| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Tax laws could make case for dividends | |
|
||
| Time: 03:36 EST/08:36 GMT | News Source: Seattle PI | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
Investors immediately hailed President Bush's tax package, introduced Monday in rough form, because it would give them tax breaks on dividends they receive. Analysts were slower to notice that it also gives breaks to investors in companies that don't give dividends, such as Microsoft Corp. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:37:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 2:37:47 PM |
|
#1: Removing the death tax, removing the marriage penalty tax, removing double taxes on dividends and some capital gains... sounds less complicated to me. How is it more complicated?
Of course, it'll get so watered down in the House and Senate by the NoTaxCut Democrats so it will probably end up making everything more complicated. Thanks Democrats! |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/10/2003 3:18:32 PM |
|
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by dictatorship. The average age of the world s greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependency; From dependency back into bondage. -- The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic(published in 1776) Alexander Fraser Tytler (1748 - 1813) It's always amazing how fast the Republicans are pushing us down the path back towards bondage, but as Tytler accurately predicted... When you find out you can vote yourself money out of the treasury, it's a very easy path to follow. This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, January 10, 2003 at 15:19. |
| #3 By 40 (216.68.248.200) at 1/10/2003 3:34:31 PM |
|
DUPE Get real, there were and are no cuts. Cuts in the growth rate/projected growth rate is not a cut in the actual numbers. Pres. Bush is pushign for cuts in the growth, not the actual funds. Get the facts right before you post.
Kyoto Protocol was rejected by congress during Clintons time, and Pres Bush is right to refusing to join it. First off, it is based on Junk Science, (limited data, massive predictions), secondly it restricts the US and a few other countries, but does nothing to the majority of the other countries in the world, Third, it would give control of US policies and law to other countries, as it allows the 'enforcement of standards' that are not law or regulations, and would subject us to the 'world court' if we didn't follow the direction of the board for the KP. You did forget the Salt treaties that Pres Bush rejected, and said that we are no longer going to follow. Sodablue : not true, Rep Steve Chabot has been elected several times in the Cincinnati Ohio area, and each time promised that he was not going to Washington to get money for his area, he was going to kill all the pork he can, and did so to the tune of $500 million eliminated from allocation to the area. |
| #4 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 3:37:38 PM |
|
Anyone who quotes Michael Moore doesn't deserve any type of response. If they're so delusional that they think Michael Moore has any clue, they themselves have no clue.
#6: Soda, It's funny you quote that because he's talking about social programs, not tax cuts. Reduction in governmental power is not what he's talking about, he's talking about social programs like welfare, unemployment, social security, etc. It is the Democrats who are creating armies of dependent poor people to whom they promise even more benefits and require less responsibility. If anyone is the downfall of this country, it's the liberals and their social programs and the Democrats who refuse to give any money or power back to the people. The average American pays 33% of their income in taxes. People are so burdened by the Democrats and their pork projects, that it has dragged the economy. What liberals fail to understand is that when you lessen the burden of government and taxes, people excel and tax revenue increases. During the Regan years when he cut taxes in trickle-down economics, tax revenue DOUBLED during the 80's. YES, DOUBLED. Of course, the Democratic-controlled congress increased spending appropriately soas to keep the deficit high so they could blame it all on the Republicans. How come Democrats can spend $8 of $10 on social programs, and when Republicans want to spend $2, the Republicans are the ones "causing the deficit"? The answer is to lower taxes and lower spending and prevent the Democrats from porking the American public. |
| #5 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 3:44:03 PM |
|
In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton's response:
"We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen. In 2013 -- that's just 14 years away -- taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks... I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, 'Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?' " Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999 This is the mindset of the elite liberal establishment. The Liberal media likes to pegs the Republicans as the Fat, White, Rich Man party, but really the Democrats are the Fat, White, Rich, Elitist Man Party. Democrats have not ONE black person in a leadership position in the House or Senate. Bill Clinton had not ONE black person in a person of significant power in his administration. Ron Brown was the Commerce Secretary and was about as close as a black man could come to power under Clinton. But he was going to blow the whistle on Whitewater, but he ended up with a bullet in the back of his head in Bosnia when his body was discovered in the plane crash. (http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/19/194811) (yes, NewsMax has a conservative slant, and they editorialize in the articles, but the facts they present are still facts. It's kinda like the Register. Annoying yes, but they don't lie about the basic facts) Democrats are elistists who think that YOU are TOO STUPID to spend your money or vote for local representatives who can spend your tax money. ONLY THE ALL-POWERFUL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has the smarts to spend your money. Move all the power to the Federal Government. This post was edited by daz on Friday, January 10, 2003 at 15:55. |
| #6 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 3:49:41 PM |
|
(IMDB News, Jan 9 2003 -- unfortunately now unavailable :( )
[QUOTE] American satirist Michael Moore has stormed out of Britain after a bust up with the London theatre hosting his one-man show. The Bowling For Columbine moviemaker performed Michael Moore - Live! to packed audiences for two months before Christmas at The Roundhouse in Camden, North London. But on the penultimate night he reportedly flew into a rage, verbally attacked everyone associated with the theatre because he thought he wasn't being paid enough. During the performance he complained he was making just $750 a night. A member of the stage crew says, "He completely lost the plot. He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the £5-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all conmen and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public." Staff retaliated by refusing to work the following night, which led to the show being held up for an hour. Eventually he made a groveling apology to staff and the angry audience finally took to their seats. A source reports that Moore then packed his bags and flew to New York the next day without saying thank you or goodbye to anyone. [/QUOTE] Wow, Michael Moore, Token Liberal, fighting for the poor guy, the downtrodden, throws a hissy fit because he's not happy with $750 A NIGHT. Typical rich, white liberal elite who pretends he cares about the poor guy, but really just wants to get his money like everyone else. |
| #7 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 5:16:46 PM |
|
#13:
and daz, their were cuts. where do you think increased budget spending for defense comes in at?? something has to be cut? There were some cuts, but the Dems had to be drug kicking and screaming, and most of the cuts came at the hands of Republicans. Of course, that didn't stop either party from the money grab-- I mean Farm Bill. Republicans have NO black person in the house or senate. What the people do is none of my concern. I'm not counting elected officials. then you'd know that 19 black house members are the senior democrats on their committes, so they are in leadership positions Those aren't leadership positions (they aren't there now, anyhow, so that was the past). I'm talking about majority/minority leader, whip, etc. Up until this last session, Republicans had 2 blacks in leadership positions. One was J.C. Watts and I can't remember the name of the other. where are the Republican women in leadership positions??? Good point. However, it's poignant to point out that there are actually very few women in the Senate, so statistically, it's unlikely that either would have many women in power. the liberal media?? lol, it seems to be pretty much for Bush to me, all they do is campaign his agenda (talking about war with Iraq instead of the sorry economy) Huh? Do you even watch the news? The talk about Iraq a lot, yes, but it's always about how horrible it is and how Bush is a war monger. Ever watch MSNBC? It should be called the BBN, Bush-bashing Network. As for the sorry economy, you can thank Clinton for that. Just like most other Republican presidents, Bush has to deal with the failed economic policy of his predecessor. See, the US economy runs in 6-8 year cycles. Clinton rode high on trickle-down Reaganomics, and by raising taxes and spending like a drunk sailor, screwed the economy and failed to provide a firm foundation so that when the bubble burst, we wouldn't descend into recession. May I remind you that the recession officially began in Q4 1999. where'd you get that from a website or something? as much as Brown helped Clinton, if anything Brown would probably be in as much scandal as Clinton. Um, Brown was set to testify before a Grand Jury for the Whitewater investigation with Ken Starr. There are XRay photos provided by the Air Force that shows circular fractures to the skull (one on top, one behind). The Air Force doctors declined to perform an autopsy even though Brown's death met all the criteria for it. This was all in a Washington Post story about a year or two after the crash. Unfortunately, WaPost doesn't cache their old stories :( move all the power to the federal government?? yeah Bush seems to be doing a good job at eroding away our civil liberties in the name of national security. Lol, typical uninformed liberal. None of your civil liberties have changed. The only changes Bush/Ashcroft has made is those rules used for non-citizens/illegal-aliens. Attorney client PRIVILEGE is just that, a privilege. It does not have to be afforded to anyone, let alone illegal-aliens. Regardless, the privilege hasn't been revoked for citizens, just illegal-aliens. (continued) |
| #8 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 5:17:17 PM |
|
(continued)
another thing, a guy from Fortune was interviewed and he said only 15% of stock holders actually own that stock. the majority is in 401k and such. so that majority of stock holders don't pay dividend taxes anyway so you tell me how does that help them?? how does it help the person who doesn't own any stock at all? that's the real question? Actually the majority of stock holders (directly and indirectly) are the elderly. This dividend business will most benefit the elderly and those with retirement plans (most middle-class folks). At any rate, it's removing some of the double-taxes the Democrats have hoisted upon us. It will benefit the financial industry and investment sector which needs some serious uplifting right now. here's another thing your republicans. you tell me which is the bigger threat Iraq or North Korea?? Yes. I would say Iraq immediately. North Korea are just waving their c*ck to provoke us to get some more funding and such. They will settle down and China will smack them around a little and get them back into shape. Besides, NK has not demonstrated that they are willing and able and have used in the past WMD, whereas Iraq has. I would say Iraq is a bigger immediate threat. even the Bush admin has said that Iraq doesn't have nuclear weapons right now, but that NK might have enough material for 1 right now? Actually, he said we don't THINK they do, but then he's always said he has information that proves that Iraq is developing or has significant progress towards WMD. Revealing this information at this time will compromise the source. My guess is that they'll leave the mole in Iraq for as long as possible, then they'll evac him at the last minute, then show the world the proof and then invade. who do you think is the greater threat right now of selling a nuke to somebody?? Selling hardware to Israel and Pakistan is not our biggest concern right now is it right to send sons and daughters to die, so some oil company executives can have control of the oil?? LOL... do you even think for yourself, or just read what the liberals print for you? If all we were interested in is oil, we wouldn't have given back all the wells to the Kuwaitis in 1991. We only get like 40% or less of our oil from the middle east, and only a small fraction of that from Iraq, so that oil argument is so retarded as to not even demand a retort. It's not worth talking anymore. You are so far brainwashed that you can't see how the liberals are ruining the country. |
| #9 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 5:20:26 PM |
|
#14: huh? Do you even follow the news. More and more countries are on board. France and Russia aren't complaining anymore (they were only complaining because they get a lot of oil from Iraq and France has provided Iraq with some of their nuclear hardware and they don't want that to get out). China isn't complaining much anymore.
Hans "Incompetent" Blix has said that Iraq is missing huge chunks from their report. Iraq is technically in material breach of the resolution. Come the end of the month, Bush will lay down the case for everything and most major countries will jump on board and it will be a large coallition. However, it seems that Sadam is getting more and more pressure to exile. I wouldn't be suprised if he managed to do this somehow while saving face. |
| #10 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/10/2003 5:34:09 PM |
|
Lol, Gov. Grey-out Davis in California just announced his budget plan to fix their $35 BILLION deficit (due to liberal fiscal mismanagement). Reductions in EDUCATION, and WELFARE, and, are you ready for this? Sit down, grab the seat rails...
$8.3 BILLION tax increase. I guess that the libs realize that Bush's tax cut might go through, so they have to make up it by killing their own states' constitutents with state taxes. Can you believe that the Democrats in the Senate & House _DO NOT_ want the marriage penalty tax removed? I thought Democrats wanted tax cuts for people other than the rich? But when presented with an option to help out the middle class with removing the marriage penalty and increasing the child tax credit, they say NO! |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 1/10/2003 6:05:45 PM |
|
daz - "What liberals fail to understand is that when you lessen the burden of government and taxes, people excel and tax revenue increases. During the Regan years when he cut taxes in trickle-down economics, tax revenue DOUBLED during the 80's. YES, DOUBLED. "
Ok, following this logic if we set tax rates to 0%, the tax revenue will increase by ten fold. BTW, tax rates for OASDI between 1980 and 1990 went from 10% to 12.4%. One could hardly call that a tax cut, and if you look at revenues you'll find that federal budget surplusses occured in the OASDI funds. |
| #12 By 40 (216.68.161.50) at 1/10/2003 9:37:31 PM |
| TheCoach : Your logic is wrong. A cut would be taking the $1000 budget and lowering it to $950, not cutting the 'projected increase' being a budget cut. The budget of $1000 is the base, then you need to work with the base, and not plan for what it would be with the growth. It doesn't matter if you help 10 or 100 people, the are not part of the issue, since it is about the budget numbers. |
| #13 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/11/2003 4:30:57 AM |
|
Here's my take on the Iraq situation.
The Bush administration is ashamed of the past actions of Reagan, Bush I administrations and wants to clean up the mess. Yes, we know Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction, because in the 1980's we gave the damn things to them. The State Dept at the time was shipping Anthrax, Bubonic Plague, Nerve Agents, and all sorts of other nasty crap to Baghdad for use on the people of Iran. This build up of Iraqi military continued right up until August of 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Then George I finally woke up and realized that what the CIA and other agencies were telling him was accurate... Hussein could not be trusted. So when the UN weapons inspectors were over in Iraq, they knew exactly what they were supposed to fine, because it was on the invoices from Union Carbide, Honeywell and so forth. That's how they know Iraq is hiding it. source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52241-2002Dec29.html This war has little to do with oil, it has nothing to do with the defense of the US. It has to do with correcting a mistake of the past. President Bush would do the world a favor if he'd just come out and admit the truth. Perhaps a brief statement like "We are sorry. We are sorry that we ever aided Iraq in the development of weapons. We are sorry for the millions of Iranians who died at the hands of these weapons. We are sorry for the Kurds who died at the hands of these weapons. We made a horrible mistake, and we feel it is our responsibility to correct that mistake. That is our reason for removing Saddam Hussein from power." Will it happen? No. Ohwell maybe we'll get lucky and Blix will stumble onto something to justify this war. Otherwise we become that which all of our critics claim we are already. |
| #14 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/11/2003 4:47:00 AM |
|
z00ker - "North Korea made agreements concerning their WMD programs that they too have now violated. "
What you forget is that in the same pact, the United States made a non-aggression agreement with North Korea. That non-aggression agreement was violated by President Bush in last year's State of the Union address when he included North Korea in a so-called "Axis of Evil." North Korea is acting like any school kid would when the bully demands his lunch money. They're telling the US to go F themselves. |
| #15 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 1/11/2003 12:34:14 PM |
|
1.) Iraq isn't about oil. Iraq is about a known madman developing WMD and who is willing to use them indescriminantly on civilian populations around the world. The U.S. nor the world can allow that to happen.
We have let Iraq get away with far too much for far to long. Iraq is not trustworthy and is not worthy of negotiation. They have proven they are liars and cheats therefore diplomacy is worthless. Sadam only understands force, and if he doesn't understand force, then that's his problem. 2.) NK is a different situation since we do have diplomatic relations with them and we have entered into agreements with them which they have kept for the most part. This recent tift is that they feel that we have violated our end of the bargain. Anyhow, regardless of how they feel, there is a VERY likely diplomatic resolution, so show of force is not necessary. As a matter of fact, a show of force would undermine the whole situation because NK say they fear that we'll just attack them indescriminantly. I know you guys know this, but you just hate anything Bush does so you're just strawmanning, but I thought I could get the facts out. I mean, after all, you guys had no problem when Clinton rained bombs down on Bosnia and Iraq, or when he killed 2000 Albanians in Bosnia or the Aspirin factory in Baghdad. 3.) Reducing taxes to 0%... don't insult me. I know you're not that retarded. Reducing taxes increases revenue to a point. With the current taxes at around 30-40% (50-70% in some cases for the rich), there is lots of room to cut. If you should be mad at anyone, you should be mad at the tax-and-spend liberals who think that government should provide you with everything from your income to your food to your housing without ever contributing anything back to society. Maybe if the democrats didn't spend so damned much, we wouldn't need such high taxes and cutting taxes wouldn't be a big deal. |
| #16 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/11/2003 1:19:01 PM |
|
z00ker - "While I have not read the terms of our agreements with North Korea (nor do I really want to)"
Unfortunately this is all too common in America, and it certainly makes the politicians job easier. Here's the framework: http://www.kedo.org/pdfs/AgreedFramework.pdf How about some old news from May of 2001: http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/16/nkorea.us.missile/index.html The Bush Administration foreign policy position started off by ignoring the 1994 Agreement. Later they thought the better of it, but again North Korea's position is the US abandoned the Agreement. Agreements are generally two-sided... you trade one thing for another. In this agreement, we promised to help them with their energy needs and normalize relations, if they promised to shut down the graphite fed reactors. ">>They're telling the US to go F themselves. Last time I said that to a bully I got the S kicked outta me. :-) " Exactly. But most school bullies don't have their responses broadcast on the evening news so that the rest of the world knows how they behave. This post was edited by sodablue on Saturday, January 11, 2003 at 13:33. |
| #17 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/11/2003 1:20:56 PM |
|
As an example of being grossly ill-informed about US policy, I only need point as daz as the poster child of the movement. One wonders why he even bothers to post? All I ever see is tired old cliches and regurgitation of Rush Limbaughisms. :(
BTW, daz, you never responded to my idea of cutting tax rates to 0%. Remember doing so will increase revenues by ten-fold! You said so yourself. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 1/12/2003 8:13:08 PM |
|
parker - "soadblue, pull your head out from the hole in the ground and look around."
Here, read this: http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/rsepResources/si/nov02/eastAsia.asp Maybe that will help educate your post-Limbaugh mind. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. JaggedFlame - "North Korea's getting desperate. They're starting to act like Japan did when it ran out of oil right before World War II, and we all know how that one ended. I still don't see why they deserve any different response than Iraq does. " Because Iraq has already done multiple things under the Hussein regime to provoke attack. North Korea, while oppressive has done little to provoke attack. They've kept the 1953 armistice setting up the DMZ and so forth. They are desperate, they want to be taken seriously, certainly. But mainly they fear another invasion by US forces. Realize that the Korean War is not over, it's simply at a standstill, as troops still face one another and no peace treaty was ever signed. Here's the key. If we offer the carrot to North Korea, and we press them on reform in return for our lifting of sanctions and opening up of trade... and then they do something like crossing the DMZ or launching missiles, we have clear provocation of attack and we can go in and destroy them. We will have moral authority to commit to this action, and will have the support of South Korea, Japan, Russia and China. If North Korea does nothing to provoke, but the US instead launches an invasion into South Korea thereby breaking the armistice of 1953, we will not have moral authority. We will have been the agressor, we will likely not have support from South Korea, Japan or Russia... But more importantly we will not have support from China. Go read the history of the Korean War... The US became the agressor in that war, and provoked China. Why would anybody want to make that same mistake again? This post was edited by sodablue on Sunday, January 12, 2003 at 20:16. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 313 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:37:03 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
