Obama wants to Raise Taxes, Good or Bad for the Economy?

see4 said:

Stop voting against yourself bro. Come to the dark side where people actually help others.

I make quite a bit of money, and I don't mind at all sharing, as long as I am able. It's pretty cool over here. Try out for a while. If you don't like it, you can go back to being a moron.

Click to expand...

Voting against myself? You must be referring to my voting No on higher property tax's...You must not own any property, when you do you will understand. I do a lot of sharing also, when I grow a crop I give about a third of it away if not more...I share my air miles and send people all over the world..I share my sport boat with my friends...I could go on but will just say sharing is caring...I share something everyday....

nitro harley said:

Voting against myself? You must be referring to my voting No on higher property tax's...You must not own any property, when you do you will understand. I do a lot of sharing also, when I grow a crop I give about a third of it away if not more...I share my air miles and send people all over the world..I share my sport boat with my friends...I could go on but will just say sharing is caring...I share something everyday....

Click to expand...

I will show you pictures of my homes in Brazil one day. Only if you are nice. I can show you my place in Florida, and on the Cape, and soon to be in the mountains of the desert. Let me know, Im all for slide shares bro. I've seen more tan nipples in a summer than you've seen all your life.

hah sky miles. My time with IBM I was Gold Miles Delta member, Platinum Amex member, Premiere Miles member with USAir, and now I have added TAM to my list. Look them up. Very good Brazilian airline, takes care of my South American travels. I fly business class free upgrades whenever the fuck I want. I can take you business somewhere if you like. Its on me bro. Don't sweat the small stuff.

I like sport boats, don't own any. Im more a pontoon boat guy. I bring a keg out with my FRIENDS, and we enjoy ourselves as a group. Do you have FRIENDS to take out on your 4 person sport boat? Or just you and your wife? Aww buddy, I can invite you with my friends onto my pontoon. It fits 24 people. It's fun when you can enjoy your time with FRIENDS.

Sharing is caring man. Im with you on that. Now just expand yourself a little. Let go a little, if you will. Wake up tomorrow and say to yourself, "me...Im not gunna be a selfish prick any longer, Im going to try to make a difference in the world, no matter how large or small, Im going to share with the less fortunate."

You won't. You think sharing your time is good enough. Your time is meaningless. Just as mine. But as a group, people can make a difference. You just don't see it.

Just to note. Im high as fuck.

nitro harley said:

Three or four years ago i bought some stock for 4.90 a share and then about a year later i sold it for 82.00 a share...I turned 7500 into 100,000.00 and then after I paid the capital gains tax I quit trading...So it was good for me...for now I watch and wait for it to crash again and at that time I might do it again maybe..

Click to expand...

I call bullshit. If you turned $7,500 into $100,000 in years time, you would know exactly what timeframe it happened, when it began and when it concluded to the day. I know, I made $31,000 on investments, an 11% earnings on initial investment in 5 months, and I did very well.

Can you be specific with your investments? I mean now that the investment forecast is long over, and you have moved on to others investments, Im sure sharing investment details is not going to hurt you or influence anything. So please, if you would, share with me the details of you investments?

Take your time looking that up. Im in no rush. And let me know if you need some sort of documents from me, I have all my margin call notices and purchase orders for the past decade. We can compare investment options.

tokeprep said:

The "half of all Americans" you speak of generally have low account balances or only have retirement accounts, which means they aren't seeing much benefit.

Click to expand...

when i get more money, i consider it to be good news.

i'm pretty sure the 150 million americans or so seeing higher retirement accounts are pretty damn happy as well.

tokeprep said:

Almost all of the benefit of increased stock prices accrues to the top 10%. The "half of all Americans" you speak of generally have low account balances or only have retirement accounts, which means they aren't seeing much benefit.

Click to expand...

haha. no. listen bro. do me a solid and start reading a newspaper more, read from at last four different sources. i want you to get a better grasp of socioeconomic matrices, and i want you to come back and hold an intelligent conversation. i went through 6 years of school to know about finance. it will take you much longer. but i can certainly help you along your journey.

what does, "benefits of increased stock prices accrues to the top 10%" mean? I mean do you even listen yourself before you click the Post Reply button? Half of all Americans we speak of have low account balances or only retirement accounts? What? Seriously, do you own anything more than a simple checking account? Anything? you have not the first clue as to what the fuck you are talking about. none what so ever.

UncleBuck said:

when i get more money, i consider it to be good news.

i'm pretty sure the 150 million americans or so seeing higher retirement accounts are pretty damn happy as well.

Click to expand...

If the money is in a retirement account, you aren't getting more money. Most of the Americans you just identified only have market exposure through retirement accounts, and most of those people have very low balances anyway. The fact that average people don't own financial assets is exactly why they're poor and getting poorer while the rich get richer.

see4 said:

haha. no. listen bro. do me a solid and start reading a newspaper more, read from at last four different sources. i want you to get a better grasp of socioeconomic matrices, and i want you to come back and hold an intelligent conversation. i went through 6 years of school to know about finance. it will take you much longer. but i can certainly help you along your journey.

what does, "benefits of increased stock prices accrues to the top 10%" mean? I mean do you even listen yourself before you click the Post Reply button? Half of all Americans we speak of have low account balances or only retirement accounts? What? Seriously, do you own anything more than a simple checking account? Anything? you have not the first clue as to what the fuck you are talking about. none what so ever.

Click to expand...

Not very wise to assume you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.

See Table 3, Wealth distribution by type of asset: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html. The top 10% own 80.8% of the wealth in stocks and mutual funds.

"According to the Federal Reserve's most recent report, the median value of directly held stock in 2009, for families holding any, was approximately $12,000." http://www.brighthub.com/money/investing/articles/117044.aspx. Half of American families with directly held stock had balances below $12,000; since married couples are counted together, it's even less per person.

If you've got different data, let's see it.

tokeprep said:

If the money is in a retirement account, you aren't getting more money. Most of the Americans you just identified only have market exposure through retirement accounts, and most of those people have very low balances anyway. The fact that average people don't own financial assets is exactly why they're poor and getting poorer while the rich get richer.

Click to expand...

re: bolded statement -- I've made more than 40% return on my retirement accounts over the past 5 years. That includes the massive downturn in 2008.

re: italicized statement -- And you somehow blame this on the government? So far government has done what Republicans have asked, and that is to bolster corporate enterprise, because private sector knows best. Well shareholder valuation is shy high but some greedy corporations are still holding onto their money. How about you agree to disagree, swallow your pride and consent to an idea, though you might not agree with, might just in fact help save our economy. We have tried it your way for years. Let's try it our way for a bit.

You refuse to let that happen. Because you think politics is a game.

tokeprep said:

Not very wise to assume you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.

See Table 3, Wealth distribution by type of asset: http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html. The top 10% own 80.8% of the wealth in stocks and mutual funds.

"According to the Federal Reserve's most recent report, the median value of directly held stock in 2009, for families holding any, was approximately $12,000." http://www.brighthub.com/money/investing/articles/117044.aspx. Half of American families with directly held stock had balances below $12,000; since married couples are counted together, it's even less per person.

If you've got different data, let's see it.

Click to expand...

Bro, you are not picking up what I'm putting down. But let's stay here for a moment and entertain this thought.

You have just shown me that the wealthiest 10% of the people in the United States own roughly 81% of the wealth. And yet you want to limit taxes. You want taxes to be spread evenly among all wealth groups? You want the bottom 10% to pay the same proportional tax rate as the top 10%? This is what you are suggesting by showcasing this information. If that is not your intent, then what is? Are you suggesting our current tax policy is working? Or do you think that reducing taxes will be more favorable? As mentioned earlier.

Lights on, but nobody is home, huh?

see4 said:

re: bolded statement -- I've made more than 40% return on my retirement accounts over the past 5 years. That includes the massive downturn in 2008.

Click to expand...

If your money is in a retirement account and it's still at risk you didn't "make" anything. Your unrealized gain is easily erased.

re: italicized statement -- And you somehow blame this on the government? So far government has done what Republicans have asked, and that is to bolster corporate enterprise, because private sector knows best. Well shareholder valuation is shy high but some greedy corporations are still holding onto their money. How about you agree to disagree, swallow your pride and consent to an idea, though you might not agree with, might just in fact help save our economy. We have tried it your way for years. Let's try it our way for a bit.

You refuse to let that happen. Because you think politics is a game.

Click to expand...

I'm not blaming the government, simply stating a fact. I blame the choice of consumption over investment, which is willingly made by individual people.

see4 said:

Seriously, do you own anything more than a simple checking account?

Click to expand...

in his previous postings, he has let on that he is a simple, broke, recent "college" grad who does not own shit for shit.

not that i do either, but i doubt he has ever even had to pay his own rent.

a checking account may be years off for him.

see4 said:

Bro, you are not picking up what I'm putting down. But let's stay here for a moment and entertain this thought.

Click to expand...

Then explain yourself.

You have just shown me that the wealthiest 10% of the people in the United States own roughly 81% of the wealth.

Click to expand...

That's actually not what I showed you, since our focus in this discussion is on stocks. I said that the benefit of higher stock prices accrues almost entirely to the top 10% and you said I was wrong; I showed you data that says the top 10% owns 81% of the wealth invested in stock.

And yet you want to limit taxes. You want taxes to be spread evenly among all wealth groups? You want the bottom 10% to pay the same proportional tax rate as the top 10%? This is what you are suggesting by showcasing this information. If that is not your intent, then what is? Are you suggesting our current tax policy is working? Or do you think that reducing taxes will be more favorable? As mentioned earlier.

Lights on, but nobody is home, huh?

Click to expand...

I have never suggested that taxes should be spread evenly among all wealth groups. I'm not in favor of a flat tax and never have been.

UncleBuck said:

in his previous postings, he has let on that he is a simple, broke, recent "college" grad who does not own shit for shit.

not that i do either, but i doubt he has ever even had to pay his own rent.

a checking account may be years off for him.

Click to expand...

Why do you doubt that I've ever paid my own rent...?

tokeprep said:

If your money is in a retirement account and it's still at risk you didn't "make" anything. Your unrealized gain is easily erased.

Click to expand...

To start, I like how you made only two points, and you stayed on topic. Kudos.

Technically that's not accurate, and theoretically it is far from accurate. Let me explain. What you assume to be unrealized gain, whatever that means, ( I know where you were trying to go with this ), is that I put my money into a managed pre-diversified fund of which I have limited control over. And many of us who were foolish enough to assume that if they stick their money in any kind of money market fund they would make money no matter what. Gladly, and selfishly, I am not one of those people. I know how to work the market.

Basically what I am saying is, if you can't take the heat, get yo ass out the kitchen.

tokeprep said:

I'm not blaming the government, simply stating a fact. I blame the choice of consumption over investment, which is willingly made by individual people.

Click to expand...

When you say, "consumption over investment", are you simply trying to state that people in generally spend more than they should, and should be investing more of what they are spending? And if so, how does this correlate to big government? Isn't this not just consumer discipline? What does consumer discipline have to do with federal economic policy? Please connect the two.

I'd like for you to stick to topic when possible. Or least understand what you are saying before you say it.

tokeprep said:

I have never suggested that taxes should be spread evenly among all wealth groups. I'm not in favor of a flat tax and never have been.

Click to expand...

Will skip first parts of comment, and focus on this.

Ok, fair enough. What do you suggest be the tax? As a whole.

tokeprep said:

Why do you doubt that I've ever paid my own rent...?

Click to expand...

what kind of work have you done then?

well he is obviously good at "such"ing penises.

see4 said:

To start, I like how you made only two points, and you stayed on topic. Kudos.

Technically that's not accurate, and theoretically it is far from accurate. Let me explain. What you assume to be unrealized gain, whatever that means, ( I know where you were trying to go with this ), is that I put my money into a managed pre-diversified fund of which I have limited control over. And many of us who were foolish enough to assume that if they stick their money in any kind of money market fund they would make money no matter what. Gladly, and selfishly, I am not one of those people. I know how to work the market.

Basically what I am saying is, if you can't take the heat, get yo ass out the kitchen.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to comprehend that you didn't say anything opposing my claim, even though you told me it was inaccurate. I don't care where you put your money. If your money is in a retirement account and still at risk, you have only unrealized gains. Your retirement account's value will fluctuate with the stock market's value, both up and down. Until you actually take the money back, you have no "return" and no real "gain."

When you say, "consumption over investment", are you simply trying to state that people in generally spend more than they should, and should be investing more of what they are spending? And if so, how does this correlate to big government? Isn't this not just consumer discipline? What does consumer discipline have to do with federal economic policy? Please connect the two.

Click to expand...

Correct. I never said it correlated to big government; my point is that consumers are undisciplined and at fault; since consumers have the choice of investing their money or sending it to the top 10% by consumption, that fact must be considered in any discussion of redistribution.

I'd like for you to stick to topic when possible. Or least understand what you are saying before you say it.

Click to expand...

I'd like for you to actually show you're right when you say I'm wrong. So far you're 0 for 2.

see4 said:

Will skip first parts of comment, and focus on this.

Ok, fair enough. What do you suggest be the tax? As a whole.

Click to expand...

I would fund the government through a 100% estate tax upon death and possibly a small national consumption tax. I would entirely eliminate most other taxes, except for excise taxes designed to cover externalities.