2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: hvybarrels on December 04, 2017, 10:17:40 AM
-
As someone who itemizes a lot of deductions this really sucks. It's also frustrating to see the permanent tax cuts for the ultra wealthy while everyone else's are only temporary. Is there a possible tax revolt in our future? Probably, but throw it on the pile of disasters that normally accompany an empire in decline. This is what it looks like folks.
In the meantime it's a good idea to get a handle on the subject if you are self employed because next year is going to be a big challenge. Time to call your guy and make some moves before the calendar flips.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-tax-bill-year-end-tax-plans/
-
Next step is to reconcile the Senate and House versions, so we won't know what the final bill that Trump will sign will be until maybe Christmas. Per the King Rule, the faster a bill is passed, the worse it is and this bill went through the Senate extremely fast. As Senator King said, no municipality would make changes to a dog leash law in this way.
-
450 pages. Nobody had time to read it. Illegible notes scrawled in the corner. All kinds of pork and giveaways. Scheduled just in time for the holidays so nobody is paying attention. Something tells me this isn't being done to promote small businesses.
You better watch out
You better not cry
You better not pout
They're going in dry
-
I wonder why politicians do this, rush it through so people don't read the bad stuff? Obamacare went through the same way. They had a year to write it and have everyone review it.
-
This who tax bill fiasco is really giving a bad name to republicans. This is not the tax overhaul we envisioned or wanted. There are no drastic changes, no simplification. Not what we were promised, not what we asked for.
Democrats are slamming us over this, and rightly so. I don't think this is even in line with what Trump had promised, but it isn't just Trump being bad it is most of the republicans in congress!
-
As someone who itemizes a lot of deductions this really sucks. It's also frustrating to see the permanent tax cuts for the ultra wealthy while everyone else's are only temporary. Is there a possible tax revolt in our future? Probably, but throw it on the pile of disasters that normally accompany an empire in decline. This is what it looks like folks.
In the meantime it's a good idea to get a handle on the subject if you are self employed because next year is going to be a big challenge. Time to call your guy and make some moves before the calendar flips.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-tax-bill-year-end-tax-plans/
I feel the same way. Same boat as you.
It's basically another giveaway to the ultra rich, the same as previous tax cuts by both democrats and republicans for the past few decades.
-
I feel the same way. Same boat as you.
It's basically another giveaway to the ultra rich, the same as previous tax cuts by both democrats and republicans for the past few decades.
The more I learn about the intricacies of the bill the more I am dismayed about republicans and Trump. I never liked Trump to begin with but at least figured he might pass things like tax reform and we would see things getting done. Well he has been a failure and our congress is filled with rubbish. I don't have the best outlook for the USA right now.
-
The more I learn about the intricacies of the bill the more I am dismayed about republicans and Trump. I never liked Trump to begin with but at least figured he might pass things like tax reform and we would see things getting done. Well he has been a failure and our congress is filled with rubbish. I don't have the best outlook for the USA right now.
(https://i.imgur.com/Y7nNnaO.jpg?2)
-
The more I learn about the intricacies of the bill the more I am dismayed about republicans and Trump. I never liked Trump to begin with but at least figured he might pass things like tax reform and we would see things getting done. Well he has been a failure and our congress is filled with rubbish. I don't have the best outlook for the USA right now.
Like I said, it's not only trump. But his tax policy appears to be a bigger open ended cash grab for the rich than obama's policys were.
Because most people dont know or want to be bothered with tax stuff, they'll flaunt these tax cuts like its some huge benefit to the middle class, but in reality, it's making rich people much richer. The changes made over the past few decades is one of the main reasons why wealth inequality is skyrocketing in the US. It basically makes it much easier to compound the wealth you already have at a much quicker rate compared to low/middle class that doesn't have a huge asset base to compound off of.
special low rates for dividends - who has the money to even make a lot of passive money with dividends? Rich people
Eliminate AMT - helps rich people
Cut top tax rate - used to be almost 50% i think. helps rich people
Cut corporate tax rate - rich people own the most stocks, benefits rich people
Increase of estate tax exemption and lowering of top tax rate - helps rich people
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Y7nNnaO.jpg?2)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4w-Bxi4F62w/U8u6zw4nJJI/AAAAAAADtlI/yEsscSLDJTA/s1600/Trolling.jpg)
-
Like I said, it's not only trump. But his tax policy appears to be a bigger open ended cash grab for the rich than obama's policys were.
Because most people dont know or want to be bothered with tax stuff, they'll flaunt these tax cuts like its some huge benefit to the middle class, but in reality, it's making rich people much richer. The changes made over the past few decades is one of the main reasons why wealth inequality is skyrocketing in the US. It basically makes it much easier to compound the wealth you already have at a much quicker rate compared to low/middle class that doesn't have a huge asset base to compound off of.
special low rates for dividends - who has the money to even make a lot of passive money with dividends? Rich people
Eliminate AMT - helps rich people
Cut top tax rate - used to be almost 50% i think. helps rich people
Cut corporate tax rate - rich people own the most stocks, benefits rich people
Increase of estate tax exemption and lowering of top tax rate - helps rich people
Oh absolutely, most of the blame involves congress and not Trump. IIRC all tax bills need to originate in the House so ultimately it is on them. Trump is just failing to keep his promise because he isn't really trying influence congress to get what he promised, but again, he could demand what he promised all day long but if our representatives don't do anything then there is nothing he could do.
I was kind of excited when one candidate wanted to have taxes be on a postcard. I never considered that a real possibility but something like two pages would be very reasonable. Simple tax rates for all types of income whether dividends, gambling, work income, etc. Overall lower tax rate on individuals and companies accompanied with a cut in government spending to match.
-
So I talked with my tax guy today and his take is that while Joe Paycheck with a mortgage is getting hosed, small business owners will get a bit of relief since some of those corporate kickbacks also work for us. While the simplified process means a bad news for H&R and Liberty tax, his biz will be fine since he deals with the more complicated stuff anyway. He's not a fan of the whole package, though, especially when it comes to making the wealth inequality problem much worse. That and the way the increases are tied to inflation means in a few years normal working stiffs will be feeling a serious squeeze (and then a pop as the standard deduction sunsets).
I could be completely wrong about this stuff so educate yourselves and don't take my word for it.
-
I don't know why there is much focus on the wealthy. They don't use most of the social services. It is a socialist concept to make the wealthy pay more than their share of things. Why punish them for being successful? I believe in a flat tax rate for everyone.
-
I don't know why there is much focus on the wealthy. They don't use most of the social services. It is a socialist concept to make the wealthy pay more than their share of things. Why punish them for being successful? I believe in a flat tax rate for everyone.
There are a couple reasons. When poor people get money they spend it, and when rich people get money they invest it. The former promotes healthy economic activity while the latter ties up wealth in speculative bubbles like Bitcoin, real estate, art, etc. Henry Ford, for all his faults, understood the importance of paying his employees enough to buy his cars. Today's wealthy are so consumed by greed that they are undermining the social fabric on which their wealth depends.
And many of them do accept welfare that dwarfs social services through juicy subsidies and regulatory capture. What is the military industrial complex after all than welfare for weapons manufacturers?
-
There are a couple reasons. When poor people get money they spend it, and when rich people get money they invest it. The former promotes healthy economic activity while the latter ties up wealth in speculative bubbles like Bitcoin, real estate, art, etc. Henry Ford, for all his faults, understood the importance of paying his employees enough to buy his cars. Today's wealthy are so consumed by greed that they are undermining the social fabric on which their wealth depends.
And many of them do accept welfare that dwarfs social services through juicy subsidies and regulatory capture. What is the military industrial complex after all than welfare for weapons manufacturers?
I'm not sure you know what "investing" means.
Investing creates capital for businesses to operate and expand. That pays for labor, employee benefits, taxes (ever hear of the higher capital gains tax rate?), and so on. Businesses operate on revenue to a fixed level. Infusions of capital allow for expansion, which means more jobs/better jobs for the workers.
The so-called "greed" of the wealthy is what drives economic growth just as much as employees spending and consuming. What does kill growth is more government programs. Government is a consumer of wealth. Gov't produces nothing and adds zero to the GDP. When Gov't gets $1 from "the wealthy", it distributes less than that to the beneficiaries.
Capital drives capitalism. Without the entrepreneurs and investors, there would be no Ford, GM, GE, Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Taco Bell, Apple and other large, nationwide companies to pay good wages and benefits.
As for being able to buy what you help make, that's not an income issue. It's a tax issue. My last calculation said roughly 50% of my income goes to taxes at some level -- income taxes for state and federal, Social Security, Medicare, State Health Insurance for uninsured, sales/excise, gasoline, roads, and pretty much any fees I pay to register vehicles, bikes, pets, etc, etc. As consumption and taxes have risen, so has the need for more household income. The US used to allow for a single wage earner to pay for a family's expenses, save for a home, take care of medical expenses, etc. Few owned cars, and "essentials" like TVs, cable service, internet access, cell phones, computers, tablets, and such didn't exist. We are a services-oriented, consumer driven economy now.
Back then, the economy was dependent on manufacturing mostly. Trump is returning some of those manufacturing jobs. November saw the largest number of new manufacturing jobs created in US history.
So, yes, investing is for people with money they can afford to invest. Maybe instead of giving the rest of the people more and more of the investor's income, let's try and help more people get to a point where they HAVE money to invest?
-
I wonder why politicians do this, rush it through so people don't read the bad stuff? Obamacare went through the same way. They had a year to write it and have everyone review it.
Elizabeth Warren who is against the bill admitted she didn't even read it.
-
As someone who itemizes a lot of deductions this really sucks. It's also frustrating to see the permanent tax cuts for the ultra wealthy while everyone else's are only temporary. Is there a possible tax revolt in our future? Probably, but throw it on the pile of disasters that normally accompany an empire in decline. This is what it looks like folks.
In the meantime it's a good idea to get a handle on the subject if you are self employed because next year is going to be a big challenge. Time to call your guy and make some moves before the calendar flips.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gop-tax-bill-year-end-tax-plans/
I use the standard deduction. I'm debt free. I'm early retired.
I'm eligible to get social security , but I don't because it really
screws up my income and medical insurance situation.
This Tax bill saves me about $300 per year. My County recently
increased my taxes more than that.
Our wonderful Democrats are so watching over us!
I don't know How I could live without the benevolence of
the Hawaiian Democrat party!
-
I'm not sure you know what "investing" means.
Investing creates capital for businesses to operate and expand.
The problem is economic growth has ended, so the only 'investments' left that pay off any kind of dividend are speculative bubbles. Everybody knows we are in the same position now as we were in 1928, but they think they cash out in time before the bottom drops out. Real economic numbers are impossible to come by because the books have been cooked for so long that the people on TV pretending to be economists wouldn't even know where to start collecting accurate information. It's true that we have a lot of taxes, but not compared to the rest of the industrialized world where they actually get stuff in return. Ours fund huge corporate welfare entitlement programs to energy companies, military industrial complex, pharma, ag, and everyone else who can afford to buy a seat at the table. Do these companies increase salaries hire more people with the windfall of cash? No. They buy back their own stocks to cover up the fact that they are losing money.
I suppose it will all become apparent soon enough, though. If the Bitcoin craze is any indication this sugar rush cycle is almost over. Resist the temptation unless you like losing big time.
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates
-
The problem is economic growth has ended, so the only 'investments' left that pay off any kind of dividend are speculative bubbles. Everybody knows we are in the same position now as we were in 1928, but they think they cash out in time before the bottom drops out. Real economic numbers are impossible to come by because the books have been cooked for so long that the people on TV pretending to be economists wouldn't even know where to start collecting accurate information. It's true that we have a lot of taxes, but not compared to the rest of the industrialized world where they actually get stuff in return. Ours fund huge corporate welfare entitlement programs to energy companies, military industrial complex, pharma, ag, and everyone else who can afford to buy a seat at the table. Do these companies increase salaries hire more people with the windfall of cash? No. They buy back their own stocks to cover up the fact that they are losing money.
I suppose it will all become apparent soon enough, though. If the Bitcoin craze is any indication this sugar rush cycle is almost over. Resist the temptation unless you like losing big time.
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates
I guess you haven't "evolved" the way Mark Cuban has, huh?
The Evolution Of Mark Cuban: From "No Doubt The Market Tanks" To "[Trump's] A Big Plus For The Overall Economy"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-23/evolution-mark-cuban-no-doubt-market-tanks-trumps-big-plus-overall-economy
-
Not so much. But then I don't have a massive fortune that depends on speculation. Notice Mark isn't saying weather Trump's policies are good or bad for the country, just for investment. It seems people have forgotten that there can be quite the inverse relationship between those two as disastrously proven back in 1929 and 1987.
Speaking of which, the ramp up in stock buybacks has already begun even before this thing gets passed.
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/19/tax-bill-corporate-cut-stock-buyback-republican/
Keep in mind the last several market crashes were almost always proceeded by tax giveaways to the ultra rich that were supposed to stimulate the economy but got invested in bubbles instead. This process has been tried and the results are sadly predictable.
-
Not so much. But then I don't have a massive fortune that depends on speculation. Notice Mark isn't saying weather Trump's policies are good or bad for the country, just for investment. It seems people have forgotten that there can be quite the inverse relationship between those two as disastrously proven back in 1929 and 1987.
Speaking of which, the ramp up in stock buybacks has already begun even before this thing gets passed.
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/19/tax-bill-corporate-cut-stock-buyback-republican/
Keep in mind the last several market crashes were almost always proceeded by tax giveaways to the ultra rich that were supposed to stimulate the economy but got invested in bubbles instead. This process has been tried and the results are sadly predictable.
I would post the analysts' comments here on why the current year long run-up in the markets is not a bubble, but it seems no matter what evidence I present, you are going to base your fears on 2 major corrections in the last century and your rejection of the premise that tax cuts across the board will inevitably also benefit "the wealthy" who pay 90% of the income taxes collected each year.
-
Elizabeth Warren who is against the bill admitted she didn't even read it.
Maybe it is in cursive?
-
I would post the analysts' comments here on why the current year long run-up in the markets is not a bubble, but it seems no matter what evidence I present, you are going to base your fears on 2 major corrections in the last century and your rejection of the premise that tax cuts across the board will inevitably also benefit "the wealthy" who pay 90% of the income taxes collected each year.
If you look at the real economic indicators any real growth stopped back in 2007/2008. What we have is a broken an highly unstable system based on sleight of hand where financial manipulators are banking on the fact that we can't understand their complicated graft mechanisms. They got us where they want us because most people can't bring themselves to face the reality that we already have our big toe in another depression. You can hold your nose and sing Hail to The Chief, but sooner or later our stool is going to get kicked.
-
If you look at the real economic indicators any real growth stopped back in 2007/2008. What we have is a broken an highly unstable system based on sleight of hand where financial manipulators are banking on the fact that we can't understand their complicated graft mechanisms. They got us where they want us because most people can't bring themselves to face the reality that we already have our big toe in another depression. You can hold your nose and sing Hail to The Chief, but sooner or later our stool is going to get kicked.
I'm curious as to what the "real economic indicators" are? I want to see what you are seeing. LMK
-
Looked into the tax plan a bit. Tax code makes me :crazy: anyways. This look into the new plans confirms why I became an engineer over business (finance, economics, etc).
Been super tempted at ventures into crypto currency with a buddy. At least we both get credit if I sign up. Will think of it as my Vegas allowance for the year since I didn’t make it there this year. 8)
-
I'm curious as to what the "real economic indicators" are? I want to see what you are seeing. LMK
I suggest taking a stroll down memory lane where Trump was making accusations against Obama about faking the numbers. Telling the truth was what won him the election after all. Now that he's in office, however, those questionable methods of calculation are perfectly acceptable.
As far as crypto goes even if you can find one that's possible to sell quickly there's no way to escape before the bottom drops out. Once it starts to slide the systems will crash and by the time they are "repaired" there will be no buyers and free falling prices. But if you "invest" in something that doesn't exist run by people you don't know and aren't even sure how it works, simply because everyone is smoking massive amounts of hopium and shooting the price skyward, then you deserve to lose your shirt.
-
I suggest taking a stroll down memory lane where Trump was making accusations against Obama about faking the numbers. Telling the truth was what won him the election after all. Now that he's in office, however, those questionable methods of calculation are perfectly acceptable.
As far as crypto goes even if you can find one that's possible to sell quickly there's no way to escape before the bottom drops out. Once it starts to slide the systems will crash and by the time they are "repaired" there will be no buyers and free falling prices. But if you "invest" in something that doesn't exist run by people you don't know and aren't even sure how it works, simply because everyone is smoking massive amounts of hopium and shooting the price skyward, then you deserve to lose your shirt.
Well, I lost a bunch of “fake money” when online poker went under. Did it mostly for entertainment value. But I appreciate your sage advice.
And not investing my shirt...
-
I predict this tax bill will make condos more popular in the future and reduce the need for single family homes. Prevent people from buying multiple homes and reduce the prices on them.
-
Hawaii got some national representation. At the beginning of the interview about rushing the bill, I thought hey you could dub in "obamacare" instead of "tax bill".
Sen. Schatz: Revote shows GOP tax bill rushed
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/12/19/sen-brian-schatz-intv-gop-tax-bill-senate-vote-trump-sot-tsr.cnn
-
Democrats complained there was not enough time to read the bill.
Democrats voted against the bill, with zero supporting it.
Why should we care if they read something they were never going to vote for no matter what? At least with ACA, the Republicans were working on a bill in the House they could support, but the Senate version is the one that passed without any coordination with the Republicans.
Remember -- not one single Democrat voted to lower your taxes. Not one!
-
I suggest taking a stroll down memory lane where Trump was making accusations against Obama about faking the numbers. Telling the truth was what won him the election after all. Now that he's in office, however, those questionable methods of calculation are perfectly acceptable.
As far as crypto goes even if you can find one that's possible to sell quickly there's no way to escape before the bottom drops out. Once it starts to slide the systems will crash and by the time they are "repaired" there will be no buyers and free falling prices. But if you "invest" in something that doesn't exist run by people you don't know and aren't even sure how it works, simply because everyone is smoking massive amounts of hopium and shooting the price skyward, then you deserve to lose your shirt.
you didn't answer the question...
-
Democrats complained there was not enough time to read the bill.
Democrats voted against the bill, with zero supporting it.
Why should we care if they read something they were never going to vote for no matter what? At least with ACA, the Republicans were working on a bill in the House they could support, but the Senate version is the one that passed without any coordination with the Republicans.
Remember -- not one single Democrat voted to lower your taxes. Not one!
Among other things, that is what pisses me off. There should be a law that Congress and the Senate get sanctioned for not doing their job. Look at every odd year, we're talking continuing resolutions to keep things running. In even years, they magically get things figured out so as to not jeopardize their popularity.
-
If you look at the real economic indicators any real growth stopped back in 2007/2008. What we have is a broken an highly unstable system based on sleight of hand where financial manipulators are banking on the fact that we can't understand their complicated graft mechanisms. They got us where they want us because most people can't bring themselves to face the reality that we already have our big toe in another depression. You can hold your nose and sing Hail to The Chief, but sooner or later our stool is going to get kicked.
Agree. The entire world's monetary system is just a big Ponzi scheme that people have tried to make so complicated that it seems too complicated to understand. The reality is that it is just as feeble and dumb as common sense would indicate.
-
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/20793/Who-Gets-a-Tax-Cut-Under-the-Tax-Cuts-and-Jobs-Act.aspx
To help provide a sense of how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act would impact real taxpayers, we’ve run the taxes of eight example households. Each sample taxpayer has realistic characteristics to show how the individual income tax provisions of the bill would impact individuals and families across the income spectrum. Our results indicate a reduction in tax liability for every scenario we estimated, with some of the largest changes in after-tax income accruing to moderate-income families with children.
Individual income taxes are only one component of the proposed Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and changes to business taxation will have a significant impact on wages and economic growth. Still, sometimes it’s helpful to drill down on one component of reform, and, as these sample taxpayers demonstrate, most taxpayers across the spectrum experience lower tax bills under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, albeit temporarily.
(https://files.taxfoundation.org/20171219111457/FINAL-TCJA-Filers-Chart.png)
-
Try out this calculator:
http://taxplancalculator.com/
-
you didn't answer the question...
Was it too much to assume he has a better memory than a goldfish?
-
changes to business taxation will have a significant impact on wages and economic growth.
The changes are (happening right now) that companies buy back more of their own stock and invest in speculative bubbles that continue the cycle of robbing industry of productive capital. Who wants to invest in building cars that nobody's buying when you can make 3000% gains on the latest faith-based craze?
Meanwhile wages stagnate, people are laid off, and industry suffers because Henry Ford's employees can no longer afford the cars that they make.
Trickle down is a fiction. More over it's results are reliably disastrous.
-
DAMN THAT FAKE TRICKLE-DOWN!!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
JUST IN: AT&T announces it will "pay a special $1,000 bonus to more than 200,000
AT&T U.S. employees" due to tax reform passage and will also increase US capital
spending by $1 billion.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/20/tax-reform-reaction-att-is-giving-bonuses-to-200000-employees.html
-
(https://i.redd.it/g6rgbzl9arqy.jpg)
-
Our State Dems should be helping us by lowering our taxes instead of pointing fingers about how this tax plan is going to negatively affect us. Since this caps out local taxes at 10K wouldn't it help us if the State lowered taxes too?
-
Try out this calculator:
http://taxplancalculator.com/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/12/17/upshot/tax-calculator.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/business/tax-bill-calculator/?utm_term=.0d55bf3b9e1f
-
Four more companies are following in AT&T's footsteps, including one raising their minimum wage to $15/hour.
Such greedy, uncaring capitalists!!!! Why aren't they using those tax savings to buy back their stock?? :rofl:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/24926/american-businesses-announce-bonuses-employees-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=062316-news&utm_campaign=dwbrand
-
Just before the vote, Rosie O'Donnell went hog wild and committed not one, but two, federal crimes on Twitter. Attempting to bribe elected officials is a big no-no!
(https://i.imgur.com/YOrVdzz.png)
-
Our State Dems should be helping us by lowering our taxes instead of pointing fingers about how this tax plan is going to negatively affect us. Since this caps out local taxes at 10K wouldn't it help us if the State lowered taxes too?
Nope, they'll do the opposite, raise taxes. Then they will blame it on Trump and the republicans, and the useful idiots will believe it... Sad but true. Many people actually think the repulicans just RAISED their taxes!
-
Just before the vote, Rosie O'Donnell went hog wild and committed not one, but two, federal crimes on Twitter. Attempting to bribe elected officials is a big no-no!
(https://i.imgur.com/YOrVdzz.png)
if what Rosie did was true - What hypocrites about unfair taxes about the rich - they are rich!
-
Our State Dems should be helping us by lowering our taxes instead of pointing fingers about how this tax plan is going to negatively affect us. Since this caps out local taxes at 10K wouldn't it help us if the State lowered taxes too?
Of course it will help! Any tax relief will help us. Which is why this tax reform bill is good for almost everyone. I read the non partisan analysis of the tax reform bill and they stated it will help almost everyone. I itemize and I thought they were going to delete some of my deductions. But it turns out in the final bill that most of the current deductions remain or were changed in some way. I'm not into making predictions, but I can see how this bill could stimulate the economy and put more money in EVERYONE'S hands either directly or indirectly.
-
and of course - the left media defends Rosie and says it conservatives that blame
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rosie-o-donnell-faces-backlash-offering-pay-gop-senators-article-1.3710886 (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/rosie-o-donnell-faces-backlash-offering-pay-gop-senators-article-1.3710886)
"But Rebecca Roiphe, a New York Law School professor, said the word “corruptly” is the strongest one in the rule, which O’Donnell didn’t display in the tweets."
no you idiots its call the fucking law
-
So now that the tax bill is out of tbe way, can Congress get working on a national CCW law please.
-
you didn't answer the question...
Don't bother Mac. I asked a direct question. He will never give us a direct answer. :sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:
-
It just occurred to me that you might actually not know what I'm talking about.
http://fortune.com/2017/03/10/donald-trump-jobs-report-phony-fake/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/10/19-times-trump-called-the-jobs-numbers-fake-before-they-made-him-look-good/?utm_term=.17a2342b0de0
And it's wonderful some companies are giving kickbacks to employees, just like it's wonderful that ISPs haven't throttled the net to hell yet. Doesn't change the overall graveness of the situation. Just means they understand the boiling frog principal requires turning up the heat gradually.
Our manufacturing jobs didn't walk across the border the day after NAFTA was passed. That would be kind of obvious.
-
if what Rosie did was true - What hypocrites about unfair taxes about the rich - they are rich!
There's no "if". Here's the link to the tweet on her Twitter feed. I took that snapshot directly from there.
https://twitter.com/Rosie/status/943321322200944641
And, yes, the elite Hollywood idiots always exclude themselves from "the rich" because they have much purer motives than just money. They're ARTISTS! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Since this bill passed, now is the perfect time to become a small business owner, entrepreneurial, MLM, or anything of that sort because of all the tax breaks/ incentives.
-
Since this bill passed, now is the perfect time to become a small business owner, entrepreneurial, MLM, or anything of that sort because of all the tax breaks/ incentives.
It's good for me right now, no doubt about it. I just don't like it because it's horrible for everyone in the long run.
Talking with non-American friend today and she told me the international press is treating this quite different than our American counterparts who focus on what the tax cuts mean to us individually.
The rest of the world is wondering how we are going to pay our bills, and considering if it makes sense to do business with us any more now that we have checked out of reality.
-
It's good for me right now, no doubt about it. I just don't like it because it's horrible for everyone in the long run.
Talking with non-American friend today and she told me the international press is treating this quite different than our American counterparts who focus on what the tax cuts mean to us individually.
The rest of the world is wondering how we are going to pay our bills, and considering if it makes sense to do business with us any more now that we have checked out of reality.
Just rember in the UK for example you have a 20% tax rate on income of 11-45k No such thing as a tax return (if your an employee) On top of that you pay VAT (value added tax) which is like a sales tax on everything (some things like cigarettes, fuel, alcohol ect have additional VAT added) of 20%.
That means your paying 40% in taxes. And the country is still ran at a deficit.
-
The rest of the world is wondering how we are going to pay our bills, and considering if it makes sense to do business with us any more now that we have checked out of reality.
they are just starting wondering now?
-
It just occurred to me that you might actually not know what I'm talking about.
yet it has not occurred to you that you still have not answered the question...
-
they are just starting wondering now?
True. Obama was the first President to ever have our nation's credit rating downgraded -- not only once, but twice. And that was on top of raising the tax rates for corporations.
When corporations owe more in government taxes, it's the consumers who wind up paying it, right?
-
yet it has not occurred to you that you still have not answered the question...
Did you see the links? Candidate Trump was outraged about fake economic data. President Trump enjoys the convenience. Same difference as last administration, except Trump is way more entertaining.
-
True. Obama was the first President to ever have our nation's credit rating downgraded -- not only once, but twice. And that was on top of raising the tax rates for corporations.
When corporations owe more in government taxes, it's the consumers who wind up paying it, right?
Corporate taxation was already at historical lows even before this legislation passed. According to boardroom logic we should be living in a paradise already. Instead we have crumbling infrastructure, massive unemployment, lousy education, massive deficits, and a free fall in the standard of living. The news is written by people who are paid to not look out the window and see what's really going on.
-
Did you see the links? Candidate Trump was outraged about fake economic data. President Trump enjoys the convenience. Same difference as last administration, except Trump is way more entertaining.
you brought up fake economic data, the question was about your statement about "real economic data"
-
you brought up fake economic data, the question was about your statement about "real economic data"
Ok I see. Well a quick check shows Google's new "fake news" algorithms have buried the sites I remember. But I'd start with stuff like student loan defaults, domestic violence rates, overdoses, suicides, school shootings, bridge failure rates (infrastructure) and all the other happy stuff that goes along with a Main Street in serious trouble.
-
student loan defaults, domestic violence rates, overdoses, suicides, school shootings, bridge failure rates (infrastructure) and all the other happy stuff that goes along with a Main Street in serious trouble.
oh
sorry I asked...
-
It's good for me right now, no doubt about it. I just don't like it because it's horrible for everyone in the long run.
Talking with non-American friend today and she told me the international press is treating this quite different than our American counterparts who focus on what the tax cuts mean to us individually.
The rest of the world is wondering how we are going to pay our bills, and considering if it makes sense to do business with us any more now that we have checked out of reality.
Actually, the rest of the world is wondering how many companies will be relocating/returning to America now. I've read some EU countries labeling the new tax reform as "unfair".
Considering how much the last few administrations have catered to the globalist agenda with NAFTA and so forth, they should be worried now. Time for the US to take back our economy.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/3FLmWPp.png)
-
oh
sorry I asked...
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
There's political-based reality and reality-based reality. Careful which one you tie your horses to.
I'm sure you have reasons that things are getting worse like Hollywood, videogames, transgender bathrooms, the rapture, etc.
But when there's an army of homeless growing outside your door and you hear nothing but smug optimism from so-called economists it should set off some warning alarms.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/3FLmWPp.png)
must be fake news...
-
(https://i.imgur.com/3FLmWPp.png)
Obamacare gave affordable health insurance to thousands of people who had no access, then rates skyrocketed.
NAFTA boosted trade with Mexico and Canada before it ripped a hole in our manufacturing sector.
What you are witnessing is a public relations campaign, and a cynical drop in the bucket compared to the windfall those companies are about to rake in.
-
Both sides claiming ignorance of the others. Funny thing is that most liberals that I see posting negative things haven't really dug into the tax code. Personally, I don't know much about it at this point. However, I have a college classmate that is in finance and he's pretty liberal (still lives in BLUE Seattle). He looked into it himself and he sees benefits and savings for him and his family. He's usually pretty left leaning, but he's been posting corrections on many posts that he would normally agree with. You should see how he gets attacked, even from his Seattle friends. When asked if they looked into the facts for themselves, many have not.
-
Obamacare gave affordable health insurance to thousands of people who had no access, then rates skyrocketed.
NAFTA boosted trade with Mexico and Canada before it ripped a hole in our manufacturing sector.
What you are witnessing is a public relations campaign, and a cynical drop in the bucket compared to the windfall those companies are about to rake in.
Just curious from your past posts. Are you for Obamacare?
-
Just curious from your past posts. Are you for Obamacare?
No. Without a government plan to keep costs in control it's just a bait-and-switch ruse to increase profits. The insurance companies wrote it after all, and they made damn sure socialized medicine had not seat at the table despite overwhelming popularity among working class Americans. Now the second stage of the trap is sprung and the individual mandate is going away, meaning costs go up even more. So much for those $1000 bonuses.
And just in case you don't understand why you can buy the same drugs and get the same services for a fraction of the price across any border: The false-economy now depends on inflated dysfunctional healthcare. Bring costs under control now and the hit to GDP would be so hard that all the other "shaky legs" propping up the Dollar like student loans, housing bubbles, and financial services would break as well.
-
To me, any kind of tax plan will not please 100% of the nation. There are people who will end up getting screwed. I know I got screwed for the ACA when it took place. My premium went up 150% in 2 years. Prior to that for the previous 5 years, it was only increasing about 5-10%.
The main reason why I like the plan is because it's Trump keeping his promise and saying F-U to the dems.
-
Both sides claiming ignorance of the others. Funny thing is that most liberals that I see posting negative things haven't really dug into the tax code. Personally, I don't know much about it at this point. However, I have a college classmate that is in finance and he's pretty liberal (still lives in BLUE Seattle). He looked into it himself and he sees benefits and savings for him and his family. He's usually pretty left leaning, but he's been posting corrections on many posts that he would normally agree with. You should see how he gets attacked, even from his Seattle friends. When asked if they looked into the facts for themselves, many have not.
I've been there myself and decided to cancel most social media accounts because it's gotten so hostile and senseless since the election. When you point out there are more than two sides to an issue then you get attacked by everyone who's identity and credibility rest on there only being two sides. We like to think of our enemies as our opposites and project all the ugly parts we don't like about ourselves on them. Say something to disrupt that illusion and you automatically get stuffed into the "enemies" bin.
-
I've been there myself and decided to cancel most social media accounts because it's gotten so hostile and senseless since the election. When you point out there are more than two sides to an issue then you get attacked by everyone who's identity and credibility rest on there only being two sides. We like to think of our enemies as our opposites and project all the ugly parts we don't like about ourselves on them. Say something to disrupt that illusion and you automatically get stuffed into the "enemies" bin.
I hear ya. I hate politics in general and stay FAR away from that for the most part. Sure I'll chime in here and there where I think people are WAY off base, but usually only a little quip to point out their hypocrisy, irrational thought (where's Omni?), etc.
Yeah, we do tend to think of our enemies as opposites. However, I sometimes to stop to think whether my views are sort of in "blinder mode". Something I wish is that others try to see other points of view from time to time. Not that they agree with it, but to take the time to try to understand the viewpoint. You can sometimes learn a lot, or confirm that you are 180 degrees from their thinking. But at least you understand, or tried to, understand where they are coming from.
Like the discussion I had about whether or not free college was a good idea. One of my best friend's brother was ALL for it. Why? Because his kids would benefit from it and he himself didn't go to college because he didn't have grades. So he also viewed it as an opportunity that he could have benefitted from. But I did get him to concede that he was only for that as long as the person in school was actually working toward graduating as opposed to being a career student.
-
Yeah at first I thought Macsak was just being a dick, but he did catch me giving evidence for what I remembered saying rather than what I actually wrote. Taking a step back and actually attempting to listen to him helped me dig a little deeper and refine my point. It's clear we don't agree on this particular subject but at least now there's a tiny sliver of mutual respect that we might be able to improve on when it comes to other issues in the future. Not sure if that's how it's supposed to work but it's much better than the usual mud slinging that people have mistakenly labeled as debate recently.
-
Yeah at first I thought Macsak was just being a dick, but he did catch me giving evidence for what I remembered saying rather than what I actually wrote. Taking a step back and actually attempting to listen to him helped me dig a little deeper and refine my point. It's clear we don't agree on this particular subject but at least now there's a tiny sliver of mutual respect that we might be able to improve on when it comes to other issues in the future. Not sure if that's how it's supposed to work but it's much better than the usual mud slinging that people have mistakenly labeled as debate recently.
:thumbsup:
you'd be surprised how much i agree with your point about things being worse than most in the general public believe (because that's how it's presented in MSM)
:worship:
-
No. Without a government plan to keep costs in control it's just a bait-and-switch ruse to increase profits. The insurance companies wrote it after all, and they made damn sure socialized medicine had not seat at the table despite overwhelming popularity among working class Americans. Now the second stage of the trap is sprung and the individual mandate is going away, meaning costs go up even more. So much for those $1000 bonuses.
And just in case you don't understand why you can buy the same drugs and get the same services for a fraction of the price across any border: The false-economy now depends on inflated dysfunctional healthcare. Bring costs under control now and the hit to GDP would be so hard that all the other "shaky legs" propping up the Dollar like student loans, housing bubbles, and financial services would break as well.
No. The reality (since you like that context) is you CAN NOT buy drugs from across the Canadian border for less because the DEMOCRATS voted against that bill this year to allow it.
These would be the same DEMOCRATS who voted against the current tax reform bill to lower your taxes while professing to be the champions of the low and middle classes.
-
No. The reality (since you like that context) is you CAN NOT buy drugs from across the Canadian border for less because the DEMOCRATS voted against that bill this year to allow it.
These would be the same DEMOCRATS who voted against the current tax reform bill to lower your taxes while professing to be the champions of the low and middle classes.
You also can't go across the border for FREE medical care also. Anti-Trump activist Michael Moore made a film called Sicko that talked about health care. There was 1 girl who lived in Minnesota and would go across to Canada for free health care. She did have the proper documents (she married a Kanuk) that showed she's a Canada resident, but some facilities questioned her, so she left.
Also his relatives who live in Canada refused to be interviewed on US soil in case they got hurt. So he had to go there to interview them. They didn't want an expensive hospital bill. So if anti-Trump filmmaker showed this, then there has to be some weight to it.
-
You also can't go across the border for FREE medical care also. Anti-Trump activist Michael Moore made a film called Sicko that talked about health care. There was 1 girl who lived in Minnesota and would go across to Canada for free health care. She did have the proper documents (she married a Kanuk) that showed she's a Canada resident, but some facilities questioned her, so she left.
Also his relatives who live in Canada refused to be interviewed on US soil in case they got hurt. So he had to go there to interview them. They didn't want an expensive hospital bill. So if anti-Trump filmmaker showed this, then there has to be some weight to it.
Everything Michael Moore does has a lot of WEIGHT to it! :rofl:
(https://i.imgur.com/cnz85aa.jpg)
-
It's true if YOU or I tried to walk across the border looking for a discount they wouldn't allow it. But the medical expenses (including taxation) of Canadian citizens are exponentially lower because they have costs under control.
When I went to NZ and got some stitches re-done they wouldn't let me use their national health service for free because I injured myself before entering the country. Cost me $150. When I got a particularly nasty piece of vana pulled out of my foot a few months back at a local ER the bill was $1500 and remained above $300 after insurance. For some lady with a half a medical degree, a scalpel, some tweezers, and a bit of gauze. That's what I call a racket.
An appropriate name might be Child Molester Politics:
Free candy up front, but the van ride goes to very dark places.
-
It's true if YOU or I tried to walk across the border looking for a discount they wouldn't allow it. But the medical expenses (including taxation) of Canadian citizens are exponentially lower because they have costs under control.
When I went to NZ and got some stitches re-done they wouldn't let me use their national health service for free because I injured myself before entering the country. Cost me $150. When I got a particularly nasty piece of vana pulled out of my foot a few months back at a local ER the bill was $1500 and remained above $300 after insurance. For some lady with a half a medical degree, a scalpel, some tweezers, and a bit of gauze. That's what I call a racket.
An appropriate name might be Child Molester Politics:
Free candy up front, but the van ride goes to very dark places.
Don't take my word for it ...
Unlike in the United Kingdom, where health care is socialized and hospitals are run by the National Health Service,
in Canada health care is technically delivered privately, although given the Kafkaesque regulations and restrictions
that govern it, the system is by no means market-based. In fact, Canada’s government-controlled health-care system
has become more restrictive than communist China’s.
Debates about health-care policy typically revolve around three key metrics: universality, affordability, and quality.
Canada passes the first test with flying colors: Every resident of the country is insured under the CHA, with
covered procedures free at the point of delivery. While medical providers are independent from the federal
government, they are compelled to accept CHA insurance —and nothing else — by a prohibition on accepting
payments outside the national-insurance scheme so long as they wish to continue accepting federal health-transfer
funds. The spigot of money from Ottawa thus ensures a de facto government monopoly in the health-insurance market.
The CHA provides and ensures universal coverage from the top down. In Canada, the government determines what
procedures are medically necessary. Bureaucrats, not doctors, decide which procedures and treatments are covered
under the CHA — based on data and statistics rather than on the needs of patients. While private insurance does exist —
an OECD report found that 75 percent of Canadians have supplementary insurance — it applies only to procedures
and services that fall outside the CHA — including dental work, optometric care, and pharmaceutical drugs.
When it comes to affordability, the Canadian system also passes, if just barely. Canadians pay for health insurance
through their taxes; most never see a medical bill. But that doesn’t mean the system is affordable. Au contraire, it relies
almost entirely on current taxpayers to subsidize the disproportionately large health-care needs of elderly Canadians
in their final few years of life. Rather than pre-funding the system to deal with the coming tsunami of aging Baby Boomers,
Canada’s provincial governments pay and borrow as they go — and rank among the most indebted sub-sovereign
borrowers in the world. According to Don Drummond, an economist appointed by Ontario’s Liberal government to
help fix its finances, Canada’s largest province is projected to see health-care costs soar to the point where they will
consume 80 percent of the entire provincial budget by 2030, up from 46 percent in 2010.
In the meantime, to address scarcity in the health-care system, government central planners ration care and cap the
number of procedures offered in a given year, leading to queues, longer wait times, and a deterioration in the quality of care.
Speaking of which...
When it comes to the final metric, quality of care, Canada lags behind most other developed Western nations. A 2014 report
by the Commonwealth Fund ranked Canada tenth out of eleven wealthy countries (ahead of only the United States) in
health-care quality, and dead last in timeliness of care. The report showed that 29 percent of adult Canadians who fell ill
and needed to see a specialist waited two months or longer, and 18 percent waited four months or longer, compared with
6 percent and 7 percent of Americans, respectively.
Canada’s quality of care is poor, and it continues to deteriorate in the face of a looming fiscal crunch and further rationing.
In Canada’s single-payer system, citizens cannot pay directly for procedures, and they cannot purchase private insurance
to cover services provided by the CHA. They must instead wait in line or seek health-care services outside the country.
The System’s Mysteriously Enduring Popularity
Canadian health-care outcomes are relatively poor, and yet the state-controlled system is beloved by Canadians. A 2012 poll
by Leger Marketing in Montreal found that 94 percent of Canadians consider universal health care “an important source of
collective pride.” The reasons for this are complicated.
First, there is a well-propagated, pernicious myth that Canadians are pioneers in health care, and that access to care is a
basic human right. The universality of the system has become a key part of Canada’s national identity, thanks in no small
part to propagandists who ignore the widespread suffering wrought by the CHA in order to paint the country as some sort of
socialist utopia.
Second, the system’s costs are hidden. Many Canadians — and many progressives abroad — like to think that health care is “free”
in Canada, when in fact, Canadian taxpayers pay, on average, $10,500 per year for all their health-care needs. Canadians
simply have no concept of how much the services they consume cost, since the CHA prohibits providers from ever showing patients a bill.
Finally, there is the fact that Canada’s single-payer system is made possible only by an accident of geography: It is propped up
by the U.S. health-care industry next door, which provides a parallel private system for very sick and very rich Canadians while acting
as the driving force for global medical innovation.
Ultimately, the antidote for Canada’s poor health outcomes and long wait times has been for Canadians to seek care elsewhere.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446689/canadas-single-payer-health-care-system-cautionary-tale
-
1) Yeah at first I thought Macsak was just being a dick, but he did catch me giving evidence for what I remembered saying rather than what I actually wrote. 2) Taking a step back and actually attempting to listen to him helped me dig a little deeper and refine my point. It's clear we don't agree on this particular subject but at least now there's a tiny sliver of mutual respect that we might be able to improve on when it comes to other issues in the future. Not sure if that's how it's supposed to work but it's much better than the usual mud slinging that people have mistakenly labeled as debate recently.
1) Who's saying is isn't. . . :P :rofl:
2) Yup. I'm often like that with people. I might not agree with them, but when I point out things that are not logical or irrational in their thought process, I generally am met with a more stand-offish response. When they realize that I'm not intending to pick on them and in a way trying to understand their point and to also help them maybe see things in a different (or corrected) light, then the tone changes.
And yes, I wish the mutual respect thing was more common. On all sides really. I don't really care if people agree with me, but many don't even take the time to hear me out. They are only listening to what I am saying/writing and looking for things to counter as opposed to listening, digesting and then seeing how to respond. That said, I feel that so many tend to go with whatever the MSM, their trusted friend/advisor, etc tell them and not take the time to look into for themselves and come up with their own view point. One of our true freedoms, which I see so many failing to exercise.
-
:thumbsup:
you'd be surprised how much i agree with your point about things being worse than most in the general public believe (because that's how it's presented in MSM)
:worship:
There you go. Ruining your online image. . . ;D
-
Off topic, but it went there. But whatever happened to those tour busses from WA that went over the border into Vancouver for drugs? It was common when I lived in WA, but it's been over 10 years ago.
-
Off topic, but it went there. But whatever happened to those tour busses from WA that went over the border into Vancouver for drugs? It was common when I lived in WA, but it's been over 10 years ago.
Drugs? You'll have to be more specific ... :geekdanc:
-
Drugs? You'll have to be more specific ... :geekdanc:
Prescription/legal
Not the whacky tobaccy and others. That was easy enough to get in Seattle. Or so I was told. . .
-
Prescription/legal
Not the whacky tobaccy and others. That was easy enough to get in Seattle. Or so I was told. . .
From a few Google results, it appears the general answer is Canadian pharmacists will only fill a prescription signed by a Canadian doctor.
It's also against US federal law to buy pharmaceuticals outside the US. That's why the Republicans put a bill up for a vote to allow buying from Canada.
Buying Prescription Drugs From Canada: Legal or Illegal?
But is it legal to buy medications from Canadian pharmacies?
The answer is, technically no, but U.S. officials are allowing it to happen.
Under the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987, it is illegal for anyone other than the original manufacturer to bring prescription drugs into the country. However, federal officials have decided to exercise "enforcement discretion" in dealing with prescription drugs brought across the border, provided the drugs are not narcotics or other controlled substances. This means that as long as a person brings back no more than a three-month supply for personal use, border officials generally look the other way, Thomas McGinnis, director of pharmacy affairs for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in March 2001. Patients generally may order refills in amounts up to a three-month supply without interference.
https://www.elderlawanswers.com/buying-prescription-drugs-from-canada-legal-or-illegal-1204
-
It's true if YOU or I tried to walk across the border looking for a discount they wouldn't allow it. But the medical expenses (including taxation) of Canadian citizens are exponentially lower because they have costs under control.
When I went to NZ and got some stitches re-done they wouldn't let me use their national health service for free because I injured myself before entering the country. Cost me $150. When I got a particularly nasty piece of vana pulled out of my foot a few months back at a local ER the bill was $1500 and remained above $300 after insurance. For some lady with a half a medical degree, a scalpel, some tweezers, and a bit of gauze. That's what I call a racket.
An appropriate name might be Child Molester Politics:
Free candy up front, but the van ride goes to very dark places.
Don't IV's cost only $2 to make, but the hospital charges you $600?
-
When I needed some stitches in my hand a few years back, I got the bill and the x-ray was something like $30 and the cost of the physician to do the stitches was something like $500! I swear the stitches took like 5 minute. And the damn physician didn't even numb the entire area. :grrr:
Anyways, that disparity in the charge for what amounted to about 10 minute of work max being $500 always stuck with me.
I also have friends in the pharma business, both pharmacists and sales side. You wouldn't believe the markup on some of the meds! I mean yeah, I get the rules and how much the drug companies invest into developing the drugs and that much of that is losses by the drug companies over time, but dayum.
-
All this discussion of drugs, doctor bills and hospital bills is depressing me. :( :( :(
I have not received the hospital bill from my wife's last visit and her time in the physical rehab center. Three total weeks. Those are going to be the biggies. :grrr: :grrr: :grrr:
Already got the two ambulance ride bills at $1,200 each. One ride was 6 miles and the other was 8 miles. I have only received one of the two emergency room visits. That one was $1,500.
I know all these bills are due to arrive any day. Makes me sick just thinking about it...
-
All this discussion of drugs, doctor bills and hospital bills is depressing me. :( :( :(
I have not received the hospital bill from my wife's last visit and her time in the physical rehab center. Three total weeks. Those are going to be the biggies. :grrr: :grrr: :grrr:
Already got the two ambulance ride bills at $1,200 each. One ride was 6 miles and the other was 8 miles. I have only received one of the two emergency room visits. That one was $1,500.
I know all these bills are due to arrive any day. Makes me sick just thinking about it...
Dayum Inspector. . . :(
I recall when my dad was in rehab a while back. I saw the bill when it came in. Thankfully he retired from C&C HNL and has dual coverage. Anyways, I was going through the bill and just for REHAB, not the hospital stay before that, I saw things adding up to well into the 5 digits. Then I got to the amount owed and it was something like $2. I looked back and it was a box of Kleenex that I recall my dad requesting one night. It made me laugh and strangely I have always remembered that.
Anyways, hoping for better health for your wife AND YOU AS WELL! Very important to take care of your physical and mental health!
-
Don't IV's cost only $2 to make, but the hospital charges you $600?
If you ever read the report on the $6 Tylenol, it explains how the hospitals changed their accounting to assign overhead charges to every direct billing item they could.
You know how the garages now charge a hazardous material disposal fee, rag and miscellaneous supplies fee, etc? Imagine if they billed like hospitals. Those charges would be distributed according to what it took to deliver the service/part installation. They would also include profit to pay for electricity, tools, building maintenance, insurance, etc. Every overhead cost would be apportioned and assigned to everything you use/receive.
It's the concept hospitals use. For an IV, you're not just buying the IV unless you are stabbing yourself with the needle, using your own alcohol wipes, buying the needle, tubing and stand, performing the procedure in your house, and so on.
Military commissaries tack a surcharge onto every purchase to pay for their overhead costs, so the actual cost of the products can be easily compared to costs in other stores. But that OH cost is always there, whether they itemize it separately or add it to the cost of each item as a mark-up.
-
Dayum Inspector. . . :(
I recall when my dad was in rehab a while back. I saw the bill when it came in. Thankfully he retired from C&C HNL and has dual coverage. Anyways, I was going through the bill and just for REHAB, not the hospital stay before that, I saw things adding up to well into the 5 digits. Then I got to the amount owed and it was something like $2. I looked back and it was a box of Kleenex that I recall my dad requesting one night. It made me laugh and strangely I have always remembered that.
Anyways, hoping for better health for your wife AND YOU AS WELL! Very important to take care of your physical and mental health!
Thanks drck!
I remember when wife #2 was in the hospital. We had double coverage and I got a bill for $5. When her best friend came to visit she grabbed a rubber glove, blew it up like a balloon and used a sharpie to draw a face on it. Yeah, they charged me $5 for the one glove.
-
Thanks drck!
I remember when wife #2 was in the hospital. We had double coverage and I got a bill for $5. When her best friend came to visit she grabbed a rubber glove, blew it up like a balloon and used a sharpie to draw a face on it. Yeah, they charged me $5 for the one glove.
Really? :grrr:
Seeing as how much they waste, that's ridonkulous!
-
Really? :grrr:
Seeing as how much they waste, that's ridonkulous!
She was in for gall bladder removal (ala the old way where they cut half around your stomach) for a week and all I had to pay for was that damn glove. I just paid it.
-
She was in for gall bladder removal (ala the old way where they cut half around your stomach) for a week and all I had to pay for was that damn glove. I just paid it.
Yeah, I know. . . :thumbsup:
-
(https://i.imgur.com/lkQKn5w.png?1)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/SzUsmHm.jpg)
-
There are a couple reasons. When poor people get money they spend it, and when rich people get money they invest it. The former promotes healthy economic activity while the latter ties up wealth in speculative bubbles like Bitcoin, real estate, art, etc. Henry Ford, for all his faults, understood the importance of paying his employees enough to buy his cars. Today's wealthy are so consumed by greed that they are undermining the social fabric on which their wealth depends.
And many of them do accept welfare that dwarfs social services through juicy subsidies and regulatory capture. What is the military industrial complex after all than welfare for weapons manufacturers?
Etc., etc., etc. from the same poster.
Yeah,yeah yeah. All kinds of bad stuff is going to happen... so you say. Anyone espousing the view of some version of "the end of the economy" just put your money where your mouth is and give us the timeline of exactly what is going to happen when, so we can see if your claims turn out to be true or false. Or would you (for some reason... easy to guess) rather just make apocalyptic generic predictions based upon ideological propaganda viewpoints while providing no ability at all to test the validity of your claims? Or is it like "global cooling" "global warming" "climate change" and none of us will know if it is true or not because the forecast is for the year 2100? But it's bad, really bad, and we need the government to intervene immediately and take control of the situation... especially given the government track record of running things efficiently and without any corruption or waste.
-
"The highly paid journalists at NBC and MSNBC who keep blasting President Trump’s tax reforms won’t have to wait for their rates to go down to benefit, since parent company Comcast likes the plan so much it is sending out $1,000 checks to employees.
Comcast announced on Thursday that it would award special $1,000 bonuses to over one hundred thousand employees because of the passage of tax reform and the FCC's action on broadband.
"The cable company’s generosity presumably extends to seven- and eight-figure stars, who have been railing nonstop against the landmark GOP reform as benefiting the rich at the expense of the poor.
Officials at NBC News and MSNBC declined to say if news stars like Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O’Donnell and Chris Matthews would try to make it up to tax policy “victims” by redistributing their $1,000 windfalls.
So, will the anti-Trump newsers pocket the cash?
“The tax bill does, indeed, raise some dilemmas for the MSNBC commentators, now that the newly passed tax bill will directly benefit their wallets. But I say they should go ahead and take the Comcast cash and then donate it to a charity that can help low income workers. That provides some degree of moral consistency for the MSNBC on-air talent who condemned the tax plan as a giveaway to the rich, an economic class that would surely include most of them,” media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News.
“That’s a lot of money,” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said on “Morning Joe” Friday morning when discussing the bonuses that several companies are handing out."
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2017/12/22/nbc-news-msnbc-hosts-could-receive-cash-windfalls-when-trump-signs-tax-reform-love-to-hate.html
-
The thing is I'm a fiscal conservative. This is what we sound like.
I get where you are coming from about the media being full of crap. Just watched a couple seconds of The View where the ladies advocated giving Franken the benefit of the doubt while Moore should be dragged out of his house and beaten with sticks. They are so full of it's coming out of their ears, and I'm surprised they haven't blamed the tax cuts on Russia just yet.
Doesn't change the point that this is a terrible policy that sells out future generations and sends our debt back into trillions at a time when the BRICS are creating increasingly attractive alternative currencies and it's obvious from the latest UN embarrassment that we've lost our prestige. From an outsider's perspective investing in or doing business with the United States just got a whole lot riskier.
-
The thing is I'm a fiscal conservative. This is what we sound like.
I get where you are coming from about the media being full of crap. Just watched a couple seconds of The View where the ladies advocated giving Franken the benefit of the doubt while Moore should be dragged out of his house and beaten with sticks. They are so full of it's coming out of their ears, and I'm surprised they haven't blamed the tax cuts on Russia just yet.
Doesn't change the point that this is a terrible policy that sells out future generations and sends our debt back into trillions at a time when the BRICS are creating increasingly attractive alternative currencies and it's obvious from the latest UN embarrassment that we've lost our prestige. From an outsider's perspective investing in or doing business with the United States just got a whole lot riskier.
It's simple. We can't pay off ANY of the debt unless there is positive and significant economic growth.
Obama spent TRILLIONS of our debt on economic stimulus programs that did nothing but pay off his big donors and unions (repeating myself?).
Trump knows you have to spend money to make money, but rather than the government decide which companies to bail out, he's bailing out the whole country.
For every problem, there is a process to find the optimum solution. You look at possible alternatives, pick the one with the best chance of success, then you reevaluate and make changes if needed.
This tax bill will have deeply beneficial results to the economy in the short term. That doesn't mean it's the last tax reform bill we will ever see. I can foresee, once the economy is hitting 5% growth, there could be a need for further adjustments.
We have to get there first. Continuing with the Democrat's tax & spend policies is not the answer. They never have been. Government doesn't drive the economy. It creates the playing field & the economic rules to play by. It's up to the private sector to create the jobs, invest in the economy, and hit that 5% GDP growth.
-
It's never worked like that before, but I suppose there's a first time for everything.
-
It's never worked like that before, but I suppose there's a first time for everything.
It's always worked like that. No society has ever taxed themselves into prosperity. It's a fact.
-
It's always worked like that. No society has ever taxed themselves into prosperity. It's a fact.
I could be wrong (no evidence of that so far), but I think attempting to determine "facts" with a person who quotes Karl Marx with every post may be losing proposition.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/KAsh46w.jpg)
-
Well you could prove me wrong and find a historical example of massive tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. They are easy to find. Just look up recessions/depressions and work your way back a coupe of years.
And re: Marx just because his utopian model of a worker-owned state reliably cranks out brutal dictatorships doesn't mean his criticisms of unregulated capitalism weren't on point. You should read what he has to say about that some time. What if his ideas have been misrepresented and his name turned into a curse word designed to get you to stop thinking and trigger an angry emotional reaction? I'm sure his quote opposing gun control took most people on this page by surprise.
-
Well you could prove me wrong and find a historical example of massive tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy. They are easy to find. Just look up recessions/depressions and work your way back a coupe of years.
And re: Marx just because his utopian model of a worker-owned state reliably cranks out brutal dictatorships doesn't mean his criticisms of unregulated capitalism weren't on point. You should read what he has to say about that some time. What if his ideas have been misrepresented and his name turned into a curse word designed to get you to stop thinking and trigger an angry emotional reaction? I'm sure his quote opposing gun control took most people on this page by surprise.
Name one country that has used Marx's teachings to create a better, more productive society and economy. Just one.
You argue maybe the opposition is "designed to get you to stop thinking and trigger an angry emotional reaction?" You just illustrated the problem with Socialism. It only works in theory. Only academicians can argue for Socialism, because the application of it in real life always leads to one thing -- the oppression of the workers due to lower productivity facilitated by a norm that breads an unmotivated, resentful public. Meanwhile, the people in charge of the central planning and control are living it up on the "profits" the government owned and controlled businesses eek out.
Morally, Socialism tried to sell itself as a utopian ideal, where we are all "our brothers' keepers." In reality, the utopia fails to materialize, because individual freedom is quashed. Capitalism is the most moral economic system we know of, because it gives people the freedom to participate to the level at which they are capable, and to either accept or reject the prices of goods and services as they choose.
-
Lol @5% growth. Anyone who wants to put money on that let me know.
Trump is just another politician telling people what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear. We are a country with a massive debt overhang that cannot be serviced in any semblance of a normal interest rate environment. We have pulled all future growth forward via massive quantitative easing, which will leave a vacuum behind it.
Look to Japan if you want to see where we are headed. No signs of inflation other than the massive asset bubbles we've created. We are near full employment, so let me ask this, where is the supposed wage inflation that accompanies such a scenario?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Don't know if anybody remembers taking Economics, but borrowing their terms might help explain the point. The wealthy can choose to spend their money or not, so their demand for goods and services is elastic. Poor people have trouble meeting all their expenses, which means their demand is inelastic. Therefore if you want a guaranteed stimulation of the economy vs. hoping people don't sit on their loot and refuse to play ball it would make much more sense to have a $15 national minimum wage hike. That comes with it's own set of problems, but by definition there are no easy answers when you are facing but a predicament (end of empire and the resulting collective decline in our standard of living).
And the United states is a system of mixed capitalism and socialism, because FDR created the New Deal to stop a brewing Communist revolution. Heads were about to roll after the Depression so he gave the ultra wealthy a choice of keeping most of their money or losing everything to the mob. Some of the ultra wealthy still didn't get it and were dragged kicking and screaming into adopting watered down socialist policies. They couldn't understand he was literally saving their lives.
-
Christmas cash: Bank of Hawaii raises minimum wage, awards $1,000 bonuses
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37130794/christmas-cash-bank-of-hawaii-raises-minimum-wage-awards-1000-bonuses
-
Name one country that has used Marx's teachings to create a better, more productive society and economy. Just one.
China
-
China
:rofl: x infinity
-
:rofl: x infinity
I find your response amusing considering it is many Chinese nationals, who have acquired their weath from commerical activites based on China's version of a Marxist based economy, who are buying up much of the $1,000,000+ properties here in Hawaii.
-
Here's my take as an individual with a family. I have more of my earned income in my pocket, thus I can save more of it, invest more of it, but more bullshit that is not food/water/housing.
= growing economy = less deficit = better future
Problems come when politicians see a growing economy and use it to blow up spending in the hopes of reelection, on free shit for non earners.
My remedy.... TERM LIMITS
Remove the incesent desire to buy votes for power, then there will be more incentive to balance a budget.
Just my simplistic view, and in my experience simpler the better.
Go back to the Constitution word for word.
America is not broken
-
I find your response amusing considering it is many Chinese nationals, who have acquired their weath from commerical activites based on China's version of a Marxist based economy, who are buying up much of the $1,000,000+ properties here in Hawaii.
FacisizmoCapitalism
-
FacisizmoCapitalism
That's the point. China's economic model has elements of Marxism, Fascism, and Capitalism.
It is nearly impossible to have any pure economic -isms.
-
I find your response amusing considering it is many Chinese nationals, who have acquired their weath from commerical activites based on China's version of a Marxist based economy, who are buying up much of the $1,000,000+ properties here in Hawaii.
You should look up Human Rights in China. While the Centralize economy is doing well for the moment, and they went through a recent period of increasing the standard of living of the majority of workers, That growth rate of 7% is unsustainable. Addidtionally, there is an average inflation rate of 7%, pretty much eliminating any future standard of living increases.
Their legal system, civil liberties such as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of the Internet, freedom of association, freedom of movement, treatment of rural workers, political freedom, executions, torture, and treatment of minorities are all areas that have been lagging behind the economic successes.
So, you're right. China is a good example of a Socialist economy -- it proves my point. It is like all other Socialist countries where those at the top are sharing in the wealth unequally compared to the workers, while the workers are oppressed with their rights taken away in order to keep the state functioning.
:thumbsup:
-
You should look up Human Rights in China. While the Centralize economy is doing well for the moment, and they went through a recent period of increasing the standard of living of the majority of workers, That growth rate of 7% is unsustainable. Addidtionally, there is an average inflation rate of 7%, pretty much eliminating any future standard of living increases.
As for human rights, I have been to China many times and I do not see the police brutality to minorities that I see in the US. Speaking of the inflation rate, the unending printing of money by the US Federal Reserve, likewise, has and is continuing to deteriorate the purchasing power of US consumers.
Their legal system, civil liberties such as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of the Internet, freedom of association, freedom of movement, treatment of rural workers, political freedom, executions, torture, and treatment of minorities are all areas that have been lagging behind the economic successes.
I am not saying I agree how they do things in China, but one should not use their own system to base their criticism of another nation. Moreover, the US Government has too lax policy of illegal immigration, one of the highest rates of incarcerations of minorities, its own illegal record of torture, and ongoing encroachment of the Bill of Rights.
So, you're right. China is a good example of a Socialist economy -- it proves my point. It is like all other Socialist countries where those at the top are sharing in the wealth unequally compared to the workers, while the workers are oppressed with their rights taken away in order to keep the state functioning.
Is what you just described right above been happening to the citizens living in the US, regardless of whatever party was in power for the last few decades?
:thumbsup:
-
This was not a "compare and contrast the US with China" assignment. The assignment was to evaluate China's Social and Economic environments as they relate to the teachings of Marx. I.E. is China the utopia Marx predicted everyone would achieve when living in a Socialist state?
The criticism I stated are NOT based on comparisons with the US. They are based on UN and other World organizations that grade countries on their adherence to standards of human rights and civil liberties. So, you're right in saying we shouldn't base our criticisms on a US-China comparison. And I did not.
-
my family left China for good reasons :thumbsup:
-
my family left China for good reasons :thumbsup:
Too bad.
Maybe you might have been one of the rising Chinese millionaires coming to Hawaii today, from Shenzhen or Shanghai, who are buying one of the many million dollar condos in Kaka'ako. :(
-
Too bad.
Maybe you might have been one of the rising Chinese millionaires coming to Hawaii today, from Shenzhen or Shanghai, who are buying one of the many million dollar condos in Kaka'ako. :(
you assume I haven't :rofl:
-
Speaking of the inflation rate, the unending printing of money by the US Federal Reserve, likewise, has and is continuing to deteriorate the purchasing power of US consumers.
one should not use their own system to base their criticism of another nation.
ummmmm.....
-
I find your response amusing
how do you know he's not :rofl: because your answer is correct?
-
That's the point. China's economic model has elements of Marxism, Fascism, and Capitalism.
It is nearly impossible to have any pure economic -isms.
Fixed it for ya.
Not that it's impossible to set them up as pure examples, but in order to survive more than a few decades they need to abandon utopian ideals and attempt to realistically address our irrational human nature. The Workers, The Party, and Economic Man are all abstractions and inherently flawed.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/aRQaoyM.jpg?1)
-
the tax cut is an exercise in willful blindness. The same no doubt could be said for the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, which predictably led to unprecedented deficits when Republicans as well as Democrats balked at making offsetting budget cuts. Yet at the time a whole band of officials in the White House and the Congress clamored, in some cases desperately, for such reductions. They accepted a realm of objective reality that existed separately from their own wishes. But in 2017, when the Congressional Budget Office and other neutral arbiters concluded that the tax cuts would not begin to pay for themselves, the White House and congressional leaders simply dismissed the forecasts as too gloomy.
From
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/19/the-united-states-of-america-is-decadent-and-depraved/
-
Don't know if anybody remembers taking Economics, but borrowing their terms might help explain the point. The wealthy can choose to spend their money or not, so their demand for goods and services is elastic. Poor people have trouble meeting all their expenses, which means their demand is inelastic. Therefore if you want a guaranteed stimulation of the economy vs. hoping people don't sit on their loot and refuse to play ball it would make much more sense to have a $15 national minimum wage hike. That comes with it's own set of problems, but by definition there are no easy answers when you are facing but a predicament (end of empire and the resulting collective decline in our standard of living).
And the United states is a system of mixed capitalism and socialism, because FDR created the New Deal to stop a brewing Communist revolution. Heads were about to roll after the Depression so he gave the ultra wealthy a choice of keeping most of their money or losing everything to the mob. Some of the ultra wealthy still didn't get it and were dragged kicking and screaming into adopting watered down socialist policies. They couldn't understand he was literally saving their lives.
I think the best way to address income inequality is to increase the capital gains tax. The ultra wealthy don't make their money from wages, they make it from assets. Dynastic wealth can result in families getting richer by literally doing nothing vs those who actually contribute to production and innovation.
The top 1% of the 1% are the source of HALF of all capital gains. It's crazy that someone doing absolutely nothing gets taxed at 20% while a high achieving person who earns a salary gets taxed at nearly double.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
I don't have time to read all 200 pages of the new tax plan, but I did use the comparison calculator from the old one to the new one. And the new tax plan works in my favor.
I am also a business owner, but don't have much deductions, so that portion didn't harm me. So I always take the standard deduction which has been doubled.
-
I read through as much of the tax bill as I could stomach. I have a lot of deductions every year and I was afraid I was going to lose some of them. But all of my regular deductions are still there. They are lowering the threshold for medical deductions to 7.5% from 10% for this year and next. So at least I'll be able to deduct some of my wife's medical expenses from this year and next year. The doubling of the standard deduction probably won't have much effect on my taxes. The lower tax rate will probably have a greater effect on my taxes from what I can tell.
I am no tax expert but from what I could understand of the bill, mostly only people who are in the upper wage earnings range and those who live in high tax states are the only ones who won't see any benefits from the tax bill. In other words, people who spend so much money every year that they pay more than $10,000 worth of sales tax will no longer be able to deduct more than that amount. And those who own properties in which they live that are worth more than $750,000 cannot deduct their mortgage interest past a certain amount. However, I also see that corporations and the top 1% earners (wages and/or business owners) seem to fare very well with this new bill. I am personally glad to see businesses getting a huge tax benefit as I have spent most of my life working for small to medium size family businesses, employee owned businesses and large public owned corporations and have personally benefited from their fortunes when the business climates are favorable. When the business climate has been only mediocre and/or bad my wages and lack of any type of stock option sharing/profit sharing/bonuses have also suffered. Even to the point of being laid off. So if this bill makes the business climate in this country favorable, then I'm all for it. JMHO
-
I think the best way to address income inequality is to increase the capital gains tax. The ultra wealthy don't make their money from wages, they make it from assets. Dynastic wealth can result in families getting richer by literally doing nothing vs those who actually contribute to production and innovation.
The top 1% of the 1% are the source of HALF of all capital gains. It's crazy that someone doing absolutely nothing gets taxed at 20% while a high achieving person who earns a salary gets taxed at nearly double.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Income inequality is not going to be resolved with taxes. Looking to the government to enrich itself so they have more power by taxing the top 1% is naive. How can taking from the rich to make them poorer make the low and middle classes better off? It won't reduce the taxes YOU and I pay. With the national debt at $20T, there's no way the government is going to redistribute the capital gains revenue. You would be reducing how much of that investment can be reinvested into the market to help the economy versus being spent by the government. Remember: the government doesn't produce anything to contribute to the GDP.
Investors' INCOME will still be the same. Taxes will simply confiscate a portion of that income to punish them for making money on investments you believe others don't make. The truth is, if you have mutual funds or like to buy stock to put your money to work for a college fund, afford a home, etc, you will also be hit with that tax no matter what income percentage you're in.
-
I am no tax expert but from what I could understand of the bill, mostly only people who are in the upper wage earnings range and those who live in high tax states are the only ones who won't see any benefits from the tax bill. In other words, people who spend so much money every year that they pay more than $10,000 worth of sales tax will no longer be able to deduct more than that amount.
They shoulda called it The Tax the Democrats bill. Eventually, most will accept the tax changes with their ~$600 tax benefit and forget that the rich are getting a ~$50k tax benefit. It will be nearly impossible for the Dems to reverse the changes but they can halt the entitlement reduction to lower the debt. Everything comes with a price. My wife started a consulting business so will be interesting to see how this goes with the taxes. We also have significant deductions as a result so not too worried about the SD. If Trump can stay on message next year, then the midterm elections won't be a total disaster (like it was in 2010). Too bad that's not in his character...
-
They shoulda called it The Tax the Democrats bill. Eventually, most will accept the tax changes with their ~$600 tax benefit and forget that the rich are getting a ~$50k tax benefit. It will be nearly impossible for the Dems to reverse the changes but they can halt the entitlement reduction to lower the debt. Everything comes with a price. My wife started a consulting business so will be interesting to see how this goes with the taxes. We also have significant deductions as a result so not too worried about the SD. If Trump can stay on message next year, then the midterm elections won't be a total disaster (like it was in 2010). Too bad that's not in his character...
You should watch this if you haven't. Even the couple who itemized in the past and will now use the standard deduction saves over $600 in overall taxes due because of the lower rates.
Imagine, an MSM org like CBS actually proving Trump is right about the tax cut helping the middle class! :rofl:
https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/how-the-tax-bill-will-affect-the-returns-of-three-american-families/
-
Income inequality is not going to be resolved with taxes. Looking to the government to enrich itself so they have more power by taxing the top 1% is naive. How can taking from the rich to make them poorer make the low and middle classes better off? It won't reduce the taxes YOU and I pay. With the national debt at $20T, there's no way the government is going to redistribute the capital gains revenue. You would be reducing how much of that investment can be reinvested into the market to help the economy versus being spent by the government. Remember: the government doesn't produce anything to contribute to the GDP.
Investors' INCOME will still be the same. Taxes will simply confiscate a portion of that income to punish them for making money on investments you believe others don't make. The truth is, if you have mutual funds or like to buy stock to put your money to work for a college fund, afford a home, etc, you will also be hit with that tax no matter what income percentage you're in.
You're looking at it in a vacuum. Increasing one doesn't mean keeping all else the same. And I didn't say the 1%, I said the top 1% OF the 1%. They make up half of all capital gains in the US. Doesn't that sound ridiculously skewed to you? Yet it's never brought up because people are too busy bickering about a faux war between those making 50k and those making 500k.
Truth be told, neither of those are the ultra rich.
Think of someone who contributes nothing to society, let's say Paris Hilton for example. Her family has dynastic wealth. Her earnings increase even if she sits on the couch all day, and is taxed at a lower rate than a doctor who saves lives, had to go through medical school, etc.
Passive income is where rich people make their money, not from wages. Yes, a small portion of your income would be subject to higher taxes but that could easily be offset by a decrease in income tax.
I'd rather a productive member of society keep more earnings but maybe that's just me.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
You're looking at it in a vacuum. Increasing one doesn't mean keeping all else the same. And I didn't say the 1%, I said the top 1% OF the 1%. They make up half of all capital gains in the US. Doesn't that sound ridiculously skewed to you? Yet it's never brought up because people are too busy bickering about a faux war between those making 50k and those making 500k.
Truth be told, neither of those are the ultra rich.
Think of someone who contributes nothing to society, let's say Paris Hilton for example. Her family has dynastic wealth. Her earnings increase even if she sits on the couch all day, and is taxed at a lower rate than a doctor who saves lives, had to go through medical school, etc.
Passive income is where rich people make their money, not from wages. Yes, a small portion of your income would be subject to higher taxes but that could easily be offset by a decrease in income tax.
I'd rather a productive member of society keep more earnings but maybe that's just me.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
To answer the question, NO I do not see anything wrong (morally, legally or otherwise) with anyone making as much money as they possibly can. The successes of others do not oppress me, nor do they make me angry. Quite the contrary -- they demonstrate to me there is no limit to what I have the chance to attain.
If someone else having more means you have less, then that's a problem we can talk about. However, that's not true. There is unlimited wealth in the US. What's limited is what some people believe is "right".
So, tell us ... what is your LIMIT for how much wealth is "enough?" Does it even take into account what good that wealth may be doing while invested or when the earner spends it on goods, services and employees? I'm really curious. What is that number when someone crosses over from "productive well-to-do" to "that's just too much for one person who doesn't earn it?"
-
You're looking at it in a vacuum. Increasing one doesn't mean keeping all else the same. And I didn't say the 1%, I said the top 1% OF the 1%. They make up half of all capital gains in the US. Doesn't that sound ridiculously skewed to you? Yet it's never brought up because people are too busy bickering about a faux war between those making 50k and those making 500k.
Truth be told, neither of those are the ultra rich.
Think of someone who contributes nothing to society, let's say Paris Hilton for example. Her family has dynastic wealth. Her earnings increase even if she sits on the couch all day, and is taxed at a lower rate than a doctor who saves lives, had to go through medical school, etc.
Passive income is where rich people make their money, not from wages. Yes, a small portion of your income would be subject to higher taxes but that could easily be offset by a decrease in income tax.
I'd rather a productive member of society keep more earnings but maybe that's just me.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
She had a great video
-
To answer the question, NO I do not see anything wrong (morally, legally or otherwise) with anyone making as much money as they possibly can. The successes of others do not oppress me, nor do they make me angry. Quite the contrary -- they demonstrate to me there is no limit to what I have the chance to attain.
If someone else having more means you have less, then that's a problem we can talk about. However, that's not true. There is unlimited wealth in the US. What's limited is what some people believe is "right".
So, tell us ... what is your LIMIT for how much wealth is "enough?" Does it even take into account what good that wealth may be doing while invested or when the earner spends it on goods, services and employees? I'm really curious. What is that number when someone crosses over from "productive well-to-do" to "that's just too much for one person who doesn't earn it?"
It has nothing to do with limits, it has everything to do with an unfair tax scheme. Do you think it's fair that a person who earns a million dollars via wages is taxed more than a person passively earning the same million?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
It has nothing to do with limits, it has everything to do with an unfair tax scheme. Do you think it's fair that a person who earns a million dollars via wages is taxed more than a person passively earning the same million?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
I have no problem with passive income being taxed the same as wages. Do the passive investors use more public infrastructure? Does the road they drive on cost more to maintain than the road we use?
No, it's not a matter of how the money was earned. If someone has the financial acuity to make their income by working smarter, not harder, why punish them? If that person is retirement age, they are ensuring they can maintain a comfortable standard of living in retirement instead of relying on Social Security and Medicare at tax payer expense. Yeah, I know they paid into the system, but since the Congress raided the fund, the people drawing benefits are dependent on the people paying in now.
-
I'm not sure why there is all this talk about passive income compared to non-passive income? Passive income is taxed the same as earned or non-passive income except that wage taxes, SS and Medicare are not removed from the income prior to the owner receiving it. Otherwise it is added to your total income and becomes part of your Ajusted Gross Income (AGI) and is taxed at the same rate and just like any other non-passive income. And to say anyone who recieves passive income is rich is a fallacy as certain retirement income such as a pension is also considered passive income. Would you consider all the construction workers I know who never saved a penny and never invested in their lives that receive a pension when they retire as rich just because their pension is considered passive income? Seems like all my retired friends who receive a pension are barely making ends meet.
Passive income does not define rich people. Dividend income and interest income does not define rich people either as I had dividend income as a teenager. Every time I saved $100 from my car washing job I bought 4 shares of either SCE or PG&E. I certainly was not rich as I was earning $1.75/hour. I think smart people who invest their money properly or people who work hard all their lives to earn a pension (whether rich or poor) earn passive income. There are other forms of retirement income which is earned by hard working people earning small to moderate incomes all their lives also earn passive income. So I ask what does having passive income have to do with being rich?
-
somehow we lost sight of the American dream. A house. Rich. Wealth.
Then the rest of society that decide not to chase that dream want to punish those that have pursued and realized that dream. Is that really fair?
-
somehow we lost sight of the American dream. A house. Rich. Wealth.
Then the rest of society that decide not to chase that dream want to punish those that have pursued and realized that dream. Is that really fair?
Personally, I don't think it's fair. Isn't what you describe as textbook Socialism?
We live in a free country. One is free to pursue what he/she pleases or not as the case may be.
-
I'm not sure why there is all this talk about passive income compared to non-passive income? Passive income is taxed the same as earned or non-passive income except that wage taxes, SS and Medicare are not removed from the income prior to the owner receiving it. Otherwise it is added to your total income and becomes part of your Ajusted Gross Income (AGI) and is taxed at the same rate and just like any other non-passive income. And to say anyone who recieves passive income is rich is a fallacy as certain retirement income such as a pension is also considered passive income. Would you consider all the construction workers I know who never saved a penny and never invested in their lives that receive a pension when they retire as rich just because their pension is considered passive income? Seems like all my retired friends who receive a pension are barely making ends meet.
Passive income does not define rich people. Dividend income and interest income does not define rich people either as I had dividend income as a teenager. Every time I saved $100 from my car washing job I bought 4 shares of either SCE or PG&E. I certainly was not rich as I was earning $1.75/hour. I think smart people who invest their money properly or people who work hard all their lives to earn a pension (whether rich or poor) earn passive income. There are other forms of retirement income which is earned by hard working people earning small to moderate incomes all their lives also earn passive income. So I ask what does having passive income have to do with being rich?
did you sell your PG&E?
-
Personally, I don't think it's fair. Isn't what you describe as textbook Socialism?
We live in a free country. One is free to pursue what he/she pleases or not as the case may be.
Sorry. I meant that why do we always seem to target the rich when it comes to taxes? I hear "That's not fair" "They should pay more"
More for what? I don't agree with that. Why are the wealthy more responsible for taxes than others?
-
did you sell your PG&E?
Yeah I sold it many many years ago. I bought municipal bonds with the money. Better tax advantaged investment over the utility stock.
-
Sorry. I meant that why do we always seem to target the rich when it comes to taxes? I hear "That's not fair" "They should pay more"
More for what? I don't agree with that. Why are the wealthy more responsible for taxes than others?
Sorry, misunderstood.
-
Remember: the government doesn't produce anything to contribute to the GDP.
Econ 131: GDP Calculation via Expenditure Approach
GDP = Consumption + Investment + Government + Net Exports
Where:
Consumption = All expenditures made by all private citizens
Investment = All non-financial related expenditures made by businesses for business
Government = All expenditures by the government less transfer payments
Net Exports = The difference between exports and imports made by the country
* Hence, the expenditures of the government is a major contributor to the GDP of any country.
-
There is unlimited wealth in the US.
The belief of unlimited wealth in the US or any nation for that matter is a fallacy.
Essentailly, that proposition violates the foundational economic law of scarcity. If it is generally accpeted that there is a finite amount of natural resources on planet Earth, then the GDP of any nation will be moderated by the amount of those resources it can acquire to generate commerce. Based on that reality, there will be a finite amount of wealth that can be generated and acquired by the citizens of that country. Consequently, how that wealth will be distributed equitably is the natural result of the above stated human condition.
-
The belief of unlimited wealth in the US or any nation for that matter is a fallacy.
Essentailly, that proposition violates the foundational economic law of scarcity. If it is generally accpeted that there is a finite amount of natural resources on planet Earth, then the GDP of any nation will be moderated by the amount of those resources it can acquire to generate commerce. Based on that reality, there will be a finite amount of wealth that can be generated and acquired by the citizens of that country. Consequently, how that wealth will be distributed equitably is the natural result of the above stated human condition.
If you really believe the US economy and wealth is a zero sum game, you're living in the distant past. Resources in the economy have shifted from real property to services and intellectual properties. As such, if you have a better idea or new product idea, you can CREATE NEW WEALTH where it didn't exist before by bringing that idea or product to market.
You should read this. It has examples and everything! :geekdanc:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/06/14/when-it-comes-to-wealth-creation-there-is-no-pie/#5a64c8e97a2c
-
Yeah I sold it many many years ago. I bought municipal bonds with the money. Better tax advantaged investment over the utility stock.
so you don't know who eventually owned it?
-
so you don't know who eventually owned it?
No idea. I graduated to muni bonds. I never looked back.
So, who own(s)(ed) it?
-
No idea. I graduated to muni bonds. I never looked back.
So, who own(s)(ed) it?
oops
i'm thinking of PGE
Portland general electric
bought by a small company you may have heard of
called enron
-
I have no problem with passive income being taxed the same as wages. Do the passive investors use more public infrastructure? Does the road they drive on cost more to maintain than the road we use?
No, it's not a matter of how the money was earned. If someone has the financial acuity to make their income by working smarter, not harder, why punish them? If that person is retirement age, they are ensuring they can maintain a comfortable standard of living in retirement instead of relying on Social Security and Medicare at tax payer expense. Yeah, I know they paid into the system, but since the Congress raided the fund, the people drawing benefits are dependent on the people paying in now.
They are NOT taxed equally which is exactly my point. And I'm talking about capital gains, not investment income.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
They are NOT taxed equally which is exactly my point. And I'm talking about capital gains, not investment income.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
That's not what you said....
It has nothing to do with limits, it has everything to do with an unfair tax scheme. Do you think it's fair that a person who earns a million dollars via wages is taxed more than a person passively earning the same million?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
If you really believe the US economy and wealth is a zero sum game, you're living in the distant past. Resources in the economy have shifted from real property to services and intellectual properties. As such, if you have a better idea or new product idea, you can CREATE NEW WEALTH where it didn't exist before by bringing that idea or product to market.
I am not denying that people can cash in the way you described.
However, even if people do generate an idea that leads to a new product or service, the new product will still need resources that is still finite and will be competing for the same finite amount of dollars held by consumers. Hence, new innovators will achieve greater wealth, but will directly or indirectly render obsolete existing products and/or services in the process.
-
I am not denying that people can cash in the way you described.
However, even if people do generate an idea that leads to a new product or service, the new product will still need resources that is still finite and will be competing for the same finite amount of dollars held by consumers. Hence, new innovators will achieve greater wealth, but will directly or indirectly render obsolete existing products and/or services in the process.
The value is not intrinsic to the raw materials of the new product. The value is in the idea that created the product. Raw materials, labor, factory space -- that's always fluid.
-
I can't find a link, but on todays newscast on KGMB they reported that now 4 Hawaii banks are raising their minimum wage to $15 and giving bonuses due to the new tax bill.
I believe the 4 banks were BOH, First Hawaiian Bank, American Savings Bank and Central Pacific Bank.
-
oops
i'm thinking of PGE
Portland general electric
bought by a small company you may have heard of
called enron
LOL!!! Around the mid 90's I owned Enron stock for a day. I was doing day trading for a while. And Enron stock was climbing hard and fast at that time. So I bought some in the late morning and sold before the day was out. As I remember I didn't make much in it as I got in a little too late that day.
As a teenager I developed a liking for more local highly regulated electric companies at that time which is why I invested in PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric). As a teenager I felt local companies (in SoCal where I lived at that time) were a good investment. Safe and paid a dividend. As I got older I started playing the market more and taking bigger chances With my money.
-
That's not what you said....
Earning in this context was meant as via asset inflation. See my original post where I directly mention cap gains.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
I can't find a link, but on todays newscast on KGMB they reported that now 4 Hawaii banks are raising their minimum wage to $15 and giving bonuses due to the new tax bill.
I believe the 4 banks were BOH, First Hawaiian Bank, American Savings Bank and Central Pacific Bank.
That's correct. Each bank gave $1000 year end bonuses except FHB which gave $1500. BOH raised its minimum wage, perhaps others as well but not certain.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Earning in this context was meant as via asset inflation. See my original post where I directly mention cap gains.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
So, if you say one thing, then something different, I'm only allowed to reply to the comment you say is relevant?
(Rhetorical) :stopjack:
-
So, if you say one thing, then something different, I'm only allowed to reply to the comment you say is relevant?
(Rhetorical) :stopjack:
You're arguing semantics rather than the core argument. I've clarified I meant cap gains, do you now have an opinion or no?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
You're arguing semantics rather than the core argument. I've clarified I meant cap gains, do you now have an opinion or no?
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Capital gains should be treated the same as ordinary income. We should encourage MORE people to invest in our economy, not punish those who make a profit. Taxes are used too often to shape behavior rather than simply fund the government.
-
Capital gains should be treated the same as ordinary income. We should encourage MORE people to invest in our economy, not punish those who make a profit. Taxes are used too often to shape behavior rather than simply fund the government.
I agree, capital gains should be treated like normal income. But it isn't, nor will it ever be because that's where the ultra rich make their money.
I'm fine with incentives, but it should be fair. You shouldn't be able to get richer by paying lower taxes, which is what's happening.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
I agree, capital gains should be treated like normal income. But it isn't, nor will it ever be because that's where the ultra rich make their money.
I'm fine with incentives, but it should be fair. You shouldn't be able to get richer by paying lower taxes, which is what's happening.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
You lost me. You think the rich pay fewer taxes than the poor? Than the lower-middle class?
-
If you guys like podcasts I found this one to be pretty informative on a couple of the larger issues with the new tax bill.
Interestingly I didn't know that my own small business is a pass-through entity.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/12/22/572926212/episode-814-the-tax-plan-is-huge
-
Here's one benefit of the tax bill. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-22/stalled-vegas-resort-now-a-go-as-developer-feels-tax-law-fervor
"The Fontainebleau, on roughly 27 acres (11 hectares) at the north end of the Strip, was about 70 percent complete when Icahn won court approval to take it over.
Witkoff was motivated by a provision in the new law that allows full and immediate expensing of capital investments. He said the plan’s passage will usher in a period of sustained economic growth, which would benefit the hotel and travel industries.
“You can just feel it,” said Witkoff, who’s been friends with the president for more than 30 years. “You can feel the pent-up fervor that’s happening out there, and it hasn’t even seeped through the system yet. And I’m not a Republican ideologue, for God’s sake.”
-
Another local bank to add to the list:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/37152572/hawaiis-fifth-largest-bank-announces-employee-bonuses
-
You lost me. You think the rich pay fewer taxes than the poor? Than the lower-middle class?
On a percentage basis, yes. In absolute dollars, no.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
On a percentage basis, yes. In absolute dollars, no.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Then you should educate yourself. Your beliefs are faulty...
Based on 2015 returns:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/ft_17-10-04_taxes_stats/
The tip-top 0.1% of filers pay 20.2% of all taxes collected.
If you add the next tier, 0.8% of all filers pay 17.9% of taxes collected, which means the top 0.9% (roughly 1%) pays 38.1% of what is collected by the IRS.
The bottom 43.8% only pay in 1.4% of the total taxes collected.
In terms of actual dollars, the 0.9% top earners pay an effective average rate of 27.5%. The bottom 43.8% pays in at a tax rate of 4.9% of their income.
No matter how you slice it, the top 1% is paying over 1/3 of what the IRS collects in total. How can you possibly think they pay less in "absolute dollars?"
(https://i.imgur.com/pdaOryh.png?1)
Based on 2014 returns:
Wonder how much the rich pay in federal income tax? According to estimates by the Tax Policy Foundation,
the top 1 percent of earners (incomes in excess of $615,000) are paying nearly half — 45.7 percent — of
individual income taxes for tax year 2014.
The top 20 percent, with incomes above $134,300, contribute nearly 84 percent of all federal income taxes.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of earners, those in the bottom 80 percent, pay about 15 percent, with the bottom
60 percent contributing 2 percent to federal income taxes.
https://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/what-does-1-percent-pay-in-taxes/
-
On a percentage basis, yes. In absolute dollars, no.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Well you need to qualify what types of tax dollars you are talking about. Capital gains do get taxed at a lower rate so if that is what you meant then yes some rich people do pay a lower tax rate than poor and middle class, but not all rich people earn money through capital gains either. If you are talking straight income tax rates then yes the rich are taxed at a higher rate.
-
Well you need to qualify what types of tax dollars you are talking about. Capital gains do get taxed at a lower rate so if that is what you meant then yes some rich people do pay a lower tax rate than poor and middle class, but not all rich people earn money through capital gains either. If you are talking straight income tax rates then yes the rich are taxed at a higher rate.
There are two types of capital gains -- short term and long term. If you sell within 2 years, you pay the short term rate.
Short term tax rate = gains are treated as ordinary income, so it's dependent on the tax bracket you're in.
Long term tax rate = 0% to 20%, depending on your tax bracket. For 0% and 15% brackets, long tern capital gains is 0%. Anyone paying up to and including the 35% pays 15% on Capital gains. 39.6% tax bracket pays 20% on capital gains.
So, unless the wealthy individuals earn all their money from long term investments, they are paying a pretty hefty income tax already. If they are living off of long term investments, they are paying a smaller percentage on that money in taxes, but they are still paying more than similar investors in lower brackets and those who only earn regular income from wages.
-
The tax rate is progressive (richer people pay a higher percentage) but higher income people have more access to greater deductions. Isn't that why people voted for Trump because he's a tax genius and pays no taxes?
When I do my taxes, the software compares me to the average taxpayer in my Middle Class income range and I see all sorts of deductions that I'm not even remotely qualified for. Makes me wonder what I'm missing out on or if the data is fake.
-
The tax rate is progressive (richer people pay a higher percentage) but higher income people have more access to greater deductions. Isn't that why people voted for Trump because he's a tax genius and pays no taxes?
When I do my taxes, the software compares me to the average taxpayer in my Middle Class income range and I see all sorts of deductions that I'm not even remotely qualified for. Makes me wonder what I'm missing out on or if the data is fake.
I'm not a tax expert, I do my own taxes using Turbotax software. I see all those deductions as well. A lot of those are for carryovers and losses for some very high risk investments. I believe a lot of those are not very common as well.
I believe there was an investment thread started here some years ago that you might want to search for. It doesn't take much to get involved in investing even small amounts of money. And with ETF's you can invest in almost anything imaginable fromreal estate to oil to gold to indexes to pakalolo. All with very little seed money. You can even invest against the market or risk even more and invest in funds that go up 2x to 3x as fast as the market. I have an account with a couple of hundred in it I was going to close out but decided to buy 2 or 3 shares of the S&P 500 index and I have made over 20% this year on it.
-
The tax rate is progressive (richer people pay a higher percentage) but higher income people have more access to greater deductions. Isn't that why people voted for Trump because he's a tax genius and pays no taxes?
When I do my taxes, the software compares me to the average taxpayer in my Middle Class income range and I see all sorts of deductions that I'm not even remotely qualified for. Makes me wonder what I'm missing out on or if the data is fake.
Most people with those deductions are either in businesses where those deductions apply, or they have professional estate planners/accountants who know how to maximize their deductions. I would wager Trump doesn't memorize the tax code and all changes year after year. He has an accounting firm advising him, and he decides based on the options offered.
I don't begrudge anyone who is able to take advantage of legal tax deductions. If they are playing by the rules, any amount they can wrestle away from Uncle Sam is a win for freedom from tyranny. Remember, the Revolution started over taxes.
-
One reason the capital gains rate is lower is the risk involved. You put money upfront and can lose it. With a regular job you don't lose money at work unless you majorly screw something up.
It's also used to encourage investment into companies, especially startups or those that need money to expand.
-
Companies usually buy back their own stock for a couple of reasons. One is to lower or eliminate the debt incurred when they sold shares in the company. This makes their balance sheet look better and will eventually give them a better bottom line and more cash. They use this cash to reinvest to expand, invest in new technologies and buy other companies. Another reason they buy back shares is that lowering the number of outstanding shares usually raises the price of the shares still outstanding. For those who own stock in the company, including employees, that raises their stock's value and also the company's value. It is a positive sign when a company starts buying back it's own shares of stock.
All of this is a positive and the lower corporate rate along with the lower tax rates will encourage more and more companies to do things like this. The more companies do this sort of thing the bettter and stronger the economy gets and the better the salaries/bonuses for the workers. It is not an instantaneous thing but something that occurs over time.
-
All of this is a positive and the lower corporate rate along with the lower tax rates will encourage more and more companies to do things like this. The more companies do this sort of thing the bettter and stronger the economy gets and the better the salaries/bonuses for the workers. It is not an instantaneous thing but something that occurs over time.
This is what those who believe in these contentions hope happens.
However, empirically, what we have seen, especially in the case of the ultra-rich larger corporations, is the transfer of their profits to offshore banks to escape federal and state corporate taxation or investment in non-business expansionary related things like real estate, with both actions not contributing to the increase of workers wage or salaries and, in the case of real estate, contributing to the creation of unsustainable real estate bubbles.
-
This is what those who believe in these contentions hope happens.
However, empirically, what we have seen, especially in the case of the ultra-rich larger corporations, is the transfer of their profits to offshore banks to escape federal and state corporate taxation or investment in non-business expansionary related things like real estate, with both actions not contributing to the increase of workers wage or salaries and, in the case of real estate, contributing to the creation of unsustainable real estate bubbles.
Empirical data?
Do you own stocks?
-
This is what those who believe in these contentions hope happens.
However, empirically, what we have seen, especially in the case of the ultra-rich larger corporations, is the transfer of their profits to offshore banks to escape federal and state corporate taxation or investment in non-business expansionary related things like real estate, with both actions not contributing to the increase of workers wage or salaries and, in the case of real estate, contributing to the creation of unsustainable real estate bubbles.
History shows that in times of high corporate tax rates you are somewhat to mostly correct. However, history also shows that in times of low corporate tax rates you are somewhat to mostly incorrect.
-
This is what those who believe in these contentions hope happens.
However, empirically, what we have seen, especially in the case of the ultra-rich larger corporations, is the transfer of their profits to offshore banks to escape federal and state corporate taxation or investment in non-business expansionary related things like real estate, with both actions not contributing to the increase of workers wage or salaries and, in the case of real estate, contributing to the creation of unsustainable real estate bubbles.
Can you give specific examples where corporations were allowed to legally transfer profits they earned in the US to off-shore banks to keep from paying taxes?
My understanding is, if the money is earned in the US, it's subject to taxation. There's no way to put that money in offshore banks and avoid taxes -- legally, that is.
If the money is earned overseas, THEN they can stockpile that cash in banks. The high US corporate tax rate is what's been preventing these companies from investing that money in the US, because as soon as they bring it into the US, they owe income tax on it. That's like voluntarily handing over 20% of their cash reserves to Uncle Sam. If you're talking about billions, that 20% is a huge hit to your liquid capital. It helps explain why many companies opened stores and operations overseas, so they can pay less tax, or no tax, on that money.
-
It is a positive sign when a company starts buying back it's own shares of stock.
It's a way of making a business look great when earnings suck. Plus it's a way to executives who get a large percentage of their compensation packages in stock to jack up the price and then liquidate before the reality sets in for everyone else.
Stock buybacks used to be illegal for a reason, and are a huge red flag that underlying fundamentals are seriously broken.
-
It's a way of making a business look great when earnings suck. Plus it's a way to executives who get a large percentage of their compensation packages in stock to jack up the price and then liquidate before the reality sets in for everyone else.
Stock buybacks used to be illegal for a reason, and are a huge red flag that underlying fundamentals are seriously broken.
I would like to see your proof that this is the rule rather than the exception.
-
Can you give specific examples where corporations were allowed to legally transfer profits they earned in the US to off-shore banks to keep from paying taxes?
I'm guessing that you don't understand how offshore tax havens work because you don't want to understand, and if that's the case trying to have an honest conversation is a waste of time and energy.
-
I'm guessing that you don't understand how offshore tax havens work because you don't want to understand, and in that's the case trying to have an honest conversation is a waste of time and energy.
For someone who doesn't know me, you make a lot of silly assumptions. All I did was ask for some proof to back up what you said and you are making excuses as to why you won't provide any. I think your motives are quite obvious.
-
For someone who doesn't know me, you make a lot of silly assumptions. All I did was ask for some proof to back up what you said and you are making excuses as to why you won't provide any. I think your motives are quite obvious.
That was a Flapp Quote I was responding to, not yours. I don't think you are being willfully ignorant. You just happened to fall victim to Wall Street propaganda.
And my motives are to warn you that there's a crash coming that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park so that you aren't completely caught off guard when this whole illusion fails like it always does.
-
That was a Flapp Quote I was responding to, not yours. I don't think you are being willfully ignorant. You just happened to fall victim to Wall Street propaganda.
And my motives are to warn you that there's a crash coming that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park so that you aren't completely caught off guard when this whole illusion fails like it always does.
Oh yes, you are quite right. Sorry about that.
You still are avoiding providing some backup to what you stated. I did ask nicely and have ignored your insults. I would hope you have something to back up your statements.
The problem with your assumption about companies buying back their stock just to make their companies look great when their earnings suck is that their earnings still suck no matter how you look at the bottom line. Stock values will still go down when they don't hit their projected earnings. So it becomes clearly obvious what they are trying to do. Good and savvy investors will flee a company's stock if that occurs. But this example is more the exception rather than the rule. So does it really matter if a very small percentage of companies actually do something like this? They suffer the financial and rules consequences if they attempt to do this.
Saying the market is going to crash sometime in the future is like saying it is going to rain someday. Of course it is going to crash. It always does. Just like it always rains someday. The trick is to tell everyone here WHEN it is going to crash. So if you really want to do me and everyone else here as favor, tell us when. Doesn't have to be a exact date, I'm interested in maybe a 6 month span that it will occur. BTW, I'm not saying your wrong, as I am not arguing with you. I just want to know what you do.
And BTW, as of early 2008 (I think in March) I have been out of the market completely. With a very small exception. I missed the crash by 5 or 6 months. BTW, I did the same thing in November 1999. I missed the 2000 crash by a few months. I understand the market, business and finance quite well.
-
investment in non-business expansionary related things like real estate, ..., contributing to the creation of unsustainable real estate bubbles.
wait, are you saying that real estate bubbles are caused by corporations buying real estate?
-
Everyone here already knows the market will eventually crash.
Everyone here is just waiting for you to say when.
Puna asked like 3 pages ago and you just ignored him.
-
Wasn't ignoring anyone just got busy and haven't been checking this thread regularly. Demanding that I make a timeline prediction is a way of avoiding the subject of cause and effect. Is it fair to say that because I don't know on which day the next flash flood warning will be issued that I must not understand how weather patterns work?
Inspector conceded a very important point just now and everyone missed it. There are crashes that happen with enough regularity that anyone can predict the next one is inevitable, but instead of asking why unregulated Capitalism seems to have a self-destruct mechanism built in the media has us obsessed with getting out in time and making money on the way down. Nevermind the millions of Americans who lose their jobs and savings and wind up on the street while kids turn to prostitution just to get an education.
We are taking this for granted as if it's a force of nature, but if I point out that there are certain patterns (one of which is tax breaks for the ultra wealthy that lead to massive bubbles and rob the real economy of investment capital) that means I must be Marxist.
Taking a sophist approach might help you feel better about ganging up on somebody with groupthink, but you are actually doing more to promote the cause of Marxism among the growing number of for whom the American Dream sounds more like a cruel hoax. When enough people realize the conventional wisdom is FOS I'm sure there will be a lot more interest in even worse arrangements than the one we have now. Nice job, Comrades.
-
Wasn't ignoring anyone just got busy and haven't been checking this thread regularly. Demanding that I make a timeline prediction is a way of avoiding the subject of cause and effect. Is it fair to say that because I don't know on which day the next flash flood warning will be issued that I must not understand how weather patterns work?
Inspector conceded a very important point just now and everyone missed it. There are crashes that happen with enough regularity that anyone can predict the next one is inevitable, but instead of asking why unregulated Capitalism seems to have a self-destruct mechanism built in the media has us obsessed with getting out in time and making money on the way down. Nevermind the millions of Americans who lose their jobs and savings and wind up on the street while kids turn to prostitution just to get an education.
We are taking this for granted as if it's a force of nature, but if I point out that there are certain patterns (one of which is tax breaks for the ultra wealthy that lead to massive bubbles and rob the real economy of investment capital) that means I must be Marxist.
Taking a sophist approach might help you feel better about ganging up on somebody with groupthink, but you are actually doing more to promote the cause of Marxism among the growing number of for whom the American Dream sounds more like a cruel hoax. When enough people realize the conventional wisdom is FOS I'm sure there will be a lot more interest growing in even worse arrangements than the one we have now. Nice job, Comrades.
so we're all idiots because we don't see what you are seeing?
nice...
-
so we're all idiots because we don't see what you are seeing?
nice...
Proud to say I haven't insulted anyone yet. Not unless you consider being disagreed with an insult.
-
I'm guessing that you don't understand how offshore tax havens work because you don't want to understand, and if that's the case trying to have an honest conversation is a waste of time and energy.
As Inspector said, "For someone who doesn't know me, you make a lot of silly assumptions. All I did was ask for some proof to back up what you said and you are making excuses as to why you won't provide any. I think your motives are quite obvious."
If you can't have a discussion without deflecting from the question asked, then don't even start. Do you KNOW of these tax havens, or do you simply repeat what the anti-capitalist conspiracy sites feed you?
It's a waste of time and energy for you to think an insult is going to brush me off. Either you have examples, or you don't. Try being honest, and answer the question. As I said, I have a different understanding, based on actual public information I've read. Got anything like that??
-
Proud to say I haven't insulted anyone yet. Not unless you consider being disagreed with an insult.
I think calling someone you don't know "willfully ignorant" qualifies as an insult. ("because you don't want to understand" == willfully ignorant)
So, now you've insulted someone, AND you lied about it. :wacko:
-
And my motives are to warn you that there's a crash coming that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park so that you aren't completely caught off guard when this whole illusion fails like it always does.
sounds to me like you think you are telling us something we don't know...
-
I think calling someone you don't know "willfully ignorant" qualifies as an insult.
So, now you've insulted someone, AND you lied about it. :wacko:
Either you can't understand how offshore tax havens work, or you refuse to. I just made and educated guess based on your past ability to seemingly grasp more complex concepts
-
Either you can't understand how offshore tax havens work, or you refuse to. I just made and educated guess based on your past ability to seemingly grasp more complex concepts
You post on here as if you have all the answers, but you won't share them because we don't already know as much as you?
That seems like a total cop-out.
-
sounds to me like you think you are telling us something we don't know...
But why does it happen? It seems like that's a more worthy topic of discussion than playing "gotcha last"
-
Either you can't understand how offshore tax havens work, or you refuse to. I just made and educated guess based on your past ability to seemingly grasp more complex concepts
As I said, the earnings placed in offshore banks as tax havens must be earned outside the US. You can't sell cars in the US and then TRANSFER (your word) that profit to offshore banks.
Seems like you just want to argue. Either that, or you have a few gaps in your knowledge.
How Do Tax Havens Work?
Tax havens provide offshore banking services to foreign individuals and businesses that allow them to avoid
paying income taxes in their countries of residence. For example, a large corporation might establish an offshore
subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and direct all sales through the subsidiary rather than through the parent
company based in the United States. In this case, the shell corporation earns the company's profits and is
subject to the tax laws of the Cayman Islands rather than the United States. Instead of being subject to the
U.S. corporate tax rate, which stood at 38.9% in 2017, the company's profits are subject to whatever corporate
or income taxes apply in the Caymans.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100215/why-cayman-islands-considered-tax-haven.asp#ixzz52ot6Cic6
-
But why does it happen? It seems like that's a more worthy topic of discussion than playing "gotcha last"
sorry, you brought it up, so why don't you start a new topic and explain it to all of us who you think don't understand?
-
sorry, you brought it up, so why don't you start a new topic and explain it to all of us who you think don't understand?
Unless I'm mistaken this is the correct thread to talk about potential consequences of an irresponsible tax bill.
-
As I said, the earnings placed in offshore banks as tax havens must be earned outside the US. You can't sell cars in the US and then TRANSFER (your word) that profit to offshore banks.
Seems like you just want to argue. Either that, or you have a few gaps in your knowledge.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100215/why-cayman-islands-considered-tax-haven.asp#ixzz52ot6Cic6
Apologies for judging you. I've made enough facepalm-worthy assumptions in my life to fill an Encyclopedia of Shame, and looks like I've still got a few chapters to go.
Yes the law is already so screwed up that companies can offshore profits made IN THE UNITED STATES tax-free by doing what is know as a “deferral.”
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/general-electrics-special-tax-loophole-lets-company-dodge-billions-in-taxes/
This is why I get upset (really should learn to control it better) when people talk about the imaginary concept of corporate goodwill and how jobs will be created if we reduce their tax burden, etc. Nope. Instead they will do what they have always done. Hoard that cash and play it on the ponies until the whole house comes crashing down.
-
Nope. Instead they will do what they have always done. Hoard that cash and play it on the ponies until the whole house comes crashing down.
That's not what concerns me. I'm worried about the $1.2T debt it will cause and no, I don't believe the gains in the economy will make up for it. Next year, entitlements gotta go and that will push more Dems to want to vote in November. After all, most people vote because they're angry, not because they're happy.
-
Apologies for judging you. I've made enough facepalm-worthy assumptions in my life to fill an Encyclopedia of Shame, and looks like I've still got a few chapters to go.
Yes the law is already so screwed up that companies can offshore profits made IN THE UNITED STATES tax-free by doing what is know as a “deferral.”
https://americansfortaxfairness.org/general-electrics-special-tax-loophole-lets-company-dodge-billions-in-taxes/
This is why I get upset (really should learn to control it better) when people talk about the imaginary concept of corporate goodwill and how jobs will be created if we reduce their tax burden, etc. Nope. Instead they will do what they have always done. Hoard that cash and play it on the ponies until the whole house comes crashing down.
Apology accepted.
In your article, it basically reiterates what I said & posted:
Like a lot of huge corporations, GE dodges taxes by stashing profits offshore. A loophole in federal tax law allows companies to
avoid paying U.S. taxes on profits they earn (or claim to earn) outside the United States until the income is brought back home
As for GE specifically, Obama gave GE special consideration so they paid NO TAXES even though they had record earnings during Obama's first term. The CEO of GE, Jeffery Immelt, was appointed by Obama to oversee programs to grow jobs in the US -- nicknamed Obama's "Jobs Czar." Nothing ever materialized from his programs other than the special tax treatment Obama provided his company.
GE was actually off-shoring more and more of their operations to plants in China and elsewhere. They don't have the best record at creating American jobs.
GE is a good example of a bad example, since they had much more power and many more concessions than the vast majority of companies in the US.
General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt was charged by the president with a Herculean task: figuring out how to get big American firms to start
hiring again. First, he says, we need "a sense of national urgency around jobs" and a government that's focused 100 percent on the task
at hand. But can Immelt, a self-proclaimed globalist when it comes to running his own company, really help solve America's biggest domestic
problem?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-jobs-czar-general-electrics-jeffrey-immelt/
Immelt, the Jobs Czar from Hell
The New York Times reported last month that General Electric earned $14.2 billion in international profits, including, $5.1 billion in the United States.
Yet GE did not pay a dime in federal income taxes last year. Oddly, President Obama chose GE Chairman and chief executive Jeffrey Immelt to head
his President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
According to the Associated Press, Immelt's compensation package doubled to $15.2 million last year, while this year, GE is seeking major concessions
from the unions that represent its shrinking American workforce. That makes Immelt the wrong guy for the job of jobs czar.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/04/05/immelt_the_jobs_czar_from_hell_109452.html
-
That's not what concerns me. I'm worried about the $1.2T debt it will cause and no, I don't believe the gains in the economy will make up for it. Next year, entitlements gotta go and that will push more Dems to want to vote in November. After all, most people vote because they're angry, not because they're happy.
I'm sure when it comes time to pay the piper there will be plenty of blame conveniently heaped on Social Security and Medicare.
-
Proud to say I haven't insulted anyone yet. Not unless you consider being disagreed with an insult.
You are delusional. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
-
Wasn't ignoring anyone just got busy and haven't been checking this thread regularly. Demanding that I make a timeline prediction is a way of avoiding the subject of cause and effect. Is it fair to say that because I don't know on which day the next flash flood warning will be issued that I must not understand how weather patterns work?
What the hell?! We are not trying to AVOID the subject of cause and effect, we are asking you to be specific and concrete (not engage hypothetical generic ("unregulated Capitalism")). There is a huge difference between saying that patterns of events that have happened historically will continue to repeat and that you have the explanation for the pattern and thus a solution to avoiding the repetition of the pattern of events. Not only will you not tell with any specificity about the timing or exact nature of the next major event, but you won't tell us the concrete specific solution to avoiding the repetition of the pattern of events. Just tell us. Quit being coy. Or don't you know? Or are you unwilling to put your hypothesis to a test?
Inspector conceded a very important point just now and everyone missed it. There are crashes that happen with enough regularity that anyone can predict the next one is inevitable, but instead of asking why unregulated Capitalism seems to have a self-destruct mechanism built in the media has us obsessed with getting out in time and making money on the way down. Nevermind the millions of Americans who lose their jobs and savings and wind up on the street while kids turn to prostitution just to get an education.
The latter dire forecast is based upon the Tax Bill alone, or the total cumulative evil of "unregulated Capitalism"? You mean compared to how well "unregulated Communism" or "unregulated Socialism" have worked? Or even "regulated" Communism or Socialism? See: (former) Soviet Union, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. What is your solution? Specifically... i.e. exactly what role, to what extent, in what specific ways does government take vs. private enterprise in all social and economic matters? I'm asking for real world specifics because we can all see from the unendingly repeating pattern of the actual application of Marxist/Communist/Socialist/anti-Capitalist theoretical doctrine how things really turn out (Where exactly is the Workers Paradise? Oh, that's right, they just haven't "applied if properly". Yeah, sure, NEXT TIME...). Just tell us for Christ sake. Is it some big secret or something? You trying to patent it?
We are taking this for granted as if it's a force of nature, but if I point out that there are certain patterns (one of which is tax breaks for the ultra wealthy that lead to massive bubbles and rob the real economy of investment capital) that means I must be Marxist.
You do know that even Marx famously said "I am not a Marxist", so your feigned objection carries no weight whatsoever. (Marx said it in the context of someone who claimed to be a Marxist applying Marxist doctrine had advocated for a policy (revolution only, no compromise by "reform") that Marx said he disagreed with...). I.e. "Marxism" can mean anything to anyone, and thus it means nothing at all if anytime it "doesn't work" in the real world people object by saying "Well, that wasn't REAL Marxism". Thus our request of you for concrete and specific details about how your anti-Capitalist regime is structured.
Taking a sophist approach might help you feel better about ganging up on somebody with groupthink, but you are actually doing more to promote the cause of Marxism among the growing number of for whom the American Dream sounds more like a cruel hoax. When enough people realize the conventional wisdom is FOS I'm sure there will be a lot more interest in even worse arrangements than the one we have now. Nice job, Comrades.
I guess if you can repeat yourself, I'll have to repeat myself: Just tell us exactly, specifically what roles government and private enterprise take in all social and economic matters and in what form in terms of laws those roles are enforced. Just do it.
Crazy forecast: More diversion and generic hypothetical responses in 3... 2... 1...
-
It's funny that you chose the color red.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
I can only find one section towards the end where you didn't frame the question as some sort of clumsily disguised attack.
The Banking Act of 1933 was one of the regulations put on capitalism that allowed it to function for a while. Specifically the Glass-Steagall act, which started getting gradually chipped away and lo and behold we are back to the old crash pattern.
-
You are delusional. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
And you are still avoiding the subject.
-
Does this mean I should shift to cryptocurrency such as BitCoin?
-
Does this mean I should shift to cryptocurrency such as BitCoin?
If you're taking investment advise from hvybarrels, you deserve whatever you get! :crazy: :wave:
:D
-
If you're taking investment advise from hvybarrels, you deserve whatever you get! :crazy: :wave:
:D
My advice earlier in this thread was to not invest in something you don't understand with people you don't know. If someone had ignored it and jumped on Bitcoin back then they would have lost a fair chunk of change by now.
-
Can you give specific examples where corporations were allowed to legally transfer profits they earned in the US to off-shore banks to keep from paying taxes?
My understanding is, if the money is earned in the US, it's subject to taxation. There's no way to put that money in offshore banks and avoid taxes -- legally, that is.
If the money is earned overseas, THEN they can stockpile that cash in banks. The high US corporate tax rate is what's been preventing these companies from investing that money in the US, because as soon as they bring it into the US, they owe income tax on it. That's like voluntarily handing over 20% of their cash reserves to Uncle Sam. If you're talking about billions, that 20% is a huge hit to your liquid capital. It helps explain why many companies opened stores and operations overseas, so they can pay less tax, or no tax, on that money.
First of all, US Corporations are subject to US federal taxation regardless of where their profits originates. However, due to the current loopholes in the law, many corporations legally elect to not repatriate much of their wealth back to the US; hence, deferring their tax liabilities. The prevailing presumption underpinning the current GOP tax bill is the belief that by lowering US federal corporate taxation, many US corporations will elect to "bring back their profits back home", through which those funds can be reinvested back into the domestic economy, stimulating job growth and wage/salary increases, as well as fulfill their tax obligations to the federal government.
This is what is hoped and let us pray it happens.
However, keep in mind, a one time tax holiday was passed under the Bush Administration in 2004. The results did not result in the creation of jobs nor increasing the wages and salaries of American workers (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/taxes-offshore-repatriation.html). Furthermore, according to Center of American Progress (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/01/09/81681/offshore-corporate-profits-the-only-thing-trapped-is-tax-revenue/), much of the so called "overseas profits" are actually already being utilized domestically in America. Hence, decreasing the US Corporate tax rate will only let those corporations utilizing the deferrals of overseas tax liabilities further escape paying their fair share of taxes as well as very unlikely have its desired effect of spurring more economic activity, let alone increase workers wages or salaries.
-
First of all, US Corporations are subject to US federal taxation regardless of where their profits originates. However, due to the current loopholes in the law, many corporations legally elect to not repatriate much of their wealth back to the US; hence, deferring their tax liabilities. The prevailing presumption underpinning the current GOP tax bill is the belief that by lowering US federal corporate taxation, many US corporations will elect to "bring back their profits back home", through which those funds can be reinvested back into the domestic economy, stimulating job growth and wage/salary increases, as well as fulfill their tax obligations to the federal government.
This is what is hoped and let us pray it happens.
However, keep in mind, a one time tax holiday was passed under the Bush Administration in 2004. The results did not result in the creation of jobs nor increasing the wages and salaries of American workers (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/business/taxes-offshore-repatriation.html). Furthermore, according to Center of American Progress (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/01/09/81681/offshore-corporate-profits-the-only-thing-trapped-is-tax-revenue/), much of the so called "overseas profits" are actually already being utilized domestically in America. Hence, decreasing the US Corporate tax rate will only let those corporations utilizing the deferrals of overseas tax liabilities further escape paying their fair share of taxes as well as very unlikely have its desired effect of spurring more economic activity, let alone increase workers wages or salaries.
Large companies like to plan long-term. A one-time "tax holiday" only helps the short term.
The current tax reform law is already showing signs that pent-up spending by corporations will have a positive affect. I've seen stories of almost a dozen companies giving bonuses to hundreds of thousands of employees, raising their minimum wage, and promising to invest billions of dollars of capital to expansion and new jobs. That's before the tax law advantages are even realized!
So, I wouldn't base current predictions on "similar but different" effort's results from the past. We're coming out of an abyss economically. Everyone is ready for that big breath of fresh air. The last 12 months, the Dow was up 5,000 points -- first time in history the Dow has risen that much in a year. What's happened, and what will happen, is not going to mirror past events, because this situation isn't like past situations. I'm seriously optimistic the GDP growth will see 5% in a quarter. I know that's considered nearly impossible, but Trump is the guy to do it if anyone can.
-
And you are still avoiding the subject.
BTW, I saw this post before you changed asking me what you said that was an insult. You know what you said. Otherwise you would not have changed to what is quoted above. It was completely obvious. You are still delusional.
-
BTW, I saw this post before you changed asking me what you said that was an insult. You know what you said. Otherwise you would not have changed to what is quoted above. It was completely obvious. You are still delusional.
No I changed it because I realized that it's just another attempt to drag me into a tangent trap and avoid addressing the issues I raised. Most likely because your arguments are based on misinformation spread by the institutions that have to most to gain from this legislation, and they don't hold up very well under close examination.
-
What's happened, and what will happen, is not going to mirror past events, because this situation isn't like past situations. I'm seriously optimistic the GDP growth will see 5% in a quarter. I know that's considered nearly impossible, but Trump is the guy to do it if anyone can.
The problem with the phrase "this time it's different" is that it's been the harbinger of doom on so many occasions that it's become a morbid joke. It's a faith-based argument just like Invisible Hand that magically creates the ideal society using the powers of greed and selfishness. We are running increasingly erratic boom and bust cycles and the last meltdown was barely contained with vast amounts of helicopter money and fiddling with interest rates. Nobody went to jail, which means the lunatics who ran the world economy onto the reef are still at the helm and fully expect Uncle Sam to print all the money they need and bail them out when they do it again. If you want to see how fun the consequences of hyperinflation are then check out Venezuela.
-
No I changed it because I realized that it's just another attempt to drag me into a tangent trap and avoid addressing the issues I raised. Most likely because your arguments are based on misinformation spread by the institutions that have to most to gain from this legislation, and they don't hold up very well under close examination.
Once again you are wrong. I have done nothing but try and engage you in a decent conversation. And every time I ask for you to back up what you state, you ignore me, deflect everything else, insult me and everyone else who disagrees with you. And when it appears that you are actually human and want to know what you did to insult myself and others here, you edit your post and go back on the attack.
You know, I have seen many posts by you claiming that people insult you and call you names and conversations go into the gutter all because they disagree with you. But if you read through this whole thread with an open mind you will see that it is you who has not made an attempt to have a conversation with me. I have politely asked you question after question, which have refused to answer. I have attempted to ask you to back up your statements and you have completely ignored and deflected what I have asked. And when others ask you the exact same question or point out that you didn't answer me, then you made some condescending remark towards me and answer them. So it appears it is me (and maybe a few others) that you truly refuse to have a polite conversation with. So I going to stop as I feel this is becoming a personal attack on me and the things you are saying about me are just not true. I can't have a conversation with someone who is ignoring all my questions and is deflecting away all my attempts to try and understand your positions. Maybe you realize what you are doing, maybe you don't. But the condescending remarks, when pointed out to you making them, and having you deny this fact is just like talking to a wall. I'm done.
-
Then you should educate yourself. Your beliefs are faulty...
Based on 2015 returns:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/06/a-closer-look-at-who-does-and-doesnt-pay-u-s-income-tax/ft_17-10-04_taxes_stats/
The tip-top 0.1% of filers pay 20.2% of all taxes collected.
If you add the next tier, 0.8% of all filers pay 17.9% of taxes collected, which means the top 0.9% (roughly 1%) pays 38.1% of what is collected by the IRS.
The bottom 43.8% only pay in 1.4% of the total taxes collected.
In terms of actual dollars, the 0.9% top earners pay an effective average rate of 27.5%. The bottom 43.8% pays in at a tax rate of 4.9% of their income.
No matter how you slice it, the top 1% is paying over 1/3 of what the IRS collects in total. How can you possibly think they pay less in "absolute dollars?"
(https://i.imgur.com/pdaOryh.png?1)
Based on 2014 returns:
https://www.bankrate.com/financing/wealth/what-does-1-percent-pay-in-taxes/
Obviously if you use AGI that's what you will come out with. How would you come out with anything otherwise in a progressive tax system?
That's not indicative of rich. That has nothing to do with net worth, merely how you earn your money. What does Warren Buffet pay in taxes? What did Trump pay?
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/21/billionaire-warren-buffetts-secret-to-paying-a-low.aspx
From the billionaire himself.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
No I changed it because I realized that it's just another attempt to drag me into a tangent trap and avoid addressing the issues I raised. Most likely because your arguments are based on misinformation spread by the institutions that have to most to gain from this legislation, and they don't hold up very well under close examination.
actually you are the one avoiding addressing the issues you raised
in this thread, only one time did you cite an article that supported a little of your claims, and that was published in 2013
then, once again, you accuse people who are genuinely trying to ask you to support your claims that they are "misinformed"
-
Proud to say I haven't insulted anyone yet. Not unless you consider being disagreed with an insult.
"I'm guessing that you don't understand how offshore tax havens work because you don't want to understand, and if that's the case trying to have an honest conversation is a waste of time and energy."
"And my motives are to warn you that there's a crash coming that will make 2008 look like a walk in the park so that you aren't completely caught off guard"
"Nice job, Comrades."
"Either you can't understand how offshore tax havens work, or you refuse to. I just made and educated guess based on your past ability to seemingly grasp more complex concepts "
"Most likely because your arguments are based on misinformation"
"groupthink"
you say you haven't insulted anyone yet?
could you at least admit how condescending you sound?
and that some people feel insulted when people are condescending towards them?
-
anyone can say a stock market crash will happen as much as one can say it will rain. The one prediction that anyone can't state with accuracy is WHEN.
-
Obviously if you use AGI that's what you will come out with. How would you come out with anything otherwise in a progressive tax system?
That's not indicative of rich. That has nothing to do with net worth, merely how you earn your money. What does Warren Buffet pay in taxes? What did Trump pay?
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/02/21/billionaire-warren-buffetts-secret-to-paying-a-low.aspx
From the billionaire himself.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
"Low" is relative, as is "high", "too much" and "not enough." Compared to WHAT?
That "what" is what you refuse to answer. What is the magic number YOU THINK is enough? You keep arguing in general, ambiguous terms. Specifically, how much is enough???
-
The problem with the phrase "this time it's different" is that it's been the harbinger of doom on so many occasions that it's become a morbid joke. It's a faith-based argument just like Invisible Hand that magically creates the ideal society using the powers of greed and selfishness. We are running increasingly erratic boom and bust cycles and the last meltdown was barely contained with vast amounts of helicopter money and fiddling with interest rates. Nobody went to jail, which means the lunatics who ran the world economy onto the reef are still at the helm and fully expect Uncle Sam to print all the money they need and bail them out when they do it again. If you want to see how fun the consequences of hyperinflation are then check out Venezuela.
You used a lot of words, but you said virtually nothing.
Trump is making a difference. If you can't see that, do some research on all the positives he's accomplished -- both directly and simply by affecting confidence.
This time IS different. Trump isn't in office to win the next election or to give "his" party power. He's there to do the job the best he can. I see it. Anyone who doesn't see that has been watching CNN and MSNBC more than is healthy. Why does Trump Tweet? He has to in order to get his unfiltered words in front of the public. Even then, the MSM tries to "interpret" what he implied, not what he said.
Give him the courtesy of at least three years before judging his effectiveness and the results of his actions. To preach doom and gloom as you have been is nothing more than sour grapes. You sound like you're still "with her". :crazy:
-
Some say the normal cycles (all highs and lows including crashes) of our economy are highly predictable. Yet we have surpassed the timeframe that these so called "experts" have been saying that the next market crash is going to occur. So now these so called "experts" are saying that we are so far passed due for the next crash that it will happen at any time. And when the crash happens, and it will, they will go around saying "I told you so". All ridiculous empty words. This has been going on for as long as I can remember (40+ years).
Any enlightened person knows our economy ebbs and flows and sometimes crashes. Knowing this, whose fault is it really if an investor gets caught with their pants down and loses half their wealth in a crash of some sort? I personally would blame myself. Especially if I didn't prepare properly for the inevitable. We have no control over how, why and when the market will crash. So it really is irrelevant if big banks or corporations get greedy and cause a crash. Just knowing it will happen should be enough to prepare for when it does. All we can do is to control our own investments. When investing in the stock market one should plan for crashes since we all know they occur. Stop loss orders will help reduce your losses if a crash occurs without any warning. And if properly placed will help you retain your wealth. And once you get out of the market you can ride out the crash in safe insured investments until the market recovers.
Being prepared makes crashes and the reasons for the crash irrelevant. There are plenty of tools and resources at your disposal to protect you if you choose to use them. Don't let those who are crying out about big corporations and big banks and greedy CEO's distract you from protecting yourself from a crash that will occur someday. It is not as important to know why a crash occurs as it is to realize that a crash will occur. And being prepared makes you smarter than the persons who care more about blaming others.
-
"Low" is relative, as is "high", "too much" and "not enough." Compared to WHAT?
That "what" is what you refuse to answer. What is the magic number YOU THINK is enough? You keep arguing in general, ambiguous terms. Specifically, how much is enough???
That's literally one of the richest people on earth telling you how it is.
My initial argument was about capital gains and how the ultra wealthy avoid paying taxes at a tier they're supposed to. Not sure what sort of quantitative response you want.
So again, how much are guys like Buffet and Trump paying? Talk about avoiding questions...
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
I can't see why there isn't a flat tax. Govt. services should be the same for all and paid simple and fair by all.
Why do we keep targeting the "rich" for achieving? I'm not rich but if I attain it through my hard work and dedication I would find it unfair for the rest of society to target me because of that. Doesn't make sense. We see some people who homestead on low income housing and are happy at the level of assistance they get from the govt. They are happy to be just that - so why are we punishing those that decide to move up the societal ladder?
-
That's literally one of the richest people on earth telling you how it is.
My initial argument was about capital gains and how the ultra wealthy avoid paying taxes at a tier they're supposed to. Not sure what sort of quantitative response you want.
So again, how much are guys like Buffet and Trump paying? Talk about avoiding questions...
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Not trying to get in between your two discussion. Just understand that the article you posted was very clearly stated as an opinion piece. Not as a researched factual article. I just happened across this article from Forbes while researching something else. Thought you two might be interested.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/23/warren-buffetts-actual-tax-rate-is-31-while-his-office-workers-pay-21/#6fa910363279
-
I can't see why there isn't a flat tax. Govt. services should be the same for all and paid simple and fair by all.
Why do we keep targeting the "rich" for achieving? I'm not rich but if I attain it through my hard work and dedication I would find it unfair for the rest of society to target me because of that. Doesn't make sense. We see some people who homestead on low income housing and are happy at the level of assistance they get from the govt. They are happy to be just that - so why are we punishing those that decide to move up the societal ladder?
I agree with the flat tax. It is the only fair way to tax everyone equally.
-
That's literally one of the richest people on earth telling you how it is.
My initial argument was about capital gains and how the ultra wealthy avoid paying taxes at a tier they're supposed to. Not sure what sort of quantitative response you want.
So again, how much are guys like Buffet and Trump paying? Talk about avoiding questions...
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
You don't get to avoid my questions repeatedly, and then tell me I'm not answering yours.
I don't play those games.
Buffet is a billionaire who made all his money investing and getting paid to make investments for others. If he wants to pay more in taxes, all he has to do is write a check. That doesn't happen, though. He wants everyone else to be forced to do the same. In the meantime, he takes the same deductions and exemptions as all other wealthy people. Hypocrite?
Trump doesn't pay zero taxes. His business was able to write off losses, just like all other businesses who lose money.
Trump paid 24 percent tax rate in 2005, reported $105 million write-down, his return shows.
The return shows that Trump paid $36.5 million in income tax, of which about $31 million was in the form of an "alternative
minimum tax," a supplemental tax designed to cut down on filers with excessive deductions. He also paid about $1.5 million
in Medicare and Social Security taxes.
Do some research on your own instead of parroting the lies MSNBC feeds you. Trump did NOT pay zero taxes.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/hFpWQqy.jpg)
-
You don't get to avoid my questions repeatedly, and then tell me I'm not answering yours.
I don't play those games.
Buffet is a billionaire who made all his money investing and getting paid to make investments for others. If he wants to pay more in taxes, all he has to do is write a check. That doesn't happen, though. He wants everyone else to be forced to do the same. In the meantime, he takes the same deductions and exemptions as all other wealthy people. Hypocrite?
Trump doesn't pay zero taxes. His business was able to write off losses, just like all other businesses who lose money.
Do some research on your own instead of parroting the lies MSNBC feeds you. Trump did NOT pay zero taxes.
What question did you ask that I didn't answer? The nebulous "how much" question that had nothing to do with the conversation? Where did I quote MSNBC?
You're constantly throwing strawman arguments. And we don't know what Trump paid in taxes because he never released them. Despite saying he would. Furthermore, what sort of great businessman needs to carry forward that much operating losses? The kind that game the system. I don't blame him but it's hypocritical to think guys like Buffet do it while Trump doesn't. Every smart person would try to pay as little in taxes as legally possible. That's why we need to close the loopholes like the capital gains tax.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Also please quote where I said Trump pays zero taxes. Along with where I quoted MSNBC.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Not trying to get in between your two discussion. Just understand that the article you posted was very clearly stated as an opinion piece. Not as a researched factual article. I just happened across this article from Forbes while researching something else. Thought you two might be interested.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/23/warren-buffetts-actual-tax-rate-is-31-while-his-office-workers-pay-21/#6fa910363279
So they're adding C-corps taxes to an individual? No one does that. Even if one did, the current tax policy will substantially reduce corporate taxes so it makes an even stronger case for what Buffet is saying.
For the record, I'm actually for the corporate tax reduction. That tax was one of the highest in the world and was a big impediment to growth.
My gripe is with individuals making their money on asset appreciation, no matter how much, being taxed lower than the upper tier salary brackets.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
What question did you ask that I didn't answer? The nebulous "how much" question that had nothing to do with the conversation? Where did I quote MSNBC?
You're constantly throwing strawman arguments. And we don't know what Trump paid in taxes because he never released them. Despite saying he would. Furthermore, what sort of great businessman needs to carry forward that much operating losses? The kind that game the system. I don't blame him but it's hypocritical to think guys like Buffet do it while Trump doesn't. Every smart person would try to pay as little in taxes as legally possible. That's why we need to close the loopholes like the capital gains tax.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
Did you not tune in to Rachel Madcow when she built up her show saying she had Trump's tax return all over the promos? She spent her show going through all the details, only to show he did IN FACT PAY TAXES.
She was so bummed, it was delicious!
Yes, Trump did not release his tax return, but someone leaked it. Your comment "we don't know what Trump paid in taxes because he never released them" is only half right. We do know -- at least for the year that was leaked.
When you gamble big money, there is never a guarantee you won't lose it. The Trump property in Atlantic City was making money until 9/11. Just like Vegas, Atlantic City was hit hard with losses due to a massive downturn in tourism. I guess he should have predicted that, huh? He wasn't "gaming the system". Every business that loses money uses the same tax laws to protect against complete loss. It's called bankruptcy. It's in the law for a reason. Businesses don't operate in an annual vacuum void of year-to-year causes and effects. The laws are there to allow businesses to spread both losses and windfalls across multiple years to avoid a huge loss one year, a huge profit the next, and a massive tax bill. based on only the profit. It isn't good for the business, the employees, the economy, or the IRS if the company has to go out of business.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Trump owns real property, creates thousands of jobs, and invests the profits in new projects. Buffet made his money investing in the stock market. The capital gains rates (not "loopholes") don't apply to Trump's losses or carry-over to other years as they relate to the Taj Mahal.
-
The only reason you're calling my question re: how much is enough for the "wealthy" to pay in taxes "nebulous" is because you know the answer is what's nebulous -- not the question.
You can't name a number, percentage or relative amount because THERE ISN'T ONE. All the tax rates, ceilings and limits, including deductions and exemptions, are arbitrary. Some finance "experts" in the government sit down and try to figure out what balance of those elements, along with deductions and expected revenues, will generate the needed revenues to pay the country's bills. There's no magic number that's fair -- not for the workers to pay, and not for the "wealthy" to pay. I put quotes on wealthy because that, also, is open to arbitrary interpretations based on relative income/wealth.
The problem you have is understanding the simple fact that the wealth created in this country has an effect other than making people who own the investments profits. They create jobs. People with jobs pay taxes. They sell things. Retail collects more taxes. They provide capital. Capital permits renting buildings, building new buildings, renting and buying large equipment, manufacturing that equipment, etc, etc, etc. All those activities get taxed at all points exchange and at many levels.
With all that taxing going on, you still believe the person making it all possible should be punished MORE than the people earning a paycheck? Take away the incentive to invest, and those paychecks stop. But you still won't get it.
You have been brainwashed into resenting the wealthy. I get it. You don't.
I'm done trying to open your eyes. Can't make a horse drink.
-
I agree with the flat tax. It is the only fair way to tax everyone equally.
The flat tax sounds fair on the surface, but you have to look at the greater cost burden placed on society. Wealth inequality has an inverse relationship with overall economic performance. The more the rich get richer they effectively lock up capital in their Scrooge McDuck vaults. Sure they let a little trickle out here and there and wear their philanthropic activities on their sleeve, but if what your are saying about re-investing in society is true then Wealth Inequality would have solved itself by now. Yet it continues to get worse.
-
So they're adding C-corps taxes to an individual? No one does that. Even if one did, the current tax policy will substantially reduce corporate taxes so it makes an even stronger case for what Buffet is saying.
For the record, I'm actually for the corporate tax reduction. That tax was one of the highest in the world and was a big impediment to growth.
My gripe is with individuals making their money on asset appreciation, no matter how much, being taxed lower than the upper tier salary brackets.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
That is not quite how I read this. Maybe I am wrong, but as one third owner of the corporation he gets paid a salary from the profits (minus all applicable corporate and payroll taxes) of the corporation. And that money is taxable as earned income. And according to this article he conveniently left out this source of income when he wrote his opinion piece. Like I said, that is how I read this article. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
I know you probably have been through all of this with Flapp. So if you don't want to answer my questions, I understand. Sorry, but I have have not been able to understand where your other conversation has been going. Here are my questions:
1. What are your objections to anyone who invests any amount of money being taxed at a lower rate through capital gains than the upper tier salary brackets?
2. Also, you do realize that asset appreciation also occurs with homes? So what is your objection to people who own homes having to pay for the profit they make when they sell their home?
3. You said you are all for lowering the corporate tax rate, I am curious as to why? The reason I ask is I am for a lower capital gains tax for the same reason you are for the lower corporate tax. So for me your reason for the lower corporate tax rate also affects anyone who is taxed through the capital gains tax. The money from an individual used to invest in stocks and other vehicles is used predominantly used for growth of the company that receives that investment. I see these two taxes, when high as an impediment to growth. So maybe you can elaborate for me the difference between high corporate tax being an impediment to growth, but a high capital gains tax is not an impediment to growth?
Thanks!
-
Being prepared makes crashes and the reasons for the crash irrelevant. There are plenty of tools and resources at your disposal to protect you if you choose to use them. Don't let those who are crying out about big corporations and big banks and greedy CEO's distract you from protecting yourself from a crash that will occur someday. It is not as important to know why a crash occurs as it is to realize that a crash will occur. And being prepared makes you smarter than the persons who care more about blaming others.
What about the people who lose their jobs and houses because of a credit freeze? What about the people who paid into their pensions and 401k's all those years just to see them wiped out? The last crash was papered over with printed money, but still had huge consequences for people who have nothing to do with Wall Street. Remember furlough Fridays?
Don't we owe it to everyone around us to at least examine the causes and consider ways to prevent it from happening again? It seems like the more responsible thing to do rather than time our next jump off the greed train.
-
That is not quite how I read this. Maybe I am wrong, but as one third owner of the corporation he gets paid a salary from the profits (minus all applicable corporate and payroll taxes) of the corporation. And that money is taxable as earned income. And according to this article he conveniently left out this source of income when he wrote his opinion piece. Like I said, that is how I read this article. I could be wrong, but it makes sense to me.
I know you probably have been through all of this with Flapp. So if you don't want to answer my questions, I understand. Sorry, but I have have not been able to understand where your other conversation has been going. Here are my questions:
1. What are your objections to anyone who invests any amount of money being taxed at a lower rate through capital gains than the upper tier salary brackets?
2. Also, you do realize that asset appreciation also occurs with homes? So what is your objection to people who own homes having to pay for the profit they make when they sell their home?
3. You said you are all for lowering the corporate tax rate, I am curious as to why? The reason I ask is I am for a lower capital gains tax for the same reason you are for the lower corporate tax. So for me your reason for the lower corporate tax rate also affects anyone who is taxed through the capital gains tax. The money from an individual used to invest in stocks and other vehicles is used predominantly used for growth of the company that receives that investment. I see these two taxes, when high as an impediment to growth. So maybe you can elaborate for me the difference between high corporate tax being an impediment to growth, but a high capital gains tax is not an impediment to growth?
Thanks!
Glad to answer, thanks for the civil response.
1) It's a difference between productivity and passive accumulation. Paris Hilton can contribute nothing to society and get richer, at a 20% tax rate. A heart surgeon can save hundreds of lives and be taxed at nearly double the rate. Who is the more productive member of society? We should be rewarding accretive behavior.
2) Most residences allow for capital gain exemptions or deferment.
3) I'm for lower corporate tax rates because US rates where high compared to the rest of the world. This evens things up a degree.
As I mentioned, the top 1% OF the 1% make up HALF of all capital gains. Think about that for a second. The ultra wealthy despite being a miniscule fraction make up half of cap gains. And get taxed at a favorable 20%. And that's something never on the table because it's easier to stand back and let the wage earners fight each other. It's no surprise politicians rarely bring it up, they understand where the rich really make their money and how to shelter those gains. You don't throw your biggest donors under the bus.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Can’t confirm this, but I heard one of the aspects of the tax bill has many Liberals up in arms is the changed to deduction allowed for mortgage interest was reduced. However, it reduced the amount allowed for mortgages in the amount of $1 Mil to $750 K. That that appear to hit three specific areas. Guess which ones? CA, NY and MD. If you have a $1 Mil mortgage, are you really hurting in the grand scheme of things? That is assuming folks didn’t over reach with their mortgage. The last part is just my opinion.
Anyways, guess when asked how many Liberals spewing the hate really know the facts about the reduction in mortgage interest deductions?
-
Can’t confirm this, but I heard one of the aspects of the tax bill has many Liberals up in arms is the changed to deduction allowed for mortgage interest was reduced. However, it reduced the amount allowed for mortgages in the amount of $1 Mil to $750 K. That that appear to hit three specific areas. Guess which ones? CA, NY and MD. If you have a $1 Mil mortgage, are you really hurting in the grand scheme of things? That is assuming folks didn’t over reach with their mortgage. The last part is just my opinion.
Anyways, guess when asked how many Liberals spewing the hate really know the facts about the reduction in mortgage interest deductions?
Oh they really know that particular fact. Who do you think is going to get hit the most by this reduction? Could it be the elitist Democrats that predominantly live in those states? :shake: :shake: :shake:
-
Oh they really know that particular fact. Who do you think is going to get hit the most by this reduction? Could it be the elitist Democrats that predominantly live in those states? :shake: :shake: :shake:
I was referring to some acquaintances (not really friends) that spew the “hate Trump” stuff constantly. They aren’t elitists in any of those states. Really just average couple with a daughter living in FL. BUT, they eat up everything sites like CNN and MSNBC throw out there. It was actually an advantage to them. They even fall into a tax bracket that they benefit from the tax plan. Pointed those out to them, they just move on to other crap.
-
I was referring to some acquaintances (not really friends) that spew the “hate Trump” stuff constantly. They aren’t elitists in any of those states. Really just average couple with a daughter living in FL. BUT, they eat up everything sites like CNN and MSNBC throw out there. It was actually an advantage to them. They even fall into a tax bracket that they benefit from the tax plan. Pointed those out to them, they just move on to other crap.
Sorry, didn't mean to insult your acquaintances. I just know too many of the progressive types (mostly family) that live in CA and NY that are complaining that they won't be able to deduct as much mortgage interest as they are used to. When I hear them complain about this I just ask them how much their house is worth. And then I snicker a bit. They change the subject after that.
-
Sorry, didn't mean to insult your acquaintances. I just know too many of the progressive types (mostly family) that live in CA and NY that are complaining that they won't be able to deduct as much mortgage interest as they are used to. When I hear them complain about this I just ask them how much their house is worth. And then I snicker a bit. They change the subject after that.
Nah. I insult them all the time about their blind hate, which often turns out to be from either misinformation or taking people’s word for it. ;D
-
Sorry, didn't mean to insult your acquaintances. I just know too many of the progressive types (mostly family) that live in CA and NY that are complaining that they won't be able to deduct as much mortgage interest as they are used to. When I hear them complain about this I just ask them how much their house is worth. And then I snicker a bit. They change the subject after that.
Is it capped at $750,000 mortgage interest or value of property?
-
It’s capped at $750,000 mortgage value.
-
Can’t confirm this, but I heard one of the aspects of the tax bill has many Liberals up in arms is the changed to deduction allowed for mortgage interest was reduced. However, it reduced the amount allowed for mortgages in the amount of $1 Mil to $750 K. That that appear to hit three specific areas. Guess which ones? CA, NY and MD. If you have a $1 Mil mortgage, are you really hurting in the grand scheme of things? That is assuming folks didn’t over reach with their mortgage. The last part is just my opinion.
Anyways, guess when asked how many Liberals spewing the hate really know the facts about the reduction in mortgage interest deductions?
I think it's more real estate and state taxes, which is capped at a 10k deduction. That hits States with high tax rates like CA, NY, NJ, etc
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
Over 100 companies giving 'Trump Bonuses' after tax victory, 'tsunami building'
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/over-100-companies-giving-trump-bonuses-after-tax-victory-tsunami-building/article/2644944
-
There are accusations that the high tax states have been using the write off on the federal tax as justification for increasing the local taxes. Now the high tax states (including Hawaii?) are caught with their pants down...
-
Over 100 companies giving 'Trump Bonuses' after tax victory, 'tsunami building'
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/over-100-companies-giving-trump-bonuses-after-tax-victory-tsunami-building/article/2644944
Hawaii banks got included on the list :shaka:
Majority of the list is banks, wonder why? I know they'll get more business because money will flow through them and they can give out more loans, but I'd expect a lot of other companies would jump in too.
-
Casino workers double bonuses... surprising no one...
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/south-point-owner-doubles-bonuses-for-2300-full-time-workers/
-
Hawaii banks got included on the list :shaka:
Majority of the list is banks, wonder why? I know they'll get more business because money will flow through them and they can give out more loans, but I'd expect a lot of other companies would jump in too.
Deregulation will reduce expenses and increasing interest rates improve net interest margin.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
I have been trying to figure out how the new tax bill is going to effect the home owner as compared to the real estate investor? Today I was listening to my favorite real estate investing podcast and they went through the new tax bill and how it effects both the home owner and the real estate investor. Owner occupied home ownership is at an all time low since 2004 at which time it peaked. Yet new homes are continuously being built. This means homes are being purchased less and less by owner occupants. Rather they are being purchased by investors and being used as rentals.
As far as the new tax bill is concerned, it lowers the amount an owner can deduct their mortgage interest, property taxes and state and local taxes. All of this discourages home ownership. Especially new buyers looking for a home. And it effects the people even more so on both coasts of the mainland. In particular the high income tax states like NY and CA. So the consensus is that the new tax bill will contribute to further erosion of home ownership and encourage more people to rent. The consensus also claimed that more and more real estate investors are not buying their own homes until they reach a certain level of rental income.
According to the real estate experts, the new tax bill along with interest rates rising will also effect home owners from buying a home to live in. And this in turn will effect the prices and values of real estate mostly on the east and west coast states where home prices are ridiculously high. They predicted a drop in property values across the states with the coastal states being hit the most.
Another lesser known boon to real estate investors is now that all updates and upgrades to rental properties as well as purchases of assets for your business is 100% deductible in the year the purchases were made instead of being depreciated over a timeframe.
My conclusion is that before the new tax bill, it was a good time to be a real estate investor. Now, it is even better.
-
I have been trying to figure out how the new tax bill is going to effect the home owner as compared to the real estate investor? Today I was listening to my favorite real estate investing podcast and they went through the new tax bill and how it effects both the home owner and the real estate investor. Owner occupied home ownership is at an all time low since 2004 at which time it peaked. Yet new homes are continuously being built. This means homes are being purchased less and less by owner occupants. Rather they are being purchased by investors and being used as rentals.
As far as the new tax bill is concerned, it lowers the amount an owner can deduct their mortgage interest, property taxes and state and local taxes. All of this discourages home ownership. Especially new buyers looking for a home. And it effects the people even more so on both coasts of the mainland. In particular the high income tax states like NY and CA. So the consensus is that the new tax bill will contribute to further erosion of home ownership and encourage more people to rent. The consensus also claimed that more and more real estate investors are not buying their own homes until they reach a certain level of rental income.
According to the real estate experts, the new tax bill along with interest rates rising will also effect home owners from buying a home to live in. And this in turn will effect the prices and values of real estate mostly on the east and west coast states where home prices are ridiculously high. They predicted a drop in property values across the states with the coastal states being hit the most.
Another lesser known boon to real estate investors is now that all updates and upgrades to rental properties as well as purchases of assets for your business is 100% deductible in the year the purchases were made instead of being depreciated over a timeframe.
My conclusion is that before the new tax bill, it was a good time to be a real estate investor. Now, it is even better.
For every positive benefit in real estate, there is a corresponding negative factor. It all depends on whether you buy, rent, or sell.
Sellers are going to experience lower prices in some areas if rental investments and home ownership levels decline. Less demand = lower prices. Good for buyers.
Owners looking to use their equity for upgrades, college, etc. can take advantage of low interest rates and higher prices now. The principle being spent will assist in economic growth.
Anyone looking to buy another property might want to sell now, rent, and wait for prices to come down. They have a certain number of years to put their profit on their sold home into another home before paying capital gains on it.
There's no absolute rule for how the tax reform bill will affect home buying, selling or prices early on. If people aren't buying, prices may be a bigger factor than tax advantages. If you can't afford the payments and don't have a huge downpayment, you're not going to take the house even with a huge tax refund every year.
-
I have been trying to figure out how the new tax bill is going to effect the home owner as compared to the real estate investor? Today I was listening to my favorite real estate investing podcast and they went through the new tax bill and how it effects both the home owner and the real estate investor. Owner occupied home ownership is at an all time low since 2004 at which time it peaked. Yet new homes are continuously being built. This means homes are being purchased less and less by owner occupants. Rather they are being purchased by investors and being used as rentals.
As far as the new tax bill is concerned, it lowers the amount an owner can deduct their mortgage interest, property taxes and state and local taxes. All of this discourages home ownership. Especially new buyers looking for a home. And it effects the people even more so on both coasts of the mainland. In particular the high income tax states like NY and CA. So the consensus is that the new tax bill will contribute to further erosion of home ownership and encourage more people to rent. The consensus also claimed that more and more real estate investors are not buying their own homes until they reach a certain level of rental income.
According to the real estate experts, the new tax bill along with interest rates rising will also effect home owners from buying a home to live in. And this in turn will effect the prices and values of real estate mostly on the east and west coast states where home prices are ridiculously high. They predicted a drop in property values across the states with the coastal states being hit the most.
Another lesser known boon to real estate investors is now that all updates and upgrades to rental properties as well as purchases of assets for your business is 100% deductible in the year the purchases were made instead of being depreciated over a timeframe.
My conclusion is that before the new tax bill, it was a good time to be a real estate investor. Now, it is even better.
Perfect, I need prices to drop before I buy!!
-
KGMB just reported, Hawaiian Electric is predicting most customers will see a drop in electric bills due to the new tax reform bill.
MORE WINNING!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Also ...
Utilities cutting rates, cite benefits of Trump tax reform
On the heels of companies dishing bonuses of up to $3,000 to over one million workers due to the
anticipated benefit of President Trump’s tax reform victory, several major utilities have announced
plans to cut rates in a consumer payback related to the lower taxes.
Energy suppliers like Washington’s Pepco, Baltimore Gas and Light, Pacific Power, Rocky Mountain
Power and Commonwealth Edison said they plan to give hundreds of thousands of customers a rate
cut due to the tax reform.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/utilities-cutting-rates-cite-benefits-of-trump-tax-reform/article/2645375
-
Perfect, I need prices to drop before I buy!!
We'll see how it effects us here. Until the pressure of the lack of housing eases, the prices may not drop or may not drop very much. Ho'opili construction is under way. If my memory is correct I believe they are building 18,000 new mixed home types. Over 10 years. That may ease pressure a bit. I keep hearing a lot of people are leaving our state yet the figures put out by our government show us to continue to grow. It is hard to predict what exactly is going to happen. 8) 8) 8)
-
We'll see how it effects us here. Until the pressure of the lack of housing eases, the prices may not drop or may not drop very much. Ho'opili construction is under way. If my memory is correct I believe they are building 18,000 new mixed home types. Over 10 years. That may ease pressure a bit. I keep hearing a lot of people are leaving our state yet the figures put out by our government show us to continue to grow. It is hard to predict what exactly is going to happen. 8) 8) 8)
The Koa Ridge development in Waipio is moving forward. Lots of housing planned there, including 30% of them as affordable "below market" units. 3,500 homes are expected to be ready for move-in starting in 2019.
https://www.castlecookehawaii.com/Page/KoaRidge-Home
-
I have been trying to figure out how the new tax bill is going to effect the home owner as compared to the real estate investor? Today I was listening to my favorite real estate investing podcast and they went through the new tax bill and how it effects both the home owner and the real estate investor. Owner occupied home ownership is at an all time low since 2004 at which time it peaked. Yet new homes are continuously being built. This means homes are being purchased less and less by owner occupants. Rather they are being purchased by investors and being used as rentals.
As far as the new tax bill is concerned, it lowers the amount an owner can deduct their mortgage interest, property taxes and state and local taxes. All of this discourages home ownership. Especially new buyers looking for a home. And it effects the people even more so on both coasts of the mainland. In particular the high income tax states like NY and CA. So the consensus is that the new tax bill will contribute to further erosion of home ownership and encourage more people to rent. The consensus also claimed that more and more real estate investors are not buying their own homes until they reach a certain level of rental income.
According to the real estate experts, the new tax bill along with interest rates rising will also effect home owners from buying a home to live in. And this in turn will effect the prices and values of real estate mostly on the east and west coast states where home prices are ridiculously high. They predicted a drop in property values across the states with the coastal states being hit the most.
Another lesser known boon to real estate investors is now that all updates and upgrades to rental properties as well as purchases of assets for your business is 100% deductible in the year the purchases were made instead of being depreciated over a timeframe.
My conclusion is that before the new tax bill, it was a good time to be a real estate investor. Now, it is even better.
This is very evident here. Look no further than A'alii and their "micro" units. Who in their right mind is going to pay a half million dollars or more for less than 300 Sq ft?
This is Howard Hughes targeting the investor and foreign market. I feel sorry for kids coming out of college these days. Can't afford anything and can't save enough to keep up with price inflation. Not to mention their savings earn nothing thanks to the low interest rate environment.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
It’s simple. If you’re a Democrat, you’re screwed. If you’re a Republican, you’re rich.
The Hawaii housing prices didn’t significantly go down AFAIK during the the subprime housing crisis so its difficult to imagine what would. Maybe a dirty Bomb or the Second Coming...
-
It’s simple. If you’re a Democrat, you’re screwed. If you’re a Republican, you’re rich.
The Hawaii housing prices didn’t significantly go down AFAIK during the the subprime housing crisis so its difficult to imagine what would. Maybe a dirty Bomb or the Second Coming...
Here is the histerical [sp] housing data for Oahu for you to see:
http://www.hicentral.com/oahu-historical-data.php
-
Mahalo. -24% in 2008 then +18% in 2010. Mild compared to rest of country that I’ve witnessed on Zillow.
-
We'll see how it effects us here. Until the pressure of the lack of housing eases, the prices may not drop or may not drop very much. Ho'opili construction is under way. If my memory is correct I believe they are building 18,000 new mixed home types. Over 10 years. That may ease pressure a bit. I keep hearing a lot of people are leaving our state yet the figures put out by our government show us to continue to grow. It is hard to predict what exactly is going to happen. 8) 8) 8)
Thanks man.
Love reading your replies
-
Mahalo. -24% in 2008 then +18% in 2010. Mild compared to rest of country that I’ve witnessed on Zillow.
I can't speak to Kauai or Maui but the Big Island has some areas that have not fully recovered from from the real estate bubble. And Sacramento didn't come back until mid 2016.
As a comparison, the stock market fully recovered in late 2013. Remember, all the people who claimed they lost so much in the housing and/or stock market bubble only did so if they sold before the full recovery. If they held on tight for only a few years (4 to 5) they would have have reached par and if they held on to today they would be up quite a bit. Nobody lost any money in either market unless they sold for less than what they paid. Otherwise, they are doing much better than before the last bubble. And if they sell now, they are going to make a lot of money.
-
Thanks man.
Love reading your replies
Thanks!!! :shaka: :shaka: :shaka:
At least somebody reads them. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Agreed. Many people bought high and sold low. I know someone who paid $100k cash downpayment on his home because of the belief that Las Vegas real estate was recession proof. After the bubble, all that money disappeared and hasn't fully returned.
In Seattle, we bought a home for $210k in 2002 and went up to $321k in 2008 in the divorce settlement. The value dropped back down to $195k and is now worth $354k. Crazy...
01/21/12 Listing removed $194,900 $157 Homepath
01/11/12 Price change $194,900-4.9% $157 Homepath
12/10/11 Price change $204,900-24.1% $165 Homepath
08/24/11 Listed for sale -- -- foreclosure.co...
07/14/11 Sold: Foreclosed to lender $269,863-15.9% $217 Public Record
09/05/08 Sold $321,000+52.9% $259 Public Record
01/29/02 Sold $209,950+35.0% $169 Public Record
07/31/97 Sold $155,490 $125 Public Record
-
...the housing and/or stock market bubble... if they sell now, they are going to make a lot of money.
Please tell us how you know this. Show your work.
-
Please tell us how you know this. Show your work.
I just got flashback to HS math class...
-
Please tell us how you know this. Show your work.
I based my statement on historical data. I already provided the historical data for Oahu home sales. If you want historical data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average you can Google it yourself.
-
Please tell us how you know this. Show your work.
buy low, sell high = $
-
You forgot to carry the one...
-
I based my statement on historical data. I already provided the historical data for Oahu home sales. If you want historical data for the Dow Jones Industrial Average you can Google it yourself.
There is no equity market historical data (that I know of) that reads "This is currently the high point, a crash/bubble burst/serious decline is immediately imminent. Sell now." That kind of "interpretation" of current/historical data is what you have at least implied in two previous posts. I'm asking you what criteria/model you are applying that yields that "sell" interpretation/"signal" of historical data. There are hundreds (thousands?) of professional market timers out there who are constantly making and then revising forecasts when their "model" does not coincide with reality (even the stopped clock is right twice a day). All one has to do is search "market crash" to see the thousands of "predictions" of a crash in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, etc. (I guess some people don't mind their completely 100% wrong videos of their crash forecasts remaining online... not sure who would purchase their products after seeing that, but... I'm thinking also of classics like Harry K. Brown's How you can Profit from the coming devaluation, 1970). I'm asking especially in light of the fact that you point out that people who stayed in the market ("buy and hold") after the last bubble burst probably eventually earned back their paper losses, but now you seem to be advocating sell. I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific about how you came to that conclusion to sell now and exactly when and to what degree, and for how long before full "recovery" of the coming "crash"/"realignment". Are you talking about next week or sometime in 2023 or when? Thanks. :shaka:
-
Article includes quotes from and links to individual corporate announcements, etc.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/12/more-maganomic-success-chrysler-moving-from-mexico-to-michigan-toyota-building-in-alabama-and-more/#more-144477
More MAGAnomic Success – Chrysler Moving From Mexico To Michigan, Toyota Building in Alabama, and More…
Excerpts:
The recently passed Tax Bill continues to enhance the MAGAnomic policy of the Trump administration, leading to more great economic and jobs news amid the headlines.
Do the math. The three single-day announcements below will add more than 6,500 new jobs, average around $50,000 per job, and contribute tens-of-billions to a revitalized new America-First economy. This is MAGAnomics in action. This is a direct result of economic policies initiated by President Trump. This is part of the reason why the U.S. GDP will easily exceed 4% growth in the next three years of Trump’s first term.
America’s largest private employer, Walmart, has announced their plan to increase their minimum wage to $11/hr and give out bonuses between $200 to $1,000 to each of their more than one million employees...
Additionally, as a direct result of the new tax landscape in combination with the one-time write-offs for investment, Chrysler has announced they are moving the majority of their Heavy Truck manufacturing from Mexico to Michigan:
The automaker will invest $1 billion in its Warren Truck Assembly Plant to make the Ram Heavy Duty Truck starting in 2020. That truck is currently made in Saltillo, Mexico, where workers will continue to make commercial vehicles.
FCA says the Warren plant will add 2,500 new jobs.
The company also plans to pay $2,000 bonuses this spring to about 60,000 hourly and salaried U.S. employees. Senior executives won’t get the bonus.
Capping off the trifecta of good news, Toyota/Mazda has announced a massive $1.6 BILLION investment in new manufacturing in Alabama that will employ 4,000 U.S. workers.
-
There is no equity market historical data (that I know of) that reads "This is currently the high point, a crash/bubble burst/serious decline is immediately imminent. Sell now." That kind of "interpretation" of current/historical data is what you have at least implied in two previous posts. I'm asking you what criteria/model you are applying that yields that "sell" interpretation/"signal" of historical data. There are hundreds (thousands?) of professional market timers out there who are constantly making and then revising forecasts when their "model" does not coincide with reality (even the stopped clock is right twice a day). All one has to do is search "market crash" to see the thousands of "predictions" of a crash in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, etc. (I guess some people don't mind their completely 100% wrong videos of their crash forecasts remaining online... not sure who would purchase their products after seeing that, but... I'm thinking also of classics like Harry K. Brown's How you can Profit from the coming devaluation, 1970). I'm asking especially in light of the fact that you point out that people who stayed in the market ("buy and hold") after the last bubble burst probably eventually earned back their paper losses, but now you seem to be advocating sell. I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific about how you came to that conclusion to sell now and exactly when and to what degree, and for how long before full "recovery" of the coming "crash"/"realignment". Are you talking about next week or sometime in 2023 or when? Thanks. :shaka:
I implied no such thing. You are misinterpreting everything I said. IF you re-read what I wrote you will see I use the word IF to imply what could happen. Not implying anything else. IF you interpret it any other way you are wrong.
All I implied was based on historical stock market data, IF someone held on to their pre-bubble holdings after the last bubble, they have recovered and are up higher than before the bubble. And IF they were to sell today at today's market prices, then they would be making a profit. That is a lot of IF's that you apparently are ignoring. I feel what I said is quite clear and it appears to me you are misunderstanding what I wrote. I implied nothing of the kind of which you are insinuating. So please stop trying to insinuate that I am talking about timing a market or making predictions. I am not implying anyone sell anything nor have I stated any one can predict the next crash. I said nothing of the kind. You really need to re-read everything I wrote as I qualified everything with words like IF.
-
Please tell us how you know this. Show your work.
I'm confused. Are you doubting Inspector's assertion? What is your counter assertion regarding the recession and the recovery?
Back on topic, it's too bad that Walmart closed the 63 Sam's Clubs. I checked to see if the Hawaii store was closed but still open. Apparently, the three closed in Alaska has them in a tizzy there. It looks like most of the closed stores are in urban areas.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2018/01/11/see-if-your-sams-club-closing-heres-list/1026816001/
-
Apple just announced it is bringing back $252 Billion to the U.S. It will pay $38 Billion in taxes to repatriate this money. They also announced they will add 20k jobs to the U.S.
-
Apple just announced it is bringing back $252 Billion to the U.S. It will pay $38 Billion in taxes to repatriate this money. They also announced they will add 20k jobs to the U.S.
don't forget that AAPL closed at an all time high today too
and announced $2500 in restricted stock units to each employee
oh, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 26,000 for the first time ever
fucking Trump
-
fucking Trump
Yeah, I hate that guy, too!!! Thanks Obama!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
oh, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 26,000 for the first time ever
fucking Trump
Yeah, I hate that guy, too!!! Thanks Obama!!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Trump didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.
And here you can watch the experts predict the HUGE decline in the market if Trump got elected:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C70N6THOznI
-
Apple just announced it is bringing back $252 Billion to the U.S. It will pay $38 Billion in taxes to repatriate this money. They also announced they will add 20k jobs to the U.S.
"Apple is a success story that could only have happened in America, and we are proud to build on our long history of support for the US economy," said Tim Cook, Apple's CEO. "We believe deeply in the power of American ingenuity, and we are focusing our investments in areas where we can have a direct impact on job creation and job preparedness. We have a deep sense of responsibility to give back to our country and the people who help make our success possible."
Apple plans to repatriate much of its overseas profits and expects to pay taxes of $38 billion when doing so, which Apple says is likely to be the largest payment of this kind ever made. That tax payment, combined with its U.S. investments and planned capital expenditures, will account for $75 billion of its projected $350 billion contribution.
Apple will be paying 15.5 percent in taxes to repatriate its overseas cash, suggesting the company plans to repatriate approximately $245 billion, or nearly all of its foreign money.
Apple will create 20,000 new jobs and spend $30 billion hiring new employees at its existing campus and opening a new campus. Apple has a new campus in the works that will "initially house technical support for customers." Its location will be announced later in the year.
More than $10 billion of Apple's planned capital expenditures will be investments in data centers across the United States, with Apple breaking ground on a new facility in Reno, Nevada starting today.
Apple's final plan to bolster the economy is through education. The company will expand its current coding initiatives that are designed to help people learn how to create iOS apps using Swift and it will increase funding for ConnectED to help students in "historically underserved communities" learn coding skills.
Update: Apple today also told employees that it will issue a bonus of $2,500 worth of restricted stock units following the introduction of the new U.S. tax law. Stock grants will be issued to most employees below a director level worldwide "in the coming months."
Apple also plans to offer a new charitable donation program that will see the company matching all employee charitable donations to up to $10,000 annually at a rate of two to one. Apple will also double the amount it matches for each hour of time an employee donates to a charity.
-
"Apple is a success story that could only have happened in America, and we are proud to build on our long history of support for the US economy," said Tim Cook, Apple's CEO. "We believe deeply in the power of American ingenuity, and we are focusing our investments in areas where we can have a direct impact on job creation and job preparedness. We have a deep sense of responsibility to give back to our country and the people who help make our success possible."
Apple plans to repatriate much of its overseas profits and expects to pay taxes of $38 billion when doing so, which Apple says is likely to be the largest payment of this kind ever made. That tax payment, combined with its U.S. investments and planned capital expenditures, will account for $75 billion of its projected $350 billion contribution.
Apple will be paying 15.5 percent in taxes to repatriate its overseas cash, suggesting the company plans to repatriate approximately $245 billion, or nearly all of its foreign money.
Apple will create 20,000 new jobs and spend $30 billion hiring new employees at its existing campus and opening a new campus. Apple has a new campus in the works that will "initially house technical support for customers." Its location will be announced later in the year.
More than $10 billion of Apple's planned capital expenditures will be investments in data centers across the United States, with Apple breaking ground on a new facility in Reno, Nevada starting today.
Apple's final plan to bolster the economy is through education. The company will expand its current coding initiatives that are designed to help people learn how to create iOS apps using Swift and it will increase funding for ConnectED to help students in "historically underserved communities" learn coding skills.
Update: Apple today also told employees that it will issue a bonus of $2,500 worth of restricted stock units following the introduction of the new U.S. tax law. Stock grants will be issued to most employees below a director level worldwide "in the coming months."
Apple also plans to offer a new charitable donation program that will see the company matching all employee charitable donations to up to $10,000 annually at a rate of two to one. Apple will also double the amount it matches for each hour of time an employee donates to a charity.
Damn!!!! Some MSM are saying this is occurring for reasons other than the GOP tax bill. Thanks Obama!!!
-
Watching the financial news this morning. They said the list of companies that credit the GOP tax bill for giving stock options, raises, bonuses, etc to emplyees and repatriating out of country profits is up to 240 companies now. They said this effects approximately 2.5 million employees with just these 240 companies.
The other bit of news that is credited to the GOP tax bill is the IMF is forecasting world economic growth of 3.9% for this year and credits the GOP tax bill along with the growing US economy for the world economy doing better.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tax-overhaul-will-accelerate-global-growth-imf-says-1516629601
-
Watching the financial news this morning. They said the list of companies that credit the GOP tax bill for giving stock options, raises, bonuses, etc to emplyees and repatriating out of country profits is up to 240 companies now. They said this effects approximately 2.5 million employees with just these 240 companies.
The other bit of news that is credited to the GOP tax bill is the IMF is forecasting world economic growth of 3.9% for this year and credits the GOP tax bill along with the growing US economy for the world economy doing better.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tax-overhaul-will-accelerate-global-growth-imf-says-1516629601
Those companies don't know what they're talking about, nor does the IMF. The economic situation would have been the same or even better (DOW 50,000!) had Hillary Clinton been elected, as most of this bump is due to the lightworker policies of Hussein Obama. Please note that no amount of argument or evidence can disprove the preceding statements.
/sarc
/MSM spin
:crazy:
-
Those companies don't know what they're talking about, nor does the IMF. The economic situation would have been the same or even better (DOW 50,000!) had Hillary Clinton been elected, as most of this bump is due to the lightworker policies of Hussein Obama. Please note that no amount of argument or evidence can disprove the preceding statements.
/sarc
/MSM spin
:crazy:
Thanks Obama!!! :rofl: :rofl: :shake:
-
Thanks Obama!!! :rofl: :rofl: :shake:
I'd say "He didn't build that. Someone else built that", but of course Obama is the exception to his own rules (at least in his own mind). Funny how that works. >:(
-
I'd say "He didn't build that. Someone else built that", but of course Obama is the exception to his own rules (at least in his own mind). Funny how that works. >:(
Got my pay stub this morning. The Federal taxes taken out of my paycheck was 2.1% lower than on my last paycheck.
Not a lot but I'll take it. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
Got my pay stub this morning. The Federal taxes taken out of my paycheck was 2.1% lower than on my last paycheck.
Not a lot but I'll take it. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Great news! And all it took was sending our national debt spiraling out of control.
All we have to do now is switch our savings over to BTC before the Dollar loses all value and then we can tell the rest of the world where to stick it!
Winning is awesome!
-
Great news! And all it took was sending our national debt spiraling out of control.
All we have to do now is switch our savings over to BTC before the Dollar loses all value and then we can tell the rest of the world where to stick it!
Winning is awesome!
That is a bit of a premature statement as we don't know yet how much or if at all will the tax cuts stimulate the economy enough to bring in more tax revenue. When we find out in a year or two, we can all discuss this.
As far as BTC is concerned, have you tried to get your BTC converted to dollars or any other currency? Which currency do you recommend? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Yes, I agree. Winning is awesome!!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
Stock goes up 40%, all thanks given to Obama
Stock goes down 2%, ITS TRUMP FAULT
Companies offering more pay/benefit/hiring, none of this is the GOP tax bills doing
No dems, but all republicans want to release the memo
Now for dems rebuttal memo, both dems and republicans want to release it.
See how our society works.
-
Great news! And all it took was sending our national debt spiraling out of control.
Exactly. The baby boomers will have the legacy of being the most selfish generation. Literally bankrupting future generations for short term gain.
Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk
-
See how our society works.
It's a model of perfect efficiency. As long as both sides can blame someone else then nobody has to address the problem and we can all keep on winning forever!
-
Dow Jones has closed back up over 25,200 for two days in a row and is down less than 5% since the recent volatility started. So we saw a correction and now a recovery. We'll see where it goes from here.
Most financial data in the private sector continues to look good. It never waivered during the correction. Government financials remain strong even though we have a somewhat high debt to GDP ratio. We'll see how the tax bill combined with strong growth affects this ratio in the next few years. Historically speaking this ratio has gone down during periods of high growth.
We really need to get our debt paid down by controlling certain types of spending as well as get our entitlement programs under control now that our economy is starting to grow quickly and unemployment is at a low point.. JMHO
-
Exactly. The baby boomers will have the legacy of being the most selfish generation. Literally bankrupting future generations for short term gain.
And,,,,,,we are loving sticking it to millennial liberals that worship socialism.