









no, but I'm close enough to get whacked if Joe Biden's number or Bill Richardson's number is the one actually adopted by Barack Obama for his income tax increase. In other words, under existing federal, state and local tax rates, I'm already paying an actual effective tax rate approaching 40% of my income. By relocating myself and my 'portable' investments offshore right now, I could cut my actual effective US tax rate down to the 15% ballpark on my remaining (non-portable) US income sources i.e. a de-facto 25% increase in 'take home' earnings without actually having to earn one additional dollar (actually Euro or Swiss Frank or Chinese Yuan). That 25% differential will only increase as Obama's tax increases are put into effect in the near future.Are you over $250/year???
Of course I could also shave 10%+ off of my actual effective tax rate by staying in America and simply moving from New York to Texas or Florida ... but I don't like the heat or the hurricanes ! If I have to put up with heat and hurricanes, it might as well be from somewhere that allows for much greater tax savings LOL !
A RINO thinks instituting a new social welfare program (i.e. prescription drugs for Seniors) is a 'good idea' ... a republican does not. A RINO thinks that acceeding to Democratic political policies in the interest of 'bipartisan co-operation' (i.e. Teddy Kennedy authored Education Bill) is a good idea ... a republican does not. A RINO thinks that expanded government regulation is a good idea ... a republican does not.with the difference being????
Last edited by Melonie; 11-09-2008 at 06:41 PM.





That's hilarious, you're moving to a third world country because the right wing nut jobs have you have convinced that you're in for a tax hike. At least you'll have universal health care in Costa Rica. Too bad about the crime though (you can't bring your guns either). I'm sure you'll be very happy there.
RINO, republican, it's all the same, none of them match the rhetoric.



...and now they are considering giving even more to AIG as well?
Melonie is not the only person I "know" who is considering living out of the country for at least 4 years...
Nice little place like Nevis maybe?









^^^ Well I doubt it will be Costa Rica either. Costa Rica ,Honduras and Panama all have enclaves of US citizens. What makes them attractive is the cost of living, they're not any sort of tax haven. People with high net worth are not going to be willing to give up the conveniences of this country to save 25% of their tax burden even if capital gains tax were to double, because for them the real wealth is in the assets not the gains.
Costa Rica treats every dollar you earn as income and they're highest bracket of 25% kicks in at under $25,000 a year.

I for one really don't like these bailouts much.
The artist formerly known as your mom





you'll have to ask Rahm Emanuel LOL !!! In other words, the only time that Democrats have ever seemed interested in bipartisanship is when a republican filibuster was endangering the passage of democrat backed legislation. RINO's volunteer for bipartisanship because many of their core principles 'cross the aisle'.So, as far as you're concerned, Democrats like Obama should make bipartisan efforts, but the Republicans have a duty not to?
I can understand why. By some analysis, to date these bailout measures have cost you and myself and every American taxpayer $17,000 each in additional future tax liability !I for one really don't like these bailouts much





where any political party is involved, I do not consider the immediate and voluntary compromise of fundamental party principles to be a 'good' thing.
The bailouts are a bad idea for a host of reasons. Mostly because they reward failure. The solution for the auto companies and everyone else seeking a bailout is BANKRUPTCY which is NOT the same as dissolution although that can be one outcome of a bankruptcy.
RICHARD- The auto-makers were in deep do do well BEFORE the oil shock and credit crisis. Their problems had a lot more to do with their unions and DEMOCRAT policies than Republican ones. Toyota and Honda and their workers are all doing well in Right to Work states. The Big 3 are concentrated in Michigan, Ohio and Illinois which have all been dominated by the Dems.
In fairness, we ought to throw in a lot of poor management decisions e.g. emphasizing SUV's over more fuel efficient models.
Last edited by Eric Stoner; 11-10-2008 at 02:07 PM.





^^^ yes, but in the Democratic lexicon, allowing GWB's tax cuts to expire thus increasing taxes on people earning as little as $42k a year does not count as a 'tax increase' ... since it doesn't require new legislation on the part of the democratic congress to make it happen. However, for most registered voters, I suspect that having to pay more taxes on a $42k+ income in 2010 is going to be PERCEIVED as a tax increase nonetheless !
for the record, this is true ... but the tax only applies to income actually earned in Costa Rica. If that income is earned in a different country (i.e. interest payments on German bonds or dividend payments on Canadian stocks) Costa Rica does NOT levee any sort of tax on those 'foreign' earnings.Costa Rica treats every dollar you earn as income and they're highest bracket of 25% kicks in at under $25,000 a year
Circling back on topic, today Circuit City announced they have filed for bankruptcy. Where was the 'bailout team' to help them avoid bankruptcy ?





Why are you directing this to me? I think that your point below has more to do with their problems than unions.
Do ya think?
Everybody? If you take Obama at his word it won't be anywhere near EVERYBODY and I'm willing to take him at his word until he gives me reason not to.
Where are you getting this figure from?
Now you're a proponent of bailouts?








Here ya go:http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/L...a/Living-There
If your an out of country property owner, only in country earnings are taxed, ie rental income.





Circling back on topic, today Circuit City announced they have filed for bankruptcy. Where was the 'bailout team' to help them avoid bankruptcy ?
Now you're a proponent of bailouts?
No I am an opponent of 'selective' bailouts ... i.e. gov't officials choosing to allocate US taxpayer's money to aid certain companies, while choosing to allow other companies to go bankrupt. The official explanation for 'selective' bailouts of course is that, if certain companies were NOT bailed out, their bankruptcy / failure would cause irreparable damage to 'the system'. In the case of GM, I can only assume that 'the system' being protected is one in which employees are overpaid in order to make (involuntary) contributions to certain politicians !
(snip)"Obama has been far more receptive than Bush to having the government intervene to rescue another major sector of the economy. He called automakers "the backbone of American manufacturing" in his first post-election press conference last Friday, and many thousands of their employees belong to unions that are part of the Democratic Party's base.
But Obama's stance raises the question, with the country in a worsening economic situation, where would the Democrat draw the line as president?
Bush has drawn his line at the automakers' doors, having already been forced to shelve the free-market principles of his Republican Party to bail out the financial industry over the past two months. But Republicans say he would acquiesce in aid to automakers in return for Congress's ratification of the Colombia pact and pending trade agreements with Panama and South Korea.
The outgoing and incoming presidents met at the White House in private, without staff.
The Democratic leaders in Congress, the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, have declined to call a lame-duck session for next week, as they had hoped, without assurance that Bush would support a stimulus package.
Obama has called on the Bush administration to accelerate $25 billion in federal loans provided by a recent law specifically to help automakers retool. Late in his campaign, Obama proposed doubling that to $50 billion. But industry supporters say the automakers, squeezed both by the unavailability of credit and depressed sales, need unrestricted cash now, simply to meet payroll and other expenses.
On Friday, Obama said he would instruct his economic team, once he chooses it, to devise a long-range plan for helping the auto industry recover in a way that is part of an energy and environmental policy to reduce reliance on foreign oil and address climate change."(snip)
(snip)"For Bush, however, the hard-line approach is his only leverage to make the trade agreements part of his legacy. The Colombia deal, especially, is strongly opposed by organized labor groups, which are a major force in the Democratic Party, and by human-rights activists.
In the Senate and during his nomination race against Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, Obama opposed the pacts and especially the Colombia agreement, given that country's reported human rights abuses against unionists. He insists he favors free trade, but only if trading partners agree to protections for their workers and the environment — reflecting the standard Democratic Party line since President Bill Clinton's administration.
On his campaign Web site, Obama said he would oppose the Colombia pact "if President George W. Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements."
Organized labor is not the only interest group with influence in the Democratic Party that is weighing in as Obama plans his transition. Environmentalists are adamant that any aid be conditioned on the auto industry's dropping of its opposition to higher fuel-efficiency standards and investing more in new technology. That puts them at odds with unions, who oppose any strings, leaving it to Obama to mediate.
Both as a candidate and now as president-elect, Obama has been in contact with former Vice President Al Gore, who last year won the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on climate change. In a column published in Sunday's New York Times, Gore wrote that "we should help America's automobile industry (not only the Big Three but the innovative new start-up companies as well) to convert quickly to plug-in hybrids that can run on the renewable electricity that will be available."(snip)
It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand where Democrats stand in regard to bailing out GM (and why) ... nor does it take a crystal ball to figure out the probable results for US auto buyers 3-4 years down the road. If I were working for an imported car assembly plant or dealership right now I would be more than a bit worried !!!
~
Last edited by Melonie; 11-11-2008 at 04:51 AM.
I thought you were trying to blame the automakers approaching bankruptcies on Republican policies.
Roger Smith ( the "hero" of Michael Moore's "ROGER AND ME " ) was a total and complete asshole. He was probably the worst CEO General Motors ever had. A lot of GM's current problems can be laid at Smith's feet.
American cars are just as well made and in many cases BETTER made than foreign models. But they are usually more expensive to buy and to operate. The hardest fighter against enhanced Federal Fuel economy and auto safety standards has been Congressman Dingell. A DEMOCRAT.
GM and Ford were bleeding billions BEFORE their sales fell off a cliff primarily because of enormous health care costs and state taxes. States run by DEMOCRATS.
Using the word "everybody" was hyperbolic on my part. Melonie's figure of everyone making more than $42,000 a year is probably closer to the truth.
Actually, the prospects of a genuine middle class tax cut and possible repeal or cut back in the AMT are looking rather good. The remaining Republicans in the Congress are likely to get on board BUT it depends on Pelosi and Reid. Obama I have some confidence in but those two nit-wits can't be trusted afaic.
The Libertarian party is where it's at, Narcissus. Libertarianism is all about the advocation of maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. Socially tolerant and fiscally conservative, the Libertarian movement is pro-choice...on everything.
"When the government has a knife at your throat and a hand on your wallet, it matters not whether it is the left hand or the right hand."![]()




^
Actually, Libertarian Ron Paul is not pro-choice with respect to the abortion issue, though he does advocate leaving it to the states.
Good piece in today's New York Times laying out the pros and cons of Chapter 11 for GM.
Pros- Would permit a thorough top to bottom restructuring.
Would avoid throwing good money after bad and GM continually begging for further government funds.
GM would be able to tear up its union contracts.
Taxpayers would NOT be on the hook.
Cons- The ''stigma" of Bankruptcy. ( As opposed to its current sterling reputation ?)
The shareholders would get wiped out. ( Aren't they already ? )
The UAW would suffer massive lay-offs. ( That's going to happen regardless. Somebody should tell them.)
Bookmarks