Why do the republicans/conservatives have this love for Putin and Russia???

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
Yea, but you are the one taking the risk as an owner of a business or corporation, investing in the business to provide others jobs to make a living. My point.
I didn't word my post very well. I meant to say I almost added the risk aspect into my last post. I agree with you. Why would someone want to assume the risk of hiring someone unless they could make money off their work? Everyone wins. The owner makes more money and the worker has a job that he willingly signed up for.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
I see workers in places like Walmart who are clearly disabled. Some physically and some mentally. It's really awesome that those people get jobs and it's equally awesome that some big companies hire them, knowing that they can't work good enough to make a net gain for the company. They do it to help people in need.

Again, it's really cool they do it. But the reason for me bringing it up is this. These companies are going above and beyond to supply people with jobs that aren't capable of even doing the job. How much more should they pay them? There are a lot of people in the world that need jobs but are barely able to contribute anything. Those are the people who get the shit paying jobs and stay in them. It's unfortunate that there are people in the world like that, but there are. Shit paying jobs are a critical part of the chain.

Guys who work for me make shit wages for the first year and improve every year. After a few years they know a trade and can start their own business. When I first started I thought it was bull shit how little I made compared to my boss who did the same amount of work. Now I understand how beneficial it is to make shit wages for a couple years so you can make good money for the rest of your career. If it didn't work that way, I would have made better money the first few years but way less the rest of my life.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
Regardless of our disagreement on the makeup of farming families, taxes will not impact farmers. That's a fallacy.

The people fighting to see who stays on the farm are huge operators. Those are operations that won't get hurt by taxes in a material way because of economies of scale. Smaller farms will get hit hard, and those are the farms that are quickly getting eaten up by bigger operations. Making it less profitable to pass a family farm on (like you're suggesting) will only speed up the snowball to mega farms. I don't care either way myself, I have no dog in the fight.

Increased taxes will get passed on. Farmers may tell you they're getting pinched and bitch about it, but it will get passed through. We don't get to decide whether to buy those goods whether directly or indirectly.
Farmers don't make many decisions without a tax deduction and a free cap.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
My personal definition of corporate farming is any farming done by anyone who didn't inherit their land and operation. One acre or 10,000 acres. The dynamic is different.

Doesn't change the content of my post at all. Increasing taxes on any part of farming whether it's in the estate, property, or operations phase will not impact farmers because generational farming is disappearing to inherited rentors and landowners expanding. Very, very few people in the current generation of 20/30 somethings feels a connection to land and their farms, and they will be sold off if profitability decreases from taxes increasing. A smart 20 something knows that $8,000,000 cash in hand for land when their parents bite the big one will make more money than renting it out for the last 30 years of their lives. They don't care about keeping it in the family like the old fogey generation does. It's happening like crazy here and all over Iowa and the midwest.

Any increases to the costs of doing business when it comes to farming are going to be passed to people's gas tanks and tables, not borne by farmers.
You do realize that in commodities farming, very little of the end product price goes to the farmers???
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
You do realize that in commodities farming, very little of the end product price goes to the farmers???
You also realize the purpose of Federal taxes isn't about paying for Govt expenditures. The Fed will go to extreme measures to create money for a lot of that. The main purpose historically was to provide basic services, national defense and to level the playing field. I think you mentioned something about trickle down. Can you show how and when that has worked historically given the current ratios on wealth distribution?
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
Those subsidies ain't going away. If they do there's been a total collapse of our government and economy and you have bigger things to worry about.

Ethanol subsidies shouldn't be looked at at a risk anymore, they're a given.
When there is less dependence on gas, that's when.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
How trickle down really works in a town in 100 people. Keep in mind now the 1 is actually the biggest local farmer.

25 percent of the stock market is owned by the 1 percent along with the same amount of business buildings. 35 percent is owned by the next 10 richest.

40 percent is owned by the next 39 people but skewed toward 10 people.

The bottom 50 people own none of the above and rely on those above them to get low paying jobs. Homes are being bought by the upper 50 .

Of each 100 dollars to spend, the upper 11 buy more stocks and properties, buying out smaller business of the 39 . The upper 1 t and the next group give to politicians who give them insight to coming policy and public expenditures to invest in the stock market.

Prices for stocks and businesses keep going upas the Govt pays debts of the 11 at the top and gives insider info when this will happen.

Most of the bottom 70 if they have a roof and are not hungry think life is good. Many in the top 50 below the top 11 don't accumulate assets but are happy with their new F150 and taking a few trips but aren't ready for retirement.

Half of the bottom say, don't tax the upper 11 more as then I won't have my low paying job.

In 08/09 we had 13 percent of the wealth in the nation transfer from the middle to the 11. About to happen again.

That's how trickle down works.
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
In 08/09 we had 13 percent of the wealth in the nation transfer from the middle to the 11. About to happen again.

That's how trickle down works.

Obama was president by that point with a Dem majority in both the house and senate. Taxes went up fairly substantially. At what tax rate do we switch from "trickle down" to whatever you are advocating?

Anyway, that had nothing to do with "trickle down." The United States printed an ungodly sum of money and it built a multi class asset bubble that is going to this day. The gains in equities, bonds and real estate went damned near parabolic.

There was a massive deflationary shock when Lehman collapsed. The equity markets had about a 40% drawdown that ended in Q1 2009. That collapse of stock values substantially narrowed the wealth gap, as it pulled the really rich guys way back down to Earth. Did that make us better off as a society?
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
Obama was president by that point with a Dem majority in both the house and senate. Taxes went up fairly substantially. At what tax rate do we switch from "trickle down" to whatever you are advocating?

Anyway, that had nothing to do with "trickle down." The United States printed an ungodly sum of money and it built a multi class asset bubble that is going to this day. The gains in equities, bonds and real estate went damned near parabolic.

There was a massive deflationary shock when Lehman collapsed. The equity markets had about a 40% drawdown that ended in Q1 2009. That collapse of stock values substantially narrowed the wealth gap, as it pulled the really rich guys way back down to Earth. Did that make us better off as a society?
You didn't read my post. Trickle down helps only the 1 and 10 percent. It's a scheme. Agree totally with the false economic growth narrative you outline.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
Here is the real issue with the economy. It's not a Dem Repub thing, its a policy to benefit the so call trickle down to the poor issue.

First, the money supply. The 07/08 increase in the money supply was HUGE. It is dwarfed by today. Incredible sums to keep the economy propped and benefit the main owners of stocks - The top earners, the so called wonderful people whole are giving us all jobs right? Then the get inside information when the bubble pops and they buy put options and take money on the way down in the market.
 

Attachments

  • M3.png
    M3.png
    92.6 KB · Views: 1

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
You didn't read my post. Trickle down helps only the 1 and 10 percent. It's a scheme. Agree totally with the false economic growth narrative you outline.

Nah, bruh, I read your post. I want to know specifically what tax rate you would implement to make the economy something other than "trickle down."

I actually think the government has done a nice job creating arguably illusory gains that have caused tax receipts to double over 20 years. If the music ever stops on that it ain't gonna be pretty.
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
Here is the real issue with the economy. It's not a Dem Repub thing, its a policy to benefit the so call trickle down to the poor issue.

First, the money supply. The 07/08 increase in the money supply was HUGE. It is dwarfed by today. Incredible sums to keep the economy propped and benefit the main owners of stocks - The top earners, the so called wonderful people whole are giving us all jobs right? Then the get inside information when the bubble pops and they buy put options and take money on the way down in the market.

Do you own any stocks? There are massive wealth effects when the stock market does well. Middle class schlubs who routinely saved and bought through a bear market will spend all kinds of money on shit like boats, trucks, home additions, vacation house, etc.

Guys who own a concentrated position in one stock (i.e., dudes who are really rich) do not buy puts. They are insiders for purposes of the securities laws and even on sales they only have limited windows to sell. The acquisition of a put or writing a covered call is the same as a sale in the eyes of the SEC and they would have to disclose it. You just don't see guys doing that. The problem with a put is you could completely know that a company is gonna drop, but even as an insider you usually don't know when it is gonna drop unless you know a bad earnings release is upcoming, in which case a sale or acquisition of a put would land you in federal prison. When Netflix broke 500 I was absolutely certain it was overvalued, but had I bought puts on it there's a really good chance I would have taken a 100% loss because it took over a year for the thing to start to deflate.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
But, we know we are at a 40 year high
Nah, bruh, I read your post. I want to know specifically what tax rate you would implement to make the economy something other than "trickle down."

I actually think the government has done a nice job creating arguably illusory gains that have caused tax receipts to double over 20 years. If the music ever stops on that it ain't gonna be pretty.
The issue is not the tax rate, but the effective tax rate. Also, the IRS has been so pummeled on numbers of auditors dropping somewhere between 10 and 20 percent since 07. The numbers of non filers being audited are about 15 percent of what it was. Instead a lot is automated which catches simple mistakes of the everyday or certain red flags. They hassled me to death over adoption expenses which thankfully I kept records of.

The highest rates were in the upper 70s at points in the past. Reagan got it pared back to under 30 when the erosion of the middle class really began.

At issue is the deductions. 70 percent means nothing if you can deduct a lot including stock losses.

Assuming KF pays some tax at 37 percent (or would) his million dollar donation becomes 640,000. Maybe more if it drops him down to a lower bracket.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
Do you own any stocks? There are massive wealth effects when the stock market does well. Middle class schlubs who routinely saved and bought through a bear market will spend all kinds of money on shit like boats, trucks, home additions, vacation house, etc.

Guys who own a concentrated position in one stock (i.e., dudes who are really rich) do not buy puts. They are insiders for purposes of the securities laws and even on sales they only have limited windows to sell. The acquisition of a put or writing a covered call is the same as a sale in the eyes of the SEC and they would have to disclose it. You just don't see guys doing that. The problem with a put is you could completely know that a company is gonna drop, but even as an insider you usually don't know when it is gonna drop unless you know a bad earnings release is upcoming, in which case a sale or acquisition of a put would land you in federal prison. When Netflix broke 500 I was absolutely certain it was overvalued, but had I bought puts on it there's a really good chance I would have taken a 100% loss because it took over a year for the thing to start to deflate.
I do my own trading and have really pulled back after being full bore. Conoco is one of the few I have left. Inflation though may make it to where everyday folks have to go full bore and then.... Bought twitter at the right time and kept it a little to long but was still good. You are playing cards with a card shark who knows the dealer. Still, you can't afford not too unless you have a good pension or want to live on SS.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
About the economy though here is the real indicator. It's the velocity of money. It other words how much it moves through the economy. High movement is generally good. We have no velocity in spite of the money supply.

It means some are hoarding cash or have no extra to spend. What really pushes velocity is fractional reserve lending which is usually +- about 10 percent. Save 10 and lend 90. Banks aren't lending to the poor, or the middle class outside of Govt backed home loans which is tightening. The market out west is driven by fleeing Cal to other western states.
 

Attachments

  • Vel.png
    Vel.png
    81.8 KB · Views: 1

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
But, we know we are at a 40 year high

The issue is not the tax rate, but the effective tax rate. Also, the IRS has been so pummeled on numbers of auditors dropping somewhere between 10 and 20 percent since 07. The numbers of non filers being audited are about 15 percent of what it was. Instead a lot is automated which catches simple mistakes of the everyday or certain red flags. They hassled me to death over adoption expenses which thankfully I kept records of.

The highest rates were in the upper 70s at points in the past. Reagan got it pared back to under 30 when the erosion of the middle class really began.

At issue is the deductions. 70 percent means nothing if you can deduct a lot including stock losses.

Assuming KF pays some tax at 37 percent (or would) his million dollar donation becomes 640,000. Maybe more if it drops him down to a lower bracket.

We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Everyone will say "I, I, I want the government to take care of sick little kids" and as a policy matter we have said "Kurt, if you want to donate a million bucks to the sick little kids you can go ahead and take that off your income that you owe tax on." Then people say "NOT LIKE THAT." And on deductions for stock losses, that is limited to the amount of gains and you can only actually deduct $3k of losses per year. As a conceptual matter, if I trade stock A for a $100 gain and trade stock B for a $100 loss, my income is 0. You would presumably say my income is $100 but I can never see the world that way.

I also think the information revolution has done away with the need for a lot of auditors. The overwhelming majority of transactions are conducted electronically and the thresholds for issuing 1099s are now very low so the IRS can electronically review millions of tax returns in short order. The IRS database gets pretty much every W-2 and 1099 (along with the miscellaneous other crap like the 1098, 5498, etc.) and they have a pretty good idea of your tax bill before you even submit your return. In your case, your adoption expenses were something where there wasn't a counterparty submitting a record to the IRS so you got flagged because you presumably had a sizable deduction that they couldn't account for in their system. Sucks that it happened to you, but that actually shows the system is working.
 

PCHawk

Well-Known Member
I like how Biden releases his taxes and everyone is praising him on how much taxes he paid on his "claimed" income. But no one seems to care what loopholes he jumped through to get to his claimed income.
 

okeefe4prez

Well-Known Member
About the economy though here is the real indicator. It's the velocity of money. It other words how much it moves through the economy. High movement is generally good. We have no velocity in spite of the money supply.

It means some are hoarding cash or have no extra to spend. What really pushes velocity is fractional reserve lending which is usually +- about 10 percent. Save 10 and lend 90. Banks aren't lending to the poor, or the middle class outside of Govt backed home loans which is tightening. The market out west is driven by fleeing Cal to other western states.

The decrease in the velocity of money is part of the reason the Fed has printed so much helicopter money. The money supply is actually measured over time and velocity is a component of the measurement. When the velocity slows down, the money supply technically goes down and the Fed has been trying to fight that for years. There was an experiment in the early 2000's where the banks lent money to proles to buy houses. It did not end well.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
We'll just have to agree to disagree here. Everyone will say "I, I, I want the government to take care of sick little kids" and as a policy matter we have said "Kurt, if you want to donate a million bucks to the sick little kids you can go ahead and take that off your income that you owe tax on." Then people say "NOT LIKE THAT." And on deductions for stock losses, that is limited to the amount of gains and you can only actually deduct $3k of losses per year. As a conceptual matter, if I trade stock A for a $100 gain and trade stock B for a $100 loss, my income is 0. You would presumably say my income is $100 but I can never see the world that way.

I also think the information revolution has done away with the need for a lot of auditors. The overwhelming majority of transactions are conducted electronically and the thresholds for issuing 1099s are now very low so the IRS can electronically review millions of tax returns in short order. The IRS database gets pretty much every W-2 and 1099 (along with the miscellaneous other crap like the 1098, 5498, etc.) and they have a pretty good idea of your tax bill before you even submit your return. In your case, your adoption expenses were something where there wasn't a counterparty submitting a record to the IRS so you got flagged because you presumably had a sizable deduction that they couldn't account for in their system. Sucks that it happened to you, but that actually shows the system is working.
We aren't arguing at least on my part. I agree with what you are saying. Yes, it is true that electronics has limited the need, but has opened up other issues on playng the game. On the adoption, the bigger issue was that they were working me over from 2 offices in 2 states and didn't/wouldn't communicate. It was outright harassment. I hate it when a client says they aren't doing a 1099 and then do. Pain in the butt.

About Childrens Hospital and Kirk, been in that room. It's cool and appreciated. About the wave, as I've said before when we've been there the Childrens wing is always almost always empty. My daughter in watching games with me knew all about the wave and wanted to see the viewing area and we couldn't get in due to rich older donors taking pictures and being swooned. Even with my daughter in a wheelchair post-surgery, those people didn't care. Now I'm ranting. Seriously the place is nearly empty on Friday afternoons of "sick kids" and were were in the Oncology/heme area 3 times. We've gotten to know Childrens in Chicago, St. Louis, and IC very well. One more rant the Ronald McDonalds House in IC at least used to suck. That and you can't tell where Carver parking begins and ends and they give tickets to parents very readily. The other choice is parking at the back of is it Finkbine? and take a shuttle. It's easier to stay at Hotels and shuttle or park at the hospital. Even Chicago does much better.
 

HawkGold

Well-Known Member
The decrease in the velocity of money is part of the reason the Fed has printed so much helicopter money. The money supply is actually measured over time and velocity is a component of the measurement. When the velocity slows down, the money supply technically goes down and the Fed has been trying to fight that for years. There was an experiment in the early 2000's where the banks lent money to proles to buy houses. It did not end well.
Dude, you get an A+
 

Latest posts

Top