McCain will make Bush tax cuts permanent, Obama will raise taxes
swiftboat_obama_dot_org
capital gains tax that many small family owned businesses use to
survive on permanent. Obama will raise our taxes. Nobody but a fool
would vote for Obama.
Matt
Please explain how a small family owned business would use a "capital
gains" tax? I really want to see how stupid you are.
Matt
mariposas rand mair fheal
swiftboat_obama_dot_org <elect...@electrician2.com> wrote:
how do they use it?
business income in schedule c earned income
taxed at earned income rates of what? thirty to forty percent?
which also has the regressive set applied to it
adding fifteen percent to the tax
capital gains is portfolio income at a lower rate than earned income
and against which no fica or set is levied
earned income is what you spend your precious time on
its whats consumes your time and energy
portfolio income is what you get for being rich
and letting other people use your property
for which you need not expend anything at to make money
so people who are actually making the things or doing the things
that actually move from person to person to make the economy
are taxed maybe three four or five times the rate
of people who just sit on their butts all day long
sucking on the teat of society
(there is actually a reason for this
people with earned income generally
have to physically move themselves and their household
to a jurisdiction with a lower tax rate
with can be difficult and even very expensive
hence they generally captive to the taxes where they live
capital on the other hand can move easily and quickly from jurisdiction
so that it easy for rich people to blackmail governments
into extremely low taxes to keep that capital from fleeing)
arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness
Bob Eld
"swiftboat_obama_dot_org" <elect...@electrician2.com> wrote in message
news:a3ce11e5-4518-4cb7...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Nobody but a fool would continue idiotic republican policies that have
created the bigest deficit in our histoy, nine trillion dollars. The
resultant decrease in the value of the dollar is n even bigger 'Tax". Wise
up!
John Galt
"Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rowIj.24358$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Bob, it's quite possible to replace bad policies with worse ones. If the
definition of "good policy" becomes "the opposite of what Bush did", that
means that Bush is still setting fiscal policy well into the next
administration.
An increase in the cap gains tax (which was first dropped from 28 to 20
percent under Clinton, it should be said) is one of those bad policies. It
has the potential to impact working people with savings who are retired and
about to retire more than any other taxpayer group.
JG
Bob Eld
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:lLwIj.79124$oO4....@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
I will not argue any specific tax rate nor suggest what it should or should
not be, but, in general, the absolute failure to collect sufficient revenue
to run the country plus wage two wars has been pure folly and we are
beginning to pay for it in many ways. Retirement funds have been heavily
adversely affected by underperformance in the stock market and the decline
in real estate. This is all a direct result of republican fiscal policies.
The curious thing is that at one time republicans and conservatives were
most interested in fiscal issues and even wanted a balanced budget
ammendment. Present day conservatives apparently including the OP, Cliffy,
could care less about fiscal responsibility as long as they get theirs. It's
all greed all of the time.
itsall_bull
Most Americans have their retirement savings invested in
mutual funds, Ira's and 401k's. Most funds have a stock
component. Increasing the capital gains tax increases the
cost of doing business and thus reduces the potential
earnings of stocks over time.
John Galt
Granted.
> Retirement funds have been heavily
> adversely affected by underperformance in the stock market and the decline
> in real estate. This is all a direct result of republican fiscal policies.
That's simply not so. The start of the subprime nightmare when Johnson
permitted securitization of underwritten mortgages in 1967 with the National
Housing Act. Research the matter a bit. If you don't want Wall Street to
play roulette with people's homes, then restrict their securitization.
Simple. Since that time, there hasn't been a president since then who hasn't
signed at least one bill which has contributed to the problem, with the
possible exception of Nixon (he may have, I just don't remember one off the
top of my head.)
> The curious thing is that at one time republicans and conservatives were
> most interested in fiscal issues and even wanted a balanced budget
> ammendment.
Conservatives still do. As a shrewd observer, I'd have thought that you'd
have realized that republicanism and conservativism have now diverged
significantly. The three most conservative presidents since 1960 have
probably been Reagan, Kennedy, and Clinton, in no particular order.
JG
itsall_bull
> "swiftboat_obama_dot_org" <electric...@electrician2.com> wrote in message
Throwing the baby out with the bath water will not correct our
problems. The primary reason that our Federal budget is
so fucked up is the that Federal government bureaucrats
spend with complete and total abandon. The Federal
government is an open sore of fraud, waste and abuse
and it's the fault of we citizens who have bought the
great lie that all problems most be solved at the
federal level by a powerful centralized government that
the ordinary citizen can't keep an eye on.
The only way we can control our profligate federal
government is to starve it of taxes, institute term
limits to deny professional politicians to gain so much
power and an iron-clad balanced budget amendment.
itsall_bull
> "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:rowIj.24358$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>
> > "swiftboat_obama_dot_org" <electric...@electrician2.com> wrote in message
> >news:a3ce11e5-4518-4cb7...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> Obama has promised to raise taxes. McCain will make the 15 percent
> >> capital gains tax that many small family owned businesses use to
> >> survive on permanent. Obama will raise our taxes. Nobody but a fool
> >> would vote for Obama.
>
> > Nobody but a fool would continue idiotic republican policies that have
> > created the bigest deficit in our histoy, nine trillion dollars. The
> > resultant decrease in the value of the dollar is n even bigger 'Tax". Wise
> > up!
>
> Bob, it's quite possible to replace bad policies with worse ones. If the
> definition of "good policy" becomes "the opposite of what Bush did", that
> means that Bush is still setting fiscal policy well into the next
> administration.
>
> An increase in the cap gains tax (which was first dropped from 28 to 20
> percent under Clinton, it should be said) is one of those bad policies. It
> has the potential to impact working people with savings who are retired and
> about to retire more than any other taxpayer group.
>
> JG
Raising taxes, particularly on capital gains, has a direct
impact on the life savings of most senior citizens. Thanks
to Clinton senior citizens must pay income taxes on their
social security income, withdrawals from their Ira's and
on all long term capital gains.
itsall_bull
> "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>
> news:lLwIj.79124$oO4....@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> > "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:rowIj.24358$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> > > "swiftboat_obama_dot_org" <electric...@electrician2.com> wrote in
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why is it that nobody seems to get that the government's
budgeted expenditures are increased each year
automatically whether justified or not. Most people are
well aware that all federal spending agencies must spend
their entire budget or suffer a lower budget in the following
year. Billions of dollars are unaccounted for each year
and the poorest professional politicians retires from
government office a multi-millionaire. We've got to
starve the out of control spending machine that goes
on unabated year after year regardless of which political
party is in office.
Al Smith
If you are wealthy, with lots of savings in the bank, and a good
health care plan, starving the government of tax revenues may seem
like a pretty good way to go; but if you are unemployed, with a
family, and no health plan of any kind, reducing taxes on the
wealthy so that the government will be forced to cut services may
not seem like such a great direction in which to move the country.
-Al-
John Galt
"Al Smith" <inv...@address.com> wrote in message
news:VUyIj.11447$pb5.1801@edtnps89...
Not defending the "starve the beast" metaphor, but I have to point out that
this is precisely the misunderstanding that years of government propaganda
have convinced us of: that the "choice" is between low taxes and starving
workers, and high taxes and big government services.
We can do better.
JG
John Agosta
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:lLwIj.79124$oO4....@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> "Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:rowIj.24358$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>
>> "swiftboat_obama_dot_org" <elect...@electrician2.com> wrote in message
>> news:a3ce11e5-4518-4cb7...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> Obama has promised to raise taxes. McCain will make the 15 percent
>>> capital gains tax that many small family owned businesses use to
>>> survive on permanent. Obama will raise our taxes. Nobody but a fool
>>> would vote for Obama.
>>
>> Nobody but a fool would continue idiotic republican policies that have
>> created the bigest deficit in our histoy, nine trillion dollars. The
>> resultant decrease in the value of the dollar is n even bigger 'Tax".
>> Wise
>> up!
>
> Bob, it's quite possible to replace bad policies with worse ones. If the
> definition of "good policy" becomes "the opposite of what Bush did", that
> means that Bush is still setting fiscal policy well into the next
> administration.
>
Of COURSE he is.
He put HIS war on OUR Master Card.
Hundreds of billions, just brushed off for the next few generations to pay.
Didn't you hear our president?
Just go shopping.
That'll fix everything.
China says thank, you, in advance.....
4012 Dead
Of course, they only have to pay taxes on SS if their income
exceeds...what is it? $300,000 a year or so? I bet that $2000 or so
they have to pay just puts their asses right out on the street,
starving.
Same notation on bank interest on savings. Have you looked at the
rates of return lately? You would need a million in the bank just to
get taxes up to the petty cash level.
Here's a suggestion: make cap gains taxes progressive.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
John Galt
"4012 Dead" <zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
news:15r5v35vltk6bbb1m...@4ax.com...
Why? Even at full bore, the cap gains tax accounts for about 2% of
government tax revenues, and everyone knows that you can double the tax from
15% and you'll maybe pick up another point or point and a half due to
changes in investor behavior. The CBO drives that point home whenever
Congress asks them to analyze the tax effect. It's a tax that poses high
risk to the equity markets and at best brings back very little revenue to
the coffers. So why do it?
Here's the issue: if you return the upper two tax brackets (about 2.5
million returns in these classes in 2005; in 2007, anyone making over
160K/198K family is in them) to their Clintonian levels (that's pretty much
guaranteed, since nobody thinks that the GOP will retake Congress, whatever
happens with the presidental race) then certain highly-rated municipal
bonds, which historically carry a default rate close to zero, will have an
after-tax return to those tax brackets of as much as 8-8.25%, which is a
decent return for many investments which carry *far* more risk.
So, investors will move some percentage of the money in their taxable
accounts into munis to take advantage of the lowered risk profile and avoid
the back loaded tax, a tax that smacks them in their retirement years.
Another investment that would suddenly look better than taxable investments
would be real estate, which is now and will be available at attractive
pricing for the next few years, as would hard commodity assets like precious
metals. And, ALL investors retool their portfolios so they trade less
frequently. And, mutual funds return less over time as they are forced to be
more conservative in their trades, since they know that Morningstar and
Lipper are grading them on tax efficiency, encouraging them to trade at less
profitable loci on the price curves.
Point here is that a higher cap gains tax makes all of these other
investment vehicles look more attractive. Money flows into them and out of
equities, causing equity prices to drop, which punishes anyone with IRAs and
401Ks who are closer than 10 years to retirement.
In the two years following both the prior cap gains tax drops (28 to 20
under Clinton, 20 to 15 under Bush) the market responded with a 20-30%
appreciation over the next two years. Obviously market movements are complex
causal relationship that can't be distilled down to a single factor, but
you'd be hard pressed to find someone market-knowledeable who would deny
that an increase in the cap gains tax won't take SOMETHING off the market.
If we're lucky, it's a couple of points and slower growth; if we're not,
it's 20-25%, causing people close to retirement to have to work longer, and
people in retirement to draw down their balances.
Quite frankly, it's not worth it. If the US was in a better financial
situation, we'd be debating why we have the damn thing in the first place.
It's a tax that deters every market and investor behavior you want to
encourage, and encourages every market and investor behavior you want to
deter.
JG
Marinus van der Lubbe
Still, an individual would have to earn a lot to be effected, right?
Even Nixon went along with income tax differences between active and
passive income. He was right to do so. There are certain hidden costs to
creating active incomes while passive's costs are all accounted for. But
mostly, it is social justice to tax income that did not result from the
sweat of someone's brow. Look at what you are defending. This is why
there is continuing--no--increasing year in and year out disparity
between the rich and everyone else in this country.
Disparity in wealth is bad. It always leads to disturbances that effect
financial markets more so than these little tweaks to tax those who
(including corporations) can pay.
4012 Dead
Because 2% of the population now hold 60% of the nation's wealth. And
in case you haven't noticed, the equity markets are in the toilet
right about now.
>
>Here's the issue: if you return the upper two tax brackets (about 2.5
>million returns in these classes in 2005; in 2007, anyone making over
>160K/198K family is in them) to their Clintonian levels (that's pretty much
>guaranteed, since nobody thinks that the GOP will retake Congress, whatever
>happens with the presidental race) then certain highly-rated municipal
>bonds, which historically carry a default rate close to zero, will have an
>after-tax return to those tax brackets of as much as 8-8.25%, which is a
>decent return for many investments which carry *far* more risk.
>
And I'm not seeing a downside here...
>So, investors will move some percentage of the money in their taxable
>accounts into munis to take advantage of the lowered risk profile and avoid
>the back loaded tax, a tax that smacks them in their retirement years.
>Another investment that would suddenly look better than taxable investments
>would be real estate, which is now and will be available at attractive
>pricing for the next few years, as would hard commodity assets like precious
>metals. And, ALL investors retool their portfolios so they trade less
>frequently. And, mutual funds return less over time as they are forced to be
>more conservative in their trades, since they know that Morningstar and
>Lipper are grading them on tax efficiency, encouraging them to trade at less
>profitable loci on the price curves.
Again, a good thing. You may have noticed that the taxpayer is being
asked to cover a lot of risky investments that went bad just about
now.
>
>Point here is that a higher cap gains tax makes all of these other
>investment vehicles look more attractive. Money flows into them and out of
>equities, causing equity prices to drop, which punishes anyone with IRAs and
>401Ks who are closer than 10 years to retirement.
>
Fuck 'em.
>In the two years following both the prior cap gains tax drops (28 to 20
>under Clinton, 20 to 15 under Bush) the market responded with a 20-30%
>appreciation over the next two years. Obviously market movements are complex
>causal relationship that can't be distilled down to a single factor, but
>you'd be hard pressed to find someone market-knowledeable who would deny
>that an increase in the cap gains tax won't take SOMETHING off the market.
>If we're lucky, it's a couple of points and slower growth; if we're not,
>it's 20-25%, causing people close to retirement to have to work longer, and
>people in retirement to draw down their balances.
>
>Quite frankly, it's not worth it. If the US was in a better financial
>situation, we'd be debating why we have the damn thing in the first place.
>It's a tax that deters every market and investor behavior you want to
>encourage, and encourages every market and investor behavior you want to
>deter.
>
>JG
>
>
Steve
Here's a little insight to Zepp's knowledge of capital gains...
If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
be in jail soon enough.
--Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
Canyon note: See line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown
below, is clearly where you report capital gains.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
Matt
Now "most Americans" are small family owned businesses?
Wow, that's going to come as a shock.
Really, people, get your stories straight.
Now, explain again how those 'small family businesses' are going to
benefit from a capital gains cut. Oh, and while you are at it, explain
how said capital gains cut will apply to an IRA or 401k. This just
gets
better and better...
Matt
John Galt
"Marinus van der Lubbe" <mv...@reichstagbrand.de> wrote in message
news:87EIj.11588$qS5...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
No. It's a percentage issue. If you're going to retire in 5 years and are
scraping with a smallish 401K, taking 20% off that 401K has you snagging
carts at WalMart. If you're going to retire in 5 years and your 401K has 4M
in it, having it drop to 3.2M probably won't change your behavior as much.
>
> Even Nixon went along with income tax differences between active and
> passive income. He was right to do so. There are certain hidden costs to
> creating active incomes while passive's costs are all accounted for. But
> mostly, it is social justice to tax income that did not result from the
> sweat of someone's brow. Look at what you are defending. This is why there
> is continuing--no--increasing year in and year out disparity between the
> rich and everyone else in this country.
First off, that's wrong. If you want to fix disparity, raise marginal rates
on the upper bracket and lower it on the middle class. However. even if you
were right, the solution to disparity is not to just screw everyone over by
hammering the equity markets.
If you are of the personal opinion that the fiscal condition of the average
American is fine, and that the equity markets are in good shape, then go
ahead, roll the dice, and enact a tax which destablizes the equity markets.
Good luck.
JG
John Galt
That reason doesn't answer the question. If you destablize the markets, the
poorer you are, the more painful it is when it tanks.
OK, so you're good with equity markets 20% lower. OK. Good to know. Just
don't run around pretending you care about tthe little guy.
>>
>>Point here is that a higher cap gains tax makes all of these other
>>investment vehicles look more attractive. Money flows into them and out of
>>equities, causing equity prices to drop, which punishes anyone with IRAs
>>and
>>401Ks who are closer than 10 years to retirement.
>>
> Fuck 'em.
Fuck working America? Now I see your agenda.
JG
John Galt
"Steve" <steven...@yahooooooo.com> wrote in message
news:mml6v3h8ijug83vqb...@4ax.com...
Pretty clear from his non-response.
JG
4012 Dead
You'll find Steve's alliance will really help your gravitas there,
guy. Heh heh heh.
I did respond. I take it you were expecting a response while you were
still writing it?
>
>JG
>
>
>>
>>
>> If Nevermore tries paying cap gains with a 1040, he'll
>> be in jail soon enough.
>> --Zepp Jamieson, Dec 3, 2005
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/30fdaff423e2029b?hl=en&
>>
>>
>> Canyon note: See line 13 on the 1040 form, under income, as shown
>> below, is clearly where you report capital gains.
>>
>> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf
>>
>>
>
4012 Dead
<whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
Ah. So we should enhance the moral hazard of rewarding rich thieves
for ripping us off so they don't do a Samson smash on us. I see.
Steve
<whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
You don't understand Zeppy He hates investors regardless of where
they come from... he hates them because they represent capitalism.
he hates them because they had the foresight to save and invest and he
didn't.
"When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and tearing
around in the mountains of Central California."
--Zepp Dec 7 1999
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 1, 4:16 pm, itsall_bull <itsall_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 1, 12:27 pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 1, 12:16 pm, swiftboat_obama_dot_org
>>
>> > <electric...@electrician2.com> wrote:
>> > > Obama has promised to raise taxes. McCain will make the 15 percent
>> > > capital gains tax that many small family owned businesses use to
>> > > survive on permanent. Obama will raise our taxes. Nobody but a fool
>> > > would vote for Obama.
>>
>> > Please explain how a small family owned business would use a "capital
>> > gains" tax? I really want to see how stupid you are.
>>
>> > Matt
>>
>> Most Americans have their retirement savings invested in
>> mutual funds, Ira's and 401k's. Most funds have a stock
>> component. Increasing the capital gains tax increases the
>> cost of doing business and thus reduces the potential
>> earnings of stocks over time.
>
>Now "most Americans" are small family owned businesses?
>Wow, that's going to come as a shock.
<LOL> Try reading that again, Dummy.... Ya see... family owned
business owners is a subset of "most Americans."
>Really, people, get your stories straight.
>
>Now, explain again how those 'small family businesses' are going to
>benefit from a capital gains cut. Oh, and while you are at it, explain
>how said capital gains cut will apply to an IRA or 401k. This just
>gets
>better and better...
>
>Matt
He just explained it, Dummy.. Increasing cap gains tax reduces the
overall potential earnings making them less viable for non-deferred
account investments which makes them earn less for the deferred
account investments....
4012 Dead
The really sad thing here is that he's named himself after an Ayn Rand
character who used to stentoriously warn against the moral decal any
society faced that had a monied elite.
John Galt
If you think that the stablization of the equity markets only benefits "rich
theives", you have a completely puerile understanding of the markets.
Go waste somebody else's time. You're not a serious commentator. You're a
hack.
JG
4012 Dead
<whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
This from a clown who named himself after a literary character who
decried the existance of a monied elite in society.
John Galt
I understand the stereotype. There will always be people who hate to compete
because they're afraid to lose. They start by hating anyone who wins, then
their disease progresses until they hate the game itself, because it's
existence reminds them of their shortcomings.
I'm no rich guy. I'm one of the majority who has neglected his retirement
savings until too late, getting serious only in the last four years. I
became knowledgeable of the markets in order to make up lost ground, and
have done quite well. However, for me, kicking up the cap gains tax to 28%
would force me work years longer than I currently intend, possibly until 70.
If that's the tax policy some people want to follow, that's fine, but let's
not allow them to live in the myth that the little guy doesn't get creamed
by high cap gains tax rates.
JG
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
Heh heh heh...
I figure it's time to start considering legal action
against this little stalker.
Zepp Jamieson 2 Mar 2005
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/b503459d6b2db5b2?hl=en&
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 04:30:47 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 1, 4:16 pm, itsall_bull <itsall_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 1, 12:27 pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Apr 1, 12:16 pm, swiftboat_obama_dot_org
>
> >> > <electric...@electrician2.com> wrote:
> >> > > Obama has promised to raise taxes. McCain will make the 15 percent
> >> > > capital gains tax that many small family owned businesses use to
> >> > > survive on permanent. Obama will raise our taxes. Nobody but a fool
> >> > > would vote for Obama.
>
> >> > Please explain how a small family owned business would use a "capital
> >> > gains" tax? I really want to see how stupid you are.
>
> >> > Matt
>
> >> Most Americans have their retirement savings invested in
> >> mutual funds, Ira's and 401k's. Most funds have a stock
> >> component. Increasing the capital gains tax increases the
> >> cost of doing business and thus reduces the potential
> >> earnings of stocks over time.
>
> >Now "most Americans" are small family owned businesses?
> >Wow, that's going to come as a shock.
>
> <LOL> Try reading that again, Dummy.... Ya see... family owned
> business owners is a subset of "most Americans."
I asked a question, that was the response. The inference (I know,
Steve,
a big word, but try anyway) was that it was a response to my question.
The only possible way it could be an answer would be if most Americans
were family owned small businesses.
>
> >Really, people, get your stories straight.
>
> >Now, explain again how those 'small family businesses' are going to
> >benefit from a capital gains cut. Oh, and while you are at it, explain
> >how said capital gains cut will apply to an IRA or 401k. This just
> >gets
> >better and better...
>
> >Matt
>
> He just explained it, Dummy.. Increasing cap gains tax reduces the
> overall potential earnings making them less viable for non-deferred
> account investments which makes them earn less for the deferred
> account investments....
Really. So, a capital gains cut affects my IRA and 401k. Very
interesting.
matt
John Galt
"Matt" <mattt...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:d53030e6-17c9-4695...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
[JG] If money flows out of the equity markets into other investments that
are not subject to the cap gains tax, it does indeed. Your IRA and 401K
depend on the market going up, and this is a tax that increases downward
pressure on the market.
JG
4012 Dead
<whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
Oh, spare me. The "little guy" made a hell of a lot more progress
back when the cap gains was 40% than he does now.
Pretending that attacking monied parasites is attacking working people
is disgraceful intellectual dishonesty.
>
>>
>> "When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and tearing
>> around in the mountains of Central California."
>> --Zepp Dec 7 1999
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
Oh, and you quickly become known by the company you keep.
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 7:46 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
No dummy.. the fact that people who own businesses are a subset of
"most Americans include them as people who have mutual funds, Ira's
and 401k's.
>> >Really, people, get your stories straight.
>>
>> >Now, explain again how those 'small family businesses' are going to
>> >benefit from a capital gains cut. Oh, and while you are at it, explain
>> >how said capital gains cut will apply to an IRA or 401k. This just
>> >gets
>> >better and better...
>>
>> >Matt
>>
>> He just explained it, Dummy.. Increasing cap gains tax reduces the
>> overall potential earnings making them less viable for non-deferred
>> account investments which makes them earn less for the deferred
>> account investments....
>
>Really. So, a capital gains cut affects my IRA and 401k. Very
>interesting.
Read what I said Dummy... did I use too many big words? Here, try
this:
Increased cap gains tax will reduce the number of people who want to
buy into any investments that's part of your IRA and your 401k. Less
people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will reduce
their value.
>matt
Steve
"monied parasites?" The people who invest in the stock market...
the people who create jobs....
>>> "When I was In high school, I loved getting drunk and tearing
>>> around in the mountains of Central California."
>>> --Zepp Dec 7 1999
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/7230848ec0c07282?hl=en&
>
>Oh, and you quickly become known by the company you keep.
Indeed... see below:
"I *used* to have a big problem with controlling wolvish
behaviour; things like wanting to curl up my lips and snarl
on crowded buses, or bite people that bump into me...
Didn't usually DO it, but I went through merry hell trying
NOT to. Nowadays I don't drink booze any more, and that's
made quite a difference. Drink near-beer (Kaliber, for
preference), and I stay out of trouble a lot better!
<toothy embarrassed grin> Also, just plain getting older
and a bit mellower as I go along... Been about seventeen
years or so since the last time I got popped for
drunk-and-disorderly! ;-)"
Greywolf Jamieson AKA PJWOLF May 31 1996
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.horror.werewolves/msg/c4c58d3743c58b1f?hl=en&
Matt
> "Matt" <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
To say that is a stretch is almost beyond belief. Capital gains taxes
have
no impact on retirement investments, to say otherwise is to be
disingenuous.
Matt
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 07:42:48 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
So what percentage are they, Steve? And how does having an IRA or 401k
impact them. Please be specific.
> >> >Really, people, get your stories straight.
>
> >> >Now, explain again how those 'small family businesses' are going to
> >> >benefit from a capital gains cut. Oh, and while you are at it, explain
> >> >how said capital gains cut will apply to an IRA or 401k. This just
> >> >gets
> >> >better and better...
>
> >> >Matt
>
> >> He just explained it, Dummy.. Increasing cap gains tax reduces the
> >> overall potential earnings making them less viable for non-deferred
> >> account investments which makes them earn less for the deferred
> >> account investments....
>
> >Really. So, a capital gains cut affects my IRA and 401k. Very
> >interesting.
>
> Read what I said Dummy... did I use too many big words? Here, try
> this:
>
> Increased cap gains tax will reduce the number of people who want to
> buy into any investments that's part of your IRA and your 401k. Less
> people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will reduce
> their value.
Really. So there were less people buying in when the capital gains
were
higher. You really are amusing now. Try doing some research before
being
such an idiot. Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require
longer
lock in. This reduced the number of trades made, which reduced the
volatility
of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
so.
None of this, of course, explains how a 401k or IRA is impacted by
capital
gains taxes...
Matt
>
>
>
> >matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
nob...@yoohoo.org
Need to douse a fire?
Write a check before firemen enter your property.
Need to catch a burgler? Write a check before the police persue.
Turn ALL roads into toll roads.
Need to fight a war? Write a check to the pentagon.
Want to fly somewhere on vacation. Give money to TSA employees and run out
to the control tower to drop off some cash.
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 9:19 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
See below:
>> >> >Really, people, get your stories straight.
>>
>> >> >Now, explain again how those 'small family businesses' are going to
>> >> >benefit from a capital gains cut. Oh, and while you are at it, explain
>> >> >how said capital gains cut will apply to an IRA or 401k. This just
>> >> >gets
>> >> >better and better...
>>
>> >> >Matt
>>
>> >> He just explained it, Dummy.. Increasing cap gains tax reduces the
>> >> overall potential earnings making them less viable for non-deferred
>> >> account investments which makes them earn less for the deferred
>> >> account investments....
>>
>> >Really. So, a capital gains cut affects my IRA and 401k. Very
>> >interesting.
>>
>> Read what I said Dummy... did I use too many big words? Here, try
>> this:
>>
>> Increased cap gains tax will reduce the number of people who want to
>> buy into any investments that's part of your IRA and your 401k. Less
>> people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will reduce
>> their value.
>
>Really. So there were less people buying in when the capital gains
>were
>higher.
<LOL> Yeah... you didn't know this?
>You really are amusing now. Try doing some research before
>being
>such an idiot.
Irony anyone?
>Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require
>longer
>lock in. This reduced the number of trades made, which reduced the
>volatility
>of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
>so.
Errrrr, you think that increasing the number of trades makes a stock
less valuable? Really?
>None of this, of course, explains how a 401k or IRA is impacted by
>capital
>gains taxes...
<LOL> Matt isn't the sharpest knife ........
Here's a clue, Matt... if less people want to buy something you own,
it's value is likely to go down... People who do pay cap gains tax
will go looking for other types of investments...
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 08:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Really, I didn't know this. That would certainly explain why some $3
billion
is out of the market now that capital gains are lower. Yes, that would
explain
it entirely.
>
> >You really are amusing now. Try doing some research before
> >being
> >such an idiot.
>
> Irony anyone?
Yes, I find it ironic that you make sweeping statements without a clue
as
to what they mean.
>
> >Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require
> >longer
> >lock in. This reduced the number of trades made, which reduced the
> >volatility
> >of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
> >so.
>
> Errrrr, you think that increasing the number of trades makes a stock
> less valuable? Really?
No, I don't. YOU do, however. Read your own statement, Steve:
> Increased cap gains tax will reduce the number of people who want to
> buy into any investments that's part of your IRA and your 401k. Less
> people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will reduce
> their value.
Now, if less people buy (less trades) your IRA and 401k will reduce in
value .. according to you. What's the matter, Steve, can't keep track
of
what you are saying anymore?
>
> >None of this, of course, explains how a 401k or IRA is impacted by
> >capital
> >gains taxes...
>
> <LOL> Matt isn't the sharpest knife ........
>
> Here's a clue, Matt... if less people want to buy something you own,
> it's value is likely to go down... People who do pay cap gains tax
> will go looking for other types of investments...
Really. So value goes down if I don't sell something. NOW you've got
something there, Steve. More trades = higher value. Wow, Enron is
worth
a FORTUNE.
God this man is thick.
Matt
John Galt
[JG] Then you believe that supply and demand is a stretch beyond belief.
Stocks rise when demand for them is strong. When demand for them is weak,
they fall, as stocks are sold and other investments (money market, bonds,
real estate, commodities) are aquired.
If you increase the capital gains tax, stocks become less attractive
compared to other investments. Simple.
> Capital gains taxes have no impact on retirement investments, to say
> otherwise is to be disingenuous.
[JG] If a tax policy encourages people to move money out of equities, those
equities will drop in value. Most retirement accounts contain equities.
Therefore, an increase in capital gains taxes threatens to decrease the
value of any retirement account that contains equities.
Again, simple. Investments 101.
JG
Matt
No, stocks do not necessarily rise when the demand for them is strong,
nor
when the supply is weak. Stocks are not a standard commodity, nor is
oil.
Not understanding that is what leads to stock market crashes.
If you don't believe me, check out the standard gainers on the stock
market.
Their shares trade at ten or more times their closest competitors, yet
do not
rise a cent.
>
> If you increase the capital gains tax, stocks become less attractive
> compared to other investments. Simple.
That would be nice if it were true, but not a single study has shown
this to
be the case. Capital gains taxes are a POST-trade activity and rarely
have
any impact on whether or not people buy and sell stocks, no matter
what the
nice people in the GOP will tell you. You buy and sell stocks because
you
believe that they will be worth more or less (or have a 'system').
>
> > Capital gains taxes have no impact on retirement investments, to say
> > otherwise is to be disingenuous.
>
> [JG] If a tax policy encourages people to move money out of equities, those
> equities will drop in value. Most retirement accounts contain equities.
> Therefore, an increase in capital gains taxes threatens to decrease the
> value of any retirement account that contains equities.
>
> Again, simple. Investments 101.
Apparently, you flunked said course. People move into, or out of,
equities,
because they believe this is the best course for their money. Costs,
whether
imposed at the time of the trade (i.e. transaction fees) or after the
time of the
trade (i.e. capital gains and other taxes) have zero impact on the
trade itself.
Were what you were saying true, people would stop coming to the United
States when the marginal tax rate went up. They obviously haven't, so
there
is something else at play.
Matt
Lamont Cranston
> Obama has promised to raise taxes.
Actually, Obama has promised to cut taxes for middle and lower income
levels.
John Galt
[JG] If you don't understand how the markets work, there's little point to
continuing the discussion.
JG
Matt
If you prefer, then let's not. But first, let me ask you this.. what
makes you think
the stock market follows any "standard" economic form? Ask yourself
that, then
try your model against the actual behavior of the market.
I think you will find that it doesn't track well.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
Errr, check out the graph on this page, moron.....
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
>> >You really are amusing now. Try doing some research before
>> >being
>> >such an idiot.
>>
>> Irony anyone?
>
>Yes, I find it ironic that you make sweeping statements without a clue
>as
>to what they mean.
>
>>
>> >Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require
>> >longer
>> >lock in. This reduced the number of trades made, which reduced the
>> >volatility
>> >of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
>> >so.
>>
>> Errrrr, you think that increasing the number of trades makes a stock
>> less valuable? Really?
>
>No, I don't.
Your statement to the contrary was... "This reduced the number of
trades made, which reduced the volatility of the investments. This
made things MORE valuable, "
>YOU do, however. Read your own statement, Steve:
<LOL> Nice try... but very pathetic.. see below where I said,
"less people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will
reduce their value." I've made no claims about the number of trades,
which don't necessarily change any values.....
>> Increased cap gains tax will reduce the number of people who want to
>> buy into any investments that's part of your IRA and your 401k. Less
>> people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will reduce
>> their value.
>
>Now, if less people buy (less trades) your IRA and 401k will reduce in
>value .. according to you.
The number of trades isn't necessarily significant, Matt.. the number
of people wanting to buy is.....
>What's the matter, Steve, can't keep track
>of what you are saying anymore?
Irony anyone?
>> >None of this, of course, explains how a 401k or IRA is impacted by
>> >capital
>> >gains taxes...
>>
>> <LOL> Matt isn't the sharpest knife ........
>>
>> Here's a clue, Matt... if less people want to buy something you own,
>> it's value is likely to go down... People who do pay cap gains tax
>> will go looking for other types of investments...
>
>Really. So value goes down if I don't sell something. NOW you've got
>something there, Steve. More trades = higher value. Wow, Enron is
>worth
>a FORTUNE.
<shaking my head and smiling... see statement above re: sharpest
knife....
John Galt
[JG}I never said it did. The market, taken as a whole (which is what we are
referring to in this thread) is a remarkably complex beast which doesn't
correlate (in the sense of a mathematical .8-1.00 correlation) to ANY
individual factor, including taxation. If you're going to try to understand
the market based on any individual variable correlation, you're doomed to
never understand the market. You're better off with Cramer than looking for
highly correlated cause and effect.
HOWEVER, the point about capital gains taxation is that it *always* makes
equities less attractive compared to other investments not subject to it. In
the case of munis, I think you'd agree that an investment that you HOPE will
get you 8% over time is less attractive than one that you KNOW will get you
8% over time. If you grant that point, then you cannot help but grant that
higher capital gains can act as a net deflator of the capital markets. So,
as far as correlation is concerned, you're not going to get .8-1.00; but,
over time, you may very well get .6 - .8, which is indeed correlation, but
allows that other factors also act to markets.
Now, WILL that occur? There is no way of telling. If cap gains is increased
and the market goes up 10%, the point can still be legitimately made that
the market MIGHT HAVE gone up 12% had the tax not been raised. All we can
say is that we KNOW that capital gains taxes, IN GENERAL, make eqiuties less
attractive compared to other investments, all other things being the same.
However, it's not too much to ask for some *reason* in taxation policy.
Corporations are moving at madcap speed away from defined benefit pensions
to 401Ks as their primary retirement vehicle. This transfers risk to the
employee, and any politician that claims, therefore, to be concerned about
WORKING PEOPLE must, therefore, enact policies that make equities more
attractive, or risk criticism for their hypocricy.
The majority of workers today depend on 401K (thus the equity markets) to
drive enough savings for their retirement; in two decades, nearly all will.
Thus, the goverment must enact market friendly policies whenever feasible,
and the old thinking that market friendly policies benefit only the rich
needs to go out the door. That's the world we lived in in 1980, not 2008.
I don't think there's anything in the above which is particularly arguable
nor controversial.
JG
Matt
The "market" cannot be predicted, nor can it be affected by much of
anything,
in the aggregate. Individual stocks, of course, can be. And yes, I
generally agree
with you.
>
> HOWEVER, the point about capital gains taxation is that it *always* makes
> equities less attractive compared to other investments not subject to it. In
> the case of munis, I think you'd agree that an investment that you HOPE will
> get you 8% over time is less attractive than one that you KNOW will get you
> 8% over time. If you grant that point, then you cannot help but grant that
> higher capital gains can act as a net deflator of the capital markets. So,
> as far as correlation is concerned, you're not going to get .8-1.00; but,
> over time, you may very well get .6 - .8, which is indeed correlation, but
> allows that other factors also act to markets.
Higher capital gains do apply across the board, of course. You can
restrict
your opinion to equities, but they apply to most other investment
vehicles as
well.
>
> Now, WILL that occur? There is no way of telling. If cap gains is increased
> and the market goes up 10%, the point can still be legitimately made that
> the market MIGHT HAVE gone up 12% had the tax not been raised. All we can
> say is that we KNOW that capital gains taxes, IN GENERAL, make eqiuties less
> attractive compared to other investments, all other things being the same.
The point can be raised, but it isn't terribly valid. Somewhere along
the line, you are
going to have to pay the price, whether it be via capital gains taxes
or some other
vehicle. Stock prices will go up or down based on the mood of the folk
on the street,
and for no other reason. If they believe that the current
administration is good for the
business world, as they did under Clinton, it will go up regardless of
the capital gains
rate.
>
> However, it's not too much to ask for some *reason* in taxation policy.
> Corporations are moving at madcap speed away from defined benefit pensions
> to 401Ks as their primary retirement vehicle. This transfers risk to the
> employee, and any politician that claims, therefore, to be concerned about
> WORKING PEOPLE must, therefore, enact policies that make equities more
> attractive, or risk criticism for their hypocricy.
I'm with you here.
>
> The majority of workers today depend on 401K (thus the equity markets) to
> drive enough savings for their retirement; in two decades, nearly all will.
> Thus, the goverment must enact market friendly policies whenever feasible,
> and the old thinking that market friendly policies benefit only the rich
> needs to go out the door. That's the world we lived in in 1980, not 2008.
Sigh. Which is one reason I never wanted the government involved in
anything
having to do with the stock market. Putting retirement funds there was
a disaster
waiting to happen. In fact, it is already happening, and will probably
make the
subprime disaster look like a minor spike.
>
> I don't think there's anything in the above which is particularly arguable
> nor controversial.
It isn't controversial, it just doesn't really address the premises
that were made by
the original poster, who I laughed at. You can raise, lower, or leave
capital gains
rates alone and it will have no impact on "small family businesses" or
retirement
accounts. Steve's idea that the "value" of an investment goes down
because someone
won't buy it isn't helping either. If a stock price is at 1.00, and
nobody buys it, the stock
still has a value of 1.00. End of discussion.
Matt
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:01:10 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
You know, Steve, every time I think you've gotten just as stupid as
you can
possibly get, you get stupider. You just posted a graph of the Dow
Jones
Industrial Average. Do you even understand what that means?
> >> >Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require
> >> >longer
> >> >lock in. This reduced the number of trades made, which reduced the
> >> >volatility
> >> >of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
> >> >so.
>
> >> Errrrr, you think that increasing the number of trades makes a stock
> >> less valuable? Really?
>
> >No, I don't.
>
> Your statement to the contrary was... "This reduced the number of
> trades made, which reduced the volatility of the investments. This
> made things MORE valuable, "
What, now you are arguing both sides of the position? STATE your
position,
idiot, and stick with it. Is volatility good? Does more trading
increase value?
Please be prepared to back your statement up with facts for a change.
>
> >YOU do, however. Read your own statement, Steve:
>
> <LOL> Nice try... but very pathetic.. see below where I said,
> "less people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will
> reduce their value." I've made no claims about the number of trades,
> which don't necessarily change any values.....
Really. So, if a stock is at 1.00 and nobody buys it, it is worth less
than 1.00?
Cool. You've really got something there, Steve. Nothing realistic, of
course, or
factual, but definitely something.
>
> >> Increased cap gains tax will reduce the number of people who want to
> >> buy into any investments that's part of your IRA and your 401k. Less
> >> people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will reduce
> >> their value.
>
> >Now, if less people buy (less trades) your IRA and 401k will reduce in
> >value .. according to you.
>
> The number of trades isn't necessarily significant, Matt.. the number
> of people wanting to buy is.....
Of course. Because, the number of people that want to buy Enron stock
is seriously
high these days...
>
> >What's the matter, Steve, can't keep track
> >of what you are saying anymore?
>
> Irony anyone?
Yep. Sad that you don't understand what irony is... but that isn't too
surprising at this
point.
Let's see if we can recap this, Steve. Your argument is:
Retirement accounts, which do not pay taxes on trades, are affected by
capital gains taxes.
It doesn't matter whether a stock price changes or not, simply whether
or not there are people
wanting to buy it to determine its value.
Yep, got it now.
Matt
John Galt
[JG] They do not apply to munis nor your personal homestead. They do not
apply to income property from which you derive revenue unless you sell. They
do not apply to hard commodities. Point is that there are options.
>
> Now, WILL that occur? There is no way of telling. If cap gains is
> increased
> and the market goes up 10%, the point can still be legitimately made that
> the market MIGHT HAVE gone up 12% had the tax not been raised. All we can
> say is that we KNOW that capital gains taxes, IN GENERAL, make eqiuties
> less
> attractive compared to other investments, all other things being the same.
The point can be raised, but it isn't terribly valid. Somewhere along
the line, you are
going to have to pay the price, whether it be via capital gains taxes
or some other
vehicle. Stock prices will go up or down based on the mood of the folk
on the street,
and for no other reason. If they believe that the current
administration is good for the
business world, as they did under Clinton, it will go up regardless of
the capital gains
rate.
[JG] If you don't care about taxation, that's quite your affair. I suspect
that many differ.
>
> However, it's not too much to ask for some *reason* in taxation policy.
> Corporations are moving at madcap speed away from defined benefit pensions
> to 401Ks as their primary retirement vehicle. This transfers risk to the
> employee, and any politician that claims, therefore, to be concerned about
> WORKING PEOPLE must, therefore, enact policies that make equities more
> attractive, or risk criticism for their hypocricy.
I'm with you here.
>
> The majority of workers today depend on 401K (thus the equity markets) to
> drive enough savings for their retirement; in two decades, nearly all
> will.
> Thus, the goverment must enact market friendly policies whenever feasible,
> and the old thinking that market friendly policies benefit only the rich
> needs to go out the door. That's the world we lived in in 1980, not 2008.
Sigh. Which is one reason I never wanted the government involved in
anything
having to do with the stock market. Putting retirement funds there was
a disaster
waiting to happen. In fact, it is already happening, and will probably
make the
subprime disaster look like a minor spike.
[JG] Well, I'm not sure we'll have a disaster, but in a manner of speaking,
corporations are forcing government policy change by putting all americans
in the investor class. There's no more assuming that the investor class is
restricted to the upper middle class and avove.
>
> I don't think there's anything in the above which is particularly arguable
> nor controversial.
It isn't controversial, it just doesn't really address the premises
that were made by
the original poster, who I laughed at. You can raise, lower, or leave
capital gains
rates alone and it will have no impact on "small family businesses" or
retirement
accounts.
[JG] Not DIRECTLY. The point remains that taxation acts as an inhibitor to
capital price appreciation. How exactly that manifests is difficult to
predict.
Steve's idea that the "value" of an investment goes down
because someone
won't buy it isn't helping either. If a stock price is at 1.00, and
nobody buys it, the stock
still has a value of 1.00. End of discussion.
[JG] Sooner or later whoever owns it will need to sell it. If nobody wants
to buy it, he'll lower the price until a buyer shows up. If you've ever
owned a thinly traded stock, you know that sometimes you have to wait hours
until your trade executes, and the trade might not be close to what the
board price was when you went to sell.
JG
Matt
Munis are a different world. It makes no sense to tax people on
investments into
the government itself. That's the whole attraction and why they can
get away with
paying less interest.
Personal residences are a separate matter. You do, of course, pay
taxes on them.
They aren't capital gains taxes because, mostly, we've decided they
are different.
I've never been quite clear on this distinction, myself.
Hard commodities are rarely actually traded, so I'm not sure what you
mean here.
I think you mean futures, which are simply options and are taxed.
> > Now, WILL that occur? There is no way of telling. If cap gains is
> > increased
> > and the market goes up 10%, the point can still be legitimately made that
> > the market MIGHT HAVE gone up 12% had the tax not been raised. All we can
> > say is that we KNOW that capital gains taxes, IN GENERAL, make eqiuties
> > less
> > attractive compared to other investments, all other things being the same.
>
> The point can be raised, but it isn't terribly valid. Somewhere along
> the line, you are
> going to have to pay the price, whether it be via capital gains taxes
> or some other
> vehicle. Stock prices will go up or down based on the mood of the folk
> on the street,
> and for no other reason. If they believe that the current
> administration is good for the
> business world, as they did under Clinton, it will go up regardless of
> the capital gains
> rate.
>
> [JG] If you don't care about taxation, that's quite your affair. I suspect
> that many differ.
I realize that taxation is necessary. Whether or not I see it as a
good thing
is another matter. If you don't like taxation, figure out what you
would be paying
for roads and airports and all the rest of it, and see if it makes
sense. If it does,
(and I seriously doubt it will), then campaign on it and overturn it
all.
> > The majority of workers today depend on 401K (thus the equity markets) to
> > drive enough savings for their retirement; in two decades, nearly all
> > will.
> > Thus, the goverment must enact market friendly policies whenever feasible,
> > and the old thinking that market friendly policies benefit only the rich
> > needs to go out the door. That's the world we lived in in 1980, not 2008.
>
> Sigh. Which is one reason I never wanted the government involved in
> anything
> having to do with the stock market. Putting retirement funds there was
> a disaster
> waiting to happen. In fact, it is already happening, and will probably
> make the
> subprime disaster look like a minor spike.
>
> [JG] Well, I'm not sure we'll have a disaster, but in a manner of speaking,
> corporations are forcing government policy change by putting all americans
> in the investor class. There's no more assuming that the investor class is
> restricted to the upper middle class and avove.
I'm not as sure as you are that it won't be a disaster. The upcoming
mortgage
bailout is nothing compared to retirement. A mortgage is, for the most
part, a
one-shot deal. An expensive shot, certainly, but consider this:
The last numbers I saw were that total mortgage debt were somewhere
around $3t,
might be higher, but that's probably fairly accurate. If every single
one of them failed,
we are looking at a $3t buyout. Approximately the total amount the
national debt
has increased in the last 6 years, I think.
The stock market is valued, I think, around $51t, or thereabouts. It
varies, of course,
but a large chunk of that, as you point out, is retirement money.
Which one is going
to be worse? Also, consider that you have to bail them out again and
again over time
to keep them afloat. Its a scary proposition. Of course, it isn't
going to go to zero, but
still...
> > I don't think there's anything in the above which is particularly arguable
> > nor controversial.
>
> It isn't controversial, it just doesn't really address the premises
> that were made by
> the original poster, who I laughed at. You can raise, lower, or leave
> capital gains
> rates alone and it will have no impact on "small family businesses" or
> retirement
> accounts.
>
> [JG] Not DIRECTLY. The point remains that taxation acts as an inhibitor to
> capital price appreciation. How exactly that manifests is difficult to
> predict.
If it had been stated that way, I probably wouldn't have objected as
strongly.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 10:56 am, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
<snort> and that might involve having low cap gains tax....
Discussing economics with somebody as ignorant as Matt is on the
subject is futile... he can claim something is worth $1.00 all day
long but unless somebody else is willing to give him a dollar for it,
his claim is DOA...
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 10:54 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
It mean that there's more money in the market today than before cap
gains taxes were reduced...
>> >> >Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require
>> >> >longer
>> >> >lock in. This reduced the number of trades made, which reduced the
>> >> >volatility
>> >> >of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
>> >> >so.
>>
>> >> Errrrr, you think that increasing the number of trades makes a stock
>> >> less valuable? Really?
>>
>> >No, I don't.
>>
>> Your statement to the contrary was... "This reduced the number of
>> trades made, which reduced the volatility of the investments. This
>> made things MORE valuable, "
>
>What, now you are arguing both sides of the position? STATE your
>position,
>idiot, and stick with it. Is volatility good? Does more trading
>increase value?
<LOL> as I said, the number of trades does not necessarily change
value....
>Please be prepared to back your statement up with facts for a change.
Irony anyone?
You're the one that said less trades increased value.. how about
addressing that nonsense, dummy?
>> >YOU do, however. Read your own statement, Steve:
>>
>> <LOL> Nice try... but very pathetic.. see below where I said,
>> "less people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will
>> reduce their value." I've made no claims about the number of trades,
>> which don't necessarily change any values.....
>
>Really. So, if a stock is at 1.00 and nobody buys it, it is worth less
>than 1.00?
If nobody wants to give "1.00" for it, it's not "1.00," Dummy. It's
only worth what somebody will give you for it....
>Cool. You've really got something there, Steve. Nothing realistic, of
>course, or
>factual, but definitely something.
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it, little man?
>> >> Increased cap gains tax will reduce the number of people who want to
>> >> buy into any investments that's part of your IRA and your 401k. Less
>> >> people wanting to buy the stuff in your IRA and your 401k will reduce
>> >> their value.
>>
>> >Now, if less people buy (less trades) your IRA and 401k will reduce in
>> >value .. according to you.
>>
>> The number of trades isn't necessarily significant, Matt.. the number
>> of people wanting to buy is.....
>
>Of course. Because, the number of people that want to buy Enron stock
>is seriously
>high these days...
What are you raving about?
>> >What's the matter, Steve, can't keep track
>> >of what you are saying anymore?
>>
>> Irony anyone?
>
>Yep. Sad that you don't understand what irony is... but that isn't too
>surprising at this
>point.
>
>Let's see if we can recap this, Steve. Your argument is:
>
>Retirement accounts, which do not pay taxes on trades, are affected by
>capital gains taxes.
Sure thing, because it reduces the number of people who want to buy
your stocks.... For instance, the number of people who want to by my
'56 chevy convertible today is way higher than when I sold it in 1964.
The value of a nice '56 chevy convertible is much higher today....
For you to claim that increases and decreases in demand do not effect
prices renders you a moron....
>It doesn't matter whether a stock price changes or not, simply whether
>or not there are people
>wanting to buy it to determine its value.
The number of people wanting to buy something changes the value,
Dummy...
>Yep, got it now.
Actually, you'll never get it... just like you flunked every other
encounter with me....
>Matt
John Galt
[JG] Well, it's due to our obsession with individual home ownership. In a
perfect world, there would be no mortgage deduction (it's inflationary), and
taxes on home gains would probably been one of the better ways to tax
progressively. We're a little backward.
Hard commodities are rarely actually traded, so I'm not sure what you
mean here. I think you mean futures, which are simply options and are taxed.
[JG] I mean going out and buying gold coin, for an example.
[JG] Nobody's arguing against the need for taxation. What's under discussion
is how this particular tax puts downward pressure on the equity market,
which we need to rise, since more and more people's retirement is tied to it
going forward. If the markets are made moribund by governemnt regulation and
tax policy, that increases the pressure to increase retiree programs going
forward, and as you've undoubtedly noticed, those programs are already
broke.
[JG] I believe those numbers are correct.
The stock market is valued, I think, around $51t, or thereabouts. It
varies, of course,
but a large chunk of that, as you point out, is retirement money.
Which one is going
to be worse? Also, consider that you have to bail them out again and
again over time
to keep them afloat. Its a scary proposition. Of course, it isn't
going to go to zero, but
still...
[JG] I think 51T is the sum of all the exchanges in the world. The US is
about half that.
> > I don't think there's anything in the above which is particularly
> > arguable
> > nor controversial.
>
> It isn't controversial, it just doesn't really address the premises
> that were made by
> the original poster, who I laughed at. You can raise, lower, or leave
> capital gains
> rates alone and it will have no impact on "small family businesses" or
> retirement
> accounts.
>
> [JG] Not DIRECTLY. The point remains that taxation acts as an inhibitor to
> capital price appreciation. How exactly that manifests is difficult to
> predict.
If it had been stated that way, I probably wouldn't have objected as
strongly.
[JG] My bad.
JG
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:53:30 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Really. Is THAT what it means. How does it mean that, Steve? Please
be specific.
> >> Your statement to the contrary was... "This reduced the number of
> >> trades made, which reduced the volatility of the investments. This
> >> made things MORE valuable, "
>
> >What, now you are arguing both sides of the position? STATE your
> >position,
> >idiot, and stick with it. Is volatility good? Does more trading
> >increase value?
>
> <LOL> as I said, the number of trades does not necessarily change
> value....
Of course not. So, I'm glad you've learned you were wrong about one
thing.
Good to see you admitting that you are stupid.
> >Really. So, if a stock is at 1.00 and nobody buys it, it is worth less
> >than 1.00?
>
> If nobody wants to give "1.00" for it, it's not "1.00," Dummy. It's
> only worth what somebody will give you for it....
Of course it isn't. So everything on store shelves is free until
someone
pays for it. Got it. Yep, you make sense.
Buh-bye, Steve. Learn something and come back and play.
Matt
Matt
I tend to agree, once again. This is another case of the government
interfering
in what should be private industry.
>
> Hard commodities are rarely actually traded, so I'm not sure what you
> mean here. I think you mean futures, which are simply options and are taxed.
>
> [JG] I mean going out and buying gold coin, for an example.
Ah, ok. Not what I think of as hard commodities, but that's fine. Far
as I know,
you are supposed to pay taxes on the difference between what you
bought the
coins (or other collectibles) for, and what you paid for them. Whether
anyone
actually tracks that, I have no idea.
This really doesn't stand up to the sniff test. If you look at
historical tax data,
the capital gains rate has been all over the place. Plot that data
against the
stock market and you will see that it has virtually no effect. Check
out:
http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf
Matt
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 10:49:22 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Steve, you've proved you are an idiot. Please, don't help yourself
anymore.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 1:47 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
run away dummy.... denying that demand has an effect in prices has
made you DOA....
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 1:47 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
The value of stocks has increased, Matt... and people have bought
them at that increased value....
>> >> Your statement to the contrary was... "This reduced the number of
>> >> trades made, which reduced the volatility of the investments. This
>> >> made things MORE valuable, "
>>
>> >What, now you are arguing both sides of the position? STATE your
>> >position,
>> >idiot, and stick with it. Is volatility good? Does more trading
>> >increase value?
>>
>> <LOL> as I said, the number of trades does not necessarily change
>> value....
>
>Of course not. So, I'm glad you've learned you were wrong about one
>thing.
I never said otherwise....
>Good to see you admitting that you are stupid.
>
>> >Really. So, if a stock is at 1.00 and nobody buys it, it is worth less
>> >than 1.00?
>>
>> If nobody wants to give "1.00" for it, it's not "1.00," Dummy. It's
>> only worth what somebody will give you for it....
>
>Of course it isn't. So everything on store shelves is free until
>someone
>pays for it. Got it. Yep, you make sense.
<ROTFLMAO> Matt realizes that he's wrong and now he tries to
substitute a strawman to attack... a rather stupid strawman at
that.... typical dumbass leftist tactic....
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 12:59:14 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
>
> >> >>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EDJI&t=my&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
>
> >> >You know, Steve, every time I think you've gotten just as stupid as
> >> >you can
> >> >possibly get, you get stupider. You just posted a graph of the Dow
> >> >Jones
> >> >Industrial Average. Do you even understand what that means?
>
> >> It mean that there's more money in the market today than before cap
> >> gains taxes were reduced...
>
> >Really. Is THAT what it means. How does it mean that, Steve? Please
> >be specific.
>
> The value of stocks has increased, Matt... and people have bought
> them at that increased value....
Oh god. Steve gets stupider with every passing moment. Let's see if we
have this straight
now... the more a stock trades, the more it is worth. Nothing is worth
a thing unless someone
buys it, and the Dow Industrial Average measures the amount of value
in the stock market.
Is that about it, Steve?
> >> If nobody wants to give "1.00" for it, it's not "1.00," Dummy. It's
> >> only worth what somebody will give you for it....
>
> >Of course it isn't. So everything on store shelves is free until
> >someone
> >pays for it. Got it. Yep, you make sense.
>
> <ROTFLMAO> Matt realizes that he's wrong and now he tries to
> substitute a strawman to attack... a rather stupid strawman at
> that.... typical dumbass leftist tactic....
Right, got it. Nothing is EVER worth anything. NOW I understand.
This is the American Republican, folks.
Matt
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:06:53 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Sigh. I didn't run anywhere, Steve, I was trying to help you look less
stupid
than you already have.
Let's try to show JUST how moronic you look.
1. You claim that the stock market volume has gone consistently
upward.
2. You claim that supply and demand rule the stock market.
3. If 1 is true and 2 is true, then HOW, Steve, HOW does the stock
market go down over a period of 8 years?
Come on, stupid. Just leave while you are looking like a moron, and
not any worse.
Matt
itsall_bull
> On Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:32:54 -0700 (PDT),itsall_bull
>
>
>
>
>
> <itsall_b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 1, 2:17 pm, "John Galt" <whoisjohng...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >> "Bob Eld" <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:rowIj.24358$Ej5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> >> > "swiftboat_obama_dot_org" <electric...@electrician2.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:a3ce11e5-4518-4cb7...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> Obama has promised to raise taxes. McCain will make the 15 percent
> >> >> capital gains tax that many small family owned businesses use to
> >> >> survive on permanent. Obama will raise our taxes. Nobody but a fool
> >> >> would vote for Obama.
>
> >> > created the bigest deficit in our histoy, nine trillion dollars. The
> >> > resultant decrease in the value of the dollar is n even bigger 'Tax". Wise
> >> > up!
>
> >> Bob, it's quite possible to replace bad policies with worse ones. If the
> >> definition of "good policy" becomes "the opposite of what Bush did", that
> >> means that Bush is still setting fiscal policy well into the next
> >> administration.
>
> >> An increase in the cap gains tax (which was first dropped from 28 to 20
> >> percent under Clinton, it should be said) is one of those bad policies. It
> >> has the potential to impact working people with savings who are retired and
> >> about to retire more than any other taxpayer group.
>
> >> JG
>
> >Raising taxes, particularly on capital gains, has a direct
> >impact on the life savings of most senior citizens. Thanks
> >to Clinton senior citizens must pay income taxes on their
> >social security income, withdrawals from their Ira's and
> >on all long term capital gains.
>
> Of course, they only have to pay taxes on SS if their income
> exceeds...what is it? $300,000 a year or so? I bet that $2000 or so
> they have to pay just puts their asses right out on the street,
> starving.
You are like most Democrats, completely hallucinatory, an economic
illiterate and lie like you don't have a clue or have ever read a
book.
Figuring your tax bill
Once you determine that Uncle Sam is going to get a cut of your Social
Security benefits, the next question to answer is precisely how big a
bite he will take.
Generally, up to half of your benefits will be taxed if you exceed the
base amounts. However, up to 85 percent of your benefits could be
taxed if you are a single filer and the total of all your other income
plus half of your Social Security checks exceeds $34,000, or $44,000
if you are married and file jointly.
http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tips/20010115a.asp
>
> Same notation on bank interest on savings. Have you looked at the
> rates of return lately? You would need a million in the bank just to
> get taxes up to the petty cash level.
Who keeps money in savings accounts? Not economic savy people.
>
> Here's a suggestion: make cap gains taxes progressive.
That's exactly what Demorats want. It's based on their class
envy vision of the US.
> --
>
> What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
>
> An ex-Republican.
Since socialists like you don't have consciences I'm really
surprised you brought the subject up. Maybe you have
read a book besides Mao's Little Red Book.
>
> http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827(From Yang, AthD (h.c)
>
> "Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
>
> Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
>
> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> Zepps_News-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> Zepps_essays-subscr...@yahoogroups.com
> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson- Hide quoted text -
itsall_bull
wrote:
> John Galt wrote:
> > "4012 Dead" <zepp22114...@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> >news:15r5v35vltk6bbb1m...@4ax.com...
> >> rates of return lately? You would need a million in the bank just to
> >> get taxes up to the petty cash level.
>
>
> > government tax revenues, and everyone knows that you can double the tax from
> > 15% and you'll maybe pick up another point or point and a half due to
> > changes in investor behavior. The CBO drives that point home whenever
> > Congress asks them to analyze the tax effect. It's a tax that poses high
> > risk to the equity markets and at best brings back very little revenue to
> > the coffers. So why do it?
>
> > Here's the issue: if you return the upper two tax brackets (about 2.5
> > million returns in these classes in 2005; in 2007, anyone making over
> > 160K/198K family is in them) to their Clintonian levels (that's pretty much
> > guaranteed, since nobody thinks that the GOP will retake Congress, whatever
> > happens with the presidental race) then certain highly-rated municipal
> > bonds, which historically carry a default rate close to zero, will have an
> > after-tax return to those tax brackets of as much as 8-8.25%, which is a
> > decent return for many investments which carry *far* more risk.
>
> > So, investors will move some percentage of the money in their taxable
> > accounts into munis to take advantage of the lowered risk profile and avoid
> > the back loaded tax, a tax that smacks them in their retirement years.
> > Another investment that would suddenly look better than taxable investments
> > would be real estate, which is now and will be available at attractive
> > pricing for the next few years, as would hard commodity assets like precious
> > metals. And, ALL investors retool their portfolios so they trade less
> > frequently. And, mutual funds return less over time as they are forced to be
> > more conservative in their trades, since they know that Morningstar and
> > Lipper are grading them on tax efficiency, encouraging them to trade at less
> > profitable loci on the price curves.
>
> > Point here is that a higher cap gains tax makes all of these other
> > investment vehicles look more attractive. Money flows into them and out of
> > equities, causing equity prices to drop, which punishes anyone with IRAs and
> > 401Ks who are closer than 10 years to retirement.
>
> > In the two years following both the prior cap gains tax drops (28 to 20
> > under Clinton, 20 to 15 under Bush) the market responded with a 20-30%
> > appreciation over the next two years. Obviously market movements are complex
> > causal relationship that can't be distilled down to a single factor, but
> > you'd be hard pressed to find someone market-knowledeable who would deny
> > that an increase in the cap gains tax won't take SOMETHING off the market.
> > If we're lucky, it's a couple of points and slower growth; if we're not,
> > it's 20-25%, causing people close to retirement to have to work longer, and
> > people in retirement to draw down their balances.
>
> > Quite frankly, it's not worth it. If the US was in a better financial
> > situation, we'd be debating why we have the damn thing in the first place.
> > It's a tax that deters every market and investor behavior you want to
> > encourage, and encourages every market and investor behavior you want to
> > deter.
>
> Still, an individual would have to earn a lot to be effected, right?
>
> Even Nixon went along with income tax differences between active and
> passive income. He was right to do so. There are certain hidden costs to
> creating active incomes while passive's costs are all accounted for. But
> mostly, it is social justice to tax income that did not result from the
> sweat of someone's brow. Look at what you are defending. This is why
> there is continuing--no--increasing year in and year out disparity
> between the rich and everyone else in this country.
>
> Disparity in wealth is bad. It always leads to disturbances that effect
> financial markets more so than these little tweaks to tax those who
> (including corporations) can pay.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nixon was a closet liberal. Didn't you know.
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 2:30 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Poor Matt.. another strawman... It must really suck to be so
totally incapable of arguing with what I really post....
>Is that about it, Steve?
>
>> >> If nobody wants to give "1.00" for it, it's not "1.00," Dummy. It's
>> >> only worth what somebody will give you for it....
>>
>> >Of course it isn't. So everything on store shelves is free until
>> >someone
>> >pays for it. Got it. Yep, you make sense.
>>
>> <ROTFLMAO> Matt realizes that he's wrong and now he tries to
>> substitute a strawman to attack... a rather stupid strawman at
>> that.... typical dumbass leftist tactic....
>
>Right, got it. Nothing is EVER worth anything. NOW I understand.
Well, I'm sure nothing you have is worth much.... you're too stupid
to have acquired anything of value....
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 2:30 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Really? when did I do that?
>2. You claim that supply and demand rule the stock market.
"rule the stock market?"
>3. If 1 is true and 2 is true, then HOW, Steve, HOW does the stock
>market go down over a period of 8 years?
>
>Come on, stupid. Just leave while you are looking like a moron, and
>not any worse.
>
>Matt
>
Poor Matt can't argue with the things I really say.. he has to build
strawmen to argue with.... typical leftist loser.. that's what
Matt is...
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:34:42 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Translation: Steve has nothing. So ATTACK! Because, after all, we
can't
possibly learn anything, now can we? Try learning, Steve. You won't
look
like the prepubescent little brat you are.
>
> >Is that about it, Steve?
>
> >> >> If nobody wants to give "1.00" for it, it's not "1.00," Dummy. It's
> >> >> only worth what somebody will give you for it....
>
> >> >Of course it isn't. So everything on store shelves is free until
> >> >someone
> >> >pays for it. Got it. Yep, you make sense.
>
> >> <ROTFLMAO> Matt realizes that he's wrong and now he tries to
> >> substitute a strawman to attack... a rather stupid strawman at
> >> that.... typical dumbass leftist tactic....
>
> >Right, got it. Nothing is EVER worth anything. NOW I understand.
>
> Well, I'm sure nothing you have is worth much.... you're too stupid
> to have acquired anything of value....
Yep yep. There's your Republican party folks. Brain dead and
attacking!
Poor kid. You know you are wrong, but you haven't got the balls to
admit
it. Your parents are ashamed of you, Steve, and so are the rest of us.
Matt
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 13:37:33 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Yep yep, here goes Steve. He KNOWS he's wrong, and can't admit it.
Sad. Very very sad.
Didn't answer ANY of the questions, very good Steve! You are just like
your
brain-addled party. LOL. Go back to your teachers in third grade,
kiddo, maybe
they can give you answers.
Matt
John Galt
[JG] It's not possible to track. We haven't been talking much about
compliance issues up to this point, but suffice to say that if there is no
tracking mechanism to enforce a tax that a person believes to be abusive,
compliance isn't going to be high.
Matt
[JG] The market moves up significantly in the two years following both of
the last two capital gains tax decreases. Causal? Who knows? I'd prefer not
to roll the dice and find out.
JG
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 6:26 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
I repeat... when did I do that?
>> >2. You claim that supply and demand rule the stock market.
>>
>> "rule the stock market?"
>>
>> >3. If 1 is true and 2 is true, then HOW, Steve, HOW does the stock
>> >market go down over a period of 8 years?
As I've said several times,Dummy, the number of trades doesn't
necessarily determine how the prices change. It was only you that
claimed that relationship... see below:
"Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
so. -- mattt...@sprynet.com
>> >Come on, stupid. Just leave while you are looking like a moron, and
>> >not any worse.
>>
>> >Matt
>>
>> Poor Matt can't argue with the things I really say.. he has to build
>> strawmen to argue with.... typical leftist loser.. that's what
>> Matt is...
>
>Yep yep, here goes Steve. He KNOWS he's wrong, and can't admit it.
>Sad. Very very sad.
<LOL> I see poor Matt being schooled by someone else, too... I
doubt that he'll learn anything... Matt probably still believes that
cap gains taxes makes stocks more valuable because there are less
trades....... see below....
"Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
so. -- mattt...@sprynet.com
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 2, 6:26 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Apparently you can't..... So tell me again how much the equities in
your 401K is worth if nobody want to buy them....
>Try learning, Steve. You won't
>look
>like the prepubescent little brat you are.
Here's another "attack," Dummy... Another stupid claim you made
that you now run away from.....
"Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:50:43 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
You really are stupid, Steve. What did you THINK you were doing when,
in response to a question about money in the stock market, you threw
up
a DJ chart? Good God, man, are you really this dense?
>
> >> >2. You claim that supply and demand rule the stock market.
>
> >> "rule the stock market?"
>
> >> >3. If 1 is true and 2 is true, then HOW, Steve, HOW does the stock
> >> >market go down over a period of 8 years?
>
> As I've said several times,Dummy, the number of trades doesn't
> necessarily determine how the prices change. It was only you that
> claimed that relationship... see below:
Of course you don't, because you are an idiot. You just make claims
that
more trades = more money. So, of course, that would have no impact on
the price. We understand it, you are an idiot. Just give up, ok? You
are
making yourself look worse and worse.
Sigh. Steve, everyone here knows you are an idiot. You don't have to
prove
it on a daily basis. Now, go back to your library computer and watch
porn or
something. Leave the finances to the adults.
Matt
Matt
> On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 17:49:39 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Sigh. Steve, something is worth what it is worth. Its VALUE does not
change UNTIL someone buys it. How stupid are you, anyway? This is
basic economics, the sort that us normal folk learned in high school.
>
> >Try learning, Steve. You won't
> >look
> >like the prepubescent little brat you are.
>
> Here's another "attack," Dummy... Another stupid claim you made
> that you now run away from.....
>
> "Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
You disagree with this? You really are ignorant.
> This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
> of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
> so. -- matttel...@sprynet.com- Hide quoted text -
And this? Tell me, EXACTLY, what you disagree with, so we can see
whether you flunked first grade math too.
matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 3, 4:12 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
So... according to Matt's logic, my old Compaq LT5400 laptop
running NT4.0 that I bought new back in the mid nineties is still
worth the $2800 dollars that I paid for it... wow... and I have
several other old computers too....
>> >Try learning, Steve. You won't
>> >look
>> >like the prepubescent little brat you are.
>>
>> Here's another "attack," Dummy... Another stupid claim you made
>> that you now run away from.....
>
>>
>> "Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
>
>You disagree with this? You really are ignorant.
>
>> This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
>> of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
>> so. -- matttel...@sprynet.com- Hide quoted text -
>
>And this? Tell me, EXACTLY, what you disagree with, so we can see
>whether you flunked first grade math too.
>
>matt
<LOL> So Matt admits that he can't back up his claim.... I knew he
couldn't....
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 3, 4:12 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
<ROFL> So.... according to Matt, simply citing a chart of the DOW
equals claiming that stock market volume has gone consistently upward.
Matt has a very fertile imagination
>> >> >2. You claim that supply and demand rule the stock market.
>>
>> >> "rule the stock market?"
>>
>> >> >3. If 1 is true and 2 is true, then HOW, Steve, HOW does the stock
>> >> >market go down over a period of 8 years?
>>
>> As I've said several times,Dummy, the number of trades doesn't
>> necessarily determine how the prices change. It was only you that
>> claimed that relationship... see below:
>
>Of course you don't, because you are an idiot. You just make claims
>that
>more trades = more money.
Actually, I never made the claim "that more trades = more money." I
never made any claims involving volume of trades except to say the
volume doesn't necessarily affect prices....
.... but you made a claim that less trades "makes things MORE
valuable." See below..
"Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
so.
-- mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/4d7debf9a1e32539
So why do you duck and dodge and run away from that claim now, Dummy?
Apparently it's because once again you've been taught a something by
yours truly....
Matt
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 06:11:42 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Of course I do, Steve. The fact that you claimed it has nothing to do
with
it. No wonder you keep coming back to me, kid, I'm the only one left
that
even bothers to read your drivel.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 3, 10:20 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
...and yet Matt can't show where I made that claim..... nor the one
below either...
"Sure Steve-o. You claimed the First Amendment doesn't apply on
streetcorners".
Matt
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/3f010bb82f0bbc95?&hl=en
Matt seems to have some reading problems.
>it has nothing to do
>with
>it. No wonder you keep coming back to me, kid, I'm the only one left
>that
>even bothers to read your drivel.
>
>Matt
Matt made a claim that less trades "makes things MORE
valuable." See below..
"Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
so.
-- mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/4d7debf9a1e32539
So why do he duck and dodge and run away from that claim now?
Apparently it's because once again he's been taught a something by
yours truly....
Matt
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 06:13:27 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
That's stupid, Steve. You are stupid, Steve.
Go find a real job, ok?
> >> Here's another "attack," Dummy... Another stupid claim you made
> >> that you now run away from.....
>
> >> "Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
>
> >You disagree with this? You really are ignorant.
>
> >> This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
> >> of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
> >> so. -- matttel...@sprynet.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> >And this? Tell me, EXACTLY, what you disagree with, so we can see
> >whether you flunked first grade math too.
>
> >matt
>
> <LOL> So Matt admits that he can't back up his claim.... I knew he
> couldn't....
Non-response noted. Stupid again. Looking stupider by the moment.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 3, 10:20 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Still waiting for Matt to back up the following claim.... I think
he's simply not able to....
"Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
so.
-- mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/4d7debf9a1e32539
Matt
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:42:45 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Okie doke.
>
> "Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
A fact.
> This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
> of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
> so.
A fact.
Now, Steve, your turn. Either point out a FACT where it isn't true, or
admit
you are lying. Put up or shut up.
Matt
Centurion
<electric...@electrician2.com> wrote:
> Obama has promised to raise taxes. McCain will make the 15 percent
> capital gains tax that many small family owned businesses use to
> survive on permanent. Obama will raise our taxes. Nobody but a fool
> would vote for Obama.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Obama has an extremely poor understanding of economics, but most
politicians do. He is more concerned with buying votes via absurd
promises of free-bees than doing anything of substance for the economy.
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 3, 6:39 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
...and I'm still waiting for you to back your ignorant claim that
capital gains tax on something makes it more valuable.
>Now, Steve, your turn. Either point out a FACT where it isn't true, or
>admit
>you are lying. Put up or shut up.
>
>Matt
Matt ducks and dodges trying to sneak away from his claim that a
capital gains tax on something makes it more valuable.
Matt
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:44:46 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Can't put up, Steve, guess you gotta shut up.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 4, 3:57 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Irony anyone?
Matt
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 06:13:00 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Yep, you don't put up, so you gotta shut up.
In fact, I don't think you've ever backed up a single absurd statement
you've
ever made. I really don't care, but there MIGHT be someone out there
that
actually thinks you are intelligent. This entire thread is to prove to
them that
you are nothing more or less than a right-wing blowhard without a
clue.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 4, 8:15 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Irony anyone?
A while ago Matt argued with me when I said that motor oil could be
cleaned and re-used, which I promptly showed to be the case... Then
Matt argued with me when I said that Japan and Europe generated most
of their electricity with Nuclear plants.... which again I showed
to be true....
Now, Matt still hasn't backed up his ignorant claim that
capital gains tax on something makes it more valuable. (see below)
Of course, that's because it can't be backed up.
Matt is a moron.....
"Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
so.
-- mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/4d7debf9a1e32539
Matt
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 07:26:04 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
And when you were told, OVER AND OVER, that oil is an organic compound
that breaks down, you showed the SAME WEBPAGE that showed you could
clean it once or twice.
Steve, you are honestly too stupid to live. It amazes me that you
remember to
breathe.
>
> Now, Matt still hasn't backed up his ignorant claim that
> capital gains tax on something makes it more valuable. (see below)
Of course, that's because I didn't say it. Now, on the other hand, you
fail to back up your statements AGAIN and AGAIN. Which is why everyone
now knows you are stupid.
Give it up, Steve. You are becoming the single greatest Internet joke
of them all.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
Sorry, Dummy, but here's what the California Integrated Waste
Management Board says..
"Did you know that used motor oil never wears out?"
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/UsedOil/Recycle.htm
>Steve, you are honestly too stupid to live. It amazes me that you
>remember to
>breathe.
Irony anyone?
>> Now, Matt still hasn't backed up his ignorant claim that
>> capital gains tax on something makes it more valuable. (see below)
>
>Of course, that's because I didn't say it. Now, on the other hand, you
>fail to back up your statements AGAIN and AGAIN. Which is why everyone
>now knows you are stupid.
<LOL> Snipping it out of your reply doesn't cut it, Matt.... here,
again, is your post where you said that capital gains tax on something
makes it more valuable. (see below)
"Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
so.
-- mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/4d7debf9a1e32539
...and still Matt can't defend it....
>Give it up, Steve. You are becoming the single greatest Internet joke
>of them all.
>
>
>Matt
I notice Matt also snipped out the part about where he argued with me
about Europe and Japan having a very high percentage of nuclear power
plants....
Matt
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:03:14 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Yes Steve. And, as was pointed out to you OVER and OVER, that assumes
that you never
heat it. Which cars do. Organic compounds break down under heat. Basic
biochemistry might help
you understand things. Basic FACTS might help you a lot. Believing
everything you read on the web
just shows you are .. wait for it... STUPID.
>
> >Steve, you are honestly too stupid to live. It amazes me that you
> >remember to
> >breathe.
>
> Irony anyone?
Yes, I find it amazingly ironic that you don't understand what irony
is.
>
> >> Now, Matt still hasn't backed up his ignorant claim that
> >> capital gains tax on something makes it more valuable. (see below)
>
> >Of course, that's because I didn't say it. Now, on the other hand, you
> >fail to back up your statements AGAIN and AGAIN. Which is why everyone
> >now knows you are stupid.
>
> <LOL> Snipping it out of your reply doesn't cut it, Matt.... here,
> again, is your post where you said that capital gains tax on something
> makes it more valuable. (see below)
Waiting for your answers, Steve. Until then, put up or shut up.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 4, 11:15 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
So now Matt claims to know more about recycling oil than the
California Integrated Waste Management Board.
"Did you know that used motor oil never wears out?"
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/UsedOil/Recycle.htm
and here's another 200 cites that say "motor oil never wears out."
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22motor+oil+never+wears+out%22&btnG=Search
But the moron, Matt, thinks that his undocumented opinion to the
contrary over-rules all of that.. Like all leftists, Matt really
hates having to deal with facts and like all leftists, can't learn
anything.... he stubbornly clings to his fantasies in the face of
lots of evidence that he's wrong....
>> >Steve, you are honestly too stupid to live. It amazes me that you
>> >remember to
>> >breathe.
>>
>> Irony anyone?
>
>Yes, I find it amazingly ironic that you don't understand what irony
>is.
>
>>
>> >> Now, Matt still hasn't backed up his ignorant claim that
>> >> capital gains tax on something makes it more valuable. (see below)
>>
>> >Of course, that's because I didn't say it. Now, on the other hand, you
>> >fail to back up your statements AGAIN and AGAIN. Which is why everyone
>> >now knows you are stupid.
>>
>> <LOL> Snipping it out of your reply doesn't cut it, Matt.... here,
>> again, is your post where you said that capital gains tax on something
>> makes it more valuable. (see below)
>
>Waiting for your answers, Steve. Until then, put up or shut up.
>
>Matt
Matt snips again... trying to hide from his own words and actions
like a four year old child.....
here, again, is your post where you said that capital gains tax on
something makes it more valuable. (see below)
"Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
so.
-- mattt...@sprynet.com
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/4d7debf9a1e32539
Matt
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:38:40 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes Steve. And, as was pointed out to you OVER and OVER, that assumes
> >that you never
> >heat it. Which cars do. Organic compounds break down under heat. Basic
> >biochemistry might help
> >you understand things. Basic FACTS might help you a lot. Believing
> >everything you read on the web
> >just shows you are .. wait for it... STUPID.
>
> So now Matt claims to know more about recycling oil than the
> California Integrated Waste Management Board.
Yes, Steve, as does anyone with a brain. But then, you wouldn't know
that. You just read and believe.
You must be a Republican.
>
> "Did you know that used motor oil never wears out?"http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/UsedOil/Recycle.htm
>
> and here's another 200 cites that say "motor oil never wears out."
Fine, Steve. And here are lots that say the exact opposite:
http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/chemicalbreakdown.htm
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=does+motor+oil+ever+wear+out#hl=en&q=motor+oil+breakdown+&btnG=Search&nochrome=1
Now, Steve, you've been trumped and shown to be stupid. Again.
Now, put up or shut up on what you were asked.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 4, 1:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:38:40 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes Steve. And, as was pointed out to you OVER and OVER, that assumes
>> >that you never
>> >heat it. Which cars do. Organic compounds break down under heat. Basic
>> >biochemistry might help
>> >you understand things. Basic FACTS might help you a lot. Believing
>> >everything you read on the web
>> >just shows you are .. wait for it... STUPID.
>>
>> So now Matt claims to know more about recycling oil than the
>> California Integrated Waste Management Board.
>
>Yes, Steve, as does anyone with a brain.
Ahhhh, so now the experts on oil recycling don't have a brain, eh?
...and once again, Matt demonstrates to usenet that he's a moron and a
liar....
>But then, you wouldn't know
>that. You just read and believe.
>You must be a Republican.
>
>>
>> "Did you know that used motor oil never wears out?"http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/UsedOil/Recycle.htm
>>
>> and here's another 200 cites that say "motor oil never wears out."
>
>Fine, Steve. And here are lots that say the exact opposite:
>
>http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/chemicalbreakdown.htm
>
>Now, Steve, you've been trumped and shown to be stupid. Again.
<ROTFLMAO> The first cite is a synthetic oil company who are more
than just a bit biased....
...and the second cite are a lot of places that agree with me and say
that oil doesn't wear out...
>Now, put up or shut up on what you were asked.
>
>Matt
.... and then Matt snips again... trying to hide from his own words
Matt
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 12:51:33 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 4, 1:35 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 10:38:40 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >Yes Steve. And, as was pointed out to you OVER and OVER, that assumes
> >> >that you never
> >> >heat it. Which cars do. Organic compounds break down under heat. Basic
> >> >biochemistry might help
> >> >you understand things. Basic FACTS might help you a lot. Believing
> >> >everything you read on the web
> >> >just shows you are .. wait for it... STUPID.
>
> >> So now Matt claims to know more about recycling oil than the
> >> California Integrated Waste Management Board.
>
> >Yes, Steve, as does anyone with a brain.
>
> Ahhhh, so now the experts on oil recycling don't have a brain, eh?
>
> ...and once again, Matt demonstrates to usenet that he's a moron and a
> liar....
>
> >But then, you wouldn't know
> >that. You just read and believe.
> >You must be a Republican.
>
> >> "Did you know that used motor oil never wears out?"http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/UsedOil/Recycle.htm
>
> >> and here's another 200 cites that say "motor oil never wears out."
>
> >Fine, Steve. And here are lots that say the exact opposite:
>
> >http://www.performanceoiltechnology.com/chemicalbreakdown.htm
>
> >Now, Steve, you've been trumped and shown to be stupid. Again.
>
> <ROTFLMAO> The first cite is a synthetic oil company who are more
> than just a bit biased....
Uh oh, Steve's been shown to be wrong. Time to laugh nervously behind
his
hand and hurl invective!
>
> ...and the second cite are a lot of places that agree with me and say
> that oil doesn't wear out...
Really. That's interesting, Steve, because they don't. Now, admit you
are
wrong and go away like the stupid little creature you are. You are
STUPID
Steve, STUPID. Are you clear on this now? Everyone else is... ROLFMAO.
And no, Steve, I will not simply give up so you can "claim victory".
You have
to be shown up for what you are.
Stupid.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 4, 4:57 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Matt tries to prove me wrong by posting cites that agree with me....
Matt is a moron, of course.
>And no, Steve, I will not simply give up so you can "claim victory".
>You have
>to be shown up for what you are.
>
>Stupid.
>
>
>Matt
Oh please don't quit, Matt.. I want to post as many copies of your
snipping and ducking your claim as I can....
Matt
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 17:30:45 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Which, of course, they don't. Which, of course, is why Steve can't
cite any.
Which, is of course, why Steve is STOOOOOOPID.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 4, 6:42 pm, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
<ROTFLMAO> ...and again, Matt snips the evidence....
All the pathetic loon can do is call me names like a grade school
girl.. and still he can't back up his claim that Capital gains
taxes make things that are taxed MORE valuable..
Matt
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:39:51 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Evidence? Steve, making random statements is not evidence. You've been
shown, OVER
and OVER that you are wrong.
>
> All the pathetic loon can do is call me names like a grade school
> girl.. and still he can't back up his claim that Capital gains
> taxes make things that are taxed MORE valuable..
>
> "Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
A fact. Disprove or admit.
> This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
> of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
> so.
A fact. Disprove or admit.
Now, STOOOOOPID Steve, put up or shut up.
Found those capacitors yet? ROFLMAO.
Matt
Steve
wrote:
>On Apr 5, 4:51 am, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooooo.com> wrote:
Irony anyone?
>> All the pathetic loon can do is call me names like a grade school
>> girl.. and still he can't back up his claim that Capital gains
>> taxes make things that are taxed MORE valuable..
>>
>> "Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require longer lock in.
>
>A fact. Disprove or admit.
>
>> This reducing the number of trades made, which reduced the volatility
>> of the investments. This made things MORE valuable, Steve, not less
>> so.
>
>A fact. Disprove or admit.
>
>Now, STOOOOOPID Steve, put up or shut up.
Matt believes that by disconnecting his claim he can duck it...
He claims that: "Capital gains taxes used to be higher AND require
longer lock in" reduc[ed] the number of trades made, which reduced
the volatility of the investments, making] things MORE valuable"
...and, of course, being a leftist moron, he can't back that up. so he
ducks and dodges his own words....
>Found those capacitors yet? ROFLMAO.
<shrug. Capacitors are all around, Dummy... didn't you know that?
>Matt
Matt
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 05:43:38 -0700 (PDT), Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
And thus, STOOOOPID Steve continues to duck and weave and evade. He's
been
shown the evidence, over and over, but does he listen? Noooo. Why?
Because he's STOOOOOOOPID.
STOOOOOOPID Steve seems to think people actually believe him. He
doesn't
understand they are laughing at him. He thinks they really think that
he's over
21, has a job, and owns a boat. ROFLMAO. STOOOOPID Steve is 16 and
lives
in a trailer park with his mommy. Poor STOOOOPID Steve.
Matt