There goes Stan, trying to ride hack's coattails again!!
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects
Collapse
X
-
Dunno what to tell you, Geezer. Cheney was a war profiteer of the worst kind. The entrepreneurial side of you should be aghast at the rent seeking. If you're not curious about it then you're not curious about it.
I thought you might bring Cheney up as comparable. Back in early February, immediately after Scalia's death, this forum had a somewhat heated discussion about Cheney and his "corruption". ....I honestly have heard very little about Cheney's corruption. .......but I'd like to know more Cheney if you have a link.
jmo
- Top
Comment
-
Hillary's 30% minimum tax makes her top bracket almost impossible to calculate. Not a horrible idea if applied to large incomes, but nasty if applied to regular taxpayers. I doubt if anyone here pays 30% on their net income in federal income tax.
Stan said:
Geezer give credit where credit is due. I'm tired of your failure to acknowledge my great contributions to your needed education. Arrogant ignorance is such an insideous disease. it was me who stated that the country was better off with the death of Scalia, not Hack who advocated for the death of Cheney. Pissed off Entropy to no end.
- Top
Comment
-
Stan can have at the carcass. He loves carrion. I'm all about fresh meat.
That last one I just can't touch -- you'll have your reality and I'll have mine. But Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, and continued to receive payments from the company once he was VP. Halliburton at that time won no-bid contracts in Iraq. Given partisan concerns I suggest you to take a look at Rand Paul's statements on the topic if you wish.
- Top
Comment
-
Mike: Yup, that was a good article. The 10% bracket is for everyone's income from 0-9,370 or some such. Every taxpayer pays about $ 1,000 out of the first $ 10,000 of income. That is not what is meant by a minimum tax.
from the article:
Over the past few months, former Secretary of State and Senator Hillary Clinton has proposed a number of new and expanded government programs.1 In order to pay for these new or expanded services, she has proposed raising and enacting a number of new taxes. Her plan would increase marginal tax rates for taxpayers with incomes over $5 million, enact a 30 percent minimum tax (the Buffett Rule), alter the long-term capital gains tax rate schedule, and limit itemized deductions to a tax value of 28 percent. Her plan would also restore the estate tax to its 2009 parameters and would limit or eliminate other deductions for individuals and corporations.
We now have an alternative minimum tax for folks that have too much tax advantaged income (that means basically municipal bonds, the interest upon which is sold as tax-free, but now becomes AMT includable). Later in the article, it makes clear that the 30% rate applies to incomes over $ 1M so it is not a huge deal for regular folks.
Long term capital gains are the lowest rates available in the current code, around 15%. She wants to move them to 47.4% for holding periods under 2 years. She also wants to limit tax benefits for defined contribution plans. The more I read about it, the more it seems to me that the capital gains rate of say 44%(versus 15%) cuts into 401(k)s because she eliminates the step-up at death.
Let's say you bought Apple at 100 in say 1999 in your 401k. Assume the stock went to 1,500 (equivalent, backing out splits). And, let's say you accumulated 1000 shares @ 100 = $ 100,000 cost. At death you have the 1000 shares @ 1,500 = $ 1,500,000.
The step-up that your heirs get is the 401k at a cost basis to them of $ 1,500,000. The difference between the 100k and the 1500k,( $ 1,400,000) is tax-free money to your heirs. Now Hillary wants to tax the 1.4M at, say 35% (and there would be estate tax if the whole estate exceeded 3.9 M). Of course, if you take money out of the 401k, you would have to pay the LTCG tax also the 44%.
Complicated, but have you ever thought of where the biggest pot of cash is in our economy. I think it is in defined-contribution retirement accounts. I expected some sort of hit on them, but I figured it would come in the form of US bonds that the government would "encourage" you to buy. Just thinking out loud here.Last edited by Da Geezer; September 2, 2016, 09:43 PM.
- Top
Comment
-
Hack:
As the ex-veep blasts Paul for being an isolationist, old video shows the Kentucky senator charging that Cheney used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and benefit his former company.
Regarding Cheney and Haliburton. Justin Amash is a friend of mine. The Rs tried their best to purge him, but he squeaked by against the well-financed, establishment, primary challenger by 65-35% in 2014. Amash thinks along the lines of Rand Paul.
If true, Cheney taking the US to war for personal reasons is as bad as what Hillary has done, probably worse. But there is little proof of that. I think our government did think there were WMD's in Iraq. The Iraqi generals thought that too. And no-bid deals are disgusting no matter who is benefitted. But, as I've said, cost-plus contracting by the DOD is a disaster (and one Trump has said he would do away with, the idiot). Some things are just too big to be manipulated for personal gain. The Clintons stay to the $ 10-100 million simple stuff like Bill being chancellor of Laureate, the holding company for Walden University (to the tune of $ 14,430,000 from 2010-15). Easy, direct, and lucrative is the Clinton way.
- Top
Comment
-
When Bush/Cheney first took office, I really didn't know much about Cheney. My job took me to Halliburton out in OK. Spectacular facility. Did manufacturing, refining, R&D. Place was so clean the floors were white. So they could see any dirt. Don't want problems with the robots. Very impressive. As I concluded my visit, I asked my host about Cheney, the now former CEO, implying that I thought he would express a bit of pride. "I hope that f+ckhead dies," was the response. And then he smiled.
Gotta like Amash a little bit. He refuses to be a party lapdog without being beligerent.“Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.” - Groucho Marx
- Top
Comment
-
Originally posted by froot loops View Post
That is shameful.I feel like I am watching the destruction of our democracy while my neighbors and friends cheer it on
- Top
Comment
Comment