Need Bees Removed?
International
Beekeeping Forums
April 20, 2014, 12:32:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: 24/7 Ventrilo Voice chat -click for instructions and free software here
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar bee removal Login Register Chat  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Investment Advice  (Read 8115 times)
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3945

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2013, 12:08:34 AM »

OK here are some subsidies:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/03/americas-most-obvious-tax-reform-idea-kill-the-oil-and-gas-subsidies/274121/

If people are really serious about “paying down the debt”, then it seems a little disingenuous not go after every penny.  Then again, maybe deep down the Conservatives realize that austerity would be an absolute disaster.  Maybe they have been watching the mess unfold in Europe?

As for the Computer companies, I really doubt most moderates believe Microsoft played “fair” from about 1980 to 2000.  Maybe they’ll get to write off the Windows 8 debacle. 

Other than those areas of disagreement, I also like your real estate.  I agree the Stock Market seems high, but that’s when you get the bears onboard and it might just keep going higher as they have to cover their shorts over and over again; each time pushing the market to new highs.  Who would have ever guessed Yahoo would be up 50%?   
Logged
Moots
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1455


Location: Gonzales LA (Southeastern Louisiana)


« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2013, 12:17:05 AM »



Moots, that’s what they call “Reaganomics”.  A rising tide lifts all boats? 


Blue,
I think what BO is doing would better be called Keynesian Economics.  And contrary to what most women I know believe, you can't spend yourself into prosperity.  Smiley  It doesn't work for a household, and it doesn't work for a government!

As a country we can only borrow and print so much money before it catches up to us....and the end result isn't going to be pretty....

But by all means keep drinking the Kool-aid, continue trying to convince everyone that you're a "moderate" and we're all the nutty extremist, and that BO is doing a wonderful job!

 
Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
                                                                                                                   - Ronald Reagan
Sunnyboy2
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 128


Location: Uinta County, Wyoming (zone 3-4)


« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2013, 01:21:08 AM »

Interesting article, thanks for posting, but except for one claim of subsidy, (and I admit I do not understand how reserves should be treated like equipment) every "subsidy" deals with writing off expenses of doing business.  Income tax is designed to tax profits not gross income.

Tax deductions are not subsidies.  When the administration gives money to a solar company, THAT is a subsidy.  When the government waives property taxes for a stadium, or a government builds a stadium then leases it at below market level to a pro team, that is a subsidy.  letting companies write off necessary expenses of doing business is not subsidy, that is fair and equal taxation

You write:  "If people are really serious about “paying down the debt”, then it seems a little disingenuous not go after every penny." 

If this is true, then why not stop all businesses from taking deductions on costs of doing business?  Because that is asinine, everyone knows that makes no sense.  When you drain "every penny" through taxation the government kills the gold laying goose. 

One of the "subsidies" the article recommends getting rid of is:  "Expensing Intangible Drilling Costs. . . [this] tax break has let oil companies write off some costs of exploring for oil and creating new wells". Really?  it is a "subsidy" when we allow a company in the business of extracting oil from the ground to write off costs of finding and drilling? 

I can even understand if those on the political left wish to argue that such is not good tax policy, but to call it a subsidy is Orwellian speak & dishonesty.  Reminds me of a riddle I have told my kids:

Q.      If you call a dogs tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A.      4.  Just because you call a dogs tail a leg, doesn't make it a leg.



Logged
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3945

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2013, 02:23:21 AM »

Sunny, sorry if you don’t like the definition.  I didn’t invent the English language, what can I say?

WTO definition:  http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm_01_e.htm

If the Feds were to allow me to deduct a rental or any capital improvements in 1 year vs your 27.5 years (say because I live in the Rust Belt), you would not call that a government economic assistance to me?

I’m not in favor of the Feds sucking every living cent from profitable businesses, but if you’ve ever dealt with a budget and believe in the whole austerity fantasy of the Republicans, then the bills have to paid by somebody and you can’t squeeze much juice from the turnips (small business and the 90%ers).
Logged
Moots
Queen Bee
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1455


Location: Gonzales LA (Southeastern Louisiana)


« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2013, 02:28:32 PM »

Blue,
Let's start with the basics.....Fundamentally, do you think this country has an income problem or a spending problem?
Logged

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."
                                                                                                                   - Ronald Reagan
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14810


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2013, 04:40:53 PM »

Quote
but if you’ve ever dealt with a budget and believe in the whole austerity fantasy of the Republicans, then the bills have to paid by somebody and you can’t squeeze much juice from the turnips (small business and the 90%ers).

from this statement, i'd say you never dealt with a budget!

i'll see if i can make the difference between subsidy and tax break even more simple.

a subsidy is when the government gives money to a company, or person.  because the government has no money of it's own, it is giving my money to a company, or person. 
a tax break is when a company, or a person,  is allowed to keep more of their own money.

by a twisted line of logic, the left believe that any time people keep their own money they are being subsidized by the government because that's money the government would otherwise have.  NP goes even further with this idiocy by saying that tax breaks are actually spending because they are taking money the government should have, but doesn't...so they should consider it spent....

of course you can solve the problem through "austerity".  you simply stop confiscating the wealth of the people, and stop spending what you don't have. it is the only way to fix this mess.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
hjon71
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 511

Location: SW Tenn


« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2013, 05:08:00 PM »

Quote

I'll see if i can make the difference between subsidy and tax break even more simple.

a subsidy is when the government gives money to a company, or person.  because the government has no money of it's own, it is giving my money to a company, or person. 
a tax break is when a company, or a person,  is allowed to keep more of their own money.


I agree completely with Kathy's definitions.

I also think both are bad. Along with tax loopholes and safehavens.
We will always have taxes, they should be the same for everyone. The rate, for me, isn't important. Equality is.
Granted I would like to see them as low as possible.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14810


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #27 on: April 18, 2013, 05:08:56 PM »

flat tax.  absolutely everyone pays.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Fox Creek
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 409

Location: Pollock Pines Ca.


« Reply #28 on: April 18, 2013, 05:13:13 PM »

    Sorry! Your not going to knock BlueBee off his perch. Reason, logic or anything else you could com up with, will NEVER move BlueBee from his position. 
Logged
Fox Creek
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 409

Location: Pollock Pines Ca.


« Reply #29 on: April 18, 2013, 05:17:30 PM »

flat tax.  absolutely everyone pays.

     Yes a flat tax sounds good. However, as I understand, since an income tax has been found to be constitutional, what would keep someone coming along in the future, adding yet again, the income tax?
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14810


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #30 on: April 18, 2013, 05:21:57 PM »

Quote
what would keep someone coming along in the future, adding yet again, the income tax?

the flat tax would be an income tax, but it would be paid regardless of source of income.  now...the elders would say that they already paid and shouldn't pay on SSI, but i think there should be a calculation that figures the point at which they have taken out what they put in, and be taxed on all that comes after.  tax welfare, disability, all of it. 

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Fox Creek
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 409

Location: Pollock Pines Ca.


« Reply #31 on: April 18, 2013, 05:41:36 PM »

    Understood.

    I do not collect ss yet. I thought ss is  taxed. ?
Logged
hjon71
Field Bee
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 511

Location: SW Tenn


« Reply #32 on: April 18, 2013, 06:52:04 PM »

Yes SS is taxed. It originally wasn't but is now.

I would be ok with excluding taxes on SS for retired people. Just SS retirement income though. No other income.

I doubt this with ever come though. Big Business/Banking would never allow it. And they control Congress.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14810


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #33 on: April 18, 2013, 07:18:39 PM »

Quote
Yes SS is taxed. It originally wasn't but is now.

depends on how much income you have.  i would not tax the part that you have put in, but beyond that you are collecting another kind of welfare.  it should be taxed.
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
Sunnyboy2
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 128


Location: Uinta County, Wyoming (zone 3-4)


« Reply #34 on: April 18, 2013, 09:08:11 PM »


Kathy's,
I know you explained this better and simpler than I try, but I'm still posting. I thought I had answer, even if you say it better. Smiley

Blue, you stated:
"Sunny, sorry if you don’t like the definition.  I didn’t invent the English language, what can I say?

WTO definition:  http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/24-scm_01_e.htm"


It is not your invention of the English language I question, it is your use.  For a definition of a word in English, one usually does not cite a treaty.  Usually one cite a dictionary.  But even using your cite of the World Trade Orgnization document, it proves my point.  Business expense deductions are NOT subsidies.  I print the relevant section of your link.  ( please note this is a definition " for the purpose of this Agreement" and part (a)(1)(ii).



Article 1: Definition of a Subsidy
1.1        For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:

(a)(1)         there is a financial contribution by a government or any public body within the territory of a Member (referred to in this Agreement as “government”), i.e. where:
 
(i)         a government practice involves a direct transfer of funds (e.g. grants, loans,  and equity infusion), potential direct transfers of funds or liabilities (e.g. loan guarantees);
 
(ii)        government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g. fiscal incentives such as tax credits)(1);
 
(iii)       a government provides goods or services other than general infrastructure, or purchases goods;
 
(iv)       a government makes payments to a funding mechanism, or entrusts or directs a private body to carry out one or more of the type of functions illustrated in (i) to (iii) above which would normally be vested in the government and the practice, in no real sense, differs from practices normally followed by governments;o


A business expense deduction is NOT revenue otherwise due to the government.

Let's look at the difference between tax deductions and tax credits.

No income tax. Gross income $200, business expence (deductions) $100, net income $100.  Govt. gets $0.  You keep $100

25% income tax  gross $200, deductions $100, net income $100.  Govt. gets $25, you keep $75

25% income tax gross $200, deductions $50, tax credit expenditure $50 to Company Green (Note same $100 spent by buisness), net income $150,   Tax bill is now $37.50, but the tax credit says you have already paid $50 in tax.   So you get the $100 in your pocket plus the government says you have paid $50 in tax, but owed only $37.50.  So they give you $12.50.  You now have $112.50 in your pocket, Company Green has $50 in revenue, and the govt has spent $12.50 from treasury.  

Tax credits = subsidy 
Tax deductions do not.

You ask:
"If the Feds were to allow me to deduct a rental or any capital improvements in 1 year vs your 27.5 years (say because I live in the Rust Belt), you would not call that a government economic assistance to me?"

My answer:
Folks need to quit thinking that the government not taking is somehow the same as the government giving.  It is not.  Is the above fair? No, but it is not a subsidy, it is a tax break.
Logged
Sunnyboy2
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 128


Location: Uinta County, Wyoming (zone 3-4)


« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2013, 09:09:19 PM »

PS

Blue, I appreciate your good, thought provoking questions.  Thx.
Logged
kathyp
Universal Bee
*******
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 14810


Location: boring, oregon


« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2013, 09:20:33 PM »

Quote
I know you explained this better and simpler than I try, but I'm still posting. I thought I had answer, even if you say it better

i was not meaning to be critical of your explanation.  i was just trying to break it down into baby bites.   evil

Quote
Folks need to quit thinking that the government not taking is somehow the same as the government giving.  It is not.  Is the above fair? No, but it is not a subsidy, it is a tax break.

that's it  grin
Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

 Alexis de Tocqueville
BlueBee
Galactic Bee
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3945

Location: Mid Michigan


« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2013, 09:41:20 PM »

I’ll concede I agree with your view on the word SunnyBoy.  The government tends to cloak its behavior in such nice sounding things like the “patriot act”.  The nicer their names, the more we should be wary of what they’re up to IMO.  But I digress. 

While this post is about investment strategies, I would suggest that regardless of how you want to debate paying bills, you still can’t get much juice from the turnips.  If you want austerity (I don’t) you have to raise money (and cut spending) from somebody/company.  Who has the $$$?  Oil, Gas, Apple, Google, the Banks, the 1%ers,etc come to mind.  So maybe you have to remove the “tax breaks” from some of the high income businesses if you want austerity?

Fact of the matter is the US fiscal situation makes the old General Motors look like financial geniuses.  The Republicans were the first in line to realize austerity wasn’t going to work for the old GM when they had SO much debt on the books.  Well, the US debt is 1000 times worse than GMs.  If austerity wasn’t going to work on GM then by Republican logic it sure isn’t going to work on the US economy either.
Logged
Sunnyboy2
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 128


Location: Uinta County, Wyoming (zone 3-4)


« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2013, 09:57:50 PM »

Kathyp

I did not take anything as critical, just acknowledge you had better explaination.  Smiley
Logged
Fox Creek
House Bee
**
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 409

Location: Pollock Pines Ca.


« Reply #39 on: April 18, 2013, 10:00:49 PM »

    Had GM been forced to file bankruptcy, they would have restructured , slimmed down and recovered. Throwing tax payer dollars at them was the worst thing to do.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Beemaster's Beekeeping Ring
Previous | Home | Join | Random | Next
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.357 seconds with 22 queries.

Google visited last this page March 13, 2014, 01:52:21 PM