Politics and AMT

[Black Bart]

Am I for or

So whats your point Black Bart? Are you for it or against it? Don't beat around the Bush tell us like it is.

against WHAT? You guys are all over the map.

Dear UR -- I second the motion -- let's go get that moderator.

[veritas]

>>OK.. the republicans are responsible for that but how did we get to a point that so many citizens think they should rip off our government?<<

Did you see the post by veritas this morning, saying Richard Nixon was a liberal Democrat? Not much room there for a difference of opinion and honest debate.

I like debate also and you are pretty good at it. But I have to take exception to the idea Richard Nixon was a republican. John Kennedy would have been closer to my idea of a republican. Come to think of it the main stream republican today would be pretty much the same as the democrats of the 50 and 60s.

[veritas]

It's not even the weekend yet and you're arguing politics. Unregistered is gonna complain about this for sure.

jainen: Am I reading that right about the "fanatically right-wing" Democrats? I disagree with Vertias (not so bluntly as you do) about his characterization of Richard Nixon as a liberal Democrat, but isn't your statement regarding the Dems exaggerated to about the same extent too? Or are you serious--meaning that they're so uber-liberal that an ordinary Dem pales by comparison?

By the way, I liked Nixon as an "elder statesman" in his twilight years, much more so than Carter is now. I thought he was one of the greatest foreign policy men we've ever had, although as OldJack said, he wasn't much domestically. Most of his speeches were leaden clunkers, but I kinda liked his "farewell" speech in '74 (although I'll bet y'all in California heard that "poorest lemon ranch in California" story a hundred times).

I think his best was the "Checker's" speech.

[Unregistered]

You support our Constitution, I suppose? One of the main purposes stated in the Constitution is to "promote the general welfare." We do that mostly with insurance and loans to individuals, and subsidies, grants, and contracts to corporations.[/QUOTE]


Your quote is indeed from out constitution. I might add it is from the preamble which I don't see gives or takes any rights, it just explains in general the purpose of the document. Is this what our goverment has relied on to become a nanny state?

[veritas]

Politics of AMT

"The AMT disportionately affects those who live in wealthier areas with higher cost of living and areas with higher state and local taxes, areas which are primarily represented by Democrats. Thus, many Democrats favor a tax reform of the AMT that would benefit primarily those who would be objectively viewed as wealthy by the standard of the country as a whole or their incomes, although they only live what they, themselves, like to call "a middle class lifestyle". Republicans, representing fewer constituents (middle class and in general) affected by the AMT, wish to package AMT reform together with extensions of other tax cuts which Democrats in general oppose. In addition, some Republicans, favoring a flat tax, may see the extension of the AMT to most taxpayers as an easy way of achieving that goal"

source wikpedia

[Black Bart]

Good Observations

"The AMT disportionately affects those who live in wealthier areas with higher cost of living and areas with higher state and local taxes, areas which are primarily represented by Democrats. Thus, many Democrats favor a tax reform of the AMT that would benefit primarily those who would be objectively viewed as wealthy by the standard of the country as a whole or their incomes, although they only live what they, themselves, like to call "a middle class lifestyle". Republicans, representing fewer constituents (middle class and in general) affected by the AMT, wish to package AMT reform together with extensions of other tax cuts which Democrats in general oppose. In addition, some Republicans, favoring a flat tax, may see the extension of the AMT to most taxpayers as an easy way of achieving that goal"

source wikpedia

I hadn't really thought of AMT like you stated above, but that's pretty well true--the North and East people do make more money and probably would characterize their lifestyles as middle class, although, by our red state (we vote Republican) standards, they would be considered well-off. As I said here once before, I've only done one AMT return in my life, and that was a farmer who had an unexpected windfall. As a practical matter, other than being interested in the "general welfare" of the country as a whole, there's really no reason at all for me to be concerned with AMT (I guess it's just a Pavlovian knee-jerk reaction to the "rich-bad/ poor-good" conditioning the press promotes). Maybe those Republican representatives are doing a better job for me than I thought -- using AMT as a tactical advantage to get what they want from the Dems.

As to what people consider "well-off;" we here occasionally see government workers on TV saying they can't "get by" on their salaries and talk show people disparaging the "low" wages of a postal worker, for instance. Talk like that just baffles people here. Postal workers make about $50K while the average employee here makes $30-35K or so (maybe--if he/she is lucky--$20K is very common). Everybody here would like to work for the post office if only they could, but those jobs are not available for the asking -- you quite literally have to be related to someone to get one. I can't think of a single postal job in 40 years that has ever gone to anyone unrelated to a current employee at the time.

You're right about the main-stream Republicans today -- they are pretty much the same as the Democrats of the 50s and 60s. When I was a kid, our part of the country was known as "the Solid South"-- meaning that we were 100% Democratic Party voters. We hadn't elected a Republican for anything since Reconstruction. For decades the Republican primaries were merely tokens--nobody even gave them a thought because when a candidate won the Democratic primary, the election was over and done with. But the Dems started leaving us and we started leaving them in the 60s and 70s when they made a sharp left turn.

The thorn in our sides now seems to be that Republican representatives, although they share our conservative values, really are more interested in the interest of big business rather than that of the average person, e.g., the "privatize Social Security" effort (a sop to stockbrokers/Wall Street), the estate tax cut (who considers this a "burning issue"?), the "token" Medicaid bill (don't cut off the flow of Pfizer's campaign contributions), the lack of interest in a "windfall profits tax" on Big Oil (don't cut off the flow of Exxon-Mobil's campaign contributions).

We can't seem to get what we want from either side. And what do we want? We want: reasonably-priced gas, reasonably-priced drugs, the border closed, the budget balanced, the war won. After that, we could start working on the second tier stuff.

P.S. Re: Checkers speech -- yeah, that was excellent. I'd forgotten about that one. I read it again (first time in a long time) after you mentioned it. His statement of intention to keep the dog resonated with voters--demonstrating reasonableness, determination, common sense, and courage. Also, the "cloth coat" was a nice touch.

[John of PA]

Amt??

Both Republicans and Democrats in DC know that we are in a jam with the AMT. It is bringing in such hugh revenues that our Govt. cannot afford to even index it, let alone eliminate it; because the revenue loss would be enormous. Neither the Republicans or the Democrats in DC have the guts to tell this to the American People. So I will on this bulletin board (Ha, Ha). Should we expect more from Washington? By the way, Nixon was an alter boy compared to today's polititions(sp).

[Unregistered]

mostly dem issues

BB -

Most of the issues you raised are Dem issues:

Windfall profits tax - Let's say that the Intuit headquarters was blown up and TurboTax no longer existed. All of a sudden you have a 300% increase in revenues, along with all other tax professionals, due to the extreme drive up in demand for your services. Is the govt' now supposed to enact legislation that says that because tax professionals are now making higher profits, even though costs didn't increase any more than inflation, they are going to pay an extra tax to bring them back to level. That doesn't make any sense for your situation, nor does it make sense for the oil companies.


Privatization of SS - Not for stockbroker's. The govt' already is supposed to be investing our money in the trust fund with the brokers. The problem is they're raiding the fund instead of investing it, which is why the system is going broke. Would you rather have a "guaranteed" payment in 30 years from the federal govt of a fixed sum or a chance to put the SS tax you pay every year into the general market (no particular fund) and let it ride. There is no scenario you can provide to me where the govt' is going to pay you more in 30 years than investing your money will, including the Great Depression years, and the years since 9/11.

The estate tax - This is a burning issue, for those whom it applies to. Those who owe estate tax are the wealthiest, most successful Americans. Normally success equates to effort and brilliance. Therefore, those who have met that plateau normally are smart enough to know that they can avoid/minimize the tax via certain paths. However, they spend lot's of money taking care of estate tax issues (tax planning/life insurance/trusts/FLP's). All of this money would be better served being plowed back into the general economy as opposed to being spent on this egregious tax. By the way, I sell life insurance, so I will take a paycut via repeal. But, I still don't believe it makes sense, and support total repeal.

If you want reasonably priced gas, call your senator and ask them to allow for drilling in the Gulf, in ANWR and in off the US east coast. If you want closed boarders than tell your clients to stop hiring illegal immigrants and tell your senator to vote for REAL immigration reform or GO HOME. If you want the war won, stop playing into the insurgents hands, talking junk about the administration. Get behind the govt', the military and the cause. If you want a balanced budget, new tax revenues aren't going to get it done. The Congress is going to spend every penny we send them. The only way to stop spending is to send less money (and find some real conservatives, which are few and far between).

JoshinNC

[Black Bart]

Well Josh, I don't

agree with any of that. Though there's not much point in arguing about it--political debaters don't usually change their minds because of a "good talking-to" by another. Still, I guess I can list the rationale for my statements and you can make of it what you will.

Windfall profits: Gas is a daily necessity, just as medical care is in an emergency. TurboTax is not. I think people who deal in necessities should be regulated by the government. I feel that the president should have put a temporary price cap of $2.00 on gas during Katrina (instead of that lame statement about asking federal employees to conserve). Prices climbed to $3.00 overnight everywhere in the country during the hurricane--yes, there were real shortages on the Gulf coast, but I don't believe the tanks in New Jersey went dry overnight. It's called price-gouging. And yes, Congress should soak the fat boys with a windfall profits tax because the average guy's sweating bullets trying to come up with an extra twenty bucks to get to work while those robber barons are literally rolling in dough ("obscene profits" they were once called); hundreds of millions of additional dollars that they opportunistically extorted during a tragic national disaster. The hurricane's long gone and there aren't any shortages now, but gas is still $2.60 and up--I don't think we'll see $2.00 again because it's just too good a deal for them. We're somewhat used to it now and besides, they don't have be out a cent for extra infrastructure--all they have to do is raise prices as they wish. We have to have it. Even if it goes to $5.00, are you going to quit driving?

(Continued in next reply)

[Black Bart]

Privatization of Social Security

I still think it was proposed for the benefit of brokerage houses and those associated with that industry (think of the enormous commissions generated on billions and billions of SS dollars). I don't believe for a minute that it was proposed with the welfare of the average citizen in mind--the administration has previously shown no signs of concern for the "little guy," so who does that leave? And, this wasn't a grass-roots measure brought to the forefront by popular demand or anything--It was fairly obvious from the beginning that the general public had little interest (of much more concern was drug prices and immigration), There were no votes to be gained from this, but the president forged ahead anyway in the hope that it might squeak by and become a perk for big business. Predictably it flopped.

The primary reason I'm against it is this: Most people would not be better off. The board members here would probably do well managing their own accounts, but we're talking about what's best for the most people. It's been my experience that, generally speaking, most people don't do well with their investments. Usually they either make a few dollars in dividends or they lose money. There are exceptions and your clients may be different from the ones I see. But the beauty of the SS system is that nobody can "mess" with it. They can't gamble it away, invest it in Florida swampland, or lose their principal while trying to increase it. It is literally fool-proof and, many times, that's just what it needs to be. There are good brokers and bad brokers, but who knows which is which? Can anyone doubt that many would hire a broker who specialized in "churning" (trading excessively to generate commissions) and soon lost their entire investment. This system as it is protects people from their greatest danger, and that danger is themselves.

[veritas]

Say it isn't so BB!

"But the beauty of the SS system is that nobody can "mess" with it. They can't gamble it away, invest it in Florida swampland, or lose their principal while trying to increase it."

There are billions upon billions of excess social security taxes being paid into the government today. Where do you think this money is? I will tell you it is in a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. It's in sex change procedures for Katrina victims. It's in a choo choo train we have here in Portland that the voters said no to but our pork barrel Senator Smith(r) rammed down our throats.

I'm speechless.

[Black Bart]

To burn or not to burn

The estate tax - This is a burning issue, for those whom it applies to. Those who owe estate tax are the wealthiest, most successful Americans. Normally success equates to effort and brilliance. Therefore, those who have met that plateau normally are smart enough to know that they can avoid/minimize the tax via certain paths. However, they spend lot's of money taking care of estate tax issues (tax planning/life insurance/trusts/FLP's). All of this money would be better served being plowed back into the general economy as opposed to being spent on this egregious tax. By the way, I sell life insurance, so I will take a paycut via repeal. But, I still don't believe it makes sense, and support total repeal.

JoshinNC

Yes, it is a burning issue to those "wealthiest, most successful Americans," but there are also many, many other lesser mortals who are being flamed by different and more pressing economic issues. I should have stated it differently about the estate tax, as I'm philosophically in agreement with those who want to repeal it (they earned it--shouldn't be taxed twice, etc. etc.), but I meant it to use it to illustrate that there's a lack of focus on issues that are more important to the majority of Americans and those should be addressed before estate tax--the big picture, if you will.

Put another way -- first things first! It's okay with me if we get the big boys (remember these revealing quotes?: William H. Vanderbilt--"The public be ****ed."/ J. P. Morgan--"I owe the public nothing.") off the taxation Titanic, but I want the women and children to go first.

[Black Bart]

To recap,

Most of the issues you raised are If you want reasonably priced gas, call your senator and ask them to allow for drilling in the Gulf, in ANWR and in off the US east coast. If you want closed boarders than tell your clients to stop hiring illegal immigrants and tell your senator to vote for REAL immigration reform or GO HOME. If you want the war won, stop playing into the insurgents hands, talking junk about the administration. Get behind the govt', the military and the cause. If you want a balanced budget, new tax revenues aren't going to get it done. The Congress is going to spend every penny we send them. The only way to stop spending is to send less money (and find some real conservatives, which are few and far between).

JoshinNC

Reasonably-priced gas: I think you could open enough new drilling fields to satisfy even a Republican (I'm one) -- Alaska, coast fields, my backyard, yours, and it wouldn't change the price a cent. Have you ever noticed that every year, just about May or June when people begin going on summer vacations, the price of gas starts spiking up. Every year. Is that a coincidence or what? Then too, when there's news of an oil tanker spill, or if a refinery goes down, OPEC belches, or the dictator of an oil-producing Latin American country makes a bellicose threat to disrupt supply, wholesalers apparently notify retailers jiffy-quick (same day-within the hour) as they're practically running across the gas station lot to get that increase up on the marquee. By the same token, if there's "good" news (they've "discovered" that we're swimming in the stuff), then it takes a good long two or three weeks to filter down to the retail outlets. After all; what's the hurry?

Closed borders: My clients aren't hiring illegal immigrants--I can't speak for yours. I don't think it'll do any good to tell my senators anything. The administration doesn't really want them closed--they want the cheap labor. The Democrats don't want them closed; on humanitarian grounds and for the votes--I don't know which is primary to them. The only group that really wants it closed is the American public. How best to do it? Who knows? But anyway; try something.

War: I'm not "talking junk" about the administration. I'm with them on foreign policy, but I'm against them on domestic policy. Do I have to buy the whole package?

Balanced budget: There are responsible people in Congress and the Senate--it's not necessarily a "den of thieves." I think the lobbyists could and should be restrained. Has money ever influenced your thinking on any particular subject? Have you ever worked "just a little bit harder" for that good-paying client than that other insufferable deadbeat client?

[jainen]

Gee, I agree

>>open enough new drilling fields<<

Gee, I agree with everything you say (except about being a Republican). Oil prices are driven by demand, not supply. Anyway, offshore drilling isn't expected to make a dent in the supply. Producing oil in Iraq would, but that isn't going to happen anytime soon. There is apparently more untapped oil in Colorado than in the entire mideast, and high prices make it worth developing.

[Black Bart]

My Buddy, My Pal (he of the &quot;checkered&quot; past)

"But the beauty of the SS system is that nobody can "mess" with it. They can't gamble it away, invest it in Florida swampland, or lose their principal while trying to increase it."

There are billions upon billions of excess social security taxes being paid into the government today. Where do you think this money is? I will tell you it is in a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. It's in sex change procedures for Katrina victims. It's in a choo choo train we have here in Portland that the voters said no to but our pork barrel Senator Smith(r) rammed down our throats.

I'm speechless.

It's so! And, now; I'm speechless too. After all those apple-polishing compliments, after all my boot-licking commentary re your pedestrian observations, what do I get? Nothin'! I tell you what, it's absolutely true what they say--gratitude has a short life. You, sir, can can go climb on your Harley and ride swiftly away. If I still had my 70s-era Honda 125, I'd do the same (by the way; do you happen to know if they still make those? I'd like another one--yes, yes, I know--it's a scooter to you hog-wallowers, but I liked it anyway).

Okay, back to biz. Look, I'm talking about keeping the average unsophisticated soul from frittering away his nest egg and/or keeping charlatans from looting it. You're talking about the source of the money. Yeah, I know Stevens of Alaska is a grafty ol' cigar-smokin', back-slappin', back-scratchin', backroom pol, but those people have always been around. No question that he and others are overly fond of "the other white meat," but how to curtail their appetite for pork chops is another question. As far as funding SS, they're not going to vote against rounding up the money from somewhere. What would be the political future of any politician who voted not to support SS? It'll be there when people retire--all they have to do is not start running panic-stricken for the doors.