Fiscal Cliff Primer….

[no_such_reality]

[quote=spdrun]You can still get 2 bedroom condos in acceptable areas of SD County for $200k or under. Taxes and HOA are relatively low compared to other parts of the country.[/quote]

That’ll buy you 2000 SF Ranch home on 1/4 quarter in Austin with enough money left over to run a full rehab on the property.

[CA renter]

[quote=flu]

Regarding unions. I can not only provide data, and I can provide first hand experiences…

There was a reason why I put on the “fat_lazy_union_worker” handle before. It was my experience when I was an intern at then wonderful tech company with a “M “in Schaumburg, Illinois…. We had two move two desktop computers and a few equipement down two offices to finish a project deadline for china…
We couldn’t…. Because apparently “moving heavy items” was not something that non-union people could do. We had to schedule an appointment with the moving people, and when we did the most urgent date was two weeks…I shit you not….Me and co-worker went down to the group, and there were a bunch of people yapping away and stuffing their faces with doughnuts and telling us we can’t move stuff, that would be a violation, we can’t do this. It would be a violation..And they just didn’t give a shit whether you had a project deadline or not…That….And plenty of other ridiculous rules that really prevented people from trying to get their job done…Part of the business went to Lucent, if I recall….Saving jobs? Really? With internal B.S. like that, did you really expect M’s heyday to continue… Tell me CAR, justify this is “efficient” and how some union BS crap actually cost a deal and how the people directly responsible didn’t even care about it? I don’t know which world you are from but there are plenty of examples like this…

BTW: futures are way off this morning.

Down down another 100 points… Eventually it will hit your pension. And if you’re in cash, eventually it will eat away at your cash too once we have inflation….

We’re down close 500 points in just 1 week….

So you’re idea of just sitting there and not actively manage your money ain’t gonna work…
[/quote]

We’ve all heard about the “lazy” union workers and the inefficient policies of some unions. I’ve had similar experiences and used to get into trouble with my union because I would often do the work that people from another union were supposed to do (even though those union members would thank me for making their jobs easier and showed no ill will at all). I get it, and I’m not defending the sort of thing you’ve mentioned here. But you seem to think that your particular experience here should paint all unions and all union members in a bad light. Do realize that without unions, we would look very much like Jamaica, Mexico, Somalia, etc. Unions are what created the middle class and unions are what’s enabled us to have upward mobility for the masses.

BTW, I do actively manage our money and have benefited greatly from the lopsided treatment of income in this country. Seeing it firsthand is why I feel so adamant about how immoral it is. I did far less work for that money than I did for the W-2 wages, and have been taxed less simply because the rich have the power to write tax laws. There is nothing right about that.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen][quote=CA renter]Whine, whine, whine.

You do realize, flu, that workers who do all the productive work in society, and who are taxed at far higher rates, have a much harder time “accumulating wealth” than the capitalist parasites who do nothing productive for society, right? Which should we incentivize more: productive work, or speculation?

No capital has ever created itself. ALL capital was first created by labor except for the rights to certain natural resources, but even those must be extracted or improved upon **by labor** if their full value is to be realized. Without labor, there is nothing for capital to trade or bet on.[/quote]This quote demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of industrial society. So lets pose a few questions:

[spdrun]

That’ll buy you 2000 SF Ranch home on 1/4 quarter in Austin with enough money left over to run a full rehab on the property.

But then you’d have to live in Texas, which is a nice place to visit. Also, property taxes in TX aren’t cheap.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CA renter]A lot of the money used for initial infrastructure costs came from foreign governments, and later, our own government.[/quote]A lot, but not all. Compared to the total, government contribution is small. There are many things that government can do better than individual companies. One of these is infrastructure. Because they are ‘government’, they can sweep through laws, deal with eminent domain, own most un-built land etc.

You also forgot all the small railroads that were built back east by private money, before the transcontentental rail, who were later swept under (in many cases losing all of their capital). You cherry picked an example.

PS: You might get a bit of a flame from flu on this, the West spur of the Transcontinental was largely built by Chinese laborers. The East branch was largely built by Black, Italian, Irish laborers.
PPS: I have done mountain Trail building with a Chinese mountain climbing group. Interesting to say the least, and it showed me why the Chinese were so successful in building difficult portions of the rail.
PPPS: What is a Rail Bond, other than having the government borrow money from capitalists? (giving them a bond yielding interest in return?)
[quote=CA renter]Who first created the capital owned by the capitalists that was used to build the factories, etc.? The money that came from private interests was initially made primarily by the exploitation of labor both here and overseas.[/quote]Not always. It has been happening more so, recently. Sometimes it is someone putting up all their worth and teaming with other capitalists to form a new company.. HP comes to mind, Apple is another. This created new ‘capitalists’ that can then lend their money to create yet other businesses.
[quote=CA renter]Sure, you can make a profit when you pay your workers next to nothing and force them to live in squalor (the most satisfied capitalist is one who manages to keep slaves to build his fortunes);[/quote]Straw man argument, taking an extreme and then attacking that extreme. Remember Henry Ford’s pay scale back when Ford started… higher than the going wage. Yes, there are abuses. I am not saying Unions should be abolished, but I do think they have pushed to an extreme. If companies applied the same tactics that Unionized labor currently does, they would be sued/under investigation. It has tilted a little too far in the other direction. When working blue collar @ GM, it was possible to make more money and have a better retirement than it was possible if you went to college, became and engineer and designed the cars at GM.

[flyer]

I’m not sure why people may think (if, in fact they do)that you can’t be a rich capitalist and be involved in a union.

Airline pilots, like myself, have always been required to be unionized (probably why many in my age group have such an exhorbitantly high pay scale) and, most, at least the ones I know, are also moderate to far right capitalists.

Most are heavily invested in property, franchises, etc.–this results not only in creating wealth and tax benefits for them, but it also results in creating jobs for others–so it seems a “win,” “win” to me.

At any rate, we’re all going to be paying more to live in this country–like it or not. Some of us will survive the fiscal Tsunami, some will not. Plan well for yourselves–and especially for your children.

[CA renter]

[quote=flyer]I’m not sure why people may think (if, in fact they do)that you can’t be a rich capitalist and be involved in a union.

Airline pilots, like myself, have always been required to be unionized (probably why many in my age group have such an exhorbitantly high pay scale) and, most, at least the ones I know, are also moderate to far right capitalists.

Most are heavily invested in property, franchises, etc.–this results not only in creating wealth and tax benefits for them, but it also results in creating jobs for others–so it seems a “win,” “win” to me.

At any rate, we’re all going to be paying more to live in this country–like it or not. Some of us will survive the fiscal Tsunami, some will not. Plan well for yourselves–and especially for your children.[/quote]

Some would argue that your higher pay was the result of belonging to a union, and that is what enabled you to have enough money to invest.

Investing in new businesses, technologies, etc. is wonderful. Crowding into purchases of existing assets, usually front-running price increases as a result of expected demand/supply disruptions, is not healthy for the economy or society. It forces the true consumers of those assets to pay far more than they would otherwise have to pay when they most need those assets. Then when the supply/demand stabilizes, the speculators run, leaving Joe Sixpack/the consumer with all the losses because the void left by the speculators causes prices to fall abruptly and steeply. The situation is made all the worse when leverage is used (both by the speculators, and then by the end consumers because that is the only way they can afford the inflated prices of the goods the speculators have run up)…and THAT is what lies behind our economic crisis.

[flyer]

You’re right, people would probably argue–either way–but I don’t know of anyone who would refuse making a lot of money in their chosen careers–even though our unionized incomes are not the entire basis of our financial status.

It seems to be a situation of “damned of you do,” “damned if you don’t,” but I’m definitely not going to feel guilty for being able to take care of myself and my family at the highest level I possibly can, for as long as I possibly can, and I honestly hope others can do the same.

[CA renter]

Of course you shouldn’t feel guilty about taking care of your family at the highest level possible. That’s what most of us want to do. Most importantly, you should never feel guilty for belonging to a union and fighting for your rights (and the rights of others) as a worker. That’s the primary message I’m trying to get across here.

[dumbrenter]

[quote=flu][quote=dumbrenter]

You are very abundant with your sentences.
The middle class obviously does not agree with you. If you replace the middle class with a teenager, your post sounds like a parent.
Good for you about getting an 8% dividend rate, I am stuck paying taxes on capital gains on short term profits all through this time. Even my accountant refused to help me with that.[/quote]

Well, who’s fault was that? Your accountant didn’t hold a gun to your head to tell you to buy tax unfriendly things in a post-tax account…It wasn’t like there was any hidden information about special tax treatments on dividend income for the past 8 years. So why didn’t you do it?

In an unfavorable tax environment, you would do most of your short term trades in your tax sheltered or taxed deferred account, and you would let your post-tax accounts contain the passive funds that have very little turnover and/or dividend yielding investments, so that it can compound…

In tax favorable environment, you would do the opposite and realize as much gain as you in post-tax accounts and put your passive investments into your tax sheltered account as a safety net, thinking that your tax bill now will be lower than in the future…

This isn’t rocket science…It’s sounds like poor tax planning on your part.[/quote]

Abundance does not a return make. If this sentence does not make sense, it is the fault of the beer week.

If you come down from your preachy perch a little bit it will do you good to be informed that some folks can come out way ahead than an 8% rate on short term gains (but with boatload of risk). My accountant’s fault is that he does not give those special “tricks” rich people get even when I was going to pay for the “service”. That is contrary to the point your were making earlier.

[Coronita]

[quote=dumbrenter]

If you come down from your preachy perch a little bit it will do you good to be informed that some folks can come out way ahead than an 8% rate on short term gains (but with boatload of risk). My accountant’s fault is that he does not give those special “tricks” rich people get even when I was going to pay for the “service”. That is contrary to the point your were making earlier.[/quote]

Really? someone can make more than 8% on post tax? Really? No kidding????

8% is a conservative estimate average over 8 years… Most people (not all) but most people don’t do better than that over 8% yoy. You might be an exception..

My point was the following… If you had $XXX in your 401k and $XXX in your post-tax account….And are have to “pay a lot of ordinary” income on investment gains, why didn’t you do this in a tax-exempt or tax deferred account, and put your safer investments that don’t churn as much into your post-tax account?

There is no trick to this.. It’s just common sense.
Most likely whatever you trade is available in either post tax or pre tax/tax exempt account….

And I’m only exclusively talking about equities you buy. If you’re talking about some other type of investment, including employee stock/stockoptions/etc well that’s a different game.

Anyway. peace… Have a nice weekend.

[flyer]

Understood, CAR, and thanks.

Part of my premise is that, based upon my personal example as a “unionized capitalist”–I don’t understand why at least 50% of the people in this country continue to vilify capitalism.

IMO, this platform has been very effectively used by politicians to psychologically manipulate the masses. Politicians 10/Masses 0.

And, from what we see in those same people, is an overwhelming number who are also desperately seeking ways to become “rich.” They want what every capitalist has, but they don’t want to admit it, and that dichotomy does not compute for me.

IMO, if you want to be rich–work for it–but don’t blame others, if you’re not. I know, I know, many use the age-old “no opportunity” argument, and I could also shoot that down with countless examples of those who beat the odds.

Bottom line, trying to punish others who have what you want (and I’m speaking of the general populace) is not going to change your life, in fact, it will eventually backfire on “you” not “them”–based upon pure economics, but, perhaps, they don’t know that.

In the end, if people don’t get what they want in life, it really won’t matter much who is to blame, and that’s the sad truth.

[CA renter]

I think the “punishing the successful” meme is a fabrication made up by those who want to protect the very people who have destroyed our economy. I don’t know anyone who wants to punish people who’ve worked hard, created new and useful things that benefit society, and become successful as a result.

But there are far too many people who have designed a financial system (and economy) that specifically exploits the ignorance and weaknesses of others, rather than doing anything productive. We need to get back to investing in productive enterprises, not “financial innovations” that are destined to blow up once they are in someone else’s hands/accounts. We need to encourage productivity, not speculation, and that’s exactly the opposite of what we’re doing with our current tax and trade policies.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]I think the “punishing the successful” meme is a fabrication made up by those who want to protect the very people who have destroyed our economy. I don’t know anyone who wants to punish people who’ve worked hard, created new and useful things that benefit society, and become successful as a result.

[/quote]
+1

[flyer]

The thing is that, unless these changes you’ve mentioned, which I happen to agree with, occur in the lifetime of the masses–their lives, and the lives of their children or grandchildren will not change for the better–then they’ll be over–and that’s the sad reality of making political promises that cannot possibly come true in a meaningful period of time.

Therefore, since we don’t believe we can change any meaningful financial aspects of our world for the better in our lifetimes, we’re doing everything we can to protect what we have for ourselves and our children for the time we all have left.

I’d also like to add, that, whether the “punishing the successful” concept is true or not, I have a SIL who has been buying up property with the intention of renting it out (for next to nothing) to all of the kids in the family after college–should they need these homes–and is planning to bankroll them, as necessary, to help them survive in the world. Basically, people will either survive, or they won’t–no “meme” about it.

[Author]

Posts