Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Kanth on February 23, 2003, 11:10:55 PM
-
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511063945&p=1012571727088
The heads of the European Central Bank and eurozone finance ministers have expressed deep scepticism about the US administration's $690bn tax cut plan.
Wim Duisenberg, ECB president, and Nikos Christodoulakis, the Greek minister who chairs the "eurogroup" of eurozone finance ministers, attacked the plan at the meeting of the Group of Seven leading industrialised nations in Paris at the weekend, saying it endangered the world economy.
John Snow, US Treasury secretary, pushed hard for international support for the Bush administration's tax plan during Saturday's meeting of finance ministers and central bankers.
once again we have failed to please everybody...
-
Well, you can't please everyone.
Might not be the best time for a tax cut but remember both political sides proposed a tax cut. One was just larger that the other.
Both sides feel a need to "do something" about the economy but neither side really has a clue just what to do. So, they're doing something to be doing something. IMO.
Beyond that, somebody is going to spend that money. Either the government takes it from you and spends it and you go into debt for stuff you need or you keep it and spend it and the government goes into debt for stuff it needs.
-
I do believe I account for my money alot better than the government does.
and I certainly don't feel like listening to non-americans telling me how I should spend it.
Originally posted by Toad
Either the government takes it from you and spends it and you go into debt for stuff you need or you keep it and spend it and the government goes into debt for stuff it needs.
-
I agree. :D
I'm thinking I'm a better judge of whether I wish to contribute to "pork barrel" projects than my Representatives.
-
Kanth and Toad, I understand yer positions. Europeans shouldn't have political say in how the US taxes its citizens or runs its economy.
That is not to say that they shouldn't be interested. We're talking about the largest economy in the world, and the most powerful nation on earth. If their training and experience make them think it's a bad idea, due to the positions of power they have, they have an obligation to voice their concerns.
They might indirectly affect US politics by giving opponents of Bush's suggestion some ammo. This could be part of the objective, but I doubt these chaps would say what they say without being genuinely worried.
And I think it should be seen as a word of caution, not as meddling in the internal affairs of the US. So there's no need to be angry at Europeans over this; the US comments on other nations and rarely intervene themselves. Everyone does it - it's just how the world is today.
-
I am spartacus
-
Well, at least it's a novel approach in cutting the huge budget deficit already present before the change.. :)
I bet they're hoping the debt will just go away.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
And I think it should be seen as a word of caution, not as meddling in the internal affairs of the US. So there's no need to be angry at Europeans over this; the US comments on other nations and rarely intervene themselves. Everyone does it - it's just how the world is today.
We are no angry, we know that Euro's wont effect our tax cut
That moneys going to hep pay fer new truck with a coon dog and a gun rack... :p
-
BTW, wtf does our tax cut got to do with euro? They should tend to their own worries.
-
I don't care if the euros throw all their firearms into the ocean or increase their taxes to 110%. Please do it quietly and without large wars.
lazs
-
Sixpence, in short, eventually European imports would be "more expensive" here which usually means they won't sell as much here.
-
well put this way......
US sneezes......
Canada says 'bless you"
whatever the American economy decides to do......always affects Canada....no running from the biggest trade partners in de world.
-
hehe or the whole idea of huge tax cut in the face of a war and plummeting economy is insane. stimulate the economy with tax cuts to the rich shure it will work. just like in reagans era. such total bullcrap.
-
Skimming over the part where BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans were in favor of tax cuts, just different amounts?
If you're against it, you have to blast both sides about equally on this one LDV.
Beyond that..... if you give a tax cut, stands to reason that the folks who actually pay taxes will get a bigger cut than those that don't, eh?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Skimming over the part where BOTH the Democrats and the Republicans were in favor of tax cuts, just different amounts?
If you're against it, you have to blast both sides about equally on this one LDV.
Beyond that..... if you give a tax cut, stands to reason that the folks who actually pay taxes will get a bigger cut than those that don't, eh?
Well damn, very rarely do I see someone calling it like it is...nicely said!
-
I'd worry less about an American tax cut in Europe than the boycot of european products by Americans. I've already started mine. :)
-
Btw the people getting the larger tax cut's with the larger incomes have more spending power.
I know that was just said but just being more direct about that.
Europeans shouldn't have political say in how the US taxes its citizens or runs its economy.
Europeans don't have political say in how the US taxes it's citizens or runs its economy.
If they don't like being dependant, they need to revise the way they do business with America. Which involves taking responsibility for the way they run their own countries finances..
-
Europeans don't have political say in how the US taxes it's citizens or runs its economy.
If they don't like being dependant, they need to revise the way they do business with America.
A large proportion of US national debt is held by foreigners, about 45%. That means every US citizen owes around $5000 to foreigners. The US tax cut is not possible without the US government borrowing more abroad.
Like it or not, your tax cut is dependent on sucking in foreign cash to fund it. The ammount of foreign investment in the US now exceeds the amount of US investments abroad, and the US trade deficit is rising. It all has to be funded by foreign money.
Enjoy your tax cut, you will still be paying the money back for years to come. And to us foreigners, too.
-
dream on.
Originally posted by Nashwan
It all has to be funded by foreign money.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
...That means every US citizen owes around $5000 to foreigners...Enjoy your tax cut, you will still be paying the money back for years to come. And to us foreigners, too...
hehehe, come get it.
F.
-
Keep on diggin'....
From "Bureau of Economic Analysis":
-
But why is there so much Foreign Investment here? Obviously, we need to finance the debt. Why do foreigners find it so attractive?
-
You know, spending more money than your earnings are is usually bad idea in a long run. You're going to pay everything back PLUS some more.
-
we're gonna seize all of France and Germany's assets in this country within a few weeks of the Iraqi invasion.
:D
-
is a old saying .." if you owe the bank $100,000 they own you
"if you owe the bank $100,000,000 , you own the bank.
ya'll better treat us nice if you expect to get paid back
-
Originally posted by Toad
But why is there so much Foreign Investment here? Obviously, we need to finance the debt. Why do foreigners find it so attractive?
Because the US does not declare moratoriums on its debt payments or deliberately devaule its currency the way some other countries do.
As far as why America attracts so much private investment, that is a more complicated question. The main reasons are that the US is a huge market, respects private property, has a (relatively) decent court system for settling business disputes, and has civil service and business regulators that are (relatively again) corruption-free and professional.
-
Toad:
_____________________________ ____
The US has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $36,300. In this market-oriented economy, private individuals and business firms make most of the decisions, and the federal and state governments buy needed goods and services predominantly in the private marketplace.
US business firms enjoy considerably greater flexibility than their counterparts in Western Europe and Japan in decisions to expand capital plant, lay off surplus workers, and develop new products. At the same time, they face higher barriers to entry in their rivals' home markets than the barriers to entry of foreign firms in US markets. US firms are at or near the forefront in technological advances, especially in computers and in medical, aerospace, and military equipment, although their advantage has narrowed since the end of World War II. The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a "two-tier labor market" in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. The years 1994-2000 witnessed solid increases in real output, low inflation rates, and a drop in unemployment to below 5%. The year 2001 witnessed the end of the boom psychology and performance, with output increasing only 0.3% and unemployment and business failures rising substantially. The response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 showed the remarkable resilience of the economy. Moderate recovery is expected in 2002, with the GDP growth rate rising to 2.5% or more. A major short-term problem in first half 2002 was a sharp decline in the stock market, fueled in part by the exposure of dubious accounting practices in some major corporations. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups.
_____________________________ _
Pretty interesting read; Taken from CIA's World Factbook.
-
there is no doubt about this.
Originally posted by Staga
You know, spending more money than your earnings are is usually bad idea in a long run. You're going to pay everything back PLUS some more.
-
got a cite on both sides being in favor of tax cut ?
and not rush.com
-
Staga this chart is in line another chart (from the department of the treasury) that shows the percentage growth of our foreign debt by years from 1993 to 2001.
(it nearly doubled in that timespan of 8 years)
Originally posted by Staga
Keep on diggin'....
From "Bureau of Economic Analysis":
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
got a cite on both sides being in favor of tax cut ?
and not rush.com
You're kidding right? You really missed this? You think it's only the Republicans?
:D
Rush.com? Will you take the Washington Post?
Senior Hill Democrat Offers Tax-Cut Plan (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14955-2002Dec19¬Found=true)
The senior Democrat on the tax-writing Senate Finance Committee yesterday unveiled a $160 billion package of tax cuts and emergency aid for the states, signaling that key Democrats are ready to strike an early deal with the White House on legislation to stimulate the sluggish economy...
..Senate and House Democratic leaders are readying plans of their own for early January as both parties rush to do something about an economy that is technically recovering from last year's recession but has failed to generate new jobs.
No? CBS then? Not exactly a conservative bastion, I'd say. Certainly not Rush.com
Bush Lays Out His Stimulus Plan (https://publish.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/02/politics/main535029.shtml)
On Monday, the Democrats offered a rival plan that would expand unemployment benefits by 26 weeks and give all workers a refundable income tax rebate of up to $300 per person or $600 per working couple. States would get $31 billion for homeland security, highway, Medicaid and unemployment insurance programs.
Still to Rush.com for ya? How about the Democratic National Committee website? Surely they're not too Rush.com are they?
Democrats Offer Plan to Boost Economy (http://www.democrats.org/news/200301080001.html)
...The Democratic plan includes tax relief for working families and businesses, investments to help states facing massive budget crises, an extension of unemployment benefits to help workers who lost their jobs in the recession, and more.
The Democratic plan encourages stimulus by putting money in the hands of American consumers with an immediate $300 tax rebate. The plan also provides tax relief to small businesses that invest in equipment and jobs, providing an additional boost the economy....
..The vast majority of the Democratic plan -- $100 billion of the $136 billion total cost -- would go into immediate effect to boost the economy...
Like I said upthread, both sides feel a need to "do something" about the economy but neither side really has a clue just what to do. So, they're doing something to be doing something. IMO.
-
Yup.. but being an oppressed poor dumbshit rather than an oppressed rich one, I prefer the one that gives me a tax cut and the rich bastards the shaft.
Gawd, I love America. :D
-
Please define "rich" using adjusted gross income as the determiant. ;)
-
Damn, Toad, why in hell do you always have to ask the freakin HARD questions?
Net or Gross?
;)
-
oh, hell.. would help if I could read.
Ok, 250k gross is freakin rich in my book.
;)
-
So everybody > $250K agi deserves the "tax shaft"?
What percentage of their agi should they have to "give" to the government then? What's a good "shafting" for them? Percentage-wise, I mean.
-
There yah go with the hard questions again. :)
The damn tax code is so heaped with insane loopholes the folks down on the bottom of the income scale seem to wind up with the biggest tax burden when expressed in real dollars actually paid to the government.
At least, so it seems.
I'm so sick of the republicrats playing tennis with my tax burden, I'm about ready to revolt.
I'm all for completely scrapping the current tax code and replacing it with a flat zero exemption percentage that we all, regardless of income actually pay the government.
I wonder if there's any meaningful (pardon while I hiccup and fart while typing that word) study on what such a tax program would do for the government in tax dollars in comparison to what it gets now after it pays for the IRS beauracracy?
-
Sure, sure.
But you didn't answer the question.
How much is enough for those rich bastiges to pay? As a percentage of AGI?
:D
-
Well, after I got done with deductions, (and I was creative) I coughed up 22% of my income for good old unca sam.
I'd like those rich fellers to actually pay the government the same percentage. After deductions.
-
The Tax Fairy has granted your wish!
Income Quintiles/Household Income Distribution 2000 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/overview/income.cfm)
(http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/tables/overview/Distribution/GIF/income.gif)
Returns, AGI Shares, and Income Tax by Percentile (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/overview/positiveagi.cfm)
Scroll down to the Adjusted Gross Income Floor On Percentiles and you'll see that the top 5% of all filers in 2000 have an AGI between $128,336 and $313,468. Your "rich bastiges" mark of $250K drops nicely into about the middle of this top 5%.
Now, keep scrolling down to Average Tax Rate and check the top 5% quintile for 2000. Note that these fine folks pay 24.42% of their income to the taxman.
Your wish has been granted.
And those obscenely "rich bastiges" with an AIG of $313,469 and higher, commonly referred to as the "top 1%" of all filers in 2000 pay 27.45% of their income to the taxman.
So, they're all paying more than you.
Equally interesting and noteworthy is the fact that in 2000 the "top 5%" of all filers made 35.30% of all income reported but they PAID 56.47% of ALL TAXES COLLECTED.
The top 1% earned 20.81% of all income reported but they PAID 37.42% of all taxes collected.
Now then.......
:D
-
Toad, those earning more money should also pay more money in taxes. it's reasonable IMHO.
What I dislike (especially here) is the progressive tax rate. My sis who now works as a doc gets 15% after taxes of her overwork hours. And she cannot take it out in spare time due to seveeere lack of doctors. She cannot go to the private sector until she has her specialty.
I say one should have a flat tax for everyone. If one has, like here, a socially progressive society, one could give the economically disadvantaged (read: poor) incentives to reeducate themselves and so forth.
But if there's a flat tax of say 30% (that'd be very low in DK, but probably not in the US) then it is very apparent that those earning more also pay more.
Are you suggesting that eeveryone should pay somefixed amount? I.e for a poor dude, maybe 80% of his income goes to taxes, whereas the same amount is 0.5% for a wealthier person?
Hope that ain't what you're saying.
-
No, I'm not saying that. I'm just pointing out a few things to Hang, like the system already IS the way he says he wants it to be.
Personally I think a flat tax coupled to a National Sales Tax (with items like food and prescription drugs exempted) would be a good thing to try.
Our progressive system sucks too. Just not as badly as yours.
-
Ol vader never met a tax he didn't like. No liberal has..I don't see how we can tax ourselves into prosperity. Flat tax with sales tax is fine for me. Never got a job from a poor person anyhow.
Other countries don't have to do bussiness with us.. It's up to them.. They don't get a vote tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
hehe or the whole idea of huge tax cut in the face of a war and plummeting economy is insane. stimulate the economy with tax cuts to the rich shure it will work. just like in reagans era. such total bullcrap.
Plummeting economy...by your definition?
FOR RELEASE: 12:30 P.M. ET, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2003
U.S. COMPOSITE INDEXES FOR JANUARY 2003
The Press Release in a PDF file
This release reflects revisions to vendor performance that were not included in our 10 AM release. These revisions were minor and affected the U.S. Leading Index only. The index level in January remains the same, but the index level for December is higher than earlier reported. As a result, the January monthly change is now -0.1 percent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conference Board announced today that the U.S. leading index decreased 0.1 percent, the coincident index increased by 0.2 percent, and the lagging index decreased 0.1 percent in January.
A sharp drop in claims for unemployment insurance offset the weak expectations of consumers in January. The leading index remains well above its peak prior to the 2001 recession and just below the previous high achieved in May 2002.
The coincident index turned up again in January after pausing in the last quarter of 2002. This month's increase in the coincident index, the largest in six months, is consistent with the gains in the leading index late last year and reflects better current conditions in the beginning of this year.
Barring any shock or prolonged uncertainty in the Middle East, the leading and coincident indexes point to a more robust pace of economic activity in the coming months.
LEADING INDICATORS. Four of the ten indicators that make up the leading index increased in January. The positive contributors to the index - beginning with the largest positive contributor - were average weekly initial claims for unemployment insurance (inverted), real money supply*, manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials*, and interest rate spread. The negative contributors - from the largest negative contributor - were index of consumer expectations, building permits, average weekly manufacturing hours, manufacturers' new orders for nondefense capital goods*, and stock prices. Vendor performance holds steady in January. The leading index now stands at 111.2 (1996=100). Based on revised data, this index increased 0.2 percent in December and increased 0.5 percent in November. During the six-month span through January, the leading index increased 0.2 percent, with four of the ten components advancing (diffusion index, six-month span equals 40 percent).
COINCIDENT INDICATORS. All four indicators that make up the coincident index increased in January. The positive contributors to the index, beginning with the largest positive contributor - were industrial production, employees on nonagricultural payrolls, personal income less transfer payments*, and manufacturing and trade sales*. The coincident index now stands at 115.5 (1996=100). Based on revised data, this index held steady in December and increased 0.1 percent in November. During the six-month period through January, the coincident index increased 0.2 percent.
The next release is scheduled for March 20, 2003 at 10 A.M. ET.
LAGGING INDICATORS. The lagging index decreased 0.1 percent to 99.2 (1996=100) in January, with two of the seven components declining. The negative contributors to the index - beginning with the larger negative contributor - were commercial and industrial loans outstanding* and ratio of consumer installment credit to personal income*. Change in CPI for services* is the only component that increased this month. Average duration of unemployment, average prime rate charged by banks, change in labor cost per unit of output*, and ratio of manufacturing and trade inventories to sales* held steady in January. Based on revised data, the lagging index decreased 0.3 percent in December and decreased 0.4 percent in November.
DATA AVAILABILITY. The data series used by The Conference Board to compute the three composite indexes and reported in the tables in this release are those available "as of" 12 Noon on February 19, 2003. Some series are estimated as noted below.
NOTES: Series in the leading index that are based on The Conference Board estimates are manufacturers' new orders for consumer goods and materials, manufacturers' new orders for nondefense capital goods, and the personal consumption expenditure deflator for money supply. Series in the coincident index that are based on The Conference Board estimates are personal income less transfer payments and manufacturing and trade sales. Series in the lagging index that are based on The Conference Board estimates are inventories to sales ratio, change in CPI for services, consumer installment credit to income ratio, change in labor cost per unit of output, and the personal consumption expenditure deflator for commercial and industrial loans outstanding.
Hardly plummeting
-
imo only if they use more government resources.
taxes are paid for use of government services, security, roads etc..
If someone is using more of these they should pay more taxes.
The idea that if someone makes more, they should pay more makes absolutely no sense to me.
Originally posted by StSanta
Toad, those earning more money should also pay more money in taxes. it's reasonable IMHO.
-
Kanth, I think he meant "more" in the sense that 22% of $250,000 is MORE than 22% of $100,000.
I think.
-
I understand, what I'm saying still applies tho.
Does the person making 250,000 use more from the government than the person who is making 100,000?
Overall I would say no. And so the way the tax system is setup right now is wrong.
Alot of people like it and think it's good tho.
Originally posted by Toad
Kanth, I think he meant "more" in the sense that 22% of $250,000 is MORE than 22% of $100,000.
I think.
-
Yeah, and if they find this thread, they'll be here to tell you so!
In fact, they'll tell you why "rich" folks should give all their income to the government and define "rich" as anyone who makes more than they do.
;)
-
Rich people aren't gonna spend all the money they make, so it makes good sense to get the government to spend it for them. You know, "trickle down" and all?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Beyond that, somebody is going to spend that money. Either the government takes it from you and spends it and you go into debt for stuff you need or you keep it and spend it and the government goes into debt for stuff it needs.
Toad, ya got it pinned down and isolated! The government can handle debt better then I can because they can just print money. I can't, well I can, but then I will have to fend off, heheee, "friendlies" and "incomming" at Levenworth!
-
I know but I don't mind if they have a different view than mine.
I haven't seen any logical justification from their side yet so it's all white noise to me. :)
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, and if they find this thread, they'll be here to tell you so!
In fact, they'll tell you why "rich" folks should give all their income to the government and define "rich" as anyone who makes more than they do.
;)