More BCS 'Reorganization' Info

[LongJim]

I bolded interesting stuff, and what I thought are ridiculous concessions to the Domers. Sorry if this has been posted before.

*************************************

From SPORTS ILLUSTRATED:

BCS coordinator Mike Slive acknowledged last week that he and his colleagues need to do a better job of explaining the bowls' new "double hosting" format to the general public. Judging by my inbox recently, I'd say he's right.

The general impression I get is that most college football fans are aware that the BCS is undergoing changes this season but are either unaware or utterly confused as to what those changes are. And if the fans are confused, you'd better believe coaches and players are as well.

So, as a personal favor to Mike -- and as a public service to the college football populace -- I will now attempt to explain the sport's impending postseason makeover in a quick, easy-to-follow fashion. Call it The 10 Things You Need to Know About the New BCS:

1. The national title game is now a separate entity from the four existing BCS bowls.

In the past, the BCS championship game rotated annually among the Fiesta, Sugar, Orange and Rose bowls. Starting this season, the title game will be played after those four bowls but will continue to rotate among the same four cities. This year's championship will take place Jan. 8 in Glendale, Ariz., site of the new Arizona Cardinals stadium, to which the Fiesta Bowl is moving from its old site, Sun Devil Stadium. Following the 2007 season, the game will be played in New Orleans, home of the Sugar Bowl; the next season, in Fort Lauderdale (Orange Bowl); the next season, in Pasadena (Rose Bowl).

2. The No. 1 and 2 teams will not play in one of the existing bowls.

Think of the title game as a fifth BCS bowl, even if it won't have a bowl-sounding name. (Organizers have yet to announce it, but the game is expected to be called the BCS National Championship Game.) It is not a so-called "plus-one" game, where teams would advance to the title game by winning their bowl games, an idea that had previously been discussed as a possibility. There will simply be two additional BCS berths, bringing the total to 10 -- the champions of the ACC, Big East, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-10 and SEC, as well as four at-large teams.

3. It will be easier for teams from "non-BCS" conferences to gain access.

In the past, teams from the Mountain West, MAC, WAC, Conference USA and Sun Belt had to finish in the top six of the BCS standings to be guaranteed a BCS bowl berth. The only such team to meet that standard over the past eight seasons was 11-0 Utah in 2004. Starting this season, a champion from one of those leagues, or an independent, can earn a guaranteed berth either by finishing in the top 12 or by finishing in the top 16 if one of the major-conference champions is ranked lower. If the new standard had been in place last season, 10-1 TCU would have earned an automatic berth because it finished 14th while ACC champion Florida State, at 8-4, was 22nd.

4. More teams will be eligible for an at-large berth.

In the past, teams that did not gain an automatic BCS berth -- either by winning one of the six major-conference titles or by meeting other criteria for a guaranteed bid (a top four finish for major-conference teams, top six for others) -- were required to win at least nine games and finish in the top 12 of the BCS standings to be eligible for an at-large berth. Starting this season, teams that win at least nine games and finish in the top 14 will be eligible. Notre Dame, meanwhile, is guaranteed an at-large berth if it finishes in the top eight.

5. Notre Dame will be guaranteed an at-large berth if it finishes in the top eight.

Seriously.

6. Fox is taking over for ABC as the BCS' primary television partner.

If you're thinking to yourself, "Hmm, that's strange, I don't remember seeing much college football on Fox in the past," you're absolutely correct. As of now, the network of Homer Simpson and American Idol is not scheduled to show any college football games during the regular season, but will be airing the national title game and Fiesta, Sugar and Orange bowls for at least the next four seasons. (The Rose Bowl retained its own separate deal with ABC.) As a result, the majority of promotion for the BCS games will take place during Fox's NFL telecasts, the games will be announced by commentators not normally associated with college football (Thom Brennemen, for one), there will be lots of funky graphics, and ...

7. The BCS games will be spaced farther apart.

The only constant in the BCS schedule over the next four years is that the Rose Bowl will be played in its traditional Jan. 1 time slot. The timing of the other games is up to the discretion of Fox, whose first priority is its NFL broadcasts. This year the Fiesta Bowl will be played on Jan. 1, the Orange Bowl on Jan. 2, the Sugar Bowl on Jan. 3 and the title game on Jan. 8. Besides the later title game, it's not that different a lineup than in years past. Depending on how the NFL schedule falls in future seasons, however, at least one non-title game could be played as late as Jan. 5.

8. Besides the title game, there will be three other new bowls next season.

Cities continue to fall all over themselves for the right to host a bowl game. Joining the mix this winter will be the International Bowl (Toronto), the Birmingham (Ala.) Bowl and the New Mexico Bowl (Albuquerque), brining the total number of games to 31. It will be 32 if the financially strapped Houston Bowl can resurrect itself by June. With the sport changing to a permanent 12-game schedule this season, the NCAA recently ruled that 6-6 teams will be eligible for the postseason, and wins over I-AA opponents now count toward eligibility. There will now be 62 (possibly 64) spots available for 119 Division I-A teams. The last time I-A played a 12-game schedule, in 2003, 69 teams finished 6-6 or better.

9. Numerous conference bowl partnerships have changed.

Nearly all bowl contracts with conferences expired after last season, and several leagues reshuffled their lineups to maximize potential revenues. For instance, the Big Ten will now send teams to the Insight and Champs Sports bowls rather than to the Sun and Music City bowls. The SEC added a tie-in with the Liberty Bowl, the ACC with the Music City and Emerald bowls. Also, in a new twist, the Big 12 and Big East will "share" partnerships with the Gator and Sun bowls, with each league sending a team to each bowl twice over a four-year period.

10. We are no closer to a playoff.

The five-bowl BCS model is in place for at least the next four seasons. There has been some speculation that the new format, in which the title game is played a week after New Year's, could lend itself to an easy transition toward a "plus-one" model beginning in 2010. There remains little to no movement among university presidents, however, toward examining a full-scale playoff model.

So get ready for more controversy when four teams finish 11-1 this fall

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Notre Dame has a huge recruiting advantage.... they can tell recruits that, "You will be on national TV every week! ".

Plus all the money they earn is ALL theirs... no conference members to share with.

At least the NFL divides up the money and it doesn't matter if which teams appear on the big TV games that are nationally broadcast. Not much fair about NCAA football. The rich get richer... sort of like some of these tax-cut programs.

[keith]

With the schedule ND generally plays, a top 8 finish in the standings is as good as or better than a "BCS Six" champion who gets an automatic berth. What's the problem? Now if you want to talk about how much of a mess the entire BCS situation is, I'm all with you there.

Keith

[LongJim]

With the schedule ND generally plays, a top 8 finish in the standings is as good as or better than a "BCS Six" champion who gets an automatic berth.  What's the problem? 

Because from the looks of it, an 9-3 Notre Dame team that finishes at #8, gets an automatic at-large bid, while a theoretical 10-2 Florida St./Miami/Tennessee (who dropped their conference championship game to the #1 conf. champ, in both the regular season and conf championship game--while beating ND in the regular season) at #7 is only "eligible" for an at-large bid.

In addition, the 9-3 Conference USA/WAC/MAC/SBC champ ranked at #12 (who lost to ND, Florida St./Miami/Tennessee) would also receive an automatic bid over the #7 using this scenario!

[Black Scholes]

Notre Dame has a huge recruiting advantage.... they can tell recruits that,  "You will be on national TV every week! ".

Plus all the money they earn is ALL theirs... no conference members to share with.

At least the NFL divides up the money and it doesn't matter if which teams appear on the big TV games that are nationally broadcast.  Not much fair about NCAA football.  The rich get richer... sort of like some of these tax-cut programs.

←

The current tax system has given the middle class the lowest effective tax rate in the last 30 years. I wouldn't be too concerned about the tax cuts if I were you; instead I would be concerned about too much wasteful government spending filled with pork that causes the rich to get richer. See congresswoman Barbar Boxer for example.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

I used to think that the Texas High School playoffs in this state were the worst when they added a 3rd team (even though we are a large state, we can't seem to figure out what so many other states have figured out in adding a 6A) and now I realize that this year they will have 4 teams from each district going to the playoffs, but this college football system is about as dumb as Texas. 31 bowl games is ridiculous. Why don't we just let everyone play in a bowl game. Who cares about the record.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

The current tax system has given the middle class the lowest effective tax rate in the last 30 years.  I wouldn't be too concerned about the tax cuts if I were you; instead I would be concerned about too much wasteful government spending filled with pork that causes the rich to get richer.  See congresswoman Barbar Boxer for example.

←

According to the IRS the wealthiest 19% pay only 17% of the taxes...less than their expected share. (lots of tax-shelters and other means of reduction) Even Cramer of CNBC commented something about the upper middle class those making $50,000-200,000 were carrying the tax burden and not the wealthy such as himself who has seen capital gains taxes and dividend taxes reduced plus other items reduced he mentioned. That helps most people very little, just people owning LOTS of stock. . Even Warren Buffett commented a couple of years ago about the latest proposed tax cuts were just going to gave him millions more and that he would just spend it on Wall Street stock. He also commented that his secretary level employees who spent all they made were the ones that need reductions, not him. Yes, I do watch CNBC and am not poor by any means. I am amazed by all these folks making 50-100,000 a year that think they are the rich getting all these cuts. They get very little if any. By the way have you noticed the only balanced budgets occured in the past 26 years occured during the late 90's without tax-increases. This group has increased spending again. (Iraq et. al.) which apparently had no WMD and had committtd no part in terrorist acts as claimed.

I do agree that that on the national level something needs to be done about all these crazy expenditures (many congressmen do it in both parties) A line veto and no last minute additions to the budget that no one really has time to read would help!!! On the state level there is little waste, in fact Texas is 49th in state taxes per capita (Mississippi is 50th) . Texas was the ONLY state lately to decrease spending for education... instead Texas students now pay much more tuition and public schools just have to collect more local taxes somehow or do without. Too many corrupt congressmen... see Congressman and party leader Delay for example.. the worst ...who took every personal advantage he could get away with...until it hit the fan. Enron contributed millions and the use of a corporate plane to a few candidates... guess who?? Everyone should read and get informed from many sources, not just one..

Edited May 9, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Black Scholes]

According to the IRS the wealthiest 19% pay only 17% of the taxes...less than their expected share. (lots of tax-shelters and other means of reduction)  Even Cramer of CNBC commented something about the upper middle class those making $50,000-200,000 were carrying the tax burden and not the wealthy such as himself who has seen capital gains taxes and dividend taxes reduced plus  other items reduced he mentioned.  That helps most people very little, just people owning LOTS of stock.  .  Even Warren Buffett commented a couple of years ago about the latest proposed tax cuts were just going to gave him millions more and that he would just spend it on Wall Street stock.  He also commented that his secretary level employees who spent all they made were the ones that need reductions, not him.  Yes, I do watch CNBC and am not poor by any means.  I am amazed by all these folks making 50-100,000 a year that think they are the rich getting all these cuts.  They get very little if any.  By the way have you noticed the only balanced budgets occured in the past 26 years occured during the late 90's without tax-increases.  This group has increased spending again. (Iraq et. al.) which apparently had no WMD and had committtd no part in terrorist acts as claimed.

I do agree that that on the national level something needs to be done about all these crazy expenditures (many congressmen do it in both parties)  A line veto and no last minute additions to the budget that no one really has time to read would help!!!  On the state level there is little waste, in fact Texas is 49th in state taxes per capita (Mississippi is 50th) .  Texas was the ONLY state lately to decrease spending for education... instead Texas students now pay much more tuition and public schools just have to collect more local taxes somehow or do without. Too many corrupt congressmen... see Congressman and party leader Delay for example.. the worst ...who took every personal advantage he could get away with...until it hit the fan.  Enron contributed millions and the use of a corporate plane to a few candidates... guess who??  Everyone should  read and get informed from many sources, not just one..

←

I apologize to the board for getting off topic, but as a UNT accounting grad, I insist on correct and accurate information being disseminated. It really pisses me off when uninformed individuals spout off information they received from some political party talking points memo. I am linking the IRS's 2003 tax statistics bulletin to support the following data:

In 2003 the top 1% of income earners actually increased their share of income taxes paid by .7%.

The top 1% of income earners paid 34.3% of all income tax paid.

The top 5% of income earners paid 54.4% of all income tax paid.

My conclusion from this data is that the wealthy are more than paying their fair share. If you want to talk about people not paying their fair share, maybe we should think about all the millions of people who receive a $3,000-$10,000 check from the government even though they paid no tax. Its called the earned income credit. That's right I said paid not a penny of tax and still got a check from Uncle Sam that the rest of us funded from our tax bill.

Confirm the judges. Cut the spending. Secure our borders. Eliminate special interests. Protect the traditional family. Win the War, and don't spout off ridiculous statistics if you don't know what you are talking about.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03inrate.pdfIRS Statistics

[Quoner]

I apologize to the board for getting off topic, but as a UNT accounting grad, I insist on correct and accurate information being disseminated.  It really pisses me off when uninformed individuals spout off information they received from some political party talking points memo.  I am linking the IRS's 2003 tax statistics bulletin to support the following data:

In 2003 the top 1% of income earners actually increased their share of income taxes paid by .7%.

The top 1% of income earners paid 34.3% of all income tax paid. 

The top 5% of income earners paid 54.4% of all income tax paid. 

My conclusion from this data is that the wealthy are more than paying their fair share.  If you want to talk about people not paying their fair share, maybe we should think about all the millions of people who receive a $3,000-$10,000 check from the government even though they paid no tax.  Its called the earned income credit.  That's right I said paid not a penny of tax and still got a check from Uncle Sam that the rest of us funded from our tax bill. 

Confirm the judges.  Cut the spending.  Secure our borders.  Eliminate special interests.  Protect the traditional family.  Win the War, and don't spout off ridiculous statistics if you don't know what you are talking about. 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03inrate.pdfIRS Statistics

←

Don't blame me, I voted for Dickey.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I apologize to the board for getting off topic, but as a UNT accounting grad, I insist on correct and accurate information being disseminated.  It really pisses me off when uninformed individuals spout off information they received from some political party talking points memo.  I am linking the IRS's 2003 tax statistics bulletin to support the following data:

In 2003 the top 1% of income earners actually increased their share of income taxes paid by .7%.

The top 1% of income earners paid 34.3% of all income tax paid. 

The top 5% of income earners paid 54.4% of all income tax paid. 

My conclusion from this data is that the wealthy are more than paying their fair share.  If you want to talk about people not paying their fair share, maybe we should think about all the millions of people who receive a $3,000-$10,000 check from the government even though they paid no tax.  Its called the earned income credit.  That's right I said paid not a penny of tax and still got a check from Uncle Sam that the rest of us funded from our tax bill. 

Confirm the judges.  Cut the spending.  Secure our borders.  Eliminate special interests.  Protect the traditional family.  Win the War, and don't spout off ridiculous statistics if you don't know what you are talking about. 

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/03inrate.pdfIRS Statistics

←

----I will not dispute the tables but it an odd way it confirms what I said. I did not stay the wealthiest based on income tax forms which shows the upper middle class taking beating... There are many of the ultra-rich who pay few taxes because of tax shelters based on tax-free Munies etc. I refered the the richest 17% by NET WORTH not the the 17% of people that showed the HIGHEST INCOME ON TAX RETURNS.. that is a totally differnet group.

----I am not knocking Bill Gates but most of his $50 billion in total worth has never been taxed. The value of his Micro-soft stock has increased 1000's of times but since it has not been sold it has not yet been taxed and no capitol gains have been paid... as it should be. I do not doubt your stats....... The the richest 17% and the 17% that pay the most taxes are not the same group... as I said.

I know exactly what I am talking about... the wealthiest by NET WORTH not the group who show the highest income for that year on a tax form... You did not understand what I meant by the wealthiest people. There is a huge difference. There are people whose NET WORTH increase by millions if not billion each year but will pay no taxes on the increase becasuse none of resourses (real estate, stocks etc.) was actually sold. Wealth is all about how much you own, not what your "taxable income" is. Your neighbor may earn twice what you do and paying more taxes but you may wealthier than he is ... in fact he could even be facing backruptcy if he owes too much.

_____________________________

I absolutely agree with you on the border issue.. we are the ONLY major country in the world in which being born here makes you an automatic citizen. Most countries requires at least one parent to be a citizen. We should change our laws.. We got in this position because the amendment that freed the slaves stated all native born people were granted citizenship which automaticly made former slaves, American ditizens. We also need to remove some of the incentives for coming here such as illegals getting extensive free health care and free education and other welface items.

True, low income people pay very few taxes other than sales tax....... but I don't want to be one of them in order to avoid taxation, (LOL) besides they probably need every cent just to survive....some of them are lazy and but alot of them have health, age, mental, or other problems which limit their capabilities to earn. Again illegals should in no instance qualify, they are illegally here.

.

Edited May 10, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[keith]

I still don't have a problem with the at-large bid arrangement worked out with Notre Dame.

Keith

[LongJim]

I still don't have a problem with the at-large bid arrangement worked out with Notre Dame.       

Keith

←

I hear ya, Keith. I think.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Stated problem: Earl Oil: (I live in Midland oil fields, once lived 1/2 mile from W, have mathematics degrees)

Earl at the beginning of 2005 was making a decent living and owned $10,000,000 of oil leases. During the year the price of oil went crazy and these leases are worth $30,000,000 by the end of the year. Earl then has wells drilled, bought pumps, trucks, tanks, etc and spends every cent he made ungrading his oil field. Net income for the year $0.00. He owes no taxes.

Meanwhile Joe a history teacher has a family income of about $70,000 owes about $8,000 in income taxes and still owes on his house and car?

Who is wealthiest? The man who paid no taxes or the one that paid $8000? Those tables stated would say the teacher....... The info is seriously flawed.

________________

Lot of luck trying to out-debate me... I have a couple of North Texas degrees... they are difficult to beat.......LOL ... I believed what North Texas profs said, a college degree is the beginning of an education....

Edited May 10, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Black Scholes]

Stated problem:  Earl Oil: (I live in Midland oil fields, once lived 1/2 mile from W, have mathematics degrees)

Earl at the beginning of 2005 was making a decent living and owned $10,000,000 of oil leases.  During the year the price of oil went crazy and these leases are worth $30,000,000  by the end of the year.  Earl then has wells drilled, bought pumps, trucks, tanks, etc and spends every cent he made ungrading his oil field.  Net income for the year $0.00.  He owes no taxes.

Meanwhile Joe a history teacher has a family income of about $70,000 owes about $8,000 in income taxes and still owes on his house and car? 

Who is wealthiest?  The man who paid no taxes or the one that paid $8000?  Those tables stated would say the teacher....... The info is seriously flawed.

________________

Lot of luck trying to out-debate me... I have a couple of North Texas degrees... they are difficult to beat.......LOL ...  I believed what North Texas profs said, a college degree is the beginning of an education....

←

I'm amazed at how much energy you spend arguing that the government should seize people's assets through taxes! I'm also convinced at this point that you can't make a post about taxes without it being loaded with bad assumptions or incorrect facts.

For your example above, the tax law does not allow businesses to write off (expense) 100% of investment in the business in the year the investment occurred (special provisions allow up to ~200K max). Its called the concept of depreciation, where investments in a business are expensed over the life of the asset invested, in order to match future revenue with the investement. Summary point: Earl cannot writeoff all those equipment upgrades in one year and pay no tax! Terrible example. We don't have a wealth tax in this country, we have an income tax. Is that what you are arguing?

The Joe History Teacher example is even flawed! Under the current tax system, if Joe puts some money in his 403B, has home mortgage interest, a couple kids and some charitable donations he probably won't pay more than $4K in federal taxes. Even if he did have to pay the 8K that is only an 11% effective tax rate. Think that's bad, try Canada on for size, Joe would have paid close to $20K.

The other issue here is a risk / reward scenario. I would argue that Earl at some point had to risk some serious capital to acquire the 10MM in oil leases. He certainly risked a lot more than the teacher, who risked no capital assets to become a teacher. (nothing against teachers) Shouldn't Earl be rewarded if he has the smarts to invest in land that might be under valued? (without having to worry about the government trying to seize all his gains?) This is capitalism. Communism is as you seem to argue where the government just seizes the assets of those that are wealthy. This kind of activity has never worked. See "former Soviet Union".

I'm proud and impressed that you received your 2 degrees from NT, but maybe you should have spent some time in Curry Hall and gotten one of them from the business school!

[yyz28]

I'm amazed at how much energy you spend arguing that the government should seize people's assets through taxes!  I'm also convinced at this point that you can't make a post about taxes without it being loaded with bad assumptions or incorrect facts.

I agree.

The tables Black Scholes posted DOES NOT prove your point. The Rich, the top 5% of wage earners pay over 50% of the taxes in this country. That in NO WAY validates your initial point, Screaming Eagle.

The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%).

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%

Compare that with their earnings:

The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

Those who EARN 16% of the income in this country are responsible for 34.72% of the taxing burden. I can't look at these numbers and then reconsile the mentality that many have that the top producers in this country don't pay their fair share. Based on this, they pay over twice their fair share.

...on a side note, could an admin split these posts? Good debate here, but I don't want to see the thread get hijacked totally.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---Who said the $70,000 by Joe History was before deductions? I didn't. A married couple in education could very easily have $70,000 income after deductions and $8000 is 11.4% which is pretty much your number. I did not take the trouble to consult a chart. Careful with your assumptions. The $0.00 by Earl was after deductions also. I do understand depreciation tables but it still would be very possible to have an income of $0.00 especially if the wells were drilled in the fall and little production was realized in 2005.. Suggest you learn about the oil industry, production takes time especially when the well is 5000+ feet deep which most are out here.. You don't learn everything at Curry. In any case the value of the lease increased by $20,000,000 which would be untouched by taxes.

----Thanks... I am glad you pointed the Canada comment out. The USA does have low tax rates compared to most developed countries. But we have some political groups still complaining how bad it is and want to cut taxes more even though we have a national debt approaching $10,000,000,000. The debt did not grow during the later half of the 90's but has almost doubled since.

The NT degree comment was just meant as a NT complement...not a brag. Not that it matters but also teach a lot of math classes designed for business majors. A lot of them are pretty bad at finance concepts and comprehending numbers even business numbers. Quite a few of my students are working in banks and in accounting and some even transfer from here to NT and Curry. I also have family members who have graduated from Curry. LOL

--I love digging holes that people fall into by making bad assumptions....LOL

---No one wants to pay taxes but they serve the common good. We haven't been invaded since 1814 by foreign troops. We have good roads, good schools, good universities (UNT), law enforcement, and many good public facilities. Mexico has less income tax. maybe you should consider moving there but it seems a lot of those people are risking their lives to come here where there are taxes and more opportunities. Does Mexico have great roads, schools, hospitals etc.??. How about moving to Somalia.. I don't think they any taxes at all any more, just chaos.

Edited May 12, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Black Scholes]

---Who said the $70,000 by Joe History was before deductions?  I didn't.  A married couple in education could very easily have $70,000 income after deductions and $8000 is 11.4% which is pretty much your number. I did not take the trouble to consult a chart.  Careful with your assumptions.  The $0.00 by Earl was after deductions also.  I do understand depreciation tables but it still would be very possible to have an income of $0.00 especially if the wells were drilled in the fall and little production was realized in 2005..  Suggest you learn about the oil industry, production takes time especially when the well is 5000+ feet deep which most are out here..  You don't learn everything at Curry.  In any case the value of the lease increased by $20,000,000 which would be untouched by taxes.

----Thanks... I am glad you pointed the Canada comment out.  The USA does have low tax rates compared to most developed countries.  But we have some political groups still complaining how bad it is and want to cut taxes more even though we have a national debt approaching $10,000,000,000.  The debt did not grow during the later half of the 90's but has almost doubled since.

The NT degree comment was just meant as a NT complement...not a brag. Not that it matters but also teach a lot of math classes designed for business majors.  A lot of them are pretty bad at finance concepts and comprehending numbers even business numbers.  Quite a few of my students are working in banks and in accounting and some even transfer from here to NT and Curry. I also have family members who have graduated from Curry.  LOL

--I love digging holes that people fall into by making bad assumptions....LOL

---No one wants to pay taxes but they serve the common good. We haven't been invaded since 1814 by foreign troops.  We have good roads, good schools, good universities (UNT), law enforcement,  and many good public facilities.  Mexico has less income tax. maybe you should consider moving there but it seems a lot of those people are risking their lives to come here where there are taxes and more opportunities.  Does Mexico have great roads, schools, hospitals etc.??.  How about moving to Somalia.. I don't think they any taxes at all any more, just chaos.

←

Wrong again. IRS tax tables reduce depreciation expense for capital assets placed into service in the last part of the year. Even if the tax calculation was after deductions, The teacher's effective tax rate would still be less than half of a wealthy taxpayer. Also, just because Earl doesn't pay tax on the capital gain on the oil leases in 2005, he will have to pay capital gains tax eventually when they are sold. He is not getting off scott free like you seem to assert. Earl shouldn't be penalized on his gain if he has no realization of income. To assert that someone should pay tax on their paper gain is ridiculously stupid (according to your logic, Earl might have to sell some of his leases just to pay the tax )and the tax law correctly and logicly applies in Earl's situation IMHO.

In all due respect Mean Green Brother I think you are falling into your own holes you have dug yourself.

I am not arguing that a certain group pay less taxes, only that your assumption that the wealthy don't pay their fair share is false and inaccurate.

I meant the NT degree as a complement. SE 66, I just ask you to consider focusing on wasteful government spending, instead of beating up on people who invest money in our economy and make it run. I am done with this subject on this thread, if you want to continue, then please create another thread in the non-sport section or just pm me. thx

GMG!

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---I am not beating up the the super-wealthy (after all they do create a lot jobs)... just saying that a lot these latest tax cuts have favored them instead of the people who really need it the most. And absolutely no tax should ever be assessed on property that is not sold as you said. (stock, real estate, etc. even ones home). First it would be a nightmare by the IRS determining value every year and second it just isn't right and as you said they might have to sell some of it every year to pay taxes, crazy. This is also a problem with inheritance tax... Sometime some of the business or land must be sold in order to raise money to cover the tax. This is can be especially bad if the business has a number of employees or if this large farms or ranchland that has only one sourse of water available which means a part of it would be rather worthless without the part with a water sourse....(typical of West-Texas)

---RE: Capital gains when sold-- and if it is never sold.. a lot of property has been in families for decades.!!.. I have property the family has owned for 100+ years. Besides inheritance taxes don't show up as income taxes. I accept income tax more than inheritance taxes which can destroy businesses and put people out of work... it is a problem when one is land/property rich and cash poor... a big problem..... it can force one to sell their means of income which can effect others as well.

Final comment: Everyone sells their "lemon" stocks at the end of the year to offset their gains to show $0.00 or a small loss. (I do) In truth the person may be worth as lot more at the end of the year because his total value of assets increased (oil stocks last year?) but on the tax form he may owe nothing... Why do I say this??...The people who pay the most taxes are not necessarily the weathest people which was my contention to start with.......

Edited May 12, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Stan R]

The people who pay the most taxes are not necessarily the weathest people which was my contention to start with.......

←

I think this is the essence of the arguments. Scholes is going off into the minutia of deductions like a good accountant but in the end you are basically taxed on realized income. And for those folks with assets in the stock market who live frugal lives (the millionare next door), they realize so little of their wealth that they pay an incredibly small amount of taxes relative to their wealth. That is the key to all of this, right?

[yyz28]

---I am not beating up the the super-wealthy (after all they do create a lot jobs)... just saying that a lot these latest tax cuts  have favored them instead of the people who really need it the most.

As illustrated earlier in this thread, the people who "really need it the most" DON'T PAY ANY TAXES! So, if you really can't give them a TAX CUT by definition, can you? If you want to give them tax money paid in by others, then that is wellfare, or wealth re-distribution, and not a tax cut.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I think this is the essence of the arguments.  Scholes is going off into the minutia of deductions like a good accountant but in the end you are basically taxed on realized income.  And for those folks with assets in the stock market who live frugal lives (the millionare next door), they realize so little of their wealth that they pay an incredibly small amount of taxes relative to their wealth.  That is the key to all of this, right?

←

Absolutely.....plus those who are making a small fortune every year aren't really in NEED of a tax cut....balance the budget instead (a truely conservative idea) . The tax RATE on $1000 long term capitol gains and dividends is now often less than the rate on the next $1000 of income earned by working hard. Doesn't seem right that the man who works and sweats for his NEXT $!000 should pay a higher rate than dividends or capitol gains which mostly go to the wealthy.

[Black Scholes]

Absolutely.....plus  those who are making a small fortune every year aren't really in NEED of a tax cut....balance the budget instead (a truely conservative idea) .  The tax RATE on $1000 long term capitol gains and dividends is now often less than the rate on the next $1000 of income earned by working hard.  Doesn't seem right that the man who works and sweats for his NEXT $!000 should pay a higher rate than dividends or capitol gains which mostly go to the wealthy.

←

Actually it does make sense. It encourage people to save and invest in our economy which provides capital for the economy to grow. One important way an economy grows is if additional capital is available. (another Curry Hall business school concept) IMHO, all investors wealthy or not should have an incentive to save and invest.

If you evaluate U.S. GDP growth since the tax cuts you can see how they helped to stimulate the economy (we were starting to have negative economic growth in the third quarter of 2000 and it continued through the third quarter of 2001) and the stock market as well. The Bush tax cuts were crucial in allowing our economy to recover after 911. They provided incentives for investors to get back into the game of investing in the US economy after the market crash (Dow went down to around 7700). To not have provided this incentive would have only prolonged the recession. Please see link.

BLS

One of the main reasons why the American people have only elected an democratic president Once in the last 26 years is because they have gotten sick and damn tired of politicians finding new ways to stick their hands in our wallets (wealthy or not) take our money and give it to somebody else. When a politician makes the raise taxes mistake, the American people react swiftly by running their sorry crack out of office. (See idiot Bush 41, "Read my lips, no new taxes") Our nation will be better off if we focus on becoming more fiscally responsible through spending reductions instead of taking economy driving tax cuts away from investors.

Edited May 13, 2006 by Black Scholes

[flyonthewall]

And when the oil comes out of the ground, the revenue will be subject to tax. If you penalize people for taking risks and becoming wealthy, then there is no incentive to reinvest, expand the economy, and give weak minded piss ants a job so that they can eat, procreate, and continue the crazy cycle of producing liberals who don't have a clue how there job, opportunity to exist in this wonderful country came to be in the first place.

It is called capitilism, and you can't have it both ways. Invent something, or improve a process, make some money on it, and thank god you are taxed fairly on your gains and be happy.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

----When people get frustrated they start yelling liberals or some other name.... Abolishing slavery was a liberal idea, giving women the right to vote, birth control, were liberal ideas, the liberals even claimed the world wasn't flat as the Pope declared it was, and the conservative Pope almost executed Galileo for saying the Earth revolved about the Sun. The Pope said it was impossible because the earth and mankind was the center of the universe.. In society liberal usually means you support or accept change or modernization. Conservative in society means "resisting change---in fact the past was better". Financially conservative means not spending more than you "take in". I am definitively one of those, unfortunate the group in Washington lately are really not conservative and have almost doubled the national debt since 2000, unlike the previous administration then when the budget was balanced for 6 consecutive years.

No one is all liberal or conservative either. You need to think what the term liberal means.... and in what area you are talking. If oilmen were "really conservative" then they would just hold on to their money and not risk drilling a well 5000+ feet into the earth with no guarentees, in fact the odds of success is poor.

When it goes to convervative family values ..I am now lost, Rush is supposedly unltra-conservative and has been married 3-4 times and Newt Gingrich has destroyed at two mariages with his infdelities He continues to marry his younger and younger secretaries. Is that considered conservative?... and they even support the admistration that has doubled the National debt.... To me They seem to be liberals when it comes to family values....The VP and Newt have family members that are gay and activists.. Kerry, Gore and Clinton doesn't.....It is confusing what conservative and liberal means. Does being married once and not chasing shirts mean that I am a liberal morally?

Let me know when you figure out why those guys are considered conversatives... .and it seems the last post thinks I am a a liberal..... I guess it is because I think all people should be treated fairly.... You got me... Maybe it is because my family has a lot of math/science/engineering type degrees... we change the world so I guess we aren't conservative.

.

Edited May 13, 2006 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[CajunNation]

----When people get frustrated they start yelling liberals or some other name.... Abolishing slavery was a liberal idea, giving women the right to vote, birth control, were liberal ideas, the liberals even claimed the world wasn't flat as the Pope declared it was, and  the conservative Pope almost executed Galileo for saying the Earth revolved about the Sun.  The Pope said it was impossible because the earth and mankind was the center of the universe..  In society liberal usually means you support or accept  change or modernization.  Conservative in society means "resisting change---in fact the past was better".  Financially conservative means not spending more than you "take in".  I am definitively one of those, unfortunate the group in Washington lately are really not conservative and have almost doubled the national debt since 2000, unlike the previous administration then when the budget was balanced for 6 consecutive years. 

No one is all liberal or conservative either.  You need to think what the term liberal means.... and in what area you are talking.  If oilmen were "really conservative" then they would just hold on to their money and not risk drilling a well 5000+ feet into the earth with no guarentees, in fact the odds of success is poor.

When it goes to convervative family values ..I am now lost, Rush is supposedly unltra-conservative and has been married 3-4 times and Newt Gingrich  has destroyed  at two mariages with his infdelities  He continues to marry his younger and younger secretaries.  Is that considered conservative?... and they even support the admistration that has doubled the National debt.... To me They seem to be liberals when it comes to family values....The VP and Newt have family members that are gay and activists.. Kerry, Gore and Clinton doesn't.....It is confusing what conservative and liberal means.  Does being married once and not chasing shirts mean that I am a liberal morally?

Let me know when you figure out why those guys are considered conversatives... .and it seems the last post thinks I am a a liberal..... I guess it is because I think all people should be treated fairly.... You got me...  Maybe it is because my family has a lot of  math/science/engineering type degrees... we change the world so I guess we aren't conservative.

.

←

That's the best try at denying reality I've seen in quite a while.