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.
Cynically fellating someone on the internet isn't something that I do either, so what's your point?Yeah, I commonly go onto internet message boards and posts rants about stuff that I don't care about.
Ha.Ha.Ha. Your version of "smarter" means cutting everything across the board.Which is why I keep screaming for smarter spending in Washington and most everyone here just rolls their eyes.
This is exactly the type of tactics that conservatives use, but feel that they are exempt from.
Even funnier because I actually defend you on that, but I'll gladly stop so you can feed that persecution complex.Funny - I never said a word about anyone playing the "you work retail, so you're obviously stupid" card.
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.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.
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.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.
Yes.I'm going to assume that you mean the royal "you" here.
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.
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.And here we go again. I'll save myself the time and just quote a previous post from someone on here...
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.
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...
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.Remind me, why did you bring up China again?
So far so good — although it’s one thing to assert this as a possibility, another to just assume it so that you can skip all the economic data and go straight to condemning moral values.
But this argument applies just as much to the rich as to the poor. And strange to say, you never do find conservatives arguing that we shouldn’t worry about higher tax rates on the rich, because they’ll just work harder to be able to afford those luxury goods; or that a higher inheritance tax probably expands work effort, because it would force the Paris Hiltons of this world to go out and get real jobs.
How the are you NOT equating or lumping investment risk with tax liability, together, in this statement?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.
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.Also what history are you talking about? The "nasum said this" history?
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?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%.