0% to (as much as) 45%, perhaps
> retroactively for 2010
> * The Alternative Minimum Tax will latch in at $45,000 (joint return)
> * The state sales tax exemption will no longer be available
> * $250 tax credit for teachers expires
> * College tuition deduction of $4,000 disappears
> * The first $2,400 of unemployment compensation will be taxed (it's
> not now) * Standard deduction for property taxes vanishes.
>
> All of the above will take place unless the Democrats in control of
> the government vote to reduce taxes or the sun suddenly expires.
The above list was taken from a Reuters news report. Reuters has, at the
request of the White House, taken down the report.
Douglas Johnson wrote:
> Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> But - thanks to that very same irresponsible administration
>> and party now in power - I think, come November, I'm going to do
>> something I've never done - pull a straight R vote. It's not that
>> I love the Rs - they're mostly as lousy as the Ds. It's just that
>> with a more balanced distribution of power, they'll spend more of
>> their time arguing and actually doing less, which will be very good
>> for the nation.
>
> My tentative plan is to vote against the incumbents regardless of
> party. Some people need to get fired. -- Doug
Here's another trick. In places where judges are elected, get the local bar
association's rating sheet of candidates and vote them in reverse order. For
example, a judge that all the lawyers like is probably a bad hat.
>I agree that the Bush years saw an increase of $1.4 trillion in the national
>debt
>Here's a chart from the CBO
>
>http://www.captainscomments.com/images/675-20090321DeficitGraph.jpg
>
Also, I don't know where you got the $1.4 trillion number. Based on
this site:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm
the number is more like 4.35 trillion (9-30-2000 through 9-30-2008).
-Zz
On 2/2/2010 7:41 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. Adjust
> that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
>
> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I don't
> think we are getting our money's worth.
>
Remember also that they took the money that used to be called social
security insurance and also used it in the excessive spending.
I wish what I had contributed to social security for the last 50 years
had been in my 401k. I would have significantly more money to live on
than what the "well run" govenment management (read mis management) of
my money.
In article <[email protected]>, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>My wife just sent me this (a little dated, but still relevant)...
>
> The next time you hear a politician use the
> Word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about
> Whether you want the 'politicians' spending
> YOUR tax money.
>
> A billion is a difficult number to comprehend,
> But one advertising agency did a good job of
> Putting that figure into some perspective in
> One of its releases..
>
> A. A billion seconds ago it was 1959.
> B. A billion minutes ago Jesus was alive.
> C. A billion hours ago our ancestors were
> living in the Stone Age.
> D. A billion days ago no-one walked on the earth on two feet.
> E. A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes,
> at the rate our government is spending it.
[remainder snipped]
Another useful comparison: the difference between a million and a billion is
the difference between giving me a sip of wine and 30 seconds with your
daughter -- or a bottle of gin, and all night with her. [from xkcd.com]
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:13:07 -0500, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> I wish what I had contributed to social security for the last 50 years
> had been in my 401k. I would have significantly more money to live on
> than what the "well run" govenment management (read mis management) of
> my money.
That's true only if you paid the maximum, or nearly paid it. If you had
been lower on the income scale you would more than recover the money that
you and your employers put in. What the equivalent interest rate would
be I don't know.
In my particular case, even though I was on the high end, I have myself,
my wife, and my ex-wife all getting SS based on my payments. So overall,
we may well still recover more than I plus my employers paid.
Which merely opens the other end of the argument - that we're living on
government handouts - you can't win :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:56:13 -0600, HeyBub wrote:
>
> But the administration is TRYING to reduce the deficit. On Jan 1st, 2011
> the following tax increases will take place:
>
> * Top bracket goes from 35% to 39.6% * The 25 percent tax bracket will
> revert to 28 percent; * The 28 percent bracket will increase to 31
> percent * The 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. (If you
> have $50,000 of adjusted gross income, your tax goes up by $1,500 (3%).
> It's for the children.)
Back in those '50s, the top tax bracket was 90% or so and corporate taxes
made up more of the governments income than personal income taxes. In
spite of those tax rates, the economy flourished. Go figure :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:41:48 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> You do realize that very few people paid at that 90% rate don't you?
> Only
> those who happened to suddenly come into wealth without a good tax
> lawyer paid that rate. During those years, the rich had numerous
> loopholes and tax shelters.
True. But as I said in an earlier post, corporations still wound up
paying more taxes than individuals. And it was mostly the rich who were
investors in the stock market back then.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Mark & Juanita wrote:
> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
>> "HeyBub" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> HeyBub wrote:
>>>> dadiOH wrote:
>>>>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>>>>
>>>>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45
>>>>> billion. Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would
>>>>> be about 360 billion.
>>>>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used
>>>>> to. I don't think we are getting our money's worth.
>>>>
>>>> But the administration is TRYING to reduce the deficit. On Jan 1st,
>>>> 2011 the following tax increases will take place:
>>>>
>>>> * Top bracket goes from 35% to 39.6%
>>>> * The 25 percent tax bracket will revert to 28 percent;
>>>> * The 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent
>>>> * The 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent.
>>>> (If you have $50,000 of adjusted gross income, your tax goes up by
>>>> $1,500 (3%). It's for the children.)
>>>> * The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated
>>>> * The tax on dividends will rise from 15% to 39.6%
>>>> * Capital gains from 15% to 20%
>>>> * The estate tax will rise from 0% to (as much as) 45%, perhaps
>>>> retroactively for 2010
>>>> * The Alternative Minimum Tax will latch in at $45,000 (joint
>>>> return)
>>>> * The state sales tax exemption will no longer be available
>>>> * $250 tax credit for teachers expires
>>>> * College tuition deduction of $4,000 disappears
>>>> * The first $2,400 of unemployment compensation will be taxed (it's
>>>> not now) * Standard deduction for property taxes vanishes.
>>>>
>>>> All of the above will take place unless the Democrats in control of
>>>> the government vote to reduce taxes or the sun suddenly expires.
>>>
>>> The above list was taken from a Reuters news report. Reuters has,
>>> at the request of the White House, taken down the report.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> we should restore the tax brackets from the 50's - 70's until
>> we're no longer at war.
>>
>
> You do realize that very few people paid at that 90% rate don't you?
> Only those who happened to suddenly come into wealth without a good
> tax lawyer paid that rate. During those years, the rich had numerous
> loopholes and tax shelters. Taxing at 90% sounds like a great idea
> to someone who goes for the class-envy card, but the reality is that
> no one with a lick of sense is going to expend the time and effort
> required to make that kind of money only to get 10% of the fruits of
> their labor.
then you get sweden. when i lived there my tax rate was 80%. it was a very
large disincentive to do any extra work, as the last $ was taxed at the
highest rate. overtime was simply not done, by anyone, and you didn't want
to stand in the doorway at quiting time.
a friend of mine who was a licensed paramedic in the US was there and tried
to volunteer to help the local emt's in their training. he wasn't allowed
because the unions didn't allow the concept of volunteers, and they weren't
going to pay him.
Tim Daneliuk <[email protected]> wrote:
>But - thanks to that very same irresponsible administration
>and party now in power - I think, come November, I'm going to do
>something I've never done - pull a straight R vote. It's not that
>I love the Rs - they're mostly as lousy as the Ds. It's just that
>with a more balanced distribution of power, they'll spend more of
>their time arguing and actually doing less, which will be very good
>for the nation.
My tentative plan is to vote against the incumbents regardless of party. Some
people need to get fired. -- Doug
Let people absorb the debt like we all did on the legalized by congress
after close trades and the real time trading.
Then with all of the money printed, inflation dollars will pay them off.
Crazy world when the Demos yell and scream about spending money and then
they take control and push power - they do it in aces. What a glutting
time it has been spending money they loaned to banks on projects they
want. Expanding government for all to hold up for many years.
Martin
dadiOH wrote:
> Phisherman wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:41:42 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>>
>>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about
>>> 360 billion.
>>>
>>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to.
>>> I don't think we are getting our money's worth.
>>
>> I wonder...Will the United States declare bankruptcy? No way
>> possible to pay back 9 trillion, no way!
>
> Sure there is. Inflation, current dollar worth a dime.
>
On 2/2/2010 8:50 AM, Phisherman wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:41:42 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>
>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. Adjust
>> that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
>>
>> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I don't
>> think we are getting our money's worth.
>
>
> I wonder...Will the United States declare bankruptcy? No way
> possible to pay back 9 trillion, no way! So what does our leader do?
> NOTHING! We are in desperate need of a leader who is serious about
> financial responsibility. I've flipped from Democrat to Republican.
> Bless you Scott Brown!!!
I feel your pain. I've certainly not "flipped ... to Republican". I
can only recall voting for an R Presidential candidate twice in 30
years. But - thanks to that very same irresponsible administration
and party now in power - I think, come November, I'm going to do
something I've never done - pull a straight R vote. It's not that
I love the Rs - they're mostly as lousy as the Ds. It's just that
with a more balanced distribution of power, they'll spend more of
their time arguing and actually doing less, which will be very good
for the nation.
OTOH, the fiscal irresponsibility you see comes first from the
population at large that hires its politicians to go get them
"free" stuff. The politicians respond by spending money we don't have.
To fix this mess requires the entire population to become personally
responsible fiscally ... it ain't gonna happen.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 2/3/2010 11:41 PM, Mark & Juanita wrote:
> You do realize that very few people paid at that 90% rate don't you?
There is another side to this issue that I experienced personally.
During the late 70's, and until Reagan came into office in the early
80's, the amount of money available for investing in entrepreneurial
enterprises - money looking for investments in businesses to take
advantage of tax deductions for things like IDC's (intangible drilling
costs), depletion allowances, and other business ventures - was amazing
plentiful.
Folks in those higher tax brackets would had much rather legitimately
invested in an enterprise, that money which would have otherwise gone to
taxes if they did not.
The net result of that period of high tax rates, coupled with tax code
incentives, was a plentiful supply of money for the entrepreneur and new
businesses, some otherwise too risky (like drilling for oil/gas) without
the choice of being used to pay taxes, or of investing.
Immediately upon Reagan taking office, that money literally vanished
from the table ... I remember around '82, that it was like someone
turning off a faucet.
Like I say, I lived this, intimately and to my detriment as a
businessman ... AAMOF, were it not for that money drying up, my dreamed
of 30 well drilling program in SE Colorado (of which only three
"geologic successes, but hydrocarbon failures" were drilled before this
money dried up) may well have succeeded in finding another Sorrento
Field, making us that much less dependent upon foreign oil, and I would
be typing this from the French Riviera instead of waiting for the rain
to stop so I can go to the shop to finish a chicken coop (of all
things), or not. :)
IOW, it was, prior to Reagan, the HIGHER individual tax rate, and the
tax code, not lower taxes, that indeed drove investment in small business.
Just something for the proponents of Reaganomics to consider ... there
is ALWAYS unintended consequence to the best of intentions.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
"dadiOH" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360
> billion.
>
> That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I
> don't think we are getting our money's worth.
Yeah, makes one wish the previous administration hadn't committed
two-trillion-plus (the Congressional Budget Office says that will be the
cost once the interest on that debt is paid) to invading and occupying
Iraq--those fictional WMDs have turned out to be awful expensive.
On 2/2/2010 9:41 PM, Zz Yzx wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:29:21 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Every Demonicrat since has dug the hole deeper. Though, to be fair, the Rs haven't done a wonderful job with
>> the budget either. The lesser of evils has to go to the R's, though.
>>
>
> I'd suggest a little fact checking:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
>
> Look at the graphs of debt vs. time.
>
> Note the HUGE increase during Reagan's tenure (1981-1989)
> Note the CONTINUED rapid rise during Bush Sr's tenure (1989-1983)
> Note the leveling off during Clinton's tenure (1993-2001)
Due to:
The peace dividend thanks to Reagan ending the cold war.
> Note the astronomical rise during Bush Jr's tenure (2001-2009)
>
> I'd say EVERY F'N REPUBLICAN since 1980 has fucked us. Not the
> Democrats.
>
> -Zz
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
On 2/4/2010 5:29 PM, dhall987 wrote:
> True, but that money only went to the VERY few small business ventures
> that could take advantage of tax deductions that exceeded cash
> invested (like oil drilling with depletion allowances that could
> exceed costs incurred).
Your words, not mine ...
Depletion allowances allow either a statutory or cost method of
sheltering only some of the income from producing wells from _gross_
income derived from the sale of product.
IDC's are those expenses deductible up front from drilling expenses,
whether the drilling was sucessful or not, and not designed as "tax
deductions that exceeded cash invested", but used instead to subsidize
the "risk" involved. Not all ventures carry the same risk ... however,
it is generally accepted that the greater the risk, the greater the reward.
Nonetheless, that was not my point ... the point was a reduction in the
availability of investment funds brought about by a reduction in
selected tax rates, irrespective of the type of venture. The O&G
business was not the only sector to suffer this phenomenon.
However, and sadly, the state of affairs mentioned in the original post
was one of the biggest factors in killing domestic exploration in this
country, to the detriment of our energy policies, and to all to this day.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
KarlC@ (the obvious)
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:41:42 -0500, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
>The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. Adjust
>that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
>
>That means the feds are now costing us 10+ times what they used to. I don't
>think we are getting our money's worth.
I wonder...Will the United States declare bankruptcy? No way
possible to pay back 9 trillion, no way! So what does our leader do?
NOTHING! We are in desperate need of a leader who is serious about
financial responsibility. I've flipped from Democrat to Republican.
Bless you Scott Brown!!!
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 09:56:13 -0600, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>But the administration is TRYING to reduce the deficit. On Jan 1st, 2011 the
>following tax increases will take place:
>
>* Top bracket goes from 35% to 39.6%
>* The 25 percent tax bracket will revert to 28 percent;
>* The 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent
>* The 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent.
>(If you have $50,000 of adjusted gross income, your tax goes up by $1,500
>(3%). It's for the children.)
>* The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated
>* The tax on dividends will rise from 15% to 39.6%
>* Capital gains from 15% to 20%
>* The estate tax will rise from 0% to (as much as) 45%, perhaps
>retroactively for 2010
>* The Alternative Minimum Tax will latch in at $45,000 (joint return)
>* The state sales tax exemption will no longer be available
>* $250 tax credit for teachers expires
>* College tuition deduction of $4,000 disappears
>* The first $2,400 of unemployment compensation will be taxed (it's not now)
>* Standard deduction for property taxes vanishes.
>
>All of the above will take place unless the Democrats in control of the
>government vote to reduce taxes or the sun suddenly expires.
>
So when do you get to the list of spending cuts?
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010 07:29:21 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Every Demonicrat since has dug the hole deeper. Though, to be fair, the Rs haven't done a wonderful job with
>the budget either. The lesser of evils has to go to the R's, though.
>
I'd suggest a little fact checking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Look at the graphs of debt vs. time.
Note the HUGE increase during Reagan's tenure (1981-1989)
Note the CONTINUED rapid rise during Bush Sr's tenure (1989-1983)
Note the leveling off during Clinton's tenure (1993-2001)
Note the astronomical rise during Bush Jr's tenure (2001-2009)
I'd say EVERY F'N REPUBLICAN since 1980 has fucked us. Not the
Democrats.
-Zz
Zz Yzx wrote:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
>
> Look at the graphs of debt vs. time.
>
> Note the HUGE increase during Reagan's tenure (1981-1989)
> Note the CONTINUED rapid rise during Bush Sr's tenure (1989-1983)
> Note the leveling off during Clinton's tenure (1993-2001)
> Note the astronomical rise during Bush Jr's tenure (2001-2009)
>
> I'd say EVERY F'N REPUBLICAN since 1980 has fucked us. Not the
> Democrats.
>
I agree that the Bush years saw an increase of $1.4 trillion in the national
debt. Of course his administration started with a modest recession,
experienced 9-11, Katrina, and two wars.
Then came the Obama administration which, in it's first year, hit about $1.8
trillion, more than all eight years of the Bush administration combined.
Here's a chart from the CBO
http://www.captainscomments.com/images/675-20090321DeficitGraph.jpg
"dadiOH" <[email protected]> writes:
>The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>
>The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion. Adjust
>that for government caused inflation and it would be about 360 billion.
In 1950, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. For those that pine for
the 50's and 60's, and wonder how the moon program and the interstate
highway system were paid for, that's how.
That rate existed from the depression to the 80's ranging from 70 to 95%
(high end during war times).
Is it no wonder that with two wars and bush's tax cuts, we've a record
deficit (not to mention a bad recession).
scott
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
>>
>> Look at the graphs of debt vs. time.
>>
>> Note the HUGE increase during Reagan's tenure (1981-1989)
>> Note the CONTINUED rapid rise during Bush Sr's tenure (1989-1983)
>> Note the leveling off during Clinton's tenure (1993-2001)
>
>Due to:
>
> The peace dividend thanks to Reagan ending the cold war.
Or was it due the vastly increased productivity associated with the
adoption of desktop PC's and the internet? Or was it due to the
documented decreased crime rate resulting from Roe v. Wade 17 yrs
previously (ugly as the conclusion is)? And why didn't the peace
dividend kick in during Bush Sr's administration? Heard of beer
goggles? You got partisan goggles on. THe fact is that since 1980,
the first $8 to $9 trillion were added on mostly by Republican
administrations.
-Zz
Zz Yzx wrote:
>> I agree that the Bush years saw an increase of $1.4 trillion in the national
>> debt. Of course his administration started with a modest recession,
>> experienced 9-11, Katrina, and two wars.
>
> One of which was discretionary and a HUGE blunder.
>> Then came the Obama administration which, in it's first year, hit about $1.8
>> trillion, more than all eight years of the Bush administration combined.
>>
>
> Of course, Obama's administration started with a MAJOR recession
> (damn near a depression), continues to fight the terrorist onslaught,
> and fight two wars.
>
> I'm just saying, despite the increase during Obama's first year, it's
> the Republican admistrations that have rung up the first 10 trillion
> since 1980.
>
> I'm a staunch independant and blame anybody who deserves it.
>
> -Zz
Then you should be blaming Congress.
Luigi Zanasi wrote:
> On Feb 3, 6:51 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> We conservatives believe that if we could ever get the tax rate to
>> zero, the government would have infinite money. Also that tax cuts
>> cure cander and bee bites.
>
> Finally, an honest Tory.
>
> :-)
>
Honest Tory? That's a redundant tautology.
Scott Lurndal wrote:
> "dadiOH" <[email protected]> writes:
>> The new fed budget is 3.8 trillon
>>
>> The fed budget 60 years ago - 1950 - was a bit less than 45 billion.
>> Adjust that for government caused inflation and it would be about
>> 360 billion.
>
> In 1950, the top marginal tax rate was 90%. For those that pine for
> the 50's and 60's, and wonder how the moon program and the interstate
> highway system were paid for, that's how.
>
> That rate existed from the depression to the 80's ranging from 70 to
> 95% (high end during war times).
>
> Is it no wonder that with two wars and bush's tax cuts, we've a record
> deficit (not to mention a bad recession).
It's not the tax cuts. Every time, every single time, that taxes have been
cut, government revenue goes up.
We conservatives believe that if we could ever get the tax rate to zero, the
government would have infinite money. Also that tax cuts cure cander and bee
bites.