Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 41

Thread: Letting a Tax Cut Expire....Tax Increase or not?

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=Trades;4266409]Or when your income gets to high to be allowed to that the credit for kids.[/QUOTE]
    Here's hoping!

    but the point stands. Built in tax increases (both necessary and terrible ones) are still tax increases.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4266391]That is a lot of socialist crap. I have assets because I: 1. worked my ass off and 2. am smart. I'm wealthy and I earned it.
    My portfolio is pushed ahead? Did you read my comment? $2 1/2 mill down is now ahead? Sound like a real financier talking. More Obama nonsense.
    My portfolio relative to value is still well ahead of acquisition prices? Why? Because I make sound investments (mostly) in quality comapnies that do good things. Some of these companies I worked for.
    You would know more if you were more involved. I am. Most borrowed money has been paid back. Period.
    And I "partially" itemized just some of the Federal government giveaways to the American public. Let's not forget the 48% ZERO payers. Further lower level taxpayers pay no tax or capital gains or dividends.
    My position is and will always be - if you are poor it's your own fault. There are just a couple exceptions like becoming disabled or incurring a crippling disease.
    We get what we deserve as far as success.[/QUOTE]

    Your portfolio got whacked because of government policy bought and paid for by the banking community over decades. That same policy that over inflated stocks and homes that inflated assetts and benifited the wealthy is now being reinflated by government policy.

    That doesn't mean you didn't get whacked of course you did. Meanwhile over decades billions were paid out on Wall streat on phoney gains that were never realized only to dump the losses on the rest of the country.

    That's not socialist crap that's reality. I have no problem with Capitalism and income inequality that's a fact of life. Those who can will those who can't won't but the government has been a far greater tool for the super rich and a far bigger club on the lower classes than anyone here is willing to admit.

    The best and brightest don't need the government protecting their back but they are the ones that run this country and that's primarily who the government works for. The government is picking winers and losers and protecting their benifactors.

    The Republicans along with the Democrats both destroyed the Simpson Bowles plan because they both want to control tax policy to take care of their constituents and pick the winers and losers in society.

    Obama is no more a socialist than Bush was. The both believe in picking winers and losers at the expesnse of open markets. Allocation is real power. No one is adovocating less power for themselves.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 12-06-2011 at 01:48 PM.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4266390]It's semantics. It's a tax increase from "year before the cut expired". It is not a tax increase from "expected taxes in year after the cut expires". In a broad sense, it has the same economic effect as a tax increase - in that people will have less money in their pockets and will likely spend less - but also a different economic effect, in that as a scheduled change in tax rates, it can be planned for in advance (not that anyone does).[/QUOTE]

    hmm a nuanced answer. Intelligent, reasonable. Sounds like hypocracy.

  4. #24
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266480]hmm a nuanced answer. Intelligent, reasonable. [B][U]Sounds like hypocracy[/U][/B].[/QUOTE]

    Odd, sounded fine to me.

    In real terms it's a tax increase, but one that can (and should) be planned for.

    Seems rather straitforward and logical to me.

  5. #25
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,976
    Ultimately it comes down to perspective.

    If Macy's has a two day 50% off sale, does the price technically rise after the sale expires? Yes, but in the grand scheme there wasn't really a price increase.

  6. #26
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4266475]Your portfolio got whacked because of government policy bought and paid for by the banking community over decades. That same policy that over inflated stocks and homes that inflated assetts and benifited the wealthy is now being reinflated by government policy.

    That doesn't mean you didn't get whacked of course you did. Meanwhile over decades billions were paid out on Wall streat on phoney gains that were never realized only to dump the losses on the rest of the country.

    That's not socialist crap that's reality. I have no problem with Capitalism and income inequality that's a fact of life. Those who can will those who can't won't but the government has been a far greater tool for the super rich and a far bigger club on the lower classes than anyone here is willing to admit.

    The best and brightest don't need the government protecting their back but they are the ones that run this country and that's primarily who the government works for. The government is picking winers and losers and protecting their benifactors.

    The Republicans along with the Democrats both destroyed the Simpson Bowles plan because they both want to control tax policy to take care of their constituents and pick the winers and losers in society.

    Obama is no more a socialist than Bush was. The both believe in picking winers and losers at the expesnse of open markets. Allocation is real power. No one is adovocating less power for themselves.[/QUOTE]

    You're arguing with the wrong guy. I follow this stuff closely. What is an overvalued stock? Is Exxon overpriced? Conoco? Kraft? Pfizer? All less than 10 times forward earnings. They are grossly underpriced. Procter and Gamble at 16X is about right for a money machine. Even Intel at 10X is way too cheap. So where is the overpricing? To the liberal uninformed person, everything is overpriced by greedy corporations and people who made money. There are some unimportant or go-go companies which I am sure are overpriced (Google and Priceline come to mind) but most good ones are not.
    Simpson Bowles was a little too heavy handed. Some good ideas like with SS and Medicare. I have stated here before that some tax increases on EVERYONE are in order. But only after gigantic cuts in spending on everything - including and mostly social programs.

  7. #27
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4266529]You're arguing with the wrong guy. I follow this stuff closely. What is an overvalued stock? Is Exxon overpriced? Conoco? Kraft? Pfizer? All less than 10 times forward earnings. They are grossly underpriced. Procter and Gamble at 16X is about right for a money machine. Even Intel at 10X is way too cheap. So where is the overpricing? To the liberal uninformed person, everything is overpriced by greedy corporations and people who made money. There are some unimportant or go-go companies which I am sure are overpriced (Google and Priceline come to mind) but most good ones are not.
    Simpson Bowles was a little too heavy handed. Some good ideas like with SS and Medicare. I have stated here before that some tax increases on EVERYONE are in order. But only after gigantic cuts in spending on everything - including and mostly social programs.[/QUOTE]

    Why do you think the government is trying to inflate the economy? We just had a total bust of the economy. Leverage blew up assett prices and PE ratios to unsustainable levels. Pop goes the wessel.

    Doesn't price have something to do with peoples willingness to take on risk? Without the inflating of assetts these companies wouldn't have their earnings and if people weren't scared and willing to buy government backed securities for a negative real return those PE ratio's would be completely different.

    PE doesn't determine price as you very well know. This may well be a great long term buying opportunity. I always believe in buying when people are risk averse that's when PE mulitples are low. But they are low for a reason. RISK!

    Simpson Bowles was a solid bipartisan plan. The problem with it is it takes away the political element in determing who wins and losses. Without elected officials having the ability to determine who wins and losses the market will determine it. That means no more money for political campaigns and a lot less power for politicians in general. They aren't giving it up.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 12-06-2011 at 02:23 PM.

  8. #28
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4266529] There are some unimportant or go-go companies which I am sure are overpriced ([b]Google[/b] and Priceline come to mind) but most good ones are not.[/QUOTE]


    Enh? Now i am not a market expert, and i don't own Google stock. However i am pretty well informed on the tech industry. In what way is Google unimportant, or fail to qualify as "good". If you're talking purely from an investment standpoint, then you're probable quite right, but I'm still curious to hear the explanation.

  9. #29
    [QUOTE=Axil;4266554]Enh? Now i am not a market expert, and i don't own Google stock. However i am pretty well informed on the tech industry. In what way is Google unimportant, or fail to qualify as "good". If you're talking purely from an investment standpoint, then you're probable quite right, but I'm still curious to hear the explanation.[/QUOTE]


    Don't own Google and never have. Never will. It has a PE which is very high. It is in a market which easy entry is possible. Still a little "faddy". Very high risk. Now if you're 30 years old with a few "venture" type funds - ok. Saving for kids' college or retirement. No way. Not a primary investment for a conservative.

  10. #30
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4266545]Why do you think the government is trying to inflate the economy? We just had a total bust of the economy. Leverage blew up assett prices and PE ratios to unsustainable levels. Pop goes the wessel.

    Doesn't price have something to do with peoples willingness to take on risk? Without the inflating of assetts these companies wouldn't have their earnings and if people weren't scared and willing to buy government backed securities for a negative real return those PE ratio's would be completely different.

    PE doesn't determine price as you very well know. This may well be a great long term buying opportunity. I always believe in buying when people are risk averse that's when PE mulitples are low. But they are low for a reason. RISK!

    Simpson Bowles was a solid bipartisan plan. The problem with it is it takes away the political element in determing who wins and losses. Without elected officials having the ability to determine who wins and losses the market will determine it. That means no more money for political campaigns and a lot less power for politicians in general. They aren't giving it up.[/QUOTE]



    What inflating of assets? A company's assets are what they are. They may conserve assets by not spending cash as an example. People do price stock as a function of risk. High risk will mean reluctance to buy. Earnings are a very important element. No earnings= higher risk. PE is very important. It does not set price BUT indicates whether or not a stock is valued well. MANY currently are grossly undervalued. Even fabulous companies got hit during the recent turmoil. Why? Loss of confidence which continues. Companies continue to postpone investments because of uncertainty with this administration.
    Simpson Bowles had a few good ideas. But the cuts in social programs had little chance with the Dems as tax hikesd had little chance with Repubs.
    On Jan 1, 2013 there is the automatic return to pre Bush tax cuts. Then everyone will have a major tax increase. And those at the bottom will have the biggest % increase. I will avoid most of it ( as will others who plan - including Buffett).

  11. #31
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4267865] Still a little "faddy". Very high risk. [/QUOTE]

    Google has cash on hand and investments of over 42 billion. It's not a fad Palm. But hey if you want to keep investing in campbell's soup cause they make a product you understand, more power to ya.

  12. #32
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4267997]Google has cash on hand and investments of over 42 billion. It's not a fad Palm. But hey if you want to keep investing in campbell's soup cause they make a product you understand, more power to ya.[/QUOTE]


    Campbell's stinks. Never owned it. I'll take an Exxon, P&G, Pfizer etc. They alll provide excellent income. Established. Steady performance.
    BTW, Goog only has 10 bill cash. Not bad. 29 bill in sales. Not bad but not exactly XOM or Boeing.

  13. #33
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4268820]Campbell's stinks. Never owned it. I'll take an Exxon, P&G, Pfizer etc. They alll provide excellent income. Established. Steady performance.
    BTW, Goog only has 10 bill cash. Not bad. 29 bill in sales. Not bad but not exactly XOM or Boeing.[/QUOTE]

    the strength of goog is their shares outstanding. for a company that rich they never dilute the shares. that's why it's a 600 dollar stock on it's way to 1000, and microsoft is in the 25 dollar range. supply and demand. I have nothing against XOM either, those guys print money. but Goog is not a fad it's one of the strongest companies on the exchange.

  14. #34
    75% of the US economy is in the form of retail transactions.

    Cutting the taxes of the top 1-5% of taxpayers (sorry to use OWS-esque langauge I know that's very offensive to some of you) does little to help retail transactions. Tax cuts like the payroll tax cut which puts more money in the hands of a far larger # of Americans does a helluva lot more.

    As far Warfish trying to accuse people who support ending the wasteful Bust tax cut as being hypocritical I think you have to go to the root of what's going on here? What has happened to the economy of the United States since the Bust tax cut for the rich? Where is it now? I think an honest and objective answer shows it needed to go years ago.

  15. #35
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4267865]Don't own Google and never have. Never will. It has a PE which is very high. It is in a market which easy entry is possible. Still a little "faddy". Very high risk. Now if you're 30 years old with a few "venture" type funds - ok. Saving for kids' college or retirement. No way. Not a primary investment for a conservative.[/QUOTE]

    Most .coms are faddy investments. Google is one of the few exceptions due to the fact that 1) it's universally popular 2) it's competition is weak or marginal (bing) 3) the company is not creatively complacent, unlike myspace which clearly was at its peak and allowed itself to be outmanuevered by facebook.

    When facebook issues its IPO it also will be a no-brainer investment. Facebook is not resting on its laurels like myspace did once Murdoch bought it continues innovating new ways to appeal to the public and capitalize with ideas like open graph.

  16. #36
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4266125]when he says that, Obama is playing by the rules that the right wing set down. in political message terms it is a tax increase, although technically not true, it's what people believe.

    I also believe he doesn't necessarily want this tax cut forever but he is playing politics with the GOP, forced to either raise taxes or compromise with the President. They want to do neither, as they are a party in the midst of a 3 year temper tantrum.

    we shouldn't forget that permanent tax cuts are alot harder to legislate into law. The losses in revenue must be offset in the budget.

    these temporary measures, designed to expire, are easier to pass. So they are temporary and they all should expire. even the payroll tax cut.[/QUOTE]

    Better then a 3 year spending spree. The democrats didn't provide a budget for 3 years. What's the story!

  17. #37
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4266152]A government by and for the rich should be paid for by the rich. Obama believes in big government that takes care of fat cats and that the fat cats should pay for it. I agree.

    When we have a government that is for all the people, all the people should pay for it.

    The President is an elitist who supports the elite with policy. It's only fair that the richest 1/100th of 1 percent the President has bailed out should pay more.[/QUOTE]

    Hit the 45% who pay nothing but get a free ride for everything! The 1% includes labor unions and their pensions!

  18. #38
    [QUOTE=TerminatorJet;4269140]75% of the US economy is in the form of retail transactions.

    Cutting the taxes of the top 1-5% of taxpayers (sorry to use OWS-esque langauge I know that's very offensive to some of you) does little to help retail transactions. Tax cuts like the payroll tax cut which puts more money in the hands of a far larger # of Americans does a helluva lot more.[/quote]

    You think so? Pre-divorce (when my income went to one household, instead of being divided to two), I counted as a 1%er per that chart. Between student loans (which I needed to get me where I am) and mortgage, my retail spending was almost nil, because my "1%" salary, after taxes, was barely enough to cover expenses. Granted, my expenses - like most orthodox jews - are unusually high because of the high cost of religious education and kosher food, so I'm not complaining. Just pointing out that you are completely wrong. More money in my pocket would be [B]very[/B] helpful to me, and would free me to do some spending that I've been avoiding the past few years in order to make ends meet.

  19. #39
    [QUOTE=doggin94it;4269313]You think so? Pre-divorce (when my income went to one household, instead of being divided to two), I counted as a 1%er per that chart. Between student loans (which I needed to get me where I am) and mortgage, my retail spending was almost nil, because my "1%" salary, after taxes, was barely enough to cover expenses. Granted, my expenses - like most orthodox jews - are unusually high because of the high cost of religious education and kosher food, so I'm not complaining. Just pointing out that you are completely wrong. More money in my pocket would be [B]very[/B] helpful to me, and would free me to do some spending that I've been avoiding the past few years in order to make ends meet.[/QUOTE]

    Oh no...

    No facts...

    Anecdotes like this make someone like TJ foam at the mouth...

  20. #40
    [QUOTE=TerminatorJet;4269140]75% of the US economy is in the form of retail transactions.

    Cutting the taxes of the top 1-5% of taxpayers (sorry to use OWS-esque langauge I know that's very offensive to some of you) does little to help retail transactions. Tax cuts like the payroll tax cut which puts more money in the hands of a far larger # of Americans does a helluva lot more.

    As far Warfish trying to accuse people who support ending the wasteful Bust tax cut as being hypocritical I think you have to go to the root of what's going on here? What has happened to the economy of the United States since the Bust tax cut for the rich? Where is it now? I think an honest and objective answer shows it needed to go years ago.[/QUOTE]

    It's obvious that you are against the Bush/Obama tax cuts for the "rich". That's cool. The issue is that that tax cut affected everyone at every tax rate. Do you want to cancel the whole thing or just the portion that affects people making over a particular dollar amount?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us