Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (76) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 19371  
Subject: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 12:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/02/obama_stirs_ill_wind_on_wall_s.html

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth. This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned-liberal tax, and spend, and regulate. It's plain ol' big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

Doesn't Obama understand the vital role of capital formation in creating businesses and jobs? Doesn't he understand that without capital, businesses can't expand their operations and hire more workers?
________________________________________________________________________

Let us hope that there are enough Democrats in congress who are not Soviet-style central planners to temper some of Obama's loonier notions. Otherwise start insisting that your kids' and grandkids' schools start preparing them for life after graduation by teaching them how to fill out applications for welfare and unemployment benefits.

--fleg
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ResNullius Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13006 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 1:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Well, I'm knocking on wood right now, but I think my retirement can survive even the economic devestation that will come about by virtue of Obama's economic/tax plans. DW and I are lucky. We've saved and invested throughout our adult lives, and we now have a sizable portfolio of taxable and tax-deferred investments. Obama's taxes and spending will hurt us some, but we should be able to live just fine, although DS and his wife will get far less from us. The folks who will be killed are the solid middle and upper middle classers, who will suffer big time from what Obamawama has in store for us all.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13007 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 1:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 19
KEEE-Riced!
Is this the "Retired Fools" board?
Or the "Republican Fools" board?

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: intercst Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13008 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 1:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
AngelMay asks,

KEEE-Riced!
Is this the "Retired Fools" board?
Or the "Republican Fools" board?



Actually it looks more like the RWCJ board

http://boards.fool.com/Messages.asp?bid=112992

intercst

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13009 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 1:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
Is this the "Retired Fools" board?
Or the "Republican Fools" board?


Well, I'm not now and have never been a Republican, so I would have to answer your second question with a "no" as far as I'm concerned. And I've got plenty of gripes about McCain, but his proposals aren't likely to diminish my lifestyle so they're not relevant here.

As far as the first question goes, don't you think it's on-topic to air your worries about the quality of your retirement going forward? If a candidate is promising to raise your taxes $10-20k per year and damage your portfolio on top of that, is that something to avoid discussing just because most of the posters here are in denial about the ramifications of his policies for their own situations?


--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13012 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 2:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
Your imagination is running wild again. Are you off your meds?

Ad-hom attack. But that's what substitutes for discussion when you're a liberal and have no answer.

Is it my imagination that Obama said he would raise the dividend tax from 15% to one's marginal rate? Or that he said he would raise the cap gains tax from 15% to as high as 28%? Or that he would raise the cap on paying SS taxes to some unspecified height?

I don't pay SS taxes but that other stuff will ding me good. He said he won't raise taxes on anyone making under $200k, but I bet he was talking about tax on income, not on cap gains and divs.

The normal response to taxes on stuff is that you get less of it. When a luxury tax on yachts was enacted a while back, a lot of boat builders went out of business. That sort of thing. You raise taxes on capital, there's going to be less capital. Less investment, lower asset values. Fewer projects for Gingko. And those of us paying more tax will eat out less, do fewer home repairs, spend fewer weekends away--lost jobs for waiters, handymen and other small businesses. It's gonna hurt the little guy as well as the middle-class guy, the ones the Dems pretend to care about.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13014 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 2:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"The normal response to taxes on stuff is that you get less of it. When a luxury tax on yachts was enacted a while back, a lot of boat builders went out of business. That sort of thing. "

Yes, most of the US builders went out of business. Those overseas reaped hundreds of millions in new orders as the US became uncompetitive......

I'm sure Obama if elected will convince most of the oil companies to move their HQ overseas and many other ocmpanies who are multi-national to move HQ overseas, maybe to Ireland.

ALready companies are fleeing England in record number since they put in higher and higher corporate taxes..their reveneues in tax colledtions are dropping, but their 'needs' for more money don't allow them to drop corp tax rates....

The latest round of taxes in CA is likely to also convince a lot of people and retirees to flee the state....Ole Arnold needs to raise taxes and 'fees' to get 20% more revenues!...that means at least a 20% increase in tax rates and fees!....lots of tens of billions for CA folks to pay.....

CA cities are going bust. More will. The housing market is going down another 25%....all the cities figured on ever increasing real estate tax collections. It isn't going to happen. But the cities borrowed and spent the money based upon magically ever increaseing revenues....




t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cliff666 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13015 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 2:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
fleg: Ad-hom attack. But that's what substitutes for discussion when you're a liberal and have no answer.

When you post an essentially content free diatribe, what more can one do but to observe that you are merely repeating what some conservative talking head has said? But it make you feel good to say something is ad-hom, so enjoy. Wish you would follow all the other facets of debate. But then, I don't call what goes on in the TMF boards "debate". Discussion, mostly.

You said: If a candidate is promising to raise your taxes $10-20k per year and damage your portfolio on top of that, is that something to avoid discussing just because most of the posters here are in denial about the ramifications of his policies for their own situations?

Now you say: Is it my imagination that Obama said he would raise the dividend tax from 15% to one's marginal rate? Or that he said he would raise the cap gains tax from 15% to as high as 28%? Or that he would raise the cap on paying SS taxes to some unspecified height?

I don't pay SS taxes but that other stuff will ding me good. He said he won't raise taxes on anyone making under $200k, but I bet he was talking about tax on income, not on cap gains and divs


If these will raise your taxes by $20,000, you are doing pretty well. I wish it would raise my taxes that much to do what what you describe!

FWIW, we paid over $30,000 tax, state and federal, in 2007. I don't feel like I'm getting a free ride. Nothing in what you are saying would increase my taxes by more than 10%. But without seeing the whole picture, I can't tell. I don't think you can either.

cliff

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13018 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

Actually it looks more like the RWCJ board

http://boards.fool.com/Messages.asp?bid=112992




or the RELE ..... seems to be something about 'Retire' board that draws
Republicans...


maybe the alliteration


=b

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13019 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 7:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
<<or the RELE ..... seems to be something about 'Retire' board that draws
Republicans...


maybe the alliteration


=b
>>


More Republicans seem to have actually done the saving and investing thing and actually retired.

More Democrats seem to be spending and envious of Republicans who are retired or have substantial savings.


Because of that, retired Republicans have ample leisure time to post, while Democrats are more apt to be hard at work with limited time to post.

Of course, there are exceptions, with Mr. intercst the leading example.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13020 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 11:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"If these will raise your taxes by $20,000, you are doing pretty well. I wish it would raise my taxes that much to do what what you describe!"

actually, not all that great....I got a $4500 year pension, and got $51,000 in dividends and cap gains distribution last year.....plus about $15K in regular income (interest)....

My taxes on $51K in dividends was at 15%.

If it is 28%, my tax bill basically doubles.

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13021 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/8/2008 11:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
More Republicans seem to have actually done the saving and investing thing and actually retired.

More Democrats seem to be spending and envious of Republicans who are retired or have substantial savings.


Because of that, retired Republicans have ample leisure time to post, while Democrats are more apt to be hard at work with limited time to post.

Of course, there are exceptions, with Mr. intercst the leading example.



Seattle Pioneer


------------------


Well, that's pretty much bull poopie.
Here I am, a liberal Democrat who has worked hard all her life -- saved and invested. And now retired. And there are plenty more just like me.

You are simply wrong.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mbarr Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13023 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 11:16 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Well, that's pretty much bull poopie.
Here I am, a liberal Democrat who has worked hard all her life -- saved and invested. And now retired. And there are plenty more just like me.

You are simply wrong.


How does an example of one retired Democrat make him wrong?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cohiba123 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13024 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 11:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Obama seems to to NOT understand that many retirees supplement their Social Security income with interest, dividend, and capital gains income. His kind (tax the rich demoquacks) seem to prove how economically ignorant, they really are, everytime they propose another tax increase on investment income.
This is just plain STUPID!!!! IMVHO.
Their proposals will only DECREASE total tax revenues, NOT increase tax revenues!!!!!!!
Joe

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Howie52 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13025 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 11:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"Well, that's pretty much bull poopie.
Here I am, a liberal Democrat who has worked hard all her life -- saved and invested. And now retired. And there are plenty more just like me.

You are simply wrong.

AM "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I enjoy your phrasology.

Howie52
All administrations are temporary.
Nothing ever gets accomplished by the political parties in
Washington,DC - except the continuation of the parties
and their contributors.
Everyone else always knows how you should behave and how your
money should be spent - and are happy to take your money and your life
choices away from you.
You do not have to listen to them.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13026 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 12:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Isn't AM the one who has been whining she can't afford her medical expenses now that she is retired on a minimal budget???? and how health insurance is crimping her style????/

I think the republicans here aren't screaming for 'free healthcare' paid for by others....

t.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: tedhimself Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13027 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 1:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
Obama seems to to NOT understand that many retirees supplement their Social Security income with interest, dividend, and capital gains income. Their proposals will only DECREASE total tax revenues, NOT increase tax revenues!!!!!!!
Joe


Could you back this up, the bolded part above, with some information and statistics? In other words, can you support this assertion? Preferably with some info that does not come from some far right propaganda errr.... think tank? I'd really like to believe that because I live off my dividends, and notice that my total tax bill on some 95,000 in income last year was only taxed at a total (not marginal) tax rate of only about 8%. This 8% is federal tax load on form 1040, and doesn't include state taxes.

Ted

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13028 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 1:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 27
The socialist/far-left view which is evidently the view held by Obama & co. is that the default taxation rate is or should be 100%.

That is, NONE of the money you earn (whether by working at a job, running a business, living off investment income, capital gains, or whatever) really belongs to you as an individual. Rather, you are only able to generate that income in the first place, because you are part of a society which allows you to do so.

It is very, very important for those of us who disagree with this perspective to clearly understand where Obama, and many of the far left here at TMF, are really coming from.

They are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. They don't look at a tax hike as taking more of your money away from you; they look at it simply as the government "giving you" less, but that's O.K., because it's all really the government's money anyway. You get to keep anything that you earn solely from the sufferance of the goverment, not because you have any right to keep it.

So the difference in opinion is something basic and qualitative. It's not about the particular utility of a specific tax increase here or a specific tax decrease there, at least not for the leftists. It's not about belt-tightening or tweaking inflows and outflows. It's something much more fundamental.

Moderate conservatives/capitalists believe, that if there have to be taxes, there should be some sort of logical relationship between the tax imposed and the benefit received, and also, there should be some conception that some sort of value is being received in exchange for the tax, whether to individuals or to society as a whole. Conservatives also believe that the negative consequences of taxation (such as impairing capital formation, etc.) have to be taken into account, as well as the overall tax burden imposed by the various layers of government. In general if there isn't a pretty clearly defined justification for a tax, with a clearly definable benefit, it's probably not going to create a net benefit to society, and certainly not to the taxed individual.

Obama and the far left don't see things that way at all. To the far left, a "tax" is a purely political plundering which a majority can get by legislative fiat from the so-called "rich", i.e., it's politically sold as something that will always be paid by "the other guy." This is the class warfare idea. There's absolutely no idea that the amount of benefit I should receive in exchange for my tax payments should be in some sort of rough proportionality to the amount of taxes I pay.

I remember a recent thread where goofy hoofy kept repeating the idea that government activity "creates wealth." Example: government's use of tax dollars to create NASA which led to various useful technology etc. Completely failing to realize how those "tax dollars" were generated in the first place.

Leftists don't go into a particular say lower-income community and say, "Hey, let's impose a special tax just on the residents of this community, but we'll use those proceeds for the benefit of this particular community." Rather, they will go to the lower-income community and say something like, "Hey, that other community down the road has more wealth than you do, and therefore, they have more benefits, public and private. Therefore, we should tax that better-off community and funnel those proceeds to you, the down trodden poor." In other words, "we will give you something for nothing."

This is why the idea of Hillary/Obama nationalized health care is nonsensical. It's not rational as an insurance scheme because it's designed as a wealth-transfer scheme, not a true insurance plan; but in order to disguise that basic fact, they have to mess around with the entire health care system.

So, when you get into an argument or debate with one of the leftists here, you will never get an answer when you ask a question like: "Well if my dividend tax rate is increased from 15% to 28%, what benefit do I derive in exchange for that increase, either a direct personal benefit or something perhaps a little less direct?" The idea of that tax increase isn't to provide you with a personal benefit, and it isn't event for some hypothetical societal benefit which you can anticipate will indirectly benefit you. It's meant and intended as a purely socialistic wealth-transfer device--it is a direct transfer of wealth from a person who has accumulated capital (which serves as the basis upon which the dividends are earned, of course), ostensibly to the so-called "have nots." Of course we know that government bureaucrats and rent-seekers take a huge cut of pork so it's probably not even a very good way to transfer wealth, even if one actually believed in socialism.

Asking why your dividend tax rate should increase from 15% to 28% so some government bureaucrat can (supposedly) give that money to someone else is entirely a legitimate question. Instead to trying to explain how or why that could possibly benefit you, the leftists attack you. Because there is no benefit, at least no discernible benefit, to such a tax increase. The reverse question is equally legitimate: why should taxes be at the lower rather than the higher rate? but conservatives have a pretty simple answer--it aids in capital formulation and stimulates private enterprise and wealth formation. Now the leftists might not agree with that answer but it doesn't involve name calling and it's reasonably plausible economics.

Make no mistake, the leftists believe that you should be taxed simply because you have more income or more assets than their perceived political constituency. There is no other reason, there is no other justification. It's not about balancing the budget or being fiscally responsible. It's about wealth transfer because it's "not fair" for some people to have more than other people--regardless of whether that's because you worked hard all your life to save what you have.

To the far left, including Obama, the State is not a composition of millions of individuals, each of whom is important; rather, it is the State that is all-important, and individuals don't really matter.

Obama and Michelle are really frightening in terms of an economic policy. I mean she basically got a job because she's a senator's wife, making $300k+ a year, apparently doing nothing particularly productive, and she thinks 1) she's poor and 2) she's "entitled" to more. And he's a guy who apparently has never held a real job in the private economy, where he's actually had to produce a good or a service for sale in the marketplace.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: putnid Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13029 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 2:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"I got a $4500 year pension, and got $51,000 in dividends and cap gains distribution last year.....plus about $15K in regular income (interest)...."

Well, I guess it's water over the dam now, but you lost BIG by not investing the bulk of your funds in tax-sheltered vehicles such as IRA's and 401(k)'s when you had the chance. I maxed out all available tax-sheltered options before I invested dollar 1 in a taxable account. The bulk of my investments have yet to be taxed.

The vast majority of Americans have not maxed out their tax-sheltered options. That's why the cap gains and dividend tax cuts significally benefitted only the very top earners.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Howie52 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13030 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 3:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"Isn't AM the one who has been whining she can't afford her medical expenses now that she is retired on a minimal budget???? and how health insurance is crimping her style????/"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Complaining about medical expenses ---- and any other expenses for
that matter - is one of the rights of man - and ladies.
Debate and discussion of complaints and such are then to be expected
and are how ideas are tested ---- vetted if you will.

And there is nothing that requires folks to agree or prevents them
from arguing different ideas.

And also, there is nothing that requires consistency.
may not help a persn's argument - but doesn't make what they
argue or how they frame their comments wrong or un-interesting.

Howie52
Butting out again into lurkerland.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mendomann Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13031 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 3:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Well, that's pretty much bull poopie.
Here I am, a liberal Democrat who has worked hard all her life -- saved and invested. And now retired. And there are plenty more just like me.

You are simply wrong.


Hear, hear!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: telegraph Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13032 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 3:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
putnid supposes: "Well, I guess it's water over the dam now, but you lost BIG by not investing the bulk of your funds in tax-sheltered vehicles such as IRA's and 401(k)'s when you had the chance. I maxed out all available tax-sheltered options before I invested dollar 1 in a taxable account. The bulk of my investments have yet to be taxed."

I retireed 10 years ago (1999).

My company started a 401K about 1991 when the tax laws changed on ESOPs. Before that, the company would provide 5% of income or so to a stock ESOP plan. That was a decent deal.

I had a private IRA....but I could only put $2000 a year it in....and they only started half way through my working career in the late 70s I believe.

In any event, I maxed out my 40iA once it started. But I didn't have that many years (about 8) to contribute to it....and 10 years of contributing the max to IRAs...and I think it was about $1000 back in the 70s.....didn't amount to a hill of beans.

17% of my assets are in tax deferred plans. Don't think they won't escapte taxation, and probably at 33 or 39% if Obama gets elected. He'll figure out a way to tax them at high rates, or at the rate the contributed the money when you contributed it (while you are working and in a high tax bracket). Then you might not be laughing for too long....

On the other hand, for the past few years, I've been paying only 15% rate on dividends and any cap gains in the non-tax deferred account, and letting the tax deferred one grown along.

I would have socked money away in ROTH IRA, but it doesn't pay to convert at this point.

You'll be paying full income tax rates on any dividends you are accumulationg along the way in your 401K or IRA when you go to take them out, and also full boat tax on any cap gains.

If div tax rates and cap gains rates are lower than your marginal tax rate when you take out your savings......I'll guess I just smile and let you pay more taxes!

t.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13033 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 3:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 15
Here I am, a liberal Democrat who has worked hard all her life -- saved and invested. And now retired. And there are plenty more just like me.

If you can afford to be retired (if you're under 65), then you have so much more than most other people. That's not fair, even if you did it by your own efforts. You should have your taxes hiked considerably, a bigger chunk of your income taken from you and given to others to level the playing field. That's your take on things, isn't it? Oh, I forgot--that only applies to people who have worked hard but saved and invested more than you. Never mind.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChiliChild Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13034 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 4:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Here I am, a liberal Democrat who has worked hard all her life -- saved and invested. And now retired. And there are plenty more just like me.

You are simply wrong.

AM

Chilichild (retired at 56) & Spouse (retired at 51)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Follydolly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13035 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 5:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
why should taxes be at the lower rather than the higher rate? but conservatives have a pretty simple answer--it aids in capital formulation and stimulates private enterprise and wealth formation.

stockmuncher100

I must commend you on a very well written, well thought out post. I wish I could give you many more recs.

I miss the likes of Barry Goldwater LOL. I don't even know if true fiscal conservatives exist even in the republican party any more. Many seem more concerned with religion and morals! I hope that McCain, if he wins the election for President, can surround himself with an intelligent cabinet and vice president. I am sure I am not alone when I say I am very worried about the candidates we have currently running for president.

I can understand why we have such a poor selection of candidates. Who in their right mind would want to take over the horrible mess left by Bush? We need people who truly want to serve the country, not themselves.

Here is my evil side: liberals can call me a selfish bitch, but if I am going to share my "riches", it will be with my family and charities of my choice, not some ne'er-do-well who refuses to keep a job. This country has a dismal education system in the inner cities. There are teachers and schools who have made inroads which should be copied in all the inner city school systems. They don't want to work at it, just keep plugging along, losing the interest of 50% or more of the students.

Putting on my flame suite.

~Birgit

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13036 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 5:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Putting on my flame suite.

It's a sad state of affairs that one feels she needs to put on a flame suit for saying that she wants to make her own decisions about who gets her stuff and doesn't want the government to decide for her.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChurchyLaFemme Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13037 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 7:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well, that's pretty much bull poopie.
Here I am, a liberal Democrat who has worked hard all her life -- saved and invested. And now retired. And there are plenty more just like me.

You are simply wrong.

AM


You ain't the only one.

Churchy - retired at 55

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChurchyLaFemme Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13038 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 9:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/02/obama_stirs...

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth. This isn't free enterprise. It's old-fashioned-liberal tax, and spend, and regulate. It's plain ol' big government. The only people who will benefit are the central planners in Washington.


As opposed to the Republican borrow, spend, and pass the bill on down to future generations mode of operation.

How much has this totally stupid Iraq war cost so far and what's it projected to cost? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23551693/

We've already paid nearly $5,000 dollars per Iraqi just for 2007 alone.
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax.

Interesting. We're supposed to trust hearsay evidence. Kudlow apparently believes it (not surprising), but nowhere in the article is there any mention of how these figures were computed.

The question then becoms at what income level would the 39.6% rate kick in? That's never stated. We had a 39.6% maximum marginal rate as late as 2000. I have the 1999 tax return to prove it, not to mention the 2001 (albeit at 39.1). Non-qualified stock options will do that to you. In 2001, I was laid off. Got paid nearly a year's salary to go away. Also had to sell vested options to avoid losing them. Had to take the income hit all in one year. Oh well.

As I recall, we were also running a budget surplus back when Bill was in office.

Capital gains at 28%? Is that across the board, or is he just trying to disturb fecal matter by scaring us into thinking it will be at that level regardless of your income tax bracket? And a dividends tax of 39.6% would probably only be at that level for people in that bracket, since it reverts dividends to the old method of taxing them at regular income tax rates. If you're in the 15% bracket, your dividends would probably still be taxed at the 15% rate. 'Course, Kudlow (and fleg) don't want to say that, because it would take a lot of the wind out of the scary figures they want to foist upon us.


BTW, if you take the current payroll tax (SS and Medicare) from both the employee and employer (currently 15.3%) and the supposed 39.6% tax rate and you get 54.9%. However, SS taxes (12.4% from employer and employee combined) are capped at $102,000 in 2008 so I suspect that that 52.2% rate is the "scare tactic" rate (most people aren't in the highest income tax bracket). Even then, the effective rate wouldn't be that high because income taxes are progressive. http://www.kissacct.com/ktax.htm

After paying my 2001 taxes where I was in the 39.1% marginal bracket, I tried to calculate the effective rate of my taxes (including State income, property, sales taxes, and anything else I could think of). Even after adding in my employer's portion of SS into the equation, I couldn't get the figure up to 40% of total gross income.

AM is wrong about one thing. It's not bull poopie. It is, in the immortal words of one Col. Sherman T. Potter, "HORSEHOCKEY!"

Cjurchy

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: jwiest Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13039 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/9/2008 10:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 44
The socialist/far-left view which is evidently the view held by Obama & co. is that the default taxation rate is or should be 100%.

I guess you have to perpetuate lies like this to justify the views you hold. Somebody who actually believes this tripe must also believe there is no society, there is only the individual, may the most mercenary win.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13040 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 12:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Here is my evil side: liberals can call me a selfish bitch, but if I am going to share my "riches", it will be with my family and charities of my choice, not some ne'er-do-well who refuses to keep a job.

where a lot of the 'contention' lies

a famous Judge (i forget which) said that the [criminal justice ] system is set-up under the principle that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to execute one innocent. And that's as it should be.

something similar ,IMO, can be said about welfare -- better to feed ten ne'er-do-wells than to let one needy family starve.

"conservatives" want to flip those ratios (and have largely succeeded over the past few decades)

"liberals" want to maybe extend those ratios (especially now that the functional ratio is near 1-1)

"conservatives" seem to think nearly everyone (but themselves?) are ne'er-do-wells ; "liberals" seem to think ne'er-do-wells are rare.



-

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13041 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 1:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<a famous Judge (i forget which) said that the [criminal justice ] system is set-up under the principle that it's better to let ten guilty men go free than to execute one innocent. And that's as it should be.
>>


No doubt the famous judge was speaking metaphorically, since the justice system is designed to parse reality with much closer scrutiny than that as a standard.


However, I'd believe that for every thief or person who assaults someone and is convicted, they probably did that to at least ten other people and didn't get caught.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChurchyLaFemme Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13042 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 2:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
If you can afford to be retired (if you're under 65), then you have so much more than most other people. That's not fair, even if you did it by your own efforts. You should have your taxes hiked considerably, a bigger chunk of your income taken from you and given to others to level the playing field. That's your take on things, isn't it? Oh, I forgot--that only applies to people who have worked hard but saved and invested more than you. Never mind.

--fleg


You sure have a rather crazily skewed view of what it's like not to be a right wing nut.

As for income, I can't speak for AM, but we manage ours so we staty in the 15% bracket, right along with most people who still work for a living. I prefer it that way. It's amazing how little you need to live reasonably well when you don't insist on impressing other people with your ability to spend money.

Churchy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: putnid Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13043 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 2:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"You'll be paying full income tax rates on any dividends you are accumulationg along the way in your 401K or IRA when you go to take them out, and also full boat tax on any cap gains."

I'm well aware that I will pay normal income tax rates on my IRA and 401(k) withdrawals. I don't mind one bit.

Consider this: My 401(k) and IRA's represent deferred income from the outset (I got a big tax break when I initially invested). All normally taxable events since initiation (capital gains and dividends) remained tax free over the life of these accounts (there have been, literally, hundreds of taxable events that have never been, and never will be, taxed). I know for a fact that I would not have even a fraction of what I have today had I had to pay taxes on all of my trades and dividends over the last 30 years. These tax-sheltered options, promulgated to benefit the average working stiff, have been the greatest gifts imagineable (brought to us by Democratic-majority Congresses).

(Note to Self: Skip telegraph's investment advice)

Since I believe that knowledge is power, I offer you this:

http://tinyurl.com/6kajgy

The first data to document the effect of President Bush's tax cuts for investment income show that they have significantly lowered the tax burden on the richest Americans, reducing taxes on incomes of more than $10 million by an average of about $500,000.

Those making less than $50,000 saved an average of $10 more because of the investment tax cuts, for a total of $435 in total income tax cuts, according to the computer model.

But I.R.S. data show that among the 90 percent of all taxpayers who made less than $100,000, dividend tax reductions benefited just one in seven and capital gains reductions one in 20.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Trini209 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13044 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 6:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
if I am going to share my "riches", it will be with my family and charities of my choice

Sharing my "riches" with my family is my primary goal in life. We have 6 1/2 grandchildren whose lives and futures we want to enhance. Leaving our money to them is the least of what I want to provide. I hope with all my heart that they'll have the same benefits in life that I've had, which allowed us to retire in relative comfort and security.

I hope that Social Security will still be there for them - it's only part of my income, but it certainly improves my circumstances. I hope that Medicare still exists for them - in the past couple of years I've had two knees replaced, at a total cost of (gasp) about $66,000 EACH, and boy, if we hadn't all paid into the system for all those years I'd probably be in a wheelchair now. I hope that they have clean air to breath - I look at the smog in China's cities and I'm grateful that I have a government that regulates factory and auto emissions. I hope that there's still clean water for them to drink in the future, and I know that without strong government intervention, that won't be possible. I want them to have good and safe roads, bridges, schools, and all the rest of the infrastructure that isn't going to just maintain itself.

Yes, I feel that hard work and careful spending should allow those people who put in the effort, to afford a better retirement and lifestyle than those who coast along contributing nothing, but the divergence between the richer and poorer amongst us has increased, and continues to increase, to a degree that I feel is immoral. Did the Bush administration's tax cuts cause this? Not entirely, of course, but it sure did contribute.

I don't mind the taxes I pay - I'd gladly pay more, if we all, including ME, benefit from them.

Trini

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13045 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 8:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
Here is my evil side: liberals can call me a selfish bitch, but if I am going to share my "riches", it will be with my family and charities of my choice, not some ne'er-do-well who refuses to keep a job. This country has a dismal education system in the inner cities. There are teachers and schools who have made inroads which should be copied in all the inner city school systems. They don't want to work at it, just keep plugging along, losing the interest of 50% or more of the students.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Your property is your property, and you should be able to do with it as you please.

Democrats are the party of greed. Democrats pretend that they are virtuous, and it is Republicans (or conservatives or libertarians) that are the greedy ones, but the Democrats are the main proponents of taking property that doesn't belong to them by force. They have the gall to criticize those who get their property through voluntary exchange!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13046 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 8:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
As I recall, we were also running a budget surplus back when Bill was in office.

You forgot to mention that the surpluses happened under a Republican Congress. You forgot to mention that the surpluses occurred when tax revenues were at an unsustainable record high. You forgot to mention that the so-called "surpluses" were a sham because they were measured under the fiction of cash-basis accounting instead of accrual accounting.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13047 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 10:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
The socialist/far-left view which is evidently the view held by Obama & co. is that the default taxation rate is or should be 100%.

I guess you have to perpetuate lies like this to justify the views you hold.

What about this statement do you consider a "lie" and why do you think I am trying to "perpetuate" it? Do you not know what "socialism" is? If you had ever taken a graduate-level corporate taxation class, with a leftist professor, at a world-renowned university, as I have in the past, you would perhaps understand that there is a large body of economic and legal theory/philosophy underlying far-left/socialist tax

policy. In effect that body of leftist theory, as I understand it, holds that the government has unlimited power to tax wealth and income. Further, that body of theory holds that any wealth or income which is seemingly generated by "individuals" actually derives from the state. The existence of the State is a condition precedent for the accumulation of wealth and income by the individual. Further individuals are commoditized and fungible; the State does not need any particular individual to contribute to wealth generation and therefore there is no individual entitlement to retain the fruits of one's labor. Rather all decisions related to taxation are optional, political ones.

This notion is clearly reflected by various popular leftists here at TMF such as goofy hoofy, which is why I referenced his comments about NASA in my prior post. You will also frequently see others at TMF making very similar comments. Those making them don't seem to realize that they are simply echoing a popularized or bowdlerized version of a specific academic/philosophical concept of what taxation is and why it exists. This far leftist view is of course fundamentally in opposition to the "conservative" or "libertarian" idea of "individual rights" and the "right to life, liberty and property."

If you still don't believe me and you don't have the time or inclination to actually do independent research on radical leftist taxation theory, then simply get the White Album (I think that's the album this song was on) and play the Beatles' song, "Taxman," and actually listen to the lyrics. At one point there is a lyric that says something like, "There's one for you, nineteen for me--I'm the TAXMAN! Yeah, the TAXMAN!" That particular lyric is a specific reference to the confiscatory marginal taxation rate in Great Britain, at the time the song was written sometime in the mid 1960's, of 95%. (Admittedly this is not quite 100%.) A 1-19 ratio between John, Paul, George and Ringo and the "Taxman" equals the 5%-95% ratio.

So you may think I'm a liar, but really, would the Fab Four lie to you?


Somebody who actually believes this tripe must also believe there is no society, there is only the individual, may the most mercenary win.

I'll stick with the Beatles, thanks.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13048 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 10:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Here ya go:

(Harrison)

[1,2,3,4

Hrmm!

1,2...

1,2,3,4.]

Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

Don't ask me what I want it for (Aahh Mr. Wilson)
If you don't want to pay some more (Aahh Mr. Heath)
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

And you're working for no one but me
Taxman!


Print the post Back To Top
Author: jwiest Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13049 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 10:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 18
What about this statement do you consider a "lie" and why do you think I am trying to "perpetuate" it?

That anybody but the most isolated wingnut thinks the taxrate should be 100%. There might be 3 people in America who believe this, and none of them are running for president or involved in the campaigns.

If you still don't believe me and you don't have the time or inclination to actually do independent research on radical leftist taxation theory, then simply get the White Album (I think that's the album this song was on) and play the Beatles' song, "Taxman," and actually listen to the lyrics. At one point there is a lyric that says something like, "There's one for you, nineteen for me--I'm the TAXMAN! Yeah, the TAXMAN!" That particular lyric is a specific reference to the confiscatory marginal taxation rate in Great Britain, at the time the song was written sometime in the mid 1960's, of 95%. (Admittedly this is not quite 100%.) A 1-19 ratio between John, Paul, George and Ringo and the "Taxman" equals the 5%-95% ratio.

It was Revolver, and 95% wasn't the base tax rate, it was the tax rate for the very tip top income bracket. Your statements are so inaccurate, one wonders if they're intentional.

I'll stick with the Beatles, thanks.

Great research there, you might have more success with Abba.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13050 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 11:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Here is my evil side: liberals can call me a selfish bitch, but if I am going to share my "riches", it will be with my family and charities of my choice, not some ne'er-do-well who refuses to keep a job. This country has a dismal education system in the inner cities. There are teachers and schools who have made inroads which should be copied in all the inner city school systems. They don't want to work at it, just keep plugging along, losing the interest of 50% or more of the students.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Your property is your property, and you should be able to do with it as you please.

Democrats are the party of greed. Democrats pretend that they are virtuous, and it is Republicans (or conservatives or libertarians) that are the greedy ones, but the Democrats are the main proponents of taking property that doesn't belong to them by force. They have the gall to criticize those who get their property through voluntary exchange!

------------------------


MadCap, you are just being silly.
Your property is your property as long as the government doesn't tell you to turn it over. So, in effect, your property is your property at the pleasure of the government of the people who are citizens of this country.

If that government tells you to pay a certain amount, you will either pay it or go to prison. So, of course, you do have a choice. But the choice isn't one you would ever make. I doubt you will ever go to prison for non-payment of your taxes.

Even FollyDolly is just talking "big" she says "if I am going to share my "riches", it will be with my family and charities of my choice, not some ne'er-do-well who refuses to keep a job."

She will share her riches with whomever the government decides she will share them with. And she will do that through her taxes -- or she will also sit in prison (AND share the riches). The choice, of course, is hers. But, just as you will pay, I'm pretty sure she will, too.

So all this squealing and posturing and talking "big" is nothing more than that. You will both pay your taxes -- even though you will both p|ss and moan about it.

And that's something I would put MY hard-eared money on. It's a sure bet.

AM

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13051 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 11:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Oy.
Make that "hard-earned" (not hard-eared). Sheesh.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13052 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 11:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Democrats are the party of greed. Democrats pretend that they are virtuous, and it is Republicans (or conservatives or libertarians) that are the greedy ones, but the Democrats are the main proponents of taking property that doesn't belong to them by force. They have the gall to criticize those who get their property through voluntary exchange!

------------------------

MadCap, you are just being silly.
Your property is your property as long as the government doesn't tell you to turn it over. So, in effect, your property is your property at the pleasure of the government of the people who are citizens of this country.


You can call me silly, but I will never subscribe to your Communist viewpoint, comrade.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13053 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 11:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<The socialist/far-left view which is evidently the view held by Obama & co. is that the default taxation rate is or should be 100%.

I guess you have to perpetuate lies like this to justify the views you hold.

>>


The marginal income tax rates topped out at 95% during the 1940s-early 1960s, when even Democrats recognized the need to cut taxes.


That's close enough to 100% to support the charge that Democrats think (or at least thought) that 100% belonged to government by rights, perhaps giving those that earned it a small stipend upon which to live.

I recall a television biography of Joe Louis, who earned big bucks with prize fights but became horribly messed up by the IRS, who were trying to collect from him at these confiscatory rates. The IRS hounded him for decades for money, which he couldn't pay because the very high tax rates didn't give him a margin to pay penalties and such. The IRS finally made a settlement with him in the mid 1970s and quit making his life a misery.



Seattle Pioneer



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Goofyhoofy Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13054 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 12:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 25
The socialist/far-left view which is evidently the view held by Obama & co. is that the default taxation rate is or should be 100%.

Thanks for the warning. It saved me a lot of time reading a bunch of followup drivel.
 


Print the post Back To Top
Author: MadCapitalist Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13055 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 12:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Obama seems to to NOT understand that many retirees supplement their Social Security income with interest, dividend, and capital gains income. His kind (tax the rich demoquacks) seem to prove how economically ignorant, they really are, everytime they propose another tax increase on investment income.
This is just plain STUPID!!!! IMVHO.
Their proposals will only DECREASE total tax revenues, NOT increase tax revenues!!!!!!!
Joe


I think you have made an erroneous leap from the correct idea that *sometimes* an increase in tax rates leads to an decrease in revenue in certain situations to the incorrect idea that a increase in tax rates will *necessarily* lead to a decrease in tax revenues.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13056 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 1:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
As for income, I can't speak for AM, but we manage ours so we staty in the 15% bracket, right along with most people who still work for a living. I prefer it that way. It's amazing how little you need to live reasonably well when you don't insist on impressing other people with your ability to spend money.

You miss the point. If it's OK to take more money from people who make more in order to help people who make less, the cutoff point that determines who has more is necessarily arbitrary. AM's point of view is that it's fine for the gov't to take stuff from those who have more than she does to give it to those that have less. But taken to its logical conclusion, the gov't should be taking everything from you and me and AM until there are no people left who have less than we do.

Yes, one can live reasonably well by staying in the 15% bracket. But, again taking AM's philosophy to its logical conclusion, it's unfair that you should be paying only 15% tax when there are people out there who have less than you do. You should be paying 65%, maybe 80% tax, so your stuff can be redistributed to those less fortunate until they're on an equal basis with you.

What you are saying is "Hands off my stuff because I live modestly but your stuff is fair game because you're a greedy pig." Your bias clearly shines through with the telling phrase "impressing other people with your ability to spend money." You haven't the faintest idea how much money I spend or what my motives are. The way you phrased that leads me to believe that you are jealous because you think I may have more than you and you need to impute petty motives to me to make yourself feel better.

--fleg

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cliff666 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13057 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 2:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
What you are saying is "Hands off my stuff because I live modestly but your stuff is fair game because you're a greedy pig." Your bias clearly shines through with the telling phrase "impressing other people with your ability to spend money." You haven't the faintest idea how much money I spend or what my motives are. The way you phrased that leads me to believe that you are jealous because you think I may have more than you and you need to impute petty motives to me to make yourself feel better.

--fleg

And, fleg, what I read from your recent posts is that you have a relatively high income, but you don't believe you should be taxed on it. What I (and AM, and presumably Obama) are saying is that everyone should be taxed the same on their income. YOu are saying that some income is "different". Unearned income should not be taxed, while earned income should. What am I missing? Is this where we diverge?

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13058 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 2:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
what I read from your recent posts is that you have a relatively high income, but you don't believe you should be taxed on it. What I (and AM, and presumably Obama) are saying is that everyone should be taxed the same on their income. YOu are saying that some income is "different". Unearned income should not be taxed, while earned income should. What am I missing? Is this where we diverge?

My investment portfolio generates more income than we need to live on. The majority of that income is not really for living on anyway. My stocks are in managed accounts and the managers do more buying and selling than index funds do, with the gains being reinvested in new purchases, not sent to me except for what I need to pay in tax on the gains. In spite of this management activity, my returns have beaten the indexes even after the higher fees and cap gains taxes of 15% (+9% state). If Obama near doubles the tax on cap gains (to 28%), I don't know if I will be able to continue with this investment strategy, as it may not beat the indexes after the new, higher tax burden. That's a threat to my retirement, having to take lower returns on my investments.

The taxes I pay now are fine by me. 15% on cap gains and dividends doesn't hurt too much, although I believe the economy would do better if those taxes are lowered, since it would stimulate more investment activity, which is exactly what happened when Bush lowered the rates on those two items. (Just as the cut in cap gains taxes that Congress forced on a reluctant Carter helped set the stage for the long bull market that followed and the cut in cap gains taxes enacted in 1997 helped keep the bull market humming along.)

And consider: Unearned income has already been taxed. The money in our portfolio was originally taxed at 39.6% federal + 9.3% CA + 1.45% Medicare = just over 50% when it was earned. And then that money gets put at risk in the market and taxed again if the risk pays off. And when I go to spend some of it, it gets taxed again to the tune of 8-9% (but not for me because OR has no sales tax but most people don't live in OR). So when is enough enough?

If I thought higher taxes were good for the country, I would support them. Paying more tax each year would be more than offset by the increase in my portfolio if higher taxes were good. But everywhere I look around the world, I see that cutting taxes (and regulation) boosts economies, even turns them around--from Ireland to Peru to Egypt to Slovakia to everywhere. Britain converted itself from a stagnant economic backwater into a prosperous country when it finally booted the socialists and elected Thatcher and her tax-cutting conservative party. And they just did that again, and just in the nick of time what with British companies fleeing to low-tax Ireland and taking their jobs with them.

Last item: I'd like to see everyone pay at least some tax, so everyone has some stake in responsible government. When you pay nothing or even get the earned income credit (= welfare), you have every incentive to ding the small percentage of people that pays the vast majority of taxes for even more handouts. I don't think it's good to have almost half the taxpayers getting a free ride on the wagon pulled by the other half.

--fleg

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13059 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You miss the point. If it's OK to take more money from people who make more in order to help people who make less, the cutoff point that determines who has more is necessarily arbitrary. AM's point of view is that it's fine for the gov't to take stuff from those who have more than she does to give it to those that have less. But taken to its logical conclusion, the gov't should be taking everything from you and me and AM until there are no people left who have less than we do.

Yes, one can live reasonably well by staying in the 15% bracket. But, again taking AM's philosophy to its logical conclusion, it's unfair that you should be paying only 15% tax when there are people out there who have less than you do. You should be paying 65%, maybe 80% tax, so your stuff can be redistributed to those less fortunate until they're on an equal basis with you.

-------------------


You obviously have NO idea at all what I think.
So please stop assigning things to me that I have not said.
Otherwise, you will look even sillier than MadCap for making up stuff just because you have your panties in a wad about having to pay some taxes.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13060 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 3:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My investment portfolio generates more income than we need to live on. The majority of that income is not really for living on anyway. My stocks are in managed accounts and the managers do more buying and selling than index funds do, with the gains being reinvested in new purchases, not sent to me except for what I need to pay in tax on the gains. In spite of this management activity, my returns have beaten the indexes even after the higher fees and cap gains taxes of 15% (+9% state). If Obama near doubles the tax on cap gains (to 28%), I don't know if I will be able to continue with this investment strategy, as it may not beat the indexes after the new, higher tax burden. That's a threat to my retirement, having to take lower returns on my investments.



You are not making any sense at all here.
How can a higher tax burden be a threat to your retirement if your investment portfolio already generates more income than you need to live on?

Psssst! Don't tell anybody but plenty of people don't "beat the indexes" and yet manage to live just the same.


AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13061 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 3:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

It was Revolver, and 95% wasn't the base tax rate, it was the tax rate for the very tip top income bracket. Your statements are so inaccurate, one wonders if they're intentional.


well .there it is!

NOT a lie ...the British had top marginal rate of 95% in the sixties

no idea how high one's income had to be for the top bracket ..but it would have been measured in Pounds ..so that doesn't matter.

Clearly not deceit to round up to 100%, maybe imply it's a total rate (instead of marginal on HUGE incomes), and then attribute the idea to an American candidate 40yrs later

not deceit ...maybe brain-damage.


=

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Follydolly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13062 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 3:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Somebody who actually believes this tripe must also believe there is no society, there is only the individual, may the most mercenary win.

The statement above sounds a bit like socialism. This country is supposed to be based on capitalism. That is how we got so many great companies. That is how people had enough income to support more companies, research, hiring people to work at those great companies. If I want socialism, I can move to Sweden and be taxed to the hilt so that everyone is comfortable. That may be possible in a small country (although I bet it is getting more difficult as foreigners move in, suffer the cold, but get their free lunch.) I don't believe that socialism will work well here, at least not for me. There is no incentive to work if (1)the government taxes away too much of your earnings. (2)the government gives you a free ride.

AM states that whether I like it or not, the government will tax me and I will pay. True. But I will vote for whomever I think will be most fair. As it is now, I pay an awful lot of taxes. Just you wait till your MRD starts and the shock hits you. I am not complaining, I got lucky with a very good stock market, and now I am paying taxes on it. Okay, I knew that would happen. But I would be more comfortable knowing that when I died, funds that had already been taxed were not going to be taxed again - the dreaded death tax. My children through their own fault, earn very meager salaries. I know they are counting on an inheritance, and I would hate to think if there is anything left, it would be taxed to next to nothing.

We can all see that somewhere along the way, things went awry. Unions got greedy, companies and stockholders got greedy. The world got smaller, everyone wants oil, jobs go overseas and foreigners are happy to work here for pittance and get SS/health benefits on top of it. Mexicans want Spanish spoken in the schools! My family came from overseas, we learned English immediately.

Humpty Dumpty is falling off the fence, we need some very smart people to catch him. I don't see Obama or Hillary doing the saves. Don't know about McCain, he needs to surround himself with very good people.

OAN, is this country utilizing our RR more? I hear the trains go by pretty regularly. Would it not save more oil to ship by RR rather than cross country trucks? Or is that naive?

More drivel from....

~Birgit who has to cut the lawn before it rains on Mommy's Day. The hell with them all, I am going to a dog show.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Trini209 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13063 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 3:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
As I recall, before the Bush tax cuts, Short Term Capital Gains were taxed at 28%, but Long Term Capital Gains were taxed at 15%. And yet most of the folks on this board (me too) have managed to retire comfortably.

Trini

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13064 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 3:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Psssst! Don't tell anybody but plenty of people don't "beat the indexes" and yet manage to live just the same.


something *i* will NEVER understand.

work at the Denny's producing Pancakes (and other useful stuff) -- SS tax and a top rate of 30-something percent (not that anyone other than Denny himself will ever smell the top rate ..but other 'producers' do)

sit on your sofa eating bon-bons while your 'advisor' generates cap gains for you -- no SS and 28% top rate is 'UNfair'


=

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13065 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 3:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
MadCap, you are just being silly.
Your property is your property as long as the government doesn't tell you to turn it over. So, in effect, your property is your property at the pleasure of the government of the people who are citizens of this country.

Angel May


Exactly. Angel May correctly states the far left view of the role of taxation. It's the government's money, not yours, and you only get to keep that portion which the government pleases to let you retain.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13066 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 4:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
MadCap, you are just being silly.
Your property is your property as long as the government doesn't tell you to turn it over. So, in effect, your property is your property at the pleasure of the government of the people who are citizens of this country.

Angel May

Exactly. Angel May correctly states the far left view of the role of taxation. It's the government's money, not yours, and you only get to keep that portion which the government pleases to let you retain.

-------------------------------



Heh.
And the far-right's view is?
Is the far-right's view that it is YOUR money and the government has to ask you for it? Even though the government is the one with all the tanks and guns? Tanks and guns, by the way, that the far-right is always HAPPY to pay for?

In what reality do you live that you don't see that the government has the power here? That is all I'm pointing out. You live in a nation that has a government. That government has instituted a tax system and you, as a citizen, are expected to pay into that tax system if you want to remain free to move about and enjoy the country.

Nothing I'm saying is either far-left or far-right. It is simply the truth. Whether you like that truth or not is your affair. Either way, your opinion does not alter what actually IS.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13067 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 4:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<And, fleg, what I read from your recent posts is that you have a relatively high income, but you don't believe you should be taxed on it. What I (and AM, and presumably Obama) are saying is that everyone should be taxed the same on their income. YOu are saying that some income is "different". Unearned income should not be taxed, while earned income should. What am I missing? Is this where we diverge?

cliff
>>


Do you really think that everyone should be taxed the same, or that people should be taxed differently based on their income and any other political considerations that you or other people think are suitable?



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Follydolly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13068 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 5:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
And the far-right's view is?
Is the far-right's view that it is YOUR money and the government has to ask you for it?


Actually, my city and state governments do have to ask. People vote on tax increases. As for Federal government, the people elect representatives to vote for them in the House of Representative and the Senate. The President and staff are supposed to keep us safe from enemies.

Even though the government is the one with all the tanks and guns? Tanks and guns, by the way, that the far-right is always HAPPY to pay for?

Hello, we need tank, and guns, ships and planes to keep us safe from the other countries/terrorists who have the same.

In what reality do you live that you don't see that the government has the power here?

The law has power. Our government is supposed to be run by the people, for the people. Not at the people, although sometimes it does seem that way. We do not live in a dictatorship AM. We can impeach, we can fire. And we do not have to vote for those who want to give away the store.

That is all I'm pointing out. You live in a nation that has a government. That government has instituted a tax system and you, as a citizen, are expected to pay into that tax system if you want to remain free to move about and enjoy the country.

You are correct. We have a government. IMO, the less government we have the better, leave the governing to the states where the people have more control.

~Birgit

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mendomann Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13069 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 6:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The socialist/far-left view which is evidently the view held by Obama & co. is that the default taxation rate is or should be 100%.

**********************************************************************

I guess you have to perpetuate lies like this to justify the views you hold. Somebody who actually believes this tripe must also believe there is no society, there is only the individual, may the most mercenary win.

**********************************************************************


Jwiest, you'll have to forgive Muncher, but obviously he and his cronies, who agree with him, are in the Libertarian camp and don't believe in taxes for the benefit of society. Their view is very selfish and have no concept of the meaning of altruism.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13070 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 6:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
So, in effect, your property is your property at the pleasure of the government of the people who are citizens of this country.

That's just her cute little way of saying that she wants me and ResNullius and SP and tele and stockmuncher and Follydolly to pay for her health care after we are done paying for our own.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: synchronicityII Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13071 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 6:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
maybe brain-damage.

that was on Dark Side of the Moon. By Pink Floyd.

So was "Money", BTW.

-synchronicity

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cliff666 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13072 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 6:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That's just her cute little way of saying that she wants me and ResNullius and SP and tele and stockmuncher and Follydolly to pay for her health care after we are done paying for our own.

--fleg


Link?

cliff

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13073 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 6:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6

The law has power. Our government is supposed to be run by the people, for the people. Not at the people, although sometimes it does seem that way. We do not live in a dictatorship AM. We can impeach, we can fire. And we do not have to vote for those who want to give away the store.




No, we don't live in a dictatorship -- though under Bush it has come up just short. If we could impeach, why haven't we done it? Ah well... that's another subject.

We have a representative government. And so far your representatives have voted that we shall have taxes and those taxes will go to pay for things you, personally, might not like. Tough noogies on you. And on me. There are lots of things my taxes pay for that I don't like. The war in Iraq for just one starter "thing".

And you are correct -- you don't have to vote for people who are in favor of taxation. Find one who is not - then you can vote for that one.

The reality is that, so far, no one has taken to the streets with torches and pitchforks in protest of our taxes. The government -- that means you and me -- have decided (through our mostly fairly-elected representatives) that we will pay taxes. And until there is a revolution or somebody runs for office with a lobotomy (and wins) we will continue to have taxes.

If you don't like the taxes here, try somewhere else. See if you like the taxes there any better.

The problem I see with you and MadCap and others is that the reality is staring you right in the face and you are doing nothing but railing against it. Like knocking your head into a concrete wall over and over and over. It's not going to change the fact that if the IRS says "pay", you are going to pay. And I am going to pay. I don't find paying taxes fun, believe me. But I am bright enough to know that they are necessary. And I do have a heart big enough to know that some people need help and that our taxes should go to helping them.

To leave people in the streets with no help is to invite revolution of a sort that I doubt even you would want to see.

All in all... we have a pretty good system here.
And it will, of course, be a whole lot better when we can get that batch of criminals out who make up the current administration.

AM

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13074 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 6:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
That's just her cute little way of saying that she wants me and ResNullius and SP and tele and stockmuncher and Follydolly to pay for her health care after we are done paying for our own.

--fleg

-----------------------


You know... the other people on this board who disagree with me seem to have a modicum of intelligence. I'm sorry I can't say the same about you. All you have done so far is make assumptions. And that has demonstrated how ignorant you actually are. Pack it in, fleg. You are tired.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13075 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 6:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
<<The reality is that, so far, no one has taken to the streets with torches and pitchforks in protest of our taxes. The government -- that means you and me -- have decided (through our mostly fairly-elected representatives) that we will pay taxes. And until there is a revolution or somebody runs for office with a lobotomy (and wins) we will continue to have taxes.
>>


Voters in Washington State have been busily repealing taxes and burdening the enactment of new taxes for a number of years now.

Democrats, immensely frustrated by this, have proposed to burden the process of getting initiatives on the ballot through a wide variety of means. They don't seem to be too happy with initiatives when they tend to repeal they sources of tax money and such.


It's pretty amusing, although very serious business. Too bad people in more states don't take this up as a hobby.



Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SeattlePioneer Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13076 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/10/2008 6:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<That's just her cute little way of saying that she wants me and ResNullius and SP and tele and stockmuncher and Follydolly to pay for her health care after we are done paying for our own.

--fleg

-----------------------


You know... the other people on this board who disagree with me seem to have a modicum of intelligence. I'm sorry I can't say the same about you. All you have done so far is make assumptions. And that has demonstrated how ignorant you actually are. Pack it in, fleg. You are tired.

AM
>>


Oh, come on now Angel May! That was fleg enjoying a no doubt chilly Saturday afternoon. We are in desperate need of some global warming here in western Oregon and Washington.




Seattle Pioneer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13077 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/11/2008 9:34 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Is the far-right's view that it is YOUR money and the government has to ask you for it?

My understanding of the "right's" view [I know nothing of the "far right"] is that other than a few very limited functions which are inherently appropriate for government to be responsible for--e.g. national defense/military, perhaps also things like the interstate highway system--government should not even be asking for it. In particular, the "right" views taxation for redistributive purposes with grave suspicion. Compare "reistributive," i.e. simply taking wealth from one segment and giving it to another--transfer payments and the like--to the alternative notion of taxation as a means of pooling resources in order to more efficiently create a joint benefit, such as funding the military or a national highway system.

Clearly a pretty generic "conservative" point of view [if you want to call that "far right" you can] is that private property rights should be protected; government should be limited in its powers; the default assumption is that people are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor, and taxation is something of a "necessary evil"; and generally that the "power to tax is the power to destroy." So this can be distinguished from the far left view--indeed, you have adopted it as your view--that basically all our earnings do not really belong to us, the government's taxation policy is essentially unprincipled, nor should there ever be any expectation among the populace that our country should have a principled system of taxation. Essentially this was the point I was trying to make and you more than confirmed it. Indeed you went beyond what I even said, as I suggested that there was some philosophical [although wrong-headed] justification for the left's position. You don't even claim that there is any philosophical basis for the left's confiscatory view of tax policy; it's simply a matter of raw power.

Even though the government is the one with all the tanks and guns? Tanks and guns, by the way, that the far-right is always HAPPY to pay for?

Actually, you're quite incorrect. One of Bush's most ardent critics w/respect to military spending has been Ron Paul. He was undoubtedly regarded as the most "right wing" of the candidates. The difference between Paul's opposition to Bush's extravagant spending and military interventionism and that of the left is that Paul's opposition is based on principle. That principle is precisely that government can't, or shouldn't be able to, take your tax money to do any darn thing it wants, just because it might have the power to do so. Therefore Paul's opposition to the war must be respected, even if one might disagree with it, because it is based on principle. The left, as exemplified by yourself, opposes Bush and the war, but that opposition is not based on any well-defined principle, if any at all. That's why all the criticism by the left here at TMF is of the "I hate Bush/Worst Prez ever" ad hominem variety.

If indeed you truly believe that, because government has the raw power, then it can do anything it wants with your tax dollars, then you AM in fact are a supporter of the war in Iraq, because your Democratic Congress is spending your tax dollars on that war. And that's why the Democrats have not ended the war, as they surely have the power to do. They are not opposed to it for principle's sake; they mouth opposition to it for pure political expediency. The war is simply a tool with which they can attempt to win the next electoral cycle.



In what reality do you live that you don't see that the government has the power here?

The question which you don't address is, by what set of first principles does the body politic determine the extent of governmental power over that populace? The "right" [as you call it] believes in the fundamental notions of private property and limited governmental power. The left [as typified by you] believes that absolute power is an end in itself, and is its own justification. I don't believe the left's view is a principled view. I also don't believe the left's view is economically rational, so it's not a practical view, either. If people are overly-taxed they will lose incentives to be as productive as possible; similarly, if other people are under-taxed [i.e. receive transfer payments etc.] they also have a negative incentive to be maximally productive in an economic sense.

That is all I'm pointing out. You live in a nation that has a government. That government has instituted a tax system and you, as a citizen, are expected to pay into that tax system if you want to remain free to move about and enjoy the country.

This too is incorrect. There is no obligation that one pay taxes to have freedom of movement in our country. However there probably are such obligations in totalitarian states ["your papers!"]

Nothing I'm saying is either far-left or far-right.

Given that you pretty much echoed my presentation of the leftist point of view of taxation, I think you're incorrect. You're certainly no "centrist" in your political points of view on other issues. It's interesting that you're afraid of being labeled a "leftist," and wish to claim authority as a "centrist." The "center" of American politics is occupied by those bitter, bible-thumping gun-clinging white working-class folks in Pennsylvania who go down to the local bar for a shot and a beer [Hillary], then go bowling [Obama]. Do you feel you have anything in common with those folks? If not, then you're not in the "center."


It is simply the truth. Whether you like that truth or not is your affair. Either way, your opinion does not alter what actually IS.

But I simply pointed out my understanding of the left's view of taxation, and you confirmed what I had initially posted. In other words you agreed with my premise. So that means my opinion was a correct one.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13078 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/11/2008 10:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Actually, you're quite incorrect. One of Bush's most ardent critics w/respect to military spending has been Ron Paul. He was undoubtedly regarded as the most "right wing" of the candidates. The difference between Paul's opposition to Bush's extravagant spending and military interventionism and that of the left is that Paul's opposition is based on principle. That principle is precisely that government can't, or shouldn't be able to, take your tax money to do any darn thing it wants, just because it might have the power to do so. Therefore Paul's opposition to the war must be respected, even if one might disagree with it, because it is based on principle. The left, as exemplified by yourself, opposes Bush and the war, but that opposition is not based on any well-defined principle, if any at all. That's why all the criticism by the left here at TMF is of the "I hate Bush/Worst Prez ever" ad hominem variety.



Wrong again. Our opposition is based on the principle that Iraq never attacked us. Iraq did nothing at all to provoke an attack by this country. Bush was dancing around with ants in his pants - eager to blow something and somebody up in Iraq. He's an impotent little dictator with the IQ of a snail. So far he has maimed, killed, and destroyed the lives of thousands upon thousands of human beings who have done nothing to this country. I oppose the war in Iraq because it is morally wrong and should have been beneath the dignity of the United States. Iraqis are human beings. And I believe that is a principled stance.

If indeed you truly believe that, because government has the raw power, then it can do anything it wants with your tax dollars, then you AM in fact are a supporter of the war in Iraq, because your Democratic Congress is spending your tax dollars on that war.


Exactly. At last you got SOMETHING right. The government does have the power. If you don't think so, I challenge you not to pay your taxes. Go ahead. Let me know how it works out. Show us all how brave you are to stand up to the IRS and the United States government. We are all eager to watch the outcome of such bravery. Of course you will do this, right? Because you believe the government does not have the "raw power to do anything it wants with your tax dollars." Correct?


And that's why the Democrats have not ended the war, as they surely have the power to do. They are not opposed to it for principle's sake; they mouth opposition to it for pure political expediency. The war is simply a tool with which they can attempt to win the next electoral cycle.


I'm afraid you don't know a whole lot, do you? The democrats barely have a majority. They cannot override vetos -- and on the war they don't even have the traitorous and scuzzy little Lieberman on their side. So they don't have the power to end this war. And if you would pull your head out of your...er....out of the dark you would realize that.

The question which you don't address is, by what set of first principles does the body politic determine the extent of governmental power over that populace? The "right" [as you call it] believes in the fundamental notions of private property and limited governmental power. The left [as typified by you] believes that absolute power is an end in itself, and is its own justification. I don't believe the left's view is a principled view. I also don't believe the left's view is economically rational, so it's not a practical view, either. If people are overly-taxed they will lose incentives to be as productive as possible; similarly, if other people are under-taxed [i.e. receive transfer payments etc.] they also have a negative incentive to be maximally productive in an economic sense.


Now you are talking jibberish again. While you may have some notion of what YOU believe, you obviously don't have a clue what I or the "left" believes. But, of course, you have made up your mind and that's that.


There is no obligation that one pay taxes to have freedom of movement in our country. However there probably are such obligations in totalitarian states ["your papers!"]

Again, I challenge you to NOT pay your taxes. Let's just see how long you are able to move about the country -- or move about, period. Let's see how long it takes before the IRS comes and takes your car, your house, your investments -- your freedom. Are you willing to back up what you are saying by refusing to pay your taxes? (Actually, I'm pretty sure you are not that brave -- I doubt any bravery from you at all, actually.)


It's interesting that you're afraid of being labeled a "leftist," and wish to claim authority as a "centrist." The "center" of American politics is occupied by those bitter, bible-thumping gun-clinging white working-class folks in Pennsylvania who go down to the local bar for a shot and a beer [Hillary], then go bowling [Obama]. Do you feel you have anything in common with those folks? If not, then you're not in the "center."

Once again you are making stuff up. You just don't have a clue. Call me leftist all you like. I'll wear it like a badge. Your statement above merely shows that you are shaking in your boots over the prospects of a democratic president. Be still my foolish heart! It makes me want to dance.

And please! Keep us informed how long the IRS lets you move about the country after you refuse to pay your taxes. I'm pretty sure it can take a while. But when that while is up.... let me know which prison to send your Xmas card to, ok? I'm sure you will take this challenge, because after all you believe the government doesn't have the power.

You are a hoot.
You have no idea.

AM

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13079 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/11/2008 2:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Wrong again. Our opposition is based on the principle that Iraq never attacked us. Iraq did nothing at all to provoke an attack by this country. Bush was dancing around with ants in his pants - eager to blow something and somebody up in Iraq. He's an impotent little dictator with the IQ of a snail. So far he has maimed, killed, and destroyed the lives of thousands upon thousands of human beings who have done nothing to this country. I oppose the war in Iraq because it is morally wrong and should have been beneath the dignity of the United States. Iraqis are human beings. And I believe that is a principled stance.

"Our opposition"? That's funny--you claimed not to be a leftist in the post I was responding to. Now you're claiming to speak for the left wing. You can't have it both ways, AM.

Exactly. At last you got SOMETHING right. The government does have the power. If you don't think so, I challenge you not to pay your taxes. Go ahead. Let me know how it works out. Show us all how brave you are to stand up to the IRS and the United States government. We are all eager to watch the outcome of such bravery. Of course you will do this, right? Because you believe the government does not have the "raw power to do anything it wants with your tax dollars." Correct?

O.K. then you agree it's the Democratic Congress' fault that what you consider an evil war is still on-going. That you for admitting that I got that "right."

I'm afraid you don't know a whole lot, do you? The democrats barely have a majority. They cannot override vetos -- and on the war they don't even have the traitorous and scuzzy little Lieberman on their side. So they don't have the power to end this war. And if you would pull your head out of your...er....out of the dark you would realize that.

I know that Bush can't veto an appropriations bill that Congress doesn't send to him. Congress has the power to end the war by simply not appropriating any money for it. You apparently don't know how the legislative process works on a very basic level. I agree I don't know a whole lot, but apparently that's considerably more than you do.


Now you are talking jibberish again. While you may have some notion of what YOU believe, you obviously don't have a clue what I or the "left" believes. But, of course, you have made up your mind and that's that.

O.K. now you're back to claiming that you don't regard yourself as part of the "left." Yet you claim to be able to speak for "our" principles in opposing the Iraq war. So you can't even go through one post without being completely inconsistent.

Again, I challenge you to NOT pay your taxes. Let's just see how long you are able to move about the country -- or move about, period. Let's see how long it takes before the IRS comes and takes your car, your house, your investments -- your freedom. Are you willing to back up what you are saying by refusing to pay your taxes? (Actually, I'm pretty sure you are not that brave -- I doubt any bravery from you at all, actually.)

I simply responded to something you said that is completely untrue. There is no requirement that one pay taxes to have freedom of movement in the United States. Are you saying people on public assistance are prohibited from interstate travel because they don't pay taxes?

Once again you are making stuff up. You just don't have a clue. Call me leftist all you like.

Look at what you said earlier in the post about "our" [i.e., the left's] reason for opposing the Iraq war. "Our." Not, "their." You said it.

You called yourself a "leftist" because you got a little bit mixed up. You think not admitting the obvious--that you are on the hard left--somehow gives you more credibility in these discusssions. It doesn't, because that sort of denial reflects a lack of candor on your part.

I'll wear it like a badge.

So you're proud to be called a leftist even though you say you're not a leftist?

Your statement above merely shows that you are shaking in your boots over the prospects of a democratic president. Be still my foolish heart! It makes me want to dance.

Inevitably, the hard left is ultimately going to turn on the next president--even if that is Obama or Clinton--like rabid dogs--exactly the way they have turned on Hillary Clinton, who was once their beloved.

That's because the hard left doesn't believe in reason and political compromise, yet compromise and moving to the center is exactly what any Democratic president will have to do to be effective.

This time next year we will be reading these boards and it's an odds-on bet that you and the other members of the hard left, at PA and at AF, will feel disillusioned and betrayed by Obama if he should be elected.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gingko100 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13080 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/11/2008 8:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Because of that, retired Republicans have ample leisure time to post, while Democrats are more apt to be hard at work with limited time to post.
I think it's mostly that most of the democrats aren't that interested in participating in these threads.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AngelMay Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13081 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/11/2008 8:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Again, I challenge you to NOT pay your taxes. Let's just see how long you are able to move about the country -- or move about, period. Let's see how long it takes before the IRS comes and takes your car, your house, your investments -- your freedom. Are you willing to back up what you are saying by refusing to pay your taxes? (Actually, I'm pretty sure you are not that brave -- I doubt any bravery from you at all, actually.)

I simply responded to something you said that is completely untrue. There is no requirement that one pay taxes to have freedom of movement in the United States. Are you saying people on public assistance are prohibited from interstate travel because they don't pay taxes?



This deliberate ignorance is over the top - even for you.
I'm finished talking to you at this point.

AM

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JimPope Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13082 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/12/2008 8:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Wow! Why do these political discussions concerning the ideological differences between the left and right seem to end with the left calling the right names?

Of course, it’s just my observation and is worth what it costs.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockmuncher100 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13083 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/12/2008 8:56 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Well when the left contradicts itself in the course of a single post, and that's pointed out, then they often get angry.

Example: In this thread, AM has repeatedly flip-flopped from admitting that she's a leftist and simultaneously trying to deny it. I pointed this out to her and she got angry.

I pointed out that the leftist theory of taxation is qualitatively different from most people's idea that we should be able to keep what we earn as private property and only pay in taxes what can be legitimately justified [however you want to measure that]. The leftist theory is that everything you earn actually belongs to the government, and whatever you are allowed to keep is basically political. There's no recognition of a right to private property because the State is all and the individual means nothing.

AM basically conceded this point, but apparently she is so immersed in leftist ideology that she doesn't even realize its philosophical foundations. I think that's because on a very fundamental level she probably doesn't like paying too much in taxes, either, so she's basically resentful of her own ideology. However, for her to admit: "Yes. The government takes too much of my money in taxes, and that sucks," would require the wool to come off her eyes and result in possibly intolerable cognitive dissonance. That's a fearful prospect, your entire world view being turned upside down. That's why I made the point about Ron Paul. You can be a right-winger and oppose the war if you want. But if you do it from a principled position that the federal government has limited powers and therefore should not be interfering in Iraq without a darn good reason, that also blends into the economic realm, "O.K. I've philosophically decided government has exceeded the legitimate exercise of its power in Iraq. So there are limits on what government should be able to do. Now how do I justify unlimited government power to tax me, or anyone else, unless they demonstrate a darn good reason? Especially when they are using those taxes to support improper exercise of power in Iraq?"

You see that's the problem the leftists have. It's also displayed with the opposition to FISA. If government has unlimited power to tax, why shouldn't it have unlimited power to wiretap? If government has unlimited power to take all the children away from the FLDS compound, why shouldn't it be able to detain alleged foreign combatants in GTMO indefinitely? And so on.

This sort of cognitive dissonance has been displayed on these boards recent with PeterRabit's shunning because of his quaint notion that the U.S. Constitution applies to FLDS members, and that they should have individual rights [hard left like SLL doesn't agree because there is no recognition of individual rights]; and Hochizen's more recent shunning because he won't march in lock-step on the Hillary v. Obama issue.

The end result of the fear of this cognitive dissonance--"Oh man have I been that wrong for all this time?"--generates internal conflict with ends up with the angry name calling. The angry name calling is a way to end participation in the conversation and to end the need to follow one's own thoughts to wherever they may lead.

The leftists don't want to even entertain the idea that government's powers over the individual should be subject to limitations, as a fundamental notion. Because socialism doesn't believe government has limited powers. So leftists will support or oppose various government actions on an unprincipled--and by that I don't mean immoral, I mean, "without reference to a set of guiding principles"--, ad hoc, emotionalized basis.

And that's how you end up with leftists such as SLL basically standing for the position that American citizens who happen to be members of FLDS have no due process rights; whereas suspected foreign combatants should be entitled to all due process rights. The two positions are inherently contradictory, unless one believes that government has unlimited power to do whatever it wants. And "whatever it wants" is whatever I happen to want, if I happen to have the political power to make it so.

So, SLL, and goofy hoofy, for that matter believe they are "correct" simply because their stated positions frequently get lots of "recs." "Recs" are "votes." You are correct if you get the most "recs/votes." Any expression of a difference of opinion, such as by PeterRabit or Hochizen, is intolerable because, if entertained by others, might cause you to get less "votes," hence have less "power."

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13103 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 5/12/2008 3:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Wow! Why do these political discussions concerning the ideological differences between the left and right seem to end with the left calling the right names?

Of course, it’s just my observation and is worth what it costs.


why?

because _JMO_ the right starts telling lies about the left.


=

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MFDnNC Big gold star, 5000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13644 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 7/7/2008 5:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I will not vote for Osama.

UH, he's not running for office, he's running for his life

Print the post Back To Top
Author: 0x6a74 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 13645 of 19371
Subject: Re: Could your retirement survive this? Date: 7/7/2008 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
he's running for his life


may be.

and maybe sitting in a suite in Dubai, munching bon-bons



=b

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (76) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement