• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Romney vs. Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, it is guaranteed. You work - company pays you. In the worst case scenario, you will just lose some of your time if you are not paid. In capital investment, you can lose the invested capital itself.

I am not sure whether you really don't see the difference between the two or just argue for the sake of it.

Wage or investment income streams are not guaranteed. If one loses a job, then no income from job. If one loses capital, then no income from capital.

I am not sure whether you really don't see the similarities between the two or just argue for the sake of it.:p
 
Wage or investment income streams are not guaranteed. If one loses a job, then no income from job. If one loses capital, then no income from capital.

I am not sure whether you really don't see the similarities between the two or just argue for the sake of it.:p

If you are a wage earner, you don't list your savings, car, house, or personal property as a collateral to cover company's losses in case your employer goes bankrupt.

Don't be silly. Just stop and think about it.
 
If you are a wage earner, you don't list your savings, car, house, or personal property as a collateral to cover company's losses in case your employer goes bankrupt.

Don't be silly. Just stop and think about it.

Ever heard of a corporation ? Owners don't list their savings, car, house, or personal property as a collateral to cover company's losses in case the company goes bankrupt.

Don't be silly. Just stop and think about it.
 
Ever heard of a corporation ? Owners don't list their savings, car, house, or personal property as a collateral to cover company's losses in case the company goes bankrupt.

Don't be silly. Just stop and think about it.

What is so hard to understand? When you buy stock with your own money, you may lose this money if corporation sinks. If you lose your job, you lose the future stream of income but not the money that have already been earned.Investment is riskier than wage earning.
As someone mentioned before me, there is no point trying to reason with you. You just lack reasoning and comprehension skills. Bye!
 
Are you mentally challenged or what? When you buy stock with your own money, you may lose this money if corporation sinks.
As someone mentioned before me, there is no point trying to reason with you. You just lack reasoning and comprehension skills. Bye!

If you lose your job you may lose your life if the economy sinks.

In a reasonable discussion you're skill impaired.
 
If you lose your job you may lose your life if the economy sinks.

In a reasonable discussion you're skill impaired.

What??? Seriously? :what:
If you don't lose your job, you still may lose your life.

You are impaired even without a reasonable discussion.
 
IR35. When the Labour government said that businesses such as mine were going to be treated differently than any other business. So, I voted with my money and quit the country.

IR35 has been a totally useless tax code and has caused more problems than it attempted to resolve. My earnings were not 6 figures either (not even close).
Ah fair enough, from my 72 seconds of research on it I can see the issues of it.

That's why we are broke, and not because the rich don't pay enough taxes.
*Illegal* tax avoidance doesnt particularly contribute to budget deficits in the US. The reason the US has a deficit that would push any European country out of the bond markets is that taxes are too low and spending too high.

Just FYI each dependent gives you a $1000 credit and a $2500 deduction on your taxable income (or maybe it was $3500). Healthcare for low income Americans may change due to the affordable care act, but for me the premiums are the same. At IBM I was only paying like $150/month but at my new company (roughly 70 employees) we pay something like 700/month for the PPO, and $500/month for the high deductible plan (that is family coverage though...a single employee pays $36/month for their coverage). Thank goodness I got a 17% increase in salary so that I actually wind up still making more net.

I'm not sure we should increase taxes on those making over $55k either...at least not those who make slightly more. I would set the cutoff around $200k or more, and the increase would be small, say 2 or 3%. Again, I'm still struggling and I make pretty good money. We dont have a crazy expensive house either...just a 3 bedroom in the burbs with something like 1470 sq ft.

I'm not going to dispute your situation, but when you say around $200K.. its hardly fair that only those making over that take any sort of hit, and its not economically sound at all. At the very least I would say 3-5% increase on the 100K+ bracket. I would think that social security rates would have to be increased too, but that would have to be offset somehow for a lot of people as the bottom 40% already bring home pitifully little for an economy like the US.

Anyway, the Federal Government has an income 65% of its expenditures, and income, social security and other payroll tax make up 80% of federal income. I certainly think that percentage should be brought down, but ultimately overall income based taxes will need to increase to close the deficit.
 
Did you not read what it said? He said the idea that Bush got $1.5 mil after the war was "ridiculous."

The quote doesn't dispute the UBC share were returned, only that he doubted any German assets would have value.

"supposedly he got $1.5 million when UBC was liquidated in 1951. I'll buy the claim that Bush got his share of UBC back — it was an American bank, after all — but the idea that his German holdings increased in value despite being obliterated by Allied bombs is ridiculous."

Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division recommended that UBC assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government.

UBC was a US private overseas investment bank, set up by Thyssen, a German national to protect his assets. UBC held liquid assets such as gold and US Treasury bonds. Don't think these assets were bombed especially those held in the US.

UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war, "despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power."

A former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s claims P. Bush got $1.5 million for his UBC interest.

There is a reasonable argument that P. Bush interest should have been forfeited, but it wasn't, so I find it plausible that P. Bush received the $1.5 million, especially since assets were returned only to American shareholders.

Is it ridiculous that P. Bush received a $1.5 million payment for his interest in UBC, a private US overseas investment bank setup by a German national to place his assets in locations outside of Germany?
 
What??? Seriously? :what:
If you don't lose your job, you still may lose your life.

You are impaired even without a reasonable discussion.

True losing your job doesn't often equate to instant death, but lack of income makes paying for health care, food, shelter, etc. taxing and may lead to premature death.

Let's keep the personal insults down, true I was parroting your insults back to you, thought you would catch on how ridiculous they where.
 
Can we stop all this pointless Bush family history discussion? I'm sure if you go back far enough an ancestor of his was an axe-murderer.
 
I'm not going to dispute your situation, but when you say around $200K.. its hardly fair that only those making over that take any sort of hit, and its not economically sound at all. At the very least I would say 3-5% increase on the 100K+ bracket. I would think that social security rates would have to be increased too, but that would have to be offset somehow for a lot of people as the bottom 40% already bring home pitifully little for an economy like the US.

Anyway, the Federal Government has an income 65% of its expenditures, and income, social security and other payroll tax make up 80% of federal income. I certainly think that percentage should be brought down, but ultimately overall income based taxes will need to increase to close the deficit.

I think the 100k+ range is more acceptable than 55k+, however I do find it a bit odd that you think it is unfair to set the cutoff at 200k but not 100k. Why is one fair but not the other? I'm actually genuinely curious about your logic here, I'm not just being argumentative.
 
Can we stop all this pointless Bush family history discussion? I'm sure if you go back far enough an ancestor of his was an axe-murderer.

A bit of a marauding discussion on private wealth and how created influences ones perception of reality.

Axe-murderer, what a choir boy, my ancestors were Swedish. How's the coastal weather around the islands ? I get this strange urge this time of year to do some quick "shopping" on the islands.:viking:
 
The quote doesn't dispute the UBC share were returned, only that he doubted any German assets would have value.

"supposedly he got $1.5 million when UBC was liquidated in 1951. I'll buy the claim that Bush got his share of UBC back — it was an American bank, after all — but the idea that his German holdings increased in value despite being obliterated by Allied bombs is ridiculous."

Homer Jones, the chief of the APC investigation and research division recommended that UBC assets be liquidated for the benefit of the government.

UBC was a US private overseas investment bank, set up by Thyssen, a German national to protect his assets. UBC held liquid assets such as gold and US Treasury bonds. Don't think these assets were bombed especially those held in the US.

UBC was maintained intact and eventually returned to the American shareholders after the war, "despite the fact UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler's rise to power."

A former US attorney who prosecuted Nazi war criminals in the 70s claims P. Bush got $1.5 million for his UBC interest.

There is a reasonable argument that P. Bush interest should have been forfeited, but it wasn't, so I find it plausible that P. Bush received the $1.5 million, especially since assets were returned only to American shareholders.

Is it ridiculous that P. Bush received a $1.5 million payment for his interest in UBC, a private US overseas investment bank setup by a German national to place his assets in locations outside of Germany?

You find it plausible. Fine. Experts, and common sense, say it's unlikely. Fine. The fact of the matter is there is NO evidence at all that Bush profited one single cent off of the entire deal and there is NO evidence that he was ever in the deal in the first place for any reason other than monetary gain. You are making the claim that Bush made an absurd amount of money ($25 mil in todays dollars) in this deal. That is a bold claim. Bold claims demand bold proof or the null hypothesis has to stand. Yet the facts behind this claim are completely non-existent. There is one "unnamed source" making this claim.
 
*Illegal* tax avoidance doesnt particularly contribute to budget deficits in the US. The reason the US has a deficit that would push any European country out of the bond markets is that taxes are too low and spending too high

It is not tax avoidance by illegals, it is draining the treasury from tax dollars. In the report, it stated that 4 billion dollars were claimed by illegal immigrants by fraud. While it does not look like a lot, it all ads up. Consider welfare, education, unemployment for displaced workers etc. The problem is out-of-control spending with little oversight.
 
It is not tax avoidance by illegals, it is draining the treasury from tax dollars. In the report, it stated that 4 billion dollars were claimed by illegal immigrants by fraud. While it does not look like a lot, it all ads up. Consider welfare, education, unemployment for displaced workers etc. The problem is out-of-control spending with little oversight.

I agree with you 100% on that
 
You find it plausible. Fine. Experts, and common sense, say it's unlikely. Fine. The fact of the matter is there is NO evidence at all that Bush profited one single cent off of the entire deal and there is NO evidence that he was ever in the deal in the first place for any reason other than monetary gain. You are making the claim that Bush made an absurd amount of money ($25 mil in todays dollars) in this deal. That is a bold claim. Bold claims demand bold proof or the null hypothesis has to stand. Yet the facts behind this claim are completely non-existent. There is one "unnamed source" making this claim.

You may want to edit "The fact of the matter is there is NO evidence at all that Bush profited one single cent off of the entire deal and there is NO evidence that he was ever in the deal in the first place for any reason other than monetary gain." Reads a bit odd.:)

P. Bush added a great deal of value to UBC bank as one of the founders and one of seven directors though his work with Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) and board member of at least one of the companies that formed part of a multinational network of front companies to allow Thyssen to move assets around the world along with joint ventures such as The Silesian-American Company.

Actually $1.5m 1950 year dollars is worth about $14.3m today, but even using your $25m figure, not an unreasonable sum for all the value he created for the bank, as the bank was getting a cut of all these assets being moved around.

Also note the blogger post you cited was written in Feb 2003, while the Guardian article was written Sep 2004, shortly after the discovery of the files in the US National Archives, so blogger may not have reviewed the newly discovered files.
 
I think the 100k+ range is more acceptable than 55k+, however I do find it a bit odd that you think it is unfair to set the cutoff at 200k but not 100k. Why is one fair but not the other? I'm actually genuinely curious about your logic here, I'm not just being argumentative.

Because $100K is more than enough to live comfortably, and besides, most people do not earn near that. Disposable income also does not increase linearly, a person earning, say $140K will have a disposable income multiples of someone earning $40K.
 
Because $100K is more than enough to live comfortably, and besides, most people do not earn near that. Disposable income also does not increase linearly, a person earning, say $140K will have a disposable income multiples of someone earning $40K.

It depends LOL I was drinking beer with some people yesterday who claimed $500k was merely enough to live comfortably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom