Enough with the name calling please...
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Obama: No more debates before May 6th
Collapse
X
-
Snoop I'm done. Certainly won't happen with that individual again."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
You don't really expect democrats to believe in the lapher curve do you?"Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Course I do. I expect everyone to believe in the laffer curve. Where one sits on the curve regarding the optimum revenue is a matter of opinion.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
OK. 0% taxation means 0 revenue likewise 100% taxation means 0 revenue. So somewhere is an optimum, no? Its a continuum so somewhere exists an optimum in the function at a given time and economic backdrop. Whats not to believe other than whether one thinks one is to the left or right of the optimum?
BTW continuum does not imply a given single maximum or simple smooth curvalinear function."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Whats not to believe other than whether one thinks one is to the left or right of the optimum?
Can you explain to me why someone would not trade a very significant about of stocks just because the tax rate were 28% instead of 15%? It's pretty absurd.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
It's fairly ridiculous to ask the question in all real situations. In a model it looks acceptable if you ignore reality and common sense completely.
Can you explain to me why someone would not trade a very significant about of stocks just because the tax rate were 28% instead of 15%? It's pretty absurd.Last edited by Ogie Oglethorpe; April 29, 2008, 16:07."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Perhaps, its akin to asking how many angels dance on a pinhead. Everyone ends up with an opinion about what is best without provable evidence. Save historical evidence that by its very nature means little for predicting best future courses of action. Doesn't mean that optimums do indeed exist just that its nigh impossible to predict where they are and where we are in relation to them.
Why would they assume the risk of equities markets and instead go for something safer that approximates the same returns without the risk?I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
They will be taxed either way. So what it comes down to more than the tax is the return on the investment. And that's what Obama said.
As for what Obama said, I agree with his premise taxation rate in order to maximize gov income is akin to tarot card reading. Which then goes to his main point that his rationale for the tax is all about the fairness (even if he gets his policy wrong)."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
They will be taxed either way. So what it comes down to more than the tax is the return on the investment. And that's what Obama said."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
In a model it looks acceptable if you ignore reality and common sense completely."The DPRK is still in a state of war with the U.S. It's called a black out." - Che explaining why orbital nightime pictures of NK show few lights. Seriously.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
No rate of return after taxes balanced vs. risk is where the money flows to. And much of the risk component is tied to the state of the economy as well.
As for what Obama said, I agree with his premise taxation rate in order to maximize gov income is akin to tarot card reading. Which then goes to his main point that his rationale for the tax is all about the fairness (even if he gets his policy wrong).I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kidicious
He never said it's all about fairness. You are totally wrong on that."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy Carter
Comment
-
Kid, this is very simple.
Probable return = (Potential net gain)*(Chance of said gain)
You'd agree to that, right? It's massively simplified of course, but that's the basic concept.
Potential Gain = (Potential gross gain)-(Tax)
So, increasing tax reduces potetnial gain.
Take a base of $100, potential gross gain of $20, percent chance is 60%, tax is $5 (25%).
Return = ($20-$5)*.6 = $9
Put it in the bank, you get 6% interest after tax, let's say, so $6.
Increase tax to 50% ($10), and now you have
($20-$10)*.6 = $6
At this point you are just as well off putting it in the bank.
Now, increase the risk, and decrease the percent gain chance to 40%. Now at 25% you have $20-$5=$15*.4 = $6. Again, equal to the bank. At 50% you have $10*.4 or $4, less than the bank. Again, massively simplified, but the concept holds.
In times of increased risk, high capital gains taxes are very detrimental to investment - with very high risk, the taxes are effectively magnified, as they lower the potential gain while not adequately lowering the potential loss (you don't get money back if you net lose for the year beyond your tax burden, as far as I know; so the loss on the upside is more than the gain on the downside). Hence, CG tax hampers investment after a certain point; and that point goes down with the economy. I'd almost suggest giving the Fed power over (some of) the CG tax, because lowering/raising it has a similar effect to raising/lowering the interest rate... and perhaps is a safer mechanism.<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Comment
Comment