Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

That's grade A malarkey, right there. A person who has the money to invest at that level isn't going to park their money on the sidelines earning 0% when they could be making X% even after taxes. The reason for the lower capital gains rate is because it was sold as trickle down economics. Which, as Kansas shows, doesn't farking work.




Which is why we have the inheritance tax, and why anything over $5.something million is subject to it.

I would have more accurately said "a" reason, rather then "the" reason. I stand very much corrected on that point.

I didn't suggest it was on the sidelines in the example I gave. It was invested in Apple and held. It is in fact making a very good return where it's at. Diversification would be sensible and beneficial of course, but at the cost of $530 million I'd probably just ride it out.

Beyond that, the capitol gains tax was established in 1921 at 12.5%. It has varied up and down since, but I am not aware of any time that it has equaled or even come close to equaling the rates for normal income despite many, many years of liberal control of government. I'm also not aware of anywhere in the world where that is the case. I'm not particularly arguing that it is at the correct number currently but against the proposition that it should properly be 40-50% plus which is what has been suggested. President's Clinton, Bush and Obama have all signed off on either cutting the rate or extending the previous cuts that were due to sunset. It can be argued that it was just deal making in the case of Presidents Clinton and Obama if you wish, but that doesn't make the point it should be naturally be 40-50% in the US.

There is a whole industry devoted to avoiding US estate taxes that is quite effective. (And also really produce nothing.) Or I could simply take my billion and establish residency in the Caymans, or in Sweden or in any of a myriad of countries that have zero inheritance tax and the US is just out of luck. I know that sounds disloyal and I agree, but the sad fact remains that I suspect a great number of people would renounce their US citizenship for a good deal less than $400 million.

[alfablue]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

I understand the impression and in some cases, the fact, that a given stock is simply the object of speculative gambling and has no correlation to the underlying value it should represent. I'm sure that the example I gave is an oversimplification and could have been at the very least better stated as a stock's value being the market's estimation of a given company's future profits and/or growth. While I can't quite get to the space that allows a stock's value being relatively detached from the company's performance (for example that value is used by many companies to buy others in all stock transactions) I don't entirely disagree with your assertion that it's just gambling. Rather I'd just put forth that all business is gambling in a similar sense. Whether I invest in a start up, a going concern, or own a small laundry mat and sink profits or borrow money toward new and better equipment, I suppose I am gambling that the given action is going to generate a return on investment. But there certainly is a long tradition of outcry against stock speculators and that should be given it's due weight in policy.

There are some other points to be made in favor of the premise I started with, such as inflation cutting into real gain, but I 'd rather point out that we agree at the least in some sense of a public benefit that occurs and should be encouraged through some monetary policy when capital is invested into a start up or even in recapitalization of an existing employer company. We may even, between us, identify certain high risk fields like biotech that we would want to further encourage investment in. An example of another area I'd guess we would agree on is ending High Frequency Trading. I suspect on that foundation alone were we to put a good deal of time and effort into further discussion we could come up with a general policy that is fairly workable and acceptable despite, I assume, neither of us being actual economists. Which sadly, is considerably more then any of our representatives in government have been able to manage.

About what stock numbers represent, especially if they have a direct (not indirect- like ability to borrow) impact on the bottom line- I'll go back to my pretty common example, which has been applying for a long time- since the mid 90's tech boom. Right now, Google's market cap is $538B, F-book is $352B. Again, all they do is sell information and advertising. That's all they do. On the other hand, GM's market cap is $49B and Fords is $48B, and they sell roughly $600B of product. They have plants all over the world, have a long supply chain, etc. Both are profiting in the $5-10B range per year right now- up a lot.

On what planet does the actual revenue potential for Google AND Facebook put together come anywhere close to Ford? Not Ford + GM, but just Ford. The actual potential for the company does not even come close to an actual potential for them to move real money via work. Yet they are 3.5-5x LARGER than GM+Ford combined. There's no way that the stock price actually means future profits or potentials based on that.

No, it's about "value" to the stock industry. Which is the same game we got into with home ownership as a speculative growth. The numbers don't reflect reality.

Again, the company I work for has had HUGE swings in the stock price- and the only thing that has done anything to the company is what sales have done- not what Wall Street does with our numbers.

So, again, my point is that everything BUT actual direct investments to companies should not get some kind of tax benefit. Realistically, there's no real reason to give MORE incentives for direct investment either- there's always enough money to be made including taxes to be worth it. Historically, taxes have not been a good reason to not invest into potential. It's been done with and with out tax breaks- people want to make money.

I think your note about the weight of stock speculators (to me 99% of Wall Street) in policy still bugs me a lot. Most trading adds nothing to society- as pointed out before- buying low and selling high isn't nearly as beneficial as making new drugs, developing new cars, finding new ways to compute. You are so very right, and it's something we can correct.

But the biggest problem right now- the people with the most money, which is the most influence- Wall Street. They've even managed to avoid decent regulation like most industries have.

[alfablue]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

There is a whole industry devoted to avoiding US estate taxes that is quite effective. (And also really produce nothing.) Or I could simply take my billion and establish residency in the Caymans, or in Sweden or in any of a myriad of countries that have zero inheritance tax and the US is just out of luck. I know that sounds disloyal and I agree, but the sad fact remains that I suspect a great number of people would renounce their US citizenship for a good deal less than $400 million.

That example is one of many reasons why the sales tax ideas for high level government income is not a good idea, and very far from a "fair tax". People with means have the ability to use their money in places where there isn't taxes. People without means can't.

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

Larry Wilmore succinctly explains both why I dislike Hillary AND why I'll vote for her anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GixmfgNIfe8

(Relevant portion starts about 7:38 in)

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

Larry Wilmore succinctly explains both why I dislike Hillary AND why I'll vote for her anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GixmfgNIfe8

(Relevant portion starts about 7:38 in)

That pretty well sums it up. What frightens me is how much Red the map will actually have on election day. How anyone can vote for that man is beyond me.

[alfablue]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

That pretty well sums it up. What frightens me is how much Red the map will actually have on election day. How anyone can vote for that man is beyond me.

You do realize that many on his side thinks exactly the same way about Hillary, right? They are afraid of everything- the future, the economy, taking guns away, terrorism, anyone that doesn't look like them, etc.

That's how they are currently rolling.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

About what stock numbers represent, especially if they have a direct (not indirect- like ability to borrow) impact on the bottom line- I'll go back to my pretty common example, which has been applying for a long time- since the mid 90's tech boom. Right now, Google's market cap is $538B, F-book is $352B. Again, all they do is sell information and advertising. That's all they do. On the other hand, GM's market cap is $49B and Fords is $48B, and they sell roughly $600B of product. They have plants all over the world, have a long supply chain, etc. Both are profiting in the $5-10B range per year right now- up a lot.

On what planet does the actual revenue potential for Google AND Facebook put together come anywhere close to Ford? Not Ford + GM, but just Ford. The actual potential for the company does not even come close to an actual potential for them to move real money via work. Yet they are 3.5-5x LARGER than GM+Ford combined. There's no way that the stock price actually means future profits or potentials based on that.

Just briefly on this and leaving FB out as I know little about them and am a bit skeptical, but if Ford and GM had to liquidate today I believe Google has enough just in cash on hand to buy them both out. Plus Google has no debt. Don't quote me but I think Ford probably has somewhere around $200b in assets and maybe $160-170b in debt. GM is pretty similarly situated. Google's most recent profits are around 9x GM and around 3x Ford, but one key is that Google is growing profits and revenues at 15-20% while Ford and GM profits are flat or even negative. If this continues, (which there's very good reason to believe it will, as Google is only beginning to monetize and is also investing heavily in new tech) in just a few years Google profits will be 7-8x the combined profits of Ford and GM. I know it seems weird as Ford and GM have so much Stuff, but the fact is, like my house, it's heavily mortgaged, Plus they're spending $140b to make 2-5% if they're lucky, and Google is returning $20b on $50b invested or near 40%.

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

You do realize that many on his side thinks exactly the same way about Hillary, right? They are afraid of everything- the future, the economy, taking guns away, terrorism, anyone that doesn't look like them, etc.

That's how they are currently rolling.

That's why all of this talk of him dropping out is absurd. You know Trump has advisors whispering in his ear that he's "only" down 6-7 points (a blowout by modern standards) and his floor is like 40% so far. Furthermore they're most likely also convinced that with 3rd parties 46% or 47% wins the election, so all he needs to do is go a little more negative.

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

That's why all of this talk of him dropping out is absurd. You know Trump has advisors whispering in his ear that he's "only" down 6-7 points (a blowout by modern standards) and his floor is like 40% so far. Furthermore they're most likely also convinced that with 3rd parties 46% or 47% wins the election, so all he needs to do is go a little more negative.

This is why I'm not all that convinced that 2020, 2024, 2028, etc. will be any better.

I'd like to think that this is a low point and the electorate will demand better later, but man... I just don't know.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

"She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions," Trump said in a CNN interview. "You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever. In my opinion, she was off base."

I wonder if Kellyanne Conway has blood coming out of her wherever too? Maybe she's immune to that since she's on Trump's team. How do any women support this guy?

[aparch]

...They are afraid of everything- ... , taking guns away,...

This makes my brain hurt, and I've seen it first hand with how my family has reacted over the last eight years (*sigh*). Obama, and now Hillary, are a little too busy to personally knock on everyone's door to ask nicely for everyone in America to surrender their guns.

So that leaves us with an Act of Congress (literally) to get this done because the President is not part of this process.

The US House and Senate would both need to pass "Amendment 34" by a two-thirds majority before the amendment could be passed to each state for ratification. Then, three-fourths (!!!) of the states would need to accept the new amendment.


TL;DR: No, Obama can't just executive order our guns away.

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

I think evidence shows that no one has taken away a gun let alone all of them. The NRA has been fleecing their sheep on that crock of BS for too long.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

I knew I never should have posted in this thread because now I get notification. And frankly with the exception of EODS, you all have such terrible taste in collegiate hockey teams that it seems really unlikely I can learn anything here.

The US House and Senate would both need to pass "Amendment 34" by a two-thirds majority before the amendment could be passed to each state for ratification. Then, three-fourths (!!!) of the states would need to accept the new amendment.


TL;DR: No, Obama can't just executive order our guns away.

Yeah, but aren't both sides supposed to be afraid of a stacked Supreme Court overturning rulings on abortion or guns or whatever?

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

I think evidence shows that no one has taken away a gun let alone all of them. The NRA has been fleecing their sheep on that crock of BS for too long.

I have relatives that are still convinced Obama is coming for their guns before he leaves office.

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVI: KICK THE BABY!

I knew I never should have posted in this thread because now I get notification. And frankly with the exception of EODS, you all have such terrible taste in collegiate hockey teams that it seems really unlikely I can learn anything here.

Yeah, but aren't both sides supposed to be afraid of a stacked Supreme Court overturning rulings on abortion or guns or whatever?

No question Badger fans have character: No other fanbase could wait so patiently for a real team.

As far as the SCOTUS goes, only GOPers base their decisions on fear--primarily fear of change or difference. It's their gravitational force.