|
|
 My Heart Be Happy
Posts: 9159
   
Location: Arkansas | TXBO - 2016-10-20 4:59 PM
Three 4 Luck - 2016-10-20 4:50 PM TXBO - 2016-10-20 3:58 PM Three 4 Luck - 2016-10-20 1:55 PM   That's what people don't get about the tax laws too.  Yes, they are overly complicated and need an overhaul, BUT...  They are written to encourage money to be invested into the economy.  And you see temporary tax laws put in place a lot of years to help direct capital investments where they will do the most good in the current situation, like Section 179.  Section 179 is a great example of why the tax code needs to be scrapped in favor of a flate tax or consumption tax.  The current progressive tax code is manipulated by those with discresionary income and it produces a result that truly burdens the middle class with little to no discretionary income.  I know.  I used sec. 179, I use off shore accounts and every other legal means of tax avoidance.
It's still in place thank goodness!! |
|
| |
|
 Tried and True
Posts: 21185
Location: Where I am happiest | TXBO - 2016-10-20 9:19 PM Bear - 2016-10-20 6:43 PM What is required to convene an article V convention of the states? Is that even plausible? I believe there would most certainly be an attempt before talks of succession or revolution.
Actually there is a huge movement for a convention of the states. http://www.conventionofstates.com/ |
|
| |
|
"Heck's Coming With Me"
Posts: 10797
Location: Kansas | My level of understanding is limited but Stu Varney, pretty smart guy, was just on Fox and Friends, explaining how Hillary's economic plan (entitlements gone wild, taxing the rich and corporations) would over the years add to the debt by 9 trillion dollars. He said Trump's plan was by far the best as he intended to cut taxes on every level flooding money into the economy and freeing people up to spend. That's what it's all about. Worked for Reagan. |
|
| |
|
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Chandler's Mom - 2016-10-20 11:39 PM TXBO - 2016-10-20 4:59 PM Three 4 Luck - 2016-10-20 4:50 PM TXBO - 2016-10-20 3:58 PM Three 4 Luck - 2016-10-20 1:55 PM That's what people don't get about the tax laws too. Yes, they are overly complicated and need an overhaul, BUT... They are written to encourage money to be invested into the economy. And you see temporary tax laws put in place a lot of years to help direct capital investments where they will do the most good in the current situation, like Section 179. Section 179 is a great example of why the tax code needs to be scrapped in favor of a flate tax or consumption tax. The current progressive tax code is manipulated by those with discresionary income and it produces a result that truly burdens the middle class with little to no discretionary income. I know. I used sec. 179, I use off shore accounts and every other legal means of tax avoidance. It's still in place thank goodness!!
Great. Thanks. I better get busy buying some heifers. |
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Chandler's Mom - 2016-10-20 11:33 PM
Three 4 Luck - 2016-10-20 4:50 PM
TXBO - 2016-10-20 3:58 PM Three 4 Luck - 2016-10-20 1:55 PM   That's what people don't get about the tax laws too.  Yes, they are overly complicated and need an overhaul, BUT...  They are written to encourage money to be invested into the economy.  And you see temporary tax laws put in place a lot of years to help direct capital investments where they will do the most good in the current situation, like Section 179.  Section 179 is a great example of why the tax code needs to be scrapped in favor of a flate tax or consumption tax.  The current progressive tax code is manipulated by those with discresionary income and it produces a result that truly burdens the middle class with little to no discretionary income.  I know.  I used sec. 179, I use off shore accounts and every other legal means of tax avoidance.
It's a godsend for a lot of my clients, and I promise they're middle-class!!!
I never meant to suggest that it doesn't help the middle class. Only that it helps the wealthy more. How many middle class families have $500k laying around to take full advantage? |
|
| |
|
 Fact Checker
Posts: 16575
Location: Displaced Iowegian | Frodo - 2016-10-21 6:30 AM My level of understanding is limited but Stu Varney, pretty smart guy, was just on Fox and Friends, explaining how Hillary's economic plan (entitlements gone wild, taxing the rich and corporations) would over the years add to the debt by 9 trillion dollars. He said Trump's plan was by far the best as he intended to cut taxes on every level flooding money into the economy and freeing people up to spend. That's what it's all about. Worked for Reagan.
It certainly depends on what "experts" you rely on for information....They all vary greatly..... Another view point .....
The latest estimate shows Clinton’s economic plan would add $200 billion to the national debt over the next decade, while Trump's would add $5.3 trillion – or 26.5 times as much as Clinton’s – according to a new report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
Debt held by the public is currently over $14 trillion, or 77 percent of the gross domestic product. Under Clinton’s plan, debt would rise to over 86 percent of GDP under, while under Trump’s plan it would rise to over 105 percent of GDP.
The report is based partly on “rough and preliminary estimates” of the two candidates’ more recent economic proposals. |
|
| |
|
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | NJJ - 2016-10-21 10:04 AM
Frodo - 2016-10-21 6:30 AM My level of understanding is limited but Stu Varney, pretty smart guy, was just on Fox and Friends, explaining how Hillary's economic plan (entitlements gone wild, taxing the rich and corporations) would over the years add to the debt by 9 trillion dollars. Â He said Trump's plan was by far the best as he intended to cut taxes on every level flooding money into the economy and freeing people up to spend. Â That's what it's all about. Â Worked for Reagan.Â
It certainly depends on what "experts" you rely on for information....They all vary greatly..... Another view point .....
 The latest estimate shows Clinton’s economic plan would add $200 billion to the national debt over the next decade, while Trump's would add $5.3 trillion – or 26.5 times as much as Clinton’s – according to a new report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
Debt held by the public is currently over $14 trillion, or 77 percent of the gross domestic product. Under Clinton’s plan, debt would rise to over 86 percent of GDP under, while under Trump’s plan it would rise to over 105 percent of GDP.Â
The report is based partly on “rough and preliminary estimates” of the two candidates’ more recent economic proposals.
I don't believe this for a minute. I realize the word "nonpartisan" lends credibility to this but heck, the highly touted "nonpartisan" CBO can't even make accurate projections from one year to the next. It seems to me they recently made an upward "revision" to the deficit for 2016. They'd projected a deficit of around $450 billion, but revised that to about $600 billion. Even the CBO has been scrutinized and criticized a lot for many years. It's just very hard to make these projections from one year to the next.
Do you really believe Hillary's plan will only add $200 billion to the national debt over 10 years? That's practically a balanced budget by today's standards, especially when you take into account that the national debt increased by $10 Trillion over less than 8 years. I realize it makes your candidate look good, but she is going to basically continue Obama's policies. I don't believe for a minute she can all of a sudden lower the budget deficit to an average of $20 Billion per year over the next 10 years.
How do these "experts" take into account the effect of lowered taxes on the economy? Do they project any tax revenue increases from the tax cuts, or do they simply discount this as "trickle down" that won't "trickle"? What about repatriation of $2 Trillion in offshore corporate money? How does that factor in?
|
|
| |
|
 Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | TXBO - 2016-10-20 9:19 PM
Bear - 2016-10-20 6:43 PM What is required to convene an article V convention of the states? Is that even plausible?
 I believe there would most certainly be an attempt before talks of succession or revolution.Â
I have ALREADY heard mention of Revolution from, what I consider, mainstream folks in regards to current events. |
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| foundation horse - 2016-10-21 11:04 AM TXBO - 2016-10-20 9:19 PM Bear - 2016-10-20 6:43 PM What is required to convene an article V convention of the states? Is that even plausible? I believe there would most certainly be an attempt before talks of succession or revolution. I have ALREADY heard mention of Revolution from, what I consider, mainstream folks in regards to current events.
Sure. I hear it also. I also seriously doubt many will give up their lives with their families to actually revolt. |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 695
Location: Windoming | TXBO - 2016-10-21 10:18 AM foundation horse - 2016-10-21 11:04 AM TXBO - 2016-10-20 9:19 PM Bear - 2016-10-20 6:43 PM What is required to convene an article V convention of the states? Is that even plausible? I believe there would most certainly be an attempt before talks of succession or revolution. I have ALREADY heard mention of Revolution from, what I consider, mainstream folks in regards to current events.
Cause it's never happened before? Remember we never learn from history..... |
|
| |
|
Fact Checker
Posts: 16575
Location: Displaced Iowegian | Bear - 2016-10-21 10:48 AM NJJ - 2016-10-21 10:04 AM Frodo - 2016-10-21 6:30 AM My level of understanding is limited but Stu Varney, pretty smart guy, was just on Fox and Friends, explaining how Hillary's economic plan (entitlements gone wild, taxing the rich and corporations) would over the years add to the debt by 9 trillion dollars. He said Trump's plan was by far the best as he intended to cut taxes on every level flooding money into the economy and freeing people up to spend. That's what it's all about. Worked for Reagan. It certainly depends on what "experts" you rely on for information....They all vary greatly..... Another view point .....
The latest estimate shows Clinton’s economic plan would add $200 billion to the national debt over the next decade, while Trump's would add $5.3 trillion – or 26.5 times as much as Clinton’s – according to a new report from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
Debt held by the public is currently over $14 trillion, or 77 percent of the gross domestic product. Under Clinton’s plan, debt would rise to over 86 percent of GDP under, while under Trump’s plan it would rise to over 105 percent of GDP.
The report is based partly on “rough and preliminary estimates” of the two candidates’ more recent economic proposals. I don't believe this for a minute. I realize the word "nonpartisan" lends credibility to this but heck, the highly touted "nonpartisan" CBO can't even make accurate projections from one year to the next. It seems to me they recently made an upward "revision" to the deficit for 2016. They'd projected a deficit of around $450 billion, but revised that to about $600 billion. Even the CBO has been scrutinized and criticized a lot for many years. It's just very hard to make these projections from one year to the next. Do you really believe Hillary's plan will only add $200 billion to the national debt over 10 years? That's practically a balanced budget by today's standards, especially when you take into account that the national debt increased by $10 Trillion over less than 8 years. I realize it makes your candidate look good, but she is going to basically continue Obama's policies. I don't believe for a minute she can all of a sudden lower the budget deficit to an average of $20 Billion per year over the next 10 years. How do these "experts" take into account the effect of lowered taxes on the economy? Do they project any tax revenue increases from the tax cuts, or do they simply discount this as "trickle down" that won't "trickle"? What about repatriation of $2 Trillion in offshore corporate money? How does that factor in?
I, also, would like to question those who are in agriculture in this forum to tell us how the "revered" Reagan "trickle down" theory worked for them in the 1980s ....It was the worst time in history (other than the great depression) for bankruptcies, farmers losing their family farms and some even committing suicide!
Edited by NJJ 2016-10-21 11:37 AM
|
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| Silly Filly - 2016-10-21 11:23 AM TXBO - 2016-10-21 10:18 AM foundation horse - 2016-10-21 11:04 AM TXBO - 2016-10-20 9:19 PM Bear - 2016-10-20 6:43 PM What is required to convene an article V convention of the states? Is that even plausible? I believe there would most certainly be an attempt before talks of succession or revolution. I have ALREADY heard mention of Revolution from, what I consider, mainstream folks in regards to current events.
In the mean time, I continue to hope for a nonviolent return to freedom.
Edited by TXBO 2016-10-21 11:39 AM
|
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| NJJ - 2016-10-21 11:35 AM....
I, also, would like to question those who are in agriculture in this forum to tell us how the "revered" Reagan "trickle down" theory worked for them in the 1980s ....It was the worst time in history (other than the great depression) for bankruptcies, farmers losing their family farms and some even committing suicide!
God I hate when hacks try to rewrite history. Reagan inherited the highest misery index of all time from a failed Democratic President. His supply side economic plan did exactly what it was meant to do. HIs campaign was honest in some of the pain that comes with it. His plan reduced unemployment and inflation like no president before or since. |
|
| |
|
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | TXBO - 2016-10-21 11:55 AM
NJJ - 2016-10-21 11:35 AM....Â
I, also, would like to question those who are in agriculture in this forum to tell us how the "revered" Reagan "trickle down" theory worked for them in the 1980s ....It was the worst time in history (other than the great depression)Â for bankruptcies, farmers losing their family farms and some even committing suicide!
Â
 God I hate when hacks try to rewrite history.  Reagan inherited the highest misery index of all time from a failed Democratic President.  His supply side economic plan did exactly what it was meant to do.  HIs campaign was honest in some of the pain that comes with it.  His plan reduced unemployment and inflation like no president before or since.
It's a typical Democrat talking point whenever there's a discussion of the economy under Reagan. |
|
| |
|
Fact Checker
Posts: 16575
Location: Displaced Iowegian | Bear - 2016-10-21 12:04 PM TXBO - 2016-10-21 11:55 AM NJJ - 2016-10-21 11:35 AM....
I, also, would like to question those who are in agriculture in this forum to tell us how the "revered" Reagan "trickle down" theory worked for them in the 1980s ....It was the worst time in history (other than the great depression) for bankruptcies, farmers losing their family farms and some even committing suicide!
God I hate when hacks try to rewrite history. Reagan inherited the highest misery index of all time from a failed Democratic President. His supply side economic plan did exactly what it was meant to do. HIs campaign was honest in some of the pain that comes with it. His plan reduced unemployment and inflation like no president before or since. It's a typical Democrat talking point whenever there's a discussion of the economy under Reagan.
Apparently, NEITHER of you were a farmer in the 80s....I think you will find that most will disagree with you on the greatness of the economy.....  |
|
| |
|
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | NJJ - 2016-10-21 12:49 PM
Bear - 2016-10-21 12:04 PM TXBO - 2016-10-21 11:55 AM NJJ - 2016-10-21 11:35 AM....Â
I, also, would like to question those who are in agriculture in this forum to tell us how the "revered" Reagan "trickle down" theory worked for them in the 1980s ....It was the worst time in history (other than the great depression)Â for bankruptcies, farmers losing their family farms and some even committing suicide!
  God I hate when hacks try to rewrite history.  Reagan inherited the highest misery index of all time from a failed Democratic President.  His supply side economic plan did exactly what it was meant to do.  HIs campaign was honest in some of the pain that comes with it.  His plan reduced unemployment and inflation like no president before or since. It's a typical Democrat talking point whenever there's a discussion of the economy under Reagan.
So, now you want to get into a discussion about the farm crisis of the 80's?
|
|
| |
|
 Accident Prone
Posts: 22277
Location: 100 miles from Nowhere, AR | NJJ - 2016-10-21 12:49 PM Bear - 2016-10-21 12:04 PM TXBO - 2016-10-21 11:55 AM NJJ - 2016-10-21 11:35 AM....
I, also, would like to question those who are in agriculture in this forum to tell us how the "revered" Reagan "trickle down" theory worked for them in the 1980s ....It was the worst time in history (other than the great depression) for bankruptcies, farmers losing their family farms and some even committing suicide!
God I hate when hacks try to rewrite history. Reagan inherited the highest misery index of all time from a failed Democratic President. His supply side economic plan did exactly what it was meant to do. HIs campaign was honest in some of the pain that comes with it. His plan reduced unemployment and inflation like no president before or since. It's a typical Democrat talking point whenever there's a discussion of the economy under Reagan.
I was a kid back then, but from what I remember it was the early 80s that were so horrible. There was a lot more going on than presidential economic policy, it had started with the 70s boom cycle setting people up to fail because they overextended themselves, and then world events conspired to damage exports at the same time other factors were coming into play. We ourselves were doing quite well farming in the late 80s and early 90s. The late 90s/early 2000s were rough, and as a beginning farmer, I hung on by the skin of my teeth. We're going through another rough period now as an industry. |
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| NJJ - 2016-10-21 12:49 PM Bear - 2016-10-21 12:04 PM TXBO - 2016-10-21 11:55 AM NJJ - 2016-10-21 11:35 AM....
I, also, would like to question those who are in agriculture in this forum to tell us how the "revered" Reagan "trickle down" theory worked for them in the 1980s ....It was the worst time in history (other than the great depression) for bankruptcies, farmers losing their family farms and some even committing suicide!
God I hate when hacks try to rewrite history. Reagan inherited the highest misery index of all time from a failed Democratic President. His supply side economic plan did exactly what it was meant to do. HIs campaign was honest in some of the pain that comes with it. His plan reduced unemployment and inflation like no president before or since. It's a typical Democrat talking point whenever there's a discussion of the economy under Reagan.
Actually, I was. Worked the tobacco farms throughout my childhood. We didn't have the money for land so we contracted to work in the burley tobacco fields of upper east TN. Got paid nothing per hour and no salary. If and when the tobacco made it through auction, I got my percentage. |
|
| |
|
Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| NJJ - 2016-10-21 12:49 PM Bear - 2016-10-21 12:04 PM TXBO - 2016-10-21 11:55 AM NJJ - 2016-10-21 11:35 AM....
I, also, would like to question those who are in agriculture in this forum to tell us how the "revered" Reagan "trickle down" theory worked for them in the 1980s ....It was the worst time in history (other than the great depression) for bankruptcies, farmers losing their family farms and some even committing suicide!
God I hate when hacks try to rewrite history. Reagan inherited the highest misery index of all time from a failed Democratic President. His supply side economic plan did exactly what it was meant to do. HIs campaign was honest in some of the pain that comes with it. His plan reduced unemployment and inflation like no president before or since. It's a typical Democrat talking point whenever there's a discussion of the economy under Reagan.
Oh, and nobody said it was great. What I said was Reagan's supply side economic plan killed stagflation, continually improved the economy and saved us from a mess that Carter may not have been responsible for but certainly couldn't fix.
Now go google stagflation. |
|
| |
|
Fact Checker
Posts: 16575
Location: Displaced Iowegian | TXBO - 2016-10-21 1:09 PM NJJ - 2016-10-21 12:49 PM Bear - 2016-10-21 12:04 PM TXBO - 2016-10-21 11:55 AM NJJ - 2016-10-21 11:35 AM....
I, also, would like to question those who are in agriculture in this forum to tell us how the "revered" Reagan "trickle down" theory worked for them in the 1980s ....It was the worst time in history (other than the great depression) for bankruptcies, farmers losing their family farms and some even committing suicide!
God I hate when hacks try to rewrite history. Reagan inherited the highest misery index of all time from a failed Democratic President. His supply side economic plan did exactly what it was meant to do. HIs campaign was honest in some of the pain that comes with it. His plan reduced unemployment and inflation like no president before or since. It's a typical Democrat talking point whenever there's a discussion of the economy under Reagan.
Now go google stagflation.
LOL....I don't have to....I LIVED through it !!! |
|
| |
Folks on-line