Jump to content

Wealth Inequality Hurting Economy (duh)


Recommended Posts

The only disagreement (and it relates to GG's comment) is there are many reasons for the M&A activity. I am wrong to focus only on the competitive aspect, but I think we can all find examples of mergers that support our cases. One of the big headliners has been the tax motivation.

 

To bring it back to the original point I made, the capital gains tax provides investors with a tax advantage over income, and it has very little impact on productive investment, even if you want to include M&A activity. There has been no change in the tax, yet M&A activity is going through the roof, which has more to do with your first comment.

 

I assume you mean there has been no change in the cap gains tax. If you that would be wrong thanks to the ACA.

 

Oh, dumb asses don't buy bad stocks? Works both ways pal. Don't slap your face too hard

 

So this is also your argument as to why cap gains should be taxed as income? :doh: :doh: :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 319
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The only disagreement (and it relates to GG's comment) is there are many reasons for the M&A activity. I am wrong to focus only on the competitive aspect, but I think we can all find examples of mergers that support our cases. One of the big headliners has been the tax motivation.

 

To bring it back to the original point I made, the capital gains tax provides investors with a tax advantage over income, and it has very little impact on productive investment, even if you want to include M&A activity. There has been no change in the tax, yet M&A activity is going through the roof, which has more to do with your first comment.

BK is and has always been a Canadian company at heart. That sweet, sweet ~26% statutory tax rate.

 

In a totally unrelated matter, buy MTY.TSX. Bid that motherf@#$er up not because of the incredible margins and fundamentals but because I own it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That people buying stuff on credit based on income level are taking a risk. If they lose their job they can lose their homes, car, etc. Welcome to the consumer economy

 

That's the financial risk of using credit, not a financial risk of having an income.

 

Jesus, you are a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should have taken "People who are still too dense to understand politicians say things primarily for political benefit" for $200.

that argument might hold some water if yellen or roubini were or ever will be politicians or be seeking elected office.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that argument might hold some water if yellen or roubini were or ever will be politicians or be seeking elected office.

Again, I notice you've been dismissive of economists who understand that the middle class, and relative high standard of living in the United States was created by economic growth, private secotor inovations, and the competitive nature of capitalism. Why not defer to their authority?

 

I'll also note, again, that you haven't accounted for the standard of living being so much higher, and the middle class so much more robust, in America than in Europe, despite Europe's progressive legislative bent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume you mean there has been no change in the cap gains tax. If you that would be wrong thanks to the ACA.

 

Right, which proves the point. Unless you want to say that the increase is what's fueling M&A...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that argument might hold some water if yellen or roubini were or ever will be politicians or be seeking elected office.

 

Right, because people appointed by elected officials have nothing to do with the politics.

 

I think sometimes you completely forget the world is populated by human beings and not robots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm….roubini vs gg? yellen vs gg? seems you believe that you "know what you're talking about" and these two don't. we can look up their credentials and accomplishments. how about yours?

 

oh, and your question about economists and ceo's? i'll take "because they have a conscience" for $1000, alex.

 

Why do you believe Roubini and Yellen know what they're talking about? And why don't you think GG does?

 

Because all I see is you not even making an argument to authority, but an argument to your own confirmation bias. "Yellen proves I'm right, therefore Yellen is right."

 

make them entitlements.

 

Well...a lack of cable TV inhibits freedom of the press; not having a cell phone inhibits free speech; and if people can argue that requiring ID to vote is a poll tax, then needing a car to drive to polling places is effectively a poll tax as well. All "I have a right to free ****!" arguments I've heard from people. I haven't yet heard that free Nike Airs and football tickets are required for the freedom to assemble...but I'm sure it's coming.

 

Handing out guns so as not to inhibit the right to bear arms, though...that's verboten.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the financial risk of using credit, not a financial risk of having an income.

 

Jesus, you are a moron.

Credit based on ratio to income.

 

Income is not all assured, so its a risk buying a house. You butt lickers are all impossible, I guess that's why you are butt lickers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you believe Roubini and Yellen know what they're talking about? And why don't you think GG does?

 

Because all I see is you not even making an argument to authority, but an argument to your own confirmation bias. "Yellen proves I'm right, therefore Yellen is right."

 

 

 

as i said before, i know roubini and yellen's backrounds. they're pretty f+_)(*ing impressive. not to mention that roubini was one of the first to predict the 2008 collapse. so they do have authority on the issues being discussed. i have no idea if gg does. from his comments, i think not.

 

and appeal to authority as a logical technique is by definition a device used to bolster or advance ones argument. why should this case be any different?

Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

as i said before, i know roubini and yellen's backrounds. they're pretty f+_)(*ing impressive. not to mention that roubini was one of the first to predict the 2008 collapse. so they do have authority on the issues being discussed. i have no idea if gg does. from his comments, i think not.

Med Jones and Peter Schiff also predicted the 2008 collapse, and did so earlier than Roubini. Why not side with their varied stances on wealth?

 

and appeal to authority as a logical technique is by definition a device used to bolster or advance ones argument. why should this case be any different?

Because you're not bolstering your argument, you're being dismissive of other arguments; which is exactly what makes it a logical fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Credit based on ratio to income.

 

Income is not all assured, so its a risk buying a house.

 

And now you're adding this to your argument as to why cap gains should be taxed as income? :doh: :doh: :doh: :doh:

 

Your argument has gotten so convoluted you don't even remember what you were orginally arguing against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only disagreement (and it relates to GG's comment) is there are many reasons for the M&A activity. I am wrong to focus only on the competitive aspect, but I think we can all find examples of mergers that support our cases. One of the big headliners has been the tax motivation.

 

To bring it back to the original point I made, the capital gains tax provides investors with a tax advantage over income, and it has very little impact on productive investment, even if you want to include M&A activity. There has been no change in the tax, yet M&A activity is going through the roof, which has more to do with your first comment.

 

It would be helpful if the discussion is focused on which taxes we're talking about personal or corporate. Seems to be a lot of mixing up in the discussion.

 

Still, there's no dispute that Mr Obama's and Ms Yellen's policies have exacerbated income and wealth inequality over the last 5 years. QE is Obama's economic policy.

 

as i said before, i know roubini and yellen's backrounds. they're pretty f+_)(*ing impressive. not to mention that roubini was one of the first to predict the 2008 collapse. so they do have authority on the issues being discussed. i have no idea if gg does. from his comments, i think not.

 

and appeal to authority as a logical technique is by definition a device used to bolster or advance ones argument. why should this case be any different?

 

So you see them on TV. Congratulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as i said before, i know roubini and yellen's backrounds. they're pretty f+_)(*ing impressive. not to mention that roubini was one of the first to predict the 2008 collapse. so they do have authority on the issues being discussed. i have no idea if gg does. from his comments, i think not.

 

and appeal to authority as a logical technique is by definition a device used to bolster or advance ones argument. why should this case be any different?

 

I was one of the first to predict the 2008 collapse, even before Roubini. That's pretty !@#$ing impressive as well.

 

So you'll defer to me now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was one of the first to predict the 2008 collapse, even before Roubini. That's pretty !@#$ing impressive as well.

 

So you'll defer to me now?

 

He predicted IN 2006 that housing prices were inflated and would collapse. Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had him beat by a year. I even called it to the month.

 

Bow to me, birddog. By your own metric, I'm more authoritative than your authorities.

i wouldn't bow to you if i had multible lumbar vertebral compression fx's. roubini was swimming upstream from his esteemed peers. you're barely treading water.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...