Luckily this is the pit, so I don’t need no steenkin’ cites!
But I will look, since I find the discussion interesting.
(goes away)
A QUICK search at my favorite site (NBER) finds this little bit. However, I am halfway through a bottle of Cab and losing my ability for decent congnitive thought processes (assuming I ever had them):
There is also an interesting bit that looked at the tax relief on dividends and how it impacted foreign investment _ the foreign investment separated depending on tax treaties with the US:
So I would continue to argue that investors DO react in a rational fashion, and alter their investment decisions when tax policy has a measurable impact on their potential returns.
Which brings us back to realizing that if we go down the **Dio ** hole and outlaw corporations, or simply crank up the taxes on the returns from corporate investment - we will reduce the amount of investment in those same corporations. Reduce the investment, and you will hurt job growth, cats will start living with dogs, and we will all be begging for loose change on the street corner.
I think the Dems should give up on moderation & just nominate cranks from now on. Crankery wins, can’t you understand that? Seriously, if you can’t appear more a left-wing extremist than Kucinich & Nader, stop wasting our time!
I mean, come on! As successful as uncompromising, radicalized crankery has been for the right, & the Dems keep nominating reasonable, conservative centrist compromiser types. It’s abominably stupid & blind!
Obama would support it as a part of a compromise. I realize it’s a concept that hasn’t gotten much exposure in the past 8 years, so it’s understandable if people are confused by it.
It doesn’t matter what country you were talking about: you have no evidence that America is different from anywhere else. Furthermore, you are now adopting an absolutist postion (only an absolutely level playing field requires an authoritarian government) because that is what you need to retreat to, to avoid being wrong. Given that an absolutely level playing field is impossible, your proposition is unfalsifiable, unscientific and essentially meaningless.
Since we’re talking about corporations it would be an incorporated small business, but the same rules apply: Assuming you pay yourself a salary, that salary is taxed just like the income from your “real” job. If you issue stock and pay a dividend or sell that stock at a profit later, then no (seems a little far fetched scenario, I’m not aware of many one man operations that do this, and I work with small business every day). Unincorporated small business is a different situation, say 1 guy selling widgets out of his garage, but now you’re making apples to oranges comparisons, I’m not sure how I think his tax liability should be handled relates to capital gains taxes.
Actually, they probably should. No matter who the Democratic candidate is, the Republican spin machine will paint him or her (okay, him) as an extreme leftist, just waiting for the chance to nationalize our industries and send all our pregnant women off to the birthing creches.
Think about it. Every Democratic candidate in my lifetime has been a middle-of-the-road centrist, playing up his good Christian values and so on, regardless of their views on arugula, and notwithstanding the American Conservative Union’s ratings.
(ACU ratings are nominally on a 1-100 scale, but in reality the ratings go from 50-100 for Republicans and 1-20 for Democrats).
Ok, whatever dude. I couldn’t help but notice that you had to truncate my post to make this work. I’m not going to keep arguing with someone who is basically having both sides of the argument with himself.
In 2007, Mary Landrieu, a Democrat, got a 40. Ben Nelson, also a Democrat, got a 32.
Susan Collins got a 36, and Olympia Snowe got a 28. They’re both Republicans. Two other Republican senators scored in the 40s. They use the same votes to figure out the ratings for everyone. Republicans are just more likely than Democrats to vote the “right” way on issues the ACU cares about.
So just so that I am understanding you correctly, let’s say I make $100,000 in profit as an incorporated small business. I pay myself a salary of $50,000. The $50,000 that I pay myself you’re saying should be taxed as income but the $50,000 retained by the corporation should be tax free?
You’re going to believe what you want to believe, old tortoise, but I’m fairly certain that the general opinion is going to land on my side of the fence on the subject of your general accuracy and correctness.
So you want to be able to pick and choose how level the playing field is? Everyone gets to play by the same rules…except CEOs. What about CFOs? Presidents? VPs? CIOs? Do they get to get what they deserve based on their abilities and hard work? Or is should their pay be based on some formula too? How far down do you go?
About 30% of Montanans votes for Bush in 2004, around 27% in 2000.
The sad fact is that bigotry is alive and well in the US. This election will show how rampant they are.
My family has been involved in voter registration for the last 3 months. The number of people who feel free to say" I aint voting for no nigger " is scary. I asked the organization to track the numbers but they decided not to. I would like to know how hard it really is to elect a black prez. I think that is why the election appears closer than it should be.
Between voter suppression, bad voting machines and bigotry ,I think Obama has a hard hill to climb.
If they really feel free to say it, it would be captured in standard polling. It’s the ones who believe it but won’t say it that are the tricky part to measure.
We are a racist society. This election will show how badly racist we are. Although many are grasping at other excuses to justify not voting for the nigger. But the fact remains a lot wont vote for Obama because of his color. My polling is limited to Dearborn/Detroit area. When you get down south it will be worse.
