Y2HH

QUOTE (ewokpelts @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 10:35 AM) I call BS on this. the Club Level is cheaper than PREMIUM LOWER BOX(which is on the 100 level). And dont forget the scout seats are on the 100 level as well. You've missed the joke.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 09:45 AM) That would be the right thing to do. Then again, I though Kirk should do the same. The only people getting hurt are the people in his district. If you really care about your district, that should be in the back of your mind somewhere. They only pretend to care about the people in their district. They actually only care about themselves.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 09:07 AM) That's a new one. It is? It's just a shortened version of turbotax Tim.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 12, 2012 -> 08:04 AM) Wow. That is pretty bad. It also is a red flag that you probably don't want to work at a place like that. I've dropped out of the interview process at places where their HR was awful, because often times it is a sign of bigger systemic problems. So have I.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 03:26 PM) The fact that you don't have to deal with a lot of people is reason enough to sit in the 300 level. Spoken like a true 1%'er.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 03:06 PM) I'm pretty sure the moral of that story is that only the wealthy deserve to procreate. Only reality says the wealthy/well to do that can actually afford it do so far less often.

QUOTE (southsidepride15 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 03:02 PM) So with a 300 level ticket....is it the same as a 500 level ticket in terms of I will NOT be able to access the 100 level AT ALL during the game?? 300 peeps are considered above 100 peeps, who are considered above 500 peeps. So yes, you can go to 500 or 100 without issues. Edit: The day you buy a 300 seat, you've become a Sox 1%'er and an elitist.

QUOTE (G&T @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 02:35 PM) I did an information interview last week with an attorney that heads the health law section of her firm. I was prepared to talk about her career and had no thought about trying to angle for a job. She works at a big firm and it would be a pipe dream to get a job there anyway. Advice and a networking contact is what I was after. So a few minutes in, it becomes clear that she wants to hire someone but it sounds like she wants someone way beyond my experience level so I don't take the bait and keep on with my questions. She mentions her need again after stating that her summer associate isn't working out and I decide that I have to switch tactics and start selling myself (which sucks when I'm trying to be honest about myself and get career advice). She tells me to send her my resume and that she is going to be pushing to hire someone to work with her. So I say I'd love to be considered, etc. and sent the resume. Now the question is...what the hell do I do now? There's no guarantee any job will actually open but I don't want to be forgotten in case it does. You casually but professionally follow up on the possibility to keep you on her mind.

Oh look, the GOP are wasting everybody's time and money by voting to repeal the ACA...in an act of absolute stupidity...all to put on a "show" to their constituants. Which will then be struck down by the Senate...wasting even more time. Good thing our government has so much money to spend it doesn't matter.

When I go to games, 90% of the time I go to the club level. It's far less crowded, and everything is nicer...that said, it's also more expensive. You don't even need to get up to buy food/drinks...they have waiters/waitresses that will bring you exactly what you want. If it rains, you can go indoors and be dry...have some drinks in relative privacy. No waiting in line for food/beer/bathrooms, either.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 09:02 AM) You do realize that NYC isn't the whole country, right? NYC is also a one-off...in they use public transportation more than most because they somewhat are forced too...there is no where to park, etc.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) Haven't seen this one done, so, why not. My entry... Love those things, try not to keep them in the house, or else I'll just eat the whole damn thing. Those are also my favorites...so I have nothing to add here.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:45 AM) Ok, I was checking through my FDIC law there because it didn't sound accurate at all to me. the SIPC is a different beast. I honestly have almost no faith in either the FDIC or the SIPC if things really fell apart...I'm sure I could put in a claim for the money...and I'm sure I'd get it back... In 35 years.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:42 AM) Especially since the FDIC has nothing to do with the government . Correction...they are not backed by the FDIC, they are backed by SIPC Protection Example: E*TRADE Securities LLC and E*TRADE Clearing LLC are members of SIPC, which protects securities customers of its members up to $500,000 (including $250,000 for claims for cash). Explanatory brochure available upon request or at www.sipc.org.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:40 AM) I'm terrified to because of the gigantic, systemic corruption, fraud, and lawbreaking. Of course, I can say the same thing about my savings account (at least that has FDIC backing). Stocks/bonds in brokerage accounts also have FDIC backing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) But that also means that there is a skew in who can really make use of that cut. Of course there is...you can't take advantage of something you...um...don't take advantage of. The point is, they CAN take advantage of it. I know a lot of people that are absolutely terrified to invest in the stock market, but without actual reason...so instead they open usless savings accounts that can't even begin keep up with inflation. Before this era of almost NO interest rates on savings/money market accounts, there were readily available investment opportunities for regular people, standard savings accounts paid upwards of 8%, etc...but these investment opportunities no longer exist. This long term incentive was meant to be a means to make it more affordable to invest -- long term -- in instruments that actually pay a return in times of 0.1% interest rates. Of couse the rich jumped on the bandwagon and took full advantage of it...since they didn't bother to build in a glass ceiling. I'd have only one issue with what Obama wants to do with the tax cuts right now...and that's his removal of the long term cap gains tax on everyone. I think he should do with that what he's doing with the dividend rate/income tax rate and only make it affect the top 2%. But leave it for the rest of us to take advantage of...at least, those of that choose to take advantage of it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:10 AM) NSS made the statement that lower rates are good because it encourages the rich to invest in corporations. There is no evidence to support that. Do we have any evidence at all that this is what has happened? That the policy has been effective at doing this is and in some way beneficial to society as a whole? We certainly haven't seen much stability in markets from 2003-2012. It's impossible to definitively show if its beneficial to society as a whole. It's very beneficial to investors that land in the middle class, such as myself. It is good to encourage long term investments in this day of online trading, but I'm not sure if it changes anything the rich would do. It does, however, change what some middle class people would do, I amongst them...and can only offer my own anecdotal evidence to back this. I'm not arguing that it's disproportionately helping the ultra rich, of couse it is...I'm sure they designed it that way in their infinite wisdom. Just like the ultra rich don't need the tax breaks...they really don't need this, either. But I see no reason to cancel these sorts of incentives to invest for the middle class. It is one of the main reasons why buy and hold/long term investing is more attractive to me.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 08:01 AM) So...let's put the onus on you then. Can you show us some data that remotely suggests "Long term investment" has increased since 2003 in any way, shape, or form? I'm going to bet you can't. The savings rate has continued going down despite the recession. The entire financial industry is even more oriented on short-term gains. Give me some evidence that the $150 billion+ spent on that tax cut has done what you keep insisting it's supposed to do. First, no money was "spent" on a tax cut. I don't know why you speak like this...this simply lacks logic. They're simply raising less money, but they've spent nothing in the process of that. Yes, I can show you data that remotely suggests a massive increase in long term investment. Since 2003 gold has steadily risen and it's now at 1600$+. Gold is known as THE long term buy/hold/investment in the US. And it started this drastic rise to prominence WELL BEFORE the crash in 2008 when people started seeking safe havens. The massive investment shift to gold occurred in 2003.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 11, 2012 -> 06:17 AM) The data do not support the claim that it increases investment. Again, that's not what it's designed to do. This is the key point you keep erroneously leaning on, and I've already pointed out why it doesn't apply, which you've now ignored multiple times. The question is NOT, 'does it spurs investment?'...the questions IS, 'does it increase the percentage of LONG TERM INVESTMENT within those investments?' The data doesn't differentiate investment types...it simply shows investments, and again...they're not the same. It was designed to offset the added risk and give investors an incentive to invest in companies on a long term basis...not simply to invest. Long term investments stabilize markets...and in an era of instant computer trades and a market flooded with day traders, they were seeking a method of increasing the number of long term investments people would make.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 08:48 PM) 401ks allow you to defer high income years onto lower income years. That is an enormous tax subsidy. Erm...that's not how a 401k really works. While they technically CAN work that way, for most people, that's just not going to happen. 401k's are taxed as ordinary income upon withdrawal. As in, at the tax rate at the time of liquidation. That puts some of this up in the air, because upon retirement, you have no idea what the income tax rates will be, they could end up being lower or much higher...whatever the case may be, we will not know until that time arrives. So, for example, if upon your retirement, those making more than 50k a year are taxed at 50%...guess what you're deferred 401k is taxed at? That's right...50%...unless of course you can live an entire year on less than 50K, and you have NO other sources of income at all. Keep in mind that 401k proceeds are added to whatever income you currently have, be it pensions, part time jobs, etc., so you could easily find yourself in a much higher bracket than you are currently expecting. It also gets taxed as you liquidate it...so if, for example, you think the market may crash and you liquidate the entire thing to avoid such a scenario, you'll put yourself into a very high tax bracket and pay a huge amount of taxes at that time. My point is, there are a lot of unforeseen scenarios to consider in the distant future when it comes to your expected income level...as I assure you, things in 20 years will NOT be as they are now. Think of it as a government savings lay-away plan. The government giving it's citizens an incentive to invest in their own futures, so when that uncertain future arrives, they will be LESS reliant on the government picking them up. So, by the same rational you use to call it a tax subsidy, you could also, in essence, call it a HUGE savings plan to the government in that some day, it's elderly will be far less reliant on them to live.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 08:24 PM) I can accept that. But we're already doing that. The existence of 401ks alone is a cost of $50 to $70 billion or more per year to the treasury. It's there, it's a gigantic tax advantage already. The long term savings rate has just gone down and down since the 03 cuts of those taxes. Youd get better performance on long term savings by just employing people for that $300 billion. 401k's are tax deferred, so they'll get the money eventually. The issue with 401k investing is it's very long term, and locked into retirement ages to avoid high tax penalties. So while these are good to have, they should by no means be the ONLY thing to have...as the money is essentially useless until retirement. There needs to be an avenue of investment in addition to that which allows you to have access to the money BEFORE retirement. For that we have long term capital gains investments. Like I said, they can put the taxes, dividend rates, and long term cap gains rate higher on the ultra rich...but leave the rest of us alone. Especially in light of the skyrocketing local/state taxes. It was one thing to pay 30% out in 1997 under Clinton, while my local taxes were quite low...but now that our local taxes have more than doubled in every area of the past 10 years...we've seen no actual tax savings. All we've really seen is a tax shift...less to the federal government, more to the local government...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 08:10 PM) And that is why we're having this discussion. Because it's never worth asking if any particular tax credit is an efficient way of subsidizing a certain behavior. As long as it is a tax cut, it's just assumed to be effective/useful. Well, I absolutely think it's beneficial for incentives to exist which can attract new, younger, and less than rich investors into the market. It's a great avenue for saving/investing for the future. These incentives should apply to those making less than 500k (for example). The issue is, one way or another, the rich keep themselves rich via endless incentives and perks...and guess who we have in office? The rich. Some of them pretend to be on our side (Democrats), but they're not. And the republicans have made it pretty clear they're not on our side, either...unless it also benefits them (the rich). But in the end...all of them are rich...and they've configured the system to make sure they stay that way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 07:53 PM) That's my question. If we're looking to encourage long term investment...and the cost of a capital gains tax cut extension is $300 billion+ over the 10 year period, we have to ask whetehr that's the most effective way of encouraging long term investment. It's not. It's extremely inefficient. On this...while it may be semantics, it bothers me. I don't like it when people use the word "cost" where it doesn't belong. It's not "costing" anything, it simply means they're taking in less tax revenue. It's not an expense...and I really dislike how people try to look at it as if it's an expense. It's a seriously wonky/f***ed up way of looking at tax revenue. If cap gains tax is at 15%, they're making 15% profit. If it's at 30%, they're making 30% profit. If it drop's back down to 15%, they're not LOSING anything, they're just not making as much. That's NOT a cost. They want to tax the hell out of the market, but they don't want to give us anything in return for this tax. Where is this promised oversight? Where are the prosecutions of all the rich bankers that cheated the system and crashed the real estate market? That's what this tax should be doing, paying for the enforcment of the regulations they put in place, which costs money, but these regulations end up doing nothing to most of them...so why would I want to pay more for nothing in return? Because they happen to need it?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 07:53 PM) Well, one, yes, if you invest in the market without cheating, you are getting penalized by the systemic lawbreaking. But that's besides the point. But take a look at everything else you wrote...nothing there argues that minimal capital gains taxes are an effective way of subsidizing long-term investment compared to the $300 billion 10 year cost. For comparison, an alternative method that is employed in some of the financial centers overseas is a Financial Transactions tax. Combined with the hundreds of billions of dollars used to subsidize the 401k system, you now have a setup where there is a substantial tax benefit for investing, but then that builds into a growing penalty if you do not have a long term setup. The cost to the taxpayer of doing that is still substantial because the 401k subsidy for investment is huge, but it accomplishes the same task without spending hundreds of billions more on a capital gains subsidy. And you get the added benefit of penalizing the high frequency, day-trading markets at the same time, while raising tax funds from those who can most easily afford it; wall street. Looking overseas on how to properly tax the markets isn't a very good idea, either...considering they are largely in a worse fiscal mess than we are. I've noticed a lot of American's like to pretend they (Europe) are doing great, and everything is perfect over there...when it's really not. Whatever the case may be, they need to be smarter about doing things here...and removing incentives which is essentially penalizing the few of us middle class investors they have is probably not the wisest choice. I'm sure they can do something about the upper 1% without affecting the rest of us. Then again, I'm not sure it even matters. If they raised the income tax rate to 90% across the board, they'd still find a way to spend more than they bring in.

Politics in a simple gif...