Aerial Bombing. Or, if ya gottem use em.

[NormMessinger]

>QUICK POLITICAL SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST
This test consists of one (1) multiple-choice question.

Here's a list of the countries and dates that the U.S. has bombed since the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-2003
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001

In how many of these instances did a democratic government that was respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result?
Choose one of the following:
(a) 0
(b) zero
(c) none
(d) not a one
(e) a whole number between -1 and +1

Test created by:
Paul R. Ehrlich
Stanford University

[Meerkat]

We could update it! How many intelligent presidents have made publicity stunt aircraft carrier landings?:
(a) 0
(b) zero
(c) none
(d) not a one
(e) a whole number between -1 and +1

:D :D :D

[Bruce G]

:D

Edited to say: I laughed at the original joke- not Meerkat's.

I would rather have the president do this for politics than fat chicks ;)

[ 05-02-2003, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Bruce G ]

[Scott Rosen]

And your point Norm, must be that we haven't dropped enough bombs on enough countries, right?

[Alan D. Hyde]

"Cosmopolitan critics, men who are friends of every country save their own." Benjamin Disraeli

Alan

[Wayne Jeffers]

Not to worry, Alan. I'm sure the Bu$hies will get their oil, which was the only real point of this exercise anyway.

They've already begun backing away from claims that the principal reason was related to Iraqi WOMD or a connection with al Qaeda.

After a decent interval, they will declare that liberal democracy in Iraq is simply not possible and confer their support on a puppet dictator who will grant favoritism to American oil companies in exploiting Iraqi oilfields.

When a democracy is invading another country in contravention of international law and without meaningful provocation, a citizen of that democracy has an obligation to speak out against that invasion.

Wayne

[Bruce G]

Stated by Wayne:

When a democracy is invading another country in contravention of international law and without meaningful provocation, a citizen of that democracy has an obligation to speak out against that invasion. Was there a democracy in Iraq while Sadamm was in power? I hope you are not contending that there was a democracy, or that the majority of the people in Iraq are angered that we removed him from power.

[Alan D. Hyde]

When your neighbor and his family are in the power of a murderer, who is killing them with evident relish, it is not international law that the neighbors' rights prevent you from coming to their assistance.

Alan

[Wayne Jeffers]

Bruce,

The US is the democracy.

Wayne

[Wayne Jeffers]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
When your neighbor and his family are in the power of a murderer, who is killing them with evident relish, it is not international law that the neighbors' rights prevent you from coming to their assistance.

AlanAlan,

Have you given up that silly pretense that Iraq had WOMD they intended to us on us, and that they actively supported al Qaeda?

Most of the murder of Iraqis occurred while Reagan and Bush pere were president and Iraq was our friend. Were you speaking out in opposition to US military aid and support for Iraq back then? (I was.)

Do you support similar ventures to overthrow murderous dictators wherever they are found in the world, or only in the nations that have large oil reserves?

Wayne

[Keith Wilson]

This came up a couple of months ago, and it irritated me enough that I wrote the following. It's long, but I'm going to post it again.

Let’s look at this a little more closely. In which of those countries did the government actually change? Despite the claims of both the rabid left and right, the US is not and has never been omnipotent; we screw up fairly often. The government changed to the one the US supported in the following cases, if I remember correctly:

Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Congo 1964
Grenada 1983
Nicaragua 1980s (but in this case the change was through an election, not as a result of military action so maybe it doesn't count)
Panama 1989
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001

And let's add the following:
Haiti 198? (didn’t bomb, but invaded)
Kuwait 1991 (that was the point of the first Gulf War, after all)

So of countries on this list, let's ask: Was the new government better or worse than the one it replaced; i.e. more democratic, less corrupt, more respectful of human rights?

Guatemala 1954 - Worse, definitely
Indonesia 1958 – Ambivalent
Congo 1964 - Worse, probably
Grenada 1983 - Better
Nicaragua 1980s – Ambivalent, neither all that great.
Haiti - Better
Panama 1989 - Better
Yugoslavia 1999 - Better
Kuwait 1991 - Better
Afghanistan 2001-2002 - Better, so far

Now let's see in which cases the government in power which we supported was preserved, and try to say if that government was better or worse than the one which would have replaced it (hard to do, but I'll guess to the best of my ability)

Korea 1950-53 – Better, definitely
Guatemala 1960 – Worse, probably
Peru 1965 – Hard to tell
Guatemala 1967-69 – Worse, probably
El Salvador 1980s – Probably worse at the time, although it’s improved since

So, by my count anyway, in the 15 cases where the guys we supported either got into or stayed in power, the outcome was positive in seven cases, ambivalent in three or four, and bad in four or five. One can, of course, differentiate cases in which US action had a significant impact (yes in Afghanistan, Grenada, for example; no in most of the cases in Latin America except Guatemala 1954)

Now let’s look at the cases where the US failed to achieve its ends, and try to decide if the outcome was better or worse for the people of that country than if we had succeeded. This is of necessity a pretty wild guess, but I’ll do my best.

China 1945-46 and1950-53 – Worse.
Cuba 1959-60 – Ambivalent, probably worse but not much.
Laos 1964-73 – Ambivalent, probably worse
Vietnam 1961-73 – Ambivalent, probably worse
Cambodia 1969-70 - Much, much, much worse
Libya 1986 – Hard to tell, although Libya has been much less likely to try terroristic adventures after the bombing
Iraq 1991-99 – Worse, definitely
Sudan 1998, – results not significant
Afghanistan 1998– results not significant

I’m being pretty generous to the communist governments of Vietnam and Laos here, but of nine cases, folks would certainly have been better off in three cases had we succeeded, perhaps in five. The other cases are either ambivalent, or the results of US actions weren’t significant.

Now, my point is not that we’re always on the side of the angels, nor even that our record is particularly good, but that the analysis originally presented is just plain silly. In many parts of the world, one does not have a choice between supporting, say, either Denmark or Nazi Germany, but between two groups, one who is only slightly less distasteful than the other. We certainly haven’t always picked the right side (Guatemala in 1955 was a particularly dreadful example), and we have often gotten militarily involved when we shouldn’t have, but our record isn’t anywhere near as bad as the initial list indicates.

[ 05-02-2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Keith Wilson ]

[Chris Coose]

After a decent interval, they will declare that liberal democracy in Iraq is simply not possible and confer their support on a puppet dictator who will grant favoritism to American oil companies in exploiting Iraqi oilfields Wayne, Mind if I turn it around a bit?

How about, they will confer their support on American oil companies who will grant favoritism to a puppet dictator.

I heard dubbya talking to the uniformed (who else does he appear before these days) yesterday blathering on about... by , for the Iraqui people. It's like a comedy routine.

[Wayne Jeffers]

Chris,

Did you ever read Catch-22?

Remember the scene where Chief White Halfoat (whose family was always being run off of reservations because oil was discovered wherever they went) woke up to discover that Hoople's cat was sleeping on his face suffocating him? (Something Chief White Halfoat had had recurring nightmares about.) Yossarian declared that there would be a fair fight and they all went outside.

When the combatants were released from their "corners," the cat took off. Chief White Halfoat was declared the winner and he swaggered back to his tent to once more go to sleep and dream that Hoople's cat was sleeping on is face suffocating him.

Somehow this whole Iraq war puts me in mind of that scene from the book. It is no surprise that we won handily and quickly, and now we can swagger and be all full of ourselves for having won the fight. But it doesn't really change much. We'll put our own SOB dictator in power in place of Saddam. He'll keep the Kurds and the Shiites repressed and in their places. And we'll be back to business as usual.

In the meantime, Bu$h is getting lots of good footage for use in the campaign next year in hopes that he can make people remember the moment of victory (over a weak opponent) and forget how he has tanked the economy. :rolleyes:

Wayne

[Alan D. Hyde]

The economy would be doing better if not for the opposition to proposed immediate tax cuts by Democrats and RINOS (Republicans-In-Name-Only) in Congress.

Alan

[Wayne Jeffers]

And I suppose we wouldn't have the record deficits if the Democrats and RINO's in Congress hadn't appropriated so much money for wasteful projects.

Alan,

I'm sure you know enough about economics to realize that cuts for the wealthiest will do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. If I got a tax cut, it would go into savings. I already make more than I need and I'm barely in the top 10% of household income. (Of course, I choose to live below my means.) Even Alan Greenspan (hardly a liberal) does not favor the tax cuts proposed by Bu$h.

If you want to stimulate the economy, give a rebate of $X (pick a number) to everyone who filed a return. That would mostly go to the poor who would spend it, thereby increasing demand and creating jobs to produce the goods and services in greater demand.

I'm hoping some of the RINO's in the Senate abandon the party which repeatedly demonstrates it has no tolerance for moderation so that Bu$h's extremist activist court nominees will never be seated.

Wayne

[High C]

Wayne said:

"I'm sure you know enough about economics to realize that cuts for the wealthiest will do virtually nothing to stimulate the economy. If I got a tax cut, it would go into savings."
__________________________________________________

Wayne how do you save your money? Do you put it under the mattress, or do you invest it? Does it go into a bank, or mutual fund, or stocks? That's investment. Investment stimulates economic activity.

Besides, this talk of tax cuts for the rich is simply not accurate. We're talkng about income tax, not a wealth tax. The reductions in the tax rate brackets are far deeper in the lower brackets than in the upper brackets.

The lowest rate was cut by a third, from 15% to 10%. And it took effect retroactively, as soon as the law was signed. That's what the $300 checks were all about. The top rate was cut from 39.6% to 38.6%, for a reduction of about 2.5%. The middle brackets also saw equally small reductions.

These cuts increase the progressive nature of the tax rate structure. Those in the lower income brackets now pay a smaller portion of the income tax burden than before, while those in the upper brackets pay a greater portion of the burden.

To argue otherwise is to fail to understand the math.

[ 05-02-2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[JimD]

As long as we're into bombing trivia I believe the first time the US actually used aerial bombing against and actually enemy was in the 1920s against the original Sandinistas in Nicaragua, although that may have been dive bombing, the over the shoulder toss from biplanes. Anyone know if bombs were lobbed by American fliers in WWI?

[Alan D. Hyde]

Wayne, savings are precisely what create economic growth, and more and better-paying jobs.

Here's how it works:

Savings are invested in enterprises, which use their expanded capital to buy new or improved tools.

These tools enhance the business' competitiveness by helping them to make more and better product at a lower cost. Better tools also improve employee productivity (and safety). More productive employees will be higher-paid, and more competitive companies will grow, thus requiring more personnel.

Of course, travel along this course of events will be impeded by taxes and regulations and litigation risks that dramatically raise the real cost of employing people, and make it cheaper to mechanize, or to move human activity to a more favorable location.

Alan

[Scott Rosen]

Savings used to be the way to economic growth. That has not been the case in America for quite some time.

Our growth has been fueled by consumer spending. The money to pay for it has come from economic bubbles in various sectors of the economy, which have been caused by massive inflation by the Fed. Products are increasingly produced overseas. The means of production are increasingly moving overseas.

The Fed creates money and credit out of thin air. They control the value of your money, and they don't want you to save it; they want you to spend it. They will do everything in their power to keep you spending. Keeping interest rates low, and continuing to inflate the money supply are two very effective ways to discourage saving and encourage spending.

If you really want to know where the economy is going, perhaps you should ask Alan Greenspan where he invests his money.

[Donn]

Greenspan invests in Treasury securities. His wife owns stock in General Electric, the parent company of NBC, and Estee Lauder, Clorox, H.J. Heinz, Kimberly Clark, McDonald's and Rubbermaid, and others. Her biggest single holding, listed in the category of $US250,001 to $US500,000, was in Abbott Laboratories.

[Don Olney]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:

Here's how it works:

Savings are invested in enterprises, which use their expanded capital to buy new or improved tools.

These tools enhance the business' competitiveness by helping them to make more and better product at a lower cost. Better tools also improve employee productivity (and safety). More productive employees will be higher-paid, and more competitive companies will grow, thus requiring more personnel.
Nice, overly-simplistic theory that has little relevance to the current state of the US economy. For starters, I recall reading in The Wall Street Journal and Business Week and other publications, that US productivity is high and companies over-invested in equipment (tools) in the 90's which lead to excess capacity in many sectors especially telecommunications. People need jobs right now, not more goods on the shelves.

In any case, where are all the jobs created by the 2001 tax cut? Unemployment is now about 6%. The last time unemployment was this high was during the other Bush administration. There seems to be more faith than fact behind the notion that tax cuts always lead to job creation.

[Wayne Jeffers]

JT,

If there were a shortage of money for investment, the best thing the government could do would be to balance their annual budgets again to keep interest rates down. The administration is looking for any pretext to cut taxes. Budget surplus? Cut taxes. Budget deficit? Cut taxes. Economy needs stimulant? Cut taxes. No doubt, economy too hot? Cut taxes.

At the present time, there is no shortage of money for investment. The "supply side" is not hurting. Witness continued low interest rates for deposits. The problem is that the demand side is weak. You stimulate the demand side by getting money into the hands of those who will spend it soon. You rebate taxes to the poor, not the rich.

You're talking about the last tax reduction: The 5% rate reduction applies to only the first $12,000 (married, joint return) of taxable income. It's worth $600, period, for a joint return. BTW, this amount mailed out as an immediate rebate was something the Dem's demanded if there were to be a cut. The cuts in the highest rates are phased in over time. You are citing only the first step in the cuts of the highest bracket in comparing rate cuts.

When the income tax was instituted in 1913, it applied to only about the top 10% of taxpayers. During WWII, it was expanded so that most workers paid income taxes, and the highest marginal rate increased to as high as 94%. As recently as the 1970's the top rate was 70%.

With the big Reagan tax cut, the top rate was reduced from 50% to 28%. You may recall that the national debt exploded as a result.

You may not remember that the percentage collected for Social Security was increased significantly under Reagan. This is collected on the first dollar of income, up to $80-something thousand. It is a tax borne by the poor and the middle-class. Social Security is now running huge annual surpluses which are being used to fund general government and conceal the size of the annual deficit. (Money "borrowed" from SS is not counted as part of the annual deficit.)

Today, just over half of workers pay income tax. Almost half of workers have household incomes so small as to have no federal income tax liability. And our highest marginal rates are already the lowest of any industrialized country.

Since the first round of Bu$h tax cuts, the states are in fiscal crisis. Governors and legislatures and local governments around the country are faced with raising taxes to pay for programs which are starved due to federal funding cutbacks. These tax increases (sales tax, property tax) fall mainly on low and middle-income people.

The current round of tax cut proposals applies almost entirely to the very rich.

The result of Republican tax cuts is to transfer the tax burden down the income ladder. It does little or nothing to promote the general welfare.

Alan,

I'm talking stimulus and you're talking long-term growth. The two are not mutually exclusive, but they are different things. A tax cut for the rich is not a stimulant, as Bu$h would have us believe.

Scott,

The Fed does not create money. The banking system creates money. The Fed can only influence how much money the banking system creates by changing reserve requirements.

Donn,

Treasurys are looking more and more attractive to me. Mutuals are going nowhere, bonds aren't much better, and I haven't the time, interest, nor inclination to manage money personally like you.

Wayne

[High C]

Originally posted by Don Olney:
In any case, where are all the jobs created by the 2001 tax cut? Don, the 2001 tax cut is structured to phase in gradually over 6 years. Very little of it has occurred yet.

[Don Olney]

Hey Cap'n Ron! Your prophesy is being fulfilled!

Dollar falls even lower versus euro
Eric Pfanner IHT
Friday, May 2, 2003

LONDON The U.S. dollar tumbled to a four-year low against the euro Thursday, as weak economic data, low interest rates and the ballooning U.S. deficit spurred investors to continue seeking higher yielding currencies elsewhere in the world. The euro surged to $1.1230 on Thursday, up from $1.1100 on Wednesday, pushing it to within about 5 cents of the level at which the single currency was introduced in January 1999 but had never regained in the four years of its existence. The dollar has plunged 2.5 percent against the euro this week alone. Yet the net inflow of foreign money invested in U.S. securities in February fell to roughly half the $1.5 billion a day level needed to balance the U.S. trade imbalance, the lowest rate in a year, according to the U.S. Treasury. ‘‘Foreigners appear to be questioning the relative attractiveness of U.S. assets,’’ said Rebecca McCaughrin, an economist at Morgan Stanley. Analysts say there are several reasons why global investors, who poured money into the United States during the market bubble years, are getting cold feet. After a series of scandals over U.S. corporate accounting and brokerages’ practices, trust in American financial markets remains shaky, some analysts say. U.S. interest rates, pushed aggressively lower by the Federal Reserve in an effort to stimulate economic growth, are far below European levels, reducing the appeal of U.S. bonds. Foreigners in February sold a net $5 billion of U.S. Treasuries, and $8.6 billion in securities issued by U.S. government agencies. Analysts say central banks around the world are also starting to shift a greater portion of their reserves into euros and out of dollars. Given those issues, the nearly $600 billion U.S. current-account deficit now looks to many investors like a heavy burden. ‘‘The argument that the dollar should be strong because U.S. policy makers are more flexible and growth-oriented than their European or Japanese counterparts does not make sense,’’ said Alex Patelis, currency strategist at Merrill Lynch. ‘‘It is not a matter of growth.’’ Meanwhile, according to Morgan Stanley, U.S. investors are adding to their international holdings.

http://www.iht.com/articles/94979.html

[Alan D. Hyde]

Don, as noted in the previous post (see last paragraph) the relationship between investment and job and pay growth can be vitiated by certain government policies.

That a boat filled with boulders won't stay afloat, doesn't mean it's a bad boat.

It only means there's a limit to what it will bear.

Alan

[Wayne Jeffers]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Wayne, savings are precisely what create economic growth, and more and better-paying jobs.
. . .
And, Alan, if the administration were interested in promoting savings, why don't they propose to make the first $1000 (or whatever) of interest income tax exempt?

Oh, yeah, that would benefit lower and middle-income taxpayers with savings accounts far more than the Republican's rich sponsors. :rolleyes:

Wayne

[Alan D. Hyde]

Their dividend proposal affects many Americans, including something like half of all retirees.

Alan

P.S. to JimD: Rick, Roscoe or Weird threw a brick at some German ack-ack position they didn't like, but it's been so long since I heard the story that I don't wholly remember it...

[ 05-02-2003, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

[High C]

Wayne, a bit of cross posting going on. Your perspective is pretty much the standard Democrat party line. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Again, I must object to the talk of "tax cuts for the rich". The income tax is based on a single year's earnings, not whether or not someone is "rich", whatever that means. The use of the term is a cheap shot intended to inflame. Class warfar is one of the Democrat's most destructive weapons.

Why should a family who lives in San Francisco or New York, or any other high cost area pay several times the tax rate as someone who lives in a low cost area? That is the effect of the progressive rate system, and it's terribly unfair. My sister in law's family lives in San Fran, earns twice what we do to maintain a similar lifestyle, and pays about 4 times the taxes. That is not right.

[Scott Rosen]

Wayne,

Banks haven't created money in this country since before the Federal Reserve system was created during the early part of the last century.

If you open your wallet and look at the words on the bill or bills contained therein, you will see that your money is called "Federal Reserve Note." Your money is nothing more and nothing less than a debt obligation of the Fed.

Banks can create credit because of the fractional reserve banking system. But they cannot create money.

[paladin]

fellows...and I know there ain't some of youse guys that izzn't or ever were military....but.....we gots to bomb someone periodically to ensure we always have fresh explosives in stock...and to keep the arms plants from dying off.. ;) ;)

[High C]

Originally posted by paladin:
fellows...and I know there ain't some of youse guys that izzn't or ever were military....but.....we gots to bomb someone periodically to ensure we always have fresh explosives in stock...and to keep the arms plants from dying off.. ;) ;) :rolleyes:

[Wayne Jeffers]

Alan,

Note that the proposed dividend exemption specifically does not apply to dividends collected through mutual funds, as would be the case for most dividend income for most retirees.

JT,

Sorry for the careless use of language. When I say "rich," I mean high annual earnings. I don't intend to inflame. They are largely synonymous.

The proposed tax cuts would benefit those with high annual earnings almost exclusively, not those with low or middle-income earnings. smile.gif

Scott,

Money (credit) is "created" in the banking system by something called the "multiplier effect." Look it up through Google or consult any basic Economics text. This is true with or without the Fed. It is true in all banking systems in all countries.

Money (greenbacks) are printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing.

I know you retain the misguided belief in the gold standard. The point of a monetary system should be a stable currency. The $US is the most stable currency in the world. If we were on a gold standard, the deflationary effects would be far worse than the effects of inflation that you imagine.

Wayne

[Donn]

Originally posted by Wayne Jeffers:
..I don't intend to inflame...What utter malarky! You can't write a paragraph that deals with a political subject without intentional inflammatory remarks and devices. Your continuous (to the point of mantra), purposeful and childish antic with the spelling of the President's name is a perfect example.

[ 05-02-2003, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Donn ]

[High C]

Wayne, I know a few people who are truly "rich". Rich beyond anything I could imagine for myself. But these folks don't make their money the way most of us do. They don't get paychecks, and they don't pay much income tax. The rich get their money in different ways, from personally owned business, investments, etc. And that money is taxed in a wide variety of ways. There are exceptions, of course. The high profile mega salaries of some CEOs, athletes, or entertainers for instance. But by and large there are few "rich" folks who earn wages.

So who does pay these higher income tax rates? Is it people who live in high cost areas, and must earn more to maintain a given lifestyle? There is tremendous variation in the cost of living in different areas, yet those who end up living in high cost areas are taxed as if they were rich. They are carrying the bulk of the load, while their peers in low cost areas may contribute very little, or nothing at all.

'tain't right.

[Wayne Jeffers]

Donn,

I do not accept the legitimacy of this president. To the extent that his policies are based upon lies and are almost entirely for the benefit of the most wealthy, to the detriment of ordinary Americans, I have no respect for him. As to my spelling of his name, criticism from citizens is a consequence of choosing to run for public office. By contrast, I had few problems with the policies of his father, whose name I always spell in the normal fashion.

JT,

"They don't get paychecks, and they don't pay much income tax." Right! And those at the highest income levels will pay even less if Bu$h gets his tax cut. OTOH, unless you are in the top one or two percent of income earners you will get very little from the tax cut. And you will end up paying more in state and local taxes and/or receive less in services because of his tax cut.

Depending upon how old you are, the Bu$h tax cut may call into question the amount of Social Security you can expect to collect when you retire. His irresponsible deficits mean that it will be more and more difficult to pay back the money borrowed from the Social Security account in later years.

I believe one of the main problems with the tax code is the fact that it creates several different classes of income which are treated differently for tax purposes. For example, why should wages or salary be taxed at a far higher rate than investment income? And different types of investment incomes are treated differently for tax purposes.

". . . those who end up living in high cost areas are taxed as if they were rich. They are carrying the bulk of the load, while their peers in low cost areas may contribute very little, or nothing at all."

Supply and demand. You are free to move to a low-cost area and earn commensurately lower wages/salary. People choose to live in high cost areas (mainly in or near large cities) for a variety of reasons. Salaries are generally higher, too, than in rural areas. Local taxes are generally higher, but then you receive more services for your tax dollars. If you object to paying more federal income tax on a higher salary in order to live in a high-cost area, you should bear in mind that you always have the choice to move. ;)

Wayne

[Donn]

Originally posted by Wayne Jeffers:
Donn,

I do not accept the legitimacy of this president. To the extent that his policies are based upon lies and are almost entirely for the benefit of the most wealthy, to the detriment of ordinary Americans, I have no respect for him. As to my spelling of his name, criticism from citizens is a consequence of choosing to run for public office. By contrast, I had few problems with the policies of his father, whose name I always spell in the normal fashion.
Wayne..your acceptance of his legitimacy has no bearing on the discussion of his Presidency.

Criticism is welcome in my camp, but mindless insult is not. I cannot discuss important subjects with you because of your infantile need to insult him. I can live with that. I don't expect you to respect the man, but I do expect you to respect the office. Your dogmatic, unsupported, and knee-jerk need to insult the man keep you in the PatCoxian court of hyperbole and innuendo. If you are happy there, so be it. As long as you feel that you need to insult the President in order to make your points, your points will never be able to stand on their own.

[High C]

quote Wayne:

"They don't get paychecks, and they don't pay much income tax." Right!"
__________________________________________________

Pretty cheesy Wayne, to edit part of my post in an attempt to say something that is not true.

You conveniently left out the part where I said that people who own businesses and live off of investments pay a wide variety of other taxes on those investments, including the ridiculous dividend tax, which taxes the same income twice!

[Wayne Jeffers]

JT,

I was not editing your post in an attempt to change the meaning. The entire paragraph read:

"Wayne, I know a few people who are truly "rich". Rich beyond anything I could imagine for myself. But these folks don't make their money the way most of us do. They don't get paychecks, and they don't pay much income tax. The rich get their money in different ways, from personally owned business, investments, etc. And that money is taxed in a wide variety of ways. There are exceptions, of course. The high profile mega salaries of some CEOs, athletes, or entertainers for instance. But by and large there are few "rich" folks who earn wages."

The fact is that with tax shelters, those with high incomes generally pay the same or lower percentage of their incomes as taxes as compared to you or me. There is almost no progressivity in the federal taxes, when all federal taxes are taken into account.

Dividends are not subject to a separate tax. They are to be included as taxable income on form 1040 for income tax purposes. And I don't buy the business about dividends being taxed twice.

Wayne

[High C]

Wayne, if you owned a C incorporated business you would be intensely aware that dividend taxation is, indeed, double taxation. There's nothing to buy. It's simple fact. First the business profit is taxed as corporate earnings, then when you take it home, it's taxed, fully, again.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by High C:
Wayne, if you owned a C incorporated business you would be intensely aware that dividend taxation is, indeed, double taxation. There's nothing to buy. It's simple fact. First the business profit is taxed as corporate earnings, then when you take it home, it's taxed, fully, again.Nobody is forced to organize their business as a corporation. If you don't like corporate tax policies, organize your business as a proprietorship—et voilá!—no double taxation.

You don't get the liability protections you get from a corporation, but...that's life. If you want them, they come with a cost.

[ 05-05-2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Nicholas Carey ]

[High C]

Originally posted by Nicholas Carey:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
Wayne, if you owned a C incorporated business you would be intensely aware that dividend taxation is, indeed, double taxation. There's nothing to buy. It's simple fact. First the business profit is taxed as corporate earnings, then when you take it home, it's taxed, fully, again.Nobody is forced to organize their business as a corporation. If you don't like corporate tax policies, organize your business as a proprietorship&mdash;et voil&aacute;!&mdash;no double taxation.

You don't get the liability protections you get from a corporation, but...that's life. If you want them, they come with a cost.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, it's good that we agree that taxing dividends is, indeed, double taxation. And without the liability protections of incorporation in today's litigious world, et voila, our entire economic system would collapse in short order.

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by High C:
Well, it's good that we agree that taxing dividends is, indeed, double taxation.Where do you get that idea from me?

A corporation is, in law, a person and subject to income tax.

The stockholders of that corporation are likewise subject to income tax. It makes perfect sense to me: the corporation makes money and pays tax on the income. The stockholders earn money off their investment in the corporation and pays tax on the income thus realised. It's no different than loaning money out at interest and paying tax on the income realized from the loan.

If you don't like the structure, as I said, you're free not to use it.

A business can be organized in different ways: (1) a sole propietorship, (2) a partnership, (3) a limited liability company (LLC) or (4) a corporation of one flavor or another.

Only one of these business structures is subject to what you call 'double taxation'.

I fail to see the problem

Let Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' of the free market choose: If corporate tax burdens are as onorous as you feel they are, people will then choose to organize their businesses in other, more "efficient" ways.


And without the liability protections of incorporation in today's litigious world, et voila, our entire economic system would collapse in short order.I don't think so.

Without insulation from liability, businesses would have to become more responsible WRT to environmental and safety concerns, etc. I believe you'd see, in the end, less litigation than you do now.

[thechemist]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />&lt;snip&gt;If you don't like corporate tax policies, organize your business as a proprietorship&mdash;et voil&aacute;!&mdash;no double taxation.

You don't get the liability protections you get from a corporation, but...that's life. If you want them, they come with a cost.Well, it's good that we agree that taxing dividends is, indeed, double taxation. And without the liability protections of incorporation in today's litigious world, et voila, our entire economic system would collapse in short order.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE] You CAN get liability protection without double taxation.

There is a way to have your own corporation as a firewall against the predatory lawyers and crininally incompetent public who seek to make others responsible for their own condition......Oooooops, almost ranted.

The corporation must own nothing. That way there is nothing to be gained from a suit. The corporation does not even own its own copyrights to its own promotional literature. Those and ALL other formulas, processes and trade secrets are owned by the owner, actually the Licensor, and a license fee of some percentage of gross income paid regularly to the Licensor. The owner also owns all the fixed assets and rents them to the corporation. The corporation pays out its profits as rents and license fees and retains negligible profit to be taxed.

You MUST have a competent business attorney make up formal lease and license contracts, otherwise the predatory lawyeers can pierce the corporate veil. With formally-drawn contracts between you as Licensor and you as President of the Licensee it all works. Remember also that in many states two signatures are required to bind a Corporation.

Essentially all the corporate income is taxed only once.

[Jim H]

Originally posted by NormMessinger:
&gt;QUICK POLITICAL SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST
This test consists of one (1) multiple-choice question.

Here's a list of the countries and dates that the U.S. has bombed since the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-2003
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Afghanistan 2001
Test created by:
Paul R. Ehrlich
Stanford UniversityIf he included El Salvador, Nicaragua & Panama, why did he leave out Somolia (1992)?

[High C]

Nicholas, the stockholders are the corporation. They own it, and they pay tax on profits at the corporate level, and again when they take home what's left, as a dividend tax. You said yourself that one could avoid the double taxation by forming as a sole proprietor. Isn't that an admission that profits earned through corporations (C type, anyway) are double taxed?

Yes, there are other forms of incorporation that are suited to small companies, S Type, and LLC, but the sole proprietor is a sitting duck for predatory lawyers. You can't do business in the US of A today without liability protection. It's no longer good enough to keep your nose clean and do what's right. There are too many sharks in the water waiting to sue you into the poor house.

[ 05-05-2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[Nicholas Carey]

Originally posted by High C:
Nicholas, the stockholders are the corporation.Not legally, they aren't. Two different entities under the law. Each with its own income.

[High C]

Originally posted by Nicholas Carey:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by High C:
Nicholas, the stockholders are the corporation.Not legally, they aren't. Two different entities under the law. Each with its own income.</font>[/QUOTE]You're right, that is the legal justification for the current tax situation. My opinion is that the law is wrong, because it taxes profit more than other forms of income.

[Cap'n R an R]

Don O....Yep the dollar is sinking....I had an awfull lot of company with that prediction!! not a very original thought.........having spent a bit of my youth saving the world from communism ,in the Korean War,...I cant recall when we ever bombed China....quite the opposite....we were forbidden from flying over China mainlamd property....our planes could not pursue across the border....Trumans orders....he was concerned about starting WW3 with China.....if we did bomb China I sure missed it happening.....and I wasnt drunk the whole time.....

[John Gearing]

Being incorporated (it's been awhile since I took Biz Orgs, but C Corp, S Corp, LLC, LLP, Limited Partnership all come to mind) protects the individuals involved from personal liability. It is not a blanket protection against all liability. The corporation itself can still be held liable. It will still have to carry liability insurance. Now let's talk about what kind of liability is involved. I'm assuming that you're talking about liability in tort? i.e. negligence, personal injury, etc? I would be surprised to find very many sole props who did not carry liability insurance. If you rent business space from a landlord he will insist that you carry it and in the amount he wants and that you name him as other insured. If I were a banker about to make you a business loan, I'd want to make sure that you were carrying adequate insurance as well. What I do find almost comical is the fact that some of the people on this forum who are so insistent that certain members of our society take responsibility for their actions are equally insistent that all business persons should be absolved of any responsibility whatsoever.

Here is the deal if you want to make some quick bucks in the real estate biz. The tax code allows a married couple to shield up to $500K in profit when they sell a house they have lived in for at least 2 out of the last 5 years. Ordinarily this would have been taxed as capital gains (still far less %-wise than if it were taxed as income: 20% vice about 39%), but now the profit does not get taxed at all. This probably works best if you already live in an area where real estate values are climbing, and especially if you can find yourself a fixer upper in a upwardly bound neighborhood. Whooops, didn't mean to hijack the thread....