The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Funny!! 2012 at the earliest (and thats my best late-90s optimist talking). Yeah, turns out experts as of yesterday were saying that recovery could begin as soon as 2010... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Funny!! 2012 at the earliest (and thats my best late-90s optimist talking). "Starts to" is what I said. I don't expect it to be back for three full years myself but it's all just a guess. I don't think the smartest economists in the world know when it will happen and how fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Balanced budgets are a terrible thing. Wasn't Lincoln the last President who had a TRULY balanced budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Doesn't Obama want to put the capital gains rate to the exact same rate that Clinton lowered it to? The point is that the rates are not ridiculously high, or recently unprecedented, nor are they huge increases, nor will they stop businesses from growing or expanding, nor will they stop entrepreneurs from coming up with new ideas and if those ideas are good, finding some funding for them. Granted, it's not going to start to happen tomorrow, but in a year or so when the economy starts to rebound, these rates are not going to prohibit anything from growing. On an isolated level it may seem benign, especially in a context of a boom period. But when you're trying to climb out of the biggest recession in generations, it's reckless. Point is that you introduce a higher hurdle for making a return on an investment which pushes out your recovery much further. You're also creating another incentive for the superwealthy and corporations to keep more money offshore. If you're going to blow the budget deficit to smithereens, then at least have people keep a far greater share of what they earn to truly stimulate the economy. But that wouldn't be progressive enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 On an isolated level it may seem benign, especially in a context of a boom period. But when you're trying to climb out of the biggest recession in generations, it's reckless. Point is that you introduce a higher hurdle for making a return on an investment which pushes out your recovery much further. You're also creating another incentive for the superwealthy and corporations to keep more money offshore. If you're going to blow the budget deficit to smithereens, then at least have people keep a far greater share of what they earn to truly stimulate the economy. But that wouldn't be progressive enough. Progressive would be to eliminate off-shore shelters all together. Something I support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 On an isolated level it may seem benign, especially in a context of a boom period. But when you're trying to climb out of the biggest recession in generations, it's reckless. Point is that you introduce a higher hurdle for making a return on an investment which pushes out your recovery much further. You're also creating another incentive for the superwealthy and corporations to keep more money offshore. If you're going to blow the budget deficit to smithereens, then at least have people keep a far greater share of what they earn to truly stimulate the economy. But that wouldn't be progressive enough. You are a naysayer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Boy, we have a trifecta of idget's in this thread so far. You weap for them? Go back to school and learn how to spell kid. One doesn't know how to spell 'weep'. A couple others equate two people earning $250K combined with "millionaires". Gee, it's really shocking that such morons are not among those in the higher tax brackets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Progressive would be to eliminate off-shore shelters all together. Something I support. Of course you support it, because you don't understand what you're talking about. What should Coca Cola pay in taxes when it generates 2/3 of its revenues abroad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 The point is that the rates are not ridiculously high, or recently unprecedented, nor are they huge increases, nor will they stop businesses from growing or expanding, nor will they stop entrepreneurs from coming up with new ideas and if those ideas are good, finding some funding for them. Except they are tossing still more burden on a small and shrinking group of people. A family making $250k living in a major metropolitan area is not swimming in cash and you know it. But we need to keep demonizing anyone who actually can and will save for their own retirement until everyone is completely dependent on the federal gov't. And no, it won't stop entrepreneurs from finding funding, but it makes it a lot harder. I was in a board meeting yesterday where an investor told an entrepreneurs that they didn't have any cash to help with short term financing. The potential downside of that equation is more layoffs. I know people don't believe things they can't see with their own eyes, but hammering people who invest has a real cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 What do YOU think happens when you give people less money better access to it? What about the VAST VAST VAST majority of Americans who WILL have more money in their pockets. 90% of the jobs intended to be created by the stimulus package are in the private sector. Which eventually requires private investment. These tax increases (specifically capital gains) make such investments much less attractive because of the increased risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 On an isolated level it may seem benign, especially in a context of a boom period. But when you're trying to climb out of the biggest recession in generations, it's reckless. Point is that you introduce a higher hurdle for making a return on an investment which pushes out your recovery much further. You're also creating another incentive for the superwealthy and corporations to keep more money offshore. If you're going to blow the budget deficit to smithereens, then at least have people keep a far greater share of what they earn to truly stimulate the economy. But that wouldn't be progressive enough. I don't know for sure if this is going to ultimately help or hurt. We will just have to wait and see. One thing though, Obama has some big friggin' balls. I think the guy is great, and don't mind saying so. He really is out to change a lot of things (regardless of the sophomoric jokes of change we can believe in every day), and is putting his ass on the line. I like the fact that he is aggressive. I like the fact that he may be spending a lot now but is also (likely) cutting two trillion, too. I like that he always seems to be looking short term, mid term and long term on everything. Just before the next election is really going to be the first time, IMO, that we can really have a good handle on all the stuff that he is trying to do. Sure, there will be a lot of wins and losses, peaks and valleys, starts and flops along the way, but they really won't mean much unless seen in the big picture after 2-3-4 years. I really would love to know what Volcker actually thinks of all this. IMO he wouldn't have joined the team when he did and then re-upped this month when named to the advisory board is he wasn't on board with most of this stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted February 26, 2009 Author Share Posted February 26, 2009 Yeah, turns out experts as of yesterday were saying that recovery could begin as soon as 2010... OK, then tell me how we will recover when the bulk of the nasty 5 year Option ARMs (many granted with no money down, no documentation and negative amortization) were written in 2004-2007 begin resetting in 2009 to much higher payments? This will get much worse before it gets better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Except they are tossing still more burden on a small and shrinking group of people. A family making $250k living in a major metropolitan area is not swimming in cash and you know it. But we need to keep demonizing anyone who actually can and will save for their own retirement until everyone is completely dependent on the federal gov't. And no, it won't stop entrepreneurs from finding funding, but it makes it a lot harder. I was in a board meeting yesterday where an investor told an entrepreneurs that they didn't have any cash to help with short term financing. The potential downside of that equation is more layoffs. I know people don't believe things they can't see with their own eyes, but hammering people who invest has a real cost. And 3% of 250K is, what, $7,500? It's not going to send people to the poorhouse either. And there are new tax breaks in there, like for sending your kid to college to make up for it. I am not going to weep for someone taking home $242,500 instead of $250,000 or $970,000 instead of $1,000,000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Of course you support it, because you don't understand what you're talking about. What should Coca Cola pay in taxes when it generates 2/3 of its revenues abroad? Then may be they shouldn't be an "American" company. They're possibly the world's most recognizable consumer product. Way to pick an example that applies to most wealthy individuals/companies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 And 3% of 250K is, what, $7,500? It's not going to send people to the poorhouse either. And there are new tax breaks in there, like for sending your kid to college to make up for it. I am not going to weep for someone taking home $242,500 instead of $250,000 or $970,000 instead of $1,000,000. So someone making $250k only pays 3% in taxes? Nice math. Try figuring what someone living in CA making $250k will actually be taking home after all the new state and federal taxes are taken out. It's probably closer to $150k take home if they're lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 I don't know for sure if this is going to ultimately help or hurt. We will just have to wait and see. One thing though, Obama has some big friggin' balls. I think the guy is great, and don't mind saying so. He really is out to change a lot of things (regardless of the sophomoric jokes of change we can believe in every day), and is putting his ass on the line. I like the fact that he is aggressive. I like the fact that he may be spending a lot now but is also (likely) cutting two trillion, too. I like that he always seems to be looking short term, mid term and long term on everything. Just before the next election is really going to be the first time, IMO, that we can really have a good handle on all the stuff that he is trying to do. Sure, there will be a lot of wins and losses, peaks and valleys, starts and flops along the way, but they really won't mean much unless seen in the big picture after 2-3-4 years. I really would love to know what Volcker actually thinks of all this. IMO he wouldn't have joined the team when he did and then re-upped this month when named to the advisory board is he wasn't on board with most of this stuff. You're right he is out to change things and you won't know how they will turn out. But the changes that he's pushing through have a long history all over the world and the results aren't pretty. You can crack that the current mess is the direct result of uber-capitalism that permeated since the Reagan days. And I won't argue that a pro-growth, pro-capitalism structure will end up with monumental busts after speculative run ups. But in the end, the growth is much better and people are better off on average. As opposed to the systems that artificially check the growth, where a grand arbiter chooses the winners (who happen to be the closest to the grand arbiter) & losers (who are not). Result of that is low growth and ongoing stagnation. Again, think of WNY or Western Europe as an example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Which eventually requires private investment. These tax increases (specifically capital gains) make such investments much less attractive because of the increased risk. I'm surprised you didn't go the extra mile like everyone else and equate less attractive with leperous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 Then may be they shouldn't be an "American" company. They're possibly the world's most recognizable consumer product. Way to pick an example that applies to most wealthy individuals/companies. They're incorporated in the US. What tax should they pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 So someone making $250k only pays 3% in taxes? Nice math. Try figuring what someone living in CA making $250k will actually be taking home after all the new state and federal taxes are taken out. It's probably closer to $150k take home if they're lucky. Three percent more, moron. I didn't mean they only pay 3% total, I was talking take-home pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 26, 2009 Share Posted February 26, 2009 They're incorporated in the US. What tax should they pay? The same taxes paid by NPR. How bout that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts