It's interesting...

[Orsorum]

I'm normally a fiscal conservative... but after studying more advanced macroeconomics, I've turned into a democratic/liberal policymaker... i.e. the best decisions for the economy are generally those taken by democrats - i.e. tax cuts to the lower tax brackets, cutting the dividend tax on the business end rather than the individual shareholder end, etc.

Just thought that was interesting.

 

[MichaelD]

Whatever. You want me to acknowledge it's interesting? Here is how: Make my Mutals increase about 75% in value to where they were back in the year 2000. That would be an interesting fiscal-related thingamabob.

 

[Orsorum]

Haha, give your mutuals time and they will increase; unless, of course, you invested in airlines or high risk tech stocks, that'll take... quite a while to rebound. 😉

Although, it might behoove you to invest in stocks individually and diversify that way, you'll get a higher return in the long run. 🙂

 

[MichaelD]

No. It's one of those S&P 500 deals....Coca Cola, IBM and other big name deals...used to be almost $20 a share...now it's like $6 and change.:Q 🙁

On the up-side though, my standard investment per month buys a lot more shares at $6 than at $20....if it goes back up in a year, I'll make a tidy profit. 😀

 

[Zim Hosein]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Whatever. You want me to acknowledge it's interesting? Here is how: Make my Mutals increase about 75% in value to where they were back in the year 2000. That would be an interesting fiscal-related thingamabob.

That would be a miracle and only God can do that 🙁

<--Go away Atheists, I'm only trying to say that it'll be a long time before MichaelD's wish is granted.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: MichaelD
No. It's one of those S&P 500 deals....Coca Cola, IBM and other big name deals...used to be almost $20 a share...now it's like $6 and change.:Q 🙁

On the up-side though, my standard investment per month buys a lot more shares at $6 than at $20....if it goes back up in a year, I'll make a tidy profit. 😀

Exactly! First rule of investing, buy low... sell high. 🙂

 

[Pliablemoose]

Now is the time for all contrarian investors, buy while the market is down, and it looks like we'll be down for a while...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Whatever. You want me to acknowledge it's interesting? Here is how: Make my Mutals increase about 75% in value to where they were back in the year 2000. That would be an interesting fiscal-related thingamabob.

That would be a miracle and only God can do that 🙁

<--Go away Atheists, I'm only trying to say that it'll be a long time before MichaelD's wish is granted.

Bring Clinton back, he took a market from 3,000 to over 10,000....

 

[shiner]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Whatever. You want me to acknowledge it's interesting? Here is how: Make my Mutals increase about 75% in value to where they were back in the year 2000. That would be an interesting fiscal-related thingamabob.

That would be a miracle and only God can do that 🙁

<--Go away Atheists, I'm only trying to say that it'll be a long time before MichaelD's wish is granted.

Bring Clinton back, he took a market from 3,000 to over 10,000....

No, the tech and .com boom did that. Clinton had nothing to do with it and was just along for the ride.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I'm normally a fiscal conservative... but after studying more advanced macroeconomics, I've turned into a democratic/liberal policymaker... i.e. the best decisions for the economy are generally those taken by democrats - i.e. tax cuts to the lower tax brackets, cutting the dividend tax on the business end rather than the individual shareholder end, etc.

Just thought that was interesting.

My guess is you've studied under or from a book by a Democratic economist. Interestingly enough, the actions you cite are not ones the Democrats have really ever taken, only proposed in response to Republican tax proposals. That's not to say they aren't good ideas, only that they aren't really Democratic ideas.

Tax cuts for the lower brackets? The bottom 30% already pay no Federal income tax. The only further reduction would be in Social Security and Medicare which would change these programs from quasi insurance programs to out and out welfare programs - a serious step toward socialism which should be addressed in a broader light than just economics.

I agree that elimination of the double taxation at the business level instead of the shareholder level would be smarter but this one appears to be driven only by politics at this time. I've seen as many Republicans as Democrats take this position. It's only common sense. In my opinion, the real correct action would be to completely eliminate all corporate income taxes. They provide only 10% of the total income tax revenues, provide employment to hoards of otherwise useless accountants and lawyers, cause companies to make less than optimum strategies and reduce international competitiveness. But I don't think either party has the guts to go after that one.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Whatever. You want me to acknowledge it's interesting? Here is how: Make my Mutals increase about 75% in value to where they were back in the year 2000. That would be an interesting fiscal-related thingamabob.

That would be a miracle and only God can do that 🙁

<--Go away Atheists, I'm only trying to say that it'll be a long time before MichaelD's wish is granted.

Bring Clinton back, he took a market from 3,000 to over 10,000....

and just look at Bush, he's dropped it 2,000 points

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Whatever. You want me to acknowledge it's interesting? Here is how: Make my Mutals increase about 75% in value to where they were back in the year 2000. That would be an interesting fiscal-related thingamabob.

That would be a miracle and only God can do that 🙁

<--Go away Atheists, I'm only trying to say that it'll be a long time before MichaelD's wish is granted.

Bring Clinton back, he took a market from 3,000 to over 10,000....

No, the tech and .com boom did that. Clinton had nothing to do with it and was just along for the ride.

Actually, Clinton's policies did much to promote stability in the market during the 90's, encourage investment and education, decrease our budget deficit, and open our markets to foreigners and expand exports. Surprised me, too, when I started doing research. He wasn't solely responsible, of course, but his policies and the Fed's policies helped create the environment necessary for the economic expansion we did experience.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Zim Hosein

Originally posted by: MichaelD
Whatever. You want me to acknowledge it's interesting? Here is how: Make my Mutals increase about 75% in value to where they were back in the year 2000. That would be an interesting fiscal-related thingamabob.

That would be a miracle and only God can do that 🙁

<--Go away Atheists, I'm only trying to say that it'll be a long time before MichaelD's wish is granted.

Bring Clinton back, he took a market from 3,000 to over 10,000....

No, the tech and .com boom did that. Clinton had nothing to do with it and was just along for the ride.

sorry the boom began before the net was in every housegold. The balanced budget agreement saw the largest amount of foreign investment capital in 50+ years. When you actually stop spending more than you take in AND start paying back what you borrowed people will invest more. The amount of 401k investemnts had more to do with the rise than tech stocks and dot.com's, where do you think the money to buy them came from? If we didnt still carry the burden of Reagan's debt we would in much better shape right now. Let me guess the MODEST gains in the economy in the 80's were ALL his doing but the recession that followed was not, however the great economy under Clintyon had NOTHING to do with him, but the current situation does? LOL, I would bewilling to bet my mothers life on the way you vote parrothead.

 

[Alistar7]

Zak how dare you cite pro Clinton ideas???? and use actual facts?????? We are going to seriously have to reconsider your pending membership to the vast ring wing conpsiracy.....

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: Zakath15
I'm normally a fiscal conservative... but after studying more advanced macroeconomics, I've turned into a democratic/liberal policymaker... i.e. the best decisions for the economy are generally those taken by democrats - i.e. tax cuts to the lower tax brackets, cutting the dividend tax on the business end rather than the individual shareholder end, etc.

Just thought that was interesting.

My guess is you've studied under or from a book by a Democratic economist. Interestingly enough, the actions you cite are not ones the Democrats have really ever taken, only proposed in response to Republican tax proposals. That's not to say they aren't good ideas, only that they aren't really Democratic ideas.

Tax cuts for the lower brackets? The bottom 30% already pay no Federal income tax. The only further reduction would be in Social Security and Medicare which would change these programs from quasi insurance programs to out and out welfare programs - a serious step toward socialism which should be addressed in a broader light than just economics.

I agree that elimination of the double taxation at the business level instead of the shareholder level would be smarter but this one appears to be driven only by politics at this time. I've seen as many Republicans as Democrats take this position. It's only common sense. In my opinion, the real correct action would be to completely eliminate all corporate income taxes. They provide only 10% of the total income tax revenues, provide employment to hoards of otherwise useless accountants and lawyers, cause companies to make less than optimum strategies and reduce international competitiveness. But I don't think either party has the guts to go after that one.

Haha, actually, my last professor was fiercely democractic. Funny to watch him speak and rail against Bush's fiscal strategies.

As far as I was able to figure out, if we want an immediate stimulus to the economy, somehow getting money to the lower income brackets would be tbe best policy - they tend to spend the majority of their income, as opposed to wealthier constituents who don't need that extra bonus; just provides an immediate rise in consumption, or so we hope.

I agree with with your final paragraph wholeheartedly.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Zak how dare you cite pro Clinton ideas???? and use actual facts?????? We are going to seriously have to reconsider your pending membership to the vast ring wing conpsiracy.....

😱

You just ruined my day!

*runs off to play in pile of money*

 

[Alistar7]

how about eliminating the social security income ceiling level, why should a man making $85,000 a year put the same exact amount into the fund every week as the man that makes 10 million? % wise if you make anything under that amount you are in fact being taxed at a FAR HIGHER rate....

Personally I feel business should pick up much more of the burden, they profit more so than individuals from being able to operate in this country and benefit greatly in doing so. They have access to the best market, a well educated work force, and protection of property and intellectual rights. You say they would leave if we told them they had to pay more, there are plenty of places globally they can go right now and operate cheaper, why haven't they all left?

 

[da loser]

does economics ever have correlations with numbers? i always found it odd, that no numbers are involved but just words and seemingly correct oh this goes up therefore so and so goes down, yes but by how much and in relation to so and so. does this occur in economic journals, and words are used for the lay person or what? because otherwise economists are just a bunch of politicians.

 

[Alistar7]

money moving is what keeps an economy strong, giving extra money to people who already have more than enough doesn't accomplish the goal. You do need to give this extra money to the people who spend the greatest % of their income on maintaining life, not to those who already have the ability to spend as they please and DON'T.

 

[yoda291]

it is my generally uneducated observation that the upper class pays a good deal of taxes, but a proportionately lower amount than most people and that the lower income families generally pay little tax...but that it's the in-betweeners, the middle class if you will, that pay the most disproportionate amount of their income while not receiving as much financial assistance from the government in the way of tax benefits and breaks. I never did like the fact that, when applying for a job, you had to estimate your salary by taking 1/3 of it out to estimate take home.

 

[Alistar7]

The income tax is only temporary, as soon as the war is over it will be repealed...

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
how about eliminating the social security income ceiling level, why should a man making $85,000 a year put the same exact amount into the fund every week as the man that makes 10 million? % wise if you make anything under that amount you are in fact being taxed at a FAR HIGHER rate....

Personally I feel business should pick up much more of the burden, they profit more so than individuals from being able to operate in this country and benefit greatly in doing so. They have access to the best market, a well educated work force, and protection of property and intellectual rights. You say they would leave if we told them they had to pay more, there are plenty of places globally they can go right now and operate cheaper, why haven't they all left?

Great, I was sure we would hear the Karl Marx theory 🙂

Social Security payments are based on amount paid in. The total benefit is capped (somewhere around $30K per year now for the retirement benefit, I think) and therefore, the amount paid in is capped. As I mentioned before, if you change that system, you have to address it as a tax and welfare program rather than a social security (insurance) program. You also face a severe question as to the logic in allowing certain federal employees and teachers to opt out of the system.

Why tax business at all? This is just a phony smokescreen the politicians use to hide the taxes you pay. Every cent in tax General Motors pays you pay in higher prices for cars or lower pay to employees or lower dividends to shareholders. A corporation isn't a living breathing entity that eats money. It can't take Florida vacations or live in a mansion. The CEO is just another employee even if you think he's overpaid.

A number of corporations have moved some of their operations out of the US due to taxes but more have due to labor and regulatory costs. All corporations which have the capability of being international constantly weigh the advantages and disadvantages of operating is each country. Anything which reduces cost of operating in the US will make it more likely the work will stay here and US employment will be higher. Also, keep in mind that some companies don't have the capability ot move overseas. When competition gets too strong, they just go bankrupt.

 

[KenGr]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
money moving is what keeps an economy strong, giving extra money to people who already have more than enough doesn't accomplish the goal. You do need to give this extra money to the people who spend the greatest % of their income on maintaining life, not to those who already have the ability to spend as they please and DON'T.

Having money available to invest is probably more critical than consumption in the long run. That as well as having a rational market driven investment market. One of the great drivers in the US economy has been that money from all over the world comes to the US for investment in spite of the negative balance of trade. If the secret was to keep the money moving via consumption all those third world countries should be doing great.

 

[Alistar7]

Great, I was sure we would hear the Karl Marx theory 🙂

That is hardly a marxist theory. You are correct you recieve what you put into the fund somewhat. They don't take that money from you, put it in an account with your name and keep it separate from everyone else's though. While that moeny is SUPPOSED to not be touched we all know if it regularily dipped into for a variety of purposes, it is more a collection of electronic IOU's than a fund anymore.

For someone making below that amount however that is one of the LARGEST deductions on their income (spendable money). The more you make the less of a % you are paying. Any income bracket would love a basically complete removal of one of their LARGEST deductions, or even a graduated scale were the more you made, the less you paid.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: KenGr

Originally posted by: Alistar7
money moving is what keeps an economy strong, giving extra money to people who already have more than enough doesn't accomplish the goal. You do need to give this extra money to the people who spend the greatest % of their income on maintaining life, not to those who already have the ability to spend as they please and DON'T.

Having money available to invest is probably more critical than consumption in the long run. That as well as having a rational market driven investment market. One of the great drivers in the US economy has been that money from all over the world comes to the US for investment in spite of the negative balance of trade. If the secret was to keep the money moving via consumption all those third world countries should be doing great.

Of course investment capital CREATES new wealth, unfortunately with the return of deficit spending we are seeing a decline in that investment capital. What happened to Clinton's surplus anyway? Tax cuts for the wealthy, what the surplus didn't cover, the social security fund will. But we have already shown how the wealthy pay a larger share of that, of course if anyone should get that money back it's them. Talk about wealth redistribution. Yes the FLOW of money is vital to a vibrant economy, when the flows slows, so does everything else, history has shown this time and time again. Comparing a third world economy that produces little of what is consumed is hardly a good analogy to our market, a much larger % of the money is staying here, not creating the huge trade gap you see in most third world nations.