Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
As far as taxing dividends, I personally think double taxation is immoral. Besides, pensions are largely invested in situations where a dividend tax cut or elimination would be beneficial. This means all the blue hairs and snow birds.
Immoral is a little over the top. There are really larger social ills that deserve that card. But you are 100% correct. Corporate dividends are essenrially taxed twice and somehow I can't make the case that is good for anyone.
But by pensions, don't you really mean accounts that are already tax-exempt, so it would really be a wash in those cases.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Originally posted by WizardOfAz
I don't think that it is a coincidence that as President Bush starts his reelection campaign that he will begin to drift to the right once again to reassure the party hard-liners that he is deserving of their support for another four years. Once the party nominations is assured he will begin to drift back to the center to make sure he can gain the necessary electoral votes to serve another four years.*
Except, Bush has always talked about tax cuts, pushed tax cuts continuously and got the first one passed (most of which hasn't even taken effect yet) despite democrats. So, his position is consistent. One could then conclude that it is a core policy for him and not JUST an election year 'trick'.
Quote:
*Feel free to substitute Clinton if the above psoted somehow offended you, because the point was just as valid when he was running for a second term.
Not quite, because when Clinton was campaigning he campaigned on tax CUTS, but when the elections were over he INCREASED taxes. Clinton more accurately reflects your above assertion than Bush.
__________________
Fell deeds awake... Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and the Red Dawn...
Originally posted by WizardOfAz
But by pensions, don't you really mean accounts that are already tax-exempt, so it would really be a wash in those cases.
Well, from what I understand they are tax exempt UNTIL they are dipped into. Thus, when old people need it the most, they have that extra tax. If they were decreased or eliminated, senior citizens would have more.
__________________
Fell deeds awake... Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and the Red Dawn...
Originally posted by WaywardFan Well, from what I understand they are tax exempt UNTIL they are dipped into. Thus, when old people need it the most, they have that extra tax. If they were decreased or eliminated, senior citizens would have more.
What do you think about some other 'fairer' tax structure? A flat tax, a consumption or sales tax? Something that will necessarily tax more on those that spend more (the 'richer') but everyone largely pays the same RATE?
A flat tax (or almost flat tax) with ABSOLUTELY no deductions would be great, IMHO.
Exempt the first 15-20 thousand of income, then pay 6-10% (or whatever it came to raise the right amount of revenue) on the rest of your income. No deductions, no child tax credits (which are a horrible policy - if you can't afford a kid, don't have one).
I live in TN, which has a high (9.25%) sales tax and no state income tax - and I don't care for the structure.
Originally posted by WizardOfAz Just as normal as normal income, no?
But the dividends were already taxed on the front end. Basically, yes, they will be taxed because it is their 'income'. I for one don't particularly like the idea of keeping a suspect taxation in place because old people should be taxed on their fixed income. Doesn't sound very nice to me, doesn't sound like a traditional Democratic stance.
__________________
Fell deeds awake... Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and the Red Dawn...
Originally posted by Dback Jon A flat tax (or almost flat tax) with ABSOLUTELY no deductions would be great, IMHO.
Exempt the first 15-20 thousand of income, then pay 6-10% (or whatever it came to raise the right amount of revenue) on the rest of your income. No deductions, no child tax credits (which are a horrible policy - if you can't afford a kid, don't have one).
I live in TN, which has a high (9.25%) sales tax and no state income tax - and I don't care for the structure.
Well said.
__________________
Fell deeds awake... Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and the Red Dawn...
Originally posted by Dback Jon We'll gladly take Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee as Dems - give the Dems the Senate back!
I think its funny that democrats and liberals who howl and wail about how Bush didn't really win the presidency (though he did, in any and every iteration you care to examine), but got the Senate (and wish to again) despite the will of the people. America voted in a Republican Senate in 2000, however narrow the margin and Democrats subverted that will. They wish to do it again, even as they continue to harp on Bush.
__________________
Fell deeds awake... Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and the Red Dawn...
Originally posted by WizardOfAz Tell me aren't calling Senator George Voinovich a RINO.
I honestly know very little about Voinovich, so I can't comment on him. I was referring to Snow, Chaffee and say McCain. I also have a problem with Specter here in PA.
__________________
Fell deeds awake... Now for Wrath... Now for Ruin... and the Red Dawn...
Originally posted by WaywardFan I think its funny that democrats and liberals who howl and wail about how Bush didn't really win the presidency (though he did, in any and every iteration you care to examine), but got the Senate (and wish to again) despite the will of the people. America voted in a Republican Senate in 2000, however narrow the margin and Democrats subverted that will. They wish to do it again, even as they continue to harp on Bush.
Actually, by your logic, the Senate never should have been Republican in the first place, if not for the defections of Richard Shelby and Ben Campbell from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. So the Republicans were actually subverting the will.......
Anyway, Jeffords didn't leave the Republican Party - the Republican Party left him!
Originally posted by WaywardFan I honestly know very little about Voinovich, so I can't comment on him. I was referring to Snow, Chaffee and say McCain. I also have a problem with Specter here in PA.
So there is no room for dissent or moderate views in Wayward Fan's Republican Party? Vote with Bush 100% of the time or your a traitor?
Linear Mode
