Visit the Ironworks Gaming Website Email the Webmaster Graphics Library Rules and Regulations Help Support Ironworks Forum with a Donation to Keep us Online - We rely totally on Donations from members Donation goal Meter

Ironworks Gaming Radio

Ironworks Gaming Forum

Go Back   Ironworks Gaming Forum > Ironworks Gaming Forums > General Discussion > General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-14-2002, 11:20 AM   #1
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
The real problem I have with this Bill is evident in the first paragraph - where Corps which ran to the Caribbean to avoid taxes can still contract with the government. I offer this up as continued ongoing evidence of what I have long known as truth: no matter what the percentages of the tax brackets are, the rich do NOT pay very much in taxes.

House Approves Domestic Security Bill
By DAVID FIRESTONE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — The House hurriedly approved a revised domestic security bill tonight to reflect a new agreement with the White House on reducing worker protections, brushing aside Democratic objections that Republican leaders had added several provisions benefiting businesses and Republican interests.

The bill, approved 299 to 121, would reverse an earlier measure and allow American companies that have moved offshore in order to evade taxes to contract with the Homeland Security Department. It would also extend protection against liability suits for airline screening companies and many other businesses that contract with the department, and adds a similar provision protecting the makers of smallpox vaccines.

Most Democrats voted against the bill, with many raising objections to the new provisions and the altering of Civil Service rules.

The House voted 215 to 203 along party lines not to create an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. Several members of both parties in the two chambers said they would try to include the commission in an intelligence spending bill that has still not been passed. But Republican House leaders said the commission needed more planning, drawing complaints from relatives of attack victims that they were trying to hide failures that might have prevented the attacks.

Working to conclude the year's legislative business by week's end, the House also passed a stopgap spending measure to keep the government operating through January. Many members of both parties had hoped the House would pass at least a few of the pending appropriations bills the government uses to keep operating, but House leaders said they would take up the bills once the new Congress convened next year.

As expected, Republican House members elected Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, formerly the majority whip, to the new post of majority leader in the next session.

Democratic House members are scheduled to conduct their leadership elections on Thursday, and are likely to choose Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, now the minority whip, as their leader.

This morning, however, a new candidate for the job emerged, demonstrating the continuing disagreements among Democrats over how to respond to their losses in last week's elections. Representative Marcy Kaptur of Ohio said she would run for the position to draw votes from members who object to Ms. Pelosi's emphasis on fund-raising.

"We will never raise more money than the Republicans — never," said Ms. Kaptur, who is known for her opposition to free-trade measures and federal funding for abortions. "We must elevate the non-money wing of the Democratic Party and create populist symbols to convey our message."

Ms. Kaptur joins Harold E. Ford Jr. of Tennessee in contesting the Democratic leadership election, for which Ms. Pelosi claims to already have sufficient support to win.

In the Senate, Republicans chose Trent Lott of Mississippi to be the majority leader in the next term, along with Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as majority whip and Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona in the third-ranking job of leading the Republican Policy Committee. Mr. Lott said after today's election that Republicans would focus on national and economic security, mentioning specifically a prescription drug program for low-income older people and making individual retirement accounts easier to use.

Senate Democrats also held their leadership elections today, unanimously choosing Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota as chairman of the caucus, along with Senators Harry Reid of Nevada and Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland in the No. 2 and No. 3 positions. Mr. Daschle will be minority leader in the next Senate, Mr. Reid will be minority whip.

Senators also voted 58 to 36 not to block their annual pay raise, which would increase their salaries by 3.1 percent to $154,700 to $150,000 next year. Passage of an energy bill was deferred until next year because of continuing partisan disagreements over regulation and conservation.

The Senate began a lengthier process of approving the domestic security bill, which is expected to pass as early as Friday.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 11-14-2002, 11:26 AM   #2
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
The real problem I have with this Bill is evident in the first paragraph - where Corps which ran to the Caribbean to avoid taxes can still contract with the government. I offer this up as continued ongoing evidence of what I have long known as truth: no matter what the percentages of the tax brackets are, the rich do NOT pay very much in taxes.


And yet they pay 60% or more of all taxes. What do you call "very much"? Is very much a Dollar figure? or is it a total percentage of their wealth?
Oh and while Im asking, can some one tell me, how much you have to earn in a year to be considered rich? I really want to know what THAT number is.

The problem I have with the article is that there was not even an attempt at writing an objective article, the very first lines were biased and had a very liberal spin. It was not reporting, it was editorial.
[ 11-14-2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
 
Old 11-14-2002, 11:33 AM   #3
Rokenn
Galvatron
 

Join Date: January 22, 2002
Location: california wine country
Age: 60
Posts: 2,193
Regardless of how you feel about the writing style of the article are you saying that it's ok for US companies to move their HQ's overseas to avoid paying taxes? While still enjoying all the benefits and protection of the country? To me this sounds decidedly unamerican.
__________________
“This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have mores. <br />Some people call you the elite. <br />I call you my base.”<br />~ George W. Bush (2000)
Rokenn is offline  
Old 11-14-2002, 11:33 AM   #4
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:
Quote:
What do you call "very much"? Is very much a Dollar figure? or is it a total percentage of their wealth?
Oh and while Im asking, can some one tell me, how much you have to earn in a year to be considered rich? I really want to know what THAT number is.

The problem I have with the article is that there was not even an attempt at writing an objective article, the very first lines were biased and had a very liberal spin. It was not reporting, it was editorial.
Well, the NY Times is oft-accused of being liberal. As for dollar figures, let me put it this way: If you can show me someone in the 30%+ tax brackets that is truly paying more than 10-15% of their income into income tax, I'll show you someone who needs some good tax advice. Please refer them my way.

[ 11-14-2002, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 11-14-2002, 11:36 AM   #5
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:
Quote:
What do you call "very much"? Is very much a Dollar figure? or is it a total percentage of their wealth?
Oh and while Im asking, can some one tell me, how much you have to earn in a year to be considered rich? I really want to know what THAT number is.

The problem I have with the article is that there was not even an attempt at writing an objective article, the very first lines were biased and had a very liberal spin. It was not reporting, it was editorial.
Well, the NY Times is oft-accused of being liberal. As for dollar figures, let me put it this way: If you can show me someone in the 30%+ tax brackets that is truly paying more than 10-15% of their income into income tax, I'll show you someone who needs some good tax advice. Please refer them my way.

But who's fault is that? the person who is following the rules? or the dumb asses who allow the rules to be written like that?

And in answer to your first question, NO, I do not think the companies should be allowed to do that. Again though, I don't blame the companies, I blame the stupid ass law makers who allow it.

Edit: Dang, I think Im in the 32% bracket (for federal) can you help me out? of my taxes that is, not my income Actually now Im curious again, Ihad this allworked out at one point, but its been all year and now I can't remember the numbers


[ 11-14-2002, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]
 
Old 11-14-2002, 11:44 AM   #6
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
MagiK, I agree with your last post.

Yesterday, I ranted about the Republican brainwahsings that have happened in the recent past. I am simply attacking the assumption, propogated by a very clever Rebublican party, that the rich bear the greatest tax burden. In theory yes, but subtract all deductions, credits, shelters, floors, and ceilings in the tax code and it's simply not the case.

And, this group that you mention pays 60% of the taxes (I'll note you didn't define the group either) actually owns 95% of the property/capital in the country, so wouldn't you say they're getting quite a discount and are not pulling their weight?

Further example:
Show me someone who owns a Mercedes 500SL and carries insurance and I'll show you someone needing tax advice. The casualty loss provisions in the tax code make any loss to an auto accident deductibe. You can't have a loss if you're insured - the insurance pays obviously. But, without insurance, any auto accident loss becomes deductible. If you're a 500SL owner, you're likely in the 50% tax bracket (state + federal combined). So, rather than paying insurance premiums you can get a 50% policy for FREE. Well, not actually free. We taxpayers absorb it.

[ 11-14-2002, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
Old 11-14-2002, 11:51 AM   #7
MagiK
Guest
 

Posts: n/a

I don't know anywhere in the Union that insurance is optional, or are you talking about comprehensive and not the liability?
 
Old 11-14-2002, 11:55 AM   #8
Timber Loftis
40th Level Warrior
 

Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
Quote:
Originally posted by MagiK:

I don't know anywhere in the Union that insurance is optional, or are you talking about comprehensive and not the liability?
Right. Liability-wise, that person would probably carry at least a 250/500 policy. But, if you are uber-rich you're savvy enough to know that high insurance just attracts lawyers.
__________________
Timber Loftis is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Companies P-ssing on the little people SilentThief General Discussion 27 02-18-2005 02:44 AM
RIGHT NOW- Blair addressing US Congress Rokenn General Discussion 9 07-18-2003 02:54 PM
Bush asks Congress for $30 Billion Timber Loftis General Discussion 7 07-08-2003 08:23 AM
Iraqi National Congress ? Wutang General Discussion 3 03-26-2003 04:21 PM
Congress Spending tax payer money. MagiK General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) 33 03-13-2003 03:56 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2024 Ironworks Gaming & ©2024 The Great Escape Studios TM - All Rights Reserved