PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Tax Debates
     Corporate Dividends
       another tax break for the rich...

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

just the other day, bush announced that he will eliminate the tax on corporate dividends to stockholders as part of his economic plan. analysts predict that this will cost up to 600 billion dollars over the next ten years. what do you think about this?


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:16 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bush will put forth the argument that dividends are taxed twice so the tax should be cut.  And that it will give money to corportations to invest  so more jobs will be created.

Both are baloney.  Big deal, dividends are taxed twice.  Wages are taxed once as payroll tax, second as income tax,and third as sales tax when spent.  So I'm not too worried about that second tax on dividends since Bush is not too worried about payroll, sales and income tax on wages.

Cuts in business taxes that go along with deficits have no net impact, since whatever businesses obtain to invest is sucked out of capital markets by high Federal government borrowing.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 02:56 AM on January 7, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Bushies are now claiming "93 million American will receive an average tax cut of $1,083."

That is what the experts call statistical misrepresentation, or to use the technical term for it, "lying."

The weasel word is "average".

Imagine yourself a janitor in an office building downtown making, oh lets be generous and call it $12,000 a year.  And lets say the guy in the penthouse suite you clean is the as-yet-unindicted CEO of a major corpporation with a compensation package bigger than the GNP of Canada.

Now suppose the compassionate Mr. Bush decides to give you a $100 tax cut and Mr. CEO a $1 million tax cut.  Guess what Mr. Janitor, you just got an "Average" tax cut of $500,050.  Aren't you lucky.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:05 AM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Around 50% of dividends are paid out to senior citizens.

Around 33% of American households own stock. Many stocks plan to offer dividends if the tax is eliminated. Many people will gain.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 07:44 AM on January 8, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

broker, did you not read what the last guest just posted? the janitor gets 100 dollars and the CEO gets one million


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 3:02 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, the top 10 percent pay around 70 percent of taxes, the top 50 percent pay 94 percent. The more tax you pay the more I'd think you'd get back if taxes are cut.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 5:35 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The top 10% makes 60% of the money, the top 20% 92% of the money. It makes sense.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 5:56 PM on January 8, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know how you meant that...


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 8:06 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The very rich pay a disproportianate amount in taxes b/c they make a disproportianate amount of the money.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 11:05 PM on January 9, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The trickle-down theory of economics that Reagan introduced to America has been born again in the Bush plan, much to the detriment of the poor and middle classes of society.

These days the term trickle-down is never used.  Even conservatives realize that the term is a laughable joke.  This theory was that if you reduce the tax burden on the wealthiest individuals and corporations, they would invest in the stock market and into their businesses and as a result more jobs would be created, thus spurring the economy and increasing the lot of those at the bottom end of the economic scale as the effects of the tax cut eventually trickled down to them.

As even those who didn't get farther than Economics 101 know, the driving force of any economy is the ability of consumers to purchase goods and services from the corporations who produce them.  In a flat economy, as we have been in for some time now, the problem is not the lack of goods and services, but the lack of consumers to purchase them.

We've witnessed time and time again that by reducing taxes for the wealthy, the only benefits are to the wealthy in the form of more expensive goodies acquired by them.  Why would they, or anyone in their right mind, invest in a business in which the customer base has not increased, or will not increase in the foreseeable future?

In a robust economy there would be incentive to invest in such companies, because if the demand is there, growing the company would produce more wealth for investors.  We are definitely not in that kind of economy, so the package of giveaways Bush is proposing is insane.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:39 AM on January 16, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Bush is proposing this tax cut on the wealthy solely because he knows that he is now guaranteed to get the business vote. It's all about votes and big business loves tax cuts on the wealthy, so he is guaranteed to get their vote in 2004.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:29 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

interestingly enough, that plan might backfire. The cuts bush proposed are quite different than the ones business wanted. Big business currently is quite unhappy with him.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 9:28 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

what did they want? business is never happy. those greedy bastards.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 10:06 PM on January 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Microsoft announced its first ever dividend of 16 cents per share and a 2-for-1 stock split.

For Bill Gates, who personally owns 611,749,300 shares, this will give him a dividend of $97.9 million.

Normally, this would be taxed at a 38.6% rate, but with Bush's new tax plan, Gates will save and the Treasury will lose $37.8 million.

A $38 million tax cut for the richest man on earth, while almost half of all tax filers would receive less than $100 in benefits.  

That sure sounds like a fair plan to me.  You're right falling, they are greedy bastards.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 12:45 AM on January 17, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Microsoft might not even have issued a dividend had the dividend tax not been cut. Now what about the other 90% of Microsoft stock? People will still benefit. They'll have money that they wouldn't have had.

Maybe Gates will spend that money. Remember, almost everything he has is in stock.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 7:02 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

yeah, ur right guest. bill gates does need more money


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 7:59 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He doesn'tn have much on hand. How do you KNOW he won't spend it...
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 9:19 PM on January 19, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

poor poor bill gates. he doesnt have much money on hand...for some odd reason though, i just cannot feel sorry for him.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 12:21 AM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

He has it all inn stock! It's not about feeling sorry for him, it's about giving him some money he can spend!


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 12:57 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

HOLY CRAP, bill gates does not need more money. let me repeat myself: BILL GATES DOES NOT NEED MORE MONEY. the man is the freakin richest guy on the planet, yet all you conservatives in here think he needs more. meanwhile, you are totally ignoring the people who REALLY need it.


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 1:06 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

BILL GATES HAS ALL OF HIS MONEY IN STOCK. Will capital letters reach your brain? He doesn't like to sell stock. This 100 million won't be in stock. I bet he will spend it.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 1:18 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
dsadevil

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

On what? What could bill gates possibly spend $100 mil on? Oh, I've got it! Imported luxury goods! Good thing we are propping up at least Italy's luxury car segment of the economy! Thank God! I sincerely doubt that Bill Gates has absolutely no money in hard assets. He doesn't seem to be missing any pocket change to me.


-------
"If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?" -Will Rodgers<br><br><br>"Neither man nor nation can prosper unless in looking at the present, thought is steadily taken for the future." -T. Roosevelt<br><br>"Might I remind you that extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice, is no virtue." -Barry Goldwater<br><br>

Respect through Excellence only
 


Posts: 789 | Posted: 5:32 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
fallingupwards84

|       |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

call me crazy, but i just cannot feel sorry for bill gates. he's got it pretty made


-------
i am a liberal chrisitian and proud of it!!!

"Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most - that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least." - Eugene Debs
 


Posts: 971 | Posted: 9:28 PM on January 20, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 12:16 AM on January 7, 2003 :
just the other day, bush announced that he will eliminate the tax on corporate dividends to stockholders as part of his economic plan. analysts predict that this will cost up to 600 billion dollars over the next ten years. what do you think about this?



I think it is a farce.  Did anyone make any taxable income from the stockmarket last year?  You were lucky if you broke even.  Tax break?  Hardly.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 2:48 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 1:06 PM on January 20, 2003 :
HOLY CRAP, bill gates does not need more money. let me repeat myself: BILL GATES DOES NOT NEED MORE MONEY. the man is the freakin richest guy on the planet, yet all you conservatives in here think he needs more. meanwhile, you are totally ignoring the people who REALLY need it.



I have no problem with wealthy CEOs.  These are very highly skilled people who can mobilize, manage resources, and people to produce a profit.  Bill Gates money is not cash.  It is in the form of "property".  It is everything he needs to run a business: buildings, trucks, stationary, office furniture, etc.  Plus his personal possesions and STOCK!

Do you propose that we break up Bill Gates Billions and evenly share it?  If you were to break up MicroSoft and split it with all his employees, the smallers parts of what you break up will never be as productive as the orginal business.  Again Bill Gates is the only one qualified to be able to manage such a large business.  That is why he is valuable.

100 million to Bill Gates is hardly a tax break.  He has to sell his stock to really have the cash on hand.  Selling stock is selling away control of the company he built.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:17 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
kelvin90703

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from fallingupwards84 at 10:06 PM on January 16, 2003 :
what did they want? business is never happy. those greedy bastards.


Bill Gates works a gazillion hours a week.  If he were to sell out he could not spend the interest on his money fast enough.  Does this sound like simple greed to you?  Bill Gates is not motivated by money.  His motivation is to brutally crush any competition to Microsoft.  This man lives by a different scoreboard.  Typicall of very wealthy CEOs, they live to be the champs in the game they are playing.

Give a $100 dollars to Bill Gates and he will give me back a nice profit.  Give $100 to a gas station attendant, do you think he can turn around and give you the same rate of return.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 3:30 PM on January 21, 2003 | IP
Broker

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And Microsoft probably would not have issued that dividend had the tax not been cut. Many families own that stock.


-------
Don't tell me I'm conservative...I know that!
 


Posts: 351 | Posted: 08:21 AM on January 22, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is just a myth that the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes.  Here is the most recent study from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

The Consumer Expenditure Survey, prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, offers a window onto the tax burdens of families at different incomes. The total burden from nearly all forms of taxation — income, sales, property and excise taxes, and the Social Security payroll tax — was strikingly similar across the entire spectrum of incomes in 2001.  For individuals and families in the lowest fifth, with an average income of $7,946 (including just $25 in dividends), the cumulative tax rate was 18 percent. For the top fifth, with an average income of $116,666 (including $1,188 in dividends), the rate was 19 percent.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:37 AM on January 23, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another myth is that Republicans are better for the stock market than Democrats.

Democrats, it turns out, are much better for the stock market than Republicans. Slate ran the numbers and found that since 1900, Democratic presidents have produced a 12.3 percent annual total return on the S&P 500, but Republicans only an 8 percent return. In 2000, the Stock Trader's Almanac, which slices and dices Wall Street performance figures like baseball stats, came up with nearly the same numbers (13.4 percent versus 8.1 percent) by measuring Dow price appreciation.  

Most of the 20th century's bear markets, incidentally, have been Republican bear markets: the Crash of '29, the early '70s oil shock, the '87 correction, and the current stall occurred under GOP presidents.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 04:35 AM on January 25, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Great quote:

"Republicans seem to think there is an inspiring quality in giving more money to
the top one percent. When I read this, I am reminded of the 'Horse and Sparrow'
theory of economics--that if you feed enough oats to the horse, some will pass
through to feed the sparrows." - James K. Galbraith

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 07:23 AM on January 28, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Here is the idiocy of the night from Bush's State of the Union address:


"I will send you a budget that will increase discretionary spending by only 4% next year, about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow. And that is a good benchmark for us, since federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of the American families."

Aside from the stupidity and heartlessness of cutting spending in a recession, when the need for government help expands precisely because family incomes are dropping, the basic statement is economically illiterate.

IF the population stayed the same year to year, benchmarking government spending to family income might make sense. But if the population is expanding, the demand for services, the number of children in schools, the number of police needed, and so on-- will automatically expand even if income stays the same. And with more people working (okay, well not under Bush, but under any competent President), tax revenue should automatically increase with a greater population.

Just to deliver the same service on a per capita basis, government spending has to increase at the same rate of inflation PLUS growth in the population.

Anything else is a cut in services.

Which is what Bush is proposing in the middle of a recession.

This is the most anti-human, economically suicidal economics possible.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 05:36 AM on January 30, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

test
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:25 AM on January 31, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i'm new to the forum but found the discussion interesting. i maybe way off base with some of my opinions so go easy on me.

If the double tax remains it discourages people from taking a dividend. which in turn allows that corporation to reinvest that money back into the company whether it be better equipment, products or services. In doing this hopefully that company grows and grows. Also with the double tax people will still buy tax exempt bonds from the state and local government for a 6% return versus taking that dividend with a 9% return but with about 40% taxation. So if we were to eliminate this tax this would probably in turn hurt city projects b/c why buy a bond with a 6% return when u can can get a dividend with a 9% return untaxed.  Eliminating the tax will make company executives more accountable b/c those expecting dividends will be looking for a high rate of return as possible since there is no tax, versus just letting the company keep there money to reinvest back into the company.

i could be way off base with this, but that's just my opinion, right or wrong.
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:56 AM on January 31, 2003 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.