How's the shrubbery? (An assessment of Bush)

"There is a conflict between economics and political correctness."

The old cat is out of the bag now. :eek:

John...who didn't know there were any rich folks in his family until recently

P.S. - Anybody here an expert on Delaware Trusts or know one? I have a few questions about the wording in one relating to my mother's care (if and when she needs it, etc.) I know I can ask Wilmington Trust, but I'm looking for a referral for a third opinion.
 
Back on the assessment of Bush:

Sadam is in jail.
Uday is dead.
Kusay is dead.
Qadaffy is cooperative.
King Abdullah II is favorable to converting to a constitutional monarchy.
Arafat is dead and the recent Palestinian ELECTIONS opted for a peacemaker.
Egypt is having elections.
Saudi Arabia is having elections.
Afghanistan is having school and elections again.
Lebanon is demanding elections and an invasion by US forces.

Syria is nervous.
Iran is nervous.

Sounds like Bush hasn't accomplished much in his second term. I bet Bill Clinton could have done all of that even better if he could have only had more time. :rolleyes:
 
Rich
That's an archaic argument. To a very great extent these days, manufacturing money for consumer goods goes overseas. Only domestic distribution and retailing makes any money as part of the economy
Click to expand...

My statement is based on principle. If such a viewpoint is considered archaic based on the current state of affairs as being irreversible, it follows that every such major aberration introduced by certain political elements into this country are going to dominate our path regardless of the consequences, and this will carry over into some key political and ideological areas.

The fact that our manufacturing base is being exported and it's effect on this is another issue, and it goes back to my point on this or another thread to the effect that these issues can not be objectively addressed separately (globalization, taxation, etc) when discussing actual solutions.

Were revenue derived from things like tariffs though, the wealthy would be paying equally on the competing foreign goods they purchased like everyone else.
 
My statement is based on principle. If such a viewpoint is considered archaic based on the current state of affairs as being irreversible, it follows that every such major aberration introduced by certain political elements into this country are going to dominate our path regardless of the consequences, and this will carry over into some key political and ideological areas.
Click to expand...

To the extent that I understand this vague statement, change happens, and old saws no longer apply.

The fact that our manufacturing base is being exported and it's effect on this is another issue, and it goes back to my point on this or another thread to the effect that these issues can not be objectively addressed separately (globalization, taxation, etc) when discussing actual solutions.
Click to expand...

Solutions need to be based on contemporary reality.

Were revenue derived from things like tariffs though, the wealthy would be paying equally on the competing foreign goods they purchased like everyone else.
Click to expand...

We can create whatever hypothetical supports our point.
 
My assessment of the shrubbery:

If I had had any reason to believe he would behave the way he has regarding Socialist Security, I would have swallowed my many other differences with the man and voted for him. It's the mega-scam that funds all the other, lesser scams.

Loaning your money to politicians to spend is a really, really dumb retirement plan, which is why allowing the option of some private investment is called "privatizing" by both sides. Everyone knows that rational people will choose it, almost every time. There's no thought given to the idea that because it's optional, there will be a flood of people who prefer to remain in the current system, loaning their retirement savings out to politicians with only flimsy, ever-changing "promises" in return.
 
real gun
To the extent that I understand this vague statement, change happens, and old saws no longer apply
Click to expand...

Enjoy paying your U.N. taxes when they are introduced. After you have been paying them for a few years, and the matter is discussed - dig up your statement here and remind yourself that "change happens". At the suggestion we "lose the U.N. and cease being liable for such an abomination" - remind yourself "old saws no longer apply".

You can apply this principle to any subject matter that might progress on the current course. Be it the private ownership of fireams, taxation or anything else.

Solutions need to be based on contemporary reality
Click to expand...

I see; and just who has defined "contemporary reality" in this context? If the "contemporary reality" comes down to say a 5% tax of your income to support our United Nations - you going to say "solutions need to be based on contemporary reality" - or "they need to find their money elsewhere, period."?
 
Hey, don't get your boxers in a bunch and start creating diversions. All I pointed out is that if you want to make good arguments, don't refer to the US prowess in manufacturing. That's yesterday. The only thing we excel at is protected markets like defense contracting and gun manufacturing. Any remaining manufacturing is very much more sophisticated than it used to be, and the employees are much more the cream of the crop, more worthy of US labor rates. Labor intensive work is done overseas by people who want the job, have pride in their work, and who don't smoke dope and drink beer on their breaks. They also show up.
 
Last edited:
As far as US Manufacturing goes, I still believe we have the capability to produce the best stuff in the world. The Japanese produce thousands of cars here in the US using US workers, US equipment and US parts suppliers. Of course they have a strong tendancy to produce excellence outside the states where Unions are strong. Looks like your next Toyota pickup might be made in San Antonio, TX.

In a perfect world, the UN would stick to its charter and be the social club it is supposed to be, not some governing body. Our tax system would be based on indirect taxation whether it be tariff's or I'd even grant you a sales tax, and social security would not exist and people would save their money and own their savings.

We don't live in a perfect world. I am relatively pleased with Bush internationally, and rather displeased with him domestically, though if he gets SS reform, I'll be much happier with him.
 
" If Bill gates gave the money to his kids while he was alive it would be taxed as income."

Not exactly. It comes off of the amount allowed to be left after death. And he can give up to $10,000 per year as many people as he wants without any tax consequences to anyone (including the death tax).
Of course with a billion to get rid of he has a problem...
 
Gates has many billions, and estate taxes on them will be due when he dies.

The fact that his billions are mostly in his company makes him like most victims of the estate tax. The heirs will have to lose the business in order to pay the taxes.
 
The fact that his billions are mostly in his company makes him like most victims of the estate tax. The heirs will have to lose the business in order to pay the taxes.
Click to expand...

A large part of his fortune is publicly traded stock in a corporation (MSFT). Sale of the company will not be an issue in settlement of the estate. He doesn't own it.
 
I was under the impression that he owned a controlling share of the company. After paying taxes on that, his heirs will not own a controlling share.
 
real gun
Hey, don't get your boxers in a bunch and start creating diversions. All I pointed out is that if you want to make good arguments, don't refer to the US prowess in manufacturing. That's yesterday. The only thing we excel at is protected markets like defense contracting and gun manufacturing. Any remaining manufacturing is very much more sophisticated than it used to be, and the employees are much more the cream of the crop, more worthy of US labor rates. Labor intensive work is done overseas by people who want the job, have pride in their work, and who don't smoke dope and drink beer on their breaks. They also show up.
Click to expand...

No diversion. You - like many others - seem to think that once something has been added to the status quo it can no longer be challenged and changed. So I will ask again; when we are forced to pay a U.N. tax, just for example, and the matter is up for discussion at some time down the road, are you going to simply say "change happens" and "old saws don't apply"?

The reason our manufacturing jobs have been exported is not as you suggest at all. Rather something called globalism, made possible by a complicit Federal government. And corporations only too happy to be able to pay well under what anyone living anywhere in the United States could afford to live on, similarly cheap property and building costs, and operate outside of domestic business, labor, property and pollution regulations and restrictions.
 
I was under the impression that he owned a controlling share of the company. After paying taxes on that, his heirs will not own a controlling share.
Click to expand...

You should download an MSFT prospectus and get some facts.
 
So I will ask again; when we are forced to pay a U.N. tax, just for example, and the matter is up for discussion at some time down the road, are you going to simply say "change happens" and "old saws don't apply"?
Click to expand...

I would just encourage you not to characterize the status quo in yesterday's terms. You know, you could just accept or reject what I offered and move on. If you would like to prove me wrong, feel free, but let's stay on topic.
 
Good idea, RealGun. He owns almost 10%.

I also found this:

Not to get too morbid, but many people have asked about Bill's U.S. tax liabilities. Let's look at what happens if Bill dies...

According to the Internet Death Clock, Bill will die on Thursday, August 9, 2029 at age 73. (That is 24.37 years from now.) If Bill continues to make money at the same rate of 28.76% per year, he will have $13,715,481,989,859.86 or $13.72 Trillion! Thanks to Christopher Guidi for the suggestion and the formulas!

Uncle Sam gets (in the form of Federal Estate Transfer Taxes) $11,764,800 plus 55% of everything in excess of $21,040,000 MINUS $1,000,000 (his unified estate tax credit as it will be in 2006 and beyond). Based on his CURRENT net worth, that would come to $15,924,075,300.82 ($15.92 Billion)... UNLESS...

He leaves it all outright to his wife, Melinda, in which case Uncle Sam gets ZERO (until she dies, when they get another shot at it) OR

He leaves it all outright to charity, in which case Uncle Sam gets absolutely nothing.

It should be noted that Bill can gift $11,000 annually to as many individuals as he has money without incurring any estate transfer taxation. (OK, $22,000 per individual if Melinda elects to split gifts.) NOTE: We are NOT taking names at this web site.

One final note: When Bill dies, his estate will not pay a penny in income tax on the appreciation of his shares. In fact, whoever gets the appreciated shares could immediately sell those shares (assuming the price does not change) and not pay a penny of income tax. It's called a step up in basis and it's one of the last great estate planning tools remaining.
Click to expand...

So heirs would have to come up with almost $16 billion in cash, very quickly. Like I said, this is what winds up destroying small businesses, in effect handing them over to the gov.
 
So heirs would have to come up with almost $16 billion in cash, very quickly. Like I said, this is what winds up destroying small businesses, in effect handing them over to the gov.
Click to expand...

I am not really fighting your point, but let's make a distinction that an executor having to authorize liquidation of a small percentage of shares held by the estate is hardly the same thing as being forced to sell the farm. Every share of stock is a separate entity. If there is only a farm, you're stuck, well maybe. It seems to me that if subdivision would make sense in a given location, there isn't really a problem. If a farm is not productive, or another income is not covering taxes on the property, then someone did not set it up so that the family could retain the property.

If the land were treated like a share of stock, establishing a value basis upon transfer, no money would have to be paid until the land was actually sold on a per acre, prorata basis. I am not sure how it is actually done at present. I am just speculating what might work better or be more popular.

We should keep in mind that their need to be incentives to keep farms within families, because it would be very difficult for someone to establish a big farm from nothing in this day and age. The country needs farmers. Farming would be strictly by big corporations otherwise. I think that's the case to a great extent already. If the kids want to take the money and run, that's up to them, but then the tax collector shows up.
 
real gun
I would just encourage you not to characterize the status quo in yesterday's terms. You know, you could just accept or reject what I offered and move on. If you would like to prove me wrong, feel free, but let's stay on topic
Click to expand...

You didn't offer anything. All you did was imply that because we do not currently have import tariffs that protect our industries from cheap foreign labor and other costs, and pay the way of our government, that it is somehow imperative to accept that as permanent and irreversible.

The idea of an inheritence tax is an abomination. If it is a matter of finding revenue, then it is obvious it must comes down to eliminating so much spending, like cutting all the socialist programs and aid we are handing out - or collecting the revenue some other way. We have a government regardless of "party" that is unwilling to axe many of the socialist programs, aid programs and a plethora of other programs paid for out of the public purse. We have a taxation level that is fast approaching much of europa, and gross insufficiency towards future obligations.

If you like and are willing to accept globalization, the export of our jobs and being taxed to death, just keep waving your made-in-China American flag.
 
You didn't offer anything. All you did was imply that because we do not currently have import tariffs that protect our industries from cheap foreign labor and other costs, and pay the way of our government, that it is somehow imperative to accept that as permanent and irreversible.
Click to expand...

Well now, I hesitate to reply in what seems like a pissing contest. What I "offered" was correcting something you said. I suspect that is the part that bugs you. All the rest is your stuff, not mine.
 
How many of Bill Gates kids are fighting in Iraq right now? In fact how many Senators kids? I know one senator had a kid over there, wonder if he/she has been "stop lossed"?
To go back to the point being debated now (everyone has jumped on the estates tax) Money in private hands does not necessarily benefit the nation. Bush's spin on this tax cut was that it would stimulate business by allowing the rich to remain rich in perpetuity. The assertion is that these rich people will be able to run and maintain their businesses, thus employing people and hey presto! Everyone is happy.

However, less tax from the overpriviliged means more tax from the middle class. Just because you tax the elite less, doesn't make it cheaper to run the country. The cost doesn't change. I don't know if anyone has encountered the estates tax or "death duty" as it is called in some countries. I have.

My Grandfather ran a successful architecture business in the UK and lived for many years in comfortable retirement. When he passed away, I was included in his will and by law, so was the UK government. The estate was taxed at 40% and subsequently myself and the other beneficiaries received 40% less than we would have if there had been no tax. We were all pretty ticked off at having to slice off that much and it meant that all of my Grandfathers assets bar one property had to be sold to pay the tax. That money went into the government coffers to pay everything from social security to tyres for jet fighters. It may have also gone to pay for flak jackets for UK troops in Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How do you like them apples!

The point I was driving at before was this. America is fighting a war in Afghanistan and in Iraq, is this the right time to hand the rich a big fat tax cut?? I believe most of the people on this board are regular working folks, so what did you get? $100? a week? a month? a year? I'm unsure but it wasn't a patch on being able to pass on millions with out a cent of tax levied on it :eek: You'll now be asked (obliged) to pick up the shortfall from the estates tax. Fair?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top