Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

BIOLASE, Inc. Message Board

  • the21lbturkey the21lbturkey Feb 10, 2004 11:59 AM Flag

    Bush Tax Break for the Rich

    A lot of us will be effected by the Alternative Minimum Tax. That Bush is slippery. Keep this in mind when determining when to go long term or short term.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/bizwk/040210/b3870011mz001_1.html

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • That's another rats nest I run into all the time. I have read that the IRS expects 15% of all returns with a tax burden> $1000 to have an AMT adjustment this year. If not fixed in a matter of years this will baloon to 1/3.

      I heard an interesting book review the other day where the author's thesis is the tax system is now skewed to extract as much as possible from the $50k to $500k taxpayer and as little as possible below and above. Imagine the fiscal turnaround if the upper bracket taxpayers paid at the percentages of the average $100k taxpayer. We're not talking about soaking the rich but leveling the playing field. Families under $50k have no business paying income tax IMO and if corporate and individual taxes were really fair we wouldn't need their money either.

      • 4 Replies to mrexcelerator
      • Agree wholeheartedly. This country is very busily spending our children's wealth, which while it doesn't belong to us is offensive enough, but it has such a sweeping impact on the economy that it's mind numbing.

        Greenspan's on as good a track as he can be on with the cards he's been dealt (meaningfully low rates, and currency value suppression to stem the flow of wealth overseas via debt).

        I think a flat tax (probably with NO deductions whatsoever) and a balanced budged is really the fairest and most prudent changes that could be made.

        Many Americans are busy living off their home's equity, and if there's a real-estate bubble enabling that, and if that bursts, now THERE will be a crisis making the S&L nightmare pale. (I have heard a good case that the S&L "crisis" was really a transferrence of wealth from Texas and Colorado to New England via tightening loan portfolia equiety ratios -- especially looking at how the RTC handled things).

        If we think we have it bad with our "dark forces", you'd love what real money in diabolical hands can do when allied with political influence.

        Today, the measure of "success" is how well clever peole do living in the confines of a truly screwed-up system.

      • Amen to that. Us poor saps in the $50k-$250K range are being raped by Bush and his cronies. I am constantly amazed that anybody in that (broad) income region could even think of voting him back in. And the latest golf outing with Cheney and Scalia is enough to make me gag. This administration is disgusting.

        As much as most of the Democrat liberal social rhetoric repels me, it's all about the economy this year, and A.B.B. (anybody but bush).

      • Mrex, we may be from different ends of the political spectrum, but I agree with your tax comments completely. I believe most Americans feel the same deep down regarding this issue.

      • "and if corporate and individual taxes were really fair we wouldn't need their money either"

        If it was fair....then everyone would pay the same.

        Fair means:
        Free of favoritism or bias; impartial.

        Jim

    • From the first paragraph of the article that you referenced : "With great fanfare last year, President Bush and Congress agreed to slash the tax on both dividends and long-term capital gains to 15%. There's just one problem: Hundreds of thousands of upper-middle-income investors will never enjoy those low rates. Indeed, some may be paying higher taxes on gains than they did before the law was changed."

      By my read, the article, in the first paragraph, infers that the Bush/Congress tax cut is to blame for higher taxes on some people, but fails, in the remainder of the article, to explain the direct linkage between the resulting higher taxes and the Bush tax cut that was passed by Congress. To the contrary, in the next paragraph the author places the blame squarely on the AMT, which, in its various forms, has been around since 1969. Again, from the article: "The culprit? The alternative minimum tax, of course."

      Those who stopped reading the article after the first paragraph might have been left with the impression that Bush's tax cut was to blame for the higher taxes mentioned in the article. To the contrary, it is the extra income generated by the lower taxes that may push some into the AMT, thus causing them to have to pay more taxes. In reality, there are a far greater number of taxpayers that will be positively affected by the tax cut than those who will be negatively impacted by being pushed into the AMT. Did the President and Congress mislead us all by advertising the tax cut to 15%? Absolutely not. There will always be extenuating circumstances that will cause some to pay a different "effective rate", depending on their personal financial situation.

      BTW, I agree that the AMT needs to be abolished and the entire tax code overhauled to make it fairer. Those at all levels of government must be held accountable for the way they spend OUR money. But it seems to me that the author of the article, and other authors using questionable journalistic techniques to promote their own political agendas, are the ones who are being "slippery".

      • 1 Reply to fastazleep
      • There is a rule of thumb for reading articles.
        1) the headline is usually missleading and is designed to misslead those too lazy to read the article.
        2) the first few paragraphs are designed to continue the missrepresentation
        3) Somewhere in the body of the article you will find the truth usually toward the end where the lazy reader rarely treads.

        They insert a few germs of truth so that when they are called on their bull shit they can point to it and say they are fair and ballanced.

    • The Reagan military buildup had NOTHING to do with the fall of the Soviet Union.

      Yeah, right.
      Reagan forced them to spend on their armorments rather than reinforcing their system. That it would have fallen anyway is likely. But what would they have done if they had had the bucks Reagan forced them to spend? We will never know and the liberals in their constant efforts to rewrite history will never give up. The religion of the left is very strong.

    • There's a Nobel Prize for the guy who can make it "unradioactive," or somehow speed up the process of radioactive decay. Bottom line is that is not likely to happen anytime soon, so the answer is to isolate the long-lived waste from human beings and the environment. Can we model with certainty over the next 10,000 years? Of course not. But the fact is we are very good at measuring radioactivity and any long-term repository is going to be subject to extremely rigorous environmental monitoring. Any leak or other performance problem would be discoverable through such a program. Just like with anything else, should something break, I believe the engineers will fix it.

    • is there technology to neutralize it?
      Or just to bury it well?

      Of course there is. A mad genius in a cave in Mongolia has invented an anti gravity launcher that will fire all our waste into the sun. Sadly, Cheney and the oil industry are preventing this from becoming well known so then can continue to capitalize on their oil leases. Remember the little gizmos the snake oil salesmen used to peddle that you put in your carburator to increase your milage on your car? Part of their sales pitch was to say the oil industry didnt want them on the market.

    • "The sun only shines half the day, and wind doesn't always blow" (quote:Dick Cheney)! But now OPEC is cutting production. If the cost of protecting our mega oil corps were factored in we'd be paying 5.00 gal. Now the peta types are crying about killing birds! Such a vast potential for US small industry is being squashed by special interests, big and small!

    • sun power has more energy than all oil,nuke and whatever, got to be smart to get it though
      it'll also last longer than you, me and very likely the whole human race

    • there is more than solar cells, i live in a passive solar house/in ground cooling in the summer and beat anybody with the energy bill by a long shot,and this is in ohio
      like i said, oil/nuke is easy to get, non replenishable, solar needs a lot more inventions which of course is not supported by big oil

    • Just when I'm about to re-consider the liberal-socialist perspective on America, I see Kennedy on TV and that pretty much takes care of that! A buffoon-no a poorly drawn carricature of a buffoon.

    • Whoops! Big-time mea culpa for a big time OT subject. :) I am so embarrased. It was Barry McGuire.

      In my own defense, I think that song was popular before I was born, and my parents were pretty critical of "hippies".

      I liked "hippie" music and heavy metal as my own little artistic rebellion. Mamas and Papas, Peter Paul and Mary, Scott McK, Barry McG, Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell.

    • View More Messages
 
BIOL
0.80+0.03(+3.88%)Feb 12 3:59 PMEST