Printable View
That whizzed right past you like a Nolan Ryan fastball. 10:1 R/S. Though I do agree with your remedy as well - especially paying down the debt. That is a HUGE drag on PPS movement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Boy, wasn't that a great post by John? That guy has a nose for nailing it. Don't you think?
LOL. ah the good ole Nolan Ryan fastball. You date yourself.
Oh yeah john has a nose for nailing it alright. Ideology trumps
everything in his league. The real problem is one can never really nail him down. STill waiting for specifics on market cliff dive and crash surrounding the increase of 5% in capital gains and letting tax cuts lapse on top 2% of population.
SIRI is a magician; watch this 3 cents disappear. Interesting trend though.
Anyone hear Howard today? He says he has options. Personally, I'm not following him again. Enough already.
Well, the MM's printing-press was back at work today . . 3 cents here, 3 cents there really starts to add up
so I guess tomorrow we close at $0.99?
then Wednesday at $0.96?
then Thursday at $0.99?
dyodd though, cuz just when you think you have all the answers the MM's change the questions . . it also helps that the MM's have the playbook . . the rest of us are on defense, shooting the gaps and hoping they didn't call a screen pass.
look at that poor bastard jon pluc . . thought he had it all wired on his buy-in at $1.08; been sittin on dead money ever since
Quote:
Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong
Yes I do, that is nothing special when you are honest. As for havasucker, I just say the proof is in the pudding and he was wrong and I was right. He basically says "i let my ideology trump everything", yet which one of us is proven to be correct time and time again. For that answer I will just say, there is a reason I was even making the statement to him about what would happen in this Nov. election, almost 2 years ago. I know you have figured it out, yes thats right because he was saying basically exactly the opposite. Like I have said, conservatives are conservative because of their common sense and logic. liberials are that way because they have no common sense or logic, one only has to look at most of their arguements, all to most of them make no sense what so ever. As an example, just look at their pro abortion/against the death penalty arguement. Yes I know it makes no sense, kill the babies and save the killers. I could go on and on but this is not the place.
Havasucker I have explained the economy and the direct link to the Bush tax cuts being extended issue to you SEVERAL times already just as I did with other things that seem to have come true. If it is still confusing to you then I suggest you let anyone else here explain it AGAIN to you OR you can just wait for what I have just told you will happen to happen and deal with the consequences.
OK folks, now's the time to buy!
At 96 cents this is a great buy opportunity for a flip, which is the ONLY way to make money on SIRI these days. I do this quite often. Within 2 or 3 weeks, we'll probably see 1.04 or so and that's a great time to take your profit and wait for it to drop back down to 95 or 96 cents again.
It almost gets boring, wash, rinse, repeat. But, it's an easy 8% a month on your money and it's hard to make that anywhere else.
And Just like i predicted John will never be nailed down. LOL.
Two simple questions to answer and he cant put them down right here for all to see. Typical.
If there is ANYONE out there who can give me John's SPECIFIC answers to these questions
please do post them. Thanks.
1. If the Bush tax cuts are rescinded for the top 2% then tell me what going
over the "cliff" for the market means and tell us for how long the market will stay over the cliff?
1. a spot for john's answer.
2. When (and if) they raise the capital gains tax rate (5% i believe) tell us about the market "carnage" you predict and for how long it will last?
2. a spot for John's answer.
Its obvious why you dont answer those 2 questions John. Whenever you sense the possiblity you could be proved wrong you duck and cover.
P.S. I almost died laughing when John said Conservatives have a lock on common sense and logic.
Thats why there is a new poll out that says a majority of Republicans say Obama wants Global Islamic law. You cannot make this stuff up. Insanity.
P.S. September is historically the worst month for the stock market. Given the reports about the
economy slowing over the past several months is it any wonder that John made his predictions about the market going down with September in the mix? Dont let someone as obvious as him fool
you.
John i am still waiting for your answers
All this talk about the economy in the news media and on this thread is amuzing. Folks, we are in a typical summer doldrums period. Everyone says PRESIDENT OBAMA needs to extend President Bush's tax cuts. The fact is Obama plans to extend the Bush tax cuts on the 98% of the population. Only the top 2% who earn $250,000 (joint filing) $200,000 (single filing) or more per year will return to the tax rates that were in place during the Clinton years which was a period of prosperity with budget surpluses. Also, the 5% increase in capital gains only applies to the top 2%. Attached articles may be helpful to some to help clarify all the misunderstandings concerning this matter.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/01/pf/t...nges/index.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Ta...most-Americans
Thanks Boomer for that little bit of enlightenment. i was aware that they are talking about letting the tax cut expire (it actually expires by law) for the top 2%. I wasnt aware that the 5% jump in capital gains was only for the top 2%. Are you sure (i didnt click on your links yet)?
Yes, Havakasha. From the first link I quote "That means, among other things, that today's rates on income tax, capital gains and dividends would remain the same." for 98% of taxpayers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
A dirty little secret Havakasha doesn't like to address based on data.
The Hidden Truth About the Bush Tax Increases
By Bill Frezza
The debate rages over whether our country can afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Progressives argue that the ballooning Federal debt is a legacy of these tax cuts.
There is one unreported flaw in this argument. As data from the IRS show, George Bush did not cut income taxes. He increased them. In fact, Bush increased income taxes not only for the rich but for at least half of all tax filers. Only the poor paid less income tax under George Bush than under Bill Clinton.
WHAT?
Go to the IRS website and add up the numbers for yourself. During the eight years of the Clinton Administration the Federal government collected a total of $5.66 trillion dollars in individual income taxes. During the eight years of the Bush Administration the Federal government collected approximately $7.45 trillion dollars in individual income taxes. The rich - that is, the top 1% of taxpayers - not only forked over a trillion dollars more to Uncle Sam under Bush than under Clinton, their share of the income tax burden increased from 33% to 38%.
But wait, there's more.
During the eight years of the Clinton Administration the rich paid income taxes at a blended rate of 20.6%. During the eight years of the Bush Administration the rich paid income taxes at a blended tax rate of 21.3%. Yes, the actual tax rate that matters when you fill out the bottom line of your tax return went up for the rich under George Bush.
How can this be?
The explanation for this apparent paradox is simple. The problem is that no one wants to hear it. Not the pundits. Not the press. Certainly not the leaders of the Democratic Party. Oddly enough, even the Republicans are oblivious.
George Bush cut the marginal tax rates paid by the rich, and everyone else for that matter. These are the tax cuts that are about to expire. The marginal tax rate is the rate you pay on the last dollars you earn. The blended tax rate is the effective rate you end up paying across all of your income. The total amount of tax you pay equals your blended tax rate times your taxable income. And it's the total amount of tax collected that finances the government.
As hard as this is for some people to accept, the rich change their behavior when their marginal tax rates are reduced. The working rich work harder and longer. They expand their businesses, creating jobs. The idle rich shift investments from lower yield tax-free government bonds into higher-return taxable investments, the kind of investments that finance companies that create jobs. Exactly the opposite happens when marginal tax rates go up, as they are scheduled to do unless Congress acts.
The rich do not get richer because they are stupid. Being rational people, they are usually happy to pay more taxes if at the same time they also take home more after-tax dollars. And that's exactly what they did under George Bush. The math works because the pie gets bigger.
So if social justice is your goal, go ahead and raise marginal tax rates for the rich. Making the rich poorer will certainly reduce inequality. Why should you care if the total amount of taxes paid by the rich goes down, economic growth goes down, fewer jobs get created, and the government falls deeper into debt? In fact, this is a perfect way to create a permanent crisis that never goes to waste. As a full throated Progressive you can run for Congress claiming that you are looking out for the little guy because you are sticking it to the rich.
Meanwhile, when you asleep-at-the-switch Republicans finally learn how to tell the difference between nominal tax rates and actual tax collections, please fess up to the real source of the ballooning national debt. Your guy George Bush was the biggest spender in American history, at least until his incompetent presidency delivered Barack Obama to the Oval Office. Bush spent $5 trillion dollars more of our money than Bill Clinton. Had Bush frozen the federal budget when he came into office he would have left Obama a surplus. One of the saddest things about our broken two-party system is that every time Republicans gain power they spend like Democrats. Understand now why the Tea Party wants nothing to do with your incumbents?
Do these facts surprise you? Is this the first time you've heard that George Bush was the biggest tax collector in American history? Were you aware that the rich paid a higher blended tax rate under Bush than under Clinton? Since reporters seem more willing to parrot talking points than dig up facts, spend a little time on www.irs.gov and see for yourself. You can also ponder what this selective national blindness says about our dysfunctional politico-pundit complex and its handmaidens in the media.
Bill Frezza is a partner at Adams Capital Management, an early-stage venture capital firm. He can be reached at bill@vereverus.com. If you would like to subscribe to his weekly column, drop a note to publisher@vereverus.com.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/arti...ses_98625.html
Thats really interesting S&L. Though i certainly know there is data on both sides of most
arguments. So Bush actually increased taxes for the wealthy? Have you told that to John yet? lol
I was wondering if you know if the writer of the article opposes the lapse of the
tax cut for the top 2%? i would be curious.
i will look into the data in this article and see if i find any different data.
My strong hunch is that article is leaving out some important data that has to
do with tax loopholes for the rich. As a matter of fact i think i posted something
like that in the P O L I T I C S section. Remember?
Are you still OK with the lapsing of the tax cuts on the top 2% of the population?
From what i remember you said you could support that in the P O L I T I C S
section.
P.S. Can you help me out and provide the specific answers that John says he has given to my 2 questions?
LMFAO.
And then of course there is this "data". :)
Study Looks at Tax Cut Lapse for Rich
By JACKIE CALMES
Published: August 10, 2010
WASHINGTON — As debate heats up over President Obama’s proposal to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthy but to extend them for everyone else, a nonpartisan Congressional analysis circulated on Capitol Hill on Tuesday provides a look at the impact the plan would have on high-income taxpayers.
Given the progressive nature of the federal income tax system, in which tax rates increase with income, even the richest households would continue to pay the four lower rates on up to the first $250,000 of their income, under the approach being pushed by Mr. Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress.
The president has vowed to extend the tax cuts for individuals with less than $200,000 in annual taxable income and couples with less than $250,000 — about 98 percent of American households. About 315,000 households report adjusted gross income of $1 million or more.
Taxpayers with income of more than $1 million for 2011 would still receive on average a tax cut of about $6,300 compared with what they would have paid under rates in effect until 2001, according to the analysis, which was prepared by the Joint Committee on Taxation at the request of the Democratic majority on the House Ways and Means Committee.
That compares, however, with the roughly $100,000 average tax cut that households with more than $1 million in income would receive under current rates.
Filers with taxable income of $500,000 to $1 million would still get on average a tax cut of $6,700 compared with pre-2001 rates, according to the data from the tax analysts. But that compares with roughly $17,500 if the top Bush tax rates were maintained.
If the president gets his way, in 2011 the top two income tax rates — now 33 percent and 35 percent — would revert to the levels before the Bush administration, 36 percent and 39.6 percent, respectively. But the four lower rates would remain 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent and 28 percent. For some taxpayers earning up to $250,000, the top marginal rate would remain 33 percent.
The tax-cut debate is shaping up as one of the hottest of the year and will play out in the weeks before voters go to the polls to determine which party controls Congress. Democrats want to extend the tax cuts for all but the wealthy, while Republicans are fighting to maintain them for everyone.
Most of the tax cuts that were a signature domestic initiative of George W. Bush’s presidency carried an expiration date of Dec. 31, 2010, to limit the potential revenue losses; supporters assumed that they would be extended when the time came.
Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.
With the economy still weak, the issue of the tax cuts has led to an economic debate between those who would end all or some of them to reduce the projected debt and those who say raising taxes on the wealthy could threaten the economic recovery.
For both parties, the dispute has become a defining one as they hone campaign arguments heading toward November.
Speaking of Republicans at a fund-raiser in a wealthy community near Dallas on Monday, Mr. Obama told Democratic donors, “What you see is a governing philosophy on their part that basically comes down to ‘We’re going to extend tax cuts for the wealthiest among us’ — folks who don’t need those tax cuts and weren’t even asking for them, which would cost $700 billion.”
For their part, Republicans do not emphasize the impact of extending the tax cuts for wealthy individuals. Rather, they say Mr. Obama is about to spring a big tax increase on many small-business owners who file their taxes as individuals. Analyses from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization, show that less than 3 percent of filers with small-business income pay at the top two income tax rates, and many of those are doctors and lawyers in partnerships.
Thanks. Quite amazing when you consider these facts in relation to all the shouting the Republicans are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boomer
I am OK with the top 2% going back to the previous rate. Or more appropriately, I don't give a $hit. I have enough to worry about myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
And,no I cannot help you out with the two answers you seek. Good luck with that.
I do give a $hit about SIRI not being able to mount any type of progress in pps. I don't want to hear about the end of summer doldrums as the volume has been pretty brisk.
Wish i could help you on Siri. No answers. its obviously going to take more good news about Howard stern, subscriber additions, drawing down of the debt, a good 3rd quarter report etc. You have to remember that we came a long way in the last year and a 50 cent increase (like some are talking) from today's price would be a very large gain. Most people are happy with 10% gains for a whole year. Anyway im sure this wont cheer you up but...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it seems that alot of people have become bearish or at least less optimistic about the market but i feel that we are going to have an explosive rally
probably in the next couple of weeks ive been holding nothing but hsu.to ( sp 500 bull) and plan to hold it for a few months the chart seems bad but if you look at every single dip we have had last couple of years its always a W like shape and that old saying its darkest before dawn. I think we have hit the bottom and their is no way to go but up. sure their are thousands of unsolvable finacial worries and wide spread panic but that has never stoped the market before this is just febuary all over again. (OFCOURSE IF WE FALL PAST 1025 I WILL PROBABLY CHANGE MY MIND FAST) all we need is some guy who has a lil cash in his pocket to say something reasuring and bam! :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Havakasha
Once again because you are stupid you totally missed the point of SiriuslyLong's post. Thats because you never heard of the "laffer curve"???? (even though I told you about it several times). Here is another interesting point that will be surprising to you but NOT TO ME. Reagan also rasied taxes. The difference is Reagan had and followed Arthur Laffer.
This part of SiriuslyLongs post exactly spells out the "laffer curve":
"As hard as this is for some people to accept, the rich change their behavior when their marginal tax rates are reduced. The working rich work harder and longer. They expand their businesses, creating jobs. The idle rich shift investments from lower yield tax-free government bonds into higher-return taxable investments, the kind of investments that finance companies that create jobs. Exactly the opposite happens when marginal tax rates go up, as they are scheduled to do unless Congress acts.
The rich do not get richer because they are stupid. Being rational people, they are usually happy to pay more taxes if at the same time they also take home more after-tax dollars. And that's exactly what they did under George Bush. The math works because the pie gets bigger"
This has been proven over and over and over again. One only needs to look at some favorite liberials. Oprah Winfrey actually has someone to keep track of the days she spends in her MANSION in CA. to make sure she does not go over the aloted days that she has to PAY CA. TAX rates. George Soros puts his money in off shore accounts to avoid paying (as you would say) HIS FARE SHARE.
Now as for surpluses, any that came, came because of the fact the republicans forced cuts in the budget during the Clinton Administration. Yes I know you dont believe that but facts get in the way again.
Fact: Clinton was on course to do some of the most spending of any administration until the congress was taken over by the republicans two years later.
Fact: Clintons heath care reform.
Fact: Remember the "Contract with America"???? that was a republican contract with america and in it they said they would cut the crap out of federal spending.
Fact: That contract was why they took so many seats in the congress.
Fact: Clinton signed the republicans Welfare Reform!!!!!!!! But only after he vetoed almost the very same bill twice before.
That is the facts. Now follow the facts to common sense and logic. Would the republicans in 94 have taken so many seats if they did not have that contract with America??? No, everyone says, that contract was one of the biggest reasons they did. Now for those not old enough to remember just ask yourselves would the republicans have had to do a contract like that and taken SO MANY SEATS, if Clinton and the democrats were not on a totally different course. If you still dont get it, analyst are saying that this election is looking like 94 on steriods. The economy back then was much better and unemployment was in the 5% range and NOW what is the first or second most important election issue?????? the deficit, which includes the huge amount of spending the government is doing.
Need I say more??? here are some more facts:
Fact: Bush Spent to much.
Fact: The republicans in 2000 let him spend to much.
I knew back then that when they passed the prescription drug program and spent to much that was the start of the end for them that they had lost their way and would pay for it in the elections.
P.S. As a side note: The Bush tax cuts did not originally include all the tax credits they do now (YOU KNOW THE ONES THAT NOW LET PEOPLE THAT DONT EVEN PAY INCOME TAXES, GET MONEY BACK). That was a compromise to get democrats to go along with the tax cuts.
I dont normally like to put up the whole thing but there is alot of historial facts in it and need to be read in full. I think you will find it interesting what happens to the economy when even just the top tax rates are rasied. There is a progression of history and and it happens EVERY TIME. God I wish people would learn from their history.
"By ARTHUR LAFFER from the Wall Street Journal:
Tax reduction thus sets off a process that can bring gains for everyone, gains won by marshalling resources that would otherwise stand idle—workers without jobs and farm and factory capacity without markets. Yet many taxpayers seemed prepared to deny the nation the fruits of tax reduction because they question the financial soundness of reducing taxes when the federal budget is already in deficit. Let me make clear why, in today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarged the federal deficit—why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues. – President John F. Kennedy, Economic Report of the President, January 1963
If only more of today’s leaders thought like JFK. Sadly, in the debate over whether to extend the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and if so whether the cuts should be extended to those people who are in the highest tax bracket, there is a false presumption that higher tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will raise tax revenues.
Anyone who is familiar with the historical data available from the IRS knows full well that raising income tax rates on the top 1% of income earners will most likely reduce the direct tax receipts from the now higher taxed income—even without considering the secondary tax revenue effects, all of which will be negative. And who on Earth wants higher tax rates on anyone if it means larger deficits?
Since 1978, the U.S. has cut the highest marginal earned-income tax rate to 35% from 50%, the highest capital gains tax rate to 15% from about 50%, and the highest dividend tax rate to 15% from 70%.
President Clinton cut the highest marginal tax rate on long-term capital gains from the sale of owner-occupied homes to 0% for almost all home owners. We’ve also cut just about every other income tax rate as well.
During this era of ubiquitous tax cuts, income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 3.3% of GDP in 2007 (the latest year for which we have data) from 1.5% of GDP in 1978. Income tax receipts from the bottom 95% of income earners fell to 3.2% of GDP from 5.4% of GDP over the same time period.
These results shouldn’t be surprising. The highest tax bracket income earners, when compared with those people in lower tax brackets, are far more capable of changing their taxable income by hiring lawyers, accountants, deferred income specialists and the like. They can change the location, timing, composition and volume of income to avoid taxation.
Just look at Sen. John Kerry’s recent yacht brouhaha if you don’t believe me. He bought and housed his $7 million yacht in Rhode Island instead of Massachusetts, where he is the senior senator and champion of higher taxes on the rich, avoiding some $437,500 in state sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.
Howard Metzenbaum, the former Ohio senator and liberal supporter of the death tax, chose to change his official residence to Florida just before he died because Florida does not have an estate tax while Ohio does. Goodness knows what creative devices former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has used to avoid paying taxes.
In short, the highest bracket income earners—even left-wing liberals—are far more sensitive to tax rates than are other income earners.
When President Kennedy cut the highest income tax rate to 70% from 91%, revenues also rose. Income tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners rose to 1.9% of GDP in 1968 from 1.3% in 1960.
Even when Presidents Harding and Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, tax receipts from the rich rose. Between 1921 and 1928 the highest marginal personal income tax rate was lowered to 25% from 73% and tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners went to 1.1% of GDP from 0.6% of GDP.
Or perhaps you’d like to see how the rich paid less in taxes under the bipartisan tax rate increases of Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter? Between 1968 and 1981 the top 1% of income earners reduced their total income tax payments to 1.5% of GDP from 1.9% of GDP.
And then there’s the Hoover/Roosevelt Great Depression. The Great Depression was precipitated by President Hoover in early 1930, when he signed into law the largest ever U.S. tax increase on traded products—the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. President Hoover then thought it would be clever to try to tax America into prosperity.
Using many of the same arguments that Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are using today, President Hoover raised the highest personal income tax rate to 63% from 24% on Jan. 1, 1932. He raised many other taxes as well.
President Roosevelt then debauched the dollar with the 1933 Bank Holiday Act and his soak-the-rich tax increase on Jan. 1, 1936. He raised the highest personal income tax rate to 79% from 63% along with a whole host of other corporate and personal tax rates as well.
The U.S. economy went into a double dip depression, with unemployment rates rising again to 20% in 1938. Over the course of the Great Depression, the government raised the top marginal personal income tax rate to 83% from 24%.
Is it any wonder that the Great Depression was as long and deep as it was? Whoever heard of a country taxing itself into prosperity? Not only did taxes as a share of GDP fall, but GDP fell as well. It was a double whammy. Tax receipts from the top 1% of income earners stayed flat as a share of GDP, going to 1% in 1940 from 1.1% in 1928, but at what cost?
We all know that there are lots of factors influencing tax revenues from the rich, but the number one factor has to be the statutory tax rates government tells the rich they have to pay. Not only do the direct income tax consequences of higher tax rates on those in the highest brackets lead to higher deficits, the indirect effects magnify the tax revenue losses many fold.
As a result of higher tax rates on those people in the highest tax brackets, there will be less employment, output, sales, profits and capital gains—all leading to lower payrolls and lower total tax receipts. There will also be higher unemployment, poverty and lower incomes, all of which require more government spending. It’s a Catch-22.
Higher tax rates on the rich create the very poverty and unemployment that is used to justify their presence. It is a vicious cycle that well-trained economists should know to avoid."
P.S. I would like to add that just before Harding and Coolidge (1920s) we were looking at a massive depression coming our way. What we got was????? come on I think you guys know it?????? Yes the "Roaring Twenties", which was one of the biggest expansions of the economy the world has ever seen. Now what did they do to change that terrible economic outlook into the Roaring Twenties??? They lowered the top tax bracket and cut government spending in half (they also cut the size off government).