No tax cut extension will crash the stock market Obama thinks he revived

[8537]

What a classic piece of misunderstanding. If people are selling an asset now because they believe the sale will be taxed more heavily in the future, the underlying price of the asset doesn't change. The stock market may or may not decline in the short term as a result, but the fundamental value of the market doesn't change.

This is the kind of ill-conceived logic one gets when such a large sector of your economy is based on the speculative trading of savings.

What an idiot.

yes, you are an idiot.

There is no "underlying price of an asset". A share of stock is worth what people think it is worth.

Speaking of idiots: you are wrong. The underlying asset is the physical capital and its potential output.

Physical capital has value.

You, on the other hand, are completely useless.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No, they passed a tax cut for EVERYONE to replace the expiring Bush tax cuts.

Whose tax rate is going to be REDUCED from the rate they are paying today? A little clarity please.

They are going to be reduced from the rates they rise to at the end of the year.

Wow. Just when you thought you had heard it all.. along comes this little gem.

 

[editec]

WEll now seems pretty obvious to me that if TAXES remain what they are right now on the investor class, they aren't likely to invest more in the market.


So the question is really: Are people already investing based on the notion that their taxes will be lowered in the future?

Speaking as a non-player in the market, I really don't give a rat's ass what the market does, but I am very interested in how this all plays out in the employment picture.

AGain, still think that taxing everybody with an income greater than $250K at the same rate is the HUGE mistake we have built into our tax system.

It is those modestly affluent small businessmen, professionals and so forth who are in the making more than 250L but less substanitally than the superwealthy who are suffering an very UNFAIR tax burden.

Ironically, those people are ALSO the people who are mostly likely in support of tax cuts for billionaires precisely because they are being taxed at the same rate.

Were I leading the DEM charge to increase taxes, I'd be coming at this issue in very different way.

I'd divide and conquor that top tax bracket's objections by getting the working affluent OUT of that highest tax bracket.

In fact I think if it was done judiciously the $250K-$1000K per year tax payers might actually see a decrease in their taxes, offset by increases for those SUPER wealthy making far faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more money than that pittance (pittance in comparison to the incomes of the superwealthy).

Because this approach makes such good sense I don't expect it to every even be considered, naturally.

And it is this lack of grasp of the obvious on the part of the DNC that leads me to imagine that the DNC and RNC are essentially both players on the same team, in fact,.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

They are going to be reduced from the rates they rise to at the end of the year.

Then they are not a tax CUT. Doublespeak and obfuscation, the hallmarks of modern politics.

I know this is difficult for you to grasp. But Dems just voted for REDUCING the taxes for people under 250k, REDUCE compared to what they are suppose to be next year. It doesn't matter what they are now, they are not voting on that. If they do nothing, the tax rate will be higher next year as previously planned, so they are trying to vote to reduce that. Keep spinning though.

No, the voted to not raise taxes. What fucking planet do you live on?

Oh, the planet that equated coffee coupons with tax policies. Forgot that little pearl of idiocy.

 

[RDD_1210]

What a classic piece of misunderstanding. If people are selling an asset now because they believe the sale will be taxed more heavily in the future, the underlying price of the asset doesn't change. The stock market may or may not decline in the short term as a result, but the fundamental value of the market doesn't change.

This is the kind of ill-conceived logic one gets when such a large sector of your economy is based on the speculative trading of savings.

What an idiot.

yes, you are an idiot.

There is no "underlying price of an asset". A share of stock is worth what people think it is worth.

Speaking of idiots: you are wrong. The underlying asset is the physical capital and its potential output.

Physical capital has value.

You, on the other hand, are completely useless.

Ignore Rabbi, you'll develop an ulcer trying to have a rational discussion with him. He's EASILY the most stubborn/blatantly incorrect member of this site.

 

[boedicca]

What a classic piece of misunderstanding. If people are selling an asset now because they believe the sale will be taxed more heavily in the future, the underlying price of the asset doesn't change. The stock market may or may not decline in the short term as a result, but the fundamental value of the market doesn't change.

This is the kind of ill-conceived logic one gets when such a large sector of your economy is based on the speculative trading of savings.

An economy based on gambling---people really need to think about that or a bit.

The entire economy is not based on gambling unless one assumes that everyone is disregarding their own knowledge and judgments regarding the transactions in which they engage.

If I know that Apple is releasing the 4G phone, and given their track record, assume it will cause an increase in the stock price, buying it now would be an educated investment. It's not a guarantee, but it's based on an assessment of the situation.

Gambling would be just picking stock tickers out of a hat without knowing anything about the companies.

Speculation is actually on the fringe, but does play a role in enabling liquidity in the market due to some of it being quite contrarian.

 

[RDD_1210]

Then they are not a tax CUT. Doublespeak and obfuscation, the hallmarks of modern politics.

I know this is difficult for you to grasp. But Dems just voted for REDUCING the taxes for people under 250k, REDUCE compared to what they are suppose to be next year. It doesn't matter what they are now, they are not voting on that. If they do nothing, the tax rate will be higher next year as previously planned, so they are trying to vote to reduce that. Keep spinning though.

No, the voted to not raise taxes. What fucking planet do you live on?

Oh, the planet that equated coffee coupons with tax policies. Forgot that little pearl of idiocy.

Again, I never said the coffee analogy, but nice job with reading comprehension.

So you're saying the vote they are having is whether they should raise taxes or not? Interesting, so if they don't have the vote, taxes don't go up next year and will remain the same as they are now?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The Democrat world:

We were going to raise your taxes two years from now... and now we won't so you just got a tax cut. Now, your taxes are the same, but they are lower.

 

[8537]

They are going to be reduced from the rates they rise to at the end of the year.

Then they are not a tax CUT. Doublespeak and obfuscation, the hallmarks of modern politics.

I know this is difficult for you to grasp. But Dems just voted for REDUCING the taxes for people under 250k, REDUCE compared to what they are suppose to be next year. It doesn't matter what they are now, they are not voting on that. If they do nothing, the tax rate will be higher next year as previously planned, so they are trying to vote to reduce that. Keep spinning though.

They actually voted to reduce EVERYONE's taxes, not just those making under 250K. But that little fact gets lost in the conservatarian whining.

 

[8537]

What a classic piece of misunderstanding. If people are selling an asset now because they believe the sale will be taxed more heavily in the future, the underlying price of the asset doesn't change. The stock market may or may not decline in the short term as a result, but the fundamental value of the market doesn't change.

This is the kind of ill-conceived logic one gets when such a large sector of your economy is based on the speculative trading of savings.

An economy based on gambling---people really need to think about that or a bit.

The entire economy is not based on gambling unless one assumes that everyone is disregarding their own knowledge and judgments regarding the transactions in which they engage.

If I know that Apple is releasing the 4G phone, and given their track record, assume it will cause an increase in the stock price, buying it now would be an educated investment. It's not a guarantee, but it's based on an assessment of the situation.

Gambling would be just picking stock tickers out of a hat without knowing anything about the companies.

Speculation is actually on the fringe, but does play a role in enabling liquidity in the market due to some of it being quite contrarian.

Someone with the exact same information as you relating to Apple's 4G made the exact opposite decision - to sell the asset.

Not all that different than gambling - in fact, quite similar. I review my cards, I weigh the potential risks and benefits, and I buy accordingly.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I know this is difficult for you to grasp. But Dems just voted for REDUCING the taxes for people under 250k, REDUCE compared to what they are suppose to be next year. It doesn't matter what they are now, they are not voting on that. If they do nothing, the tax rate will be higher next year as previously planned, so they are trying to vote to reduce that. Keep spinning though.

No, the voted to not raise taxes. What fucking planet do you live on?

Oh, the planet that equated coffee coupons with tax policies. Forgot that little pearl of idiocy.

Again, I never said the coffee analogy, but nice job with reading comprehension.

So you're saying the vote they are having is whether they should raise taxes or not? Interesting, so if they don't have the vote, taxes don't go up next year and will remain the same as they are now?

That is exactly what I am saying. Good job there Sparky.

And yes, taxes are going up next year (which btw, is an increase) unless Congress acts to stop the increase. If they remain the same, this is not a decrease.

Here let me simplify for you.... If you start out at 1...

1 + 1 = 2 (an increase)

1 + 1 - 1 = 1 (no increase, no decrease)
1 - 1 = 0 (decrease)

It's very simple. Try not to be so befuddled over this.

 

[8537]

No, the voted to not raise taxes. What fucking planet do you live on?

Oh, the planet that equated coffee coupons with tax policies. Forgot that little pearl of idiocy.

Again, I never said the coffee analogy, but nice job with reading comprehension.

So you're saying the vote they are having is whether they should raise taxes or not? Interesting, so if they don't have the vote, taxes don't go up next year and will remain the same as they are now?

That is exactly what I am saying. Good job there Sparky.

And yes, taxes are going up next year (which btw, is an increase) unless Congress acts to stop the increase. If they remain the same, this is not a decrease.

Here let me simplify for you.... If you start out at 1...

1 + 1 = 2 (an increase)

1 + 1 - 1 = 1 (no increase, no decrease)
1 - 1 = 0 (decrease)

It's very simple. Try not to be so befuddled over this.

In other words, the Republican legislature of 2001 passed a 2011 tax hike.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Put another way... if I as a landlord tell my Tennant's that the slated rent increase for 1/1/2011 is canceled, this means I lowered their rent?

How stupid does one have to be to believe this? The rent is still $900.

Come on people.

 

[RDD_1210]

No, the voted to not raise taxes. What fucking planet do you live on?

Oh, the planet that equated coffee coupons with tax policies. Forgot that little pearl of idiocy.

Again, I never said the coffee analogy, but nice job with reading comprehension.

So you're saying the vote they are having is whether they should raise taxes or not? Interesting, so if they don't have the vote, taxes don't go up next year and will remain the same as they are now?

That is exactly what I am saying. Good job there Sparky.

And yes, taxes are going up next year (which btw, is an increase) unless Congress acts to stop the increase. If they remain the same, this is not a decrease.

Here let me simplify for you.... If you start out at 1...

1 + 1 = 2 (an increase)

1 + 1 - 1 = 1 (no increase, no decrease)
1 - 1 = 0 (decrease)

It's very simple. Try not to be so befuddled over this.

Holy shit, how dense are you. Let's take this one step at a time.

Simple question, if NOTHING is voted on and NOTHING changes, will taxes be higher or lower next year?

 

[8537]

Put another way... if I as a landlord tell my Tennant's that the slated rent increase for 1/1/2011 is canceled, this means I lowered their rent?

How stupid does one have to be to believe this? The rent is still $900.

Come on people.

If the tenant signs a lease that says "you'll pay $1,000 per month for the next ten years, then $1,200 every year thereafter". and you sign that lease...

and he comes back after a decade and says "nah, let's keep your rent at $1,000 despite the lease" he has reduced your expected rent.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Again, I never said the coffee analogy, but nice job with reading comprehension.

So you're saying the vote they are having is whether they should raise taxes or not? Interesting, so if they don't have the vote, taxes don't go up next year and will remain the same as they are now?

That is exactly what I am saying. Good job there Sparky.

And yes, taxes are going up next year (which btw, is an increase) unless Congress acts to stop the increase. If they remain the same, this is not a decrease.

Here let me simplify for you.... If you start out at 1...

1 + 1 = 2 (an increase)

1 + 1 - 1 = 1 (no increase, no decrease)
1 - 1 = 0 (decrease)

It's very simple. Try not to be so befuddled over this.

In other words, the Republican legislature of 2001 passed a 2011 tax hike.

Essentially, yes. This a problem many of us on the right had with this. Bush did this to appease Democrats... which was a mistake. Look where we are now.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Put another way... if I as a landlord tell my Tennant's that the slated rent increase for 1/1/2011 is canceled, this means I lowered their rent?

How stupid does one have to be to believe this? The rent is still $900.

Come on people.

If the tenant signs a lease that says "you'll pay $1,000 per month for the next ten years, then $1,200 every year thereafter". and you sign that lease...

and he comes back after a decade and says "nah, let's keep your rent at $1,000 despite the lease" he has reduced your expected rent.

He has reduced you expected rent? Which in the real world means nothing. Can you spend expected income? Can you eat expected food? Can you drive an expected car? Of course not. It's called reality... try it sometime.

 

[RDD_1210]

That is exactly what I am saying. Good job there Sparky.

And yes, taxes are going up next year (which btw, is an increase) unless Congress acts to stop the increase. If they remain the same, this is not a decrease.

Here let me simplify for you.... If you start out at 1...

1 + 1 = 2 (an increase)

1 + 1 - 1 = 1 (no increase, no decrease)
1 - 1 = 0 (decrease)

It's very simple. Try not to be so befuddled over this.

In other words, the Republican legislature of 2001 passed a 2011 tax hike.

Essentially, yes. This a problem many of us on the right had with this. Bush did this to appease Democrats... which was a mistake. Look where we are now.

Are you serious? YOU JUST AGREED WITH THE POINT WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE! THANK YOU!!!

Dems are trying to reduce the tax hike passed in 2001 that kicks in for 2011.

 

[8537]

That is exactly what I am saying. Good job there Sparky.

And yes, taxes are going up next year (which btw, is an increase) unless Congress acts to stop the increase. If they remain the same, this is not a decrease.

Here let me simplify for you.... If you start out at 1...

1 + 1 = 2 (an increase)

1 + 1 - 1 = 1 (no increase, no decrease)
1 - 1 = 0 (decrease)

It's very simple. Try not to be so befuddled over this.

In other words, the Republican legislature of 2001 passed a 2011 tax hike.

Essentially, yes. This a problem many of us on the right had with this. Bush did this to appease Democrats... which was a mistake. Look where we are now.

Bush didn't do it to appease the Dems. "he" did it because they were trying to do an end-around of the Byrd rule and PayGo.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

In other words, the Republican legislature of 2001 passed a 2011 tax hike.

Essentially, yes. This a problem many of us on the right had with this. Bush did this to appease Democrats... which was a mistake. Look where we are now.

Bush didn't do it to appease the Dems. "he" did it because they were trying to do an end-around of the Byrd rule and PayGo.

PayGo was a myth... an accounting trick. Whatever... it resides up there in unicorn lands alongside the Clinton surplus.'