Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
(former)FormerSanDiegan
ParticipantHLS – We are about half way through a decade since the peak of the bubble in San Diego. The lost decade might actually be 15 years in this case, but I have faith in my fellow Califronia, who has proven incapable of avoiding speculative bubbles in real estate for generations.
Although I agree that the magnitude will not be the same as the bubble of the 2000’s, we will surely retest the relative values of the peaks in 1990 and 1979 sometime in the next 15 years.Participant[quote=AN]Ouch. It’s now at 39.18 Down -3.45 (-8.09%) in AH. Lucky i don’t have any investment in QCOM.[/quote]
I used to regularly trade 100 shares of QCOM when the stock was oscillated from about 40 to about 50 or so. I sold my last shares in the 40-something range for around 4 grand at a gain of a few hundred bucks.
Unfortunately that was 1998.
Those 100 shares I sold in 1998 are worth about 60 grand today thanks to a cumulative 16:1 split over the years.Participant[quote=AN]Ouch. It’s now at 39.18 Down -3.45 (-8.09%) in AH. Lucky i don’t have any investment in QCOM.[/quote]
I used to regularly trade 100 shares of QCOM when the stock was oscillated from about 40 to about 50 or so. I sold my last shares in the 40-something range for around 4 grand at a gain of a few hundred bucks.
Unfortunately that was 1998.
Those 100 shares I sold in 1998 are worth about 60 grand today thanks to a cumulative 16:1 split over the years.Participant[quote=AN]Ouch. It’s now at 39.18 Down -3.45 (-8.09%) in AH. Lucky i don’t have any investment in QCOM.[/quote]
I used to regularly trade 100 shares of QCOM when the stock was oscillated from about 40 to about 50 or so. I sold my last shares in the 40-something range for around 4 grand at a gain of a few hundred bucks.
Unfortunately that was 1998.
Those 100 shares I sold in 1998 are worth about 60 grand today thanks to a cumulative 16:1 split over the years.Participant[quote=AN]Ouch. It’s now at 39.18 Down -3.45 (-8.09%) in AH. Lucky i don’t have any investment in QCOM.[/quote]
I used to regularly trade 100 shares of QCOM when the stock was oscillated from about 40 to about 50 or so. I sold my last shares in the 40-something range for around 4 grand at a gain of a few hundred bucks.
Unfortunately that was 1998.
Those 100 shares I sold in 1998 are worth about 60 grand today thanks to a cumulative 16:1 split over the years.Participant[quote=AN]Ouch. It’s now at 39.18 Down -3.45 (-8.09%) in AH. Lucky i don’t have any investment in QCOM.[/quote]
I used to regularly trade 100 shares of QCOM when the stock was oscillated from about 40 to about 50 or so. I sold my last shares in the 40-something range for around 4 grand at a gain of a few hundred bucks.
Unfortunately that was 1998.
Those 100 shares I sold in 1998 are worth about 60 grand today thanks to a cumulative 16:1 split over the years.ParticipantFrom your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:
“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”
The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.
I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).
By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.
[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.
Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]
ParticipantFrom your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:
“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”
The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.
I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).
By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.
[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.
Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]
ParticipantFrom your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:
“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”
The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.
I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).
By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.
[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.
Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]
ParticipantFrom your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:
“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”
The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.
I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).
By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.
[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.
Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]
ParticipantFrom your Wikipedia link, sentence #1:
“A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases”
The amount subject to taxation on sales tax is the amount spent, not one’s income.
I know that it is commonly accepted that sales tax is regressive, but strictly speaking, that interpretation mixes the amount subject to taxation by one measure (sales) with the amount subject to taxation by another measure (income).
By the strict definition the common interpretation is not correct.
[quote=CONCHO]Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
FAIL. Sales tax is regressive because as the ratio of income to purchases increases, the proportion taxed decreases. Think of it this way, a person making $200K/year uses the same amount of laundry detergent as a person making $50K/year, yet the person making $50K will pay a higher percentage of their income in tax purchasing that item.
Here’s some good info from wikipedia about regressive taxation.[/quote]
Participant[quote=briansd1]A flat tax is regressive.
The sales tax is regressive.
[/quote]These are fallacies.
Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
A pure flat tax is not regressive. The flat tax rate does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
Participant[quote=briansd1]A flat tax is regressive.
The sales tax is regressive.
[/quote]These are fallacies.
Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
A pure flat tax is not regressive. The flat tax rate does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
Participant[quote=briansd1]A flat tax is regressive.
The sales tax is regressive.
[/quote]These are fallacies.
Sales tax is not regressive. The tax does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
A pure flat tax is not regressive. The flat tax rate does not decrease as the amount subject to tax increases.
-
AuthorPosts
