114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 10:32 am
@georgeob1,
That's all well and good, but my argument still remains that our tax code shouldn't REWARD companies for taking on debt!

Right now our system pushes companies to take greater risks and reap higher rewards; the tax advantages of taking on debt combine with the smaller pool of people to spread the rewards out amongst if the risk is successful. It's bad enough amongst regular companies, but where I think the real problem lies, is with the financial industry, who has shown that they aren't capable of properly assessing risk these days but are willing to leverage themselves to the hilt.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 10:33 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Clever ! However only "qualifying dividends" merit the lower rate


Quote:
In order to be taxed as a qualified dividend, the investor "must have held the stock for more than 60 days during the 121-day period that begins 60 days before the ex-dividend date," as the IRS explains in Publication 550.


Wow.. 60 days? That must qualify 95% of stock dividends.

Quote:
You could however argue that the rate difference means that we subsidize investment relative to labor.
But you can't argue that rich people pay the same rate as laborers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 11:28 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo wrote,
Quote:
I for one do have a problem with the mortgage interest deduction and ALL federal subsidies for home ownership.


That's like the wagon pulling on the horse; you can't reverse something that's been on-going taxation policy for home-buyers, because that would have decimated home buying by millions of Americans. It's good taxation policy for home-buyers, business, and the government; it encourages the right kind of capitalism where "everybody" benefits.

When we bought our home(s), we considered several issues; a) property taxes, b) upkeep of a home, c) neighborhood, d) our ability to finance the mortgage, and e) the long-term benefit of buying rather than renting.

I'm not sure where you're coming from, but it's your assumption that this taxation policy was/is a bad one. I can't put my arm around this one either!
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 12:02 pm
I do think that this man shares a very informative view point about what is going on here in the US and around the world!

My question to all of you is, "Is there anything that we should be doing differently and if so, what would that be?


Reich: How Unequal Can America Get ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCu-XnVxhfk&feature=related
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 12:08 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

e) the long-term benefit of buying rather than renting.

Did it ever cross your mind, CI, as the cautious investor I know you to be, that the value of the home you and your lady bought might decline in value? Did you ever think that Florsheim might tell you that they were closing down in CA but there was a comparable job in GA...if you could sell your albatross house in CA?
Then was then but now is now.
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 02:19 pm
STOP THE PRESSES ... or not.
President Obama's chief of staff, Bill Daley, told Meet The Press this morning that the DOE is considering releasing 4.2 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to lower oil prices. Okie or Farmerman are far more qualified then I am to explain how much effect that might have on a country that uses 20 millions of gasoline a day.
The SPR currently holds some 726.5 million barrels of crude in reserve in old salt mines in TX and LA, close to the capacity of 727 million, one of which is said to being starting to leak.
The cost of the crude in the SPR is about $23.40 a barrel, but the cost to maintain or expand the infrastructure is immense.
(Source: 247wallst.com)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Mar, 2011 10:33 pm
@realjohnboy,
Of coarse; there's never been a guarantee, but most in our generation looked forward to owning our own home. Many of us came from very poor families, and one of our goals have been home ownership. We've owned three homes, a rental property, and one partnership in a condo at Incline Village at Lake Tahoe.

We never lost money on any one of them. We now live in Silicon Valley, and our ZIP code (94087) have held up their values pretty well, and our square footage value is always in the top ten in Santa Clara County. The appreciation on our home is over 18 times what we paid for it.

I made money on our rental property, and sold it when I retired, because I didn't want to manage anything while in retirement. Not only did it bring in rental income while we owned it, but I sold it for 100% more than what I paid for it. As for the condo partnership, I didn't make any money on it, but it was a vacation home that we used year-round while our children were young. As our children got older, we used it less and less; that's when I sold our share.

I also know that our retirement investments with Vanguard is not guaranteed, but I've been living pretty well since I retired in 1998, and the current value of my investments equals more than the value on December 31, 2008, even though I have withdrawn over $68k from my retirement savings. My wife and I are both retired, but our income in 2009 was 35% greater than the average household income in CA.

I also know that we are better off financially than many young middle class families who have lost jobs and homes. We have no mortgage, and pay off our credit card balance every month. I also still enjoy world travel, and can travel to my heart's content by watching how much I spend every year.

I want to make it clear that we are not rich, but comfortable.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 12:19 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I want to make it clear that we are not rich, but comfortable
in large part brought to you by the refusal of Californians to pay in taxes what they use in government services. Your property investments never would have done anywhere near so well without prop 13, and all the years since that time of the government not finding alternate rev streams. You padded your pockets at the expense of the kids who stay in the state.

Now what? The only sure way to grow out of the debt would require the HSR system to get built, which would mean that the feds (the rest of us) would need to pay the $60 billion cost to build it....on credit and with no hope that revenue would pay back the costs. Bailouts would only delay the day of reckoning. 35 years of doing wrong has consequences.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 12:51 am
@hawkeye10,
So, whatcha gonna do about that?

You're an idiot; even those who had advantages of prop 13 went broke. Not my problem that they didn't know how to manage their finances.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 12:54 am
@hawkeye10,
Yeah, high speed rail is a real economy saver. Just so long as someone else pays for it.

Not to worry about the debt, either. Noone has any intention of doing more than hoping to keep rolling it over.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 01:07 am
@roger,
Quote:
Yeah, high speed rail is a real economy saver. Just so long as someone else pays for it
If California could fix transportation they would be set. HSR would make california back into was it was in the 50's again, a beacon for America, leading the way to a better tomorrow.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 02:09 am
@hawkeye10,
Have to get somebody to ride it - and pay the fare. If it moves anywhere close to what the airlines do, it's going to need just as large a terminal, parking lot, and auto rental facilities. Where to put it. Downtown with all the existing traffic, or out in the desert somewheres - where they need shuttles into town?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 06:03 am
Wake up people, even Princess Pelosi has stated that our economy is
going down the wrong path. Maybe your president should listen to her.

Also, drawing from our oil reserve is stupid... only an assclown would suggest it.
There is no shortage of oil or gas.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 06:18 am
@H2O MAN,
Home values are tanking again and the jobs picture is still grim...we are going no where.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 06:30 am
This morning, one of those useless internet stories discussed the problems Best Buy faces.

I didn't read the story but I have a news flash for the writer(s). Perhaps, one of the reasons why Best Buy is in trouble is due to the fact that not as many people NEED the items the chain sells.

That is precisely the problem with a retail economy. People run out of needs.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 06:47 am
@plainoldme,


Obama lies - our economy dies.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 08:10 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Obama lies - our economy dies.


Squirt dribbles.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 08:29 am


Parasite is in denial, this causes the youngster to lash out at others.
It is best to ignore Parasites Obama Kool-Aid drinking induced irrational behavior.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 08:48 am
@H2O MAN,
Funny, how every official statistic shows the economy grew last year. Yet you accuse me of denial?

Or does "dies" mean something else to you squirt?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 7 Mar, 2011 09:15 am
@parados,


Parasite, Obama and his regime lie... only the dumbmasses believe their lies.

Live in denial or know the truth - it's your choice.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 11/02/2025 at 10:30:42