H2O MAN
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 06:37 pm
@cicerone imposter,


You're stuck of fruits and unable to grasp what is happening right under your nose.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 08:08 pm
@JPB,
It's not where they're putting their money, but the money they lost in selling low.

The primary principle of investing is buy low, sell high.

People never learn.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 08:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Norquist is talking about how he can grow the economy by 4%/year rather than Obama's 2%/year. He says by growing the economy by 4%/year, tax revenue will increase. (No ****!) He also leaves out the detail of how that's done - just like Romney. He also doesn't explain how the world's economic recession is impacting the US economy. You can't grow jobs if there's no demand. That's Econ 101.



In other words, he's talking through his arse.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 08:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The point of selling now is to sell your winners before taxes go up. You sell to take the cap gains hit this year and then you can buy the same stock back with a lower cap gains basis for when you sell next year of the year after.

If you bought a stock at $50 2 years ago and it is up to $100, you sell and take the $7.50 tax hit. Buy back at $100 and then your tax basis is $100 if you sell it at $110 next year. You will have saved if cap gains go up to 25% or 39.6% next year.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 09:29 pm
@parados,
Oh! Which stocks gained 40%/year? I'm a detail guy; worked as an auditor/accountant most of my working career.

From my sources, the average annual rate of growth on funds have been about 1.75%/year.

How does the average fund increase by 40%/year when our economy is growing at just 1% to 2%/year?
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 09:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Apple - Dec 2010 - $315
Nov 2012 = $589 (It hit $700 earlier this year.)

People are selling winner STOCKS. Some they might have held for 10 years or more. The point of selling is to address possible tax increases next year. Surely you understand that some stocks go up, some down to create the average return in a fund.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Nov, 2012 09:55 pm
@parados,
Okay, how many people invested in Apple?

You,
Quote:
Some they might have held for 10 years or more.


Quote:
Wealthier Americans and those who have significant savings and investments will typically place their money in a number of different types of investments. Retirement plans usually account for a substantial amount of investment, with decreasing amounts of money invested in mutual funds, individual stocks, bonds, cash and life insurance. The balance of investment in different forms can vary a great deal, however, and many Americans have a lot of money invested in other types of non-financial assets, particularly in property. This is reflected in the fact that the average homeowner has a net worth of 171,700 dollars, much of which is invested in their property, while the average renter has a net worth of about 4800 dollars.


From Forbes.
Quote:
The more volatile the returns are, the more distorted the numbers will be so this is an extreme example but even a small difference in returns can have a huge impact. For example, according to this web site, the average annual return of the S&P 500 (including dividends) was about 9.6% from 1992-2011. However, the compounded annualized return (what you actually earned once volatility was factored in) was about 7.8%. That might not seem like a big difference but $10k a year over 20 years at a 9.6% return is about $600k. At a 7.8% return, it’s a little over $480k. That’s almost a $120k difference. Over a longer time period, the gap would only continue to grow.


My YTD returns this year is over 11%. I believe my return on investment beats the averages almost every year. Also in 2008 when most lost 40%, I lost only 17%.

parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 08:05 am
@cicerone imposter,
The comment was about people selling stocks because of possible tax consequences next year. People that don't own stocks won't be selling them since they have no tax consequences and no stock to sell. The majority of stock is owned by wealthy people who will have tax consequences if the capital gains tax goes up from 15%.


I bought more shares of Apple on the recent dip. I had to sell other stocks to do it. I have a 10% return on that purchase in less than 2 weeks. Big whoop. Some of us do better than the market. Some of us do worse.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:28 am
@parados,
parados, You're talking about very few people, and even less people who own stocks in Apple. At $500/share, not many middle class families owns those shares, given that the average wealth of the middle class. From Chicago Tribune on the middle class.

Quote:
The median household net worth, which is the value of assets minus debt, dropped from $129,582 to $93,150 over the same 10-year period, according to Pew, which analyzed U.S. data along with its own survey of nearly 1,300 adults who consider themselves middle class.


Also, you're talking about a "tax bite" that's going to increase by 5% next year. How do you know that stock values will not increase by that amount - or more?

That you can quote anecdotal stories about yourself on this issue - owning and selling Apple shares - doesn't apply to the majority.

I sell my funds when I need the money - and not because of the tax consequences. I have withdrawn more than 2.3 times what's required under IRS laws for this year. That's been true for most of my retirement years since 1998, and my investment balance today is better than what it was on December 31, 2011, but that's also anecdotal.


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:42 am
@cicerone imposter,
President Obama is wavering again.

Quote:
In the current negotiations with Congress over deficits and the debt, Mr. Obama said he would take a serious look at how to “reform our entitlements” because “health care costs continue to be the biggest driver of our deficits.” Unless Mr. Obama and Congress reach some agreement, tax increases and budget reductions will take effect automatically on Jan. 1.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:43 am
@cicerone imposter,
Durbin was saying this morning that Medicaid and SS need to be protected but Medicare can be "tweaked".
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:48 am
@JPB,
There are many ways to save Medicare costs. Those issues have been discussed on this very board. Cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in healthcare will save billions.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 11:58 am
@JPB,
Maybe just a real big sugar bowl till they find out which way the wind is going to blow.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 12:05 pm
They're singing the "outcome based" praises over fee-for-service. Also, that if everyone is insured as a result of the ACA then the eligibility can be pushed out for those who are in good health. He didn't mention it, but I think that it will get some sort of means testing going forward.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 12:16 pm
@JPB,
I'm not understanding what you mean by "means testing for those in good health."
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 12:21 pm
@cicerone imposter,
two separate things...

Medicare eligibility is now 65 for everyone. With the passage of ACA (Obamacare) everyone will be insured. So... if everyone is insured through exchanges then those who are still healthy enough to work can keep working and delay going on Medicare until ... 67? 68?

Means testing (I'm talking about this, not anyone on at the table) would be to stagger Medicare premiums based on ability to pay.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 12:59 pm
@JPB,
Okay, that clarified what you said earlier. Thanks; makes a lot of sense.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 01:01 pm
Quote:
“Everyone is looking for this magic bullet that shows you how to raise revenue without raising rates or cut entitlement programs without cutting benefits. Guess what? There is no magic bullet. Everything will be hard,” says Pete Davis, an advisor to Wall Street money managers and former economist for the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Senate Budget Committee.
More


Right. There is no magic bullet, so let's get 'er done and get on with it. Raise tax rates (all or some), close loopholes on top tier, reduce spending (military, entitlement and elsewhere), make it harder to pass unfunded programs in the future, and get a day job if all of this means you can't get reelected.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 01:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The whole point was people like you and me aren't selling our stocks for tax purposes but the very few people that own a LOT of stock seem to be. That is what could well be driving the stock prices down at the end of the year.

Quote:
Also, you're talking about a "tax bite" that's going to increase by 5% next year. How do you know that stock values will not increase by that amount - or more?

But that is the whole point. Rich people that are paying 14% don't know that taxes are only going to increase 5% next year. Obama wants them to pay a minimum of 30%. That is a 100% increase. By selling now, taking the capital gains hit on taxes this year and then rebuying the stock they are simply hedging against a possible increase in taxes. Which would you prefer? To pay 15% on a $1 million cap gains this year or possibly 30% on a $1.1 million capital gains in the future?

Let me see if I can make this more understandable.
If I bought a stock at some point in the past for $10. That stock is now worth $100. If I sell it I have to pay 15% capital gains on $90 so I have to pay the government $13.50 when I sell. If the tax rate goes up to 30% then in the future if I sell that stock for $100 then I have to pay a tax of $27. Once I sell the stock, I can buy it right back for $100. Now if I sell it next year at $100, I will owe zero in taxes. By selling before Jan 1, paying cap gains this year and then rebuying the stock I have increased my return by $13.50 if taxes double next year. Even if the rate goes from 15% to 20% I still make $4.50 in savings on my taxes. It is reasonable to gamble and lock in a 5-15% return now vs having to pay it out later.

cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Nov, 2012 01:03 pm
@JPB,
Yea, clap, clap, clap, clap...... Idea Mr. Green
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Fiscal Cliff
  3. » Page 10
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.26 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 01:23:10