Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']By the way, Frozen Pizzas are in Grocery Aisle 3.[/QUOTE]
This is the most factual thing you have ever said.
This is the most factual thing you have ever said.
Romney and the tax thing
- Thread starter speedracer
- Start date
[quote name='UncleBob']Well, aside from the tone and language, this:[/quote]
Yeah...taking things at face value is a sign of critical thinking.
[quote name='nasum']Nah, more like suggesting that actions not related to the discussion are rather pointless, whereas questioning the credentials/breadth of knowledge on something based on industry experience is fair game.
Put it this way, if you were a mechanic and knew cars quite well, I would listen because I don't know much about cars. If you were a lush mechanic, you'd still know more about cars than me and your activities outside of cars are inconsequential.
But hey, if the best you can do is "he's naughty so that disqualifies his capabilities" then you've got an uphill battle in life.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the type of tactics that conservatives use, but feel that they are exempt from. "Liberals" are expected to fall on their swords and conservatives are supposed to be forgiven eventhough they're the ones that are the biggest hypocrites about it. Wiener sends underwear pics and is expected to resign. Sanford disappears for a weekend and expects to keep his job.
Yeah...taking things at face value is a sign of critical thinking.
Cynically fellating someone on the internet isn't something that I do either, so what's your point?
Ha.Ha.Ha. Your version of "smarter" means cutting everything across the board.
[quote name='nasum']Nah, more like suggesting that actions not related to the discussion are rather pointless, whereas questioning the credentials/breadth of knowledge on something based on industry experience is fair game.
Put it this way, if you were a mechanic and knew cars quite well, I would listen because I don't know much about cars. If you were a lush mechanic, you'd still know more about cars than me and your activities outside of cars are inconsequential.
But hey, if the best you can do is "he's naughty so that disqualifies his capabilities" then you've got an uphill battle in life.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly the type of tactics that conservatives use, but feel that they are exempt from. "Liberals" are expected to fall on their swords and conservatives are supposed to be forgiven eventhough they're the ones that are the biggest hypocrites about it. Wiener sends underwear pics and is expected to resign. Sanford disappears for a weekend and expects to keep his job.
[quote name='dohdough']Ha.Ha.Ha. Your version of "smarter" means cutting everything across the board.[/quote]
Quote, please?
Funny - I never said a word about anyone playing the "you work retail, so you're obviously stupid" card.
However, don't get all upset with me if you pull that crap and I simply throw it back at you by talking about aspects of your personal life.
[quote name='nasum']Nah, more like suggesting that actions not related to the discussion are rather pointless, whereas questioning the credentials/breadth of knowledge on something based on industry experience is fair game.
Put it this way, if you were a mechanic and knew cars quite well, I would listen because I don't know much about cars. If you were a lush mechanic, you'd still know more about cars than me and your activities outside of cars are inconsequential.[/QUOTE]
Agree and Disagree.
A "lush mechanic" may know more about cars than I do, but when it comes to making possibly life-changing adjustments to my vehicle, I'm not going to willingly trust it to someone who has shown themselves to make very poor choices in their own personal lives.
A doctor who molests underage girls may be able to give me a physical, but I'd much rather see him lose his license and go to prison.
Besides - regardless of the mechanic's personal habits, being a mechanic doesn't automatically endow him with special abilities beyond anyone else. He may try to convince me that I need a new part when he really plans to spray paint the old one and reinstall it while the girl at the doughnut shop may know that all the vehicle really needs is the tires rotated.
Quote, please?
Funny - I never said a word about anyone playing the "you work retail, so you're obviously stupid" card.
However, don't get all upset with me if you pull that crap and I simply throw it back at you by talking about aspects of your personal life.
[quote name='nasum']Nah, more like suggesting that actions not related to the discussion are rather pointless, whereas questioning the credentials/breadth of knowledge on something based on industry experience is fair game.
Put it this way, if you were a mechanic and knew cars quite well, I would listen because I don't know much about cars. If you were a lush mechanic, you'd still know more about cars than me and your activities outside of cars are inconsequential.[/QUOTE]
Agree and Disagree.
A "lush mechanic" may know more about cars than I do, but when it comes to making possibly life-changing adjustments to my vehicle, I'm not going to willingly trust it to someone who has shown themselves to make very poor choices in their own personal lives.
A doctor who molests underage girls may be able to give me a physical, but I'd much rather see him lose his license and go to prison.
Besides - regardless of the mechanic's personal habits, being a mechanic doesn't automatically endow him with special abilities beyond anyone else. He may try to convince me that I need a new part when he really plans to spray paint the old one and reinstall it while the girl at the doughnut shop may know that all the vehicle really needs is the tires rotated.
[quote name='UncleBob']Quote, please?[/quote]
Why the hell would I parse through your inane posts for that when you'll eventually say it again? I'll be sure to point it out the next time you do.
Why the hell would I parse through your inane posts for that when you'll eventually say it again? I'll be sure to point it out the next time you do.
Even funnier because I actually defend you on that, but I'll gladly stop so you can feed that persecution complex.
I'm going to assume that you mean the royal "you" here. Not to mention that you're one of the biggest offenders of outright dishonest and underhanded debate tactics on this forum. People smell your shit coming from a mile away and a lot of the mire you experience here is well deserved.
Your examples really aren't helping your argument. The fact that you don't understand why is the same reason why you can't understand how investment risk isn't the same as tax liabilty.
[quote name='nasum']Because you seem to forget what you say, or maybe mean something when you say it and then backtrack to make it mean something else.
So when taxes are bad they're bad, but when they don't turn out to be bad they don't matter in what you're trying to say?
It was both you and UB that stated that taxes are part of the risk/reward equation. Call it diminishing returns if you will, and I think that's fairly accurate given the wiggling that has happened. It's fair to say that taxes dimish returns after the investment is sold. They just don't enter into the equation when deciding where to invest.
[/QUOTE]
Define "don't turn out to be bad"
[quote name='nasum']
Ahh the magic chart, though "it's self explanatory" doesn't really back up your non claim.
1.) The chart is ambiguous at best as "long term CG" can be realized at either 12 months or 25 years and this data doesn't reflect the amount of time held.
2.) Here's what it really says, more sales with lower taxes. Selling an investment means you're no longer invested. It's relatively easy to draw the conclusion that low taxes have a negative effect on long term investment.
3.) The dow peak occured in October 2007. Let's assume that these are mid-term holdings (5 or so years), people are then "up" pretty significantly as we use the dow as a barometer. Backing out when you're well and good up on a long term is a good strategy. Hell, if they're just backing out their principle and moving that to another holding and essentially letting all the free money ride on the previous holding, that's basically a great way to diversify income streams and bulk up a portfolio.
3a.) Less tax revenue generated in the 90's because people were long on emerging technology. I would assume you don't want detail on industry sectors, or maybe you do since the DJIA is too broad. I could analyze the real world application of this chart for days.
[/quote]
The problem with your theory is that capital gains has been consistently low for the last decade. What do you think will happen when it is announced that the CG tax rate will go up 15%? Sell, Sell, Sell. Great idea for a weak economy, just to gain revenue that history shows won't come. But at least now you are admitting that the CG tax rate affects peoples investment decisions.
Not to mention it still proves that there will be less tax revenue because people will be less likely to sell after it goes up. This may be a good thing but probably not seeing as how the amount of capital that was lost right before raising the taxes isn't likely to come right back. I wish I could find the study but it said something to the extent of in the 80's when they raised the CG tax rate, 7 times more realized capital gains were reported in one month, than the same month in the year before. You can see it in my link between 85 and 86, see the jump?
Now before you go on another rant about how increased gains are seen throughout the 2000's, you should stop and think how cheap and plentiful capital is right now.
So when taxes are bad they're bad, but when they don't turn out to be bad they don't matter in what you're trying to say?
It was both you and UB that stated that taxes are part of the risk/reward equation. Call it diminishing returns if you will, and I think that's fairly accurate given the wiggling that has happened. It's fair to say that taxes dimish returns after the investment is sold. They just don't enter into the equation when deciding where to invest.
[/QUOTE]
Define "don't turn out to be bad"
[quote name='nasum']
Ahh the magic chart, though "it's self explanatory" doesn't really back up your non claim.
1.) The chart is ambiguous at best as "long term CG" can be realized at either 12 months or 25 years and this data doesn't reflect the amount of time held.
2.) Here's what it really says, more sales with lower taxes. Selling an investment means you're no longer invested. It's relatively easy to draw the conclusion that low taxes have a negative effect on long term investment.
3.) The dow peak occured in October 2007. Let's assume that these are mid-term holdings (5 or so years), people are then "up" pretty significantly as we use the dow as a barometer. Backing out when you're well and good up on a long term is a good strategy. Hell, if they're just backing out their principle and moving that to another holding and essentially letting all the free money ride on the previous holding, that's basically a great way to diversify income streams and bulk up a portfolio.
3a.) Less tax revenue generated in the 90's because people were long on emerging technology. I would assume you don't want detail on industry sectors, or maybe you do since the DJIA is too broad. I could analyze the real world application of this chart for days.
[/quote]
The problem with your theory is that capital gains has been consistently low for the last decade. What do you think will happen when it is announced that the CG tax rate will go up 15%? Sell, Sell, Sell. Great idea for a weak economy, just to gain revenue that history shows won't come. But at least now you are admitting that the CG tax rate affects peoples investment decisions.
Not to mention it still proves that there will be less tax revenue because people will be less likely to sell after it goes up. This may be a good thing but probably not seeing as how the amount of capital that was lost right before raising the taxes isn't likely to come right back. I wish I could find the study but it said something to the extent of in the 80's when they raised the CG tax rate, 7 times more realized capital gains were reported in one month, than the same month in the year before. You can see it in my link between 85 and 86, see the jump?
Now before you go on another rant about how increased gains are seen throughout the 2000's, you should stop and think how cheap and plentiful capital is right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Hi, I'm Knoell, and although I have no data and no expertise, I can predict the future all the same.
[quote name='dohdough']Why the hell would I parse through your inane posts for that when you'll eventually say it again? I'll be sure to point it out the next time you do.[/quote]
I assumed as much.
And here we go again. I'll save myself the time and just quote a previous post from someone on here...
[quote name='Some mystery person'][quote name='nasum']Absolutely. Taxes aren't part of that risk.[/quote]
Agreed.
Taxes are a part of the reward.
[/quote]
I assumed as much.
Yes.
And here we go again. I'll save myself the time and just quote a previous post from someone on here...
[quote name='Some mystery person'][quote name='nasum']Absolutely. Taxes aren't part of that risk.[/quote]
Agreed.
Taxes are a part of the reward.
[/quote]
[quote name='UncleBob']I assumed as much.[/quote]
You're not worth the effort.
[quote name='Msut77']dd,
It might be better to put a pathological liar with a creepy obsession with child molestation on ignore than engage them.
But what the
do I know.[/QUOTE]
You're right of course, but shooting down bullshit is like having that itch you just gotta scratch.
You're not worth the effort.
Hence the reason why you argued that everything effects everything(which is meaningless), applauded another pariah that argued that, twisted my quotes out of context, and engaged in a game of character assasintation with another poster. Oh wait...none of that happened? I must have been imagining things.
[quote name='Msut77']dd,
It might be better to put a pathological liar with a creepy obsession with child molestation on ignore than engage them.
But what the
do I know.[/QUOTE]You're right of course, but shooting down bullshit is like having that itch you just gotta scratch.
[quote name='Knoell']Define "don't turn out to be bad"[/quote]
Within the context of what we're talking about, "don't turn out to be bad" would mean have no discernable effect.
Selling isn't investing. It isn't one transaction. The decision to invest is based on finanacials, not "well crap I'm only going to get 75% of the gain when it comes time to sell". If we were talking about a solid guarantee ROI vehicle (let's say Certificate of Deposit for instance) then you value what the income tax implications will be, given that your capital is tied up in one spot for a set period of time with a defined outcome. Oh yeah, taxed at income levels no less...
1990 - 183,500 - 41,088 - 22.4 - 28.00
1995 - 216,260 - 52,200 - 24.1 - 29.19
except when that doesn't happen.
2000 - 708,070 - 134,262 - 19.0 - 21.19
2005 - 688,518 - 97,995 - 14.2 - 16.05
or when it also doesn't happen?
You're attributing a characteristic that isn't really there.
Now, for the loss of capital bit, it isn't a loss of capital, it's shifted.
Based on what? Why is capital cheaper now?
The global theme of my stance (taxes have little to nothing to do with investment in general) still remains.
The magic chart is missing 2008 which would be interesting to see. The giant drop (mostly due to panic from the housing bubble burst) in the DJIA would in one way prove your theory that CG revenue goes up by volume when it is a low margin. Well that's all well and good, but then we're back up now with the same tax rate. It would seem to me, or any other reasonable person, that taxes have little to nothing to do with investment in general.
Bob,
You'll note that I didn't say retail = stupid. I stated that your retail experience doesn't necessarily give you any experience in the investing and finance field. Quite the distinction.
Within the context of what we're talking about, "don't turn out to be bad" would mean have no discernable effect.
Selling isn't investing. It isn't one transaction. The decision to invest is based on finanacials, not "well crap I'm only going to get 75% of the gain when it comes time to sell". If we were talking about a solid guarantee ROI vehicle (let's say Certificate of Deposit for instance) then you value what the income tax implications will be, given that your capital is tied up in one spot for a set period of time with a defined outcome. Oh yeah, taxed at income levels no less...
1990 - 183,500 - 41,088 - 22.4 - 28.00
1995 - 216,260 - 52,200 - 24.1 - 29.19
except when that doesn't happen.
2000 - 708,070 - 134,262 - 19.0 - 21.19
2005 - 688,518 - 97,995 - 14.2 - 16.05
or when it also doesn't happen?
You're attributing a characteristic that isn't really there.
Now, for the loss of capital bit, it isn't a loss of capital, it's shifted.
Based on what? Why is capital cheaper now?
The global theme of my stance (taxes have little to nothing to do with investment in general) still remains.
The magic chart is missing 2008 which would be interesting to see. The giant drop (mostly due to panic from the housing bubble burst) in the DJIA would in one way prove your theory that CG revenue goes up by volume when it is a low margin. Well that's all well and good, but then we're back up now with the same tax rate. It would seem to me, or any other reasonable person, that taxes have little to nothing to do with investment in general.
Bob,
You'll note that I didn't say retail = stupid. I stated that your retail experience doesn't necessarily give you any experience in the investing and finance field. Quite the distinction.
http://www.investopedia.com/
Just come back informed ok? And ignore any "this is a ten bagger" kind of ads...
When I came from a standpoint of not knowing my head from my ass I started here. With the help provided at this site, I learned enough to get to where I am now. Regardless of enjoying sophisticated adult beverages, I learned A LOT about how to read companies and decide whether or not they were worth my investment.
Again, I won't pick anything for you (other than OKS, I seriously can't push them enough for a self directed 401(k) or personal portfolio. They're a touch high right now (I love them
Just come back informed ok? And ignore any "this is a ten bagger" kind of ads...
When I came from a standpoint of not knowing my head from my ass I started here. With the help provided at this site, I learned enough to get to where I am now. Regardless of enjoying sophisticated adult beverages, I learned A LOT about how to read companies and decide whether or not they were worth my investment.
Again, I won't pick anything for you (other than OKS, I seriously can't push them enough for a self directed 401(k) or personal portfolio. They're a touch high right now (I love them
[quote name='nasum']Bob,
You'll note that I didn't say retail = stupid. I stated that your retail experience doesn't necessarily give you any experience in the investing and finance field. Quite the distinction.[/QUOTE]
While you didn't say "retail = stupid", perhaps you should go back and re-read your post...
[quote name='nasum']And the retail guy with all the wisdom in the world there to knock him down to size with unfounded opinions.
Thanks bud, I needed a good laugh to start my morning!
When your area of expertise grows beyond which aisle has the frozen pizzas and which aisle has the motor oil, maybe you'll have some more credibility.[/QUOTE]
Can you honestly say you intended to imply anything remotely different from that?
You'll note that I didn't say retail = stupid. I stated that your retail experience doesn't necessarily give you any experience in the investing and finance field. Quite the distinction.[/QUOTE]
While you didn't say "retail = stupid", perhaps you should go back and re-read your post...
[quote name='nasum']And the retail guy with all the wisdom in the world there to knock him down to size with unfounded opinions.
Thanks bud, I needed a good laugh to start my morning!
When your area of expertise grows beyond which aisle has the frozen pizzas and which aisle has the motor oil, maybe you'll have some more credibility.[/QUOTE]
Can you honestly say you intended to imply anything remotely different from that?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='nasum']http://www.investopedia.com/
Just come back informed ok? And ignore any "this is a ten bagger" kind of ads...
When I came from a standpoint of not knowing my head from my ass I started here. With the help provided at this site, I learned enough to get to where I am now. Regardless of enjoying sophisticated adult beverages, I learned A LOT about how to read companies and decide whether or not they were worth my investment.
Again, I won't pick anything for you (other than OKS, I seriously can't push them enough for a self directed 401(k) or personal portfolio. They're a touch high right now (I love them
Just come back informed ok? And ignore any "this is a ten bagger" kind of ads...
When I came from a standpoint of not knowing my head from my ass I started here. With the help provided at this site, I learned enough to get to where I am now. Regardless of enjoying sophisticated adult beverages, I learned A LOT about how to read companies and decide whether or not they were worth my investment.
Again, I won't pick anything for you (other than OKS, I seriously can't push them enough for a self directed 401(k) or personal portfolio. They're a touch high right now (I love them
the keyword is credibility. within the context of the conversation, you have a lack of understanding/experience/knowledge on the topic. When your area of expertise grows beyond retail environs and gets into finance/accounting/analysis then you'll have more credibility. As it stood then, and continues to stand now, your statements are all based on opinion with little else to back them up.
This is what you posted, because it somehow served to discredit me:
It's funny because this very thread is pretty much an "investor with penny ante etrade accounts" who moonlights as a seasonal accountant (a.k.a. $15 software you can buy at Walmart) telling us all how the Billion Dollar investors do things...
Remind me, why did you bring up China again?
This is what you posted, because it somehow served to discredit me:
It's funny because this very thread is pretty much an "investor with penny ante etrade accounts" who moonlights as a seasonal accountant (a.k.a. $15 software you can buy at Walmart) telling us all how the Billion Dollar investors do things...
Remind me, why did you bring up China again?
[quote name='nasum']the keyword is credibility. within the context of the conversation, you have a lack of understanding/experience/knowledge on the topic. When your area of expertise grows beyond retail environs and gets into finance/accounting/analysis then you'll have more credibility. As it stood then, and continues to stand now, your statements are all based on opinion with little else to back them up.[/quote]
See - this is exactly it. You assume because I work at retail, my knowledge extends to the location of items within the store and nothing else. Making sarcastic comments regarding it shows you're simply trying to be spiteful.
While I freely admit that was pretty spiteful, however, two things:
A) That was a direct reply to the comment regarding penny ante investors.
B) It's not a whole lot worse than your earlier comments saying, basically, that I live in a fantasy world without a working knowledge of our own world.
See - this is exactly it. You assume because I work at retail, my knowledge extends to the location of items within the store and nothing else. Making sarcastic comments regarding it shows you're simply trying to be spiteful.
While I freely admit that was pretty spiteful, however, two things:
A) That was a direct reply to the comment regarding penny ante investors.
B) It's not a whole lot worse than your earlier comments saying, basically, that I live in a fantasy world without a working knowledge of our own world.
China. It's that huge country on the other side of the planet. It's where billions of dollars are shipped off to every year so that investors and businessmen/women can maximize their money.
Cry about it all you want, I'm not losing sleep over what I said.
While snarky, the comment stands because you don't have a decade of experience working on things to this effect roughly 75% of your working time. Lacking intimite operation knowledge of the matter at hand doesn't mean you live in a fantasy world. Beating the drum of the echo chamber when you're clearly incorrect in the matter however just might.
Right, they send investment money to China. Then it comes back. It's not really an alternative. Unless of course you want to have a pile of Yuan waiting for you if you ever head over there.
Now, a person can invest in "China" through the NYSE (ticker FMCN Focus Media Holding Limited comes to mind) still using US funds and returns. There's also .HK and .PK "slips" (Nintendo for instance, NTDOY.PK) which is a foreign investment within the US. Yeah, it's weird. The best way I can describe it is like a voucher for one share from a larger holding company that actually has the investment. Neither means that you're engaging in a trade on a foreign exchange. Trading on the foreign exchange would involve all of the currency transactions I mentioned before and is fairly cost prohibitive, for little guys and fairly big guys.
I'll fix this part for you:
B) It's not a whole lot worse than your earlier comments saying, basically, that I live without a working knowledge of the topic at hand.
Do you have a portfolio? Do you manage it yourself? Have you been directly managing it for yourself for a decade? Do you read financial news? Do you understand the financial news that you read? Can you look at a stock quote on Yahoo and "feel" the company? Can you look at that same quote and decide if now is a good time to get in? Have you ever requested an investor information packet?
I'm guessing the answer to at least 50% of those questions is no. That doesn't mean you're dumb. It doesn't mean you wear velcro shoes. It doesn't mean that you're incapable of functioning as an adult in our society and the daily tasks that requires. It means you're not terribly hip to what is being discussed and you're using loosely formed opinions to argue against a person with a decent amount of knowledge in the field.
While snarky, the comment stands because you don't have a decade of experience working on things to this effect roughly 75% of your working time. Lacking intimite operation knowledge of the matter at hand doesn't mean you live in a fantasy world. Beating the drum of the echo chamber when you're clearly incorrect in the matter however just might.
Right, they send investment money to China. Then it comes back. It's not really an alternative. Unless of course you want to have a pile of Yuan waiting for you if you ever head over there.
Now, a person can invest in "China" through the NYSE (ticker FMCN Focus Media Holding Limited comes to mind) still using US funds and returns. There's also .HK and .PK "slips" (Nintendo for instance, NTDOY.PK) which is a foreign investment within the US. Yeah, it's weird. The best way I can describe it is like a voucher for one share from a larger holding company that actually has the investment. Neither means that you're engaging in a trade on a foreign exchange. Trading on the foreign exchange would involve all of the currency transactions I mentioned before and is fairly cost prohibitive, for little guys and fairly big guys.
I'll fix this part for you:
B) It's not a whole lot worse than your earlier comments saying, basically, that I live without a working knowledge of the topic at hand.
Do you have a portfolio? Do you manage it yourself? Have you been directly managing it for yourself for a decade? Do you read financial news? Do you understand the financial news that you read? Can you look at a stock quote on Yahoo and "feel" the company? Can you look at that same quote and decide if now is a good time to get in? Have you ever requested an investor information packet?
I'm guessing the answer to at least 50% of those questions is no. That doesn't mean you're dumb. It doesn't mean you wear velcro shoes. It doesn't mean that you're incapable of functioning as an adult in our society and the daily tasks that requires. It means you're not terribly hip to what is being discussed and you're using loosely formed opinions to argue against a person with a decent amount of knowledge in the field.
I am thoroughly entertained that nasum thinks he has superior knowledge the effects of the CG tax rate because he manages his own portfolio similar to millions of other low value investors.
What is even more entertaining is the amount of ego petting he is getting from the rest of you because he agrees with your opinion.
Good fun, good fun.
What is even more entertaining is the amount of ego petting he is getting from the rest of you because he agrees with your opinion.
Good fun, good fun.
[quote name='nasum']I'm not losing sleep over what I said.[/QUOTE]
And neither am I.
I merely think judging someone's abilities by their current job is fairly narrow minded.
Judging someone by incredibly stupid decisions they make isn't a whole lot better... but it is a step up.
And neither am I.
I merely think judging someone's abilities by their current job is fairly narrow minded.
Judging someone by incredibly stupid decisions they make isn't a whole lot better... but it is a step up.
[quote name='camoor']That is really nice of you. The sad thing is that they will probably take this favor and spit back in your face.[/QUOTE]
The rub is that you aren't arguing with them, you are "arguing" with regurgitated feces from Beck, Boortz and Limbaugh.
The rub is that you aren't arguing with them, you are "arguing" with regurgitated feces from Beck, Boortz and Limbaugh.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Msut77']The rub is that you aren't arguing with them, you are "arguing" with regurgitated feces from Beck, Boortz and Limbaugh.[/QUOTE]
In Knoell's case, sure. Knoell is a cheap hack through and through.
UB is more of a troll. He's a conservative attention whore - he'll do anything for attention. for all I know his wally world job could be completely made up as part of his troll persona, he could be the DJ Katie of the vs board.
In Knoell's case, sure. Knoell is a cheap hack through and through.
UB is more of a troll. He's a conservative attention whore - he'll do anything for attention.
for all I know his wally world job could be completely made up as part of his troll persona, he could be the DJ Katie of the vs board.
detectiveconan16
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 46 (100%)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/opinion/the-zuckerberg-tax.html?_r=4
Good thing Zuckerberg doesn't have to pay taxes neither do our tech giants. I shudder to think about what would happen to the jobs if they do.
Good thing Zuckerberg doesn't have to pay taxes neither do our tech giants. I shudder to think about what would happen to the jobs if they do.
[quote name='Knoell']I am thoroughly entertained that nasum thinks he has superior knowledge the effects of the CG tax rate because he manages his own portfolio similar to millions of other low value investors.
What is even more entertaining is the amount of ego petting he is getting from the rest of you because he agrees with your opinion.
Good fun, good fun.[/QUOTE]
And you've demonstrated such a mastery of the topic yourself.
What is even more entertaining is the amount of ego petting he is getting from the rest of you because he agrees with your opinion.
Good fun, good fun.[/QUOTE]
And you've demonstrated such a mastery of the topic yourself.
[quote name='UncleBob']And neither am I.
I merely think judging someone's abilities by their current job is fairly narrow minded.
Judging someone by incredibly stupid decisions they make isn't a whole lot better... but it is a step up.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously that incapable of reading what I type? It's not all abilities, merely the matter at hand. You don't have the daily operational knowledge of the topic. Your statements prove it.
Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your spotless morality if that's what it takes for you to think you've contributed in any way shape or form here. Anything you've stated regarding investments and the taxes on them has been shot down so easily that it's skeet shooting with a howitzer...
I merely think judging someone's abilities by their current job is fairly narrow minded.
Judging someone by incredibly stupid decisions they make isn't a whole lot better... but it is a step up.[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously that incapable of reading what I type? It's not all abilities, merely the matter at hand. You don't have the daily operational knowledge of the topic. Your statements prove it.
Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your spotless morality if that's what it takes for you to think you've contributed in any way shape or form here. Anything you've stated regarding investments and the taxes on them has been shot down so easily that it's skeet shooting with a howitzer...
[quote name='nasum']Anything you've stated regarding investments and the taxes on them has been shot down so easily that it's skeet shooting with a howitzer...[/QUOTE]
Only in your mind and those that agree with you.
Which doesn't add up to much, 1 person who invests on his own, and does 1040ez's for people + 3 or 4 people who have admitted they don't know their head from their ass about this.
Only in your mind and those that agree with you.
Which doesn't add up to much, 1 person who invests on his own, and does 1040ez's for people + 3 or 4 people who have admitted they don't know their head from their ass about this.
[quote name='nasum']Are you seriously that incapable of reading what I type? It's not all abilities, merely the matter at hand. You don't have the daily operational knowledge of the topic. Your statements prove it.
Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your spotless morality if that's what it takes for you to think you've contributed in any way shape or form here. Anything you've stated regarding investments and the taxes on them has been shot down so easily that it's skeet shooting with a howitzer...[/QUOTE]
Actually, it'd be pretty difficult to shoot skeet with a howitzer. They aren't known for their mobility. An anti-aircraft flak cannon would be more accurate.:lol:
Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for your spotless morality if that's what it takes for you to think you've contributed in any way shape or form here. Anything you've stated regarding investments and the taxes on them has been shot down so easily that it's skeet shooting with a howitzer...[/QUOTE]
Actually, it'd be pretty difficult to shoot skeet with a howitzer. They aren't known for their mobility. An anti-aircraft flak cannon would be more accurate.:lol:
[quote name='nasum']Are you seriously that incapable of reading what I type? It's not all abilities, merely the matter at hand. You don't have the daily operational knowledge of the topic. Your statements prove it.[/QUOTE]
You disagree with my opinion, so I don't know what I'm talking about.
Gotcha.
You can continue to live in a world where the amount of the reward has no bearing on someone's decision to take a risk. Your own lifestyle proves that you have a poor grasp of risks anyway.
You disagree with my opinion, so I don't know what I'm talking about.
Gotcha.
You can continue to live in a world where the amount of the reward has no bearing on someone's decision to take a risk. Your own lifestyle proves that you have a poor grasp of risks anyway.
[quote name='UncleBob']You disagree with my opinion, so I don't know what I'm talking about.
Gotcha.[/quote]
HAHAHAH. No. People disagree with your opinion BECAUSE you DON'T know what you're talking about.
are you NOT equating or lumping investment risk with tax liability, together, in this statement?
Gotcha.[/quote]
HAHAHAH. No. People disagree with your opinion BECAUSE you DON'T know what you're talking about.
How the
are you NOT equating or lumping investment risk with tax liability, together, in this statement?[quote name='dohdough']HAHAHAH. No. People disagree with your opinion BECAUSE you DON'T know what you're talking about.
How the are you NOT equating or lumping investment risk with tax liability, together, in this statement?[/QUOTE]
Let's ask you this:
If you had 1,000 dollars to invest and any proceeds from any gains from investing those 1,000 would be taxed at 90%, would you bother attempting to invest that money? You have the potential to lose money, and you have the potential to break even, and you have the potential to make money. You have to consider all three when deciding to invest, what to invest in, and what you are aiming for in returns.
Is this really that big of a leap in logic to think that people think the same way at a 30% tax rate? 15%?
I know you want to separate the two, but you can't.
How the
are you NOT equating or lumping investment risk with tax liability, together, in this statement?[/QUOTE]Let's ask you this:
If you had 1,000 dollars to invest and any proceeds from any gains from investing those 1,000 would be taxed at 90%, would you bother attempting to invest that money? You have the potential to lose money, and you have the potential to break even, and you have the potential to make money. You have to consider all three when deciding to invest, what to invest in, and what you are aiming for in returns.
Is this really that big of a leap in logic to think that people think the same way at a 30% tax rate? 15%?
I know you want to separate the two, but you can't.
[quote name='Knoell']Let's ask you this:
If you had 1,000 dollars to invest and any proceeds from any gains from investing those 1,000 would be taxed at 90%, would you bother attempting to invest that money? You have the potential to lose money, and you have the potential to break even, and you have the potential to make money. You have to consider all three when deciding to invest, what to invest in, and what you are aiming for in returns.
Is this really that big of a leap in logic to think that people think the same way at a 30% tax rate? 15%?
I know you want to separate the two, but you can't.[/QUOTE]
People also don't play the lottery because 45% of it will go to taxes and back when taxes were actually at 90%, people that had the means never invested in anything either.
I don't need to describe how I would do it because HISTORY tells us that taxes don't stop people from investing their money. Anyone that determines to not invest anything on a 15% increase on capital gains taxes, the level of stupidity increases exponentially with the amount of money one is able to invest.
edit: Even if I had $1 after taxes, it's still free money.
edit2: Your argument is akin to the one where HENRY's bitch about a 3% marginal tax increase and how they're just not going to make/work for that extra $50,000 because they'll need to pay an additional $2,000 in tax. It's plaining stupid.
If you had 1,000 dollars to invest and any proceeds from any gains from investing those 1,000 would be taxed at 90%, would you bother attempting to invest that money? You have the potential to lose money, and you have the potential to break even, and you have the potential to make money. You have to consider all three when deciding to invest, what to invest in, and what you are aiming for in returns.
Is this really that big of a leap in logic to think that people think the same way at a 30% tax rate? 15%?
I know you want to separate the two, but you can't.[/QUOTE]
People also don't play the lottery because 45% of it will go to taxes and back when taxes were actually at 90%, people that had the means never invested in anything either.
I don't need to describe how I would do it because HISTORY tells us that taxes don't stop people from investing their money. Anyone that determines to not invest anything on a 15% increase on capital gains taxes, the level of stupidity increases exponentially with the amount of money one is able to invest.
edit: Even if I had $1 after taxes, it's still free money.
edit2: Your argument is akin to the one where HENRY's bitch about a 3% marginal tax increase and how they're just not going to make/work for that extra $50,000 because they'll need to pay an additional $2,000 in tax. It's plain
ing stupid.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']People also don't play the lottery because 45% of it will go to taxes and back when taxes were actually at 90%, people that had the means never invested in anything either.
I don't need to describe how I would do it because HISTORY tells us that taxes don't stop people from investing their money. Anyone that determines to not invest anything on a 15% increase on capital gains taxes, the level of stupidity increases exponentially with the amount of money one is able to invest.
edit: Even if I had $1 after taxes, it's still free money.[/QUOTE]
It isn't free money. There is a cost that comes with investing that is called risk. You won't necessarily make even $1. Plenty of people have lost their money, this is where you are coming up short. You don't take into consideration that you can lose. For some odd reason you think that people simply invest their money and get a return every single time. This simply isn't true. When considering to invest your money, you will have to sell your investments at some point, a higher tax rate means less on the potential return which means less incentive to invest your money. It isn 't a certain return, it is a potential return.
This is why I know you don't know what you are talking about. The fact that you are saying you would invest $1000 because you would make $1. Right there shows that you don't understand the concept of investments.
Also what history are you talking about? The "nasum said this" history?
As for your edit 2: As I have stated in the past, marginal tax rates back in the 90% era were chok full of deductions and such. Interestingly enough this chart shows that the actual tax rate has really only shifted about 6-8% since your famous "90%" era. Noone really paid 90%.
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate.jpg
Yet spending is going up, up, up
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1902_2015USp_13s1li011lcn_F0xF0fF0sF0l
But you are absolutely right, we need to tax more not cut our excessive spending that nearly reached WW2 levels.
I don't need to describe how I would do it because HISTORY tells us that taxes don't stop people from investing their money. Anyone that determines to not invest anything on a 15% increase on capital gains taxes, the level of stupidity increases exponentially with the amount of money one is able to invest.
edit: Even if I had $1 after taxes, it's still free money.[/QUOTE]
It isn't free money. There is a cost that comes with investing that is called risk. You won't necessarily make even $1. Plenty of people have lost their money, this is where you are coming up short. You don't take into consideration that you can lose. For some odd reason you think that people simply invest their money and get a return every single time. This simply isn't true. When considering to invest your money, you will have to sell your investments at some point, a higher tax rate means less on the potential return which means less incentive to invest your money. It isn 't a certain return, it is a potential return.
This is why I know you don't know what you are talking about. The fact that you are saying you would invest $1000 because you would make $1. Right there shows that you don't understand the concept of investments.
Also what history are you talking about? The "nasum said this" history?
As for your edit 2: As I have stated in the past, marginal tax rates back in the 90% era were chok full of deductions and such. Interestingly enough this chart shows that the actual tax rate has really only shifted about 6-8% since your famous "90%" era. Noone really paid 90%.
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate.jpg
Yet spending is going up, up, up
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1902_2015USp_13s1li011lcn_F0xF0fF0sF0l
But you are absolutely right, we need to tax more not cut our excessive spending that nearly reached WW2 levels.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Knoell']It isn't free money. There is a cost that comes with investing that is called risk. You won't necessarily make even $1. Plenty of people have lost their money, this is where you are coming up short. You don't take into consideration that you can lose. For some odd reason you think that people simply invest their money and get a return every single time. This simply isn't true. When considering to invest your money, you will have to sell your investments at some point, a higher tax rate means less on the potential return which means less incentive to invest your money. It isn 't a certain return, it is a potential return.[/QUOTE]
What do taxes have to do with going negative on an investment? Can taxes make you go into the red from an investment transaction?
What do taxes have to do with going negative on an investment? Can taxes make you go into the red from an investment transaction?
I know you're trolling, but when tax rates were upwards of 50% the wealthy still invested their money in the markets. The boom and bust cycle didn't "just happen." Maybe you should learn a little bit about something called "The Great Depression." It happen around the 1930's.
This doesn't address edit2 and no one pays an effective rate that matches the marginal rate either, so how does this relate to people making the decision to invest?
God damn it, did you guys know the government taxes lottery proceeds too? What's the point of the risk then if they're just gonna tax everything I win. I mean I won it fair and square, why should the government get it. It's not like its my actual income, why should they get it?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Knoell']It isn't free money. There is a cost that comes with investing that is called risk. You won't necessarily make even $1. Plenty of people have lost their money, this is where you are coming up short. You don't take into consideration that you can lose. For some odd reason you think that people simply invest their money and get a return every single time. This simply isn't true. When considering to invest your money, you will have to sell your investments at some point, a higher tax rate means less on the potential return which means less incentive to invest your money. It isn 't a certain return, it is a potential return.
This is why I know you don't know what you are talking about. The fact that you are saying you would invest $1000 because you would make $1. Right there shows that you don't understand the concept of investments.
Also what history are you talking about? The "nasum said this" history?
As for your edit 2: As I have stated in the past, marginal tax rates back in the 90% era were chok full of deductions and such. Interestingly enough this chart shows that the actual tax rate has really only shifted about 6-8% since your famous "90%" era. Noone really paid 90%.
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate.jpg
Yet spending is going up, up, up
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1902_2015USp_13s1li011lcn_F0xF0fF0sF0l
But you are absolutely right, we need to tax more not cut our excessive spending that nearly reached WW2 levels.[/QUOTE]
So you're a rich guy - if the tax rate was a flat 30% on investments would you seriously not invest? You're just going to stuff your money in a mattress or a checking account?
This is why I know you don't know what you are talking about. The fact that you are saying you would invest $1000 because you would make $1. Right there shows that you don't understand the concept of investments.
Also what history are you talking about? The "nasum said this" history?
As for your edit 2: As I have stated in the past, marginal tax rates back in the 90% era were chok full of deductions and such. Interestingly enough this chart shows that the actual tax rate has really only shifted about 6-8% since your famous "90%" era. Noone really paid 90%.
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/Tax_Rates/TopTaxBracket_TaxRate.jpg
Yet spending is going up, up, up
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1902_2015USp_13s1li011lcn_F0xF0fF0sF0l
But you are absolutely right, we need to tax more not cut our excessive spending that nearly reached WW2 levels.[/QUOTE]
So you're a rich guy - if the tax rate was a flat 30% on investments would you seriously not invest? You're just going to stuff your money in a mattress or a checking account?
[quote name='RedvsBlue']God damn it, did you guys know the government taxes lottery proceeds too? What's the point of the risk then if they're just gonna tax everything I win. I mean I won it fair and square, why should the government get it. It's not like its my actual income, why should they get it?[/QUOTE]
Would you bother trying to win the lottery if the government taxed it at 90%? Probably not.
Regardless it isn't anything like the lottery, in the lottery you don't spend 10 million dollars on a lottery ticket to win 100,000 dollars. How many people would play the lottery if it cost twice what they could win, and the government took a third if you do win.
Would you bother trying to win the lottery if the government taxed it at 90%? Probably not.
Regardless it isn't anything like the lottery, in the lottery you don't spend 10 million dollars on a lottery ticket to win 100,000 dollars. How many people would play the lottery if it cost twice what they could win, and the government took a third if you do win.
[quote name='camoor']So you're a rich guy - if the tax rate was a flat 30% on investments would you seriously not invest? You're just going to stuff your money in a mattress or a checking account?[/QUOTE]
If your a rich guy and your tax rate is going to double and you are pretty decently ahead, you cash out your investments beforehand.
If your a rich guy and your tax rate is going to double and you are pretty decently ahead, you cash out your investments beforehand.
[quote name='Knoell']Would you bother trying to win the lottery if the government taxed it at 90%? Probably not.
Regardless it isn't anything like the lottery, in the lottery you don't spend 10 million dollars on a lottery ticket to win 100,000 dollars. How many people would play the lottery if it cost twice what they could win, and the government took a third if you do win.[/QUOTE]
No but capital gains aren't taxed at this magical 90% you keep pulling out of your ass either you dolt.
And in the lottery if you did spend $10 million dollars and didn't win it'd be gone whereas you still have your original investment in the stock market if it doesn't pay out. The comparison comes from the PROFIT being taxed not the lottery system as a whole in comparison to the stock market.
Are you intentionally thickheaded or were you born that way?
Regardless it isn't anything like the lottery, in the lottery you don't spend 10 million dollars on a lottery ticket to win 100,000 dollars. How many people would play the lottery if it cost twice what they could win, and the government took a third if you do win.[/QUOTE]
No but capital gains aren't taxed at this magical 90% you keep pulling out of your ass either you dolt.
And in the lottery if you did spend $10 million dollars and didn't win it'd be gone whereas you still have your original investment in the stock market if it doesn't pay out. The comparison comes from the PROFIT being taxed not the lottery system as a whole in comparison to the stock market.
Are you intentionally thickheaded or were you born that way?
[quote name='RedvsBlue']No but capital gains aren't taxed at this magical 90% you keep pulling out of your ass either you dolt.
And in the lottery if you did spend $10 million dollars and didn't win it'd be gone whereas you still have your original investment in the stock market if it doesn't pay out. The comparison comes from the PROFIT being taxed not the lottery system as a whole in comparison to the stock market.
Are you intentionally thickheaded or were you born that way?[/QUOTE]
90% is an extreme so that you can get the picture that if at 90% you most certainly wouldn't buy a lottery ticket, then when the rate goes from 15% to 30% you might understand why people might have second thoughts about the risk.
When you invest you can LOSE your original investment.
It really is astounding how you believe that you cannot lose your original money on investments.
And in the lottery if you did spend $10 million dollars and didn't win it'd be gone whereas you still have your original investment in the stock market if it doesn't pay out. The comparison comes from the PROFIT being taxed not the lottery system as a whole in comparison to the stock market.
Are you intentionally thickheaded or were you born that way?[/QUOTE]
90% is an extreme so that you can get the picture that if at 90% you most certainly wouldn't buy a lottery ticket, then when the rate goes from 15% to 30% you might understand why people might have second thoughts about the risk.
When you invest you can LOSE your original investment.
It really is astounding how you believe that you cannot lose your original money on investments.
[quote name='Knoell']90% is an extreme so that you can get the picture that if at 90% you most certainly wouldn't buy a lottery ticket, then when the rate goes from 15% to 30% you might understand why people might have second thoughts about the risk.
When you invest you can LOSE your original investment.
It really is astounding how you believe that you cannot lose your original money on investments.[/QUOTE]
You don't get taxed if you lose money; only when you sell at a profit. It's understood that investing money is a gamble, so harping on that point is not only redundant, but the rantings of an ignorant idealogue. If taxes only need to be paid when you have a profit, why the would we discuss the effect of taxes at a loss unless it's to be used as a tax credit?
There is literally no risk in selling stock. NONE. Every fee and tax is revealed up front as they are not tied to the turmoil of the market. Sure, people with bitch and moan about it, but people would bitch and moan about "high" taxes even if it was 5ing %.
And any GAIN is FREE MONEY, which again, is when taxes go into effect. No shit there's a risk when investing, but you're not going to be paying taxes on a gain that hasn't happened yet, so why bother even bring up the possibility of taking a loss?
Hell, between this thread, the HENRY thread, and the Lifestyle taxes thread, it's really frustrating to see how many people don't have aing clue about how basic taxation works in this country.
Like in your moronic example, if I had a 90% tax rate, that would mean I made a profit. Profit that I didn't really have to do any work to increase because the labor was in picking the financial vehicle and once you hand over the money, there's nothing you can really do to make it go up or down. Therefore, yet again, any gain is FREE MONEY. If I had a 10% gain of $100 and got taxed 90%, that would still mean that I have $10 free and clear.
When you invest you can LOSE your original investment.
It really is astounding how you believe that you cannot lose your original money on investments.[/QUOTE]
You don't get taxed if you lose money; only when you sell at a profit. It's understood that investing money is a gamble, so harping on that point is not only redundant, but the rantings of an ignorant idealogue. If taxes only need to be paid when you have a profit, why the
would we discuss the effect of taxes at a loss unless it's to be used as a tax credit?There is literally no risk in selling stock. NONE. Every fee and tax is revealed up front as they are not tied to the turmoil of the market. Sure, people with bitch and moan about it, but people would bitch and moan about "high" taxes even if it was 5
ing %.And any GAIN is FREE MONEY, which again, is when taxes go into effect. No shit there's a risk when investing, but you're not going to be paying taxes on a gain that hasn't happened yet, so why bother even bring up the possibility of taking a loss?
Hell, between this thread, the HENRY thread, and the Lifestyle taxes thread, it's really frustrating to see how many people don't have a
ing clue about how basic taxation works in this country.Like in your moronic example, if I had a 90% tax rate, that would mean I made a profit. Profit that I didn't really have to do any work to increase because the labor was in picking the financial vehicle and once you hand over the money, there's nothing you can really do to make it go up or down. Therefore, yet again, any gain is FREE MONEY. If I had a 10% gain of $100 and got taxed 90%, that would still mean that I have $10 free and clear.
[quote name='Knoell']90% is an extreme so that you can get the picture that if at 90% you most certainly wouldn't buy a lottery ticket, then when the rate goes from 15% to 30% you might understand why people might have second thoughts about the risk.
When you invest you can LOSE your original investment.
It really is astounding how you believe that you cannot lose your original money on investments.[/QUOTE]
No shit? You can lose money in the stock market, had no idea that was possible.
When you invest you can LOSE your original investment.
It really is astounding how you believe that you cannot lose your original money on investments.[/QUOTE]
No shit? You can lose money in the stock market, had no idea that was possible.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
There's one way these cats are correct.
That is, if we accept that the average American is as pants-on-heading *stupid* as these guys are, then, yeah, investment might fluctuate based on 'taxes.'
Funny thing is w/r/t this point, they are effected by the *perception* of things, and not the reality.
In other words, a 40% tax rate on capital gains can easily be more palatable than a 30% tax rate. It all depends on what the talking heads say, and how the uncritical thinkingfaces ape that level of acceptance.
There's no genuine % at which investment would decline - it's all perception. Since we have the wealthy-funded media to deal with (not to even begin to involve a post-Citizens United commercial world), we have to accept what they want, which is what they perceive. We win now and increase the rate, they'll be happy with 25% in 10 years. We lose, and in ten years, 15% will be regarded as oppressive and contributing to low investment trends.
So, yeah, tax rates matter. Not the actual tax rates, though. Most of the discussion here has shown that the royal we have noing clue about securities, let alone tax rates. Knoell shows how perception matters - he doesn't see an actual rate where returns are diminished by taxes, he sees a tax rate where "bigger than what we have now" is bad, and "lower than what we have now" spurns growth.
The actual tax rate can go suck a dick; it's all relative.
So, tell you what. Raise it up to 75% tax on capital gains now, and then drop it in a few years. This is a pendulum, not a guillotine.
That is, if we accept that the average American is as pants-on-head
ing *stupid* as these guys are, then, yeah, investment might fluctuate based on 'taxes.'Funny thing is w/r/t this point, they are effected by the *perception* of things, and not the reality.
In other words, a 40% tax rate on capital gains can easily be more palatable than a 30% tax rate. It all depends on what the talking heads say, and how the uncritical thinking
faces ape that level of acceptance.There's no genuine % at which investment would decline - it's all perception. Since we have the wealthy-funded media to deal with (not to even begin to involve a post-Citizens United commercial world), we have to accept what they want, which is what they perceive. We win now and increase the rate, they'll be happy with 25% in 10 years. We lose, and in ten years, 15% will be regarded as oppressive and contributing to low investment trends.
So, yeah, tax rates matter. Not the actual tax rates, though. Most of the discussion here has shown that the royal we have no
ing clue about securities, let alone tax rates. Knoell shows how perception matters - he doesn't see an actual rate where returns are diminished by taxes, he sees a tax rate where "bigger than what we have now" is bad, and "lower than what we have now" spurns growth.The actual tax rate can go suck a dick; it's all relative.
So, tell you what. Raise it up to 75% tax on capital gains now, and then drop it in a few years. This is a pendulum, not a guillotine.
[quote name='dohdough']You don't get taxed if you lose money; only when you sell at a profit. It's understood that investing money is a gamble, so harping on that point is not only redundant, but the rantings of an ignorant idealogue. If taxes only need to be paid when you have a profit, why the would we discuss the effect of taxes at a loss unless it's to be used as a tax credit?
.[/QUOTE]
One last time, maybe the 99th time it will hit you.
When you invest your money into the stock market, you do it based on the projected return you will get. If the return is going to be taxed at twice the rate it is now, you may not consider it worth it to invest(risk) so much of your money.
You guys completely ignore the money someone has to put in to invest. RedVsBlue said it perfectly, "the return is just free money". Each one of you have no concept of the fact that when you invest you are risking your money. What you plan on getting out of your investment is significantly reduced by taxation so that it may not be worth the risk of losing your original money if you aren't going to gain so much. Yes if you omit the risk of investing then it would make sense to invest regardless of the tax rate, however risk is often there, and rather bothersome.
That is besides the fact that people are going to go on a selling spree as soon as its announced this will go up. Please argue that.
But then again, the people who are throwing their "perception" of things without ANY statistics to back them up are criticizing me for saying what I say.
1. Show me the benefits of raising the tax.
2. Since you can't come up with any benefit besides increased revenue, show me something that says there will be increased revenue.
would we discuss the effect of taxes at a loss unless it's to be used as a tax credit?.[/QUOTE]
One last time, maybe the 99th time it will hit you.
When you invest your money into the stock market, you do it based on the projected return you will get. If the return is going to be taxed at twice the rate it is now, you may not consider it worth it to invest(risk) so much of your money.
You guys completely ignore the money someone has to put in to invest. RedVsBlue said it perfectly, "the return is just free money". Each one of you have no concept of the fact that when you invest you are risking your money. What you plan on getting out of your investment is significantly reduced by taxation so that it may not be worth the risk of losing your original money if you aren't going to gain so much. Yes if you omit the risk of investing then it would make sense to invest regardless of the tax rate, however risk is often there, and rather bothersome.
That is besides the fact that people are going to go on a selling spree as soon as its announced this will go up. Please argue that.
But then again, the people who are throwing their "perception" of things without ANY statistics to back them up are criticizing me for saying what I say.
1. Show me the benefits of raising the tax.
2. Since you can't come up with any benefit besides increased revenue, show me something that says there will be increased revenue.
You won't. You will go on a rant of how you don't need to provide any evidence, your perception of this is good enough.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
You demand evidence? You've already disregarded what people have shown in this thread, so you've got some nerve. Then again, given the 'evidence' you posted, it's clear that your ability to read charts is about on par with my ability to read the Cyrillic Alphabet.
Either way, you're full of shit or hiding your lack of understanding.
More to the point, given that you were (are?) a deficit hawk, you are no longer allowed to complain about the debt or deficits. They matter or they do not - and if you demonstrate an utter unwillingness to do anything to increase revenue so as to avoid future deficits, you show your hand as someone who simply can not be taken seriously.
Either way, you're full of shit or hiding your lack of understanding.
More to the point, given that you were (are?) a deficit hawk, you are no longer allowed to complain about the debt or deficits. They matter or they do not - and if you demonstrate an utter unwillingness to do anything to increase revenue so as to avoid future deficits, you show your hand as someone who simply can not be taken seriously.
knoell refuses to engage any questions or criticisms, insist you answer his questions which were demolished pages ago and declares victory because you "can't".
At this point I think it is safe to say he supplements his 9$ per hour salary by being paid to post right wing BS online.
At this point I think it is safe to say he supplements his 9$ per hour salary by being paid to post right wing BS online.
Glad I put a spoiler tag on that, I could have ruined it for everyone!
I have shown revenues have increased when this tax is lowered. It is a part of history, I'm not cheating. Show me evidence that disputes that. Oh wait, that might be too many numbers for you to comprehend.
[quote name='mykevermin']
HERESABUNCHOFNUMBERSANDSHIT
[/QUOTE]
I know sometimes numbers and such can be a bit overwhelming but damn, I even accounted for inflation for you and you still dispute I have any evidence that revenues have went up as the tax rate went down. Tell me how this is untrue.
I have shown revenues have increased when this tax is lowered. It is a part of history, I'm not cheating. Show me evidence that disputes that. Oh wait, that might be too many numbers for you to comprehend.
[quote name='mykevermin']
HERESABUNCHOFNUMBERSANDSHIT
[/QUOTE]
I know sometimes numbers and such can be a bit overwhelming but damn, I even accounted for inflation for you and you still dispute I have any evidence that revenues have went up as the tax rate went down. Tell me how this is untrue.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Knoell']I have shown revenues have increased when this tax is lowered.[/QUOTE]
Federal tax revenue, 2000-2004, and 2008-2010. Both periods immediately effected by tax cuts.
Go find them and get back to us on that note, fraud.
EDIT: Cue hand wringing and unsophisticated claims of a lag effect in 3...2...1...
Federal tax revenue, 2000-2004, and 2008-2010. Both periods immediately effected by tax cuts.
Go find them and get back to us on that note, fraud.
EDIT: Cue hand wringing and unsophisticated claims of a lag effect in 3...2...1...
[quote name='UncleBob']You disagree with my opinion, so I don't know what I'm talking about.
Gotcha.
[/QUOTE]
If your opinion was that concrete is made of ground up kittens, then your opinion would be incorrect.
I take it back, you really areing stupid.
[quote name='dohdough']Actually, it'd be pretty difficult to shoot skeet with a howitzer. They aren't known for their mobility. An anti-aircraft flak cannon would be more accurate.:lol:[/QUOTE]
Eh, I don't know shit about firearms. They scare me.
[quote name='Knoell']It isn't free money. There is a cost that comes with investing that is called risk.
But you are absolutely right, we need to tax more not cut our excessive spending that nearly reached WW2 levels.[/QUOTE]
In every example like this that you've presented, you come up with risk as a cost. Risk isn't a cost and costs aren't risks.
Also, despite saying that people lose money (they do, but that loss can be used against gains to reduce AGI) all of your examples are lunatic extremes of gains. So, people always gain, except for when they don't?
[quote name='Knoell']Would you bother trying to win the lottery if the government taxed it at 90%? Probably not.
Regardless it isn't anything like the lottery, in the lottery you don't spend 10 million dollars on a lottery ticket to win 100,000 dollars. How many people would play the lottery if it cost twice what they could win, and the government took a third if you do win.[/QUOTE]
Again with this 90% BS. Has anyone suggested a 90% rate on CG/D in either this thread or in current government? No. Taxing CG/D income at an income tax rate (which as you've pointed out isn't the actual rate people pay after deductions and credits) would have what effect on A.) Investment B.) The economy in general?
We already went over this, and not just because "I said so", one can look at the modern history of the United States and clearly see that GDP growth has been higher in times of higher taxes and is lower in times of lower taxes.
But I yield to your apparent knowledge because if nothing else, we've learned through history that the Bush tax cuts made america great once again! Imagine how awesome it would be if we didn't have taxes at all!
p.s.
investing is not gambling. can we please stop that comparrison?
Gotcha.
[/QUOTE]
If your opinion was that concrete is made of ground up kittens, then your opinion would be incorrect.
I take it back, you really are
ing stupid.[quote name='dohdough']Actually, it'd be pretty difficult to shoot skeet with a howitzer. They aren't known for their mobility. An anti-aircraft flak cannon would be more accurate.:lol:[/QUOTE]
Eh, I don't know shit about firearms. They scare me.
[quote name='Knoell']It isn't free money. There is a cost that comes with investing that is called risk.
But you are absolutely right, we need to tax more not cut our excessive spending that nearly reached WW2 levels.[/QUOTE]
In every example like this that you've presented, you come up with risk as a cost. Risk isn't a cost and costs aren't risks.
Also, despite saying that people lose money (they do, but that loss can be used against gains to reduce AGI) all of your examples are lunatic extremes of gains. So, people always gain, except for when they don't?
[quote name='Knoell']Would you bother trying to win the lottery if the government taxed it at 90%? Probably not.
Regardless it isn't anything like the lottery, in the lottery you don't spend 10 million dollars on a lottery ticket to win 100,000 dollars. How many people would play the lottery if it cost twice what they could win, and the government took a third if you do win.[/QUOTE]
Again with this 90% BS. Has anyone suggested a 90% rate on CG/D in either this thread or in current government? No. Taxing CG/D income at an income tax rate (which as you've pointed out isn't the actual rate people pay after deductions and credits) would have what effect on A.) Investment B.) The economy in general?
We already went over this, and not just because "I said so", one can look at the modern history of the United States and clearly see that GDP growth has been higher in times of higher taxes and is lower in times of lower taxes.
But I yield to your apparent knowledge because if nothing else, we've learned through history that the Bush tax cuts made america great once again! Imagine how awesome it would be if we didn't have taxes at all!
p.s.
investing is not gambling. can we please stop that comparrison?
bread's done