<p>:( 
We are having a “consultation” with our CPA, who misintreprets foreign scholarship in excess of tuition. Perhaps a few K more to pay for 2006, and 2007 has not been filed yet but liability will be another few K beyond the quarterlies. Yes, I know that we should do our own taxes, and we did, but was logically argued away by CPA. Afterall, isn’t that we pay professionals to take of ?</p>
<p>
Is the economy being better off the best goal though? I’d reckon that the best goal is the highest standard of living for the 50th percentile. Our economy can be doing quite well, yet those at the 50th percentile doing quite poorly.</p>
<p>“I really don’t see how increasing capital gains taxes would help to spur the economy or share the wealth. What I think would really interesting is to see the nation’s top 1% of income earners take a year long siesta and stop earning for that year. Let everyone else fend for themselves instead of subsidising them. How would you feel if Bill, Warren and all the others decided to no earn any taxable federal income in 09?”</p>
<p>I’ve always been impressed by Bill Gates’ private investments from Pan American Silver Mines back in 2001 to Newport News which was the subject of a bidding war between General Dynamics and Northrup several years ago.</p>
<p>Did you know that Microsoft pays a dividend? I would assume that Bill Gates does own a few shares of Microsoft and that these dividends generate income on a regular basis.</p>
<p>Now is Warren going to just let Berkshire Hathaway go? Well his strategy is to buy companies that are well-managed and that produce good cash flows so that minimal management is required. That is outside of the companies that he buys at a deep discount.</p>
<p>I spent many years working 80 hours a week and those were very rewarding years but perhaps my kids didn’t think so. I think folks at the top are driven people that have something in them that wants to produce. Would they voluntarily do nothing to spite the US Government? Well maybe they’d spend more time involved in charities but I’m pretty sure that they would spend their time doing something productive.</p>
<p>“The fact that those who may be independently wealthy are attempting to avert the hemorrhaging of their assets to utilize at their discrepancy as opposed to the government isn’t surprising in the least to me.”</p>
<p>Why are they hemorrhaging their assets? Are there Federal taxes on assets?</p>
<p>"The problem is when you have a wealthy group that can influence the laws that we have to live under. And then charge a toll to access the basics of life.</p>
<p>Legally earned it? When you get to influence the laws to favor your company or your industry, is it really moral or ethical?"</p>
<p>I wouldn’t necessarily consider union members wealthy but their combined wealth is used to influence laws. I’m sure there are plenty of union members that fall in that lower 50%. I think we should ban all political union activities, PAC’s, 529 groups etc… No one should have any influence over government. Of course that is an absurdity but it’s always been the golden rule. Those with the gold make the rules.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, everyone benefits. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is very difficult to calculate the “right” standard of living. There is a lot of heterogeneity in consumers, so to verify whether a consumer is enjoying a high standard of living can be hard. High standard of living can include health care, good schools, good housing etc.</p>
<p>I certainly hope that as a society we aspire to greater things than the 50th percentile. My fear is we are slowly becoming a society that wants to put everyone on the same level. That means everyone gets to be in the same class as the lowest common denominator.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was referring to in part the discussion of increasing capital gains taxes, and how some allude to increasing the amount of taxes in various forms on the rich whether it be in the costs of doing business, luxury taxes, income, etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. It simply is a flawed philosophy.</p>
<p>“I wouldn’t necessarily consider union members wealthy but their combined wealth is used to influence laws. I’m sure there are plenty of union members that fall in that lower 50%. I think we should ban all political union activities, PAC’s, 529 groups etc… No one should have any influence over government. Of course that is an absurdity but it’s always been the golden rule. Those with the gold make the rules.”</p>
<p>There are a lot of similarities between corporate and union lobbying. And there are increasing problems with municipal budgets related to salaries and pensions. Will they kill the golden goose? Should be interesting to watch for more city bankruptcies.</p>
<p>I’m particularly amazed at the ability of phone companies and cable companies to continue to push through more fees, charges, fines and price increases and how the populace affords all of this stuff. Maybe students can roll an annual cell-phone package into their student loans. Of course these companies can push through higher charges because we’ll pay for them. So who’s fault is it?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They have good lobbyists, they are making huge profits at the expense of consumers.</p>
<p>“I was referring to in part the discussion of increasing capital gains taxes, and how some allude to increasing the amount of taxes in various forms on the rich whether it be in the costs of doing business, luxury taxes, income, etc.”</p>
<p>It sounds like you are referring to income and sales taxes then. Luxury taxes may work - depends on the luxury I guess. One thing about the wealthy is that they have the ability to delay gratification if they choose to. The other taxes don’t sound like asset taxes outside of local and state property taxes.</p>
<p>Child 1 “You’re wrong”</p>
<p>Child 2 “No, you’re wrong”</p>
<p>Throw in a few ad hominem abusives, a straw man, and multiply by an abundance of wasted time and you have what this discussion has degenerated to.</p>
<p>I can’t figure out how to do that inset “quote message in reply” thing. Bummer. Anyhow…</p>
<p>“They have good lobbyists, they making huge profits at the expense of consumers.”</p>
<p>The consumer could put a stop to it if they decided to stop spending the money on cell phones, cable tv, etc… We won’t of course but we could. I don’t have a problem with that. I know there are some that think staple food items, power and gasoline should be gov’t subsidized because they are non-negotiable for daily life today. I want the gov’t involved in as little as possible as they will only screw it up and make it more expensive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I chuckled when I read that. Not because it isn’t plausible, but as one who benefits from a union, when I say that we have to be pragmatic in our contract talks, less we face financial ruin, I’m labled as a heretic. Speak about personal accountability in certain circles, an Uncle Tom. It’s refreshing to know that my way of thinking isn’t happening in a vacuum. I was beginning to think their name calling had some merit!</p>
<p>
Yeah, we all live at Lake Wobegon, where all children are above average.</p>
<p>
Is that what you think? Our Gini coefficient is the highest in the Western world.</p>
<p>
You consider the 50th percentile as the lowest common denominator? I have no problem if the bottom 10% lives in squalid poverty - if the 50th percentile lives in squalid poverty, we have a problem.</p>
<p>"Child 1 “You’re wrong”</p>
<p>Child 2 “No, you’re wrong”</p>
<p>Throw in a few ad hominem abusives, a straw man, and multiply by an abundance of wasted time and you have what this discussion has degenerated to."</p>
<p>I’m guessing from your previous, extreme liberal opinions earlier in this thread that this isn’t going they way you would like it to so therefore you must try to make our opinions irrelevant?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[<em>quote]text you want quoted[</em>/quote]</p>
<p>Remove the asterix.</p>
<p>Thank you for that bit of info!</p>
<p>I’m guessing from your previous, extreme liberal opinions earlier in this thread that this isn’t going they way you would like it to so therefore you must try to make our opinions irrelevant?</p>
<p>I have no vested interest in this discussion. Either way you are not going to change my opinion and you are arrogant and complacent to think you are going to change someone else’s…unless of course they are already partially of that disposition. I just occasionally check up on the thread because I find it rather humorous. You’d think you guys were on way to discovering “the truth” by the seriousness of your tone. And your opinions are irrelevant with or without my help. If you were in the position to change matters you would have done so by now. Instead you’re discussing them over a forum dedicated to anxiety ridden teenagers.</p>