 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / July 2007Minumum wage increase crashes stock market
Rich republicans don't get every last penny. > Rich republicans don't get every last penny. Gee, I guess those high oil prices and the issues with the housing market and mortgage mess had no effect. Besides, while a lot of the funds in the stock market belong to retirees and those who aren't rich saving for retirement. And, I am a democrat, but believe it or not, I do own stocks and mutual funds, including ExxonMobil which is up 40% since i bought it (and down 5% today). Jeff > > Rich republicans don't get every last penny. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Jeff 40% not bad. Vanguard energy funds have been doing super good too. I try not to attend to my funds very much. If I make 10 percent a year I'm happy, if I make more I'm more happy.  Signaturecarpetbagger: a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist Like they say, watch what you wish for. Who do you think will pay management for those higher wages? The consumer of course, in tax credits to the company that pays the higher wage and in the prices you will pay for the services and products. The unskilled, who will not find as many first time jobs available, will pay a price as well. Higher minimum wages are GOOD for the stock market. The higher the wages the more automated equipment that will be sold. McDonalds has an automated store that they are already installing in high minimum wage states like NJ. I was in one a few months ago, only a few people in the back and only one at the cash register. It is sort of like the old NYC Automats, except there is a machine in the back making the food, not people, and you pay at the end. No more kids at the register pressing a picture of the item you want and hollering to another kids in the back. You merely press a picture of the item you want and out comes the food or drink Remember the Farm Workers Union when all of the Hollywood types were fighting for the down trodden immigrant lettuce pickers in southern California? They got the union and now the workers in those field are making big bucks. The hundreds of them that formerly pick the stuff are all gone however, replaced by a machine that picks the lettuce, cuts of the extra leaves, wraps it in plastic film and attaches a bar code, puts it on boxes on a truck that tales to the shippers. The price of lettuce tripled to buy the machines and to pay the relatively few trained American technicians that operate and repair the picking machines LOL mike >> > Rich republicans don't get every last penny. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I try not to attend to my funds very much. If I make 10 percent a year > I'm happy, if I make more I'm more happy. > Rich republicans don't get every last penny. Hah, your 401k suffered today. However, the stock market is still at record levels thanks to GWB and Republican tax cuts. Signaturecarpetbagger: a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist >> Rich republicans don't get every last penny. > > Hah, your 401k suffered today. However, the stock market is still at > record levels thanks to GWB and Republican tax cuts. Mine didn't go down a bit today. However, it doesn't matter. Until I start withdrawing, the value of my 401k is not that important. Jeff > In article <0O7qi.9285$lZ7.1...@newsfe20.lga>, > > > Rich republicans don't get every last penny. > > Hah, your 401k suffered today. However, the stock market is still at > record levels thanks to GWB and Republican tax cuts. The tax cuts for the rich has zero to do with the stock market, you brain washed twit. Unless of course you can cite a qualified economist that can explain how. http://www.cbpp.org/12-12-05tax.htm >> In article <0O7qi.9285$lZ7.1...@newsfe20.lga>, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.cbpp.org/12-12-05tax.htm I disagree. Stocks are now more valuable to investors, because investors take home more when then hold on to an equity for more than a year or get dividends. I believe that this has increased the value of stocks. However, it has not increased the value of stocks to everyone, like people holding funds in their Roth 401k accounts. Jeff > >> In article <0O7qi.9285$lZ7.1...@newsfe20.lga>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Jeff This is true, but it still doesn't have much, if any, effect on stock prices. To quote the article: The tax cuts had little effect on stock prices because such a significant fraction of U.S. corporate stock is held in tax-preferred accounts or by non-profits and pension plans. Dividends paid on such stock were already exempt from personal income taxes and thus could not benefit from the 2003 dividend tax cut. Besides, in the end it's all about earnings. >>>> In article <0O7qi.9285$lZ7.1...@newsfe20.lga>, >>>>> Rich republicans don't get every last penny. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Besides, in the end it's all about earnings. No, in the end, it is about how much money people take in, which is more when the taxes are less. Note, I didn't say that it increased the value of stocks a lot. jeff > >>>> In article <0O7qi.9285$lZ7.1...@newsfe20.lga>, > >>>>> Rich republicans don't get every last penny. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > No, in the end, it is about how much money people take in, which is more > when the taxes are less. I'm talking about the price of the stock. Of course if people pay less taxes on their dividends they will make more money. > Note, I didn't say that it increased the value of stocks a lot. Actually it doesn't increase stock prices at all, or at least not that anybody has been able to quantify. These tax cuts were a gift to the rich that put Bush in office. The bulk of the tax cuts will go to the less than 1% that make more than 1 million a year. They have no effect on the economy, and only have helped increase the deficit and drain Social Security. These are quantifiable facts. Not so, That is what the left keeps saying but it is not verified by facts. You can't talk about taxes in dollars without talking about taxes in percentages since we have a graduated tax code. SS taxes are unaffected by the tax code. SS funds come form FICA The "rich" saved more money but that is because they pay a lot more money and their taxes are paid at a much higher tax RATE as well. The top tax rate payers actually received the lowest tax cut, as a percentage of their taxes paid, than any other class of tax payers. Many at the lower level were completely remove from the tax rolls, a 100% cut in taxes. Taxes when it comes do to it are ALL based on percentages, the Government would have it not other way. If they did they would enact a flat tax LOL The Dims call anybody that earns 250K a year, rich. mike > Actually it doesn't increase stock prices at all, or at least not that > anybody has been able to quantify. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > helped increase the deficit and drain Social Security. These are > quantifiable facts. > Not so, That is what the left keeps saying but it is not verified by facts. > You can't talk about taxes in dollars without talking about taxes in > percentages since we have a graduated tax code. SS taxes are unaffected by > the tax code. SS funds come form FICA But they are plundered by deficit spending, one result of the tax cuts. We borrow from Social security to pay of the national debt. > The "rich" saved more money but that is because they pay a lot more money > and their taxes are paid at a much higher tax RATE as well. The top tax [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > it comes do to it are ALL based on percentages, the Government would have it > not other way. If they did they would enact a flat tax LOL Maybe Warren can explain it to you: " Buffett posed a hypothetical situation in which Berkshire Hathaway, which does not currently pay a dividend, paid $1 billion in dividends next year. Through his 31 percent ownership of the company, Buffett said he would receive an additional $310 million in income that would reduce his tax rate from about 30 percent to 3 percent, while his office secretary would still have a tax rate of about 30 percent. "The 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax free -- seems a bit light," Buffett wrote. " http://money.cnn.com/2003/05/20/news/buffett_tax/ > The Dims call anybody that earns 250K a year, rich. Since you have poor reading comprehension, I'll repeat that I was talking about those that making over 1 million a year, and yes I would call that rich. As usual you spout crap with no proof and fail to even read or comprehend what you're replying to. You obviously do not know the subject on which you have chosen to comment and you are relying on the opinions of others. You are entitled to your opinion but you are making the mistake of mixing tax rates with percentage of income taxes paid. In the first place very few corporate dividends are tax free, so it is hard to say what Buffett was referring. Generally mostly government entities offer tax free dividends or bonds. Buffett or anybody else for that mater can pay more taxes if they chose, by not taking the deductions to which they are entitled. Everybody, regardless of their graduated income tax rate, pay a smaller percentage of income because of their particular tax deductions. I. E. two people working at the same job with the exact same income, that is taxed at the same RATE will pay a different percentage if one is single and the other is married with children. Those that have over a certain amount of income, regardless of their allowable deduction, will be taxed at a higher percentage than others if they fall into the AMT trap. Unfortunately many farmers and families, with more than one income earner, are falling into that trap today SS funds, by law are held in US Bonds which the government must pay back some day, with interest, and are thus PART of the national debt. The budget is a separate item. Currently the tax cuts for all American, passed under President Bush, are NOT adding to the nation debt as the Dims would have us believe. Only expenditures can add to ANY debt. The tax rate cuts, that retuned money back into the economy, are the reason for the phenomenal growth in the economy that is paying so much money into the treasury, at such a high rate, that money is accumulating FASTER than expenditures. This has been true for the past two previous quarters as well, thus helping to bring the budget back into balance much sooner than expected. This in the first time in history that income to the treasury has exceeded expenditures for three quarters, in time of war, in our history. Get real mike >> Not so, That is what the left keeps saying but it is not verified by >> facts. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > As usual you spout crap with no proof and fail to even read or > comprehend what you're replying to. > SS funds, by law are held in US Bonds which the government must pay back > some day, with interest, and are thus PART of the national debt. Yup, that's what I said. And why are they part of the national debt when it is supposed to be self funded? Come on think real hard. > The budget is a separate item. Currently the tax cuts for all American, > passed under President Bush, are NOT adding to the nation debt as the Dims > would have us believe. Only expenditures can add to ANY debt. That's right, and they are spending more and getting less because of the tax cuts, thus adding to the national debt. It's not that complicated. > The tax rate > cuts, that retuned money back into the economy, are the reason for the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > exceeded expenditures for three quarters, in time of war, in our history. > Get real Except that this is not the case as I have pointed out. If you would care to point to quantifiable data from respected economists to prove this, go right ahead, until then your are just parroting the Rush Bimbo party line with nothing to back you up. Get real. The SS "Trust Funds" are not currently in arrears, dummy, the problem is down the road when the boomers retire and the bonds and interest come due. Research FICA, WBMA To prove to yourself that the government is taking in more than it is currently spending, search Congressional Record for reports from the US Treasury Department to the Senate and House Budget Committees. mike >> SS funds, by law are held in US Bonds which the government must pay back >> some day, with interest, and are thus PART of the national debt. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > this, go right ahead, until then your are just parroting the Rush > Bimbo party line with nothing to back you up. > Get real. The SS "Trust Funds" are not currently in arrears, dummy, the Never said that dumbass. It currently is taking in more money than paying out, but the extra money is being borrowed. All of the money in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent! That's part of the National Debt. So Social Security is just a very large tax collection tool. > problem is down the road when the boomers retire and the bonds and interest > come due. Research FICA, WBMA Yup. > To prove to yourself that the government is taking in more than it is > currently spending, > search Congressional Record for reports from the US Treasury Department to > the Senate and House Budget Committees. What an idiot you are. We are currently expected to have a deficit of between 170-260 billion this year, depending on who's figures you are looking at. While an improvement, still a deficit. No moron other than yourself think we have a surplus. Are you that slow? The treasury is taking in more than it is currently spending as a result of the growth in the economy over the past few years, as the result of reducing the tax rates. Whether you believe that or not is immaterial, its a fact. How can that increased income, in taxes collected. be considered as borrowed? You continue to confuse the nation debt with the budget deficit You are a waist of time LOL mike >> Get real. The SS "Trust Funds" are not currently in arrears, dummy, the > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > looking at. While an improvement, still a deficit. No moron other than > yourself think we have a surplus. > Are you that slow? The treasury is taking in more than it is currently > spending as a result of the growth in the economy over the past few years, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > mike Then quit wasting our time, and go back to your fantasy world. The paying off of the national debt is part of the budget. Are you leaving that out? Were in la la land are you getting your information? Talk about a waste of time. You better tell the Whitehouse, since they think there still is a deficit. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/07msr.pdf >> Not so, That is what the left keeps saying but it is not verified by >> facts. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cuts. > We borrow from Social security to pay of the national debt. But the tax cuts raise government revenues, so borrowing from SS should go down. your argument is flawed. Deficit spending also goes down if spending remains flat and revenues go up. If spending goes up and taxes remain flat, then there are dreficits. Your argument is flawed. > These tax cuts were a gift to the rich You cannot "gift" something that does not belong to you. Letting someone keep what is already theirs is NOT a gift. You are not referring to "the rich" but to those whose work has earned them above-average income. You know, like Oprah $246 million Winfrey. On Jul 27, 2:45 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: > > These tax cuts were a gift to the rich > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You are not referring to "the rich" but to those whose work has earned them > above-average income. You know, like Oprah $246 million Winfrey. Can we assume you are against the concept of the "commons", resources and/or things used by everyone, and therefore supported by everyone? This support can be maintenance work, preservation, or taxes in lieu of work. In message news:1185564380.221303.74230@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, edspyhill01@yahoo.com sprach forth the following: > On Jul 27, 2:45 pm, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" ><nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Can we assume you are against the concept of the "commons", resources > and/or things used by everyone, and therefore supported by everyone? Are you familiar with the concept of The Tragedy of the Commons? Such as, government-owned forest land is leased and then deforested, while privately-owned land is reforested because the owner has interest in maintaining its viability? On Jul 27, 11:45 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: > > These tax cuts were a gift to the rich > > You cannot "gift" something that does not belong to you. > > Letting someone keep what is already theirs is NOT a gift. What do you call making the middle class pay for Bush's trillion dollar war in Iraq while giving the top 1% a trillion dollar tax break? > You are not referring to "the rich" but to those whose work has earned them > above-average income. You know, like Oprah $246 million Winfrey. And that's per year! Way to go girl :) In message news:1185573214.099939.214190@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com, ToMh sprach forth the following: > On Jul 27, 11:45 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" ><nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > dollar war in Iraq while giving the top 1% a trillion dollar tax > break? The Top 1% are paying the most taxes. How stupid ARE you? On Jul 28, 6:27 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: > > On Jul 27, 11:45 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" > ><nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The Top 1% are paying the most taxes. How stupid ARE you? Apparently not as stupid as you, since this has nothing to do with the subject. It's not a question as to whether the people who make the most pay more taxes, of course they do, it's whether the tax cuts have helped the economy. And since these cuts really had no effect on the economy, the real reason was not about the economy, it was about political favors. > On Jul 28, 6:27 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" ><nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Apparently not as stupid as you, since this has nothing to do with the > subject. Neither does anything in your previous post, cuntfuck. Now go run out in front of an 18-wheeler before I push you. On Jul 30, 4:24 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" <nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: > > On Jul 28, 6:27 am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" > ><nos...@whitehouse.gov> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Neither does anything in your previous post, cuntfuck. Now go run out in > front of an 18-wheeler before I push you. Poor Freddy, resorting to threats after being shown how fuckin stupid he is. > > In article <0O7qi.9285$lZ7.1...@newsfe20.lga>, > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.cbpp.org/12-12-05tax.htm The tax cuts helped me and I'm not rich. BTW what is your definition of rich? Signaturecarpetbagger: a person perceived as an unscrupulous opportunist > Rich republicans don't get every last penny. There is no mention of wages driving the sell off in stocks. Not one word. http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070726/wall_street.html? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.