Posted on 09/08/2007 11:14:44 AM PDT by CheyennePress
This would be fleshed out more with time, of course, but from what I gather, in your scenario #1, the individual would pay no tax on the $25,000 (not from the dividend he received, not from the interest it generated, or from liquidifying it by taking it off the market).
In your scenario #2, I’m not sure. On face value, it would appear that the usual capital gains tax would be enforced.
Could play an interesting effect on moving investment away from dividents and more towards growth for those close to the $200K mark.
Support a real conservative, Fred Thompson.
It's time for the Republicans to break away from the "let's tweak it" mentality that makes them look like big-government, liberal Democrats. Don't tweak it. "Mr. Romney, it's time to shut down that regulation."
Mike Huckabee is also a real conservative, and he has a better chance of winning the nomination and general election than Thompson. Two of the last three republican presidents were governors. Huckabee was a governor longer than Romeny & Bush, combined. Within the past 110 years, only one ex-U.S. senator was elected president, Nixon.
Right! Mike Huckabee's campaign has already been found DOA. Fred`s the only viable conservative alternative to the liberal abortionist, Rooty Toot. Vote for federalist Fred and keep the liberals and moderates out of the WH.
It is taken from an argument I had with my FIL a while back on taxes and how to pay for all the things like roads, military, etc.. It is a summary of a long argument that actually won him over.
I won’t take credit for the analogy, I honestly can’t remember if it just came to me or if I heard it somewhere.
It was probably a Rushism.
Too bad the President doesn’t write the tax code.
How about some substantive discussion rather than this cheerleading routine?
I’m really trying to inform my own decisions here. Posts like that only waste my time.
-WHY- is Fred’s the only viable conservative alternative?
Free Republic is not a debate society for liberalism or moderatism. We are a conservative forum. If you need to know more about Mitt Boy, do your own research.
I’d start with RomneyCare and move over to his shifts on abortion, gays and guns. Romney is the master of political expediency. A true centrist politico.
That may be the “point” but the result is to make the tax code even more progressive than it already is — and it is damn progressive with the lowest 50% of income earners paying just less than 4% of the taxes — and to make the code even more convoluted than it already is, to favor certain favored Americans at the expense of others.
I expect that I’m a lot older than you are and I’ve made my money, lots and lots of it - so, it really doesn’t matter a lot to me from a financial perspective, I can afford it. But, I don’t remember a single time where I was in the favored income group at the right time to get special benefits at the expense of my fellow citizens. In fact, I can remember getting shot at for about 15 cents/hour for two years and having the Government withhold Social Security from the pittance they were paying me to fight.
I think that I’ll vote for Ron Paul.
So, you’re willing to assert your positions, but not defend them?
Free Republic IS a debate society for conservatism. If you can’t hold your own here, what chance have you against the liberals?
~”If you need to know more about Mitt Boy, do your own research. I’d start with RomneyCare and move over to his shifts on abortion, gays and guns.”~
That’s just the thing. I have done my own research. Lots of it. And 90% of the accusations like the ones you list are skewed, taken out of context, or just plain untrue. Mitt is as conservative as any of the major candidates, whether or not you ascribe to a skewed understanding of his record.
Is Romney the “dream conservative” we’ve all been hoping for? Of course not. But, then, neither is Thompson.
Huckabee’s campaign isn’t DOA. He was second in the Iowa Straw Poll. In polls, in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, in Aug., his support increased.
Tax cut plan = + 10
Proposing to make the tax code less flat, and more complex = - 1
Triangulating by making a point of saying that it doesn’t benefit the wealthy, as if that’s a good thing = -3
For me, Romney gets a 6/10 on this one (by contrast the donks get a 0/10, so it’s not all bad. But playing into the class warfare mindset is disappointing).
“Mike Huckabee is also a real conservative...”
Ah, I don’t think so.
Huckabee’s site, www.mikehuckabee.com, states that he’s pro-tax cuts, pro-spending cuts, anti-illegal alien, pro-life, pro-gun rights, and anti-gay marriage. Which of those views isn’t conservative?
Tell that to the people of Arkansas on whom he raised taxes in addition to nanny-state legislation. Mitt Romney is more of a conservative than Huckabee.
Illegal immigration
Huckabee has been criticized for supporting illegal immigration. In his 2005 State of the State address, he complained that a Hispanic student was not able to get financial aid because he was an illegal alien. Huckabee said: “But when he applied for financial aid, he wasn’t eligible for the various scholarships or grants because of his status, a status that he had no decision in or control over.” Huckabee vehemently opposed a 2005 bill sponsored by Arkansas State Senator Jim Holt which would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants, calling it “un-Christian.”
Fiscal Record
He increased state spending 65.3 percent from 1996 to 2004. He also supported 5 tax increases, prompting the Club for Growth to accuse him of being a liberal in disguise. The Cato Institute, a libertarian non-profit public policy research foundation, gave him an F grade for spending and tax policy in 2006, and an overall grade of D for his governorship. During his tenure, the number of state government workers in Arkansas increased over 20 percent, and the state’s general obligation debt shot up by almost $1 billion.
How are either of these positions conservative?
Huckabee’s site states this about his immigration views:
“* My number one priority is to secure America’s border.
* We have to know who is coming into our country, where they are going, and why they are here. We need a fence along our border with Mexico, electronic in some places, and more highly-trained border agents.
* Those who are caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported.
* Illegal immigrants already living among us who commit crimes must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and incarcerated or deported.
I opposed the amnesty bill that was defeated by the Senate in June. I support the $3 billion that Congress recently appropriated for border security. These funds will be used to train and deploy 23,000 more agents, add four drone airplanes, build 700 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and erect 105 radar and camera towers. They will be used to end “catch and release” by providing money to “catch and detain” those caught entering illegally and to crack down on those who enter legally, but overstay their visas. These border security provisions will stem the tide of illegals, which is what we must do before we can turn the tide and deal with those who are already here. Before you fix the damage in your house caused by a leaking roof, you stop the leak, which is what this legislation will do.
My number one priority is to have a secure border. Right now, we have too many people entering the country illegally, and this must stop. We can’t turn the tide until we stem the tide. We need to know who is coming into our country, where they are going, and why they are here. We need to create a process to allow people to come here to do the jobs - plucking chickens, tarring roofs, picking fruits - that are going unfilled by our citizens. They must have a tamper-proof, scannable I. D. with a finger or retinal scan, so that their employers know they belong here.
Besides stopping terrorists, we must weed out those with a criminal background or a communicable disease. We have to build a fence along our border with Mexico, parts of which will be electronic. We need more well-trained border agents and cooperation agreements with local and state law enforcement officials, so that we have a clear and consistent approach by all jurisdictions.
Those who are caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported. Illegal immigrants who are already living among us and commit crimes must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and incarcerated or deported.”
His campaign literature states,
“Passed Arkansas’ first broad-based tax cut package, and cut over 90 additional taxes — reducing taxes by almost $380 million for the people of Arkansas.
Balanced the Arkansas state budget 5 times, eliminated the capital gains tax for the sale of a home and indexed the state income tax to inflation to keep people from being forced into higher tax brackets.
Left office with a surplus of more than $800 million.”
I lived in Arkansas for six years, and I received a B.A. in political science from the University of Arkansas. I still know some Republicans who live there, and I haven’t heard any complaints about Huckabee.
That reminds me of a test for Liberals that I got somewhere. You ask them how much revenue the gov’t collects from someone who earns $100,000/yr. if the tax rate is 0%. They correctly answer $0. Then, you ask them how much revenue the gov’t collects if the tax rate is 100%. Liberals often say $100,000.
Most here know that the answer is $0.
I have also pointed out that if welfare programs are worth $40k/yr., any tax rate of >60% still produces $0 revenue, but that gets pretty complicated for a liberal. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.