Situation in the usa

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Poor old rich people  

Poor guy, I guess little Timothy Fairbanks Rockefeller III is just going to have to settle for the 150' yacht this year.

[Warin 0]

Did you guys know that the richest 1% pays for 30% of the taxes?

And the richest 1 % hold 90% of the wealth. So shouldnt they pay commensurately more?

Umm...they DO, thats the point.

and after the tax break...they still pay most of the taxes.

All right, but the deficeit still goes up, and they still send more jobs overseas in almost every sector.

So how is this tax cut going to benefit the economy as a whole?

Perhaps they should have used that money not as a tax cut, but as incentives for employing Americans and keeping industry in the US.

[The Frenchman 0]

@ June 21 2003,23:41)]Oh well, I don't like talking about this. The more data I actually see, the greater the urge I have to break out the Little Red Book and start singing songs about the solidarity of the proletariat masses

What little red book?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

@ June 21 2003,23:41)]Oh well, I don't like talking about this. The more data I actually see, the greater the urge I have to break out the Little Red Book and start singing songs about the solidarity of the proletariat masses

What little red book?  

This Little Red Book. Anyhow, it was a joke.

[The Frenchman 0]

Oh.......... that little book.

EVERYBODY SING ALONG!

[Assault (CAN) 1]

Oh.......... that little book.

EVERYBODY SING ALONG!

LOL.

Is that a Russian remake that Pet Shop Boys song, "Go West"?  

*sings*

GOOOOO WESSSST!  

Hey, at least we are still better off than the Russians and the Chinese. So maybe the Red Book was a bad idea afterall.

[The Frenchman 0]

It's the national anthem of the Soviet Union, one of the best national anthems of all time. (In my opinion )

[Cosmic Evolution 0]

Here is the link to the National Debt Clock

I'm wondering why more isn't being done. I mean over 6 trillion $. I mean wow..... I'm not sure if any other country can beat that..........

I think more isn't being done because Bush Jr.'s dad asked his son to give the surplus back in the form of a tax cut.  And little Bush seems to have taken that thought and run with it, now having cut our (and by our I mean whoever in this country is rich  ) taxes around 1.65 trillion dollars since he came into office.

     So about that debt clock, I don't think that number will be going down anytime soon....

-Cos.

P.S. Most countries care enough not to try and beat that figure, and can you blame them... At least from what I can tell most of that money is owed to our own people, so at least we are only hurting ourselves... Imagine that.

[Cosmic Evolution 0]

Did you guys know that the richest 1% pays for 30% of the taxes?

And the richest 1 % hold 90% of the wealth. So shouldnt they pay commensurately more?

It's actually something more like the top %1 income-wise pays around 75% of the taxes collected in the U.S.   Which, with 95%+ percent of the wealth, makes me wonder why they aren't paying 95% of the taxes...    That would make getting my new laptop that much easier...  (I don't know anyone rich enough to just buy me one, but I can dream. (can't I?)

... If you count corporations as rich white folk anyways ....

I wonder how much of that money goes to VBS1? BIS? We have, after all, seemingly installed it in all of our military training facilities (and we have alot of those).

[madmedic 0]

Did you guys know that the richest 1% pays for 30% of the taxes?

And the richest 1 % hold 90% of the wealth. So shouldnt they pay commensurately more?

Umm...they DO, thats the point.

and after the tax break...they still pay most of the taxes.

All right, but the deficeit still goes up, and they still send more jobs overseas in almost every sector.

So how is this tax cut going to benefit the economy as a whole?

Perhaps they should have used that money not as a tax cut, but as incentives for employing Americans and keeping industry in the US.

Or... they could repeal NAFTA.

And, like I said...the "national debt" is just a number.

INSIGNIFICANT

[ralphwiggum 6]

I'm just repeating what my Dad told me really.  The only things I learned in economics class were that tax cuts = good, a bunch of formulas, and, if I set my mind to it, I can achieve anything (had a very inspiration professor).

in eyes of Classical Economics, taxes are problem of inefficiencey, and government is responsible for it. Economics is more interested in how efficiently an economy operates, and taxes hinder that. However, in real life, you can't go without government, so it is a force to be reckoned with.

I thought fiscal responsibility was a cornerstone of the Republican platform?

oh yeah. it is cornerstone of Republicans but you know how politicians tend to ignore it after election.

I have a question for any economists/historians here. In Canada, the 'Income Tax' was introduced as a temporary (lol) measure in order to pay for WW1. What kind of taxes did the government collect before then? How did they make their money? And why are we still paying out our @$$es up here?

depends on gov't. I'm not sure about history and what kind of taxes were used, but in US, federal taxes were in place by late 19th century with flat income tax rate of 1%. before that, maybe each states paid a fraction from their earnings?

to pay for all your social programs, you can't just kick away the source of revenue. so temporary until social programs are cut back :;  

Despite the popular belief,the tax cut isn't that huge.  It will be for the average american, but wont have such a big impact on our coffers.  I think I heard somewhere that it was a small fraction of our GDP.  It's simply designed to stimulate the economy.

and 300billion dollar tax cut that just went through congress will cost US 3 times the amount of national debt. after the bill was signed, CBO(Congress Budget Office) revised their projected surplus numbers, inreasing about 1 trillion dollars.

Quote[/b] ]The person who's going to put it back into the economy where it helps the most.

I understand that the top bracket of people are going to be getting the most from this tax cut, but look at the numbers.  Who pays the most taxes?  The top bracket.  So when you do a tax cut, who's going to be effected the most by this tax cut?  The top bracket.

and one of our richest person, Warren Buffet, wrote a very good opinion on this. He basically says Bush's plans are bad. his example was 300,000 dollars of tax cuts. where 10 wealthy people get 30,000 that they might or might not use, compared to 1000 people get 300 and use it. guess which is better for economy.

Bush's tax cut will have limited effect. Most of the reason was given by Tex so i won't reiterate it, but don't expect private sector to do what gov't thinks it can entice to do.

People with a political agenda often make the misleading assertion that the dreaded "National Debt" has anything to do with how well Americans are, or are not doing financially.

you can't be anymore wrong than that. this is a very troubling idea. National debt will effect your and my life. Take a look at Mexico in 1992(?). Their debt could not be bankrolled and they had a serious economic turmoil that was followed by everyday joes(or joses ) getting effected. and so did Asian crisis of 1997.

and those two crisis did impact US economy too.

Quote[/b] ]If I ask myself (or most people that I know): "Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?"...The answer would be a resounding "HELL YES!"

4 years ago I was making $30,000 per year...Today, I am making $42,000/yr...On Oct. 1st of this year, I will be making $46,000/yr.

You might be better off, but rest of the country isn't. unemployment is up, and people are laid off. do you think Bush is bullshitting about down turn of economy?

[FSPilot 0]

RalphWiggum

Quote[/b] ]and 300billion dollar tax cut that just went through congress will cost US 3 times the amount of national debt. after the bill was signed, CBO(Congress Budget Office) revised their projected surplus numbers, inreasing about 1 trillion dollars.

And how much money are we going to get from the economic stimulation that comes from the 300 billion dollars we hand to the American people?

Quote[/b] ]and one of our richest person, Warren Buffet, wrote a very good opinion on this. He basically says Bush's plans are bad. his example was 300,000 dollars of tax cuts. where 10 wealthy people get 30,000 that they might or might not use, compared to 1000 people get 300 and use it. guess which is better for economy.

Bush's tax cut will have limited effect. Most of the reason was given by Tex so i won't reiterate it, but don't expect private sector to do what gov't thinks it can entice to do.

But not just the rich are going to get money from this tax cut. Mainly the rich, yes, but middle class people will too.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]And how much money are we going to get from the economic stimulation that comes from the 300 billion dollars we hand to the American people?

only a fraction. sooner or later, people will have to pay taxes back to gov't unless gov't cuts its share of tax break and resulting fiscal deficit. so people will save the money(will spend some, but mostly save) instead of putting it back on economic cycle. so gov't gives 300billion dollar tax break, and even in the most socialistic way, not all will be used for consumption and economic activities, but only a fraction will.

furthermore, the Bush tax cut gives something to middle class, but its more of a lip service. when a rich person gets $30,000 tax break, he will not spend it on essential goods that are parts of vital economic activity, but spend on luxuryous goods, which effect only a few marginal production sectors. giving tax cuts to people who will use it(or more likely to use it) will result in money being used a lot more in profound economic activity that matters. add the above statement about people saving, and it becomes clear that Bush's tax cut is not going to help economy as they claim to be.

[FSPilot 0]

Ohhh, I see. Well I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens. The cut was already passed anyway.

I just need to figure out how I'm going to spend my $2 refund.

[toadlife 3]

Here are a few opinions from me...

1) About the government and the economy - No matter what they claim, govornments don't have as much influence on the economy as they would like to think. The U.S. economy is a massive juggernaut that pretty much does it's own thing. Right now it seems like were coming up from relatively short downturn. Economic policies can hinder or help the economy, but I don't think the effects of any particular economic policy were ever "earth shattering".

2) About the national debt - A little tidbit on why the national debt is not good for our country, or any country. When you have a debt, you pay interest on that debt. Our government is no different. When Clinton was in office, he balanced the budget and the national debt stopped growing. The reason it only stopped growing and didn't start shrinking is because our government was paying only the interest on the debt and not the principal. The only reason I voted from Al Gore, was that one of his plans was to pay down the national debt. Bush skirted the issue durring the campaign - he never had any intention of paying down the debt.

Right now my wife and I are about to buy a house. The house costs $118,000 and we're putting down $6000.00. So after we make our down payment, well have 112,000 to pay off on a 30 year home loan. The interest rates are really low, but even with the low interest rates (~5%), out of our first monthly payment of $609.00, $478.00 will be interest alone, and only $131.00 will go to paying off the actual debt. Of course, we can choose to pay more every month, which would go directly towards the principal (the actual debt we owe), and the loan can be paid off in a much shorter time than 30 years. It is in my wife and I's interest to pay of as much principal on our loan as fast as possible, so less of our money will go to the bank, and more will stay in our pockets, where we can invest things like stocks and other real estate.

With the government, they are basically borrowing all of this money from the american citizens and paying all of this "interest" back to American citizens. The problem with this is they don't pay as much interest as any real person would on a normal loan from a bank, nor will an investment in our governments debt ever return as much as real estate or stock market investment. People argue that investing in the govornment is the safest possible investment, but if the economy crashes horribly, even our own government might not be able to pay back their promised interest.

The more debt our government has, the more interest it will have to pay on this debt. This interest is payed out of our federal income taxes. Right now, a good chunk (I think it's around 1/4) of all federal income taxes go directy to paying interest on our debt. While much of this is being payed back to the public, which funds the debt, it still is much less effecient than paying down the debt, which would give induviduals and businesses more control over the economy.

So to make a long story short, the bigger our national debt, the less effective our tax dollars will be and the less power people in our country will have over "our" economy.

So make a short story shorter: The national debt is bad.

Any how that's my opinion. Many people will argue that the debt is harmless, since the government is paying all this money back into the economy, but I'd rather the people have control over the economy rather than the government.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

furthermore, the Bush tax cut gives something to middle class, but its more of a lip service. when a rich person gets $30,000 tax break, he will not spend it on essential goods that are parts of vital economic activity, but spend on luxuryous goods, which effect only a few marginal production sectors.  giving tax cuts to people who will use it(or more likely to use it) will result in money being used a lot more in profound economic activity that matters. add the above statement about people saving, and it becomes clear that Bush's tax cut is not going to help economy as they claim to be.

Thats not always true, he(the rich guy) could very well spend that money as a big down payment on a peice of commercial real estate or IPO's for a business right?

Quote[/b] ]Right now my wife and I are about to buy a house. The house costs $118,000 and we're putting down $6000.00

wow, how did you manage getting a 5% down payment?

[ralphwiggum 6]

furthermore, the Bush tax cut gives something to middle class, but its more of a lip service. when a rich person gets $30,000 tax break, he will not spend it on essential goods that are parts of vital economic activity, but spend on luxuryous goods, which effect only a few marginal production sectors.  giving tax cuts to people who will use it(or more likely to use it) will result in money being used a lot more in profound economic activity that matters. add the above statement about people saving, and it becomes clear that Bush's tax cut is not going to help economy as they claim to be.

Thats not always true, he(the rich guy) could very well spend that money as a big down payment on a peice of commercial real estate or IPO's for a business right?

partially yes.

however, such aggressive(used relatively in economic stalemate) investment is very hard to find. When economy is not so good, many entities of economy tend to save, rather than invest. it is kind of ironic point. in economic downturn, some people would sell their goods(lands, strip malls) to get cash flow, but many from buyers's side usually opt out of buying those properties(investing) for having cash flow at hand, so economic transaction is going to happen less.

in other words, in economic downturn, investment will shrink, although there can be a great deal around the corner. what will entice this investment to happen is belief that in future, their investment will payoff.

with Bush's tax cut, it gives the money, but with no cut in gov't expenditure, uncertainty drives investors to be more cautious. investors think that sooner or later, gov't will raises taxes to fill in the deficit, so they are more reluctant to invest.

with Clinton's policy, investors got no tax refund, but they at least knew that gov't will not tax them more to reach where gov't expenditure and spending equals, and less gov't purchase meant more for private sector to fill in the gap.

and Toadlife.

i highly suggest that you put at least 20% for downpayment. will cut your monthly payment drastically.

[toadlife 3]

and Toadlife.

i highly suggest that you put at least 20% for downpayment. will cut your monthly payment drastically.

Humm..the money trees aren't that fertile in my neighboorhood.

Due to recent development in my tiny town and the fact that in three years around 3000 high paying jobs will be availbale here, real estate prices in my area will be going to go through the roof here, and given the fact that it would take me that long to save 20%, that's not a good plan. By the time I could manage to save up another $17,600, the same $118,000 house will be around $170,000. It's call gettin' while the gettin' is good.

[ralphwiggum 6]

in that case, I say you made a good choice. here in LA, proces for houses shot up so fast it wasn't funny. it's better to get something now than later.

hopefully you took the option of paying mortgage payments early if needed?

[toadlife 3]

hopefully you took the option of paying mortgage payments early if needed?

Yeah. I can pay off as much principal as I want. I'm paying more in rent for a nice two bedroom apartment ($635) than my mortage payment ($609) will be for the nice three bedroom house were buying. Plus the horrendous amounts of interest I'll be paying in the beggining is tax deductable - something I didn't even know until I started looking for a house.

Edit:I said I was paying slightly less for rent than a mortgage, when I'm actually paying more in rent than for a mortgage.

[ralphwiggum 6]

good for you

Quote[/b] ]Plus the horrendous amounts of interest I'll be paying in the beggining is tax deductable - something I didn't even know until I started looking for a house.

surprisingly, you are not alone. a lot of people do not know this kind of financial incentives, let alone alot of other financial products.

and taodlife's post is an example of how US's economy cannot be judged in lumpsum fashion. US economy(federal level) is in tough situation, but locally, as toadlife and madmedic said, there are growth.

[Koolkid101 0]

1 good thing is that our 200,000 dollar house's value increased to 350,000 hehehehe, but $!@%@ thanks to Howard Deans Act 60 we've seen property tax go up at least 5 percent.

[Harnu 0]

My Parents just refinanced for 5.x or 6.x something.  The houses original cost was something like 60,000-80,000 when they bought it. (14 years ago).  Now houses like ours are selling inthe neighbor hood for over 110,000, or even 120,000.

As far as some of the original questions in the thread go, things aren't as bad as some say, but they could be better.  There have been rumors among the teachers of a strike at my school, maybe around november if the union doesn't reach an agreement with the staff.

[Milkman 1]

I don't know about everyone else but, My school extended 14 extra days, while having a $6 million debt (Thanks to some asshole who was embezzling money ) We (Westlake)pay one of the highest property taxes in the state of Texas at over $6000 a year, plus it is $250 to park a car in the high school lot while AISD is bitching about playing $10 for parking. We play over $3000 in school taxes and The Rob Roy plan (Communist pinko plan) takes $0.65 from each $1 EISD recieves. All the poor districts get the money and still made a average of a 42 on the TAKS tests.

Uh got a little carried away on my problems in my little world, but I can agree Mr Bush needs to work more on getting our economy balanced. I think it is already geting better though, it seems Wall Street is having a rally....

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Yeah, the Robin Hood plan is definitely not working, but you really ought to see the disparity that goes on in Texas' public education system. We currently go to school in a building that has been standing since about 1920, and has not been renovated once, while being over capacity by about 500 students every year since before 1980.

edit: MHS is undergoing its first renovation this summer. Guess what its goal is? Taking the asbestos out of the auditorium. Glad they're finally getting around to it lol.