Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6595)	3/12/2004 1:24:11 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 81568

After a Democratic primary season which saw the candidates take a fairly anti-corporate tack, some of those early words may come back to haunt John Kerry where it hurts most: the wallet. Kerry's policy plans for rolling back tax cuts and his more personal attacks, including comparing outsourcing CEOs to "Benedict Arnolds," have generated concern within the business community. Although most Democratic donors say there is a unified focus on beating President Bush, some major fundraisers say Kerry should mind his words. Says James Neal, a member of Kerry's national finance committee: "It would behoove him to tone down the rhetoric on Benedict Arnold CEOs. … CEOs are doing what they're supposed to do: maximizing growth for their shareholders. To criticize them as being unpatriotic is not consistent with the values of a democratic society." Although the rumblings are mostly below the radar at the moment, anxious CEOs who are reluctant to give money themselves or raise money from friends is certainly not welcome news for the Kerry campaign. The complication for Kerry is that, after voting for free-trade agreements throughout the 1990s, he took a much more critical line during the primaries, calling for a 120-day review of all trade agreements and demanding new standards on labor and environmental provisions. While his evolution might have been necessary to win skeptical primary voters and secure major union support, it has led some to question where Kerry stands on the continuum from protectionism to free trade. As one Democratic strategist who has raised millions for the party explains, "Clinton was able to straddle the line because of his financial objectives … the word on Kerry is that he flip-flops and that scares corporate America." The Kerry campaign, not surprisingly, dismisses any nervousness. Spokesman Michael Meehan says they are not concerned about being able to raise money from corporate sources. "We've been very pleased with the overwhelming financial support we've received throughout the primaries and in the just-started general election campaign. We're on the verge of raising historic amounts of money for a Democrat," Meehan said. cbsnews.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6595)	3/12/2004 1:29:05 AM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Job No. 1 for Bush The first two months of 2004 will be remembered as the moment Americans shifted their view of Bush's economic stewardship. The politicians' private polls and the public polls tell the same story: Americans who began to have faith in the economic recovery a few months ago are now losing it. The startling thing is that an election that seemed on track for the Bush team just a few months ago has, thanks to new economic perceptions, gone haywire. According to Pew Research Center polls, economic confidence grew steadily between autumn and the beginning of the year. The proportion of Americans rating economic conditions as "excellent" or "good" rose from 21 percent in September to 43 percent in the first days of 2004. That was good news for Bush. But the Pew surveys found that the proportion of Americans giving the economy positive ratings dropped steadily during the heat of the Democratic primaries through January and February. It was down to 31 percent at the end of last month. Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, said the findings were consistent with private polls and suggested several factors that came together to dent the public's confidence. Sluggish job growth "takes its toll after a while" and the "continuing bad news about jobs undercuts the other economic indicators." In political terms, the unemployment rate is playing second fiddle to the job-creation numbers. In addition, "the collective effect of the press covering outsourcing" has made it a powerful issue that now comes up regularly in focus groups. Rising health care, transportation and education costs, she said, have further undermined Americans' sense of well-being. "Nobody feels like their incomes are going up," she said. That is why the Bush campaign will be spending so much of its vast treasury in the coming weeks on advertising to change what has become, from its point of view, a dismal dynamic. No wonder Bush went on the air yesterday with a new ad attacking Kerry on taxes and the Patriot Act. In one of his positive ads, Bush declares: "I know exactly where I want to lead this country." Perhaps. But even more than ads, Bush needs a sustained period of job growth, and soon, if he expects voters to go with him. washingtonpost.com

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6595)	3/29/2004 5:58:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Taxpayer A paying 40+% in taxes doesn't strike me as right whether or not taxpayer B pays less. Tim

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (6595)	3/29/2004 8:16:20 PM
From: Logain Ablar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Lizzie: Sometimes one has to be careful and can't believe everything being published. You have to actually do the numbers. In your Example Taxpayer B not only has a higher effective tax rate, 32.5% versus 31.1% BUT also pays $24,002 or 96% more in taxes than Taxpayer A (on 88% higher income). Taxpayer A @ $80,000. Single, no itemized deductions. FICA / MEDICARE of $6,120 FIT of $14,969 SIT of $3,800 (CT tax not sure of CA) Total of $24,889 Eff rate of 31.1% Taxpayer B @ $150,000. Single, only itemized is if SIT is over threshold. FICA / MEDICARE of $7,569 FIT of $34,022 SIT of $ 7,300 Total tax of $48,891 Effective rate of 32.5%. The higher you go the higher the tax. Taxpayer C @ $300,000 Single, only itemized is if SIT is over threshold but is actually limited to $9,985 and no exemption (phased out). FICA / MEDICARE of $9,744. FIT of $83,276 SIT of $14,800 Total tax of $107,820 Effective rate of 35.94% Taxpayer C is actually paying 333% more in taxes than Taxpayer A [$107,820 / $24,889 - 1) on a 275% increase in income. You can double check my calculations, they are based upon the 2003 income tax rates with the 87k fica threshold. The higher earner pays MORE in taxes NOT LESS. BOTH ON A PERCENTAGE AND ABSOLUTE BASIS. FICA MEDICARE is only the employee contribution, not the company / employer match (although if self employed it would make sense to include it). [Note I'm not conceding the FICA / MEDICARE premiums are true taxes, although readily admit this is the path our politicians have led us since the programs inception nor am I going into a discussion on how Taxpayer A will receive more benefits from SS on retirement % wise to his salary than B or C]