View Full Version : who ya gonna vote for?
Katrine
10-03-2007, 07:29 PM
Here's an admittedly sick yet fun fantsasy. An oil wrestling match between Hillary
and Coulter. The loser has to blow Bill.
I have a fantasy that involves kicking Ann Coulter in her head, repeatedly.
I'm voting for Oprah Winfrey. :D
ahmeerah
10-03-2007, 07:29 PM
this is way to pooish for the lounge. it should not even be here.
My bad. I didn't even see there was a political section on the SW. :-[
Katrine
10-03-2007, 07:35 PM
Unless Lieberman tries again, I think we'll have a nominally Christian president just like always.
Oh, I'd consider Lieberman, even though the thought of voting for a Republican causes my pancreas to spasm.
I would like to vote for a black jewish female investment advisor who runs a battered women and children's shelter on the side. She grew up the daughter of a diplomat and travelled all over the world. She speaks many languages, is pro stem-cell research, anti-war, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and is for the death penalty.
Anyone?
velvet
10-03-2007, 08:26 PM
My bad. I didn't even see there was a political section on the SW. :-[
its been closed for two years. for good reason.
austinatalie
10-03-2007, 08:40 PM
*sigh* I wish that I wanted to vote for hillary because she's a woman. Unfortunately, as stripper who actually pays her taxes, I feel that people in my tax bracket and beyond already pay enough, and she wants to raise them.
I like Ron Paul.
mollyzmoon
10-03-2007, 08:50 PM
We have a provincial election coming up very soon. I have no idea who to vote for. I feel like the NDP are greener than the greens, but maybe they are both bad choices. McGuinty sure sucks. If any Ontarioans want to tell me who to vote for, feel free.
Back to your regularly scheduled American politics.
TheSexKitten
10-03-2007, 09:11 PM
I can't go with the Ron Paul. I just can't.
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
That's one of my main things, man. On some things he's refreshingly liberal, but there's a few sticks in the mud that I can't move past.
*sneaks off to go look at more candidates' voting records*
Yekhefah
10-03-2007, 09:15 PM
I would like to vote for a black jewish female investment advisor who runs a battered women and children's shelter on the side. She grew up the daughter of a diplomat and travelled all over the world. She speaks many languages, is pro stem-cell research, anti-war, fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and is for the death penalty.
Anyone?
Hell, I want to vote for her too! I think Oprah is about as close as we'll ever get though... and a vote for Obama is a vote for Oprah! ::)
austinatalie
10-03-2007, 09:26 PM
I agree 100% with everything yek has posted in this thread. i am totally and completely disillusioned with politics in general. When I think about politics I think of a giant pit of cockroaches squabbling with each other, except that these roaches happen to control our country :/
Yekhefah
10-03-2007, 09:34 PM
^^^ Which is fair, if you consider that the country is mostly garbage and hence the roaches may as well be king of it. Where there's accumulated garbage, the roaches will take over. It's our own fault for turning the whole country into a worthless heap.
Jay Zeno
10-03-2007, 10:00 PM
George Bush turns me off of conservatives. Hilary Clinton turns me off of liberals. (That's way oversimplified, but I'm trying to make a point.)
I want someone who is principled and sensible. Their principles and sensibilities don't even have to match mine, as long as they're grounded. I haven't run into that one yet.
TheSexKitten
10-03-2007, 10:03 PM
The problem with politics is that it's a business. Politics is a career for people, which is the problem. It turns into a greedy power-grubbing game. :-/
BalletBaby
10-03-2007, 10:06 PM
Since this is the first presidential election I can vote in, I'm voting for
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
cameron keys cat. Because she said he can run the country better than bush.
austinatalie
10-03-2007, 10:08 PM
good choice!
BalletBaby
10-03-2007, 10:12 PM
I'm not even going to comment on this thread ... but I will point out that Ann Coulter has just published a new book which seems particularly relevant to the current discussion ...
http://www.observer.com/2007/coulter-culture
(snip)"On women:
If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.
It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care -- and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'"(snip)
Can we send Ann Coulter to Iraq? or Darfur? or the ghetto? Pretty please?
crizgolfer
10-04-2007, 03:52 AM
The problem with politics is that it's a business. Politics is a career for people, which is the problem. It turns into a greedy power-grubbing game. :-/
Nice observation. I will add this quote from P.J. O'Rourke:
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."
Kind of fits in with Kittens statement.
Eric Stoner
10-04-2007, 07:11 AM
I agree with a lot of what you say here, but I have to disagree with the rest of it. Yes, according to re-counts, Gore lost the 2000 election. In addition, many Democrats are quick to point the finger at the Republican Party for rigging elections, when in fact JFK's election was much more throroughly corrupt than any known Republican candidate. (Illinois, anyone?)
One thing that sticks out at me in what you posted is your position on taxes. In my opinion (and partly why I back Edwards to an extent), the last thing this country needs is a tax cut. The "trickle-down" economic theory has no way of guaranteeing wealth be evenly distributed, rather I think the federal government ought to raise taxes (mainly on the wealthy). Yes, I know that from a Republican perspective all economic matters should more or less fall into the ruthless hands of capitalism, but, hey, I'm a true blue dem.
Ron Paul seems cool, but A) he's too liberal to get the core republican voters and B) didn't I read somewhere that he wants to limit abortion rights...? :-X
(I could be mistaken, please correct me if I am)
In a capitalist system wealth is NEVER distributed evenly. Nor should it be. Attempts at re-distribution all make problems worse because they defy human nature. History has taught us that to have stable, steady economic growth low
taxes and controlled government spending are best. Under Reagan's tax cuts
Federal tax revenues DOUBLED. Under Bush's tax cuts Federal revenues have dramatically increased.
It always bemuses me to see dancers talking up socialism or liberal economic policies when it is capitalism that generates the wealth that puts the money in your garter and enables guys to afford VIP's and the like.
cinammonkisses
10-04-2007, 08:54 AM
Barack Obama seems to be interesting to me at this point.
Me too!
Ohio Stand Up!!! ;D
Melonie
10-04-2007, 10:21 AM
It always bemuses me to see dancers talking up socialism or liberal economic policies when it ic capitalism that generates the wealth that puts the money in your garter and enables guys to afford VIP's and the like.
not wanting to hijack this thread, but it always bemuses ME to see many dancers looking at the receiving side of socialism or liberal economic policies, and not looking at the inevitable consequences on the taxation side that are a direct result of socialism or liberal economic policies. With obvious exceptions, many dancers have managed to escape the consequences of supporting socialism and liberal economic policies in regard to effects on their personal taxation. This will NOT continue forever.
cameron_keys
10-04-2007, 10:43 AM
^^ I'd rather pay higher taxes on my income..then not have any income to pay taxes ON.
TheSexKitten
10-04-2007, 11:08 AM
It always bemuses me to see dancers talking up socialism or liberal economic policies when it ic capitalism that generates the wealth that puts the money in your garter and enables guys to afford VIP's and the like.
Well, a small bit of socialism IMO is important for a country which is able to smoothly function from the ground up. Like, have enough money going to federal social programs to make sure the struggling are O.K., and then let everyone else battle it out on the business scene.
My socialist leanings stem from something very personal. Me, my mother, and my father, have all been saved from sure homelessness or death thanks to what pathetic socialized healthcare programs and SSI we had available to us.
My mother used to have several millions of dollars, and my dad graduated from Stanford at the top of his class. The thing is, anyone can find themselves at rock bottom due to factors out of their control, even talented people. By investing at least enough money into taking care of people at the bottom, we "clean up" the nation for everyone else, and allow those people to get back into society to be productive.
TheSexKitten
10-04-2007, 11:10 AM
^^ I'd rather pay higher taxes on my income..then not have any income to pay taxes ON.
Amen... and honestly, if my extra taxation keeps even one disabled person off the street or gives a single parent a leg up, I'm down.
The thing is, since I can AFFORD to be taxed, so be it!
TheSexKitten
10-04-2007, 11:33 AM
For you and all the other Gore- Lovers : HOW would things have been different
had he been elected ?; which he never was btw. He LOST Fla. according to EVERY
recount and Kerry lost by over 2 million votes. But we digress.
Pssst according to the constitution, a full recount is mandatory, but the supreme court decided to overrule this and elect GWB despite not having fully completed the recount
Eric Stoner
10-04-2007, 01:31 PM
I have a fantasy that involves kicking Ann Coulter in her head, repeatedly.
I'm voting for Oprah Winfrey. :D
Oh come on. Mine is much more fun. We could put it on National Pay per View and retire the National Debt with the proceeds.
Eric Stoner
10-04-2007, 01:38 PM
Pssst according to the constitution, a full recount is mandatory, but the supreme court decided to overrule this and elect GWB despite not having fully completed the recount
Please quote the section of the Constitution that mandated a re-count of POPULAR votes.
The Founders gave us a system whereby the ELECTORAL COLLEGE selected the President. they not only didn't care who got more popular votes but in fact designed a system whereby it was ELECTORAL votes that mattered. Primarily it was to assure that the President had broad based support in enough states to give him a winning majority in the Electoral College. The Founders feared direct democracy.
Lola Rose
10-04-2007, 01:40 PM
I have to say, I'm completely with Susan on this one.
Just vote, damn it.
And yes...We'd be living in a different world had Al Gore won the presidency. And of course that world would have problems of its own. That doesn't stop me from wishing, daily, that Gore had been rightfully put in office.
We are a country that is completely divided right now. I think we'd have been better off with a democratic executive branch and a republican congress, the way it should have initially been. Instead, no such balance was struck and we are now facing the consequences.
I completely agree. I feel.... ashamed at the fact that I'm the 1st!!!! person in my family that actually thinks she needs to vote! ::)
And damn, how I wish gore would've actually won, like he should have!!!
Eric Stoner
10-04-2007, 01:49 PM
Well, a small bit of socialism IMO is important for a country which is able to smoothly function from the ground up. Like, have enough money going to federal social programs to make sure the struggling are O.K., and then let everyone else battle it out on the business scene.
My socialist leanings stem from something very personal. Me, my mother, and my father, have all been saved from sure homelessness or death thanks to what pathetic socialized healthcare programs and SSI we had available to us.
My mother used to have several millions of dollars, and my dad graduated from Stanford at the top of his class. The thing is, anyone can find themselves at rock bottom due to factors out of their control, even talented people. By investing at least enough money into taking care of people at the bottom, we "clean up" the nation for everyone else, and allow those people to get back into society to be productive.
Nobody is arguing for eliminating the social safety net to help the truly needy.
What I do oppose is "middle-class welfare" and industrial welfare. Afaic all entitlement programs ought to be means tested.
Btw, low tax rates generate higher revenues than higher rates. It's a common misconception that Clinton's gouging of the middle class with his initial retroactive tax increases in 1993 directly led to a robust economy. In fact we were emerging from the short and shallow "Bush Recession" of 1991 - 1992 and Clinton's tax increase caught the economy on the upswing. He also gets credit for the booming Stock Market of the 90's when in fact a Republican Congress and his own Treasury Secretary almost had to break his arm to get him to sign the Capital Gains tax cuts that fed the boom.
Clinton has privately admitted that he raised tax rates too high and when quoted on it has NEVER denied it. He also reneged on his promised "middle class tax cut".
Eric Stoner
10-04-2007, 01:52 PM
^^ I'd rather pay higher taxes on my income..then not have any income to pay taxes ON.
Your point being what ? That higher taxes are going to guarantee you an income ?
TheSexKitten
10-04-2007, 02:07 PM
The Founders feared direct democracy.
Well the founders were also a bunch of white male slaveowners, but alas, that is largely irrelevant. We'll just agree to disagree.
TheSexKitten
10-04-2007, 02:09 PM
Nobody is arguing for eliminating the social safety net to help the truly needy.
What I do oppose is "middle-class welfare" and industrial welfare. Afaic all entitlement programs ought to be means tested.
Btw, low tax rates generate higher revenues than higher rates. It's a common misconception that Clinton's gouging of the middle class with his initial retroactive tax increases in 1993 directly led to a robust economy. In fact we were emerging from the short and shallow "Bush Recession" of 1991 - 1992 and Clinton's tax increase caught the economy on the upswing. He also gets credit for the booming Stock Market of the 90's when in fact a Republican Congress and his own Treasury Secretary almost had to break his arm to get him to sign the Capital Gains tax cuts that fed the boom.
Clinton has privately admitted that he raised tax rates too high and when quoted on it has NEVER denied it. He also reneged on his promised "middle class tax cut".
Touche. However, ideally the middle class wouldn't be the one getting a significant tax raise.
Eric Stoner
10-04-2007, 02:40 PM
Well the founders were also a bunch of white male slaveowners, but alas, that is largely irrelevant. We'll just agree to disagree.
Just a minute. YOU were the one who posted that the Constitution "required
a recount" and I asked you to quote WHERE it says any such thing.
The fact that all of the FOUNDERS were white and male is irrelevant. So is the fact that some owned slaves. The document still says what it says.
Eric Stoner
10-04-2007, 02:44 PM
Touche. However, ideally the middle class wouldn't be the one getting a significant tax raise.
Well then do NOT expect any serious increase in revenues. First of all there are not enough "rich" people and every point increase in the top marginal rate only generates about $6 billion in revenue. Any futzing with the Capital Gains rate will only serve to drive money off-shore.
cameron_keys
10-04-2007, 04:13 PM
Your point being what ? That higher taxes are going to guarantee you an income ?
No. My point being that when Republicans are in office, disposable income goes DOWN. We have recessions. We have higher unemployment rates. And the first thing to get cut of of a lot of peoples budgets is luxury items. Which as a stripper, I am.
So I would be happy to have an administration like Clintons back in office....so I can make more money. Because more people HAVE money to spend on me.If I have to pay more in taxes...so be it. Better then it is now when I frequently bust my ass for nothing. And at least those higher taxes wont be going to a war we never should have started.
Not that the money WONT be going into polititions pockets still.....I am a registered independant with very little faith in the political parties at ALL. But Republicans IMO are the worst.
TheSexKitten
10-04-2007, 09:12 PM
So everything I say is competely wrong, invalid, and off the mark. I know nothing.
::)
*bows out*
Eric Stoner
10-05-2007, 08:34 AM
So everything I say is competely wrong, invalid, and off the mark. I know nothing.
::)
*bows out*
I assume this is directed to me and I'm very sorry if you took anything I said personally. Afaik I NEVER directed ANYTHING at you personally. I do critique ideas and try to correct misimpressions and counter misinformation- see below.
Afaic, EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinions but there is one set of facts for everybody. For me, just from my own pov , opinions supported by facts ( reasonable historical interpretation and/or generally accepted accurate recounting and/or generally accepted statistics) carry more weight than those without factul support.
I respectfully suggest you mispoke because the Constitution does not contain any language mandating re-counts or even granting a right of suffrage.
Eric Stoner
10-05-2007, 08:48 AM
No. My point being that when Republicans are in office, disposable income goes DOWN. We have recessions. We have higher unemployment rates. And the first thing to get cut of of a lot of peoples budgets is luxury items. Which as a stripper, I am.
So I would be happy to have an administration like Clintons back in office....so I can make more money. Because more people HAVE money to spend on me.If I have to pay more in taxes...so be it. Better then it is now when I frequently bust my ass for nothing. And at least those higher taxes wont be going to a war we never should have started.
Not that the money WONT be going into polititions pockets still.....I am a registered independant with very little faith in the political parties at ALL. But Republicans IMO are the worst.
Under Reagan disposable income went up. Under FDR it went down. Under JFK
it went way up because of TAX CUTS.We had a doozy of a recession under Carter. We were already starting a recession in late 1999 that was alleviated by Bush's tax cuts. Under Clinton the income gap INCREASED and it has admittedly stayed fairly stagnant under Bush. The reason is simple- If you look at the difference between what a typical H.S. grad earns and what a typical college grad earns , the college grad earns 70% more. Those with advanced degrees earn 100 % more than H.S. grads.
After the GI bill was passed this country saw an explosion of college grads and there were so many of them that the income gap between college and HS grads
was not very dramatic. As late as 1971 the typical college grad earned 30% more than a HS grad.
So proposed tax increases are really taxes on colege degrees.Btw, none of this comes from me. It comes from Obama's chief economic advisor.
As far as unemployment is concerned , it has been LOWER under Bush than under Clinton. It is in the interest of the entertainment biz ( including strippers) that we have LOW taxes which maintain high levels of disposable income. Btw, there are MORE people making MORE money under Bush than under Clinton- more people
making 6-figures ; more millionaires etc.etc. It is the Democrats who LOVE to tax luxuries. Remember what happened when they slapped a luxury tax on expensive yachts and expensive cars ? Both markets tanked.
Melonie
10-05-2007, 09:52 AM
However, ideally the middle class wouldn't be the one getting a significant tax raise.
Well then do NOT expect any serious increase in revenues. First of all there are not enough "rich" people and every point increase in the top marginal rate only generates about $6 billion in revenue. Any futzing with the Capital Gains rate will only serve to drive money off-shore.
Ideally, you might be correct re who bears the tax burden of social spending. But in the real world, the perception that the 'very rich' actually bear the greatest tax burden could best be termed the 'BIG LIE'. You don't often get proof of this, but one recent example was John Kerry's publicized tax return for the 2004 election. He wound up paying an effective federal income tax rate of 12% .... 12% !!! on a 5 million dollar declared US income. This is the same effective tax rate people earning $40-$50k a year must pay. The reason that his tax rate was only 12% was that a large portion of Kerry's income came from tax exempt muni bonds. Of course, other details such as invisible offshore income, dividend income from Heinz Corp being channeled into tax exempt 'trusts' etc. did not appear on the tax return.
In the REAL world, the portion of the population which winds up paying the highest percentage of their income toward taxes are 'upper middle class' people earning between $100k and $250k per year. These are also the people who have provided a LARGE portion of strip club revenues / dancer income in the past. The situation is even worse for people in this income range who are self-employed. I would also add that this income range typically includes full time dancers working in upscale clubs !!!
Eric Stoner
10-05-2007, 10:01 AM
Ideally, you might be correct re who bears the tax burden of social spending. But in the real world, the perception that the 'very rich' actually bear the greatest tax burden could best be termed the 'BIG LIE'. You don't often get proof of this, but one recent example was John Kerry's publicized tax return for the 2004 election. He wound up paying an effective federal income tax rate of 12% .... 12% !!! on a 5 million dollar declared US income. This is the same effective tax rate people earning $40-$50k a year must pay. The reason that his tax rate was only 12% was that a large portion of Kerry's income came from tax exempt muni bonds. Of course, other details such as invisible offshore income, dividend income from Heinz Corp being channeled into tax exempt 'trusts' etc. did not appear on the tax return.
In the REAL world, the portion of the population which winds up paying the highest percentage of their income toward taxes are 'upper middle class' people earning between $100k and $250k per year. These are also the people who have provided a LARGE portion of strip club revenues / dancer income in the past. The situation is even worse for people in this income range who are self-employed. I would also add that this income range typically includes full time dancers working in upscale clubs !!!
Rather than risk being boring or (GOD FORBID !) confuse anyone with facts I kept it short and just hit the highlights. BUT the top 1% of American earners still pay an overwhelming share of the taxes.
The minimal return on increasing the top marginal tax rate is compounded by
diminishing returns. In other words, the higher that rate is raised the lower the increased revenue until you reach a point where revenues actually DECLINE the higher the tax rate is raised. What HillBillary and the other Dems know is that to truly and seriously increase revenues they have to raise taxes on the much broader "middle class" = individuals and families earning over $80,000 per year and less than $250,000. With his tax increases in 1993 Clinton went further and effectively raised them on EVERYBODY . And retroactively too.
Melonie
10-05-2007, 10:07 AM
Rather than risk being boring or (GOD FORBID !) confuse anyone with facts I kept it short and just hit the highlights. BUT the top 1% of American earners still pay an overwhelming share of the taxes.
I never denied this to be the case in absolute dollar terms ... for example 12% of Kerry's 5 million income still constitutes $600,000 in tax revenue, whereas 28% of an 'upper middle class' American's $150k income only represents $42,000. However in terms of total revenue, there are 10,000 'upper middle class' people being taxed at 28% for every multimillionaire being taxed at 12%. Thus in terms of TAX BURDEN, a much heavier burden clearly falls on the persons with $150k income.
I would add that you can trace the 'high point' of Barack Obama's campaign to the date that this new bill was put forward with his name on it - which pissed off both senatorial colleagues and major campaign contributors !!!
Barack has been extremely open about all of this ... see . However, Barack does not seem to be able to connect the dots in regard to the real world effects that such a policy would have on the US economy !!!
... all of which pretty much confirms that the BIG LIE exists, and that multimillionaire senators and representatives have absolutely no intention of actually subjecting themselves and their associates to the 'tax increases on the rich' that are now being called for !!! As long as nothing actually gets done to close the loopholes available to the 'uber rich', tax increases will primarily fall on those 'upper middle class' Americans who lack the 100's of thousands of dollars to buy the best tax exempt muni bonds, to establish secret offshore accounts and then invest anonymously through hedge funds etc.
(snip)"The real “tax break” is the wink at offshore tax evasion.
Individuals make use of Private Banking – investment accounts set up offshore where they can hide the profits from home country tax authorities. The fact that they are offshore is often a ruse: they may be managed by computer from the bank that arranged the deal, in NY or London or Frankfurt. Banks make profits of over 20 percent on offshore accounts, twice as high as onshore.
Citibank in MadridA whistleblower from Citibank Spain gave me documents that showed Citibank there was handling accounts for rich clients, supposedly offshore, but running them from Madrid. Citibank was accounting for them in an inside double accounting system. Spanish law enforcement hasn’t gone after them for this. Is Citibank doing it elsewhere? Probably.
Secrecy havens according to Merrill Lynch & Gemini Consulting’s “World Wealth Report,” hold a third of the wealth of the world’s “high net-worth individuals.” Half is in deposits in tax haven banks and the rest is in securities held by shell companies and trusts.
Approximately $11.5 trillion of assets are held offshore by high net-worth individuals, or about a third of the total global GDP. The annual income that these assets might be expected to earn amounts to $860 billion annually. The tax not paid as a result of these funds being held offshore would exceed $255 billion a year.
Those unpaid taxes can buy a lot of politicians.
This is the dirty little secret of globalization: the end of controls on capital flows and the expansion of the tax haven system from 25 years ago to where it has more than doubled to about 70 tax havens."(snip) from
Of course most middle class Americans are too caught up in their own finances, and too trusting of mainstream media, to realize that congressional calls for tax increases will NOT mean an actual increase in tax collections from the 'very rich'. It WILL however mean a tax increase upon themselves !!!
~
Eric Stoner
10-05-2007, 11:06 AM
I never denied this to be the case in absolute dollar terms ... for example 12% of Kerry's 5 million income still constitutes $600,000 in tax revenue, whereas 28% of an 'upper middle class' American's $150k income only represents $42,000. However in terms of total revenue, there are 10,000 'upper middle class' people being taxed at 28% for every multimillionaire being taxed at 12%. Thus in terms of TAX BURDEN, a much heavier burden clearly falls on the persons with $150k income.
I would add that you can trace the 'high point' of Barack Obama's campaign to the date that this new bill was put forward with his name on it - which pissed off both senatorial colleagues and major campaign contributors !!!
http://www.senate.gov/~levin/newsroom/release.cfm?id=269516
Barack has been extremely open about all of this ... see http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/HQpress/Fact%20Sheet%20Tax%20Fairness%20Speech%20091707%20 FINAL%20IH.pdf . However, Barack does not seem to be able to connect the dots in regard to the real world effects that such a policy would have on the US economy !!!
... all of which pretty much confirms that the BIG LIE exists, and that multimillionaire senators and representatives have absolutely no intention of actually subjecting themselves and their associates to the 'tax increases on the rich' that are now being called for !!! As long as nothing actually gets done to close the loopholes available to the 'uber rich', tax increases will primarily fall on those 'upper middle class' Americans who lack the 100's of thousands of dollars to buy the best tax exempt muni bonds, to establish secret offshore accounts and then invest anonymously through hedge funds etc.
(snip)"The real “tax break” is the wink at offshore tax evasion.
Individuals make use of Private Banking – investment accounts set up offshore where they can hide the profits from home country tax authorities. The fact that they are offshore is often a ruse: they may be managed by computer from the bank that arranged the deal, in NY or London or Frankfurt. Banks make profits of over 20 percent on offshore accounts, twice as high as onshore.
Citibank in MadridA whistleblower from Citibank Spain gave me documents that showed Citibank there was handling accounts for rich clients, supposedly offshore, but running them from Madrid. Citibank was accounting for them in an inside double accounting system. Spanish law enforcement hasn’t gone after them for this. Is Citibank doing it elsewhere? Probably.
Secrecy havens according to Merrill Lynch & Gemini Consulting’s “World Wealth Report,” hold a third of the wealth of the world’s “high net-worth individuals.” Half is in deposits in tax haven banks and the rest is in securities held by shell companies and trusts.
Approximately $11.5 trillion of assets are held offshore by high net-worth individuals, or about a third of the total global GDP. The annual income that these assets might be expected to earn amounts to $860 billion annually. The tax not paid as a result of these funds being held offshore would exceed $255 billion a year.
Those unpaid taxes can buy a lot of politicians.
This is the dirty little secret of globalization: the end of controls on capital flows and the expansion of the tax haven system from 25 years ago to where it has more than doubled to about 70 tax havens."(snip) from http://thekomisarscoop.com/2007/06/09/closing-down-the-tax-haven-racket/
Of course most middle class Americans are too caught up in their own finances, and too trusting of mainstream media, to realize that congressional calls for tax increases will NOT mean an actual increase in tax collections from the 'very rich'. It WILL however mean a tax increase upon themselves !!!
~
All very true. I'll just add that the Big Hedge fund people are going large for HillBillary.
Melonie
10-05-2007, 04:52 PM
All very true. I'll just add that the Big Hedge fund people are going large for HillBillary.
that's no surprise whatsoever !
That fact also confirms the 'tin foil hat' crowd's postulations about the 53% majority the Democratic party is trying to put together. Close to 50% comes from 'poor' Americans whose earnings levels are low enough that they don't actually have to pay income taxes, but do make them eligible for a cornucopia of gov't ( = taxpayer) funded social welfare benefits. Another 1% comes from the 'uber-rich', who know that the lip service given to major tax increases will not actually apply to THEIR incomes thanks to gov't efforts to preserve / expand existing tax loopholes (most prominently Offshore Tax Havens). The balance is made up of politicians themselves, plus gov't employees and gov't contractors, plus investors in gov't subsidized industries who owe their jobs / profits to the patronage of those politicians.
This little self-perpetuating 'Democratic majority circle' of course gets funded by taxing the hell out of the voting minority i.e. working class and middle class Americans
josie
10-05-2007, 06:57 PM
Who do you think you're going to vote for for the coming election?
I'll vote Kucinich and Guiliani in the primaries...In the presidential election, I'll probably vote Green party.
SteelerFan
10-06-2007, 04:45 PM
Obama.
Obama? Jesus girl, didn't I talk you outta that? :P
Eric Stoner
10-08-2007, 08:39 AM
that's no surprise whatsoever !
That fact also confirms the 'tin foil hat' crowd's postulations about the 53% majority the Democratic party is trying to put together. Close to 50% comes from 'poor' Americans whose earnings levels are low enough that they don't actually have to pay income taxes, but do make them eligible for a cornucopia of gov't ( = taxpayer) funded social welfare benefits. Another 1% comes from the 'uber-rich', who know that the lip service given to major tax increases will not actually apply to THEIR incomes thanks to gov't efforts to preserve / expand existing tax loopholes (most prominently Offshore Tax Havens). The balance is made up of politicians themselves, plus gov't employees and gov't contractors, plus investors in gov't subsidized industries who owe their jobs / profits to the patronage of those politicians.
This little self-perpetuating 'Democratic majority circle' of course gets funded by taxing the hell out of the voting minority i.e. working class and middle class Americans
Which is why it never ceases to amaze me how and why the Republicans are
painted as "The Party of the Rich" while the Dems are "for the little guy".
Richard_Head
10-08-2007, 10:49 PM
No. My point being that when Republicans are in office, disposable income goes DOWN. We have recessions. We have higher unemployment rates. And the first thing to get cut of of a lot of peoples budgets is luxury items. Which as a stripper, I am.
So I would be happy to have an administration like Clintons back in office....so I can make more money. Because more people HAVE money to spend on me.If I have to pay more in taxes...so be it. Better then it is now when I frequently bust my ass for nothing. And at least those higher taxes wont be going to a war we never should have started.
Not that the money WONT be going into polititions pockets still.....I am a registered independant with very little faith in the political parties at ALL. But Republicans IMO are the worst.Touche, perhaps Stoner or Melonie can explain how come the income gap seems to be widening to record levels under GWB when these tax cuts to the wealthy are suppose to be benefiting everybody?? I realize that more than tax cuts are involved but it does play a part (along with many other misguided GOP economic policies).
Melonie
10-09-2007, 01:16 AM
Touche, perhaps Stoner or Melonie can explain how come the income gap seems to be widening to record levels under GWB when these tax cuts to the wealthy are suppose to be benefiting everybody?? I realize that more than tax cuts are involved but it does play a part
Arguably, where the 'very rich' are concerned, tax cuts to the wealthy don't amount to diddley squat in the real world. The very rich already had a fair share of their money shielded in offshore tax haven accounts and/or anonymous hedge funds and/or trusts and/or muni bonds when the tax rates were higher under Clinton ... if anything the GWB tax cuts convinced some of the very rich to bring a portion of that money back into the 'taxable' American economy.
But the real answer to your question can be summed up in one word - globalization ! Reduced to the lowest common denominator, the very rich get richer when their stocks and bonds go up in value ... and that happens when corporate profits go up ... and that happens when costs go down ... and that happens when those corporations scratch $50k-$100k a year American manufacturing and white collar jobs in favor of $5k-$20k a year Chinese / Indian manufacturing and white collar jobs. This is opposed to the 'middle class', who were directly affected when those $50k-$100k a year American jobs were outsourced !
There are other aspects as well which aren't publicized much but which result from past gov't policy. First, consider the US oil industry being limited in regard to offshore drilling and drilling prohibitions in the ANWR etc. On the surface this doesn't hit you over the head in regard to economic consequences. However, what it means is that tens of billions of dollars worth of investment in oil rigs, and tens of billions of dollars worth of payrolls i.e. high paying oil field jobs which would have gone to 'middle class' workers did not happen in the US. Instead whatever amount of oil that was NOT produced from US offshore wells and the ANWR was purchased from the middle east instead. Those billions of petrodollars then wind up coming back to the USA (in part at least) in the form of investments. And who benefits from those petrodollar investments ? The stockbrokers and lawyers and arbitrageurs and stockholders of Goldman Sachs / Citi / Bear Stearns etc ... all of which clearly fall into the category of 'very rich' (many on the basis of last year's Christmas Bonus alone !).
I'm certainly not trying to defend GWB here, but if you look at the details and think about the non-obvious a little bit it's pretty easy to see that the Democrats are just as supportive of the 'very rich' via certain industries ... they just happen to favor different industries ! Again, any policies that encourage a reduction in US industrial activity tend to hurt the 'middle class', whereas the 'very rich' are not hurt and may actually benefit hugely via an increase in global profits.
DJ Maimed
10-09-2007, 01:26 AM
While Luxemburg seems the obvious choice I have to admit that I'm leaning towards Costa Rica, Belize, or Panama. America is gone and so shall I be very soon...
flickad
10-09-2007, 01:28 AM
Got an election coming up here soon too (it hasn't yet been called, but it will soon have to be). I'll most likely vote Labor, though I may make my primary vote Greens and preference Labor. I haven't made my final decision yet.
Melonie
10-09-2007, 05:16 AM
While Luxemburg seems the obvious choice I have to admit that I'm leaning towards Costa Rica, Belize, or Panama. America is gone and so shall I be very soon...
after today's free trade agreement announcement, it looks like Costa Rica is going to be a shoo-in. I can see a whole lot of outsourced US industry now looking to Costa Rica as an alternative to China / Vietnam for a low cost producer country. After all, they're only 3 days away by ship through US gulf ports (versus 45 days from China through a west coast port), so they can make up for some degree of higher unskilled labor costs via a huge reduction in inventory and shipping costs. The Costa Rican gov't is also much more 'pressurable' by the US gov't than China's gov't if local leadership ever gets ideas about nationalization / taxation / environmental compliance etc. Thus I can see a growing Anglo population segment made up of Gringo plant managers / technicians etc. in Costa Rica.
Eric Stoner
10-09-2007, 10:09 AM
Touche, perhaps Stoner or Melonie can explain how come the income gap seems to be widening to record levels under GWB when these tax cuts to the wealthy are suppose to be benefiting everybody?? I realize that more than tax cuts are involved but it does play a part (along with many other misguided GOP economic policies).
Richard. I wonder if any serious response is wasted on you but I'll have a go.
Did you complain about the widening income gap under Clinton ? the rich certainly got a lot richer during his eight years while the middle class stayed middling.
Low inflation coupled with low oil prices ( neither of which Clinton had anything to do with ) cushioned the blow.
The top 1 % of taxpayers is paying a higher percentage of taxes now under
Bush than they did under Clinton. Total tax revenue has dramatically increased
under Bush's cuts as they did under Reagan's and JFK's. The deficits are declining and if current trends continue the budget is headed for eventual surpluses.
The biggest reason for the income gap is not globalization so much as it is the premium our economy places on education. The lesson of today's economy is
"STAY IN SCHOOL" as college grads earn far more than high school grads and both are out-earned by those with advanced degrees.
Aside from class envy what is YOUR problem with tax cuts Richard ? They have been proven to work EVERY time and EVERYWHERE they have been tried. I know that you THINK they are only a short term fix but you ignore the propensity of Congress to overspend and the unwillingness of the Fed to control the money supply except by manipulating interest rates. Tax cuts have given us two of the longest periods of economic growth in our, and in fact world, economic history.