Johnny Coli Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 An Obma Panic??? I posted this response in another thread, but you guys are seriously running out of Fear memes. What's next, an Obama Presidency will increase our chances of getting hit with an asteroid? It makes about as much sense as the others you're trying to make a narrative out of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I posted this response in another thread, but you guys are seriously running out of Fear memes. What's next, an Obama Presidency will increase our chances of getting hit with an asteroid? It makes about as much sense as the others you're trying to make a narrative out of. Well coming from someone who deals with people's investments there are people selling assets with large gains in case Obama gets in. So there is some truth to that. Going from 15% to 20% on a gain of $800k (and yes there are people in CA with still that much equity in some investments)is $40k in additional taxes. I'd pull the trigger too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornerville Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Based on what the liberal media has been saying over 8 years, I FULLY expect Oprahbama to turn this economy around overnight! Not 100 days....not 2 years...ASAP.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Well coming from someone who deals with people's investments there are people selling assets with large gains in case Obama gets in. So there is some truth to that. Going from 15% to 20% on a gain of $800k (and yes there are people in CA with still that much equity in some investments)is $40k in additional taxes. I'd pull the trigger too. Spread the Wealth!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Spread the Wealth!! The only difference between Obama and McCain is Obama wants to spread the wealth downward while McCain wants to spread the wealth upward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 The only difference between Obama and McCain is Obama wants to spread the wealth downward while McCain wants to spread the wealth upward. Can you explain that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 The only difference between Obama and McCain is Obama wants to spread the wealth downward while McCain wants to spread the wealth upward. If I sent you ten bucks would you then leave my money alone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 I would think that since most market participants know that the market has historically performed better under democratic administrations than republicans, long term money will stay. In addition, the majority of stocks are held by institutions that don't pay capital gains taxes. Find another dead horse to beat... What part of history did you gage this from? FDR or Carter? If it's just Clinton did it ever occur to you he got "credit" for the internet boon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Dow 18 Nasdaq 4 S&P 500 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Well coming from someone who deals with people's investments there are people selling assets with large gains in case Obama gets in. So there is some truth to that. Going from 15% to 20% on a gain of $800k (and yes there are people in CA with still that much equity in some investments)is $40k in additional taxes. I'd pull the trigger too. I work with a lot of small startups and the story is the same. If the exit strategy is to get a product established and then get acquired (typical for technology niche companies), they are all trying to attract a suitor before the rates increase. For most of these guys, their successfull company is the only home-run they will ever hit, and this sale their only payday. If they stand to lose an additional 5% by waiting a year or two, they will err on the side of rushing things. (And more often than not, that means putting getting a deal done ahead of protecting the interests of their employees.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 If I sent you ten bucks would you then leave my money alone? I will be the government and hang on to it for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Well coming from someone who deals with people's investments there are people selling assets with large gains in case Obama gets in. So there is some truth to that. Going from 15% to 20% on a gain of $800k (and yes there are people in CA with still that much equity in some investments)is $40k in additional taxes. I'd pull the trigger too. It's funny to me that someone is about to get elected on "take from the super wealthy and give to the poor" as though the super wealthy are just going to suddenly hand over their checkbooks. :D To be honest, I'm actually starting to get accustomed to an Obama presidency. First of all, he's going to save my company over $50,000 when I cut health care from our benefits package. I mean, I heard what he said, which is essentially "If you currently have health care, nothing will change. If you don't, we want to get you into the pool that the government enjoys." The only area where he is wrong is when he says "If you currently have health care, nothing will change." He's wrong. It will change. I'll drop my coverage and let him foot the bill for my employees. And he's going to fine me how much? $5000? Damn, so I'm only going to save $45,000 next year. That, of course, we'll pour into the partners' 401K program so the government can't have it as a profit. I'm really starting to warm up to this guy. I can't wait to find out what other goodies he is going to hand out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted October 24, 2008 Author Share Posted October 24, 2008 The market will crash as bad as it did under Clinton with his tax increase. Bad times a head, its going to be like the hungry 90's all over again. Oblivious to facts much? Clinton cut the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%. It is set to go back to 25%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 One rather significant misconception about Obama's tax plan is that if you NET $250,000+ that all of your taxes go up from 36% which they are now, to 39% which they were with Clinton. What really happens is that your $250,000.00 net tax stays the same, and same as McCains, at 36%. It is only what is netted more than 250K that gets the extra 3% on it. So if you net 280K, like, say, Joe the Plumber estimated, 250K gets taxed at 36% and only 30K gets taxed at 39%. I am not sure if this same thing happens with capital gains, but I believe it does, as I see the same wording of "in excess of". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon in Pasadena Posted October 25, 2008 Share Posted October 25, 2008 One rather significant misconception about Obama's tax plan is that if you NET $250,000+ that all of your taxes go up from 36% which they are now, to 39% which they were with Clinton. What really happens is that your $250,000.00 net tax stays the same, and same as McCains, at 36%. It is only what is netted more than 250K that gets the extra 3% on it. So if you net 280K, like, say, Joe the Plumber estimated, 250K gets taxed at 36% and only 30K gets taxed at 39%. I am not sure if this same thing happens with capital gains, but I believe it does, as I see the same wording of "in excess of". Yeah but in your example that works out to a difference of a whole 900 dollars!! You can not possibly expect someone who grosses 280 grand a year to figure out a way to make do without that extra $900. It's, like, the worst legalized theft ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Wow, who knew this topic would be so relevant so quickly? WSJ essentially asks the same question. The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier. Brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 Seems like i was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 You're KIDDING me. The Wall Street Journal said something NEGATIVE about a DEMOCRAT. Wow. How unusual. Citing WSJ is about as valid as me citing The Huffington Post, from a "nonpartisan" perspective. By the way, I hate to break it to you all, but this mess is global. It's not just us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted March 3, 2009 Author Share Posted March 3, 2009 You're KIDDING me. The Wall Street Journal said something NEGATIVE about a DEMOCRAT. Wow. How unusual. Citing WSJ is about as valid as me citing The Huffington Post, from a "nonpartisan" perspective. By the way, I hate to break it to you all, but this mess is global. It's not just us. The WSJ is a business paper, which is why it's a no-brainer that they criticize democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 You're KIDDING me. The Wall Street Journal said something NEGATIVE about a DEMOCRAT. Wow. How unusual. Citing WSJ is about as valid as me citing The Huffington Post, from a "nonpartisan" perspective. By the way, I hate to break it to you all, but this mess is global. It's not just us. How surprising that we'd get this kind of ignorant statement from you. If you actually read the Journal, you might understand that their criticism of Bush and the GOP over the last decade has been withering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts