By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I wonder how our buddy Len is doing lately? BTW, I was happy to see that laurasdadda seems to be doing better (see the Luxury Lounge Forum). I hardly ever look at that forum anymore. I suppose when I get a new car again a year or two down the road, I will visit there more often. Speaking of "buddies", do you know how or what dewey is doing these days?
I think one solution would be to go to a flat 15% individual tax, with a rate a bit higher for corporations, and dumping the entire existing code. After one or two years of that, then start tweaking stuff to lessen the burden on the lower middle class, offset by a higher rate on high income earners.
Meanwhile fight tooth and nail to limit deductions from getting tacked on, like the home interest deduction, that mostly benefits wealthy taxpayers.
All the out of work tax preparers and IRS workers could become stock brokers.
It's just as screwed up as our heath care system. What a country!
Regards,
OW
No, sadly, I haven't heard any more from Dewey. I think the Luxury Lounge may have lost some of its appeal... especially after "what happened" there, and the luxury auto segment isn't exactly the most exciting topic at this point in time, IMO. Speaking for myself, I am less inclined to post there, and actually prefer to post here.
I did see LD's post and replied shortly after you. I also saw your invitation and link to this forum... that was a good idea... and I hope he picks up on it and posts here on occassion.
Regarding Apple, I'm only making my best guess based upon what I know and what I read. My confidence was increased today. Yesterday I posted that I expected the PowerBooks to get a performance boost, and Apple's website announced it today! Admittedly, the market still gives me a bit of the jitters... more than I would like. But, in spite of my occassional anxiety, I'm invested in stocks pretty darned heavy at this point... some might say very heavy.
I am starting to consider that there might be fundamental reasons for the market to hit 13K by next summer. Consider that we could be in for some very good earnings reports that will continue to improve subsequently with each quarter. And, the consumer might be coming back, willing to spend. Maybe enough to give housing a modest lift? Maybe so. But there might be a "correction" between now and a 13K Dow. Unemployment will still be a problem for a while, IMO.
TM
Can I have a personal female bodyguard, and deduct her salary?
Shame on me.
TM
It would be a tremendous economic boost for the U.S. and would generate more revenue for the government. There are so many tax loopholes now that a good tax lawyer can set the rich up by paying very low or no taxes. The flat tax would put a stop to that.
Will it happen? Only if we demand it. It is the last thing politicians want because it takes their power away. Power that they use to play off one group against another. They give tax breaks to those that back them and punish those who do not.
I fear our country is too corrupt to ever entertain a flat or fair tax plan....but I hope I am wrong.
Excellent points.
I also fear that the corruption is too deep for a flat tax to ever see the light of day... unless politicians truly see that it can increase revenues, thereby giving them more capability to wastefully spend even more of our tax dollars on special interests and worthless programs.
Lobbying is more evidence of the corruption...not to mention a good look in history's rearview mirror... a long trail of corruption blazed with scandal after scandal.
Corruption and scandal in our government (in addition to pathetic tax policy) is pitiful, shameful and tragic. It's a global embarassment.
TM
So, if I read a page every day, I can finish reading it in a little over 46 years! But wait!... by that time, the tax code will be twice as long, and it will therefore take over 92 years to finish.
A flat tax could be written on one page...
Attention U.S taxpayers: You are required to pay 13% of your income... period.
TM
I'm not quite so upbeat on Apple. I remember when the stock was around $12 and Bill Gates invested $300 million in the company to keep them afloat. IPad reviews are pretty mixed, desktops aren't a hot item, and laptops are getting a lot of pressure from the netbooks, and Apple doesn't really have a toehold in that market yet. My biggest concern would be Jobs' health though.
I don't put a lot of faith in medical statistics, since many of them are based on old data. 5 years is the predicted expectancy after a liver transplant but you know that many recipients live decades. David Crosby is going on 15 years now.
The guy that took over in Jobs' six month absence did a good job, but the company is still a big bet on one person - when Warren Buffett or Martha Steward die or quit, their companies will likely take a hit.
Bill Gates transitioned out with lots of notice, and while he's still closely associated with Microsoft, the company didn't miss any beats when Ballmer took over (some would say it's been on life support for years anyway though).
All it's going to take is some nasty rumor that Jobs' pancreatic cancer is back and there's going to lots of shares dumped.
I do love all the grief that Apple is giving Adobe. I really hate Acrobat and don't much care for Flash either.
After Steve's ultimate departure, which I hope is a long time from now, Apple will have the incredible internal talent that operates behind the scenes come forward a step, and there will be a new level of progress that is currently under Steve's thumb.
The MacBook Air is an example of an unfullfilled potential. Apple shouldn't be mocking netbooks, when they should reduce the screen size of the MacBook Air a couple of inches, make sure it has all the latest wireless connectivity, and cut the price down to size as well. It could still take a large percentage of the market, but Steve is likely the reason that they missed the boat. In addition, the iPad could easily have a version with a physical keyboard that hinges, and a screen that swivels, making it a convertible tablet/netbook. Once again, our boy wonder is likely the obstacle.
The iPhone's exclusive deal with AT&T might have been good for a while, but it went way too long. It is welcome news that Verizon will most likely get the iPhone late this year or early next year... should have happened earlier, but once again our boy genius was at work. And no one disagrees that it took much too long to convince Steve that multitasking was sorely missing on the iPhone... and we will finally see a limited scope of it this summer.
And don't forget just how long it took for wonder boy to finally see the advantage of using "Intel Inside"... and my goodness it has made a huge difference.
In the end, some may say he always makes the right call, but I totally disagree with that. The market might recoil if he makes an unfortunate early departure, but it won't take all that long for Apple to prove that it is a company chock full of Mac-heads, and they will continue to deliver the goods... maybe even better.
In fact, if Steve makes an early departure and as a result the stock takes a big hit, I will buy a ton of Apple stock at what would be a temporary bargain price.
Martha Stewart is a different scenario. Apple isn't known as Steve Jobs Incorporated, and ultimately Apple will one day be shown to be a whole lot more than just Steve Jobs... in fact, it's inevitable.
TM
U.S Economy --- it seems pretty certain that deficits are here to stay for a long, long time. Whether carrying huge deficits for decades into the future actually causes grievous harm is debatable. With very short exceptions, we have operated under deficit since 1970.
One thing for sure -- cutting the deficit is not politically possible in our current environment in Washington, no matter which side you are on. No one will raise taxes, no one will dare mess with Medicare or SS, and no one will support a VAT.
So we are stuck with huge deficits well into the future, possibly forever, IMO. We are politically powerless to rectify it, and no "tea party" or libertarian movement is any better, since they don't have the will to do what is necessary either. In fact, they'd probably make it worse.
Now, in response to your post...
Let's consider the specific effects a balanced budget would have on our economy.
I am curious... what do you (and others here) think would happen?
TM
(oh, there was a software changeover back on April 13, 2001, so most of the long term members' Profiles will show that as their anniversary date. Shifty's been here longer than that even.)
A balanced budget just might give them the idea to tax the hell out of us in order to pay for any and all wild spending. You would get a letter from the IRS at year end that said, "Looks like we are going to be a little short this year. Please send a check for $25,000. to cover your portion of the deficit". :sick:
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Sooner or later, reality will set in. In the meantime, there's nothing to say that we can't be holding our own, or even prospering---just not in the same way or at the same rate.
Huge deficits don't mean calamity, but they will affect how we do business and how we run government.
Anyone who offers you a solution based on cutting taxes is pretty naive.
As it was for all of us using the site back then. In fact, the Edmunds software was changed & everyone active back then got the same start date, regardless of reality. I started in Feb of '00. Some have been on here since '98 or '99, maybe earlier.
TM
Edmunds used to use a thing called Well-Engaged to manage the forums -- stone age compared to what we're using now. One of the "features" was the need to restart a discussion after it accumulated 500-600 postings. This one would be at #2, but we'd be up to about Stories From the Sales Frontlines #107 by now.
Some change is good.
Today's big selloff might be a good chance to buy some more stocks. There is no way to know just how far this latest problem will bring the market down, but I think the downside reaction is larger than the problem. I hope I am right about this.
I just bought a huge boatload of shares at the market's current lowest point of the day. Of course there might be more downside, and if there is any further major decline, I will buy even more.
At this point, I am very heavily invested in the stock market, and I am invested with a much longer-term outlook than I have done previously. Of course, if there is a major crisis, I will get out... but my goal is to stay the course and buy even more on significant downturns.
I look forward to being heavily in the market when the Dow finally hits 14K.
Next two weeks should be very interesting.
TM
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36597402
Of course... That IS the factor... and I think there is a very good chance that the market has over reacted to this news, which is everywhere.
In fact, at this moment, the market has already gained back a fair amount of the downside. But, this will likely need to sort itself out for a little while longer.
In any event, I am a buyer at every major downturn, and I bought a lot more stocks today... exactly at the market low. Well, at least so far it was the market low. Once it closes, I'll know for sure.
Ultimately, this is a good thing, IMO, not a bad thing. It's a cleansing process that leads to a better situation. There is no no true justification for Goldman's situation to bring down other healthy segment stocks, and stocks in general, that are not implicated. It's a natural over reaction, and those other healthy stocks should rise after the dust settles... and that is what makes me a big buyer.
TM
How do you calculate that mortgage interest benefits the wealthy to a larger degree?
PS
I came to Edmund's in 1998.
Interesting to note that the last 10,000 years of human progress were based upon a stable climate and stable earth. It doesn't have to be that way all the time.
With the way things are devolving, the 47% doesn't irk me terribly...those 47% also own virtually none of the wealth. I'd like to see more demographic info about that 47%, but I haven't been able to locate anything.
Can this be true?
Does anyone remember how a blackout in NYC in the late 70's lead to riots that shut down entire areas of NYC?
Does anyone doubt that a small terrorist attack (think nerve gas in the Pentagon, for example) could cripple the system?
Here's an article I found today that explains how a higher percentage of people may not have to pay tax than before. It's doesn't discuss the demographics in terms of location, race, etc., but does link it to the current economy and job losses and tax code changes .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2010-04-16-editorial16_ST_N.htm
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Surprising...or maybe not...to see that over 20% of those were in the 75K+ group, too, and 5% were over 200K.
I wonder how it compares to previous years.
In that sense, the financial attack I mean, their plan worked. It did indeed stress our economy at very little cost to them.
Capitalist funding flees distress and chaos. Capitalism is highly effective and highly resilient, perhaps more than any other economic system, but it has, in my opinion, one grave weakness----it has no loyalties.
This is why I never ever believed that a global economy was going to be depression-proof or any more stable than gold mine speculations in the 1840s.
I did not buy any more stocks today but I am pretty certain I will on Monday. BTW, have you seen that SIRI (Sirius/XM) has traded to over a $dollar in recent days? My initial investment has doubled in value and I bought some more at 90 cents recently. I could see that stock reach $3-4 in the next year or two. I believe that they have passed the danger point of going under. They will survive and become more profitable. I am contributing to their small success to this point since I have a subscription on both our cars. I love listening to the variety of programs (especially sports) on long trips.
TM
The standard deduction for a married couple is so high that you don't get any tax benefit unless you own a more expensive home. A few years ago anyone could buy a MacMansion, but now you have to have the dough to swing the loan.
There's a lot of links out there and this one is a few years old, but it's a good one to start with:
"The most recent IRS data show few low- and middle-income taxpayers benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction."
Who Benefits from the Home Mortgage Interest Deduction? (Tax Foundation)
The most recent IRS data show few low- and middle-income taxpayers benefit from the home mortgage interest deduction. Those who filed tax returns with under $30,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) in 2003 received just 9 percent of deductions for home mortgage interest, despite filing 52 percent of all tax returns. (The median taxpayer’s AGI was approximately $29,000 in 2003.) In contrast, 36 percent of home mortgage interest deductions were claimed by taxpayers with AGIs over $100,000.1
Table 1 illustrates the regressive nature of the home mortgage interest deduction. Those in lower income groups claim few deductions, while those earning over $75,000 in AGI claim the vast majority.
According to the 2009 tax statistics:
61.8% of those making from $20k to $30k last year paid NO income tax. So it stands to reason that the tax benefits of deducting home mortgage interest would benefit those above that threshold.
It looks to me, about 30% of those in the real middle class, from $40k to $75k adjusted gross income are taking advantage of that deduction. That means the standard deduction is less. Which gets around to the Liberal argument against larger homes. Having a nice home is part of the American dream that so many other countries can only wish for. The interest deduction is somewhat of a leveling mechanism between different geographic areas. My deduction is probably larger than someone in Minnesota for an equal home. I have a cousin that lives in a 5000 sq ft home with lake frontage. His home cost less than half what I paid for a 3000 sq ft home with a view of the ocean 32 miles away.
So if the generous standard deduction is better than my interest deduction maybe it is somewhat fair. I can tell you I would do much better with a flat tax, and those making less would not do so well.
You're very welcome.
I just happened to find this article linked on realclearpolitics.com today. What I had found interesting was the technique of using a threshold income amount to analyze the creep that has occured in the "pay no taxes" level for some people (others below that threshold do pay if they don't qualify for deductions or credits). Also interesting was the congressional timeline and the president in office passing the bills for the creep and raising the values for the deductions or credits.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I told him to invest at least half of that windfall in some kind of fund for the future.
Let's call it out for what it really is--- a way of life we've embraced since the early 1980s.
Every "bubble" as we call them, starts with an idea, that something BIG is out there, or is going to happen.
Our bubble idea was that the Growth Machine would never stop growing, and so deficit spending was no big deal. (Does this sound like a macro of the housing market?)
Now nobody's so sure this idea is sustainable. Maybe "growth" needs a whole new definition.
So much churn, such expensive satellites in orbit that cost a fortune to replace if (when...) one blinks out and so much competition (including HD radio and net radio that's coming). And they have ads. :sick:
I really like the fundamentals for stocks still, believe there's room for expansion of another 8% or so overall in the Dow and double that in Nasdaq, but this Goldman Sachs thing scares me a lot more than it seems to scare you guys. I look at the fact that a small fry was charged, not as good news for GS, but as potentially very bad news as I expect that we'll find he was indicted as a set-up for a nice plea bargain in exchange for evidence much higher up the chain, perhaps to the top. The more GS fights this the more they are going to find they are in quicksand IMO. I think GS positions in commodities and derivatives, much more than stocks, have to be feared and I think any client that had major losses in a GS recommended position may ask the SEC to investigate. Given all the losses last year, that is going to be a heck of a list. Lot of shady signs here by the SEC in what overall is not a big deal of a case. The fact that they warned GS about a possible indictment a year ago and then pulled the trump card out on Friday, with no chance for a quiet settlement means there's a lot more to come. Plus they already have Blankfein in a lie in which he says he stated back in January in a congressional hearing that "of course we have an obligation to fully disclose what an instrument is and to be honest in our dealings" etc. But of course GS never told the clients the mortgage selections were made by a hedge fund manager that was planning to short the positions GS was recommending and selling, and hence was picking the worst of the worst. GS fully knew this and there are e-mails that show how uncomfortable the indicted employee (Tourre) was in going forward with the transaction. So I'm not taking this as lighly and again I think it's derivatives and commodities, an area that GS is really corrupt in, that I would worry about the most. Paulson is filthy as hell in this but in this case it's GS that was stupid enough to set up a monster risk for a small profit just to please him. He basically used GS the way the mob uses a hitman.
BTW - let's not forget that the EU bailed out the banks that lost big money on this transcation, so they are almost guaranteed to take action also, and remember that they are already investigating GS involvment in Greece back in 2002.
I am optimistic on the market, at least as far as stocks are concerned, and I think that there is no fundamental justification for healthy companies that are improving their bottom line to suffer as a result of the GS issue.
If healthy stocks take a beating as a result of this, I will consider it an opportunity to buy a whole bunch more.
Frankly, I think this whole SEC thing is poltically motivated. In the wake of the financial crisis, I am certainly not saying that there isn't any reason for it, but IMO this looks like the perfect excuse for more political interference again from the Whilte House, in order to bolster Obama's case for some sort of banking/investment reform legislation.
I am not yet drawing any solid conclusions yet, but even if GS committed fraud, I have the feeling that it will be blown way out of proportion and GS may become the perfect scapegoat.
TM
Could be - Germany and Britain are considering taking legal action against Goldman. Gordon Brown is in the middle of an election with voting May 6. Merkel on the other hand was re-elected in '09 and still has ~3 years of her second term left. She's popular at home, and trying to recover bank losses against Goldman won't hurt her party any.
In other international news, the financial meltdown in Iceland made lots of people in Britain and the EU mad; Eyjafjallajokull can't be helping any either. :P
I mean, doesn't Wall St. even blush anymore? This is getting outrageous. This is the most basic violation of the small investors' trust.
This is a new low. The once frivolous comparison of Wall St. to Las Vegas now could have some validity. The house *does* always win and the game is rigged? Could be.
As the often wiggy Jesse Ventura might say: "You think you're safe? Think again!"
Quick! Somebody give me a good definition of a "Banana Republic". :P
Please tell me you had to look up the spelling on that and didn't know it by memory.
That's a mouthful, or keyboardfull in this case.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
“Targeting GS, given the flurry of anti-Wall Street press that has centered around that firm, offers the publicity that the administration needs at this critical juncture,” Freeman says in a note to clients today.