Barstool economics

Securities... secure investments, treasury bonds, gold.

It's funny you just waltz in and proclaim me "wrong" then go on to admit I was right about the investors realizing the Bush tax cuts would expire. You can believe whatever with regard to what caused the last economic boom, the point is, it ain't happening now!

I said you were wrong, because you were... WRONG. The boom was in large part to the housing bubble created and the very loose credit. The tax cuts were only beneficial in the short term to help us out of the recession. They were not beneficial in the long run because the idiots in DC did not enact corresponding spending cuts.

Securities... does not mean 'secure investments' you dolt. Securities includes: stocks, bonds, options, futures, swaps, commodities etc...

Also, to suggest people pulled money out of the market due to knowing the tax cuts were going to expire is simply moronic. By your rationale, the wealthy would not have been investing in the 1990's because of the tax rates... which is quite obviously idiotic.
 
No one is trying to screw the rich. We're just fighting to prevent them from shifting the burden of taxation onto the middle class.

Give me a break. The top half pays almost all of the federal income taxes. Even with the Bush tax cuts, the share the top half paid went UP... not down. When you look at total income vs. total income taxes, the top 1,5,10% all pay more in taxes in terms of percentages than the percentage of income they take in.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Scroll down to table one for the data....
 
Securities... does not mean 'secure investments' you dolt.

:rofl:

That Dixie chap is in a world of his own.


///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

I said you were wrong, because you were... WRONG. The boom was in large part to the housing bubble created and the very loose credit. The tax cuts were only beneficial in the short term to help us out of the recession. They were not beneficial in the long run because the idiots in DC did not enact corresponding spending cuts.

Securities... does not mean 'secure investments' you dolt. Securities includes: stocks, bonds, options, futures, swaps, commodities etc...

Also, to suggest people pulled money out of the market due to knowing the tax cuts were going to expire is simply moronic. By your rationale, the wealthy would not have been investing in the 1990's because of the tax rates... which is quite obviously idiotic.
 
I said you were wrong, because you were... WRONG. The boom was in large part to the housing bubble created and the very loose credit. The tax cuts were only beneficial in the short term to help us out of the recession. They were not beneficial in the long run because the idiots in DC did not enact corresponding spending cuts.

Securities... does not mean 'secure investments' you dolt. Securities includes: stocks, bonds, options, futures, swaps, commodities etc...

Also, to suggest people pulled money out of the market due to knowing the tax cuts were going to expire is simply moronic. By your rationale, the wealthy would not have been investing in the 1990's because of the tax rates... which is quite obviously idiotic.

No, I am not wrong, you are. We can go round and round on this, but the bottom line is this... every time we have reduced the top marginal tax rate, economic prosperity has followed. This can only mean one thing, lowering the top marginal rate stimulates the economy. You can deny it, you can form other theories on why, but you can't ignore the simple facts of the matter.

"Securities" can also mean "secure investment" ...that is precisely where the name comes from. Yes, technically speaking, any stock, bond, future, etc. is a "security" and you would be correct on that. However, the CONTEXT in which I used the word, was not the same, as I explained. It doesn't mean I am wrong, it means there can be different ways to use a fucking word, DOLT!

I'm not suggesting people pulled their money out of the market for any particular reason, other than an overwhelming uncertainty about a vehemently anti-capitalist administration winning the White House. By my rationale, people would have put money into the market under a pro-capitalist administration like Reagan, and what's this? ...THEY DID!
 
Give me a break. The top half pays almost all of the federal income taxes. Even with the Bush tax cuts, the share the top half paid went UP... not down. When you look at total income vs. total income taxes, the top 1,5,10% all pay more in taxes in terms of percentages than the percentage of income they take in.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Scroll down to table one for the data....
You're missing the obvious point. The top half has almost all the income too. Progressive taxation if taken to far is disincentivising but it is really the only fair form of taxation there is.
 
First of all, the money has already been taxed at least once.

Second of all, its not "free money". They had a family member die.

Third of all, I doubt there are enough cases of someone inheriting money because they knew someone to warrant including it in the discussion. Inheritances are almost always a family member dying and leaving their worldly possessions to their family.

The idea that the gov't is entitled to a chunk of the money is simply wealth envy more than good governing.
That's not true Soccer. The real intent of inheritance taxes are to prevent the concentration of wealth in to few hands. It's supposed to prevent our economy from being dominated by an aristocracy of inherited wealth. The actuall taxation on inheritances are small until you get into the high 6 figure range. Those who earn and create wealth should always be valued more by our society then those who inherit wealth.
 
Give me a break. The top half pays almost all of the federal income taxes. Even with the Bush tax cuts, the share the top half paid went UP... not down. When you look at total income vs. total income taxes, the top 1,5,10% all pay more in taxes in terms of percentages than the percentage of income they take in.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Scroll down to table one for the data....
By the way. That table is showing our system is very fair. the top 50% control 88% of the income and pay 97% of the taxes. When you adjust for the bottom 25% who are nearly at subsistance level, then that income/tax distribution looks quite fair indeed. If it wasn't for we were at war I would have no problems with out current system of taxation. Since we are at war and spending money recklessely and irresponsibly I'm very much in favor or raising taxes progressively to pay for those wars until such time as those wars have ended and we can end our shared sacrifice.
 
No, I am not wrong, you are. We can go round and round on this, but the bottom line is this... every time we have reduced the top marginal tax rate, economic prosperity has followed. This can only mean one thing, lowering the top marginal rate stimulates the economy. You can deny it, you can form other theories on why, but you can't ignore the simple facts of the matter.

"Securities" can also mean "secure investment" ...that is precisely where the name comes from. Yes, technically speaking, any stock, bond, future, etc. is a "security" and you would be correct on that. However, the CONTEXT in which I used the word, was not the same, as I explained. It doesn't mean I am wrong, it means there can be different ways to use a fucking word, DOLT!

I'm not suggesting people pulled their money out of the market for any particular reason, other than an overwhelming uncertainty about a vehemently anti-capitalist administration winning the White House. By my rationale, people would have put money into the market under a pro-capitalist administration like Reagan, and what's this? ...THEY DID!


Your a moron, I hope you pull what little secure money you have out of the market. Newsflash, the stock market does better under Democratic Presidents.
 
Huh! Do you ever leave your cave, New York is expensive because the rich live there and push up the price of living there. Ever wonder why ball players get such high salaries on the Yankees etc, take a guess.

Yo man, the Yankees don't pay more because the cost of living is higher. Where are you getting that from?

The Yankees pay more because Steinbrenner and is rich and will do anything to win and because his TV contracts pay him far more money than any other team which allows him to offer such higher salaries.

Oakland and the East Bay costs most to live than most major league cities and the A's have one of the lowest payrolls.

And the NBA and NFL have salary caps and don't make cost of living exceptions.
 
that was funny, Arod you hit .136 this year. Your getting a ten million raise cause condo's in NY went up.

Midcan is just pretending to be that dumb.
 
You're missing the obvious point. The top half has almost all the income too. Progressive taxation if taken to far is disincentivising but it is really the only fair form of taxation there is.

It's not "fair" by any stretch of the word. How is it fair that one man pays a higher percentage based on nothing more than perceptions of status? I understand rich people should pay more tax, and they do... but why is their percentage higher? That's the part that isn't fair, we should all pay the same percentage of whatever we earn, that would be fair!

I have always been an advocate of a national sales tax. I think that is the most fair form of taxation. It is consumer driven, the more you purchase, the more tax you pay. Rich people purchase a lot of material things... they would pay far more tax than anyone... Poor people don't purchase much at all by contrast... very minimal contribution in sales tax. People who fall below the poverty level, could be exempt from such a tax altogether. The beauty of this system is, at first, everything would go up in price a little, but eventually, competition in the market would prompt companies to 'factor in' the tax in their pricing, and things would not be all that different than now. The capitalist market would stabilize the prices and we would have enormous potential federal revenue without ANY income taxation.

Of course, this takes a back seat to my other idea of running America like a corporation. The more tax you pay, the more votes you get! Like stockholders and boards of directors in a corporation. Those with the most money in the pot, would have the most influence at the ballot box. Everyone would get one vote for just being an American citizen, and showing up... from there, you could earn extra votes based on the amount of tax you paid. Collecting revenues would never be a problem, and I bet it would fix a lot of problems really fast.
 
it's not fair at all, you work hard to get ahead and all the lazy fucks start chiming in. Not only should you pay your 10% like everybody else why not chuck in an extra 10% while your at it. Democrats suck donkey nuts on this one.
 
By the way. That table is showing our system is very fair. the top 50% control 88% of the income and pay 97% of the taxes. When you adjust for the bottom 25% who are nearly at subsistance level, then that income/tax distribution looks quite fair indeed. If it wasn't for we were at war I would have no problems with out current system of taxation. Since we are at war and spending money recklessely and irresponsibly I'm very much in favor or raising taxes progressively to pay for those wars until such time as those wars have ended and we can end our shared sacrifice.

so because politicians spend recklessly you think the rich should be taxed more?
 
No, I am not wrong, you are. We can go round and round on this, but the bottom line is this... every time we have reduced the top marginal tax rate, economic prosperity has followed. This can only mean one thing, lowering the top marginal rate stimulates the economy. You can deny it, you can form other theories on why, but you can't ignore the simple facts of the matter.

seriously ditzie... you really shouldn't attempt discussing economics. You clearly have no grasp on the topic. Again by your definition, the economy would continue getting better if we kept lowering the top rates to zero. That is quite obviously not the case. The simple fact of the matter is that you are an idiot, attempting to discuss a topic in which your comprehension and understanding is about the same as a third graders. Oh damn... I said third... third graders probably don't exist in your world.

"Securities" can also mean "secure investment" ...that is precisely where the name comes from. Yes, technically speaking, any stock, bond, future, etc. is a "security" and you would be correct on that. However, the CONTEXT in which I used the word, was not the same, as I explained. It doesn't mean I am wrong, it means there can be different ways to use a fucking word, DOLT!

You truly are a moron. "security" refers to the fact that you have an underlying ASSET to your piece of paper saying you own it. Hence, the stock, bond, gold, etc.... It in NO way means "secure" in the sense that the asset is safe. EVERY investment has risk and you are a fool to think otherwise. You can attempt to try and spin your way out of it, but it is clear to everyone that you have once again proven what a complete moron you truly are.

I'm not suggesting people pulled their money out of the market for any particular reason

When Obama won the presidency, it was clear the Bush tax cuts were probably going to expire, so investors pulled their money and put it into securities

Hmmm... yet again, ditzie contradicts himself when he is shown to be an idiot yet again.

other than an overwhelming uncertainty about a vehemently anti-capitalist administration winning the White House. By my rationale, people would have put money into the market under a pro-capitalist administration like Reagan, and what's this? ...THEY DID!


seriously... stop... the money was pulled from the market because of the debacle created by BOTH parties. The credit market was folding as was the real estate market. To pretend the outflow was because people feared the incoming President is simply moronic.... or how would you explain them putting money back INTO the market over the past 9 months????????????
 
You're missing the obvious point. The top half has almost all the income too. Progressive taxation if taken to far is disincentivising but it is really the only fair form of taxation there is.

No Mott... I did not 'miss' that. I was pointing out the bullshit in your post that stated 'they are trying to shift the tax burden to the middle class'. Which was the point that YOU obviously missed.

Given that the top 10%'s percentage of AGI is less than their percentage of total income taxes... they are and HAVE been paying more than their share.

You also clearly missed my point on the flat tax with standard deduction. It is fair, it is simple, AND it is PROGRESSIVE.
 
That's not true Soccer. The real intent of inheritance taxes are to prevent the concentration of wealth in to few hands. It's supposed to prevent our economy from being dominated by an aristocracy of inherited wealth. The actuall taxation on inheritances are small until you get into the high 6 figure range. Those who earn and create wealth should always be valued more by our society then those who inherit wealth.

Actually the inheritance tax will revert back to the million dollar exemption in 2011 from the current $3.5mm level. In 2010, it is unlimited.

As for the death tax itself... yes, that is the intent. But very conveniently, the old money trusts (see Kennedy's, Rockefellers, Rothchilds etc..) are not subject to the tax. All of those who had family trusts set up appropriately back then are grandfathered in. If the death tax is to remain, their assets should be subject to it as well.
 
seriously ditzie... you really shouldn't attempt discussing economics. You clearly have no grasp on the topic. Again by your definition, the economy would continue getting better if we kept lowering the top rates to zero. That is quite obviously not the case. The simple fact of the matter is that you are an idiot, attempting to discuss a topic in which your comprehension and understanding is about the same as a third graders. Oh damn... I said third... third graders probably don't exist in your world.

No, I didn't say anything about lowering top tax rates to zero. There is a point at which, lowering the top marginal tax rate doesn't generate more revenue. Capital gains is not top marginal income tax rates, they are two entirely different animals. Cap gains... lower it to zero! The more we lower it, the more it will stimulate the economy, it always does! As for top marginal income tax rates, cutting them has always generated more revenue in subsequent years, because there is an incentive for wealthy people to actually earn income again.

You truly are a moron. "security" refers to the fact that you have an underlying ASSET to your piece of paper saying you own it. Hence, the stock, bond, gold, etc.... It in NO way means "secure" in the sense that the asset is safe. EVERY investment has risk and you are a fool to think otherwise. You can attempt to try and spin your way out of it, but it is clear to everyone that you have once again proven what a complete moron you truly are.

You are playing a game of Semantics Gotchya! There are all sorts of ways people can use the money they have at their discretion. They can put it into retirement funds, and no taxes can be drawn on it until it is taken out. They can give it to cousin Vinny who wants to open a laundry business in town... they can give it to Al Gore, and let him stimulate the economy by selling books and stuff... or maybe contribute to the DNC or MoveOn.org... who buy votes and get the socialist agenda passed into law against the will of the people. So, people have all sorts of 'motivations' for what to do with their money. The point I was making, is not a semantics argument over the usage of the word "securities" and I have clarified my intent. You don't want to discuss the point, so you have diverted the argument to a semantics debate over how I used the word. If you have some kick out of being "right" on something, that's fine, but I don't understand why we can't get back to the topic?

The Democrat power sweep, including a liberal anti-capitalist president, has caused investors to be cautious with their assets. The evidence of this can be seen in two places... 1) T-bills interest rates are at zero, and people are still investing in them. 2) Gold prices at record highs and rising, and people still buying it! Clearly, investors are putting their money into SECURE assets... things that don't traditionally LOSE money. Entrepreneurs are not moving forward on projects and plans, because they want to see what this administration is going to do from a regulatory and economic standpoint, because every indication is, it's not good.

Hmmm... yet again, ditzie contradicts himself when he is shown to be an idiot yet again.seriously... stop... the money was pulled from the market because of the debacle created by BOTH parties. The credit market was folding as was the real estate market. To pretend the outflow was because people feared the incoming President is simply moronic.... or how would you explain them putting money back INTO the market over the past 9 months????????????

Capital investors did (and still do) fear a socialist big-government anti-capitalist regime in the White House... that is why they ain't investin!
 
No, I didn't say anything about lowering top tax rates to zero. There is a point at which, lowering the top marginal tax rate doesn't generate more revenue. Capital gains is not top marginal income tax rates, they are two entirely different animals. Cap gains... lower it to zero! The more we lower it, the more it will stimulate the economy, it always does! As for top marginal income tax rates, cutting them has always generated more revenue in subsequent years, because there is an incentive for wealthy people to actually earn income again.

No, I am not wrong, you are. We can go round and round on this, but the bottom line is this... every time we have reduced the top marginal tax rate, economic prosperity has followed. This can only mean one thing, lowering the top marginal rate stimulates the economy. You can deny it, you can form other theories on why, but you can't ignore the simple facts of the matter.

You DO realize we can still SEE your prior posts on this thread... Don't you?

I never stated or implied that top marginal rates were the same as capital gains. This is simply your idiotic attempt to spin your way out of what you stated earlier.

That said, I do agree that as long as there is a corporate income tax, capital gain tax rate reductions will TEND to stimulate the economy. There are no absolutes when it comes to how changes in taxes effect the economy ditzie.


You are playing a game of Semantics Gotchya! There are all sorts of ways people can use the money they have at their discretion. They can put it into retirement funds, and no taxes can be drawn on it until it is taken out. They can give it to cousin Vinny who wants to open a laundry business in town... they can give it to Al Gore, and let him stimulate the economy by selling books and stuff... or maybe contribute to the DNC or MoveOn.org... who buy votes and get the socialist agenda passed into law against the will of the people. So, people have all sorts of 'motivations' for what to do with their money. The point I was making, is not a semantics argument over the usage of the word "securities" and I have clarified my intent. You don't want to discuss the point, so you have diverted the argument to a semantics debate over how I used the word. If you have some kick out of being "right" on something, that's fine, but I don't understand why we can't get back to the topic?

So your attempt to 'get back on the topic' is to deliver a paragraph ranting about something that is completely inconsequential to the topic. I corrected you because you were WRONG. Now you spent the above paragraph again trying to spin your way out of your moronic statement. It is not 'semantics'... it is FACT.

The Democrat power sweep, including a liberal anti-capitalist president, has caused investors to be cautious with their assets. The evidence of this can be seen in two places... 1) T-bills interest rates are at zero, and people are still investing in them. 2) Gold prices at record highs and rising, and people still buying it! Clearly, investors are putting their money into SECURE assets... things that don't traditionally LOSE money. Entrepreneurs are not moving forward on projects and plans, because they want to see what this administration is going to do from a regulatory and economic standpoint, because every indication is, it's not good.

Again... you are pretending that the tbill rates at zero and high gold prices are due to Obama getting elected. That is quiet simply ABSURD.

People are concerned right now due to the lack of CREDIT. Which is causing them to 'not move forward' with projects and plans.

So to you... gold doesn't traditionally 'lose money'???? Tell that to those that held gold throughout the 1990's. Like every other asset category... Gold most certainly CAN lose value.

also... you did not answer my question... If those smart wealthy investors were pulling their money out of the market when they found out that 'da evilz Obama was going to get elected'.... AND they are not investing today because 'they are a scared of future changes by the government'.... then WHY dear ditzie did the market rebound from March until now?

Do explain that phenomenon to us ditzie....




Capital investors did (and still do) fear a socialist big-government anti-capitalist regime in the White House... that is why they ain't investin![/QUOTE]
 
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers", he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20". Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

Now explain how securitisation works, here is a video to help you.

 
Back
Top