Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 06:20 PM) The obvious question in reply is...if it encourages long term investment somewhat, but does so at a significant taxpayer cost and also produces the negative externalities of feeding the criminal wall street system we're currently supporting...is that the most effective way to incentivize long term investment? This is a loaded question that would probably take hours to actually even scratch the surface of. First, there is no true taxpayer "cost" when it comes to incentivizing long term investments aside from a select few that do not have jobs that produce income, and their investments are their sole source of income. Keep in mind the base money in the market has ALREADY been taxed once. Any taxes after that point are all added taxes on successful investments. Of those successful investments, the loss of tax revenue from the ultra rich that do not work, and thus have no "income", comes primarily from dividend gains. They're already addressing this by proposing to raise the dividend rate on top earners to 30%, bringing it in-line with ordinary income taxes. That should correct your question of any actual taxpayer cost...the issue is, not many people in the world have the wealth or investment portfolio to live off dividends and long term cap gains. Second, most wall street criminal trading is not done via long term investments, of course it can be in cases of insider trading, but when it comes to long term investments, it's often too easy to trace such activity. The easiest place to do this sort of thing is in quick turn-around revolving markets, such as credit markets, etc...where the numbers change constantly. Third, I'm not sure what to say about the criminal wall street system...they have enough oversight in the world to police this, the issue is, they don't bother. I invest in the market and I do so without breaking the law. So because others cannot, I should get penalized, too? I'm not sure what you're getting at with this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 05:54 PM) Unless the financial wealth gap begins closing, then time is irrelevant. Who benefits is based on who owns investments. As i said in the post above that one, there is scant evidence that it actually spurs investment. Also, it's not meant to spur "investment", which you keep repeating. It's meant to incentivize *long term* investment. And believe me, there is a HUGE difference in a long term outlook versus day trading, or short term trading in general. There is no argument that the same people would probably be investing either way, but of those people, there ARE those of us who moved to a longer term buy/hold type of strategy because of it...it removes some of the added risk of holding a stock long term.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 05:54 PM) Unless the financial wealth gap begins closing, then time is irrelevant. Who benefits is based on who owns investments. As i said in the post above that one, there is scant evidence that it actually spurs investment. Like I said, then raise the long term cap gains tax on the upper income earners...not everyone. Because currently, it benefits me...and again, I'm not rich.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 03:59 PM) Coincidentally, CBPP just came out with their Capital Gains Tax Chart Book last week. To illustrate my claim that it primarily benefits the wealthy: And to your point about 401(k)'s and retirement income: No matter which way you look at it, preferential rates for capital gains primarily benefits the wealthy and there's scant evidence that it boosts the economy. The amount of data you have is absolutely minimal. The current long term cap gains rate benefits me, too...and I'm not wealthy. It benefits anyone of middle class income that wishes to invest, long term, in the market. I highlighted the words long term to bring added attention to them...because it's key to the discussion at hand. Of course your graphs show that so far the wealthy have overwhelmingly benefited from it, since the 15% rate hasn't existed very long and they're the primary interests in said market. It's hard for poor people to directly benefit from such a thing since almost none of them invest. The issue is that your argument dismisses that these long term investments benefit even those that have nothing to do with the stock market, as this sort of investing helps stabilize the market, the businesses themselves, the overall economy, etc...as it encourages long term investments in our own companies. As with the dividend and income tax hike, if they want to go after top earners, go after them...the issue here is this affects everyone now and in the future. To remove incentives to invest in the stock market from everyone just because a disproportionate number of rich people currently benefit is madness. And to say the impact is minimal is insane...selling a stock at a long term profit and being taxed 15% on that added profit is a far cry from being taxed 30%.

I have a Trek 7500 from 2010 (15.5" frame, as I'm a smaller rider), hardtail, front lockable shocks, and all shimano gearing, including hydraulic disc breaks which are awesome. I even put schwalbe tires on the front and fear (fatter front tire/skinnier but knobbier rear), for mudding traction... I haven't ridden it in a year, unfortunately...I need to get back on it someday soon.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jul 9, 2012 -> 07:42 PM) The entire office didnt have internet. Couldnt even access local drives on the network. That points to the switch being the issue, not the Internet connection.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:55 AM) How about a compromise: Short term cap gains tax rate = whatever your income tax rate already is Long term cap gains tax rate = whatever your income tax rate already is minus 5 percent There is still an incentive to invest long term without cutting too much of a break to the super rich. We can't pretend to compromise with that because it's not what they're doing.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:25 AM) I too am interested if anyone has any keyboard recommendations for iPad 2. And I love Apple products! Yes...this. Serves as a screen protector when not in use, and uses the built in magnets on the iPad 2/3 to hold it...it's really awesome. http://www.amazon.com/gp/mpd/permalink/m1E...ref=ent_fb_link It's not cheap, but in the keyboard for iPad arena, it's by far the best there is...and lasts weeks on one charge. http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Ultrathin-K...ogictech%20ipad

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:40 AM) ...congratulations? Thank you! It worked again...unless there was just a glitch in the matrix.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:31 AM) But I'm not offended. That's why your comment is confusing to me. See, that post was designed to make you respond...it worked.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) Who are the "opportunistically offended" in this case? You, for example. Read some of the responses to the stupid racist responses if you'd like to see some of the opportunistically offended. Or, do what you're doing and pretend there are no opportunistically offended involved...that seems to be working better for you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) We didn't really see much benefit economically from reducing the cap gains (and dividends) rates to 15%. It benefits a handful of the really wealthy, primarily, and does nothing for the majority of Americans who have little or no investments. First and foremost, it's important to show that there are two types of cap gains taxes, long and short. Short = Investments held less than 1 full year ( Long = Investments held more than 1 full year ( >= 366 days), taxed at the lower 15% level. This was done to encourage long term investing, and enable lower income people to consider taking the risk of investing in stocks on a long term basis. Again, I'd have no issues if this was treated the same with the upper income earners, as the tax hike/dividend rate would only affect them.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:18 AM) The stupid racists are the ones that are offended and melting down, though. I just sorta chuckled when I first saw it, then laughed when I saw the OUTRAGE!!! reaction. It was designed to make them, in specific, melt down...it was an expected stupid reaction from the stupid. But let's not pretend the opportunistically offended didn't join the fray.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 10, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) We need to stop living in the past when we celebrate the day the Declaration of Independence was signed. Most people celebrating it have no idea what they're actually celebrating. But let's not pretend it's some sort of a whites only holiday, because at the time it originally occurred slavery still existed. A lot of opportunity and growth emerged for a lot of people/races because of that day.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 7, 2012 -> 09:53 PM) How so? It's stupid because it has nothing to do with today. He absolutely had a point with his tweet...200 years ago. It was also a comment designed to do exactly what it did...get both sides of the stupid fest to emerge and go to verbal war with each other on the Internets. So, in that regard, it was a successful comment. As B&B would say, what you have here are the opportunistically offended, and the stupid racists going head to head.

A few points... 1) I have no issues with raising the income tax on upper income earners, however, I also think it's a political maneuver to get Romney to appear as if he's defend the rich, thus hurting his overall image. Raising that tax will generate only ~85 billion more per year, which is nice, and I think it should be done...but let's not pretend it's going to solve this country's fiscal problems...it wouldn't even make a tiny dent. 2) The part about Obama's tax plan I do not like is his proposal to raise the cap gains tax on everyone to 30%. Short term cap gains are already taxed at whatever your ordinary income level is, which is the entire point of the lower 15% on long term gains...it was done to encourage long term investing, and supplement the added risk that comes with it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 10:31 PM) its a matter of scope. Actually, it's a matter of precedent. And your former comment about eating right...there are people that eat right and get cancer anyway. I'm not saying eating right won't help some people...but there are those, due to genetic defect, that it doesn't matter for...at all. If they live long enough, they're predisposed to getting it.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 3, 2012 -> 08:40 AM) Seriously...wtf? Are you saying black people do the opposite and like breaking the law...without saying it?

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 06:10 PM) I'm thinking about getting a meter for my house. Heard it is way cheaper then the non-meter cost That depends on how much water you use...and eh...at the moment it's not way cheaper. I use a lot of water. I not only have a 18' pool out back, but I water my lawn multiple times per week, not to mention laundry. A friend of mine, who has no pool and never waters his lawn, pays an average of 27$ a month on his metered account. As it stands, I pay 40 a month un-metered. It's simply not enough of a cost savings to chance it...at least not yet.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 04:23 PM) What that might say is that the presence of the law has a big impact on whether or not White people choose to carry. And no, if the quoted margin of error is plus/minus 1.5 (not plus or minus 3), then that means 0 is 4 sigma units away. That means the probability of that result being statistically significant is 99.994%. The other way to evaluate that type of data is to look for...multiple studies performed independently that tell the same story...and we're now up to 2. I still do not understand the racial component to it...it doesn't make any sense. It means everyone could carry, why is it only affecting whites?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) But the data from now multiple studies says...on average, you're more likely to be hurt yourself when you try to defend yourself. THat's the end result of those 2 studies. And how do we base how accurate these studies are? "Our results indicate that Stand Your Ground laws are associated with a significant increase in the number of homicides among whites, especially white males. According to our estimates, between 4.4 and 7.4 additional white males are killed each month as a result of these laws. We find no evidence to suggest that these laws increase homicides among blacks." So this is a racial thing? Seems, according to that study, that stand your ground laws are only bad for white people. Seems like flawed results, because logic would say that standing your ground wouldn't matter what color you are. And 4.4 to 7.4 is +/-3...with numbers that low, that's kind of a statistical reach, is it not?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) You're right. And there are other taxes built into this bill. The tax on the "Cadillac" plans, the tax on some medical devices, there is a small upper income tax somewhere in there, there's a tax on tanning, etc. The main method of paying for it though is to realize...we already do. When we're spending 1.5 times the fraction of GDP on health care of any other country in the world, and getting care of the same quality or worse...we're already spending the money. We just have to figure out how to spend it more wisely. This bill takes steps in that direction. Our care, for those that can get it, is pretty damn good here...the only way you get poor quality care here is if you allow it to happen since there are tons of doctors...go find a new one if you feel your care is lousy. That exists over there, too. Some doctors are just bad doctors, regardless of their educations. Our healthcare is so expensive because of bureaucratic nonsense, laws being written and passed by people bought and paid for by big pharm, insurance companies, or other corporate interests. It's not expensive because it sucks, however. It's expensive because our lawmakers helped make it that way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) If I give you a 1% chance of being killed if you do not try to protect yourself and a 2% chance of being killed if you do, which do you choose? Are the contents of your wallet worth dying for? In this case, you take the 1% option. However, there is no way to guarantee those percentages wouldn't be flipped dependent on the scenario...and in that case, you take the other.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 02:36 PM) The CBO is as accurate as they come. May not always be correct, but it will be the best figure available. Do you have any facts/figures to back this up? I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm asking because it'd be interesting to actually see how historically accurate they are (if they are), versus all of us just saying one thing or another. I don't know how by much, but I know a few times they've been pretty wrong about future costs, mostly because they base them on nothing changing.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) Yup. They also passed a huge tax credit that offsets it. But apparently that won't get a mention. It's not a zero sum game which is why you just tried to make it sound like. Something has to help pay for this. IMO, I don't mind it...it's a "TAX" that I don't mind paying. Such taxes do exist...and this is one of them. I'm happy to pay this knowing more people will have access to care -- IF they end up actually having that access.