[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

[/quote]

Tax deferred any different? I don’t think so. I don’t see how. If they do go the route of a transaction tax, there should be some exemptions, for direct purchases of stock like IPO’s. That encourages growth. I could even endorse special tax treatment on the sale of IPO stock. (It existed at one time, I should know if it still does, but I don’t) I could see an exemption for small farmers selling stock and crops.

Oversight of derivatives? The contracts themselvess are non-regulated. Entirely. Except to the extent they are owned/traded by regulated entities like federally chartered banks, there is nobody watching.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

[/quote]

Tax deferred any different? I don’t think so. I don’t see how. If they do go the route of a transaction tax, there should be some exemptions, for direct purchases of stock like IPO’s. That encourages growth. I could even endorse special tax treatment on the sale of IPO stock. (It existed at one time, I should know if it still does, but I don’t) I could see an exemption for small farmers selling stock and crops.

Oversight of derivatives? The contracts themselvess are non-regulated. Entirely. Except to the extent they are owned/traded by regulated entities like federally chartered banks, there is nobody watching.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

[/quote]

Tax deferred any different? I don’t think so. I don’t see how. If they do go the route of a transaction tax, there should be some exemptions, for direct purchases of stock like IPO’s. That encourages growth. I could even endorse special tax treatment on the sale of IPO stock. (It existed at one time, I should know if it still does, but I don’t) I could see an exemption for small farmers selling stock and crops.

Oversight of derivatives? The contracts themselvess are non-regulated. Entirely. Except to the extent they are owned/traded by regulated entities like federally chartered banks, there is nobody watching.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]Sk-

What if the money is in a pre-tax deferred comp. plan? Does that change anything? Thanks for your insight. I do think there should be some oversight of derivatives, but the way I understand it, there are sufficient laws there if they are enforced. Furthermore, the SEC was approached about Madoff several years before his scheme was outed and the whistle blower was ignored.

[/quote]

Tax deferred any different? I don’t think so. I don’t see how. If they do go the route of a transaction tax, there should be some exemptions, for direct purchases of stock like IPO’s. That encourages growth. I could even endorse special tax treatment on the sale of IPO stock. (It existed at one time, I should know if it still does, but I don’t) I could see an exemption for small farmers selling stock and crops.

Oversight of derivatives? The contracts themselvess are non-regulated. Entirely. Except to the extent they are owned/traded by regulated entities like federally chartered banks, there is nobody watching.

[SK in CV]

[quote=surveyor]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

[/quote]

If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.

I don’t know how much race has to do with it. But when I hear phrases like “i want my country back”, it does make me pause and wonder. When I hear they want lower taxes, it makes me question their grip on reality. The timing is curious. It would have made sense 4 years ago. Grass roots it isn’t. Well informed, it isn’t. Understanding, it isn’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=surveyor]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

[/quote]

If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.

I don’t know how much race has to do with it. But when I hear phrases like “i want my country back”, it does make me pause and wonder. When I hear they want lower taxes, it makes me question their grip on reality. The timing is curious. It would have made sense 4 years ago. Grass roots it isn’t. Well informed, it isn’t. Understanding, it isn’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=surveyor]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

[/quote]

If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.

I don’t know how much race has to do with it. But when I hear phrases like “i want my country back”, it does make me pause and wonder. When I hear they want lower taxes, it makes me question their grip on reality. The timing is curious. It would have made sense 4 years ago. Grass roots it isn’t. Well informed, it isn’t. Understanding, it isn’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=surveyor]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

[/quote]

If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.

I don’t know how much race has to do with it. But when I hear phrases like “i want my country back”, it does make me pause and wonder. When I hear they want lower taxes, it makes me question their grip on reality. The timing is curious. It would have made sense 4 years ago. Grass roots it isn’t. Well informed, it isn’t. Understanding, it isn’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=surveyor]
The people who are part of the Tea Party understand that more taxes and more spending are not answers in making the U.S. economy better. They also understand that bigger government does not create more jobs and prosperity. They are also very alarmed at the high amount of debt that the U.S. has and they want that fixed yesterday.

[/quote]

If that is really the main issue of the tea partiers, where were they for the 8 years before this administration, when congress and the administration ran up debt, and spent and grew the size of government faster than any before them? As the deficit grew by 3 to 4 times what it had been during the previous 8 years and 50% higher than every other administration before, besides Bush the senior’s 4 years in office.

I don’t know how much race has to do with it. But when I hear phrases like “i want my country back”, it does make me pause and wonder. When I hear they want lower taxes, it makes me question their grip on reality. The timing is curious. It would have made sense 4 years ago. Grass roots it isn’t. Well informed, it isn’t. Understanding, it isn’t.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]I am not a trader, more of a holder, but I think anything that restricts trading, acts as a brake and keeps more money out of circulation. I do not think it is either good or bad, just neutral (trading). I think taxing food is stupid and regressive. It’s not like we can stop eating. Smoking yes, eating no. Should we tax unhealthy food? I think we already do and then where do we draw the line? Time for the Libertarians to weigh in on this topic.[/quote]

You trade (mostly) with cash. If the cash is in a bank or in a money market account somewhere, it is in circulation. That cash is part of the reserves that the bank has to loan, or the money market account uses to buy (lend) short term paper. If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation. It can no longer be lent. If you sell one stock and buy another, there is no increase in money supply. Nothing has been created other than a few cents in fees to the brokers. The stock market is a reflection of the economy. It is not the economy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]I am not a trader, more of a holder, but I think anything that restricts trading, acts as a brake and keeps more money out of circulation. I do not think it is either good or bad, just neutral (trading). I think taxing food is stupid and regressive. It’s not like we can stop eating. Smoking yes, eating no. Should we tax unhealthy food? I think we already do and then where do we draw the line? Time for the Libertarians to weigh in on this topic.[/quote]

You trade (mostly) with cash. If the cash is in a bank or in a money market account somewhere, it is in circulation. That cash is part of the reserves that the bank has to loan, or the money market account uses to buy (lend) short term paper. If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation. It can no longer be lent. If you sell one stock and buy another, there is no increase in money supply. Nothing has been created other than a few cents in fees to the brokers. The stock market is a reflection of the economy. It is not the economy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]I am not a trader, more of a holder, but I think anything that restricts trading, acts as a brake and keeps more money out of circulation. I do not think it is either good or bad, just neutral (trading). I think taxing food is stupid and regressive. It’s not like we can stop eating. Smoking yes, eating no. Should we tax unhealthy food? I think we already do and then where do we draw the line? Time for the Libertarians to weigh in on this topic.[/quote]

You trade (mostly) with cash. If the cash is in a bank or in a money market account somewhere, it is in circulation. That cash is part of the reserves that the bank has to loan, or the money market account uses to buy (lend) short term paper. If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation. It can no longer be lent. If you sell one stock and buy another, there is no increase in money supply. Nothing has been created other than a few cents in fees to the brokers. The stock market is a reflection of the economy. It is not the economy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]I am not a trader, more of a holder, but I think anything that restricts trading, acts as a brake and keeps more money out of circulation. I do not think it is either good or bad, just neutral (trading). I think taxing food is stupid and regressive. It’s not like we can stop eating. Smoking yes, eating no. Should we tax unhealthy food? I think we already do and then where do we draw the line? Time for the Libertarians to weigh in on this topic.[/quote]

You trade (mostly) with cash. If the cash is in a bank or in a money market account somewhere, it is in circulation. That cash is part of the reserves that the bank has to loan, or the money market account uses to buy (lend) short term paper. If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation. It can no longer be lent. If you sell one stock and buy another, there is no increase in money supply. Nothing has been created other than a few cents in fees to the brokers. The stock market is a reflection of the economy. It is not the economy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Aecetia]I am not a trader, more of a holder, but I think anything that restricts trading, acts as a brake and keeps more money out of circulation. I do not think it is either good or bad, just neutral (trading). I think taxing food is stupid and regressive. It’s not like we can stop eating. Smoking yes, eating no. Should we tax unhealthy food? I think we already do and then where do we draw the line? Time for the Libertarians to weigh in on this topic.[/quote]

You trade (mostly) with cash. If the cash is in a bank or in a money market account somewhere, it is in circulation. That cash is part of the reserves that the bank has to loan, or the money market account uses to buy (lend) short term paper. If you then use the cash to buy existing shares of stock, the argument can be made that you have taken money OUT of circulation. It can no longer be lent. If you sell one stock and buy another, there is no increase in money supply. Nothing has been created other than a few cents in fees to the brokers. The stock market is a reflection of the economy. It is not the economy.

[SK in CV]

[quote=captcha]

That’s possible. I assumed 27% federal tax (some was taxed at 25%, some at 28%), 10% CA, $3K credit for three kids, $6K in education expenses for my wife and $2K for me. I had to pay a small fine since I owed $12K, combined.

It felt bad, the side business has little growth potential, I spent most of my ‘free’ time on it and I probably made less than $10/hour, after taxes.[/quote]

Biggest flaw in the calculation is with regards to the education costs. The most you can get is a $2,000 credit or a $4,000 deduction, regardless of how much you spend.

And in order to go from full child tax credits of $1,000 per child to zero, your income has to go up by $20,000 per child. 3 kids, thats $60,000 of additional income needed in order to wipe out the credit entirely. Adds about 5% to your effective tax rate.

27% federal, 10% state, 5% child care credit, 14% effective self employment tax rate, maximum of about 2% for the tuition credits, total of 58%.

[Author]

Posts