Below is an article from 2001 the last time Congress was pushing for capital gains tax cuts. Sources sited in the article are Alan Greenspan (Federal Reserve Chairman appointed by Ronald Reagan ), Warren Buffet (Businessman, World's most successful investor, Barrack Obama Advisor), Joint Committee on Taxation (a non-partisan House\Senate Congressional Committee), Congressional Budget Office (federal agency responsible for government budget calculations and analyses). The full version is quite long but worth reading.
October 11, 2001
http://www.cbpp.org/9-20-01tax.htm
(full version with footnotes and sources)
Would a Capital Gains Tax Cut Stimulate the Economy?
by Joel Friedman, Iris Lav, and Peter Orszag
On September 20, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report, Would a Capital Gains Tax Cut Stimulate the Economy? The report examines a proposal being promoted by some Congressional leaders to reduce the maximum tax rate on long-term capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent. While proponents of a capital gains cut have traditionally claimed it would provide long-term (rather than short-term) benefits for the economy, they now argue it will provide a short-term economic stimulus. The proposal, however, would do little for the economy in either the short or the long term while yielding a bonanza for the highest-income taxpayers. The report's findings include:
* The country's current economic challenges center on short-run difficulties. Most economists believe the underlying fundamentals of the economy remain strong and that the principal problem we face is the prospect of a short-run downturn.
* Even those who believe that a capital gains tax cut would encourage business investment have previously acknowledged that it is a poor short-term recovery tool because its effects are felt too slowly.
* A capital gains rate reduction would likely accelerate the collection of tax revenues in the next couple of years, as investors sell more assets to take advantage of the lower capital gains tax rates. These short-term revenue gains, however, would give way to revenue losses in subsequent years — even if the rate cut were only temporary. Lower revenues later in the decade would add to the long-term fiscal burden created by the recently enacted tax cut.
* These long-term revenue losses could exert upward pressure on long-term interest rates. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has stated that the long-term cost of this year's tax cut has placed upward pressure on long-term interest rates. This is preventing the Fed's rate-reduction policy from being as successful as it otherwise would be in stimulating the economy. Further long-term revenue losses, such as those associated with a capital gains tax cut, would exacerbate this problem.
* The best evidence from respected neutral analysts such as the Congressional Budget Office indicates that a capital gains tax cut would produce little economic benefit, even in the long run. CBO found that a capital gains tax cut would increase the size of the economy, as measured by the Gross Domestic Product, by about only a couple hundredths of one percent after ten years, an imperceptible change. Similarly, while supporters of a capital gains tax cut often assert that it would spur economic growth by fostering risk-taking, a Congressional Research Service study concluded that "there is no apparent relationship between venture capital investments and the capital gains tax."
* A capital gains tax cut would provide large tax subsidies to the very top earners who garnered a highly disproportionate share of the recently enacted tax cut. Based on estimates by the Congressional Research Service, it is likely that 80 percent of the benefits of this proposal would accrue to the top two percent of taxpayers, since they pay roughly 80 percent of all capital gains taxes. Taxpayers in this group have incomes exceeding $200,000.
Personally, I don't think there should be any cut on Capital Gains. They should be taxed the same as ordinary income. As for a cut in Capital Gains tax for small business, I am wondering what Capital Gains they have. Besides, taxing Capital Gains the same as ordinary income would do away with one of the forms needed when filing your income tax and another complicated work sheet for figureing the tax. Oh, I forgot, most taxes are done by computer now, not with pencil the way I do them.
I think businesses should not be taxed. IF there were no taxes for business, businesses from around the world would
be operating here providing good paying jobs. There would be so many jobs available that you would have to hide under your bed to keep from getting a good paying job.
That would increase disposible income and we could do away with income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.
then put the Government on a diet and cut their budget by half.
One flat tax. Irrespective of status. AND GET RID OF THE LOOPHOLES...everyone would pay into Social Security...period. No more getting to hide income by going deeper into debt. End subsidies...getting rid of the welfare packages for the special interests would more than fund the unfunded mandates put upon the educational system at the present time.
I don't think there should be a capital gains tax. Why punish wise patient investors. This whole idea of taxing business and people making in excess of 250K is absurd. Hell, 40% of people pay no income tax anyway AND get an earned income credit to make up for the other taxes they pay.
Everyone always wants to talk about jobs. Not just jobs, but good paying jobs. There is currently a job for every person that wants to work. Might not be the job you want or the pay you want, but the jobs are there. I talk to people every day, and I mean every day, that tell me this exact phrase, "man, if I could just get a couple good people". How sad.
But, lets extend unemployment benefits. That is sure to get people out there back in the workplace.
It was said in an earlier post on this thread to cut business taxes to make it an environment that companies want to build good paying jobs in. AMEN to that thinking, as it will have to be the growth of our economy that gets us out of this hole we are in, not raising taxes on people who make over 250K.
Spoken just like a man that makes over $250,000.00. ::) ::)
Quote from: Wilma on October 23, 2008, 07:20:29 AM
Spoken just like a man that makes over $250,000.00. ::) ::)
No,
Spoken like someone that has a bachelors degree in Applied Economics and Business Administration.
Raising taxes will put less tax money in the coffers because it doesn't reward hard work, it penalizes it.
Has happened every time in the past and will every time in the future. You don't have to believe me, read a book.
Dan's topics are discussed by economists in the full text of the article I posted above I just posted their quick summary here. Also, in my reading on this subject what I can tell you economists don't agree on this subject. Steve's point of not taxing business is a good one.Up until just a few short years ago Ireland had a small economy. They removed business taxes on profits Their economy has been growing at an extremely fast rate, I believe at around 30% increase per year avg. for the last 5-8 years Many high tech firms moved from the US to Ireland thus moving Ireland into one of the bigger players in the global economy. The topic of taxes is an important one and many peoples eyes glaze over when you start talking about taxes. If people are interested I will add other topics on taxation to this thread. The idea of a "use tax" or "sales tax type system only" as Steve mention has a certain appeal. The use tax too presents it problems just as our current tax system does. For me the issue here is to leave as much money in peoples pockets in the first place. Have a fair tax to everyone, meaning everyone pays taxes. Reduce government waste and tax enough to support only the small government that we need, not the monster we have now. Atleast I know there are other people out there like me who eyes don't glaze over on the topic. You folks are always easy to find.
David
All this flys in the face of the Clinton administration and the Reagan administration. The first was a productive one for the United States and the latter was repressive. Sales tax would not work; the wealthy would just do their high end shopping elsewhere, taking advantage of the tax breaks overseas. The poor and middle class would be supporting a huge chunk of the tax burden, having to buy locally.
SDM I would like to see you support your claim. How would a sales tax drive them to shop outside of the US? They have that ability now and I don't think it accounts for any but the tiniest fraction of the purchases they make. I support buying locally. Also, being the biggest consumers in the world those over seas goods will be coming here and hit with the sales tax. More convenient to pay the tax than it is fire up the jet.
David
I am always amazed at the people who think we should penalize investors that are willing to invest in American industry. Where do people think the Capital comes from to create Companies and the result being Jobs, Goods and Services. Investing in the stock market has it's risks and rewards to the investors and if we penalize the investors with a big capital gains tax the result will be less investing, less jobs, less goods and services. I remember a conversation I had once with a person that obviously thought they knew it all about the Stock Market, Capital Gains and investing, they told me they did not believing in buying, investing in the Stock Market and they felt that investing in Mutual Funds was much better as they weren't listed on the NYSE and their equities weren't sublject to the stock market. It reminded me of the lady I saw in the morning news sometime back, they were asking her what she thought about the Dairy Farmers dumping their milk and trying to push the prices up that way, she answered, I don't care if all of the Dairy Farmers go out of business I buy my milk at the Supermarket. Every single company in America started from investors putting their money in it to start the company, whether it was a Mom and Pop company or a corporate giant, take away that investment and you will have far less investing and far less jobs.
Quote from: sixdogsmom on October 23, 2008, 11:16:30 AM
All this flys in the face of the Clinton administration and the Reagan administration. The first was a productive one for the United States and the latter was repressive. Sales tax would not work; the wealthy would just do their high end shopping elsewhere, taking advantage of the tax breaks overseas. The poor and middle class would be supporting a huge chunk of the tax burden, having to buy locally.
You are obviously not aware of the HIGH HIGH Excise Import tax on goods that are brought into the US by individuals.
Where does that lady think that the milk in the supermarket comes from?????
Quote from: angtown3 on October 23, 2008, 11:56:00 AM
Where does that lady think that the milk in the supermarket comes from?????
[/quote
Good point.
Years ago I would have thought that my Uncle Frank was just trying to make a point by mentioning the lady in the supermarket making that kind of statement. How could that be true? Well I can tell you I have met similar people. I hope you gave here a quick education and told her to take a trip out to a dairy farm.
David
Quote from: sixdogsmom on October 23, 2008, 11:16:30 AM
All this flys in the face of the Clinton administration and the Reagan administration. The first was a productive one for the United States and the latter was repressive. Sales tax would not work; the wealthy would just do their high end shopping elsewhere, taking advantage of the tax breaks overseas. The poor and middle class would be supporting a huge chunk of the tax burden, having to buy locally.
No the wealthy won't have a tax break overseas. The sales tax plan doesn't negate import export taxes of which is the method of how the government was set up to run in the beginning. SO if they did go get something oversease then they would be taxed on it when they brought it into the country.
Use tax won't work cause its able to be defeated too easily.
Realistically looking back I don't think either political party has ever tried to put more tax on the Poor and middle class. When they throw that at each other it is pure political trash being exchanged. Even in the Colonial days the wealthy paid a greater share of taxes both in amount and in percentages. I don't object to paying my fair share of taxes but I do object in paying taxes to help able bodied people who are to lazy to work. If a person has medical disability or limitations, old or young, I don't mind the government taking care of or helping them, in fact I think we should. My greatest dislike is for people to say they should take more from the rich and give to the poor in the term of "wealth redistribution". The rich are rich because they or their families worked hard, invested, took chances, and made their money grow, why is it right that they should have to give more to those that didn't work to earn it. America is a land of opportunity, you just have to get out and work for it, every person has an equal opportunity and if they don't want to work for it they should do without. I don't resent the rich, I admire many of them that I have seen, worked for, and know that have made literally Billions of dollars, by working hard, investing right, taking chances and being lucky as well.
Quote from: frawin on October 23, 2008, 01:17:44 PM
Realistically looking back I don't think either political party has ever tried to put more tax on the Poor and middle class. When they throw that at each other it is pure political trash being exchanged. Even in the Colonial days the wealthy paid a greater share of taxes both in amount and in percentages. I don't object to paying my fair share of taxes but I do object in paying taxes to help able bodied people who are to lazy to work. If a person has medical disability or limitations, old or young, I don't mind the government taking care of or helping them, in fact I think we should. My greatest dislike is for people to say they should take more from the rich and give to the poor in the term of "wealth redistribution". The rich are rich because they or their families worked hard, invested, took chances, and made their money grow, why is it right that they should have to give more to those that didn't work to earn it. America is a land of opportunity, you just have to get out and work for it, every person has an equal opportunity and if they don't want to work for it they should do without. I don't resent the rich, I admire many of them that I have seen, worked for, and know that have made literally Billions of dollars, by working hard, investing right, taking chances and being lucky as well.
You know what its funny. Here i am i believe that we should cut taxes, In fact eliminate income tax, and implement a sales tax.
Now I am on a fixed income. I get 13,400 a year. Barely make ends meet. Yet i am not for taxing the rich like that. Its rediculous to expect them to pay for everyone. I know that right now, if we were to remove useless govt agencies like Dept of Ed, NIA, NEA, IRS, Cut the Dept of AG back to dealing with agriculture instead of welfare, cut the EPA to the bare bones, Put in place rules for congress critters that they can't accept payoffs from business, cut out their pork projects, then we would have no need to tax like we do.
Do you know Frank, you make a very good point. When I was going to college, alot of my friends didn't have to work, there parents helped them. I had to work, and I always told my friends that even if I had to work at McD's I would because I had to pay for my own rent and things. I have worked since I was 13 years old or maybe even before that. I am also with Dan on the part that there are jobs out there if people would just work. I worked all types of jobs growing up, and to this day. There is nothing that wrong with a little hard work.
I also don't mind paying my share of the taxes. But when my share is given to people that don't work, won't work, have 10 kids that they don't take care of. That is where I draw the line.
Also, do you know that you don't have to be rich to invest money. Jeff and I have accounts for ourselves and the girls. WE have lost money these past few months, but the girls have made a little. Don't really know to much about it, just that we pay the money and it's taken care of. We are supposed to be able to use this money when we retire. I just hope that there is money there when we need it!!!!
ANG, you are on the right track and people that believe like you will make it through this. I have worked all of my life, have never been without a job and have never drawn unemployment, I still work and I enjoy and it allows us to give more to Causes and Charities that we like and like what they do, in addition it allows us to help our family if needed. You keep investing, I think the American economy will bounce back if we can just get the energy monkey off of our back. I think you young people are doing it right, you farm, have a rental property, you work and have a daycare center, you are investing for your retirement, I would say you are a great example of young people pursuing the American dream. KEEP ON KEEPING ON.
Quote from: angtown3 on October 23, 2008, 01:41:25 PM
I just hope that there is money there when we need it!!!!
Angtown, from the little I know about you and by how experts tell us to invest, you are on the right track and will have plenty to retire with. You own a business, you are a landlord, you invest monthly, you started early especially for your daughters.
The first book I ever read on investing was given to me by a wealthy family friend. The book was called "The Wealthy Barber" describing how a poor barber took small amounts of money and put it in the stockmarket each month. He died a multi-millionaire and worked every day of his life. The book is pretty old and may be out of print. I bet if you google "The Wealthy Barber" you will be able to find it. The single best and cheapest stock advice you will ever get.
David
Shoot Uncle Frank you can type faster than I can.
David, I know this family, the last Job, I had before I left Howard 43+ years ago was working for this young lady's Grandfather-in-Law running his combine doing some custom cutting. Her Grandmother-In-Law worked with your Mother as a Bell Telephone Operator at Howard. That was back in the days when you went throught the operator to make a call, I can remember many times picking up the phone and saying"Gracie please give me the store" and she would connect me with Uncle Neil's grocery store. This family came from 2 of the best big families in Elk County, the Wisemans and the Wunderlichs, all hard working good people. They will do well.
Thanks Frank! I do love my husbands family. They are very hard workers!! I love to make things for Gracie that she wants, such as Chocolate or coconut pies and things!! She just doesn't get around as good as she used to. And I love to make them happy!! They do alot for us and when she had her hip surgury, we went to see her every weekend for the month and a half that she was in the hospital. Of course you know that Jeff loves his family alot,too!! Thanks again Frank!! Do you know what:? I feel like I know you even though I have never met you!! Same with all of you on the forum!! One giant happy family!!
Isn't it odd that when taxes are mentioned it always comes down to welfare? Welfare is in truth a very small portion of our budget. I too resent that some people collect welfare and early social security when in fact they are able bodied. But that has been a gripe from the beginning of time, and will continue no matter who is in office. Whenever there is a group of people some will always pull harder in the harness than others; works that way with animals too I am told. Is it fair? No. Has the republican administration cured that problem? No. Will the democrats solve that problem? No. It is just a griping point that comes up every election and will probably continue.
Quote from: sixdogsmom on October 23, 2008, 04:44:29 PM
I It is just a griping point that comes up every election and will probably continue.
SDM I agree. the original point of this thread was to discuss how to go about solving these problems. So far no ones post has come close to providing information or educating others with strong detailed fact with footnotes we can veryify and use to assign weight to an argument. Maybe I need to place this on a board geared towards discussion of the economy to help me find the answer to my question that even economists don't agree. I know there will be posts here that lead me there. That being said I must say that the off topic parts of the thread that I have participated in are great. Keep posting this is turning into a great thread.
Thanks
David
Quote from: sixdogsmom on October 23, 2008, 04:44:29 PM
Isn't it odd that when taxes are mentioned it always comes down to welfare? Welfare is in truth a very small portion of our budget. I too resent that some people collect welfare and early social security when in fact they are able bodied. But that has been a gripe from the beginning of time, and will continue no matter who is in office. Whenever there is a group of people some will always pull harder in the harness than others; works that way with animals too I am told. Is it fair? No. Has the republican administration cured that problem? No. Will the democrats solve that problem? No. It is just a griping point that comes up every election and will probably continue.
I am amazed that you would say that welfare is a small item.
Welfare Spending in the Nineties: From the Heritage Foundation Report on Welfare:
Welfare spending has continued its rapid growth during the last decade. In nominal dollars (unadjusted for inflation), combined federal and state welfare spending doubled over the last ten years. It rose from $215 billion in 1990 to $434 billion in 2000. The average rate of increase was 7.5% per year. Part of this spending increase was due to inflation. But, even after adjusting for inflation, total welfare spending grew by 61 percent over the decade.
Together, federal and state welfare spending would rise from around $434 billion in 2000 to $573 billion in 2005.
Hmmm. Interesting stats, Frank.
Quote from: angtown3 on October 23, 2008, 01:41:25 PM
Do you know Frank, you make a very good point. When I was going to college, alot of my friends didn't have to work, there parents helped them. I had to work, and I always told my friends that even if I had to work at McD's I would because I had to pay for my own rent and things. I have worked since I was 13 years old or maybe even before that. I am also with Dan on the part that there are jobs out there if people would just work. I worked all types of jobs growing up, and to this day. There is nothing that wrong with a little hard work.
I also don't mind paying my share of the taxes. But when my share is given to people that don't work, won't work, have 10 kids that they don't take care of. That is where I draw the line.
Also, do you know that you don't have to be rich to invest money. Jeff and I have accounts for ourselves and the girls. WE have lost money these past few months, but the girls have made a little. Don't really know to much about it, just that we pay the money and it's taken care of. We are supposed to be able to use this money when we retire. I just hope that there is money there when we need it!!!!
Ang, I understand your concerns over losing some value in your investments, but I am assuming you are in good quality funds, in which case the greatest investment tool and benefit to young people is dollar averaging and compounding. Consider that the shares you are buying now are much cheaper but when this economy recovers those shares you are buying now will be worth alot more as will all of the shares you have been buying the past few years. Investing should be a long term plan and one that you need to use discipline, stay in through the good and the bad times. The key is to be sure you are using good quality funds. The dips in the market are really to your benefit. Keep on keeping on, you will be fine.
Quote from: Catwoman on October 23, 2008, 06:52:20 PM
Hmmm. Interesting stats, Frank.
Cat, one of the fastest growing welfare problems in the US is the Illegal immigrants.
Sorry, David, this is a continuation of the welfare thing. From The Americam Phyclology Association
Making 'Welfare to Work' Really Work
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myths and Facts About Welfare
The general public views poverty as the result of personal failures and deficiencies. This perception rests on several myths. The most prevalent are that poverty results from a lack of responsibility; welfare leads to chronic dependency; African American women make up the largest group of welfare recipients; welfare promotes single parenthood and out-of-wedlock births; welfare provides a disincentive to work; welfare creates a "culture of poverty" because recipients share and hand down to their children a set of defective behaviors, values, and personality traits; and welfare funds extravagant spending by welfare recipients (Ehrenreich, 1987; Katz, 1989). These myths of pathology translate directly to the debate of who deserves help. They also fuel powerful stereotypical racial and gender messages. It is mothers, especially African American and single mothers, who are viewed as undeserving. Unwed mothers are thought to have the choice of marriage and do not obtain the sympathy that widows have. Other groups that are perceived as undeserving are immigrants, especially if they are not fluent in English.
Even the term "welfare" has been pejorative, and distortions of facts about welfare perpetuate myths about public assistance and those who receive it. These negative myths and stereotypes reinforced the government's agenda in cutting welfare spending to those recipients viewed as undeserving. Reform will continue to be ineffective if those implementing it do not separate myth from fact.
Strategies for alleviating poverty and decisions about government spending continue to be closely linked to the perceived causes of poverty, as well as the extent to which these causes are perceived to be modifiable (Furnham, 1982). Poverty is seen as an individual problem or a social issue (such as education or crime) rather than an economic issue (such as unemployment and the economy)(Gallup, 1992). Consequently, solutions are geared toward fixing or punishing those individuals with the "problem." Little attention is focused on societal factors that may perpetuate under- and unemployment, such as inadequate education, transportation, child care, and mental health problems.
Myth: Poverty Results From a Lack of Responsibility
Fact: Poverty Results From Low Wages
Welfare programs have been our country's response to poverty, and everyone agrees that those programs have not solved the problem. Jared Bernstein (1996) of the Economic Policy Institute identifies wage decline as the crucial economic factor that has had the largest impact on poverty rates in the 1980s and 1990s. While hourly rates of pay have fallen for the majority of the workforce since the late 1970s, by far the largest losses have been for the lowest paid workers. According to Bernstein (1996), between 1979 and 1989, the male worker, for example, at the 10th percentile (meaning 90 percent of the male workforce earns more) saw his hourly wage decline 13 percent, and since 1989 he lost another 6 percent. For women workers at the 10th percentile, the decline over the 1980s was 18 percent. The low-wage female worker gained slightly since 1989, but by 1995, her hourly wage rate was $4.84, down from $5.82 in 1979 (all dollars are in 1995 inflation-adjusted terms).
Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients
Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget
Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive "welfare" in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered "welfare" (Goodgame, 1993). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994).
Myth: People on Welfare Become Permanently Dependent on the Support
Fact: Movement off Welfare Rolls Is Frequent
A prevalent welfare myth is that women who received AFDC became permanently dependent on public assistance. Analyses indicate that 56 percent of AFDC support ended within 12 months, 70 percent within 24 months, and almost 85 percent within 4 years (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These exit rates clearly contradict the widespread myth that AFDC recipients wanted to remain on public assistance or that welfare dependency was permanent. Unfortunately, return rates were also high, with 45 percent of ex-recipients returning to AFDC within 1 year. Persons who were likely to use AFDC longer than the average time had less than 12 years of education, no recent work experience, were never married, had a child below age 3 or had three or more children, were Latina or African American, and were under age 24 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). These risk factors illustrate the importance of structural barriers, such as inadequate child care, racism, and lack of education.
Myth: Most Welfare Recipients Are African American Women
Fact: Most Welfare Recipients Are Children-Most Women on Welfare Are White
Children, not women, are the largest group of people receiving public assistance. Less than 5 million of the 14 million public assistance recipients are adults, and 90 percent of those adults are women (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1995). The majority of the recipients are White (38 percent), followed by 37 percent African Americans, and 25 percent other minority groups (Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans) (McLaughlin, 1997). However, African Americans are disproportionately represented on public assistance because they are only 12 percent of the population (O'Hare, Pollard, Mann, & Kent, 1991).
Myth: Welfare Encourages Out-of- Wedlock Births and Large Families
Fact: The Average Welfare Family Is No Bigger Than the Average Nonwelfare Family
The belief that single women are promiscuous and have large families to receive increased benefits has no basis in extant research, and single-parent families are not only a phenomenon of the poor (McFate, 1995). In fact, the average family size of welfare recipients has decreased from four in 1969 to 2.8 in 1994 (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). In 1994, 43 percent of welfare families consisted of one child, and 30 percent consisted of two children. Thus, the average welfare family is no larger than the average nonrecipient's family, and despite considerable public concern that welfare encourages out-of-wedlock births, a growing body of empirical evidence indicates that welfare benefits are not a significant incentive for childbearing (Wilcox, Robbennolt, O'Keeffe, & Pynchon, 1997).
Myth: Welfare Families Use Their Benefits to Fund Extravagance
Fact: Welfare Families Live Far Below the Poverty Line
The belief that welfare provides a disincentive to work by providing a well-paying "free ride" that enables recipients, stereotyped as "Cadillac queens," to purchase extravagant items with their benefits is another myth. In reality, recipients live considerably below the poverty threshold. Despite increased program spending, the average monthly family benefit, measured in 1995 dollars, fell from $713 in 1970 to $377 in 1995, a 47 percent drop. In 26 states, AFDC benefits alone fell 64 percent short of the 1996 poverty guidelines, and the addition of food stamps only reduced this gap to 35 percent (Staff of House Committee on Ways and Means, 1996).
Despite the ready availability of facts, myths about welfare continue to be widespread. The media contributes to this lack of information. The media helps shape public perceptions about welfare recipients. The way in which a topic is reported can turn a neutral reader into an opinionated reader and can greatly influence public opinion. Although in an analysis of articles published in 10 major newspapers from January 1997 to April 1997, the tone was generally sympathetic to the poor, actual research and facts to counter myths were generally lacking (Wyche & Mattern, 1997).
No apology needed. Often the side tracks are just as fun\entertaining\educational\or of interest. I realize that we don't all have the same questions or interest. Post away.
David
Ang the topics Frank mentioned are all covered in the book "The Wealthy Barber". I saw on Amazon that it is on it's 3rd updated printing. The information it gives you will reassure what you are all ready doing is right. It also will help you be more comfortable when the market takes a big downturn like it always does. Keep doing what you are doing. You don't have to be a stock market guru to accomplish your retirement goals and providing a nest egg for your girls.
David
Frank...I received an email in the past couple of weeks that listed the billions of dollars that are spent on taking good care of our illegals with our generous welfare plan. I was sickened by it...do you realize how many LEGAL children, in our school systems, that could take free ride...COMPLETELY free ride...all the way through their MASTER'S degree...if we weren't paying for all of these freeloading parasites. And don't go bleeding heart liberal on me and start talking about how they do the jobs that we as Americans won't touch. Get rid of them...and you'll find out that there will be people who will step in to take their place...legal residents.
Wow! This thread has it all!! :o :o
Angie, I would like to add this bit of advice to Franks'. I once had a boss whom I admired greatly; he always said, " Pay yourself first". He meant that you should budget for the future before you budget for the present, and he was right. Always pay yourself first, and I must agree with Frank; along with a great family and community network, you have a great plan for success!
Quote from: sixdogsmom on October 23, 2008, 07:38:37 PM
Wow! This thread has it all!! :o :o
It sure does. It could be retitled the Bridge to Somewhere. Because these are the topics in my opinion that are among the most important we have to solve. If we don't we may soon find ourselves nowhere. Thanks to all that are taking the time to post.
David
SDM that is the first rule of advice in the book.
My 401K is doing really well. Can't wait til I'm 59 and a half so I can start enjoying the easy life as I start drawing it out. And I would love to see the Congressmen and women make minimum wage that is good enough for us that need to fill all those jobs that people are wanting to hire us for. I'm not in the 40 percent either. I don't care what they do with Capital Gains. Welfare compares to farm subsidies for the lawyers and every other wealthy person that hates the government in our business. And no, I am not talking about farmers.
Quote from: Catwoman on October 23, 2008, 07:34:00 PM
Frank...I received an email in the past couple of weeks that listed the billions of dollars that are spent on taking good care of our illegals with our generous welfare plan. I was sickened by it...do you realize how many LEGAL children, in our school systems, that could take free ride...COMPLETELY free ride...all the way through their MASTER'S degree...if we weren't paying for all of these freeloading parasites. And don't go bleeding heart liberal on me and start talking about how they do the jobs that we as Americans won't touch. Get rid of them...and you'll find out that there will be people who will step in to take their place...legal residents.
Cat, the cost to US Taxpayers for welfare provided to illegals is massive. We lived in West Texas for 27 years and every year the Hospital districts in West Texas give fee medical in the Millions to illegals. They come across the border go to emergency rooms ready to have a baby, or sick, or need some medical care and the Hospitals can't turn them away. They get what they need and leave without paying a dime. The schools are overcrowded with children of illegals who pay no property tax whatsoever. The Illegals have accidents, they have no insurance, they go back across the Border they pay for nothing. It is a growing problem that will only get worse.
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation's $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You had to know that this initiative was coming! I mean, c'mon really, what do peasants citizens need with retirement money in the Obama's Marxist-socialist state? Retirement savings are a selfish hoarding of money that should be available to all the poor and needy.....right?
If we get stuck with this idiot we really need to rub our fellow citizens noses in the crap they thought they wanted.
But the bad part is.. they will take us all down with them. >:(
What 401 Ks? Where? ;) ;)
Ain't it the truth! If he gets all of mine he won't get much now.
Instead of another capital gains cut, how about eliminating taxes on Social Security and savings, and extend the time people have until they must start withdrawing from their IRA's.
With the economy the way it is, the 500 gazillion dollar debt that we can't pay the interest on, and a bevy of other reason. Anyone promising that your overall taxes are going down is wrong. We all would love a tax cut. Let's work on spending the tax money wisely now and we can do the tax cuts later when things are good. In no way am I saying that certain tax cut may not help us now. If we spend it more wisely and don't waste the taxes we pay now we don't need to pass new laws. I already voted and my eyes are on Congress now and I don't care if they are Republican or democrat. You all had your chance in power and promised things with no delivery. People are getting fed up. Your best bet is to keep us worrying about other things and working too hard to stay afloat so we don't have time to kick your A*SES! This post is rant induced and the poster reserves the right to modify it at any time.
David
Has it been since about 1913 they started enacting all the these taxes to spend money? It's impossible to imagine that our founding fathers had any of this spending in mind or a lot of other things too.