Steely Dan Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 CNN mentioned in the clip that the results were from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank. A quick cruise to their site and here's the analysis. They break everything down into 5 quintiles of income, but I couldn't see where they assigned an income range to the quintiles. If anyone sees or knows this, it's good info. Looks like they tried to adjust for the capital gains bumps as well. Most of what you'll want to know is starts on the bottom of pg 33 (34 in the pdf) where they compare the two. This seems really unbiased at first glance. Maybe others will see it differently. All depend if Kodak has enough employees or needs more- there are so many ways to gauge the economy, job growth is just one It has no bearing on Kodak at all unless they are IPO's. That's because you are a narrow-minded simpleton who is unable to view the world from any perspective other than your tiny little corner of it. Pot meet kettle. Wow, who knew that MSNBC, FOX & CNN were the only 3 sources for news on the planet. They are the big three. I'm not going into every news source there is in the country. If you want to give an account of all the best "balanced" news sources go ahead. I was responding to your Communist News Network idiocy. If that's true then Fux Knus is the Fascist side of the political spectrum. Tax cuts were in 2001. War was in 2003. 2 years = 6 months? I see your ability to do simple math is on par with the rest of your drivel. (*^*&%^$^#we were at war on October 7th, 2001 get your facts straight. So lets see May to June = 1 month, June to July = 2 months, July to August = 3 months, August to September = 4 months, September to October = 5 months. You're right I made a mistake by one month. Since your math is off by two years and five months I'll take my calculations over yours. I'm not surprised you didn't know the date of the start of war you seem to be a little on the dim side. I can't 'prove' common sense to someone who apparently has no ability to recognize it. You don't believe me? Take my money. Otherwise you are too gutless to back up your bullsh--. Mmmmph, because I don't bet I'm gutless. Ok, you keep your little prejudice's to yourself mmmkay. Some people don't gamble money and that doesn't make them gutless. Jesus you're a ing A-hole. Why am I not surprised that you are too stupid to figure out where such information could possibly be found. Let's see; 2.3 million just in the 200k-500k range. So between $161k-$2.9MM the number would be somewhere around 6 million people. Yeah, not too many. But keep pumping that strawman about the rates for the tiny fraction (80,000) that make over $2.9 million. Dude, the fact is that less than half the people in the country make $66k or more and I said it was the beginning of being rich. I'm basing that on a single income. If a family's income reaches that it's much different. If you want to say that $20k over the median income isn't the beginning of rich then we just disagree. You're link doesn't work on my computer. It's not needed anyway because Faking a Roughing gave us the info already. Did you read this in his post? here's the analysis. From the tax policy center. They even explain how they calculated the data. The two candidates' plans would have sharply different distributional effects. Senator McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households. Many fewer households at the bottom of the income distribution would get tax cuts and those whose taxes fall would, on average, see their after-tax income rise much less. In marked contrast, Senator Obama offers much larger tax breaks to low- and middle- income taxpayers and would increase taxes on high-income taxpayers. The largest tax cuts, as a share of income, would go to those at the bottom of the income distribution, while taxpayers with the highest income would see their taxes rise. The impact of the tax code on economic activity under each candidate's policies would differ in several important ways. With Senator McCain's proposed policies enacted, the top marginal rates (35 percent on individual income and 25 percent on corporate income) would be significantly lower than under Senator Obama's plan (39.6 and 35 percent, respectively). McCain's reduced individual and corporate rates would improve economic efficiency and increase domestic investment, but the larger deficits he would incur to do so would reduce and could completely offset any positive effect. In contrast, Senator Obama's proposed new tax credits could encourage desirable behavior, particularly if the childless EITC and payroll tax rebate encourage additional labor supply among childless low-income individuals. However, he would also direct new subsidies at an already favored group--seniors --and an already favored activity--borrowing for housing--which could probably be better directed elsewhere. Both candidates have proposed to change the tax treatment of health insurance in important ways. This analysis does not address those proposals, but we expect to evaluate both plans soon. Section I of the report describes how we obtained information about the candidates' tax plans and how we performed our modeling and analysis. In section II, we outline the major tax proposals put forth, and in section III, we discuss the implications of their policies for the revenue raised and taxpayer economic activity. Section IV looks at their effect on the distribution of the tax burden. What??? If you want to know my position on something specific, feel free to ask. Otherwise I don't care if you are ultra-man; I'm just pointing out that you don't have a clue when it comes to the topic being discussed here. You asked what an ultra-conservative is and I showed you it's someone who doesn't disagree with any conservative ideals. Is it to hard for you to ruminate on conservative ideals and realize the ones you disagree with. Maybe for you because you don't seem to think things through much. What if I invested in Kodak, sold my shares at a profit and used the money to start my own business? or Kodak using the investment from stock purchases to start a new product line. There's lots of examples, but they don't always pan out in the real world. As an example, Exxon invests a lot in R&D, but uses a huge % of net to buy back stock, which only helps the shareholders. The problem becomes when you continually try to encourage investment by rewarding corporations and rich people, someone usually suffers, like the lower incomes or middle class. There has to be some middle ground where we reward entrepreneurs and help families that can't keep up, but maintain enough revenue in the Treasury. Not easy to do... You're talking about IPO's. They are a small percentage of stock traded on Wall Street. If you want to talk about IPO's that's much different from the old stock. CNN skews both ways- to be honest, Grace and the other guy on CNN Headline News are a lot worse than anyone Fox News has aside from O'Reilly. Olbermann doesn't impress me in the least, unless you are talking about his ability to alienate those he works with Exactly, that's why they are the most balanced news source. If you take Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck being in primetime an argument can be made that they are conservative.
Adam Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Exactly, that's why they are the most balanced news source. If you take Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck being in primetime an argument can be made that they are conservative. Personally, I can't stand the skewing either way. I try to listen in on CSPAN on my XM radio as much as I can.....not too many opinion filters on that
KD in CA Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 $66k or more and I said it was the beginning of being rich. ....the 'beginning' of rich?? Apparently unlike you, I can actually speak from experience about how 'rich' $66,000 makes you, and I'm sure there are plenty of people on TSW who can share with you their experiences about living at the 'beginning of rich'. I have made less than $48,000 per year as well; the difference is unlike you I wasn't bitter about those who were making more. As far as cost of living goes how is that my fault? If you can't afford the area you live in you'll have to move. Thanks for the additional evidence that your ability to understand economic issues is nil. Mmmmph, because I don't bet I'm gutless. Ok, you keep your little prejudice's to yourself mmmkay. Some people don't gamble money and that doesn't make them gutless. Jesus you're a ing A-hole. Yes, that's correct -- it means you aren't able to back up your bullsh--. And when it comes to people who are willfully stupid I admit a certain lack of patience. Consider it a personal shortcoming. Explain to me how buying a thousand shares of Kodak stock helps Kodak provide more jobs. What are you, the new LSI? Is there any topic you aren't completely ignorant about or have the ability to comment on intelligently without requiring someone to explain basic concepts to you? Go take an ECN 101 class. And a firearms class. As someone said to you in that thread, it's really not worth it to attempt to educate someone who doesn't have the capacity to understand.
KD in CA Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 CNN skews both ways- to be honest, Grace and the other guy on CNN Headline News are a lot worse than anyone Fox News has aside from O'Reilly. Olbermann doesn't impress me in the least, unless you are talking about his ability to alienate those he works with I don't think you can look at a single program as evidence of the overall editorial bias of any station. The NY Times occassionally publishes a conservative column but that doesn't make their Op-Ed page anywhere near 'balanced'.
KD in CA Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 CNN mentioned in the clip that the results were from the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan think tank. A quick cruise to their site and here's the analysis. They break everything down into 5 quintiles of income, but I couldn't see where they assigned an income range to the quintiles. If anyone sees or knows this, it's good info. Looks like they tried to adjust for the capital gains bumps as well. Most of what you'll want to know is starts on the bottom of pg 33 (34 in the pdf) where they compare the two. This seems really unbiased at first glance. Maybe others will see it differently. Thanks for the link Faking. I'll have to read in full later but I believe I found the answer to my earlier question that CNN tried to hide: Senator Obama has called for extending the tax cuts affecting the middle class while eliminating those benefitting the wealthiest Americans. According to the campaign, this means that Obama would extend the child credit expansions; the changes to marriage bonuses and penalties; and the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent income tax rates, as well as the lower tax rates on capital gains and qualified dividends for taxpayers in those four tax brackets. He would restore the 36 and 39.6 percent rates and increase the rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers in those brackets. In order to match the campaign’s stated revenue targets, we assumed a rate of 25 percent for capital gains and qualified dividends. The 33% bracket is the $164k-$358k bracket, so there will be a tax hike there for several million people(someone owes me $1000). Also, a much too large increase in the capital gains rates (and I notice only for the top two income brackets -- very slick Senator). I also noticed that he is proposing a 10% mortgage interest deduction for non-itemizers. Contrast that to those who itemize and see their mortgage interest deduction phased out if they are in the 28% bracket. So at first glance, Obama's looks like a highly discriminatory tax plan. If you make an upper middle class living (low to mid $100s on either coast), you will continue to take it in the shorts with this tax policy. In addition, I believe the capital gains increase would be damaging to our economic recovery and job growth. Most of the jobs in this country don't come from giant corporations but from small businesses, most of which require capital to thrive and grow. I work for such a company and have (and in fact am currently in the process of) raising money from investors. Getting people to hand us $10MM to run a company that is not yet profitable requires someone taking an enormous risk with their money. To not incent that behavior is hugely damaging to the middle class. Our company employs 55 FTE, 150 PTE and 2000 contractors. That's nearly $1MM per month in payroll going entirely to the middle class (well, except for those 'at the beginning of rich' ) that is coming out of the pocket of the investor class. But increasing the tax on any potential returns (assuming we eventually sell the company or go public) changes the risk/return profile for potential investors and makes it more expensive and more difficult for small business to raise necessary capital.
Steely Dan Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 ....the 'beginning' of rich?? Apparently unlike you, I can actually speak from experience about how 'rich' $66,000 makes you, and I'm sure there are plenty of people on TSW who can share with you their experiences about living at the 'beginning of rich'. I have made less than $48,000 per year as well; the difference is unlike you I wasn't bitter about those who were making more. Thanks for the additional evidence that your ability to understand economic issues is nil. Yes, that's correct -- it means you aren't able to back up your bullsh--. And when it comes to people who are willfully stupid I admit a certain lack of patience. Consider it a personal shortcoming. What are you, the new LSI? Is there any topic you aren't completely ignorant about or have the ability to comment on intelligently without requiring someone to explain basic concepts to you? Go take an ECN 101 class. And a firearms class. As someone said to you in that thread, it's really not worth it to attempt to educate someone who doesn't have the capacity to understand. You don't have the balls to admit you were wrong about the war and you call me gutless. When I've made mistakes on this board I've owned up to them. So you ignore that because it will make you look like an idiot. It does make you look like an idiot whether or not you own up to it because people here can read and it also makes you look like a wienie for not owning up to it. Didya forget about the war with the people who actually attacked us on 911. You must be one of the idiots who think the Iraq war has anything to do with 911. It doesn't. Next you tell someone who doesn't gamble that they have to gamble or they are gutless. You really are a aren't you. I guess in your world anyone who refuses to do anything you'd do is gutless. I'll bet you, just not money. How about the loser has to start a thread stating they were wrong and the other person was right and issuing a real apology not a sarcastic post. First we'd have to define ass-raped. You want to bet about an ambiguous term. So I guess I'd bet you and then anything would be considered an ass rape and you'd tell me I lost and demand your money and then call me gutless for not paying up. So define ass-rape for me in real numbers. Finally you pull up a question from a few posts before that has already been answered, by me. It was a question to get someone to try and answer but, there is no good answer to unless you are exclusively considering IPO's. That's my point. Rather than make a comment about my answer which was: You're talking about IPO's. They are a small percentage of stock traded on Wall Street. If you want to talk about IPO's that's much different from the old stock., and because you can't refute it intelligently you tell me to take an economics course. I already know the answer to it. I think you need to learn to read other people's posts and answer them honestly and not avoid the stuff that proves you wrong. I also think you need to stop trying to make people look bad by bringing up things that have already been dealt with and you have a non answer to because you can't answer the response to it intelligently.
Typical TBD Guy Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 at this thread. Steely Douche : economics :: Governor Huckabee : science
Taro T Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 You don't have the balls to admit you were wrong about the war and you call me gutless. When I've made mistakes on this board I've owned up to them. So you ignore that because it will make you look like an idiot. It does make you look like an idiot whether or not you own up to it because people here can read and it also makes you look like a wienie for not owning up to it. Didya forget about the war with the people who actually attacked us on 911. You must be one of the idiots who think the Iraq war has anything to do with 911. It doesn't. Next you tell someone who doesn't gamble that they have to gamble or they are gutless. You really are a aren't you. I guess in your world anyone who refuses to do anything you'd do is gutless. I'll bet you, just not money. How about the loser has to start a thread stating they were wrong and the other person was right and issuing a real apology not a sarcastic post. First we'd have to define ass-raped. You want to bet about an ambiguous term. So I guess I'd bet you and then anything would be considered an ass rape and you'd tell me I lost and demand your money and then call me gutless for not paying up. So define ass-rape for me in real numbers. Finally you pull up a question from a few posts before that has already been answered, by me. It was a question to get someone to try and answer but, there is no good answer to unless you are exclusively considering IPO's. That's my point. Rather than make a comment about my answer which was: You're talking about IPO's. They are a small percentage of stock traded on Wall Street. If you want to talk about IPO's that's much different from the old stock., and because you can't refute it intelligently you tell me to take an economics course. I already know the answer to it. I think you need to learn to read other people's posts and answer them honestly and not avoid the stuff that proves you wrong. I also think you need to stop trying to make people look bad by bringing up things that have already been dealt with and you have a non answer to because you can't answer the response to it intelligently. A very likely reason he is "ignoring" your answer and suggesting you take a course in economics is that your answer displays a painful lack of understanding of economics. An IPO is not the only time that a company issues stock. Companies can and do sell stock after an IPO, oftentimes either through new issues or through release of treasury shares.
Steely Dan Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 A very likely reason he is "ignoring" your answer and suggesting you take a course in economics is that your answer displays a painful lack of understanding of economics. An IPO is not the only time that a company issues stock. Companies can and do sell stock after an IPO, oftentimes either through new issues or through release of treasury shares. First he didn't ignore my question he ignored my answer. Ok, I'm using the term IPO to mean any stock issued for the first time by a company. I used the wrong term but that's what I meant. If Bill Gates buys 10,000 shares of old Kodak stock and Ted Turner sells 10,000 shares it doesn't help Kodak at all. What helps Kodak is sales. Kodak's sales and the expectation of future sales drive the market price of their stock. Selling old stock from one person to another doesn't help Kodak at all. So tell me how a sale of old stock from one person to another helps Kodak.
Albany,n.y. Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 An oversimplified version is any money you make as profit from selling an investment, like a home, stocks, etc. If you sell a house, and the value has gone up since you bought it, you have to pay a capital gains tax on the difference. Just to clarify the house part. There is an exemption: For single person you can make a $250,000 profit on your home-defined as current sale price minus-(purchase price + improvement $ spent on the home during ownership period+ selling costs) as long as you've occupied the home 2 of the last 5 years before the sale. So if you are an owner occupant who has owned the home for 2 years, you get the exemption. It gets better for married people-the exemption is $500,000. So for most people, there is no capital gains tax when they sell their home. Now if one spouse dies, the surviving spouse has until the end of the year of death to sell & get the $500,000 exemption. http://www.irs.gov/publications/p523/ar02.html#d0e377
Steely Dan Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 Thanks for the link Faking. I'll have to read in full later but I believe I found the answer to my earlier question that CNN tried to hide: The 33% bracket is the $164k-$358k bracket, so there will be a tax hike there for several million people(someone owes me $1000). Also, a much too large increase in the capital gains rates (and I notice only for the top two income brackets -- very slick Senator). I also noticed that he is proposing a 10% mortgage interest deduction for non-itemizers. Contrast that to those who itemize and see their mortgage interest deduction phased out if they are in the 28% bracket. So at first glance, Obama's looks like a highly discriminatory tax plan. If you make an upper middle class living (low to mid $100s on either coast), you will continue to take it in the shorts with this tax policy.[/left] In addition, I believe the capital gains increase would be damaging to our economic recovery and job growth. Most of the jobs in this country don't come from giant corporations but from small businesses, most of which require capital to thrive and grow. I work for such a company and have (and in fact am currently in the process of) raising money from investors. Getting people to hand us $10MM to run a company that is not yet profitable requires someone taking an enormous risk with their money. To not incent that behavior is hugely damaging to the middle class. Our company employs 55 FTE, 150 PTE and 2000 contractors. That's nearly $1MM per month in payroll going entirely to the middle class (well, except for those 'at the beginning of rich' ) that is coming out of the pocket of the investor class. But increasing the tax on any potential returns (assuming we eventually sell the company or go public) changes the risk/return profile for potential investors and makes it more expensive and more difficult for small business to raise necessary capital. Link faking? You still need to give me hard numbers for what each tax bracket not covered by CNN would actually pay in order to make your point. Ass rape is not a number. People invest in something they believe will make money for them. The raise in the capital gains rate will have little to no effect on that IMO. If your company is strong and showing growth it shouldn't be too hard to find investors. If your company is on shaky ground then it doesn't matter what the capital gains rates are. Nobody pays capital gains on losses. at this thread. Steely Douche : economics :: Governor Huckabee : science What an intelligent post. Boy you sure got me there.
Steely Dan Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 I still want to know when Steely Dan is going to answer the other b*llschit he posted that alleged Christian groups have sabotaged every peace agreement in the Middle East in order to fulfill prophesy.He must've seen that on that balanced news channel also. And, no $112k per isn't rich in S. California where I live, it barely qualifies as middle class. I lost my link to that thread. If you find it I can see where we left off on that and I'll answer you.
KD in CA Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 You don't have the balls to admit you were wrong about the war and you call me gutless. When I've made mistakes on this board I've owned up to them. So you ignore that because it will make you look like an idiot. It does make you look like an idiot whether or not you own up to it because people here can read and it also makes you look like a wienie for not owning up to it. Didya forget about the war with the people who actually attacked us on 911. You must be one of the idiots who think the Iraq war has anything to do with 911. It doesn't. Well no, but I see that you are now admitting that "the war" means Iraq. Yeah, that started in 2003. Routing the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 hardly constituted a 'war'. I choose to not call you out on that particular strawman (too many others to choose from), but since you brought it up again, I'm happy to point out why you are wrong about this too. Next you tell someone who doesn't gamble that they have to gamble or they are gutless. No, someone who can't or won't back up their bullsh-- is gutless. How about the loser has to start a thread stating they were wrong and the other person was right and issuing a real apology not a sarcastic post. Fine, go ahead and apologize. I already pointed out in my last post where Obama's tax plan would hike taxes on the 6 million people conveniently left out of the CNN report. Go ahead and try to worm out of that too. Finally you pull up a question from a few posts before that has already been answered, by me. Actually you didn't answer anything. You just asked what you thought was a rhetorical a question that only served to highlight the limited extent of your understanding about capital markets (once again, IPOs don't happen in a vacuum). I really don't care to attempt to educate you on the subject beyond that -- maybe GG will show up and do it for you. Besides, the morning programs are over and I have a 1:00 tee time. Go read a book.
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Freedom comes at a price, right?... Stop whining and pay your taxes... Heck, if you make more (and pay more) you should more grateful for that freedom. Pay "The Man" and the men and women who protect your freedom... Right?
Taro T Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 First he didn't ignore my question he ignored my answer. Ok, I'm using the term IPO to mean any stock issued for the first time by a company. I used the wrong term but that's what I meant. If Bill Gates buys 10,000 shares of old Kodak stock and Ted Turner sells 10,000 shares it doesn't help Kodak at all. What helps Kodak is sales. Kodak's sales and the expectation of future sales drive the market price of their stock. Selling old stock from one person to another doesn't help Kodak at all. So tell me how a sale of old stock from one person to another helps Kodak. But I just gave you an example of when a company sells existing stock. I also gave you an example of where they sell newly created shares of stock. The company is better off either time when they sell this stock if it is at a higher value. If the going rate for a share of stock is $100 and a company needs to raise $10MM, then they have to sell 100k shares to raise the money (neglecting costs to sell). If the going rate is only $10, then they have to sell 1MM shares to raise the $10MM. The company is clearly better off when the stock is worth more. This doesn't even go into how the stock value is what the company is valued at or how the ability to borrow money is tied to D/E ratios or a myriad of other issues. Your apparent inability to grasp that the company does benefit from it's shares trading at a higher value (which is a reflection of the market's view of the company's value) makes discussing more complex issues appear to be pointless.
Steely Dan Posted June 15, 2008 Author Posted June 15, 2008 Well no, but I see that you are now admitting that "the war" means Iraq. Yeah, that started in 2003. Routing the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 hardly constituted a 'war'. I choose to not call you out on that particular strawman (too many others to choose from), but since you brought it up again, I'm happy to point out why you are wrong about this too. No, someone who can't or won't back up their bullsh-- is gutless. Fine, go ahead and apologize. I already pointed out in my last post where Obama's tax plan would hike taxes on the 6 million people conveniently left out of the CNN report. Go ahead and try to worm out of that too. Actually you didn't answer anything. You just asked what you thought was a rhetorical a question that only served to highlight the limited extent of your understanding about capital markets (once again, IPOs don't happen in a vacuum). I really don't care to attempt to educate you on the subject beyond that -- maybe GG will show up and do it for you. Besides, the morning programs are over and I have a 1:00 tee time. Go read a book. Actually you said: Tax cuts were in 2001. War was in 2003 Once again nice try. The war with Afghanistan isn't a war? We routed them? You're funny. Nice try to weasel out of it. If it wasn't a war then why is our military there fighting and losing the war against the Taliban? The Taliban is already in control of more than half the country again and we had to add 3,000 more soldiers there in January to help fend them off. We were paying for war there in 2001? So nice try at weaseling out of it. I shot down your idiocy and you can't weasel out of it. It isn't a war!! Question: Are we fighting a war in Afghanistan? You did? Where? When did I say it wouldn't? Find it. You can't. I never said O'bama's plan wouldn't raise taxes on them. Once again find where I said that his plan wouldn't. The argument here is that they will be ass raped and you still haven't provided a number that defines that. So nice try. But I just gave you an example of when a company sells existing stock. I also gave you an example of where they sell newly created shares of stock. The company is better off either time when they sell this stock if it is at a higher value. If the going rate for a share of stock is $100 and a company needs to raise $10MM, then they have to sell 100k shares to raise the money (neglecting costs to sell). If the going rate is only $10, then they have to sell 1MM shares to raise the $10MM. The company is clearly better off when the stock is worth more. This doesn't even go into how the stock value is what the company is valued at or how the ability to borrow money is tied to D/E ratios or a myriad of other issues. Your apparent inability to grasp that the company does benefit from it's shares trading at a higher value (which is a reflection of the market's view of the company's value) makes discussing more complex issues appear to be pointless. This is what I said: Ok, I'm using the term IPO to mean any stock issued for the first time by a company. I used the wrong term but that's what I meant. If Bill Gates buys 10,000 shares of old Kodak stock and Ted Turner sells 10,000 shares it doesn't help Kodak at all. What helps Kodak is sales. Kodak's sales and the expectation of future sales drive the market price of their stock. Selling old stock from one person to another doesn't help Kodak at all. So tell me how a sale of old stock from one person to another helps Kodak. You're right I was forgetting about the sales of existing stock owned by the company, my bad. My point is that a sale of stock from Bill Gates and Buy from Ted Turner doesn't help the company at all. These sales are the majority of stock trades on Wall Street. My question as you see above is how does a sale of one stock holder and the buy of another stock holder of existing shares not held by the company help the company? The strength of a stock is based on sales and prospects of future sales. If the company is strong the stock is strong. Only an idiot would pay high above the market value for a stock. A higher stock price is great for the shareholders but rarely helps the company itself. A higher stock price doesn't automatically allow them to hire more people or make an expansion. The company will only do these things if the demand calls for it and the demand is tied to sales. So yes a higher stock price will help with new stock issues and the sale of existing shares owned by the company which I've never said it wouldn't. Companies don't always sell stock when they need money. The number of companies selling off existing shares or selling new shares to raise money is a small amount of the stock market trades every day. The people who benefit the most from a high stock price are the CEO and major stock holders. If you want to call that the company then ok but I disagree.
Taro T Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Actually you said: Once again nice try. The war with Afghanistan isn't a war? We routed them? You're funny. Nice try to weasel out of it. If it wasn't a war then why is our military there fighting and losing the war against the Taliban? The Taliban is already in control of more than half the country again and we had to add 3,000 more soldiers there in January to help fend them off. We were paying for war there in 2001? So nice try at weaseling out of it. I shot down your idiocy and you can't weasel out of it. It isn't a war!! Question: Are we fighting a war in Afghanistan? You did? Where? When did I say it wouldn't? Find it. You can't. I never said O'bama's plan wouldn't raise taxes on them. Once again find where I said that his plan wouldn't. The argument here is that they will be ass raped and you still haven't provided a number that defines that. So nice try. This is what I said: You're right I was forgetting about the sales of existing stock owned by the company, my bad. My point is that a sale of stock from Bill Gates and Buy from Ted Turner doesn't help the company at all. These sales are the majority of stock trades on Wall Street. My question as you see above is how does a sale of one stock holder and the buy of another stock holder of existing shares not held by the company help the company? The strength of a stock is based on sales and prospects of future sales. If the company is strong the stock is strong. Only an idiot would pay high above the market value for a stock. A higher stock price is great for the shareholders but rarely helps the company itself. A higher stock price doesn't automatically allow them to hire more people or make an expansion. The company will only do these things if the demand calls for it and the demand is tied to sales. So yes a higher stock price will help with new stock issues and the sale of existing shares owned by the company which I've never said it wouldn't. Companies don't always sell stock when they need money. The number of companies selling off existing shares or selling new shares to raise money is a small amount of the stock market trades every day. The people who benefit the most from a high stock price are the CEO and major stock holders. If you want to call that the company then ok but I disagree. It absolutely helps the company itself. If a company has too much leverage, it is difficult to get new loans. A company's share price doubling, number of outstanding shares and existing debt remaining constant, greatly reduces the leverage. The stock tanking increases the leverage. A company w/ too much debt has a far greater chance of default. As the company is "stronger", its cost of capital decreases. That is a direct benefit to the company. There are many other benefits to the company of a company's stock trading on an open exchange, but if you can't even see the benefits mentioned above, there is no point in going into them.
DC Tom Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 I believe it was Lehman that just raised additional reserve capital by selling some of its banked common stock on the market last week. Very, VERY rarely does a company put all its authorized shares of common on the open market; usually the company itself will hold some back in order to meet future capital needs. So yes, Steely Dimwit, investing in shares of Kodak DOES benefit Kodak, because it means the shares Kodak retains are worth more, hence it gives them more working capital to draw on if need be.
pBills Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 Thanks for that Obama ad disguised as a news broadcast. No shock that you took it all at face value. Let's see..... 1) Last time I checked, George Bush was still = Satan for cutting taxes. Now these two are proposing additional tax cuts?? 2) Did they happen to forget the tiny sliver of people between $161k - $2.9MM?? (Gee, I wonder why? Naturally in a country of 300MM people we should instead be focusing on a few thousand who make anywhere near $3MM a year). 3) Whatever pro-Obama fuzzy math they are pulling out is bull---. Anyone making $161k is going to get ass raped if Obama wins (and probably if McCain wins too). 4) and finally......$66k - $112k makes you "pretty rich in this country"? I know that Fox News is pathetic but let's please not forget the Communist "News" Network when we are having a media bash. Thanks Oh yeah, and I'm shocked that CNN forgot to mention that Obama plans on raising the capital gains rate by at least 10%. $66k - $112k makes you rich? Where?
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 15, 2008 Posted June 15, 2008 $66k - $112k makes you rich? Where? Outside Peoria, Illinois... Maybe WV? Heck here were I live... Medium home is about 70k.
Recommended Posts