Its over

Green Tide · Post by **Green Tide** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 9:30 pm

The point is you can make 100m in this country. But you can't do it by loafing through school and not taking chances. It is so easy to decide how to spend other peoples money. But nobody cares about your money like you do. To have the government take 50m from me would never be fun or something I would be happy to give. I already give to charities That I can choose I am happy to give. Find ones that use their resources in a way that I agree with.
Do you remember when credit card interest was fully deductible? I can remember hearing people say it was a way of easing the pain of the cost of interest. That meant they were using their cards more which helped the economy.That was back when people actually paid their debts back. Stop the incentive and stop the spending. Same thing we are going through now.
You know when you hear people talking how the ultra rich pay less taxes then their employees. They are actually speaking of percentages, not a dollar amount. But it sounds much more spectacular as a percentage. For example the Romey thing at 14%. They never mentioned that totaled 2.8 million. Most people never did the math they just complained of being in a 25% bracket and then file the short form because it is easy or some tax company would do it for them at no charge. These people are getting so played by the government. E file is not to help the filer to get their refund faster, it is to release your file more quickly so the spending can continue .
I don't really have enough info to comment on the going off shore corps but I sure wouldn't make it easy on them. Incentivive them to stay and they will. We are about 20 yrs into nafta and we knew this was coming. Tariffs are one of the few things I can remember from history classes.

crashmister · Post by **crashmister** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:17 am

John, I think the total was 1.93 million but the point was he made 13.7 million. Which means his after tax take home was 11.77 million. While at that same time someone making 50.000 a year with no kids under 21 living at home and renting, payed close to 12,500 in taxes leaving them 37.500. Now if that same person was only paying 14% instead of 25% his take home jumps to 44.000. And that same person will most likely spend 90% of that in the US economy as will 70%+- in that income bracket, which will help stimulate growth.
romy and earners in his bracket will send 50 to 70% of that off shore, and reinvest most of the rest. So yeah, romy payed allot of money, but considering what he made, he'll never miss it. Bear in mind, we have no clue how much more he made off shore. That's not reported or accounted for in his US return. The point here is John, if romy payed 39.4% which I think was the Clinton rate, what would he have to do without? Remember romy's income is from interest, dividends, and capitol gains on money he already has.
And next year he'll have a windfall from his Bain shares. Once Bain complets the Sensata move from IL. to China, what was a 500 million a year net profit plant, will close to double that amount. And it only costs 170 working taxpayers good paying US job's! And most of them will go from contributing to the system in taxes to taking from it in unemployement through no fault of their own. It's real hard to feel sorry for how much taxes people like romy have to pay. Especally when he and many others like him could give a rat's azz how these people will make a living let alone pay their taxes. Now if the shoe were on the other foot and he was bringing job's back here from China, then I wouldn't care if he payed any taxes at all. But corporations like Bain are a drain on the US economy that make a fortune doing it. In that instance I see no problem placing them in a 90% bracket. I say tax em into the stone age. But that's just me.

Green Tide · Post by **Green Tide** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 2:31 pm

Oh sht. Pat you are in this one too. Lol

crashmister · Post by **crashmister** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:12 am

Well from my point of view Ron this whole thing is and has been about what both sides are willing and not willing to cut pugs want to cut spending on everything including Social Security and Medicare, but increase spending on the military. while at the same time refuse to even discuss in real terms raising taxes on anyone including people making 200.000 + a year, 250.000 for couples. We can argue the politics around it until we're blue, the math just don't work.
As it is now, every bit of research shows that tax cut's don't create job's they create wealth. And they only create wealth in the top 5% of earners. Why? Because Ron, you're spot on, we spend it while they invest or reinvest it.
It's really not rocket science, if we want to be the greatest country in the world, we need to be ready to pay for that designation. But bottom line here is they need to do all they can to get spending cash in to middle class hands. That will stimulate the economy faster and more reliably than anyother plan or program on the table right now. Then they can work on trade agreements and tax incentives to bring back more job's while at the same time sticking it to the companies and corporations the send em over seas. No reason why companies can't split production between the 2 like Penn does. Make the high end stuff here and the lower grade stuff overseas. A ton of companies buy parts from over seas and assemble the product here. That works.
The pug's are on the ropes right now in trems of debt reduction and the fiscal cliff. They can cave (Which I believe they will) or own the blame.

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:23 pm

crashmister wrote:Well from my point of view Ron this whole thing is and has been about what both sides are willing and not willing to cut pugs want to cut spending on everything including Social Security and Medicare, but increase spending on the military. while at the same time refuse to even discuss in real terms raising taxes on anyone including people making 200.000 + a year, 250.000 for couples. We can argue the politics around it until we're blue, the math just don't work.
As it is now, every bit of research shows that tax cut's don't create job's they create wealth. And they only create wealth in the top 5% of earners. Why? Because Ron, you're spot on, we spend it while they invest or reinvest it.
It's really not rocket science, if we want to be the greatest country in the world, we need to be ready to pay for that designation. But bottom line here is they need to do all they can to get spending cash in to middle class hands. That will stimulate the economy faster and more reliably than anyother plan or program on the table right now. Then they can work on trade agreements and tax incentives to bring back more job's while at the same time sticking it to the companies and corporations the send em over seas. No reason why companies can't split production between the 2 like Penn does. Make the high end stuff here and the lower grade stuff overseas. A ton of companies buy parts from over seas and assemble the product here. That works.
The pug's are on the ropes right now in trems of debt reduction and the fiscal cliff. They can cave (Which I believe they will) or own the blame.

Pat, you make it out like everybody that's making over $250,000 is filthy rich and deserves to get taxed to high heaven. I'll use the same $800,000 taxable income filing from my other post as an example to put this into a real life prospective.

(JP, eat your heart out).

$800,000, let's do the math.

$800,000 taxable income minus taxes = around $450,000 net

Good chance there's going to be 2 partners in the business maybe even 3. That means the net is going to be split.

$450,000/2 = $225,000 each
$450,000/3 = $150,000 each

Only in a perfect world will all the profits go into the owners pockets. Companies that turn these kinds of profits have huge operating cost. They get sued, machinery breaks down and needs to be either repaired or fixed, they have slow months where profits are off balance from losses, etc. You have to put a portion of the profits from the year into savings to cover yourself for the following year. Any of the above could lead up to being bankrupt if you don't have money to pay your way out of it.

$450,000 - $150,000 safety net savings for next years operating cost.

Now you have $300,000 to split either 2 or 3 ways.

$300,000/2 = $150,000 net yearly income each
$300,000/3 = $100,000 net yearly income each

It comes to a point where the risk doesn't equal the reward. It takes a lot of money, a lot of work, and a lot of liability to make $800,000. Between a Republican destroying the economy and a Democrat pushing a quasi socialist agenda that's going to slam more taxes on top of everyone's employers. There's going to be plenty of heat on business for many years to come. Bosses giving reduced weekly work hours and mass layoffs from companies that are liquidating their businesses isn't pretty. It's going to start happening at the beginning of 2013. I really can't see much good for the next 4 years.

crashmister · Post by **crashmister** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:55 pm

Not at all Denny, if the folks your using as an example are creating US job's, then they woiuld get incentives to do so in the form of tax breaks. As far as personal income, the Clinton rates would raise their taxes 4.5%. This whole argument is over the top marginal tax rate. Before the tax cuts, (Clinton) the highest marginal income tax rate was 39.6 percent. After the cuts (Bush), the highest rate was 35 percent.

And we're already hearing the made in USA question in reference to quality. Penn reels, Van Staal, Ugly stick just to name a few. But yeah, I understand the need to be competitive in the makert place. Companies like SunPower make solar panels here in the US. Some of the components are made in the Philippines and shipped here for assembly. Basically the same business model Toyota and Honda have been using for years. Frigging Toyotas US division is even UAW. Not certain but I believe Honda is as well.

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:06 pm

Pat, the argument can go both ways. High tax rates do this, low tax rates do that, and vice versa. The real problem is that everybody wants as much money as they can get, as fast as they can get it, and with as little effort as possible.

crashmister · Post by **crashmister** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:28 pm

CubanExpress wrote:Pat, the argument can go both ways. High tax rates do this, low tax rates do that, and vice versa. The real problem is that everybody wants as much money as they can get, as fast as they can get it, and with as little effort as possible.

No argument there Buddy! But when you look at the math, everybody get's a break up to 250.000 and couples up to 250.000. That offset's the next 200 to 250.000. So mathmatically speaking the whole 4.6 % really dosent kick in until after 400 to 500.000. So everyone making up to that would still be paying less than under Clinton. Because of the Bush/Clinton rate combination.
But most of this is moot with high unemployement. And since the housing bubble isn’t coming back, the spending that sustained the economy in the pre-crisis years isn’t coming back either. So we need another engine to create spending. That's OB's biggest problem right now. Green tech just ain't making it. Nat gas is already slowing. We got 2 trillion in needed infrastructure repairs. But how do ya get the private sector to pick up the tab for that?

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:44 pm

Pat, for the last few years we've been paying close to a trillion dollars in subsides to oil companies that make record profits everyday. What Obama should've done on day 1 is expose the oil subsidies to the country with an "address the nation style format" to the general public on national TV. That way him and the power of the people could fight against those oil subsidies to transfer all the money into subsidized american infrastructure upgrades. The way I look at it, we're shelling out the cash regardless, the money would be better spent on putting people to work, rather than going to exxon and all the other oil companies bank accounts. It would be like generating a controlled bubble that would last for decades without having the side effects of sub prime lending. When work starts to get busy and product demand starts kicking in, float the tax rates up and start paying down the deficit. During the housing boom nobody cared about what percentage they were getting taxed at. All they cared about was getting paid and spending the money.

crashmister · Post by **crashmister** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:54 pm

Yeah I think that was a "cover thy azz politically" type decision. If they end the subsidy's, the threat is the price at the pump will sky rocket. That's all it would take for the economy to tank again. But I gotta say, if only half of what I read about corporate wellfare is true, we could balance the budget in under 5 years just by eliminating that. Just in what the banks wrote off in bad debt that they themselves created with the housing bubble, they could cut the debt by more than half. And those same banks are holding a huge chunk of the deficit. Which their charging the same government that bailed them out, interest on. It ain't a surprise that 3 of the biggest lobbies in washington, the financial, insurance, and energy (Gas & oil) lobbies happen to be the largest corporate wellfare sponges.

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:38 pm

LOL

Good, let them fear monger us with raising gas prices. Watch how fast automakers start rolling out cheap, fast charging, long range electric vehicles. The reason green tech isn't in demand is because the price of fuel is relatively low. Compared to the higher cost of alternative energy. Eliminating the oil subsidies and using it for infrastructure upgrades would create a double boom that would sustain itself for many years.

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Thu Nov 15, 2012 2:37 pm

Ron, Check out this video about Stan Meyer and his water powered dune buggy.

crashmister · Post by **crashmister** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:14 am

Buying Karen one of these for our anniversary if I can get one.

http://www.teslamotors.com/models

crashmister · Post by **crashmister** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:51 pm

rare wrote:You getting the roadster

Not avalible till 2014.

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:16 pm

Ron, it is sad that he did all the work and figured it out and got killed over it. It's a conspiracy theory, though. The autopsy report from the ohio state coroner showed he died from a cerebral aneurysm. But what a coincidence that he died the day after giving up crucial information to the pentagon.

Pat, that's going to be a sweet anniversary present.

crashmister · Post by **crashmister** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:42 am

The movie Gasshole talks about a guy a SoCal that had a car in the late 50's that got 100 miles to a gallon of gas by boiling gasoline. They found him dead in the car along side the road. Aparently he OD'd, 2 days after signing a contract to mass produce his design. His friends & family were sure he was murdered because he never went near drug's. The car was impounded and later claimed by the company he contracted to and the car and contract were never seen again. Think about what a 100 MPG car would do to big oil profits. The US military did the exact same thing in 1946. They had a prototype jeep and a Duce that got close to 100 MPG. The motor is basically the same as a propane motor. It run's off of a gas instead of a liquid fuel source. Propane boils at -40 deg F Gasoline boils at between 100 and 400 deg F depending on what additives are in it. But in both cases the liquid doesn't burn the vapor does. Pretty simple idea really.

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:22 pm

Oil companies know that 100 MPG's would destroy them. And they also know that gas prices can't be too expensive either. They would be digging their own graves at pricing a gallon of gas at $8+ in the united states. The 'initial' high cost of electric vehicles would seem miniscule to everybody when they figure out that with a ~$3 dollar charge of electricity an E-Vehicle could be powered for over 100 miles. Sooner or later, technology advancements will drive consumer costs down. Once new electric cars become cheaper in upfront cost, it's game over for the oil companies. Everyday electric power is pushed to the limits. Both Ski Nautique and Mastercraft have 100% electric boats in development stages.

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:47 pm

rob762 wrote:Just imagine if we would've stuck with it....

http://inventors.about.com/od/estartinv ... hicles.htm

EV's will get there very, very soon

Wow, that was a nice history lesson, Rob.

I think if we would've stayed with EV's from the beginning, a lot of problems we're facing today would be nonexistent.

crashmister · Post by **crashmister** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:20 am

Saw this at the boat show this year.
http://regennautic.com/products/e200-outboard/

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:41 pm

rob762 wrote:I learned that at work and immediately scratched my head and wondered where we would've been had we stuck with it...

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:42 pm

rob762 wrote:I learned that at work and immediately scratched my head and wondered where we would've been had we stuck with it...

You could only dream. For certain, I know we wouldn't have an atmosphere that's being exhausted from emissions. Recycled construction materials, and LEED construction standards would've been standard a long time ago. As a whole, our main focus would be on the earth's natural resources and maintaining it's abundance for eternity. In today's world, it's greed fueled by dirty oil. Relying on fossil fuels has to be the most screwed up thing ever to take place in human history. It's environmental and economic impacts are disastrous.

CubanExpress · Post by **CubanExpress** » Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:04 pm

crashmister wrote:Saw this at the boat show this year.
http://regennautic.com/products/e200-outboard/

Nice.

Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over

Re: Its over