Chef Jim Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 1) Really? You seriously don't know? I thought you had something to do with investing. 2) You were talking about behavior, which makes income/wealth debate moot. 1). I do. Now if you had said mutual funds can reduce risk vs individual securities I would agree. But index funds do not reduce the risk. As a matter of fact the can increase the risk due to the face you're buying the index and as the index goes so goes your investment. Index funds are not actively managed. 2) So behavior does not affect wealth? Why don't you define wealth to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Of course it does. But you can't tax people differently because one is a dirty drunk and the other is a vegan So you don't believe in incentivizing certain behaviors via taxation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Don't have time for full response, but there's a lot of interplay between tax rates and deployment of capital, etc. I also wouldn't be so flippant as to ignore the links between stock prices and companies' capital decisions. Company would be more willing to invest in itself if there's investor confidence. Also income inequality manifests itself in many forms. But suffice it to say, the Obama economic teams' policies have exacerbated the recent income inequality statistics. Any company that relies on investor confidence for its investment policy won't last very long. I'm not ignoring the link in stock prices and investment; I'm saying that it has very little (almost no) impact. The most important variable influencing the decision to invest in productive capital by corporations is growth of internal funds/profitability. Any link between stock prices and investment is mostly a consequence of how stock prices are influenced by growth in sales and profits. i'm pretty certain i understand the roubini quote i pasted. not a lot to decipher there: the rise of the middle class was due to "progressive economic,fiscal and other social policies". not due to economic growth. interesting that in states like nc they are actually going after one of the reasons roubini gives for middle class success: education. keep em stupid. but you keep it up with your hand wave dismissal of arguments. it's befitting of a pompous ass like you. Hey, I thought I was the pompous ass!? I've worked very hard at it. I'll never become #1--the bar is set toohigh here, but surely I should be ranked 2nd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Of course it does. But you can't tax people differently because one is a dirty drunk and the other is a vegan Yes you can. Differing tax rates for different behaviors are common. It happens all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Yes you can. Differing tax rates for different behaviors are common. It happens all the time. The ACA comes immediately to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 1). I do. Now if you had said mutual funds can reduce risk vs individual securities I would agree. But index funds do not reduce the risk. As a matter of fact the can increase the risk due to the face you're buying the index and as the index goes so goes your investment. Index funds are not actively managed. 2) So behavior does not affect wealth? Why don't you define wealth to us. Fine, then mutual funds! You proved my argument then! Yes, it affects wealth, but what does that have to do with capital gains for income taxes? Yes you can. Differing tax rates for different behaviors are common. It happens all the time. Ok, now that the dicussion has slipped off the rails in this direction give examples and relate it to what we are talking about. So you don't believe in incentivizing certain behaviors via taxation? What, like investing for retirement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Fine, then mutual funds! You proved my argument then No I didn't. Investing in mutual fund is still taking a risk where you can lose all your investment whereas working does not include the risk of losing money. Do you get the difference yet? Naaah, of course not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 What, like investing for retirement? You just said that you can't tax people differently based of their behaviors. How about you explain what you meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 No I didn't. Investing in mutual fund is still taking a risk where you can lose all your investment whereas working does not include the risk of losing money. Do you get the difference yet? Naaah, of course not. Lose all your money in a mutual fund? Ummm...sure, and an earthquake could hit Buffalo and destroy it, but not really probable. Still, it's WAY more likely someone would lose an employment situation than for a mutual fund to collapse. So, you and tasker and who knows who else arguing that the taxes on capital gains are where they are because of risk is an argument, not a fact based one, more like an opinion You just said that you can't tax people differently based of their behaviors. How about you explain what you meant. I did, I spoke about an alcoholic drinking away his wealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Holy river of stupid, Batman. Gator going full "him" arguing about the only actual fair tax in the entire arsenal. Make $10 in the market? Tax is 15%. Make $10,000.000.00 in the market? Tax is 15%. Liberals love fairness, as long as they get to define what it is. Predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 22, 2014 Author Share Posted October 22, 2014 Holy river of stupid, Batman. Gator going full "him" arguing about the only actual fair tax in the entire arsenal. Make $10 in the market? Tax is 15%. Make $10,000.000.00 in the market? Tax is 15%. Liberals love fairness, as long as they get to define what it is. Predictable. You are an idiot! Thanks Tom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I did, I spoke about an alcoholic drinking away his wealth could you please clarify that for me? how does an alcoholic who is drinking away his wealth get his income taxed at a higher rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 could you please clarify that for me? how does an alcoholic who is drinking away his wealth get his income taxed at a higher rate? Shut up! Ur stoopid! You are an idiot! Also predictable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Shut up! Ur stoopid! I must be. either that, or the logic is extraordinarily well hidden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Ok, now that the dicussion has slipped off the rails in this direction give examples and relate it to what we are talking about. Better idea: you relate it to what you're talking about, since you brought it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 i'm pretty certain i understand the roubini quote i pasted. not a lot to decipher there: the rise of the middle class was due to "progressive economic,fiscal and other social policies". not due to economic growth. interesting that in states like nc they are actually going after one of the reasons roubini gives for middle class success: education. keep em stupid. but you keep it up with your hand wave dismissal of arguments. it's befitting of a pompous ass like you. Utter horse crap. Middle class growth in the US was due nearly entirely to economic growth and access to capital for a greater proportion of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I did, I spoke about an alcoholic drinking away his wealth We already do tax that. They're called "sin taxes". Also, your argument that you're unlikely to lose money investing in mutual funds might be the most obviously wrong thing you've ever said. Edited October 22, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Any company that relies on investor confidence for its investment policy won't last very long. I'm not ignoring the link in stock prices and investment; I'm saying that it has very little (almost no) impact. The most important variable influencing the decision to invest in productive capital by corporations is growth of internal funds/profitability. Any link between stock prices and investment is mostly a consequence of how stock prices are influenced by growth in sales and profits. Should I take the obligatory swipe about economists not understanding accounting and finance now, or later? Don't ignore M&A as an investment and growth strategy, which can be funded with the equity currency. Also, much of the internal investment decisions are made with a look to improving earnings growth which drive the PE multiples. That's why casually dismissing the relationship between equity price targets and internal investment decisions is foolish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 Lose all your money in a mutual fund? Ummm...sure, and an earthquake could hit Buffalo and destroy it, but not really probable. Still, it's WAY more likely someone would lose an employment situation than for a mutual fund to collapse. Of course it's not probably but you can lose money and lots of it in a mutual fund. When was the last time you lost money from your job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 23, 2014 Share Posted October 23, 2014 We already do tax that. They're called "sin taxes". Also, your argument that you're unlikely to lose money investing in mutual funds might be the most obviously wrong thing you've ever said. Are we gonna hear a "that isn't a behavior, it's what you buy," argument? God, I hope so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts