Romney and the tax thing

[quote name='nasum']In all fairness, dude doesn't touch his taxes, he has people for that.[/QUOTE]

How is that an excuse?

It wasn't me it was the guy I hired? Yeah try that at your job and see how it works.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Romney should start a reality show where he tries to leave off that ample safety net.[/QUOTE]

So true.

Last I checked Mormons are Christians, but saying you don't care about the poor is the exact opposite message of Chrsitianity.
 
[quote name='camoor']How is that an excuse?

It wasn't me it was the guy I hired? Yeah try that at your job and see how it works.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't really see it as an excuse. He hires an accounting professional to handle his taxes. The accountant does what they're hired to do. That accountant isn't a villian for getting the best for his client any more than I'm a good guy for getting the best for my not so privileged clients.

All I'm getting at is it's hard to villianize one guy for what is a legislative problem. He's still a douche, but for so many more reasons than hiring someone to do his taxes and use any advantage possible.
 
[quote name='nasum']I wouldn't really see it as an excuse. He hires an accounting professional to handle his taxes. The accountant does what they're hired to do. That accountant isn't a villian for getting the best for his client any more than I'm a good guy for getting the best for my not so privileged clients.

All I'm getting at is it's hard to villianize one guy for what is a legislative problem. He's still a douche, but for so many more reasons than hiring someone to do his taxes and use any advantage possible.[/QUOTE]

"one guy" who is running for President. Who doesn't see anything wrong with it. Who defends it, loudly and clearly, in public.

If he said - "My tax return is a clear example of what's wrong with America today and I'm going to change it" then I'd have some respect for him. As it is he can go pound sand.
 
[quote name='camoor']"one guy" who is running for President. Who doesn't see anything wrong with it. Who defends it, loudly and clearly, in public.

If he said - "My tax return is a clear example of what's wrong with America today and I'm going to change it" then I'd have some respect for him. As it is he can go pound sand.[/QUOTE]

Well in that case you *should* have some respect for him as he's pretty much said exactly that. Difference is, he thinks that instead of the "very rich" needing to pay more tax on capital gains and interest dividends he'd rather say:

and so I say to anybody who’s making under $200,000 a year, we’re going to eliminate all taxation on interest dividends and capital gains for you so that you can save, so that you can invest, so you have more money, so you’re able to care for your kids and their future and your retirement as you think is best. That, for me, is the place we need to move immediately.
Click to expand...

So he does think that something is wrong with the tax code, and even believes that, in the case of interest dividends and capital gains, there should be some manner of progressive taxation. You and he just disagree on how that progressive taxation should be modeled.

And to whoever asked earlier, yes, I think under a Romney presidency their will be zero *significant* change to the current so-called 'safety net' programs. They'll be some tinkering around the edges (IMO in either a Romney or Obama 2nd term), but the core wont change. Too much special interest money entrenched into the status quo for any real change to happen.

America needs a Buddy for president!
(j/k)
 
Well, Romney really helped curtail the idea that he isn't concerned about the poor by publicly accepting the endorsement of...(wait for it)...Donald Trump.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Well in that case you *should* have some respect for him as he's pretty much said exactly that. Difference is, he thinks that instead of the "very rich" needing to pay more tax on capital gains and interest dividends he'd rather say:



So he does think that something is wrong with the tax code, and even believes that, in the case of interest dividends and capital gains, there should be some manner of progressive taxation. You and he just disagree on how that progressive taxation should be modeled.

And to whoever asked earlier, yes, I think under a Romney presidency their will be zero *significant* change to the current so-called 'safety net' programs. They'll be some tinkering around the edges (IMO in either a Romney or Obama 2nd term), but the core wont change. Too much special interest money entrenched into the status quo for any real change to happen.

America needs a Buddy for president!
(j/k)
[/QUOTE]

Will he also give the working class a break on their yacht payments and create a special tax shelter for polo horse maintenance? Because after the middle class has invested all of that money they have been saving up from that dead-end part-time job, they will then be able to make the most of all that disposable income they have left over.

Because, you know, it's not like anyone in America is living paycheck-to-paycheck or anything.

And I'm supposed to respect that? Have you lost your damn mind?
 
First off, who could work a "dead-end part-time" and still be "middle class". I doubt very seriously that such a job would get you above the poverty line (no matter what reasonable standard you use.

Second, your words were

[quote name='camoor']
If he said - "My tax return is a clear example of what's wrong with America today and I'm going to change it" then I'd have some respect for him.[/QUOTE]

I gave you an example of where he literally pointed to something he felt was "wrong" in the tax code, using the backdrop of "his" and other wealthy people getting most of their income from interest dividends and capital gains, and how he wanted to change the "tax" code.

So he did what you said you'd give him respect for, he just did it in a way that was, perhaps, the antithesis of your intent.

Sucks when your words can be taken out of context like that, eh?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']^ arbitrary tax? money grab? That's a convenient excuse and hyperbole, respectively.

Changing the nature of how purchases are taxed is vital - it reflects the nature of our economy today. If we applied the tax code's failure to catch up to technology to other aspects of government, we would see why it's silly.

We wouldn't, for instance, have any cybercrime laws - so almost everything done on craigslist would be legal by default.

We wouldn't have cyberstalking laws at all.

Wire fraud would be far more expanded.

Would we then say "good" in response to the criminal justice system's inability to enforce laws based on *where* they happen, and not *what* they are?

[/QUOTE]

Come on... those situations are not parallel.

For taxes: I can understand a state taxing a transaction that occurs fully within that state. I still don't agree with it, but it makes sense... the state provides the infrastructure and overall framework for the purchase. When I buy something outside of the state, there are some services provided by the state (roads and airports for shipping)... but the state of origin also provides the same services for that purchase... so, should they also get some of the money? Plus this is also not unique to the internet as mail order companies also operate under similar rules.

Your other examples involves someone's rights being violated... there's a big difference in crossing state lines to catch a criminal vs. crossing state lines to obtain more money (for nebulous reasons).
 
[quote name='dohdough']Ok...enough with this IQ bullshit. [...] Needless to say bob source is once again borked.[/quote]

Said pretty much all I meant to convey by dropping that one link. Though, I would like to clarify, I don't put a whole lot of faith in what was included with that link.

The argument could be made that white people scoring low on a test designed for white people by white people is news,
Click to expand...

It still ties into a lot of what you said in the first half of your post - there's a lot of cultural aspects to the development of those who tend to be more "conservative" vs. those who tend to be more "liberal" as well (which, I'm sure, has a lot to do with why you tend to find big pockets of one or the other instead of a real mixture of the two). But, no doubt, we're on the same wavelength on this one.

[quote name='nasum']Well duh, of course investments are made in order to make money 98% of the time.[/quote]

That's what I've been saying for several posts now... It's just that someone was trying to argue otherwise...

[quote name='nasum']Not always. Sometimes it is to loose money to cover gains elsewhere. Sometimes it is for influence.[/QUOTE]

hm.

You're veering of course of your argument however.
Your premise is that raising the capital gains and dividend tax will hinder investment. That is wrong.
Think about your basic point. Investing is done to make money. Will people stop investing if the outcome is still making money, even if it is less money? Then you follow it up with they'll go elsewhere. Fine. Where?
Click to expand...

Two things:
A) They may go elsewhere. I'm not even sure if I touched upon that much, aside from pointing out the idea of using a different service to trade stocks.
B) Again, back to my original point - Return on Investment vs. Risk. If the potential for return isn't high enough, some folks won't take the risk. They may sit on their money. They may invest it into something else that's safer. They may send it all to China and build Foxconn II. Again, you cannot deny that raising taxes has a negative impact on the potential return and that investors use the amount of the return to determine if the risk is worth investing in.

That is also wrong. Sure, I can shop around for the lowest fee, but the tax rate is there and is not a variable in the equation.
Click to expand...

This is assuming that there is only one country with only one tax rate in which one can invest their money.

Your assertion that I'm a lush is 100% accurate and correct.
Click to expand...

Never said or implied that you were a lush. I was very careful not to, as I have no idea if your DUI was for drinking or drugs.

If you live in the state with lower taxes but work in the one with higher, you'll likely be fine. Vice versa, you will pay 100% of the income tax due to the lower state as well as the "difference" to the other state.
Click to expand...

When I worked in Indiana and lived here in Illinois, I was in this boat as well. Had to file two sets of state tax returns. The idea that the business transaction takes place in another state, so the third state has to butt out is a nice one - but invalid.

[quote name='nasum']
RE: GM Bailout funds
Here we enter the realm of equity again. GM has a structured stock buyback plan with the govt to pay it back.[/QUOTE]

GM could blow up tomorrow and be worth Zero. Until the money is back in our proverbial pockets, the stock is meaningless and we're $27 Billion in the hole. Counting chickens before they hatch and all that.

Let's pretend that the Federal Government announced tomorrow that they were going to sell off all their GM stock and they were no longer going to participate in re-distributing wealth to any corporate entities. How much would that stock be worth then?

[quote name='camoor']If he said - "My tax return is a clear example of what's wrong with America today and I'm going to change it" then I'd have some respect for him.[/QUOTE]

Really?
I have no love for Mittens, but what you suggested, IMHO, is worse than the alternative. Someone who says "I'm doing this and it's okay" is, again, IMHO, better than someone who says "I'm doing this and it's wrong, but I'm going to keep doing it."
 
[quote name='hostyl1']First off, who could work a "dead-end part-time" and still be "middle class". I doubt very seriously that such a job would get you above the poverty line (no matter what reasonable standard you use.

Second, your words were



I gave you an example of where he literally pointed to something he felt was "wrong" in the tax code, using the backdrop of "his" and other wealthy people getting most of their income from interest dividends and capital gains, and how he wanted to change the "tax" code.

So he did what you said you'd give him respect for, he just did it in a way that was, perhaps, the antithesis of your intent.

Sucks when your words can be taken out of context like that, eh?[/QUOTE]

There is a real problem with the vanishing middle class in that country and thus a redefinition of what that term means. If you want to live in never-never land, then yes there is a vast middle class that has no problems making ends meet. But reality in modern America is far more dire.

As for the second part of your post - you were stretching and I called you on it. Don't go getting all butthurt.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Really?
I have no love for Mittens, but what you suggested, IMHO, is worse than the alternative. Someone who says "I'm doing this and it's okay" is, again, IMHO, better than someone who says "I'm doing this and it's wrong, but I'm going to keep doing it."[/QUOTE]

Wrong and who cares
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Sorry I took your words and applied logic to them.[/QUOTE]

Your definition of logic is the last thing anyone needs. Feel free to spout your insane ramblings bit don't try and guess my opinion because you suck at it.
 
[quote name='camoor']Why are you such a liar?[/QUOTE]

Are you now saying you did not post your opinion on the forum?

Are you having a hard time making up your mind or keeping your story straight?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']That's what I've been saying for several posts now... It's just that someone was trying to argue otherwise...[/quote]
There are multiple reasons, but making a profit is still primary amongst them. You're still not answering why someone would stop making a profit because there's a miniscule amount of "less profit" based on taxation.

Two things:
A) They may go elsewhere. I'm not even sure if I touched upon that much, aside from pointing out the idea of using a different service to trade stocks.
B) Again, back to my original point - Return on Investment vs. Risk. If the potential for return isn't high enough, some folks won't take the risk. They may sit on their money. They may invest it into something else that's safer. They may send it all to China and build Foxconn II. Again, you cannot deny that raising taxes has a negative impact on the potential return and that investors use the amount of the return to determine if the risk is worth investing in.
Click to expand...

What different service? eTrade vs Fidelity? You went down that road once before. You're confusing competition amongst providers in terms of fees with taxation on a final sale. These are not in any way similar.
So let's use this dubious ROI claim that you're making. What would be something safer? A bond? Still taxed. Savings account? Still taxed, at income rate and not CG/D rate no less. Foreign investment? Still taxed, in that country as well as repatriated income in the US. Double taxation indeed!
The problem is that you're framing this argument in that higher costs prohibit growth or expansion. Yet people still get hired to work somewhere (a cost) and expand their operations (building a new wal-mart for instance) all the damn time. You also, quite obviously, do not understand investing beyond Rush/Hannity levels of oversimplification.
Let's say I buy $100 in company X's stock, and the value goes up a few weeks later to $150. I'm not going to fret that $7.50 will go to taxes if I sell that that moment. That of course only being taxed if I make a bunch of other sales that get me into the $1,500 + range before the tax is even applicable. I wouldn't fret at $15 either. All things considered, it's free money.
When you got hired did you think to yourself that you could have taken your labour elsewhere to get a better return based on taxes? The whole notion is utterly absurd.


This is assuming that there is only one country with only one tax rate in which one can invest their money.
Click to expand...
Certainly. Go ahead and turn your US dollar into whatever currency of whatever country you're going to park your investment. Hint, the dollar is weak now so there's a cost there, as well as the transaction cost of the currency exchange. Then there's the taxes in that country, as well as bringing the profit back here, exchanging the currency once again and sorting it all out at year's end.
Easy peasy no?

GM could blow up tomorrow and be worth Zero. Until the money is back in our proverbial pockets, the stock is meaningless and we're $27 Billion in the hole. Counting chickens before they hatch and all that.

Let's pretend that the Federal Government announced tomorrow that they were going to sell off all their GM stock and they were no longer going to participate in re-distributing wealth to any corporate entities. How much would that stock be worth then?
Click to expand...
They won't blow up and be worth $0. Even if they filed for bankruptcy again, the shares still have value.
It would appear that you're counting the dead chickens two generations from now in your example.
The stock would be worth whatever "the market" decides it's worth. The govt would use Scott Trade (since the fee is $1.50 less!) and place a sell order with $x per share for Z amount of shares. If there are enough takers on the floor then it will sell and there will be balance.
Again, you simply don't get how this stuff works. Why you insist on bringing a spoon to this gun fight of knowledge is beyond me. I'm trying to explain how things work and teach you things, but you're holding to this fantasy of how you *think* it *might* work because it's apparently more interesting to you.
 
[quote name='nasum']
The problem is that you're framing this argument in that higher costs prohibit growth or expansion. Yet people still get hired to work somewhere (a cost) and expand their operations (building a new wal-mart for instance) all the damn time. You also, quite obviously, do not understand investing beyond Rush/Hannity levels of oversimplification.
Let's say I buy $100 in company X's stock, and the value goes up a few weeks later to $150. I'm not going to fret that $7.50 will go to taxes if I sell that that moment. That of course only being taxed if I make a bunch of other sales that get me into the $1,500 + range before the tax is even applicable. I wouldn't fret at $15 either. All things considered, it's free money.
When you got hired did you think to yourself that you could have taken your labour elsewhere to get a better return based on taxes? The whole notion is utterly absurd.

[/QUOTE]

Higher costs do prohibit growth and expansion. Wal-Mart doesn't build a new store unless they expect the store to meet their minimum ROI requirements. Every successful company has minimum ROI requirements, and many investors do as well. Why tie up capital in an investment with a very low ROI instead of keeping it available for a better opportunity? Why put the capital at risk for a low ROI?

I think it's obvious that as capital gains rates are increased, some investors will decide that the ROI is too low and won't invest. Will the amount of money that is no longer invested be significant? Are the alternatives necessarily bad for our economy? If Romney decides to pass on an investment because the ROI doesn't meet his minimum requirements, and he decides to spend his money on a yacht instead, that would probably be good for our economy.

It's not absurb for people to make job and invrstment decisions based on taxes and other costs. People compare the cost of living when deciding to take their labor to a job in a new location. You make investment decisions based on taxes. Why are you concerned with short-term vs. long-term gains? Because the tax rates are different. Why are you concerned with holding and selling losers? Because you want to decrease the taxes on your gains.

I think that the capital gains tax rate should be increased to match the income tax rate for a few different reasons. First, I don't think that it's necessary for the government to give citizens an incentive to invest. We're not in a situation where people are afraid to invest and are keeping their money under their mattresses. Second, the rich disproportionally benefit from the capital gains tax rate, which results in a regressive tax policy.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Are you now saying you did not post your opinion on the forum?

Are you having a hard time making up your mind or keeping your story straight?[/QUOTE]

I posted an opinion, you ignored it and started arguing with a strawman.

Don't look now but your pants on fire
 
[quote name='camoor']There is a real problem with the vanishing middle class in that country and thus a redefinition of what that term means. If you want to live in never-never land, then yes there is a vast middle class that has no problems making ends meet. But reality in modern America is far more dire. [/quote]

Where do I argue against that? What did I say (type) that makes you think I "want to live in never-never land"? You're bringing something to the posts yourself that isnt remotely there.

As for the second part of your post - you were stretching and I called you on it. Don't go getting all butthurt.
Click to expand...

Far from being "butthurt", I'm laughing at you.

"Stretching" someone's words is pretty much all anyone does in politics these days (See Romney's "I'm not concerned about the poor..." 'gaffe'). If you cant see that, well, too bad.
 
[quote name='hostyl1']Where do I argue against that? What did I say (type) that makes you think I "want to live in never-never land"? You're bringing something to the posts yourself that isnt remotely there.



Far from being "butthurt", I'm laughing at you.

"Stretching" someone's words is pretty much all anyone does in politics these days (See Romney's "I'm not concerned about the poor..." 'gaffe'). If you cant see that, well, too bad.[/QUOTE]

Lame.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Higher costs do prohibit growth and expansion. Wal-Mart doesn't build a new store unless they expect the store to meet their minimum ROI requirements. Every successful company has minimum ROI requirements, and many investors do as well. Why tie up capital in an investment with a very low ROI instead of keeping it available for a better opportunity? Why put the capital at risk for a low ROI?

I think it's obvious that as capital gains rates are increased, some investors will decide that the ROI is too low and won't invest. Will the amount of money that is no longer invested be significant? Are the alternatives necessarily bad for our economy? If Romney decides to pass on an investment because the ROI doesn't meet his minimum requirements, and he decides to spend his money on a yacht instead, that would probably be good for our economy.

It's not absurb for people to make job and invrstment decisions based on taxes and other costs. People compare the cost of living when deciding to take their labor to a job in a new location. You make investment decisions based on taxes. Why are you concerned with short-term vs. long-term gains? Because the tax rates are different. Why are you concerned with holding and selling losers? Because you want to decrease the taxes on your gains.

I think that the capital gains tax rate should be increased to match the income tax rate for a few different reasons. First, I don't think that it's necessary for the government to give citizens an incentive to invest. We're not in a situation where people are afraid to invest and are keeping their money under their mattresses. Second, the rich disproportionally benefit from the capital gains tax rate, which results in a regressive tax policy.[/QUOTE]

This. A whole lotta this.
 
What is funny is that while Nasum is arguing that the capital gains tax will not impact investment decisions, he explains how he makes investment decisions based on avoiding being taxed on his capital gains.
 
Indeed, and I'm doing it small time on the off chance that I'll hit the minimum gains level to be taxed. Now imagine I make forty some odd million, ALL off of carried interest, I literally don't do shit to earn that money. If I turn around and make an investment, one which nets me one million dollars in profit, do I honestly give a fuck if the tax on that is $150k (based on current capital gains taxation) or appx $312k (based on tax at income levels and allowing for bracket structure)? I don't, it's free money.
Besides, the tax doesn't effect investment decisions, it effects investment outcomes (upon sale) and many smart people have ways to mitigate those outcomes.

To the point of buying a yacht instead of investing. That's pretty much a non starter and I'll tell you why. So you have an extra $100 this month. Do you put it in your savings account? Nah, interest rates are next to nothing right now. I'll go trade in my car and use that $100 as extra on the down payment.
You don't think like that do you?

The liquidity of the investment means you're not tied up. Again, you're on a non-starter there. WM has a multitude of factors leading to a site launch. Brick & Mortar however is not liquid in terms of asset. If the site fails, they're stuck with it. If a stock fails, you can use it to hedge other gains, or back out and put the money elsewhere. You're suggesting that a person is "locked" into their investments in a way that is wholly false.

But if the CG/D income tax is raised to normal levels, why will people continue to invest? Why are you disagreeing with me, just to agree with me in the end?
 
[quote name='nasum']To the point of buying a yacht instead of investing. That's pretty much a non starter and I'll tell you why. So you have an extra $100 this month. Do you put it in your savings account? Nah, interest rates are next to nothing right now. I'll go trade in my car and use that $100 as extra on the down payment.
You don't think like that do you?[/QUOTE]

You explain things so well, you would be an excellent teacher. Even a simpleton could understand this.
 
And hell, even they buy a yacht or other shit instead of investing, that may be better for the average Joe as it's putting money back into the economy, keeping companies making whatever they're buying in business, the state is getting a chunk of change in sales taxes etc.

The Average Joe isn't benefiting much from rich people investing in financial compaines, overseas projects etc.

So it's a stupid point on multiple fronts.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And hell, even they buy a yacht or other shit instead of investing, that may be better for the average Joe as it's putting money back into the economy, keeping companies making whatever they're buying in business, the state is getting a chunk of change in sales taxes etc.
[/QUOTE]

Unless, of course, the investor pulls a Kerry and has the yacht built overseas...
 
[quote name='nasum']Indeed, and I'm doing it small time on the off chance that I'll hit the minimum gains level to be taxed. Now imagine I make forty some odd million, ALL off of carried interest, I literally don't do shit to earn that money. If I turn around and make an investment, one which nets me one million dollars in profit, do I honestly give a fuck if the tax on that is $150k (based on current capital gains taxation) or appx $312k (based on tax at income levels and allowing for bracket structure)? I don't, it's free money.
Besides, the tax doesn't effect investment decisions, it effects investment outcomes (upon sale) and many smart people have ways to mitigate those outcomes.

To the point of buying a yacht instead of investing. That's pretty much a non starter and I'll tell you why. So you have an extra $100 this month. Do you put it in your savings account? Nah, interest rates are next to nothing right now. I'll go trade in my car and use that $100 as extra on the down payment.
You don't think like that do you?

The liquidity of the investment means you're not tied up. Again, you're on a non-starter there. WM has a multitude of factors leading to a site launch. Brick & Mortar however is not liquid in terms of asset. If the site fails, they're stuck with it. If a stock fails, you can use it to hedge other gains, or back out and put the money elsewhere. You're suggesting that a person is "locked" into their investments in a way that is wholly false.

But if the CG/D income tax is raised to normal levels, why will people continue to invest? Why are you disagreeing with me, just to agree with me in the end?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
Yeah, nasum, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Let me deluge you with vagaries and dataless ideology to counter your years of real world experience.
 
[quote name='Knoell']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.[/QUOTE]

Over what period of time? It matters dummy.
 
[quote name='Knoell']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]

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
 
and another thing goddamnit!

You jokingly suggested that I make certain holdings to dodge taxes at 15% earlier. What in the hell makes you think someone wouldn't do the same thing if CG/D taxes were at income rate as opposed to a locked 15%?

As an aside, Penfold's Kenunga Hill Shiraz is pretty damn good for a $12.99 bottle of wine... They used to have this Barrel 347 or something like that bottle that ferments in a bourbon barrel. Mother fucker is that some good red!
 
Holy crap, you just took a hypothetical situation modeled after exactly what you just said, and suddenly we are going into a ridiculous amount of unneeded detail to discuss the theory of it. Way to detract from the actual argument though.

Tax may be the outcome of an investment but you know what you are getting into before you make the investment. I CANNOT believe you are still arguing that investors dont take the tax return into consideration for the return on their investment. ANYONE will tell you that is completely untrue.

Keep being silly though, it is entertaining watching you type out a bunch of nonsense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='nasum']and another thing goddamnit!

You jokingly suggested that I make certain holdings to dodge taxes at 15% earlier. What in the hell makes you think someone wouldn't do the same thing if CG/D taxes were at income rate as opposed to a locked 15%?

As an aside, Penfold's Kenunga Hill Shiraz is pretty damn good for a $12.99 bottle of wine... They used to have this Barrel 347 or something like that bottle that ferments in a bourbon barrel. Mother fucker is that some good red![/QUOTE]

I don't disagree in the least, everyone wants to maximize their return on investment, however you keep going on and on how a 15% decrease in your return won't mean ANYTHING to investors and they will proceed BAU, but then you say something like that situation where investors go out of their way to avoid being taxed. It is just flat out contradictory because if the decrease on their return is directing their behavior that way, why is it so far a leap in logic for you to believe that it affects them in several other ways as well?
 
So your goony hypotheticals don't need to bother with scrutiny? Good to know.

Tax may be the outcome of an investment but you know what you are getting into before you make the investment.
Click to expand...
Yet you still make the investment!!! Jesus fucking christ.... What point are you trying to make? Will someone not invest because taxes are high? I call BS. Will someone mitigate their tax liability based on ANY income whatsoever? Absolutely! I claim my mortgage interest. I don't HAVE to, but I do. Don't you? Do you file for property tax rebates?

Look, even Mitt who only claims carried interest income pays less than an actual 15%. If his taxes went to nominal income rates, would he suddenly stop taking income from carried interest and start mowing lawns in his neighborhood?? Would he stop taking tens of millions of dollars of income for DOING NOTHING and get a minimum wage part time job taxed at income rate instead of his reduced rate? If CG/D rates went up, would he forgo taking any of that do nothing income?

Are you insane or retarded?

I know it's fun for you to challenge the guy that is A.) A tax professional and B.) has a sizable portfolio with diverse income streams with your silly notions of how things work. I don't want to drop pants and bust out rulers, but seriously dude, do you for one second think you know this shit better than me? Do you spend 15-20 hours a week working tax returns for people amongst a huge array of incomes? Have you ever worked a Schedule D to it's best outcome. Do you even know what a Form 1055 is without looking it up on wikipedia? Have you ever done a return for a Subchapter S?

Of course you haven't!

So until you have some practical application of your misinformed theories, I suggest you quit basing your arguments on conjecture and get some real world experience in how wrong you are.

Seacrest out this mofo'
I'm done. I just can't handle it anymore. Go ahead and come up with $40k to invest in your hypothetical that needs no real world application. Gain a ton or lose it all. I'm no longer going to explain to you how you can use both as an advantage. If the notion of paying an extra $0.08 cents on the dollar of a huge gain in taxes is so much that it scares you away from MAKING ANY GODDAMN GAIN AT ALL, then go ahead and make 0%, comfortable in the knowledge that you've once again evaded those devilish IRS types (like Michelle Batshit Bachmann for instance).

fucking A.
 
[quote name='nasum']As an aside, Penfold's Kenunga Hill Shiraz is pretty damn good for a $12.99 bottle of wine... They used to have this Barrel 347 or something like that bottle that ferments in a bourbon barrel. Mother fucker is that some good red![/QUOTE]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who has been drinking since this afternoon.

Not wine, though. Not today.

For the record: Frank Family Zinfandel. 2009. If you can find the 2007, sell your first three kids. If not, the 2009 is still incredible.

Share it with a redhead. Cuz, you know. It's you.
 
[quote name='nasum']So your goony hypotheticals don't need to bother with scrutiny? Good to know.


Yet you still make the investment!!! Jesus fucking christ.... What point are you trying to make? Will someone not invest because taxes are high? I call BS. Will someone mitigate their tax liability based on ANY income whatsoever? Absolutely! I claim my mortgage interest. I don't HAVE to, but I do. Don't you? Do you file for property tax rebates?

Look, even Mitt who only claims carried interest income pays less than an actual 15%. If his taxes went to nominal income rates, would he suddenly stop taking income from carried interest and start mowing lawns in his neighborhood?? Would he stop taking tens of millions of dollars of income for DOING NOTHING and get a minimum wage part time job taxed at income rate instead of his reduced rate? If CG/D rates went up, would he forgo taking any of that do nothing income?

Are you insane or retarded?

I know it's fun for you to challenge the guy that is A.) A tax professional and B.) has a sizable portfolio with diverse income streams with your silly notions of how things work. I don't want to drop pants and bust out rulers, but seriously dude, do you for one second think you know this shit better than me? Do you spend 15-20 hours a week working tax returns for people amongst a huge array of incomes? Have you ever worked a Schedule D to it's best outcome. Do you even know what a Form 1055 is without looking it up on wikipedia? Have you ever done a return for a Subchapter S?

Of course you haven't!

So until you have some practical application of your misinformed theories, I suggest you quit basing your arguments on conjecture and get some real world experience in how wrong you are.

Seacrest out this mofo'
I'm done. I just can't handle it anymore. Go ahead and come up with $40k to invest in your hypothetical that needs no real world application. Gain a ton or lose it all. I'm no longer going to explain to you how you can use both as an advantage. If the notion of paying an extra $0.08 cents on the dollar of a huge gain in taxes is so much that it scares you away from MAKING ANY GODDAMN GAIN AT ALL, then go ahead and make 0%, comfortable in the knowledge that you've once again evaded those devilish IRS types (like Michelle Batshit Bachmann for instance).

fucking A.[/QUOTE]

You know nothing about me buddy, and for the record most seasonal tax preparers know nothing about what they do.

Regardless, go on thinking that a 15% decrease on your ROI will not impact investment decisions. I am sure you know what you are talking about. I mean you type out a form for people, and supposedly give them the best return right? ;)

Last couple "tax professionals" I went to tried giving me a 60% less return than I went and got myself. But of course they were "tax professionals" so they knew what they were doing. Get over yourself, if you believe the second sentance I wrote, then you have no business giving financial advice.
 
[quote name='Knoell']You know nothing about me buddy, and for the record most seasonal tax preparers know nothing about what they do.

Regardless, go on thinking that a 15% decrease on your ROI will not impact investment decisions. I am sure you know what you are talking about. I mean you type out a form for people, and supposedly give them the best return right? ;)

Last couple "tax professionals" I went to tried giving me a 60% less return than I went and got myself. But of course they were "tax professionals" so they knew what they were doing. Get over yourself, if you believe the second sentance I wrote, then you have no business giving financial advice.[/QUOTE]
I have $50,000,000 in the bank and I was planning on investing $30,000,000, but since I'll get taxed $500,000 on my capital gains(at a theoretical 30% tax rate) on a 2% ROI, I'm just going to stuff that money in my mattress eventhough it's still a free $1,000,000 in my pocket...herpa-derpa!

edit: Oh, and I hired two accountants that fucked up, so all of them must suck too!

edit2: Seriously though, someone with that much money to invest doesn't even really work anymore or earns a living like 99.999% of the working population. The mentality of someone that has their money work for them is much different from someone making $50k a year and you simply can't equate the two by applying one mentalilty to another.

Hey nasum, are you starting to feel my pain when I talk about race? LOLZ.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
edit2: Seriously though, someone with that much money to invest doesn't even really work anymore or earns a living like 99.999% of the working population. The mentality of someone that has their money work for them is much different from someone making $50k a year and you simply can't equate the two by applying one mentalilty to another.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly, it's still going to be better to have your money making money than doing nothing with it. Keeping 70% of gains on it after a 30% capital gains tax isn't as good as keeping 85% currently, but it's not going to stop people from investing as it's better than making nothing with your money.

Especially for those who are making money solely on investing. They're going to want their money working for them, rather than--god forbid--having to do any real work. Thus they're going to keep investing.
 
Not everyone makes money on their investments hence the RISK part of it. You guys are STILL assuming that these people are going to make money off of their investments. That isn't how it works.

Obviously if you know you are going to make money off of your investment, something is better than nothing however you don't always know, and you definately don't always win despite what you think. How much money did Wall St lose these past few years? So if I invest money I am taking into consideration the risk-reward aspect of it. Raising taxes lowers the reward aspect.

I do not know any other way to explain it.
 
My point still stands as the risk is the same. The only difference is how much of the profit you get to keep if you do make gains.

So choices are:

1. Risk nothing by not investing, and thus make nothing.

2. Risk some, and keep 85% of any gains currently.

3. Risk some, and keep 70% of gains if the Buffett rule was implemented.

Multimillionaires like Romney are going to keep investing. The risk has never scared them off, and as he's been making over $20 million in investment gains in recent years (though with other people's money), he and/or the people handling his money know what they're doing. And keeping 70% of any gains is still a lot of money when you're investing millions. Beats the hell out of sitting on the money and having it make nothing.
 
[quote name='Knoell']How much money did Wall St lose these past few years?[/QUOTE]

How much did the elites of Wall Street lose (answer: not a lot)

We're talking income tax. We're talking the amount that executives put in their pocket, not the valuation of the companies. Two separate things.

Let me give you a hint, the executive class always win, even when America loses. Hell sometimes the biggest wins they have are the biggest losses for America (for example the bailout)

So let them pay a little more tax. It ain't that big a deal, but when you're facing down a huge debt every little bit counts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top