yeah, you're right, George just had to cope with a 'Girl Scout' named Montgomery and Goofy Ike......
The DON / redux
- Thread starter Gordon Gray
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
- Status
yeah, you're right, George just had to cope with a 'Girl Scout' named Montgomery and Goofy Ike......
LOL. I like this. We need to come up with Trump nicknames for historic people. Goofy Ike .... I really think instead of Lyin Ted...if he were in the 1860 election it would have been Lyin' Lincoln. Or Tricky Truman. I wonder if Putin has a name? Panzy Putin perhaps? Or krazy Kim. There is a lot here
Bernard
Well-known member
One up on you timm: how about "***** Putin"?
Yikes! I got censored.....my suggestion was the famous "Grab them by the *****" (self-censored here).
Last edited:
ElectroNoob
Well-known member
stuwee you talk about liberals like it's a bad word. Without Liberals there would be no civil rights, no women's equality, and no gender equality. We as a society will always strive to evolve and change and those who fight change will find themselves on the wrong side of history.
I'm thinking more than a few Trump supporters would prefer it that way.
Lol. You guys are too much. Nobody minds civil liberties. I mean Lincoln was liberal AND a Republican!! Interesting how the parties have changed.
People don't mind the minority having a voice. However when the minority drives policy for the majority? There is something skewed about that. So... people go out and vote.
ElectroNoob
Well-known member
The Republican and Democratic parties swapped platform somewhere between the 1860's to 1936. You can consider Lincoln as a modern day Democrat.
This is from an article online (I can't post the link because it will get blocked)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.
Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.
This is from an article online (I can't post the link because it will get blocked)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed these measures. After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for African Americans and advanced social justice; again, Democrats largely opposed these expansions of power.
Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936. Democratic president Franklin Roosevelt won reelection that year on the strength of the New Deal, a set of Depression-remedying reforms including regulation of financial institutions, founding of welfare and pension programs, infrastructure development and more. Roosevelt won in a landslide against Republican Alf Landon, who opposed these exercises of federal power.
Haha. Exactly electronoob. There was some type of transformation and I couldn't pinpoint it exactly. But it is definitely interesting as you can always learn from history. I'm guessing it wasn't a Big Bang theory with FDR. Maybe an asteroid hit the planet??? 
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
A few new thoughts.
Trickle down economics V. 3?
This Flynn thing is getting quite interesting.
Do corporations actually pay 35% in taxes as claimed by 45 and his staff or are there "adjustments" available to decrease this amount?
Trickle down economics V. 3?
This Flynn thing is getting quite interesting.
Do corporations actually pay 35% in taxes as claimed by 45 and his staff or are there "adjustments" available to decrease this amount?
Unfortunately, Yes Gordon. After any financial adjustments for capital expenditures, depreciation and some other items that are used against profits, what ever is left is taxed at that rate.
The one that is most frustrating to me is 15 or 20% personal capital gains on a business you build. We started a business with after tax dollars a number of years ago. When we sold most of it last year the amount of taxes was staggering.
I don't have an issue with paying my taxes but the vast majority of bodies in Washington have no issue with p*ssing it away, figuring they will just print more or take more from us some other way.
I will also take issue with the former President and Hillary that we didn't build the business that employed in excess of 700 people. Some how they think those things just happen by themselves.
The one that is most frustrating to me is 15 or 20% personal capital gains on a business you build. We started a business with after tax dollars a number of years ago. When we sold most of it last year the amount of taxes was staggering.
I don't have an issue with paying my taxes but the vast majority of bodies in Washington have no issue with p*ssing it away, figuring they will just print more or take more from us some other way.
I will also take issue with the former President and Hillary that we didn't build the business that employed in excess of 700 people. Some how they think those things just happen by themselves.
Well Brad. If you can give a speech for 400k for Wall Street - and sell a memoir for 60 mill ... what's your problem? You have SO MUCH in common. Funny how when it is them making the money everyone applauds and says 'more power to them'. When it is you? Somebody has their hand out asking for more out of you. More taxes is usually considered by the masses (not necessarily you or I ) as a way to somehow level the playing field in a capitalistic society. When the amount of work put in equals the amount of money made - the taxation starts to make it feel hardly worth it. However, if you can garner huge paydays for a speech and a book which are well beyond the efforts put forth. Heck you can be all for taxation of the 'rich'. Whether you clear 30 or 40 mill who cares? You can afford to be a philanthropist via taxation at that point and be perceived as the mouth piece of the poor and down-trodden.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Hi Brad,
Thanks for the clarification but I must ask since I don't know.
Are all the adjustments legit for all corporations as in "above board?
Is it a "level" playing field?
Is there fraud and other nefarious activities involved in these "adjustments" such as tax loopholes, etc. that allow "larger multi - national" corporations to utilize and create an advantage (to lower the 35% rate) versus smaller companies like yours?
I assume the answer is yes.
Best,
Gordon
Last edited:
ElectroNoob
Well-known member
The issue shouldn't be able how much a person makes but how much they contribute in taxes. Obama is probably in the 1% group but he has also been trying to increase taxes on himself and other like him because he feels it's their responsibility to give more back. Wealth distribution in the United States is far more unbalanced than most of the western countries. 20% of the country owns 80% of all financial assets and 1% of the population controls 38% (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States). I do agree we should reduce corporate taxes but I also believe we should increase person tax on the top 3%.
Trump won't get his tax plan through congress. It is already DOA.
Much of his hot air amounts to nothing.
Allowing offshore drilling and offering coal mining companies extended leases on coal reserves are pointless gestures and have ZERO impact. However they appeal to his base who think he is accomplishing something.
Demand for coal is dropping because it is a pain to deal with and we have VAST natural gas reserves that power utilities are switching to using instead. It's far easier to deal with and makes more sense financially. AND the kicker is that it is much cleaner so everyone wins.
Almost all offshore drilling operations have been shut down because the cost of oil per barrel is way too cheap for oil companies to bother building expensive drilling platforms and operating them. Suggesting companies will bother drilling in the Arctic which is has even more expensive operating costs is crazy.
Right now in the Dakota's the price to process shale oil has been dropping FAST over the last few years and they can just scoop that out of the ground in MASSIVE quantities.
We are currently at the point where we will have cheap oil until we no longer need it. Electric cars are expected reduce the needs for oil by enough in the next 5-7 years to potentially cause another oil glut.
So the oil rigs and expensive oil operations will end up shut down permanently.
BTW I found this interesting. Scientists are exploring how to win elections and are planning a coordinated effort to get into politics to bring some reality to the table.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-scientists-are-running-for-office?platform=hootsuite
Much of his hot air amounts to nothing.
Allowing offshore drilling and offering coal mining companies extended leases on coal reserves are pointless gestures and have ZERO impact. However they appeal to his base who think he is accomplishing something.
Demand for coal is dropping because it is a pain to deal with and we have VAST natural gas reserves that power utilities are switching to using instead. It's far easier to deal with and makes more sense financially. AND the kicker is that it is much cleaner so everyone wins.
Almost all offshore drilling operations have been shut down because the cost of oil per barrel is way too cheap for oil companies to bother building expensive drilling platforms and operating them. Suggesting companies will bother drilling in the Arctic which is has even more expensive operating costs is crazy.
Right now in the Dakota's the price to process shale oil has been dropping FAST over the last few years and they can just scoop that out of the ground in MASSIVE quantities.
We are currently at the point where we will have cheap oil until we no longer need it. Electric cars are expected reduce the needs for oil by enough in the next 5-7 years to potentially cause another oil glut.
So the oil rigs and expensive oil operations will end up shut down permanently.
BTW I found this interesting. Scientists are exploring how to win elections and are planning a coordinated effort to get into politics to bring some reality to the table.
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/why-scientists-are-running-for-office?platform=hootsuite
Last edited:
No. It's because obama can AFFORD it. I mean people that make that kind of jack can afford to be a philanthropist as I said. Let's not pretend he is one of the 'folks'. If u think we are going to get tax dollars by taxing the hell out of the 1% - well sorry but the middle class is where the money is at.
But I feel so good about the millionaires that are willing to give up an additional couple points in taxes.
ElectroNoob
Well-known member
How can you say all the money is in the middle class when the 1% owns 38% of all the wealth in the country? 3% would probably put it somewhere around 50%. Increase the tax on the 3% would essentially be increase tax on 50% of all the wealth in the US.
Sorry but all the money is moving to the top percentages.
1,700 People in America Are Becoming Millionaires Every Day
http://fortune.com/2016/11/22/us-millionaire-wealth-inequality/
The disparity between the haves and the have nots is widening FAST and the middle class is shrinking FAST.
We are working our way towards having a true elite class and a servant class.
BTW Automation is specifically targeting the middle class right now. Their salaries are high enough for automation to pay off sooner and the skill levels are easier to automate.
Automation is getting cheaper and cheaper and will continue to widen in the middle class and move down market.
There is a bit of growth at the top and a lot at the bottom with a huge sucking sound in the middle.
I asked my wife, that is a CPA, has been for years. Her response was what I thought.
There are one set of laws overseen by the IRS. Is there fraud and nefarious actions by some corporations? My guess would be 100% yes. That said individuals cheat on their tax return also.
Do large corporations that have divisions offshore and keep money there, not having to pay taxes, no doubt yes.
So assuming a perfect and honest world (not) all US corporations fall under the same laws and regulations.
I would say wealth and taxable income are two different things. I could have 1 mill in my 401k - be one of those millionaires - yet none of it is taxable. Therefore - my point is going after volume or the masses is the way taxes are really generated.
Another example. If I have a 2 mill house. How much of that is taxable? Haha. In fact I get a larger write off. So wealth and taxable income - I believe are separate and independent of one another. Especially when these data meisters try to make sense of it and twist it. Naw. Washington wants the middle class
Last edited:
ElectroNoob
Well-known member
Warren Buffet made $12 billion in 2016 but pays 17% effective tax rate. Just raising his tax to 35% would have made the government $2.1 billion.
- Status
