Another myth "busted"

FredHayek wrote:
Agree. It has made my financial planning more wild assed guesses than usual.

There is really no need anymore for personal financial planning. The future is inflation, devaluation, low interest rates, and means testing. Just spend it all now and let the Gubment take care of you later. Just keep some gold coins in a safe place just in case.

[youtube:15akav5q][/youtube:15akav5q]



And Obama is STILL going to win...

Sux to be you, don't it?

Sorry if this was covered before, I don't always catch every thread every day....I just came across it last night and found it a well written study. I do agree with those here who point to uncertainty in the tax code and possible changes that are proposed by individual candidates as causing both confusion and uncertainty on both citizens and corporations. How can anyone plan for the future if that future changes every two years? I still favor a complete overhaul of the tax code that both simplifies it and makes it more equitable . I've wanted that for a long time and no president or Congress has ever tried. I would be happy if that was all an administration and Congress accomplished in their term.

archer wrote: I still favor a complete overhaul of the tax code that both simplifies it and makes it more equitable. I've wanted that for a long time and no president or Congress has ever tried. I would be happy if that was all an administration and Congress accomplished in their term.

:thumbsup:
But the problem is what is more "equitable"? (and don't overhaul start a fresh.) Those in REAL proverty, should not pay, what's the cut off? Big issue today it's *"2012 was set at $23,050 (total yearly income) for a family of four."
I think they should at least look at a flat tax, on a postcard, period.
Enter Total Income, Enter flat tax rate, subtract from total Income, STAMP & mail in with check, or money order. (for example, 24,000, tax 10%, = 2,400 or 1,000,000, tax 10% = 100,000) just used 10%, (as a number), fair, equal & balanced, I know some will say, the bigger IMPACT is on the 24k, compaired to the IMPACT on the 1 million. NOT the point, it's fair, and don't we want everybody to pay their fair share?
IMHO, that will NEVER happen, because the career politicians, don't want to lose THEIR exemptions.
Which brings U.S. back to term-limits, does it not?

(*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

archer wrote: History also tells us that if we lower the taxes on the wealthier Americans it will do nothing to spur the economy, but will most definitely lower revenue.

History tells quite a different story. After the tax rates on income were reduced across the board in 2003 (not just for the rich like some would like to lead you to believe), tax revenues, both in raw dollars and expressed as a percentage of GDP, went up, not down. From 2000-2003 the tax revenue, expressed as a percentage of GDP, had fallen each and every year. By the year 2007, tax revenue expressed as a percentage of GDP had recovered from a low of 15.86% in 2004 to 18.31%. Not only that, the GDP had increased from $11.153 Trillion in 2003 to $14.029 Trillion in 2007, an increase of nearly 26% over a 5 year span. How can you sit there and say economic growth of 26% over the 5 year span covered by the tax rate cuts wasn't a spur to the economy and a tax revenue growth from 15.86% of GDP to 18.31% of GDP was a lower tax revenue? Is this the new math that our kids are being taught in school? No wonder we finish so low when compared to the rest of the globe.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: History also tells us that if we lower the taxes on the wealthier Americans it will do nothing to spur the economy, but will most definitely lower revenue.

History tells quite a different story. After the tax rates on income were reduced across the board in 2003 (not just for the rich like some would like to lead you to believe), tax revenues, both in raw dollars and expressed as a percentage of GDP, went up, not down. From 2000-2003 the tax revenue, expressed as a percentage of GDP, had fallen each and every year. By the year 2007, tax revenue expressed as a percentage of GDP had recovered from a low of 15.86% in 2004 to 18.31%. Not only that, the GDP had increased from $11.153 Trillion in 2003 to $14.029 Trillion in 2007, an increase of nearly 26% over a 5 year span. How can you sit there and say economic growth of 26% over the 5 year span covered by the tax rate cuts wasn't a spur to the economy and a tax revenue growth from 15.86% of GDP to 18.31% of GDP was a lower tax revenue? Is this the new math that our kids are being taught in school? No wonder we finish so low when compared to the rest of the globe.

I'm well aware that you live in a different reality/alternative universe than we do, It's no surprise that history tells you something different. I don't profess to be an economic expert, but there is so much info out there, so many studies that prove you wrong....it's hard for me to believe PrintSmith is right and all the others are wrong, the experts are wrong, the studies are fiction, history is wrong.

:Off Topic
I understand what you're saying, BUT "experts, studies, & history", are only as good as the person(s) that write them.....
YES, Generalizing.

Just say'in...

Example: for years dinosaurs came from reptiles, now it's been decided that they come from birds!
IMO, they don't look like birds......

http://images.fanpop.com/images/image_uploads/Dinosaurs-dinosaurs-118240_445_654.jpg?1348687493052

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

Your misunderstanding of natural history appears to parallel some conservatives' misunderstandings of tax history.

plaidvillain wrote: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

Your misunderstanding of natural history appears to parallel some conservative's misunderstandings of tax history.

And science...and climate change...and....

Funny thing about the difference between science and dogma... When SCIENCE encounters new information, it seeks to find scientific, peer-reviewed & repeatable truths that take the new discoveries into account and enhance the definitions... When dogma runs into new information, the response is: "God said it; I believe it; and that settles it."..."And the Earth is STILL flat...and only 6,000 years old...."

You can lead a conservative to water, but you can't make him drink it--or keep it clean.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

"Through the first half of the 20th century, before birds were recognized to be dinosaurs, most of the scientific community believed dinosaurs to be sluggish and cold-blooded. Most research conducted since the 1970s, however, has indicated that ancient dinosaurs, particularly the carnivorous groups, were active animals with elevated metabolisms and numerous adaptations for social interaction."

I was out of school in 1974, so I was taught that they were reptiles.
But you missed the point of course,
"I understand what you're saying, BUT "experts, studies, & history", are only as good as the person(s) that write them.....
YES, Generalizing.
Just say'in..."

Try again, How about I grew up KNOWing/been taught that Pluto was a planet, now it's NOT.
"The Nine Planets, a multimedia tour of the Solar System by Bill Arnett, was one of the first examples of multimedia websites. It first appeared on the World Wide Web in 1994 and, as was common for high traffic websites at the time, was widely mirrored. It contains encyclopedic information about the Solar System with a page for each of the major bodies illustrated with photographs, mostly from NASA. The nine planets are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.
After the new classification of Pluto as a dwarf planet in 2006, the website has written the title as "The Nine 8 Planets".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Planets