On 10/22/17 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 10:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for
the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and
better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an
increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's just
another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves
and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,
and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It
is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive.Â* Why am I not surprised?Â* My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics,
which is an apt description for Trump's tax plan for corporations,
does not work. Creation of "more and better jobs" through an
expanded economy is a good thing, of course, but saying that
trickle-down economics is going to produce that is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the
economy of tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You*Â* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing it
as having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy
*is* trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you prefer
an increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich
are the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.


There we go with the "tax cuts for the rich"Â* thing again.Â* Trump's tax
proposal specifically recommends excluding the "rich" from getting a tax
cut.

You are confusing private, individual taxes and corporate tax or small
business taxes.Â* Different animals with different resulting benefits.




How's that proposed elimination of the estate tax gonna work out for the
rich?

On 10/22/2017 11:32 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 10:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for
the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and
better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an
increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's
just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves
and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,
and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It
is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive.Â* Why am I not surprised?Â* My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics,
which is an apt description for Trump's tax plan for
corporations, does not work. Creation of "more and better jobs"
through an expanded economy is a good thing, of course, but
saying that trickle-down economics is going to produce that
is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the
economy of tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You*Â* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing
it as having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy
*is* trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you
prefer an increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich
are the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.


There we go with the "tax cuts for the rich"Â* thing again.Â* Trump's
tax proposal specifically recommends excluding the "rich" from getting
a tax cut.

You are confusing private, individual taxes and corporate tax or small
business taxes.Â* Different animals with different resulting benefits.




How's that proposed elimination of the estate tax gonna work out for the
rich?


There shouldn't be an estate tax period IMO. Currently it only applies
to that estate value above about $5.5 million. It's double taxation and
the government isn't entitled to any of it, rich or not so rich.

You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 11:32 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 11:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 10:04 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:57 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 8:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 8:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/22/2017 7:35 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/21/17 11:50 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 21:53:20 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/21/17 4:31 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 15:32:20 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

Ahh. Trickle-down. What the rich claim will improve life for
the lower
income groups but of course it is bull****.

===

Question for you:Â* Would you prefer the creation of more and
better
jobs via an improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an
increase
in government hand outs?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com


Answer for you: Trickle-down economics, which is what is under
discussion, is a myth. It's not a job creator, per se, it's
just another
way for the haves to increase the distance between themselves
and the
have-nots. As Wikipedia notes, "Multiple studies have found a
correlation between trickle-down economics and reduced growth,
and that
higher taxes on the wealthy are linked to economic growth." It
is just
another way for the wealthy to **** on the poor.

===

Unresponsive.Â* Why am I not surprised?Â* My question was not about
"trickle down economics," which is a bit of a cliche.



It has been proven over and again that trickle-down economics,
which is an apt description for Trump's tax plan for
corporations, does not work. Creation of "more and better jobs"
through an expanded economy is a good thing, of course, but
saying that trickle-down economics is going to produce that
is...bull****.


You have boxed yourself in (again).

This thread was a discussion of the potential benefits to the
economy of tax cuts to corporations, including small businesses.

*You*Â* introduced the "trickle down economics" theme, denouncing
it as having never worked.

Wayne asked a very pertinent question of you:

"Would you prefer the creation of more and better jobs via an
improved/expanded economy, or would you prefer an increase
in government hand outs?"

Instead of answering his question you immediately jumped to the
progressive liberal mantra.

How about giving an honest answer to his question?

Tax cuts to companies with the idea they will expand the economy
*is* trickle-down economics.


So, does that mean your answer to Wayne's question is that you
prefer an increase in government programs and hand outs?

Did I say that? No, I did not. You boys think tax cuts for the rich
are the only way to grow the economy, eh? Wow...talk about entitled
dependency. Sheesh.


There we go with the "tax cuts for the rich"Â* thing again.Â* Trump's
tax proposal specifically recommends excluding the "rich" from
getting a tax cut.

You are confusing private, individual taxes and corporate tax or
small business taxes.Â* Different animals with different resulting
benefits.




How's that proposed elimination of the estate tax gonna work out for
the rich?


There shouldn't be an estate tax period IMO.Â* Currently it only applies
to that estate value above about $5.5 million.Â* It's double taxation and
the government isn't entitled to any of it, rich or not so rich.

You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
.... if you believe what he says.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:13:29 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.

You're expecting Harry Krause to have knowledge he most likely doesn't possess.

wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?

On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.

On 10/22/2017 5:53 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you
want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income.Â* But
qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed.Â*Â* Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.


To me, it's not really about large corporations. It's about small
businesses in the USA, many under a Sub-S tax structure. Small
businesses employ the majority of all people in the country.
There's an individual tax rate and then the business tax rate (higher)
that passes through to the owner. Virtually every small business owner
I've heard interviewed about a tax reduction have said it would mean
they could add another employee or two or grow the business. That would
be good for the economy and get the growth rate back up to a decent
level. Like in a business, without growth the US economy becomes stagnant.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.


Nope, the large corporations are keeping their profits offshore. EG.
Apple. Small business are being taxed on their profit at the 39% rate.
How are those with profits inside the USA no paying the corporate tax rate?

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 17:53:33 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 1:53 PM, Bill wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:56:36 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 10/22/17 12:05 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


You just seem to be opposed to anything others have that you don't.

Not at all. Too many of the rich have too many ways to avoid manner of
serious taxation. Trump also wants to eliminate the AMT. If, if you want
to eliminate the estate tax and perhaps the AMT, just tax all income as
ordinary income, okay? Okay?

The AMT ends up grabbing a lot of middle class people. It was a "good
idea" that backfired.

As for tax, I would go with a flat tax if I wanted to be fair. Just
set a pretty high personal exemption and tax the rest at a flat rate,
no deductions. If it was 16%, guys like Buffett would be paying more
... if you believe what he says.


I have no problem with taxing all income as ordinary income. But qualified
dividends were already taxed at the 39% corporate tax rate, and then the
person getting them pays 20% of that money to the Fed. Seems as if that
makes a tax rate of about 51%. Fair?


I doubt many corporations are paying at the 39% rate.

It depends on 39% of what?
That is what they pay on their profits but like most taxes, with the
right accountant, you can reduce your tax liabilities. If you had a
simpler tax code, you could reduce the rate and still get as much if
not more money.