It will be because of the economy, and specifically mostly because of failure to add new jobs.
In the end, the American public almost always votes their pocketbook.
I can't stand Bush, he is hopelessly insane but right now all I care about is MY tax rates and the Democrats have my net worth squarely in their cross hairs. I am not interesting in ushering in higher rates with my vote. California is basically sewn up as a Democratic state, so it doesn't really matter, lol
-- Modified on 3/28/2004 3:32:57 PM
Your net worth and your annual earnings. There are ways to legally shield your net worth against taxes. It is more difficult to shield earnings, even now under the current tax rate schedule. It could be that your net worth assets generate enough annual income that the income would qualify for taxation under Kerry's proposed plan, which from what I understand, is designed to tax income above $200,000. I am no liberal, or conservative, but I have to agree with Warren Buffett on taxes. When I look at my annual taxes and wonder WTF?, I think of how much more I would be paying for protection from uneducated, angry mobs if my actions concerning those taxes led to the breakdown of society. There are those who may think what I just wrote is far fetched, but it really isn't, the taxes that we pay covers the salaries of teachers, fire fighters, police officers (the fabled LE of our world!), and the clerks that provide the grease for city, county and federal government. I tell you what, stop for a while and think about how much you would have to pay for personal security if there were no police officers whose jobs are funded by taxes (and busting us!!), the amount would be staggering, because you would have to buy the loyalty and committment of your protectors. Right now private security works for you because those security people cannot simply put a gun to your head if they wanted to and take everything that you own because government law enforcement would work to capture them.
-- Modified on 3/28/2004 6:36:07 PM
I can effectively minimize my tax bill, but just look at Buffett.I is ENTIRELY possible that I paid more in taxes in 2003 than he did (although BKR paid $3BB) notwithstanding the fact that the guy is worth $40BB, sorta silly if you ask me.
Both sides are fully corrupt,anyone who thinks otherwise is maifestly naive.Kerry will be just the new Boss, the same as the old Boss, of that I am fairly confident. Kerry and his liberal buddies, including his wife, own ASSETS. He isn't taxed on his families Heinz holding going from $1BB to $2BB.I would love to see how many of these limosine Dem's like Buffet would back a BIG ASSET surcharge for the super rich, ie net worth of $50MM and you pay 2-3% a year...what do ya think Buffett would say to $1BB in personal taxes a year, he would be singing a different tune, I guarantee it!!!
Please read carefully my good friend Babbeo, because I do not give many free lessons. In this country, realized gains are taxed, not net appreciation in assets. Get that? It becomes more complex from here, so grab a brewski, kick up the platforms and hang on for a ride. If Warren Buffett's assets went from 40BB (by your account, I will not dispute that) to 40GZ (that's 40 godzillion, or more simply, a shitload of money) and he did not sell a single share of stock, then by right he would not owe a single cent in taxes. But if he sold, Mr. B, unlike you, seems to be willing to pay his debt for being born into this social contract called life. I really do not care whether you make $15,000 per year or $1,500,000 per year, you cannot live outside of the social contract. I challenge you to try it, you will need protectors and you will need their undivided loyalty to even live a semblance of the life that you live now.
-- Modified on 3/28/2004 5:01:59 PM
send jobs offshore.
No, the market and therefore the american worker made that decision. Those jobs that are going off shore will stay here the second that somebody here is willing to work cheaper.
I am not so sure these american workers would agree with you.
http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0603/27jobsout.html
The following is taken from this website, http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,56309,00.html
and explains one problem within the military. Please explain how this is brought on by the market and the american worker.
________________________________________________________________
'The problems stem in large part from federal hiring practices. There's a nearly endless series of tests, interviews and evaluations. And only American citizens are welcome.'
________________________________________________________________
Here is Colin Powell endorsing the shift of jobs overseas. Yet on the other hand he urges India to open its markets to US imports. They won't do that because they don't pay the workforce enough to purchase the quality items manufactured in the USA.
________________________________________________________________
'"Do you support outsourcing, or are you against it?" a questioner asked Powell in the session with students.
"Outsourcing is a natural effect of the global economic system and the rise of the Internet and broadband communications," Powell said. "You're not going to eliminate outsourcing. But at the same time, when you outsource jobs it becomes a political issue in anybody's country." '
_________________________________________________________________
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14760
http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=206011
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2452770
"Please explain how this is brought on by the market and the american worker."
It wasn't brought on by the worker or market. It's a perfect example as to what happens when the governemt tries to interfere with market forces. They step in and things go down the toilet.
Why is it everybody comnplains about government waste and inefficancy and then demand that the governement gets more and more involved in our lives??
Once you get your story straight we can pick this up again.
Not quite sure why you say that...
The bottom line in both cases is that the government should stay out of the way and let the market do it's thing.
Oh...You mean like the Heinz companies do?
and not awarded.
So does that mean that when I buy something from Wal-Mart instead of Target because it's cheaper... I'm stealing from Target?!?!
Don't count Bush out yet. This country is still evenly divided, and a lot can happen over the next 7 months. The job picture could brighten, and the economy's forward momentum could continue and even accelerate. And who knows, we may even capture or kill a major terrorist dickhead like Bin Laden. Keep an eye on the stock market - it's the "best" poll we have.
this board reallly think that will happen. I don't mean think that it might happen or could happen, but that it will happen.
Hard to say really but this much I`m sure of....Kerry hopes not and that`s sad for America.
What's even more sad is Bush counting on the worlds fear of terrorism to get him re-elected (a version of terrorism itself). It is pathetic.
playing on people's fear of terrorism. In the end, the American public will vote their pocketbooks, just as they almost always do.
If the public thinks he cares more about terrorism than he does about their economic situation, he doesn't have a chance of winning in November.
I believe it is not so much that her cares about terrorism but his little hard on for Hussein and his pathetic attempt to become a man vicariously through others (soldiers losing and risking their lives). The guy is a war monger, yet I have a niece that could kick his punk ass.
In historical terms, the current unemployment rate is actually fairly low. I recognize that the quality of the existing jobs may leave something lacking, and long-term disaffected workers is keeping the unemployment rate artificially low -- but the basic point is still quite accurate. Check out the Bureau of Labor Statistics and look at unemployment rates from since, let's say, the mid-60s.
Also, bear in mind that joba are a trailing indicator. As someone who owns my own business and lost a significant portion of my net worth trying to keep staff employed during the recession, you better believe that hiring some new obligations is the last thing that I will do to handle the growth in demand for services. Working overtime, doing more myself, hiring sub-contractors, etc., will all be considered far more seriously than hiring someone. I suspect that many other small business owners are responding in exactly the same way -- and thus job growth trails the recovery of the economy.
Having said that, however, jobs will still be a big issue in the campaign. Most of the American public does not understand introductory economics.
people base their perceptions on anecdotal evidence from people in their personal lives. Seems like a poor basis, but when everyone does it, it works out to be reasonably fair. Personally, I like the fact that it's hard to BS the public about the state of the economy in general, as opposed to, let's say, foreign policy.