ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Thick Skullz jumps right past all that petty learning about how things work, skipping straight to the expedient of just making it up as he goes.
And he wonders why no one takes him seriously.
Socialist hellhole California moves from 8th to 6th largest economy in the world, surpassing France
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
And he wonders why no one takes him seriously.
kmog33
Well-Known Member
I actually just initiated the ignore function, lol. I realized after responding to ty that there is nowhere to go with this one.
I bet if I go through my posts from the past couple hours they all state, more or less, the same thing. Which is agreed upon by banks, the government, accounting and academia. That kind of works for me and has agreed with my experience. So thanks for the choice confirmation, lol.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
some banks might give you a loan based on the types of investments you have, but no one is going to trade stocks for a house. that bit of nonsense by bigotednbushy aka thickskull is borderline retarded. and it doesn't sound like you're having any problem getting the loan, just making enough stuff liquid to put down a nice down payment.
so i have no advice here. but i would like to concur with you about how incredibly wrong bigotednbushy aka thickskull is.
so i have no advice here. but i would like to concur with you about how incredibly wrong bigotednbushy aka thickskull is.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
Even your links say what I am saying. Where have I described saving or investing as something that is inaccurate? What have I gotten wrong?
Your links say 'saving isn't the same thing as investing, let us help you decide where to put your money.'
Those are the people trying to sell you investments. You posted financial advertisements. Of course they're going to jazz up what they do.
You're conflating what I'm saying with 'a savings account works like an investment portfolio.' I am not. They work nothing alike.
If someone needs to make a large purchase they'll set money aside in a savings account of some type.
Of someone has no use for money they have right now, or are saving for a distant goal, they'll invest it.
If there is a difference between the two it is that savings is for money we need or can imagine ourselves spending soon. Investment is for money we might never spend, or spend a long time from now, or might be ok with losing.
This is the dumbest conversation I have ever had.
As to your stocks and a house. California law may be significantly different than anywhere I have ever seen. But plenty of people I know have taken loans out on a 401k.
If it's not in a 401k type of account, just a stock sheet listing your diverse holdings, you don't get taxed for trades do you? No? If you can document that money came from a long term investment you put that into your home and not pay federal capital gains. Your state may have a fucked up tax system, entirely possible considering how you don't think buying valuable assets is a method of preserving wealth.
choomer
Well-Known Member
Skip to the bottom unless you're vested in this thread.
But to limit everything to just your infographic, did ya notice fucking Kansas (27.0%) barely beats CA (27.2%) there by 0.2%, so they take even less federal welfare money than CA and by your stated metric "Here is reality: As a percentage of revenue, CA is among the least reliant on welfare.", even though it doesn't have the burgeoning growth/GDP of CA, KS is EVEN LESS of a federal welfare drain than CA, as well as 9 other states.
Ya should have stuck w/ Nebraska.
I'm old school where in a debate all the information necessary for a ending with a conclusive statement in the argument the data to support that statement comes before it does.
Is this one (your way above) of those new ways Common Core is teaching kids how to do it?
Seems a bit like Detroit's Wayne University deciding to implement a three credit hours requirement in diversity to replace that pesky and underutilized math requirement (from the stupid ass blog).
Weren't you going to explain the 6 month thingy? I mean, when did I ask for, or aver to the content of any bi-annual report?
It would help explain the whole "ahhahahhaaaaahaaahaa oh man that was funny." if I had.
But as you can see above, I said instead that the report was posted 5.5 (almost 6) months into the year ergo, 1/2 way into the year.
So you're construing my saying a 6 month report release time mistaken by you as a report about a 6 month time span and think it's funny that the report spans don't match?
I suppose it would be had that diversion have any basis in truth, but instead it makes about as much sense as a Common Core math problem
<snip> TL:WP
Again...this is your argument, not mine. What started this was Paddy's post about CALIFORNIA not being a socialist hellhole because of projected growth from Reuter's (we'll get to that in a few) and then backed the Reuter's post w/ this:
So I searched for these magic numbers "California 4.1% growth Kansas" since you added this a couple of posts later:
....and Paddy doubled down with by saying:
...so searching those terms I find http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/states-fastest-growing-economies_us_576449abe4b0853f8bf0ce6e (also 247wallst.com where it was originally posted) which is where the HuffPo part comes in. If he got his numbers somewhere else it'd be nice for him to provide a link.
But to limit everything to just your infographic, did ya notice fucking Kansas (27.0%) barely beats CA (27.2%) there by 0.2%, so they take even less federal welfare money than CA and by your stated metric "Here is reality: As a percentage of revenue, CA is among the least reliant on welfare.", even though it doesn't have the burgeoning growth/GDP of CA, KS is EVEN LESS of a federal welfare drain than CA, as well as 9 other states.
Ya should have stuck w/ Nebraska.
<See above for HuffPo inclusion> Not really sure that I said anything about 6 months, why don't you go fetch me saying that boy? Oh...wait you're going to explain why 6 months/first half in the NEXT paragraph it looks like, silly me!I'm old school where in a debate all the information necessary for a ending with a conclusive statement in the argument the data to support that statement comes before it does.
Is this one (your way above) of those new ways Common Core is teaching kids how to do it?
Seems a bit like Detroit's Wayne University deciding to implement a three credit hours requirement in diversity to replace that pesky and underutilized math requirement (from the stupid ass blog).
WAIT!
Weren't you going to explain the 6 month thingy? I mean, when did I ask for, or aver to the content of any bi-annual report?
It would help explain the whole "ahhahahhaaaaahaaahaa oh man that was funny." if I had.
But as you can see above, I said instead that the report was posted 5.5 (almost 6) months into the year ergo, 1/2 way into the year.
So you're construing my saying a 6 month report release time mistaken by you as a report about a 6 month time span and think it's funny that the report spans don't match?
I suppose it would be had that diversion have any basis in truth, but instead it makes about as much sense as a Common Core math problem
<snip> TL:WP
choomer
Well-Known Member
....continued.......
At first I assumed that http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/186 was the "silly ass blog" sniveling you were referring to, but then I figured out that you meant zerohedge which is a site I go to for financial fact checking for things reported by Reuters, HuffPo, etc. that led me to the May 2016 California Economy and Taxes Report in the above link [incidentally covering the 1st 4 months of revenue. I bet that's why they release it in May!]).
I has little bon mots like "*In addition, the 2014-15 entering fund balance was lowered by $253 million, mainly due to a reduction in personal income tax revenues booked to 2013-14 under the states complex budgetary revenue accrual policies."
So the state fiscal report presented in May 2016 is also revising 2013-2014 data due to "the states complex budgetary revenue accrual policies" and gives a reason later on that "The first solid data from tax agencies on 2014 returns—received a few weeks ago—showed that taxable capital gains in that year were substantially less than either we or the administration thought previously. The administration also reduced its estimates of taxable capital gains for 2015 through 2017" so it being from their own admission it takes 2-3 years for data to be coalesced into "true" numbers in this 1 instance and that all else is estimations and projections to be revised (sometimes multiple times) at a later date.
"2014-15. For 2014-15, we estimate that the combined revenues of the General Fund’s four largest tax sources (PIT, sales taxes, corporation taxes, and insurance taxes) are $210 million more than the administration currently estimates for 2014-15. The difference results from our higher estimates for Proposition 30 revenues, which are booked (accrued) to fiscal years in a very complex way.
Wow, that seems complex when above they say "the 2014-15 entering fund balance was lowered by $253 million" and later "For 2014-15......combined revenues of the General Fund’s four largest tax sources........are $210 million more than the administration currently estimates" but I guess that's because the the 1st statement is using actual historical data and the 2nd statement is talking about the "higher estimate" numbers.
But even then, since "no matter how bad you are at math" -$253M+$210M = -$43M, which isn't exactly a change in the sofa type loss, the numbers don't add up.
But the ending statement of your quote above makes me question if you are a true liberal or not since a true liberal will try to financially subjugate (own) you through taxation, legislation, and regulation but he will buy you _a_ sandwich (usually as a tip for the yard work).
So in synopsis:
Paddy posts a story linking to http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-economy-idUSKCN0Z32K2 which is a story saying 'Irena Asmundson, chief economist of the California Department of Finance, said in a phone interview on Friday. "California did exceptionally well in 2015.' with absolutely no links or supporting documentation.
I later post the following:
Didn't hear diddly 'bout them, but the Bohemian Grove thing was the lightning rod needed for folks to label me an Alex Jones conservative and disregard any uneasy feelings about the questions I posted since I was now a "wingnut" guilty of:
The rest was a rant that included the GOP (multiple times), Trump, the KKK, and Reagan as right wing slurs to further cement my assumed alignment that Bucky was as eagerly pursuing as a hamster down a toilet paper tube into his anus questing for the dollop of chunky peanut butter inserted therein beforehand.
That is a classic liberal debate tactic of discrediting through personal attacks characterized by association w/ politicians liberals don't like and a racist organization.
Congratulations, you're a classic liberal.
Might have worked if I cared about your estimation of me but I'm here for the entertainment value.
But it's the evening and I'm a couple bongs and 2 fingers of tequila along posting in a political forum on a pot website so I roll with it and after we have a tête–à–tête about debate etiquette and how I contribute nothing (which I don't see why I have to since I'm not the one positing a story about a reported phone call, Paddy is).
Paddy comes back with with some weird "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" analogy of economic sophistry and then the infamous "California = 4.1% <snip> Nebraska = 0.2%" numbers (but again with no links or supporting documentation of any kind), you do some "Nyah, nyah" cheerleading for Paddy, and as I said above, I post some actual documentation I found using Paddy's numbers <again, see above> putting those projection numbers of the original post and the supporting post of in question, but kill quite a few links trying to clean up hyperlinks that would extend all the way to the end of the sentence.
When Paddy pronounces it "garbage" and points out that the links that do work are right wing propaganda I go back and fix the important links that I fried and then you tell me about all the right wing propaganda I posted obviously missing the CA state May Revision 2016: Revenue Outlook link I posted because 1 of those "right wing propaganda" blogs actually went to the trouble of linking a state report on how CA fiscal projections have "revisions" (which other people call errors) by going directly to the source, something that even Reuters couldn't in support of their GDP phone call story.
Some more sophistry, "Bohemian Grove" butt-munching, drought. Alex Jones butt-munching, duck eggs, pig and oyster felching, the classic dick size attack w/ onions and pineapple juice, you start steering for your welfare argument <see WAY above>, and various other schoolyard pageantry occur for the next 9 pages until I stonedly post interchanging HuffPo for Reuters, claiming it to be left wing, and a making a comment that the SPLC was a liberal bastion.
You post a LATimes Rah, Rah story about CA fiscal superiority (but it does have a link, I'll give you that) and more steering towards your welfare argument while Bucky starts sniping @ me about the SPLC comment I made trying to smear me as homophobic, but hinting at that other liberal classic of racism until I jerk the hook a bit and he goes whole hog into it.
At first I assumed that http://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/186 was the "silly ass blog" sniveling you were referring to, but then I figured out that you meant zerohedge which is a site I go to for financial fact checking for things reported by Reuters, HuffPo, etc. that led me to the May 2016 California Economy and Taxes Report in the above link [incidentally covering the 1st 4 months of revenue. I bet that's why they release it in May!]).
I has little bon mots like "*In addition, the 2014-15 entering fund balance was lowered by $253 million, mainly due to a reduction in personal income tax revenues booked to 2013-14 under the states complex budgetary revenue accrual policies."
So the state fiscal report presented in May 2016 is also revising 2013-2014 data due to "the states complex budgetary revenue accrual policies" and gives a reason later on that "The first solid data from tax agencies on 2014 returns—received a few weeks ago—showed that taxable capital gains in that year were substantially less than either we or the administration thought previously. The administration also reduced its estimates of taxable capital gains for 2015 through 2017" so it being from their own admission it takes 2-3 years for data to be coalesced into "true" numbers in this 1 instance and that all else is estimations and projections to be revised (sometimes multiple times) at a later date.
"2014-15. For 2014-15, we estimate that the combined revenues of the General Fund’s four largest tax sources (PIT, sales taxes, corporation taxes, and insurance taxes) are $210 million more than the administration currently estimates for 2014-15. The difference results from our higher estimates for Proposition 30 revenues, which are booked (accrued) to fiscal years in a very complex way.
Wow, that seems complex when above they say "the 2014-15 entering fund balance was lowered by $253 million" and later "For 2014-15......combined revenues of the General Fund’s four largest tax sources........are $210 million more than the administration currently estimates" but I guess that's because the the 1st statement is using actual historical data and the 2nd statement is talking about the "higher estimate" numbers.
But even then, since "no matter how bad you are at math" -$253M+$210M = -$43M, which isn't exactly a change in the sofa type loss, the numbers don't add up.
But the ending statement of your quote above makes me question if you are a true liberal or not since a true liberal will try to financially subjugate (own) you through taxation, legislation, and regulation but he will buy you _a_ sandwich (usually as a tip for the yard work).
So in synopsis:
Paddy posts a story linking to http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-economy-idUSKCN0Z32K2 which is a story saying 'Irena Asmundson, chief economist of the California Department of Finance, said in a phone interview on Friday. "California did exceptionally well in 2015.' with absolutely no links or supporting documentation.
I later post the following:
Ya notice how the 1st 4 sentences 3 are questions about the articles content and lack of supporting evidence?And you have absolute verifiable evidence of all those Cali millionaires are paying their fair share of taxes and not using shells, subsidiaries, out of state trusts, and/or shill charitable contributions to defraud the tax system (not that I blame them)?
Sheer population density allowing for things like superior influence of voting trends has nothing to do with it. It's all those philanthropic millionaires and not a larger mass yielding a larger product?
You're stats are for the entire state, correct? Not just the 7 digit club.
Trot that shit out w/ your mass statistics and lead us to rally to your salient point of taxation buying better quality of life for the masses.
This is coming from a sometimes resident of Illinois whose have learned if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....well, ya know, it's what makes being gov from IL a better chance of future felony conviction than a high school drop out.
IL is more fiscally fudged than Cali and earns it's title of the land of politics gone awry, but Cali is 2nd in unfunded liabilities.
Millionaires do not donate to political entities for the betterment of the general public unless a siphon is implemented far before the tap.
It's like saying that that the most influential people in politics and commerce gather @ Bohemian Grove in CA for a week of reach arounds to "cut loose".
These individuals pride themselves on the idea that "time is money" and don't spend either without need and are REALLY good at it, otherwise we'd be bandying this @ the Grove and they'd be reading about it.
Didn't hear diddly 'bout them, but the Bohemian Grove thing was the lightning rod needed for folks to label me an Alex Jones conservative and disregard any uneasy feelings about the questions I posted since I was now a "wingnut" guilty of:
by asking for other supporting documentation other than a story about a phone call where someone said........
The rest was a rant that included the GOP (multiple times), Trump, the KKK, and Reagan as right wing slurs to further cement my assumed alignment that Bucky was as eagerly pursuing as a hamster down a toilet paper tube into his anus questing for the dollop of chunky peanut butter inserted therein beforehand.
That is a classic liberal debate tactic of discrediting through personal attacks characterized by association w/ politicians liberals don't like and a racist organization.
Congratulations, you're a classic liberal.
Might have worked if I cared about your estimation of me but I'm here for the entertainment value.
But it's the evening and I'm a couple bongs and 2 fingers of tequila along posting in a political forum on a pot website so I roll with it and after we have a tête–à–tête about debate etiquette and how I contribute nothing (which I don't see why I have to since I'm not the one positing a story about a reported phone call, Paddy is).
Paddy comes back with with some weird "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" analogy of economic sophistry and then the infamous "California = 4.1% <snip> Nebraska = 0.2%" numbers (but again with no links or supporting documentation of any kind), you do some "Nyah, nyah" cheerleading for Paddy, and as I said above, I post some actual documentation I found using Paddy's numbers <again, see above> putting those projection numbers of the original post and the supporting post of in question, but kill quite a few links trying to clean up hyperlinks that would extend all the way to the end of the sentence.
When Paddy pronounces it "garbage" and points out that the links that do work are right wing propaganda I go back and fix the important links that I fried and then you tell me about all the right wing propaganda I posted obviously missing the CA state May Revision 2016: Revenue Outlook link I posted because 1 of those "right wing propaganda" blogs actually went to the trouble of linking a state report on how CA fiscal projections have "revisions" (which other people call errors) by going directly to the source, something that even Reuters couldn't in support of their GDP phone call story.
Some more sophistry, "Bohemian Grove" butt-munching, drought. Alex Jones butt-munching, duck eggs, pig and oyster felching, the classic dick size attack w/ onions and pineapple juice, you start steering for your welfare argument <see WAY above>, and various other schoolyard pageantry occur for the next 9 pages until I stonedly post interchanging HuffPo for Reuters, claiming it to be left wing, and a making a comment that the SPLC was a liberal bastion.
You post a LATimes Rah, Rah story about CA fiscal superiority (but it does have a link, I'll give you that) and more steering towards your welfare argument while Bucky starts sniping @ me about the SPLC comment I made trying to smear me as homophobic, but hinting at that other liberal classic of racism until I jerk the hook a bit and he goes whole hog into it.
choomer
Well-Known Member
.....finished......
Which gets us here.
After being a member here for over a year and watching how things go down in the Politics forum I knew what I was in for after seeing the dearth of content displaying Paddy's entrapping Socratic style with Bucky's ad hominem content backing it as various others become supporters or targets of the thread.
Just like any other forum, but since it's just like any other forum experience I've had, it doesn't take too long to detect it's the same and the entertainment value pales quickly except for this one point this experience, and most others demonstrate:
Liberals expect economic news (whose roots are always in gov't fiscal reports) for a state in a fascist country (American Exceptionalism) supposedly recovering from a (greater) recession (depression) that has repealed the Smith-Mundt act to furnish truthful data.
They then assume that information is truthfully reported through the mainstream media owned by 6 multinational media conglomerates whose only aim is to keep you consuming their product through a litany of fear, gluttony, and manufactured Hegelian dialectic.
It was a slice. See you in 3 months when trimming cramps from the outdoor haul give me reason for another tequila tickle and mindless entertainment.
Which gets us here.
After being a member here for over a year and watching how things go down in the Politics forum I knew what I was in for after seeing the dearth of content displaying Paddy's entrapping Socratic style with Bucky's ad hominem content backing it as various others become supporters or targets of the thread.
Just like any other forum, but since it's just like any other forum experience I've had, it doesn't take too long to detect it's the same and the entertainment value pales quickly except for this one point this experience, and most others demonstrate:
Liberals expect economic news (whose roots are always in gov't fiscal reports) for a state in a fascist country (American Exceptionalism) supposedly recovering from a (greater) recession (depression) that has repealed the Smith-Mundt act to furnish truthful data.
They then assume that information is truthfully reported through the mainstream media owned by 6 multinational media conglomerates whose only aim is to keep you consuming their product through a litany of fear, gluttony, and manufactured Hegelian dialectic.
It was a slice. See you in 3 months when trimming cramps from the outdoor haul give me reason for another tequila tickle and mindless entertainment.
kmog33
Well-Known Member
The thing is we have enough to make a downpayment and pay taxes on selling the stock, but that would be most of our investments. It's hard to pull 90% when only 50-60% of that is going to actually go towards what you want and the rest goes to the government. Especially when all I have to do to keep an additional >10% is move out of the state for 2 years. I'm not old enough to trip on 2 years on a 30 year mortgage.
I wish I had all of the value of my investments in savings, not investments. Then, this wouldn't be an issue at all. Unfortunately i think between the both of us we may have $75-80k in liquid assets at any given point. And that, does not cut the down payment on a $600-750k house.(which is extremely modest out here)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
my wife and i were in a similar situation. lots of investments, some provable income from her end, none verifiable on my end.
we just got lucky though. apparently she had a few other accounts which her parents never even told her about. cashed out enough from one for a 10% down payment. only downside is we have to carry mortgage insurance until we hit 20% of the loan amount, but that is coming up quickly as i have been sending in extra on every mortgage payment.
so my advice to you is to go take $75k and put it all on red.
choomer
Well-Known Member
Awwww.....you'll get a new boyfriend.
kmog33
Well-Known Member
There, I fixed it for you. I tried to use grammar you would understand.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
No need to put me on ignore. You've sought this conversation out.
I have a finance degree and I worked in the field for a while and got into sales in 2009 and hacked that out for a couple of years. I sold financial services and life insurance and it was hard times out there in 2009. I'm more educated on this than you are.
Here is an article (not a definition in a dictionary, not a advertisment for an investment bank) wherein it is clearly described.
Savings is what we do with money we make over what we spend to live. That is savings. And just like you don't spend it all on one thing, you don't save it all one way.
Anytime those experts are talking to each other about an issue in the field, they will use the terms savings and investments interchangeably. This like might help you understand that all these methods are ways for you to take your extra money today, and use it for something else later on. How you do that depends on all your factors.
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2014/04/10/the-best-ways-to-invest-5-000
I have a finance degree and I worked in the field for a while and got into sales in 2009 and hacked that out for a couple of years. I sold financial services and life insurance and it was hard times out there in 2009. I'm more educated on this than you are.
Here is an article (not a definition in a dictionary, not a advertisment for an investment bank) wherein it is clearly described.
Savings is what we do with money we make over what we spend to live. That is savings. And just like you don't spend it all on one thing, you don't save it all one way.
Anytime those experts are talking to each other about an issue in the field, they will use the terms savings and investments interchangeably. This like might help you understand that all these methods are ways for you to take your extra money today, and use it for something else later on. How you do that depends on all your factors.
http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2014/04/10/the-best-ways-to-invest-5-000
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
I noticed you edited it... Saying savings was not taxed. Saying investments were taxed.
An average American might look at his 1500 dollar paycheck for the week, he sees 300 come right off the top to go towards his IRA investment. The remaining 1200 is taxed and he sends 300 of whats ledt over to his savings account.
So there is your definition debunked. Sometbubf you would clearly call an investment not getting taxed and something you would clearly distinfhis as savings getting taxed.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees here, friend. But that's ok. You don't have to.
Post all the financial advertisments youd like.
kmog33
Well-Known Member
. That gave me a good chuckle. Yeah we're in that kind of boat(we work for ourselves). She can prover her income, I can prove most of mine(which is nice to say at this point) We're also debating on whether its worth it at all because we could just move up north to Tahoe and get a bigger, nicer house. For less money. We know a couple people up there and the schools are pretty good in some of the cities. (This is one of the biggest things for us as we want kids at somepoint). Its funny I just tried to use my situation as an example of the difference between savings and invested assets because I figured that first hand experience, right now, was worth something when the law and definition were not, lol. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kmog33
Well-Known Member
Who knew! Some of the taxes you pay actually go towards things that benefit you. In some cases, it's even monies.
!!! How cool is that. Did you know, the taxes you pay into ssi are sort of similar . The more you know [emoji1303]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
choomer
Well-Known Member
TSDC
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
And to really blow your mind...
Ive been saying That investing is a form of savings.
But really there are no savings.
From the perspective of a government who uses a sales tax to generate revenue, savings being merely deferred spending doesn't affect the tax over time.
Ive been saying That investing is a form of savings.
But really there are no savings.
From the perspective of a government who uses a sales tax to generate revenue, savings being merely deferred spending doesn't affect the tax over time.
ThickStemz
Well-Known Member
Your real life example is nothing more than a demonstration of how it's important to set up a savings plan that fits your life.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you knew you were going to buy a home at this stage you would have saved your money differently
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
you were sucking dick for heroin in 2009.
have you forgotten all about your sock puppet accounts?