- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Wealth trends and Bush's tax cuts L3
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 12:15:18PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 12:43:00PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
The measures of performance that I know of do not appear to favor
debt financing. Maybe RONCE does, because its net capital, but other
figures, such as equity, PE ratio, the Acid test, all favor lower
debt.
No, they do not favor
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 1:21 PM
Subject: Re: Wealth trends and Bush's tax cuts
At 10:02 AM 2/22/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
On what basis do you state that he agrees
On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 12:15:18PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
At 10:02 AM 2/22/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
And, of course, all earned income about 75k (or so) for an individual
is excluded from SS taxes. So, this further concentrates the tax.
or
Bryon Daly wrote:
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 10:02 AM 2/22/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
Bush has another double taxation he could have eliminated: taxes on the
money which pays the Social Security tax. Is the fact that that mainly
benefits individuals who make 75k/year and that he
John D. Giorgis wrote:
At 10:02 AM 2/22/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
Bush has another double taxation he could have eliminated: taxes on the
money which pays the Social Security tax. Is the fact that that mainly
benefits individuals who make 75k/year and that he doesn't favor this a
John said:
Unfortunately, I guess that since this isn't science, you can pose
your political posturing as a logical conclusion, right?
Mathematics isn't science and yet has logical conclusions.
Rich
GCU Just One Example
___
- Original Message -
From: John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: Wealth trends and Bush's tax cuts
At 01:20 PM 1/26/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
So, Bush unvails a plan to focus tax cuts on dividends, thus
At 10:02 AM 2/22/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
On what basis do you state that he agrees with most ecconomists? Greenspan
came out against his tax cut.
Now, if his tax cut were offset with other tax increases that target the
same income level, then there might be a point to this.
That's
JDG wrote:
The logical conclusion of this is that Bush agrees with most ecnomists in
that the double-taxation of dividends is a bad idea.
The double-taxation of divendends may be a bad idea, but there are far worse
ideas spread throughout the tax code, and fixing many of those would give
big tax
At 01:53 PM 2/22/2003 -0600 Reggie Bautista wrote:
The double-taxation of divendends may be a bad idea, but there are far worse
ideas spread throughout the tax code, and fixing many of those would give
big tax relief to the bottom 95% of wage-earners in the US, unlike Bush's
plan.
Such as?
I wrote:
The double-taxation of divendends may be a bad idea, but there are far
worse ideas spread throughout the tax code, and fixing many of those would
give big tax relief to the bottom 95% of wage-earners in the US, unlike
Bush's
plan.
JDG replied:
Such as?
Last year my mother-in-law, who
At 01:20 PM 1/26/2003 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
So, Bush unvails a plan to focus tax cuts on dividends, thus preferentially
cutting the taxes of those who already are the most wealthy. The logical
conclusion is that he thinks the trend of concentration of wealth is a good
thing. I don't. Does
--- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dan Minette wrote:
So, Bush unvails a plan to focus tax cuts on
dividends, thus preferentially
cutting the taxes of those who already are the most
wealthy. The logical
conclusion is that he thinks the trend of
concentration of wealth is a good
The Federal reserve has just issued its latest report on net worth in 2001,
and the distribution thereof. Not unexpectedly, the tend of wealth
concentration continues. The top 10% now has 80.7% of total net worth in
the United states, up from 78.9% in '92. The bottom 50% now has 1.3%
compared
On Sun, 26 Jan 2003, Dan Minette wrote:
So, Bush unvails a plan to focus tax cuts on dividends, thus preferentially
cutting the taxes of those who already are the most wealthy. The logical
conclusion is that he thinks the trend of concentration of wealth is a good
thing. I don't. Does
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Federal reserve has just issued its latest report on net worth in
2001,
and the distribution thereof. Not unexpectedly, the tend of wealth
concentration continues. The top 10% now has 80.7% of total net worth
in
the United states, up from 78.9% in
On Sun, Jan 26, 2003 at 01:20:31PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote:
The Federal reserve has just issued its latest report on net worth in 2001,
and the distribution thereof. Not unexpectedly, the tend of wealth
concentration continues. The top 10% now has 80.7% of total net worth in
the United
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Wealth trends and Bush's tax cuts
Do you mean net worth includes the equity one has in one's home? It
doesn't seem to make sense to add the mortgage
19 matches
Mail list logo
