[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
How far can you go taxing the rich? That’s a good question. Certainly much farther than we’ve gone so far. We’ve done it in the past during boom times and they didn’t stop working, they didn’t get poorer as a whole. The rich have had extraordinarily low taxes over the last 10 years, when compared to prior decades.
[/quote]

There’s a theoretical Laffer curve which says there’s some optimal tax rate in which the most tax dollars are collected. There’s probably also a curve for the most optimal tax rate for economic growth. History says the best economic time have been associated with an effective tax rate of around 18-20%. I could see revenue increases to 2.8, maybe a little higher but you still have a ton to cut. Of course with medicare and social security growing faster than GDP it just gets worse. In essence you need to slow the growth of SS and medicare to something less than GDP. Maybe the easiest solution is to just have people wanting to join those programs wait in a queue. You could arrange that queue based on need, but you stop the uncontrollable growth.

Based on the actions taken by many high wealth individuals towards the end of 2012 I’d be willing to bet right now that 2012 tax revenue is higher than 2013 tax revenue.

[livinincali]

[quote=equalizer]
A Blackrock investor would say that they are doing what needs to be done in 0% rate environment. It is a very interesting asset class, possibly better than lumber. If they are too successful, they may outbid first time buyers with 100% cash and possibly overpay creating resentment from people who are losing out of the American dream?[/quote]

The question is how long does it take for a CA style legislator to pass even more tenant protections.I have a feeling that it might really suck to be a landlord in the state if a hedge fund rental group does anything that is viewed as “unfair”.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
If you go back another couple years, revenue decreased over the last 12 years. If revenue had simply kept up with inflation since 2000, the current budget would be balanced. Revenues are not solely based on the number of people working. It’s also based on the effective tax rates on all income.

Again, much of the increase in entitlement spending is purely demographics, and more recently, a function of the economy, not statutory increases in entitelments. Almost 1/3 of the increase in entitelment costs are SS old age benefits, yet SS as a whole still does not materially contribute to the deficit. And net OASI taxes collected (including SE tax) increased by more than 1/3. (SS benefits paid are roughly equal to additions to the SS trust fund.)[/quote]

Of course, I mentioned that tax rates are down to flat. But just look at the IRS statistics that you can find here http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Individual-Statistical-Tables-by-Tax-Rate-and-Income-Percentile

In 2000 total gross income was 6.4 trillion with about 105 million tax returns. In 2009 which is the most recent data it was 7.4 trillion with 104 million returns. Spending has gone up 50% since 2000. Government spending has grown faster than everything else including inflation, GDP, total taxable income, etc. Inflation is up about 33%. GDP is up about 23%. Total Gross income is up less than 20%. It is a spending problem and primarily a medical entitlement spending problem.

Are there some moral ramifications to cutting back? Sure. I won’t argue that point. I’m just going to argue that there isn’t a tax base that allows you to keep those promises for the aging population. It would be great if we could give every child their own personal tutor but it costs too much so we don’t do it. The same is going to have to be true with some entitlements. Wheelchairs instead of hip replacements. Hospice instead of million dollar cancer treatments for some will become a reality one way or another. Maybe we’ll decide standing in line is more fair than having accumulated wealth. Maybe we’ll decide that everyone smart enough to be a doctor will have to become one and be obligated to provide low costs services.

How far can you go taxing the rich and putting the youth in debt until they say F U? Because once you get to that point you can’t take it back.

[livinincali]

[quote=UCGal]
The rich man/poor man guy puts too much emphasis on real estate… but his premise of using your money to get more money is good.
[/quote]

This guy is all about using leverage to make money. It’s what everybody on Wallstreet does. Of course the only way for the common man to get 20 to 1 leverage is in real estate so that’s where he focuses.

Leverage is great when it goes your way but it’s also easy to lose it all.

[livinincali]

[quote=SK in CV]
Except we haven’t taxed more. And we haven’t spent much more. Taxes have gone down for almost everyone over the last 4 years. And spending is growing at the smallest rate in decades, and most of that increase has been purely a function of the economy and demographics.[/quote]

A little perspective seems to be in order. Pick your time frame carefully to make your point.

Notice how revenues have stagnated over the past 10 years yet spending has increased. Revenues are based on number of people working, their nominal wage gains and the tax rate. Everybody agrees that wages have stagnated. Look at a chart of number of people working and that hasn’t gone up much, and the tax rate has basically remained the same or gone down.

[livinincali]

[quote=squat300]Food for thought. Con law prof arguing against the constitution in my times this week:
[/quote]

The constitution is a living document and can be amended. Frankly an amendment could scrap the whole thing. If the people really want that as a whole lets embark on that journey. Of course then you actually do have to compromise and come to an agreement because amending the constitution is purposefully difficult. This academic is just another person who thinks he knows what’s best for the country. If everybody can’t agree on his utopia then we should elect a dictator and give him power to take us to that utopia.

I have an idea lets go with his plan and then elect a dictator that will lock him up for treason against the country. I’m sure he won’t have a problem with that, after all we don’t need the constitution to get in the way of one man’s vision no matter how it effects you personally.

[livinincali]

Performance for those fidelity funds have lagged all of the major averages and you’ve had to pay fees to be in them. I’d rather buy SPY (S&P 500), DIA (Dow 30), or QQQ (Nasdaq 100) than any of those funds. I’d stay away from US treasury bonds as that 30 year bull run is likely to come to an end at some point. Certainly there isn’t much upside on US treasury bond prices from here, you’re zero bound.

MUB might be an option if you want to play Muni Bonds. While muni’s aren’t in great shape you could certainly see government bailouts of their bonds and the yield is higher, almost 3% on MUB.

The best income producing play right now seems to be large cap dividend so you could take a look at something like DLN which is a large cap dividend ETF. Currently 25 large multi international companies have better credit risk than the US.

Of course with all that said everybody is desperate to earn a yield or return right now and you’re coming into the game pretty late. The easy money has been made. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me to see buyers of the fiscal cliff solution end up being the bag holders.

[livinincali]

[quote=paramount]Are we certain future generations are going to pay for this all of this debt?
[/quote]

No they probably won’t. They’ll probably be more than willing to throw granny under the bus, right after they default on their obligations to China.

[livinincali]

[quote=flu]What you think is irrelevant. Government can change the rules any time they want.[/quote]

Yup. Take whatever tax advantage you can immediately. Roth’s are going to end up being the biggest sucker play ever.

[livinincali]

[quote=squat300]
I truly believe we would all be better off if we were not collectively heavily armed. It’s not based on fact or reason but strictly feelings.[/quote]

The bills rights was primarily adopted to prevent tyranny of government. The colonists had just fought a revolution war against perceived acts of tyranny (I.e. taxes without representation). Almost everything in the bill of rights is a check and balance against acts of tyranny by the government. Free speech, rights to bear arms, protection against unwarranted search and seizure, etc. Obviously we’ve been pretty far removed from a tyrannical government but should we really give up those checks and balances because of a small percentage of criminals.

Honestly what’s the first thing you would do if you were a dictator that wanted to push the US to a hard core socialist/communist government? Remove the guns so the producers couldn’t realistically fight back. Then you start removing protections of search and seizure and free speech. Basically everything in the bill of rights would be quickly removed because those are the primary checks and balances to oppose your takeover.

[livinincali]

[quote=flu]…but they promised they wouldn’t raise taxes for anyone but the rich….Oh wait, payroll taxes are going back up…Uh oh…. Too damn bad….

Told ya…It wasn’t gonna be just the rich that are paying for this….Long term it’s coming out of the middle class…what’s left of it….

http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/02/smallbusiness/fiscal-cliff-payroll-taxes/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

But hey, it’s just like an extra 2% in payroll taxes for everyone. Not a big deal..I’m glad everyone has to pay for something to support this sort of government spending…
[/quote]

The 2% increase is going to bring in far more money than the tax hikes on the rich. It’s about $120+ billion per year while the tax hikes on the rich are expected to bring in about $600 billion over 10 years. I wonder how long wall street stays in a jolly mood before it realizes how weak this can kick was.

[livinincali]

[quote=ctr70]Where is the inventory going to come from? I don’t see where.

-It’s not going to come from a flood of REO’s, the “next wave” that was always “just around the corner” never happened and was an urban myth
-Not going to come from builders, they can’t build that fast
-Not going to come from normal sellers, still not enough equity
-I don’t see a sudden rush of short sales, anyone who wanted to short sale has had ample chance the last few years
[/quote]

FHA is where the new defaulters. Of course that’s government run and if there were foreclosures from FHA it would be coming out of HUD. Right now there’s nothing coming out of HUD and with government help I doubt there will be.

I figure those that really want to buy will do so in the next year or two and then we’ll have a pent up demand to sell from all the sellers hoping to sell for higher prices. Unfortunately I figure the buying pool will be pretty small at that point and sellers will have wished they sold when things were good in 2012-2013. It always seems to work out that way.

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]
True. True indeed.

I have, however, also tried to engage in a meaningful discussion about gun laws. And suddenly, everyone who was talking about Switzerland has disappeared. The only responses have been, “I’m a badass and you’re a pussy.” So I responded in kind. Not my best post, I agree. In fact, to put it in my own words, it was retarded. I’d prefer to discuss the matter reasonably. Any takers?[/quote]

Sorry, I wasn’t around to quickly post a response. My point was that just because you have a particular set of gun laws on the books does not mean that gun related death statistics correspond directly with those laws. Swiss people have a high ratio of guns to population, higher than here and yet they have lower gun related deaths. Mexico has much stricter gun related laws and yet the number of gun related deaths in Mexico is much higher than here

Your point seems to be that guns to gun related deaths is proportional and the major contributing factor. If that was true then explain Mexico and explain Switzerland. Do a study and actually prove that guns to gun related deaths is actually proportional and then maybe you have a point.

Of course let’s say we do get to a point where you do make that point, how do you propose to deal with all the guns and ammo we already have in america. Are you planning of confiscating it? Because if you aren’t, than even having those laws on the books does nothing to dramatically change the guns to people ratio in this country.

As for the bad ass and all that nonsense, that’s the kind of argument people make when they let emotions get in the way of logical discussion. In my eyes you owning a gun does no harm to me. It’s only when you decide to commit another crime against me like murder or robbery that it might matter. Of course in that case there’s plenty of other instruments of force that you can use against me besides a gun. All in all it might not matter.

At this point all I’m seeing in the argument is that gun control might make a difference but I’m not really sure. Even though I’m not sure it’s worth it to infringe on a constitutional right. I’m willing to accept gun control laws if you can get enough support to create a constitutional amendment, but everybody knows that isn’t happening.

[livinincali]

[quote=paramount]California gas prices Dec 2011: 3.56 reg unlead.

We are just about in the same place this year.

No big deal I guess, nothing to see here.[/quote]

Yup. Although over the whole year of 2012 you paid more than any other year.

Here’s a good resource.

http://www.sandiegogasprices.com/Retail_Price_Chart.aspx

[livinincali]

[quote=zk]I’d be interested to hear the opinions that opponents of gun control have regarding the U.K.’s gun control laws.

It’s very difficult, but possible, to get a gun there. Handguns are illegal, with a mandatory 5-year sentence for possession.

Our homicide rate is 3.5 times theirs, despite a similarly violent culture.[/quote]

Every country is different. Switzerland has much higher gun ownership rates than we do yet much lower gun related crime. Mexico has extremely strict gun control laws yet thousands die each year in gun related crimes down there.

Connecticut already had an assault weapons ban in place. Here’s an explanation of the law.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/17/nyregion/connecticuts-rules-for-purchasing-this-gun.html?hp

I understand guns might be scary. I understand that people might not want to own guns. We all understand that if you are faced with someone pointing a gun at you the only equalizing force would be to have a gun of your own. Therefore many people that are scared or don’t want to own a gun have decided that nobody should have them. It puts them at a disadvantage.

We all know that banning and confiscating all guns in this country isn’t going to happen. We also know that in order for gun control to actually be effective at preventing gun related crime you’d probably have to go down that path.

Can I accept some small gun control acts? I might if I actually believed it would help but since I don’t think it would help, I see no need to trample on people’s rights.

[Author]

Posts