Romney and the tax thing

[quote name='Clak']You have to be incredibly specific with bobs. Say in this case that you mean taxes have no negative effect on investment, you'd better include the negative part or the bobs of the world will jump your ass.

bob's office is in a department store.[/QUOTE]
I was pretty specific already and welp...Lookitdatbullshit!



edit: You know what, I'm gonna have some fun with this...

[quote name='UncleBob']A) nasum, let me say, I used frozen pizzas for my office.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='UncleBob']A) Let me say, nasum, let me say, I had kinda pulled out of frozen pizzas. Sorry to disappoint. you'd like.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']He doesn't have any evidence, he will never have any evidence.

He doesn't even try apparently, all he has to say is try to twist things where you have to prove absolutely everything while he can just say "lol" or "nuh uh".[/QUOTE]


[quote name='mykevermin']I've been waiting all day for this.

If we can't get knoell to shut up the traditional way with silly things like facts, perhaps we can shut him up by asking him to defend his arguments.

HERESABUNCHOFNUMBERSANDSHIT

See? My numbers totally prove my argument right. I can't believe you'd argue against them.[/QUOTE]

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

Funny how specific statistics on how the benefits of an increase on tax would be negated are rated as irrelavent nonsense.

However that broad IDJA comparison that totally does not prove any of what nasum is proposing it does is pure financial genius. There are too many other factors affecting the IDJA for you to say that "it was good in the 90's but not so good in the 2000's so the reason must be taxes under your logic right?". The fact that he thinks that disproves my point shows he has no grasp of the topic at all.

But you guys just enjoy each others "expertise" on finance, race and such, you are real winners.:rofl:
 
[quote name='nasum']

Now back to that chart of yours. You're apparently terrified for me to show how it disproves your theory once again. You want me to say what it says? Nah, you 1st buddy. You presented the data. What does it tell you, and what should it show us?[/QUOTE]
This isn't cable news, answer the fucking question knoell, and enlighten us all.
 
You guys are morons. He was obviously referencing the first full-length album of the Finnish folk-metal band, Shaman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idja

337676_f520.jpg
 
Little known fact: the quality of Scandinavian Folk-Metal does fluctuate with tax rates.

Amorphis haven't put out a good record since the late Clinton administration (Elegy, for those keeping score at home). Since then, tax rates have only gone down.

REFUTE THAT, SUPPLY SIDERS.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Little known fact: the quality of Scandinavian Folk-Metal does fluctuate with tax rates.

Amorphis haven't put out a good record since the late Clinton administration (Elegy, for those keeping score at home). Since then, tax rates have only gone down.

REFUTE THAT, SUPPLY SIDERS.[/QUOTE]

1.) First bit made a tiny bit of pee come out I laughed so hard.
2.) fuck you in the neck, Eclipse is a goddamn masterpiece!

[quote name='knoell']Funny how specific statistics on how the benefits of an increase on tax would be negated are rated as irrelavent nonsense.[/quote]
That's a different topic altogether and you know it. Let's solve item #1 before we go on to the others shall we? Unless you think they're the same thing, at which point you know less than you think I do.

[quote name='Knoell']There are too many other factors affecting the IDJA for you to say that "it was good in the 90's but not so good in the 2000's so the reason must be taxes under your logic right?". [/quote]

I'll fully admit that I may have missed a post, but show me where any statement other than "high taxes deter investment" has been made along the way. Now, if you'd like to have a discussion about other factors, lead the way. I agree wholeheartedly. Sort of that whole "taxes have no effect on investment" that I've been going with this whole time. But seriously, show me where it was said and I'll eat my words.

[quote name='Knoell']There are too many other factors affecting the IDJA[/quote]
Join us Luke, join the dark side!
You're almost there buddy. You almost just admitted that there are reasons *outside* of taxes that effect investment. Not only are there more reasons, they're vastly more important.
I'd say repeat after me, but hell man, repeat after yourself; There are too many other factors.

[quote name='Knoell']The fact that he thinks that disproves my point shows he has no grasp of the topic at all.[/quote]
Well, part of the problem is that I'm trying to get you to make a statement other than "he's a dumbdumb, listen to me" that holds up to any scrutiny. You have, as of yet, failed to do so. When I say "taxes have no effect on investment" you go on to say "how can that be?" and then assail any proof otherwise.

What is your statement good sir? Other than "you're wrong!" what's your take on the matter? I leave the floor open to you. Since I know fuckall, educate me.

Going on 6 hours I've been licking my chops...
Click to expand...
 
This thread has provided me some serious laughs. Thanks guys, I really needed it.

Hell, even seeing that UB posted, without even reading his post, made me break out into a huge grin.
 
[quote name='nasum']



I'll fully admit that I may have missed a post, but show me where any statement other than "high taxes deter investment" has been made along the way. Now, if you'd like to have a discussion about other factors, lead the way. I agree wholeheartedly. Sort of that whole "taxes have no effect on investment" that I've been going with this whole time. But seriously, show me where it was said and I'll eat my words.


Join us Luke, join the dark side!
You're almost there buddy. You almost just admitted that there are reasons *outside* of taxes that effect investment. Not only are there more reasons, they're vastly more important.
I'd say repeat after me, but hell man, repeat after yourself; There are too many other factors.


Well, part of the problem is that I'm trying to get you to make a statement other than "he's a dumbdumb, listen to me" that holds up to any scrutiny. You have, as of yet, failed to do so. When I say "taxes have no effect on investment" you go on to say "how can that be?" and then assail any proof otherwise.

What is your statement good sir? Other than "you're wrong!" what's your take on the matter? I leave the floor open to you. Since I know fuckall, educate me.


Going on 6 hours I've been licking my chops...[/QUOTE]

I have given you my take on the matter, you continue to spout off inconsistant nonsense. When you are ready to understand that these things are made up of multiple factors we can talk. Until then, maybe you should brush up your expertise on why something having an impact on something else does not have to mean it is the sole impact on it.

Nor does it mean it will have a substantial affect.
Nor does it mean it has no effect.
Nor does it mean it has little effect.

Maybe if you dive a bit deeper into the reasoning behind the slow growth of the DJIA during the 2000's you will find your answer. However we both know you won't because it will very clearly show you how dishonest you are being with this scenario.

Your evidence is pretty much "hey taxes aren't the only thing to affect investment, therefore they don't affect investment."

Like I said....brush up on your "expertise" :rofl: and then we will talk.

PS If you look back at my posts, I have repeatedly said that investment is affected by a number of different factors, so it is about time you stepped in line with that at least. I have never once said that investment is only affected by taxes, that is retarded and goes against everything I have been saying this whole time. The proof is in the thread if you disagree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"a number of different factors" does include the temperature outside.

"a number of different factors" does not include finnish folk-metal.

"a number of different factors" does include the number of unworn pants in the world.

"a number of different factors" is a fancy way of saying "stuff."

So your essential argument, in all its glorious detail, but simply rephrased, is "investment is affected by a number of different factors STUFF."

No, really. It is.

Congratulations for patting yourself on the back for that level of in-depth analysis. I dub thee David Brooks.

True story: I thought of the previous sentence above, *then* went to see his column this morning. I found this sentence placed in a position of prominence in today's article:

"The essential truth about poverty is that we will never fully understand what causes it. There are a million factors that contribute to poverty, and they interact in a zillion ways."

Jesus Christ, am I ever spot on. And I haven't even had my coffee yet.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']"a number of different factors" does include the temperature outside.

"a number of different factors" does not include finnish folk-metal.

"a number of different factors" does include the number of unworn pants in the world.

"a number of different factors" is a fancy way of saying "stuff."

So your essential argument, in all its glorious detail, but simply rephrased, is "investment is affected by a number of different factors STUFF."

No, really. It is.

Congratulations for patting yourself on the back for that level of in-depth analysis. I dub thee David Brooks.

True story: I thought of the previous sentence above, *then* went to see his column this morning. I found this sentence placed in a position of prominence in today's article:

"The essential truth about poverty is that we will never fully understand what causes it. There are a million factors that contribute to poverty, and they interact in a zillion ways."

Jesus Christ, am I ever spot on. And I haven't even had my coffee yet.[/QUOTE]

Sorry but you are wrong again.

The argument is about whether the capital gains tax affects investment.

I think it does. Guess I should say again here, it isn't the sole determining factor in why things occur the way they do, but it is a factor.

Nasum thinks it doesn't at all. Guess I should say here that Nasum thinks that since tax isn't the sole determining factor, it isn't a factor at all.

I am still waiting for a list of benefits of raising the tax from anyone.
 
[quote name='nasum']

Now back to that chart of yours. You're apparently terrified for me to show how it disproves your theory once again. You want me to say what it says? Nah, you 1st buddy. You presented the data. What does it tell you, and what should it show us?[/QUOTE]
Still waiting, Knoell.
 
[quote name='Knoell']

I am still waiting for a list of benefits of raising the tax from anyone.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't matter Knoell, you and the bobs of the world think all the government does is piss money away anyway. So we couldn't ever show any benefit to raising any tax at all for folks like yourself.
 
[quote name='Clak']It wouldn't matter Knoell, you and the bobs of the world think all the government does is piss money away anyway.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's all it does.

But let's be completely honest here - if we took all of our military spending (including off budget items and crap like "the war on terror"), cut it to 1/3 the current size, we'd still be spending double what China spends... look at how much money we could then spend on social programs - without raising a dime of taxes.

Don't get me wrong - the tax situation needs to be fixed, but you don't give an alcoholic a beer.

[quote name='dohdough']I agree.[/QUOTE]
I assure you, tonight, I will cry myself to sleep because of your opinion of me.
 
[quote name='Knoell']The argument is about whether the capital gains tax affects investment.

I think it does.[/quote]

You posted a small selection of data and couldn't be arsed to parse what it meant, but swore up and down that it demonstrated your point. To criticize you for doing the least amount possible to prove your point would be libelous, as it would unfairly accuse you of doing something to prove your point.

I am still waiting for a list of benefits of raising the tax from anyone.
Click to expand...

I've got it typed up. I'll give it to you when you discuss your chart from yesterday, and what it means. Provide detail. Walk us through it.
 
So it's apparently my duty to do the work.

[quote name='knoell post 207']You are all a bunch of idiots. I am sorry. You act as if the US is the bottom line investment, as if these people can't or won't move their money elsewhere. Ignoring that historically revenue goes down when you increase this tax, the estimated gain in tax revenue is relatively tiny, so the most you get out of it is the glory of taking that much more from the rich. You all put so much effort into convincing people that if just this changed their dreams will come true. It is disgusting really.

As for us flourishing when taxes were high, do your own damn investigative work to figure out exactly what was higher, why, and the effects. You will be surprised.[/quote]
[quote name='nasum post 213']Knoell, let's take the tech bubble as a starting point shall we?
What was higher?
1.) Income tax brackets
2.) Capital gains & dividends
3.) Luxury tax
Why was it higher?
1.) Because we had the same tax rates since Reagan?
Effects
1.) No adverse side effects. Large amounts of investment in a burgeoning field, DESPITE those fiendish high taxes.

Post tax reductions
What is higher?
1.) The tax burden on lower and middle incomes
Why?
1.) Tax breaks at the highest levels of income incongruent with those at the lower levels. Long story short, the Friedman failure cubed.
Effect
1.) Prolonged recession that is actually a depression but politicians are too afraid to admit it.

I'm not terribly surprised to be honest.

The gain in tax revenues may be relatively tiny, but put it this way since I know the (R) crowd loves to use microeconomics to solve macroeconomics. You know that deal where they say "what do you do when your family needs to tighten its belt in this rough economy? You reduce your spending!" You know what you should also do? Get a side job delivering papers, washing dishes, waiting tables, mowing lawns, etc... You also INCREASE your income while DECREASING your spending. That delta then gets put towards paying your bills or building your savings. Either way, the solution isn't one or the other, it's BOTH.

Show me empirical evidence in the last 100yrs where ultra low tax rates spur macroeconomic growth. Not even just the US, you can go global. Show me evidence of high tax rates being a burden to the GDP.
You will not, because you cannot. [/quote]
[quote name=' UB #222']All if this "they'll invest money to make money" talk, of course, ignores the risk involved.

I can invest my $100 and get out later with $200 - then pay $15 in taxes... not bad.
I can invest my $100 and get out later with $200 - then pay $50 in taxes... still not bad.
I can invest my $100 and get out later with $200 - then pay $75 in taxes... not the worst, but hey, free $25.

All that sounds great, until you realize each one of those comes with the possibility of completely losing your initial $100. Will I risk my $100 for the chance to make $25? No thanks. Will I risk my $100 for the chance to make $85? Hmm... what's the risk? [/quote]
[quote name='nasum #223']If you have 100% ROI, why are you backing out of the investment?!?!
If you lose your initial $100, it's and AGI downgrade of loss on capital either short or long term. Learn your Schedule D bud.

Hmm... what's the risk?[/quote]
[quote name=' UB 236']The IDEA was simple though - a good investor considers the possible return on his/her investment and weighs that verses the risk of the investment. Taxes diminish the return. More taxes diminish the return by even larger amounts. As the return gets smaller (i.e.: taxes go up) the risk stays virtually the same - so where someone may invest on a risky venture for a larger payout, they may decline to invest in that same risky venture if the potential payout is too small.[/quote]
[quote name='knoell #242']Or sitting on their money, or investing it in other ways. Capital investments are not the only way to make money. Yet the investees do need that money to do what they do.

If you guys think that investors do not weigh the risks of investing their money you have no business in this discussion. It is done ALL the damn time. There are god damn formulas that calculate this sort of thing, of which they decide whether the gain will be good enough to make the investment. They don't say "it will be a gain? then why not?" as you all so easily suggest. When you are talking about cutting another 15+% off the top, you are really making a lot of decisions for investors.[/quote]

I should note that this next one started off with a quote of one of my posts, but it was edited to "your post" so I really have no idea which one. I'm going to assume #213 from above.

quote=knoell #243]What are the purposes of a tax nasum? Now if tax revenues as a percent of GDP stay either consistant or increase after we slashed taxes by that enormous amount, what do you think happened?

Why does the government need to tax at a higher rate if they were going to get the same or more at a lower rate? Simple answer is income redistribution. It isn't "fair" that those other people are making money, even though they are supplying the government with the same amount or more of revenue, "we should be distributing the wealth more evenly". Efficiency and common sense out the door, as long as it is "fair" even though it won't be "fair" anyway after these taxes go up. Just less efficient which is not good for any of us.[/quote]

[quote name='UB #250']
This can be the same thing - If there are no sound investments, investors will sit on their money. If there are sound investments, but those investments are elsewhere, then investors will go elsewhere.

The primary goal of investing is to gain money. Investors will consider each possible outcome and go with the choices that they believe will maximize their bank accounts.[/quote]
[quote name='nasum #254, big post']
Key points:
CG/D tax rates aren't a key factor in investment and are mostly irrelevant
directly responding to knoell's "what are taxes for" question[/quote]

At this point UB gets into the disambiguation game by moving on to the GM bailout and then confusing traing fees with capital gains taxes. Of course we have to bring up his Amazon purchases pet peeves as well.
[quote name='dohdough #279']Btw, you know there's a multi-quote option right? [/quote]
I apparently don't know how to use it correctly.

More Amazon sales tax
The work in one state while living in another thing
further confusion in trading fees = the same as taxes (I only had to clear that one up three times)
Quote of me saying investors invest to make money, then pointing out that I said there are other reasons too. Somehow this means that they do only the other things?

Then again the "investors can go elsewhere since the US taxes may go up" notion comes up by UB in post # 311 and also trying to disambiguate again with the GM thing that I pretty clearly stated is an equity agreement with a payoff schedule in place. Despite that, the taxpayer is in the hole (there's no hole).

[quote name='knoell #334']
Let me ask you this. If you took $40,000 of your money and put it on the stock market ok? You end up making $1,000 bucks. Which would you more likely bet your money on? Getting $850 back on your investment? Or $700? Would you really say "oh well at least I made $700?"

Sure you are still making your profit of $700, however you are still looking at it from a "I already gained my money" point of view. You have to think of it as an "Is it worth me putting up $40,000 for a $700 dollar return? This is how these people think, they do not think "oh well I lost 15 more percent on my return? bah at least I still made the other 70%".

It just isn't done. Period. That coupled with the reality that raising capital gains historically does not increase tax revenues (hmmmm I wonder why that is) negates any possible benefit of raising this tax except the "haha you rich suckers are losing more of your money" effect .Even people investing less could hurt the economy. It is not an all or nothing science but a combination of negatives that are being exacted with no real benefit in sight.

For you to say it won't affect investment as you explain how it really does affect investment is hilarious though[/quote]
Back onto the CG/D defines investment strategy thing

[quote name='nasum #337']In the immortal words of Les Claypool: FISH ON!

We'll start by ignoring the variables.
So I made a grand. Taxation starts at $1,500, or have you not been paying attention? Still, I'm up 4%, why am I selling? Do I need the cash or am I moving to another holding? If it's because I need the cash, what are my other alternatives? Sell a guitar? I can do that on Craig's List and not pay a penny, but I love my guitars, so I'm not going to do that right this moment. Sell the car? Well shit, at least in my state, the buyer of the title needs to report that sale (to be able to purchase insurance (mandatory in my state) on the car, pay sales tax, and due to reporting that sale I pay a fee), all that despite me needing my car. Sell my cock on the street? Well...
You're going for this point, trying so hard to score, but you're off the mark. You're ignoring a huge factor (the "why") in favour of something that I'm not sure you even understand.

Now let's factor in the variables.
I'm up a grand on one or more holdings over the course of 1 year. I've beaten the average interest on a money market account, a checking account and a Certificate of Deposit. Remind me again why I'm selling.
Am I up on value of holdings (i.e. X amount of shares in some company that have gone up 4%), or on dividend (shares in holding X have distributed a 4% yield (find me a 4% yield stock by the way, my best isn't quite 2.5% and it's considered one of the "golden" dividends))?
Again, I'm beating any other investment vehicle, why am I selling in this example?

Now let's make it somewhat more real.
I'm up $10k on $40k. That means I sold my holdings for $50k. This is obviously a long holding since 25% is borderline impossible in one year. Let's say this is over a span of 10 years, averaging 2.5% per year in growth which is quite realistic. You STILL need to answer why I'm selling. Even at 2.5% increase per year, I'm beating everything else. Did my car shit the bed and I need another one? I'm not buying a $50k car by the way. So I'll back out maybe $5k for a down payment. At that point, I need the cash so I don't give a shit about tax, I just need the money. Not only that, my cost basis on the initial investment determines what I'll pay as Capital Gain. So to sell a real $5k (again assuming 2.5%) I'm looking at a cost basis of roughly 97.5% of $5k, or $4,875. Guess what, I STILL DON'T OWE A PENNY BECAUSE I'M
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I don't think that's all it does.

But let's be completely honest here - if we took all of our military spending (including off budget items and crap like "the war on terror"), cut it to 1/3 the current size, we'd still be spending double what China spends... look at how much money we could then spend on social programs - without raising a dime of taxes.

Don't get me wrong - the tax situation needs to be fixed, but you don't give an alcoholic a beer.


I assure you, tonight, I will cry myself to sleep because of your opinion of me.[/QUOTE]

1.) getting warmer, but more will also address the debt
2.) why not, they'll probably appreciate it


DD:
I figured, but I still don't know how to make it work.
 
[quote name='nasum']DD: I figured, but I still don't know how to make it work.[/QUOTE]
Click on the button with the "+" next to the "quote" button in the order you want to multiquote and on the last quote, click on the "quote" button. Viola!
 
[quote name='dohdough']Just a quick nitpick, post 279 was directed towards bobs.;)[/QUOTE]

[quote name='nasum']1.) getting warmer, but more will also address the debt
2.) why not, they'll probably appreciate it


DD:
I figured, but I still don't know how to make it work.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='dohdough']Click on the button with the "+" next to the "quote" button in the order you want to multiquote and on the last quote, click on the "quote" button. Viola![/QUOTE]

Well shit. I think I was trying to hit the button, and then type away in quick reply thinking it would pull them all in.
Thanks.
Does it work across pages?
 
[quote name='camoor']This thread has provided me some serious laughs. Thanks guys, I really needed it.

Hell, even seeing that UB posted, without even reading his post, made me break out into a huge grin.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='nasum']Well shit. I think I was trying to hit the button, and then type away in quick reply thinking it would pull them all in.
Thanks.
Does it work across pages?[/QUOTE]
Yup.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Just a quick nitpick, post 279 was directed towards bobs.;)[/QUOTE]

Which is funny because your post #280 could have been part of a multi-quote post as well. :D

[quote name='nasum']I figured, but I still don't know how to make it work.[/QUOTE]

Your summary of the thread is pretty spot-on when to comes to understanding how you failed at processing what was being put into the conversation.

From this, I've learned that you apparently engage in dangerous activities that threaten the lives of others, have a poor understanding of how conversations can flow and evolve, have no understanding of the concept of risk vs. reward and cannot figure out a basic feature of a forum that's as easy as clicking a single button on each of the posts that you wish to quote (hint, it says "Multi-quote this message" when you mouse-over it).
 
For me it's less of how the conversation evolved and more you realizing that you were on thin ice so you decided to throw in a non-sequitor in hopes that people would leave alone the original nonsense. Look bud, if you say something without the ability to back it up and prefer to jump ship, don't expect me to be very forgiving.

I understand risk/reward better than most when it comes to finance as well as engaging in dangerous activites that threaten the lives of others. Problem is, my activities don't threaten the lives of others at all.
What do I not understand about risk/reward in terms of investing?

Hey look, I learned how to use it! So you're wrong again!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']For me it's less of how the conversation evolved and more you realizing that you were on thin ice so you decided to throw in a non-sequitor in hopes that people would leave alone the original nonsense. Look bud, if you say something without the ability to back it up and prefer to jump ship, don't expect me to be very forgiving.[/quote]

*and* I forgot to mention... you were the one who brought up trading fees. Yet I'm the one you accuse of bringing up non sequiturs to throw off the thread.

The fact that you seem to think *anyone* was arguing that "Trading Fees" = "Taxes" shows how little you were honestly engaged with the conversation.

I understand risk/reward better than most when it comes to finance as well as engaging in dangerous activites that threaten the lives of others. Problem is, my activities don't threaten the lives of others at all.
Click to expand...

Drinking and driving doesn't threaten the lives of others?

What do I not understand about risk/reward in terms of investing?
Click to expand...

If the reward isn't worth the risk, a sensible investor won't take it.

Hey look, I learned how to use it! So you're wrong again!
Click to expand...
Hey, look - someone walked you through it - you did not figure it out, someone explained it to you... So, yet again, my statement was correct.
 
Driving period threatens lives, bob.

And we're back to where we started on this merry-go-round of ridiculousness.
 
=nasum]It isn't that CG/D isn't the sole factor, it's such a miniscule factor that it bears almost nothing on the initial intention to invest. We'll see what you really think if you ever bother to answer my question above.
The benefit of raising the tax? We have a debt crisis, we need increased revenue and decreased spending at the same time to counter the effects of debt.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you put in the time or effort recapping a conversation, repeating the same dishonest bs but I will just take this last reply.

As for the chart, it is self explanitory. I have already stated that amongst other factors revenues have decreased with increased taxes. I am not sure what "gotcha" moment you are waiting for with the chart, but instead of waiting why not explain why you think the chart isn't valid.

You have never showed me any evidence that it is a miniscule factor. The only crap you have told me is that the DJIA in its entirety is an indicator of taxes not affecting investment. Which is completely false. That doesn't point to one way or the other, it just isn't even usable in that way.

And there we have it, the benefit of raising the capital gains tax is solely revenue. Now go ahead and show me where revenue has increased with the tax rate increasing. Now show me where revenue has decreased with the tax rate decreasing.
 
Knoell, did you ever get up in front of an audience with a chart and just say "This shit is self explanatory"? Please say you did.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']*and* I forgot to mention... you were the one who brought up trading fees. Yet I'm the one you accuse of bringing up non sequiturs to throw off the thread.

The fact that you seem to think *anyone* was arguing that "Trading Fees" = "Taxes" shows how little you were honestly engaged with the conversation.[/quote]


[quote name='UncleBob']...until Scott Trade, Interactive Brokers , China, or Charles Schwab comes along and offers you $4 trades.[/QUOTE]

You brought that up while I was discussing the difference between investment cost and final tax on the deal. By you throwing "China" into the mix, you brought it up. Why else would you bring up China in terms of cost of investment? China offers a better transaction fee than Fidelity? Why did you bring up China in that instance?

Drinking and driving doesn't threaten the lives of others?
Click to expand...
This is the "Romney and the tax thing" topic, not the "Romney and the tax thing and the general vs subforum OTT"
You want to talk dewies open the Uncles Against Drunk Driving thread. We'll talk about it there.

If the reward isn't worth the risk, a sensible investor won't take it.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Taxes aren't part of that risk. Analyzing the financials of the company to see if it's a risky investment is what a sensible investor will do. Then determining if that risk is worth the exposure, then determining if you have anything to hedge against that exposure, etc...


Hey, look - someone walked you through it - you did not figure it out, someone explained it to you... So, yet again, my statement was correct.
Click to expand...
Ok. Me not using the multi-quote correctly = I have no credibility in something I've been doing for a decade with 16x gains (investing) as well as a job that I've done for roughly the same amount of time (accounting & transactional analysis). That's a good correlation you've made there. Have a cookie.
You never figured out multiplication tables. Your 3rd grade teacher walked you through it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']*and* I forgot to mention... you were the one who brought up trading fees. Yet I'm the one you accuse of bringing up non sequiturs to throw off the thread.

The fact that you seem to think *anyone* was arguing that "Trading Fees" = "Taxes" shows how little you were honestly engaged with the conversation.

If the reward isn't worth the risk, a sensible investor won't take it.[/QUOTE]
When the fuck did risk start to include a fixed transaction cost? Who the fuck doesn't buy a lottery ticket because they'll get taxed on any winnings above a certain amount?

The risk of loss is in the investment itself, NOT the taxes and/or fees on selling/cashing them in at a PROFIT. Shit, with that logic, you might as well not hire anyone to work because you'll need to pay them a fucking wage!

Arguing that fees/taxes are barriers to entry is so goddamn preposturous when referring to someone at Romney's level or anyone else using investment instruments to make a living income.

Hey, look - someone walked you through it - you did not figure it out, someone explained it to you... So, yet again, my statement was correct.
Click to expand...
That's generally what happens when someone teaches you something. It's called LEARNING...kinda like he said. At no point did nasum say that he figured it out on his own.
 
[quote name='nasum']You brought that up while I was discussing the difference between investment cost and final tax on the deal. By you throwing "China" into the mix, you brought it up. Why else would you bring up China in terms of cost of investment? China offers a better transaction fee than Fidelity? Why did you bring up China in that instance?[/quote]

You brought up the trade fees and I went with it.

This is the "Romney and the tax thing" topic, not the "Romney and the tax thing and the general vs subforum OTT"
You want to talk dewies open the Uncles Against Drunk Driving thread. We'll talk about it there.
Click to expand...

Translation: "My poor judgement in my personal life should have no reflection upon my view points regarding national economics."


Absolutely. Taxes aren't part of that risk.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Taxes are a part of the reward.

Let's pretend you were to make an investment that has pretty much zero risk... but 100% of the return on that investment was going to be taken up in a special "War on Terror Anti-Brown Folks" tax recently passed by President Romney to help fund the war against Iran.

Would you make that investment?

You never figured out multiplication tables. Your 3rd grade teacher walked you through it.
Click to expand...

Which would be awesome if we were all still in the third grade instead of those members on vs. who just have the mentality of third graders (not you).
 
[quote name='dohdough']When the fuck did risk start to include a fixed transaction cost? Who the fuck doesn't buy a lottery ticket because they'll get taxed on any winnings above a certain amount?[/quote]

Again, risk does not. Reward does. A state starts selling lottery tickets that guarantee $2 winners. The cost of the ticket is $1 and there's a special tax of $1 per win on all winners. How many tickets are you going to buy?
 
Investments will remain the best way to have your money make money. Taxing it as regular income won't change that.

Yes, there are fees, risk involved etc. But outside of maybe real estate deals, there isn't any other way to get the types of returns a successful investor makes.

And again, all the risk, fees etc. don't matter so much for someone like Romney who can afford to take risks as losing even a few million is a drop in the bucket.

Fees, risk, all that jazz really just affect us average Joes, and few of us do any investing beyond our 401(k)s and mutual fund IRAs etc. anwyay.

So I just don't see where all this "but people will stop investing!" nonsense is coming from. People will grumble about it, but will keep right on investing as it still offers the highest average return of anything you can do with your money right now. Especially if you just want your money to make money rather than actually having to work for it--in which case you could use the money to start new businesses etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Investments will remain the best way to have your money make money. Taxing it as regular income won't change that.

Yes, there are fees, risk involved etc. But outside of maybe real estate deals, there isn't any other way to get the types of returns a successful investor makes.

And again, all the risk, fees etc. don't matter so much for someone like Romney who can afford to take risks as losing even a few million is a drop in the bucket.

Fees, risk, all that jazz really just affect us average Joes, and few of us do any investing beyond our 401(k)s and mutual fund IRAs etc. anwyay.

So I just don't see where all this "but people will stop investing!" nonsense is coming from. People will grumble about it, but will keep right on investing as it still offers the highest average return of anything you can do with your money right now. Especially if you just want your money to make money rather than actually having to work for it--in which case you could use the money to start new businesses etc.[/QUOTE]

Always the voice of wisdom (and I mean that honestly).

And, while I know there are some true (crazy) Republicans who are shouting "But people will stop investing!" - I don't think anyone here is arguing that (though I could be wrong).

but will keep right on investing as it still offers the highest average return of anything you can do with your money right now
Click to expand...

This is the key. So long as investing (ideally, within the US economy, because that's what we all want investors to do with their money, right?) is giving investors the highest returns with their money, then we're all good.

Raising the tax rate on investments is a good plan (*edit/clarification: once the Federal Government learns how to properly handle money, that is). I don't disagree. However, determining WHERE to raise them is the trick. All other things aside, if you keep raising the tax rate, at some point, investing in the US economy would NO LONGER give an investor the highest returns on his/her money and he/she is going to determine ways of distributing his/her money that best suits his/her individual needs (spending on personal belongings, stuffing mattresses with it, investing overseas and hiding the earnings, etc.).
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Investments will remain the best way to have your money make money. Taxing it as regular income won't change that.

Yes, there are fees, risk involved etc. But outside of maybe real estate deals, there isn't any other way to get the types of returns a successful investor makes.

And again, all the risk, fees etc. don't matter so much for someone like Romney who can afford to take risks as losing even a few million is a drop in the bucket.

Fees, risk, all that jazz really just affect us average Joes, and few of us do any investing beyond our 401(k)s and mutual fund IRAs etc. anwyay.

So I just don't see where all this "but people will stop investing!" nonsense is coming from. People will grumble about it, but will keep right on investing as it still offers the highest average return of anything you can do with your money right now. Especially if you just want your money to make money rather than actually having to work for it--in which case you could use the money to start new businesses etc.[/QUOTE]

This is the most honest reply I have seen yet.

Noone is saying that all or most people will stop investing though. The issue people take with raising this tax is that "some" people will stop investing. And in an economy in which our progress is very lacking (as nasum so kindly pointed out), we want to encourage investment. It just doesn't make sense to hinder it. The debate can exist in which we can discuss the extent raising the tax would hinder it, but nasum doesn't think it hinders it at all. (Although he is now taking the, "it hinders it so little it doesn't matter approach")

As for Romney being able to "lose" a few million and not care or have little impact on him personally, that is not the way he or whoever does his finances thinks about his investments.
 
[quote name='Clak']Knoell, did you ever get up in front of an audience with a chart and just say "This shit is self explanatory"? Please say you did.[/QUOTE]

What is funny is that nasum thinks he has a gotcha moment, you all have no idea what it is yet you keep on ranting about the chart. I have already explained what the chart is several times. Not sure what else you want from me. One more time for the heck of it.

The chart is a listing of all claimed capital gains, the taxes paid on them, and the average/high rates of which the taxes were applied.
 
[quote name='Knoell']What is funny is that nasum thinks he has a gotcha moment, you all have no idea what it is yet you keep on ranting about the chart. I have already explained what the chart is several times. Not sure what else you want from me. One more time for the heck of it.

The chart is a listing of all claimed capital gains, the taxes paid on them, and the average/high rates of which the taxes were applied.[/QUOTE]
That isn't what the man asked, we can see what the chart lists, we aren't illiterate. What does that data mean to you though? What do you think it proves?
 
My point is that people aren't going to cut back their investing. There isn't anything else you can do with your money to generate the kind of return you can get on investments.

The rich aren't going to suddenly park their money in a bunch of different savings accounts (can only go up to $250K if you want FDIC insurance) and make 1% interest or whatever.

And if some started to spend more, then good as consumer spending needs a big kick in the pants. Even if they're spending internationally that's helping other economies and giving people more money to spend on US goods, visiting the US etc.

I just don't see any negatives out of taxing investment gains the same as regular income.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']My point is that people aren't going to cut back their investing. There isn't anything else you can do with your money to generate the kind of return you can get on investments.

The rich aren't going to suddenly park their money in a bunch of different savings accounts (can only go up to $250K if you want FDIC insurance) and make 1% interest or whatever.

And if some started to spend more, then good as consumer spending needs a big kick in the pants. Even if they're spending internationally that's helping other economies and giving people more money to spend on US goods, visiting the US etc.

I just don't see any negatives out of taxing investment gains the same as regular income.[/QUOTE]

Tell me if this were true, why would there ever be an economic downturn where capital is scarce then? I mean even at crappy returns, the rich aren't going to not invest their money right? So this would mean there is never a time when the rich don't invest their money. History clearly proves that wrong.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Not sure why you put in the time or effort recapping a conversation, repeating the same dishonest bs but I will just take this last reply.[/quote]
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.

You have never showed me any evidence that it is a miniscule factor. The only crap you have told me is that the DJIA in its entirety is an indicator of taxes not affecting investment. Which is completely false. That doesn't point to one way or the other, it just isn't even usable in that way.
Click to expand...
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.

And there we have it, the benefit of raising the capital gains tax is solely revenue. Now go ahead and show me where revenue has increased with the tax rate increasing. Now show me where revenue has decreased with the tax rate decreasing.
Click to expand...


As for the chart, it is self explanitory. I have already stated that amongst other factors revenues have decreased with increased taxes. I am not sure what "gotcha" moment you are waiting for with the chart, but instead of waiting why not explain why you think the chart isn't valid.
Click to expand...
[quote name='Knoell']Are you really running DOIA as an indicator of how much investment is taking place? And then comparing the average between the 90's and the 00's as an indicator of the level of investment as it relates to capital gains taxes? WTF.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

Long term realized gains

In Millions and Adjusted for 2007 inflation:

Year - Realized Long-Term Capital Gains - Taxes Paid - Average Tax - Maximum Tax

1977 - 168,629 - 26,927 - 18.0 - 39.87
1980 - 175,778 - 27,219 - 15.5 - 28.00
1985 - 320,563 - 48,517 - 15.1 - 20.00
1990 - 183,500 - 41,088 - 22.4 - 28.00
1995 - 216,260 - 52,200 - 24.1 - 29.19
2000 - 708,070 - 134,262 - 19.0 - 21.19
2005 - 688,518 - 97,995 - 14.2 - 16.05
2007 - 861,220 - 121,933 -14.2 - 15.70

Now unlike you, I won't be dishonest and try to play the differences here as extreme indicators of tax policy. It isn't one thing or another but a combination of reasons things are the way they are, but if the trend is going to be less revenue with higher tax rate, then what is the purpose of the additional tax?[/QUOTE]


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.

4.) At risk of sounding like I'm pulling this out of my ass (I'm simply not going to comb Fool.com archives of 4 year old articles) the writing was on the wall for the asset burst that caused the drop a few months later. People were backing out on sound investment in fear of a major collapse. Then of course rebuying their previous holdings at a 20-40% discount once things got less shaky. This basically occured throughout 2008. Damn shame your magic chart doesn't show 2008 and 2009. There'd be some interesting data there.

5.) Unless I'm reading you wrong, you're saying that tax revenue goes up when the rate goes down (with 2005 just being an "oopsie"). Essentially more revenue is generated by volume than it was by margin. In your own words there are many facets going on. So using your chart as an indicator that heavy sales in a strong market with a coming fall means long term CG revenue is better by volume than margin is a bit of a stretch. Since we can't prove the negative in this instance (the sales would be the same if we still had 1995 tax rates due to market conditions).

In summation, stuff happened and here's some numbers.

tl;dr
explanatory to itself this chart is.
Let's all grab a helmet and go to the humane society and play with the cute bunnies
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You brought up the trade fees and I went with it.[/quote]
Were you by chance the dodgeball champion in high school?
competition for customers in terms of low trade fees is acceptible when you mention scott/fidelity/eTrade, etc...
WTF does a foreign country have to do with that? Or do you mean fancy plates?

Translation: "My poor judgement in my personal life should have no reflection upon my view points regarding national economics."
Click to expand...
I always wondered what happened to that babelfish website. I see it still gives some pretty crude results.
Here's a better translation: "I'm absolutely over my head in this discussion so I will now resort to character assassination in hopes that it will do something"


Taxes are a part of the reward.
Click to expand...
Ok, now I'm absolutely speechless.

Let's pretend you were to make an investment that has pretty much zero risk... but 100% of the return on that investment was going to be taken up in a special "War on Terror Anti-Brown Folks" tax recently passed by President Romney to help fund the war against Iran.
Click to expand...

And now we go from personal attacks to hyperbolic lunacy. Following the playbook to the T!



Which would be awesome if we were all still in the third grade instead of those members on vs. who just have the mentality of third graders (not you).
Click to expand...

p1_harrycarey2_getty.jpg
 
Can someone explain to me how this:
[quote name='dohdough']When the fuck did risk start to include a fixed transaction cost? Who the fuck doesn't buy a lottery ticket because they'll get taxed on any winnings above a certain amount?

The risk of loss is in the investment itself, NOT the taxes and/or fees on selling/cashing them in at a PROFIT. Shit, with that logic, you might as well not hire anyone to work because you'll need to pay them a fucking wage!

Arguing that fees/taxes are barriers to entry is so goddamn preposturous when referring to someone at Romney's level or anyone else using investment instruments to make a living income.[/QUOTE]

...is different from this:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Investments will remain the best way to have your money make money. Taxing it as regular income won't change that.

Yes, there are fees, risk involved etc. But outside of maybe real estate deals, there isn't any other way to get the types of returns a successful investor makes.

And again, all the risk, fees etc. don't matter so much for someone like Romney who can afford to take risks as losing even a few million is a drop in the bucket.

Fees, risk, all that jazz really just affect us average Joes, and few of us do any investing beyond our 401(k)s and mutual fund IRAs etc. anwyay.

So I just don't see where all this "but people will stop investing!" nonsense is coming from. People will grumble about it, but will keep right on investing as it still offers the highest average return of anything you can do with your money right now. Especially if you just want your money to make money rather than actually having to work for it--in which case you could use the money to start new businesses etc.[/QUOTE]

...besides the tone? I mean seriously, WTFBBQ when I've said this at least 5 other times already.

All this "you are THE voice of reason!" bullshit is a lame attempt to suck him off while giving everyone the "you bet you wish you could have this" look. Well, guess what? We couldn't give a shit. You guys are fucking pathetic.

edit: Not to mention that it's more about the stinkeye than praising dmaul's comments.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Tell me if this were true, why would there ever be an economic downturn where capital is scarce then? I mean even at crappy returns, the rich aren't going to not invest their money right? So this would mean there is never a time when the rich don't invest their money. History clearly proves that wrong.[/QUOTE]

Certainly lower returns will affect investing. And that's why the stock market crashes in depressions/recessions. That's one time when it's better to sit on your money that invest it as you're very likely to lose money at such times.

But there's no reason to think higher capital gains taxes will cause lower returns on investments. From what I understand most economists find that increased government spending improves the economy (job creation etc. etc.). More tax revenue would mean a combo of more spending/less federal debt and should be good for the stock market as a whole from what I've read/heard.

But I'm not an economist, so I don't put much weight behind that. Just the gist of my take on it from the little I know about such things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']My point is that people aren't going to cut back their investing. There isn't anything else you can do with your money to generate the kind of return you can get on investments.[/quote]

This, of course, is only true to a point. If you raise the tax rate high enough, then individuals may find alternative ways to use their money (namely, investing outside of the US and using various loopholes to keep from repatriating the income).

I just don't see any negatives out of taxing investment gains the same as regular income.
Click to expand...

Agreed on this point.

[quote name='nasum']I always wondered what happened to that babelfish website. I see it still gives some pretty crude results.
Here's a better translation: "I'm absolutely over my head in this discussion so I will now resort to character assassination in hopes that it will do something"[/quote]

Okay - so the ground rules must be that it's bad form (or "character assassination") to post things about someone's personal life that helps to show their own level of judgement and how that might reflect upon their decisions and understandings. Unless, of course, you're posting stuff about someone's personal life that you believe scores points against them w/r/t your own side of the argument. Then it's fair game.

By the way, Frozen Pizzas are in Grocery Aisle 3.

[quote name='dohdough']Can someone explain to me how this:[/quote]
Well, aside from the tone and language, this:

[quote name='dmaul']but will keep right on investing as it still offers the highest average return of anything you can do with your money right now[/quote]

Also:
Well, guess what? We couldn't give a shit.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I commonly go onto internet message boards and posts rants about stuff that I don't care about.

[quote name='dmaul1114']More tax revenue would mean a combo of more spending/less federal debt and should be good for the stock market as a whole from what I've read/heard.[/QUOTE]

All strongly dependent on how the Federal Government spends that money, of course.
I'm sure someone could probably Google up a chart that compares tax revenue with the level of debt... and they'd probably both be going up.

Which is why I keep screaming for smarter spending in Washington and most everyone here just rolls their eyes.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Okay - so the ground rules must be that it's bad form (or "character assassination") to post things about someone's personal life that helps to show their own level of judgement and how that might reflect upon their decisions and understandings. Unless, of course, you're posting stuff about someone's personal life that you believe scores points against them w/r/t your own side of the argument. Then it's fair game.

By the way, Frozen Pizzas are in Grocery Aisle 3.


[/QUOTE]

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top