Thanks for posting this. If this is the entire article, it says nothing about what it might mean for jobs from a historical perspective. I do not feel like subscribing to the Journal online so I assume what you posted is the entire article. I was lead to believe it talked about what it might mean for jobs and small business. After all, that has been the point of the discussion the past several days.
Given the distressingly sluggish economy recovery, few see this as a propitious moment to increase taxes on anyone. But given the pressure to do something to reduce the budget deficit and the political appeal to Democrats of socking it to the rich, the argument is over how much damage raising upper-bracket taxes would do.
This is what I was saying yesterday. He'll raise taxes and hope for the best. Never does it seem to occur to him or Congress that cutting spending is a much better way to reduce the deficit. And TM is 100% right. Any new money they get will simply be wasted away on other things rather than used to close the deficit. Very few Admins know how to save and this is the biggest spending Admin ever. It's like giving more money to an alcholic. Does anyone in his right mind think he'll spend in on getting care.
I don't have WSJ either. I just googled Bush tax cuts and that was the top story: I think this is the entire article.
President George W. Bush left behind a ticking time bomb that is set for Dec. 31, 2010. If Congress does nothing, taxes on wages, capital gains and dividends will leap, the estate tax will be resurrected at a 55% rate and the pesky alternative minimum tax will hit an additional 21 million taxpayers on 2010 returns.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have an interest in letting that happen. Doing nothing would, Goldman Sachs economists estimate, amount to a tax increase equal to 2.5% of gross domestic product, the value of goods and services produced each year. But what Congress will do and when well, as one official puts it, this has become a gigantic Rubik's cube that everyone is twisting at the same time.
This is Washington, so take the politics first.
Despite misgivings from some Democrats, the Obama administration is pressing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone with an income under $250,000 a year and to raise taxes on those above. Taxing the rich is red meat to the Democrats' left. Energizing them for the November congressional elections is key for the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A recent Pew/National Journal poll found that only 11% of Democrats favor extending all the Bush tax cuts.
Republicans are happily staking out the no-new-taxes turf, playing to their traditional constituency. Pew says 52% of Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts. Republicans are convinced they can win votes by simultaneously blaming Democrats for the deficit and accusing of them of being tax raisers.
House Democrats are torn between taking a vote before the elections (so members can boast of having stopped a middle-class tax increase) and waiting for the Senate (so Democrats from rich suburban districts don't get stuck voting to raise taxes on over-$250,000 voters only to find the Senate will extend them for everyone.) Senate Democratic leaders promise a September vote, but it's far from clear they have the needed 60 votes.
The smart money in Washington says nothing gets done before a postelection lame-duck session.
Given the distressingly sluggish economy recovery, few see this as a propitious moment to increase taxes on anyone. But given the pressure to do something to reduce the budget deficit and the political appeal to Democrats of socking it to the rich, the argument is over how much damage raising upper-bracket taxes would do.
"Extending the tax cuts would provide some demand-side stimulus," says Donald Marron, who sat on the Bush Council of Economic Advisers and now heads the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "All else equal, the cuts that go to middle- and low-income taxpayers are likely to provide more demand-side stimulus in the near term, because they are less likely to be saved."
Republicans focus less on consumer demand, and more on the impact of taxes on business hiring and investment. They observe loudly that raising upper-bracket tax rates hits ever-popular small businesses, whose profits show up on their individual returns. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, accuses President Barack Obama of pushing "job-killing tax hikes." But Leonard Burman, a Syracuse University economist who worked in the Clinton Treasury, counters that academic evidence "suggests strongly that higher marginal income-tax rates on high-income entrepreneurs are unlikely to result in significantly less employment or risk taking."
In fact, fewer small businesses would be hit than the rhetoric implies. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that only 3% of taxpayers who show business income on their returns would be touched by the Obama tax increase, though these 750,000 taxpayers account for half of the $1 trillion in business income reported on personal tax returns.
And then there's the deficit. Raising taxes on the over-$250,000 crowd isn't going to cure it. The price tag on the Obama-backed extension of Mr. Bush's middle-class tax cuts and stopping the alternative minimum tax from reaching down into the middle class is $2.5 trillion over 10 years, the Joint Tax Committee says. Unofficial estimates circulating on Capitol Hill say that's about 85% of the price tag for extendingall the Bush tax cuts.
The administration argues that symbolism matters as much as dollars. It'll be hard for the U.S. government to persuade anyone that it takes the long-term deficit seriously if it won't even let a tax cut on the best-off Americans expire on schedule. Though he doesn't say so explicitly, Mr. Obama knows he is unlikely to wrestle down the deficit without also raising taxes on folks making less than $250,000 at some point.
So what happens? Political gridlock, wavering Senate Democrats, deficit angst and a gnawing sense that the tax code is due for an overhaul could combine to make a one- or two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts—perhaps all of them, perhaps only those Mr. Obama likes—likely.
This could tee up a massive tax and deficit package after the 2012 presidential elections. But one problem with that politically expedient solution: It would exacerbate the already overwhelming uncertainty hanging over the economy and discouraging business hiring and investment.
The way the climate researchers have been discredited, my opinion is that all of the data is suspect and cannot be trusted.
The earth has always gone thru warming and cooling cycles and always will, I hope. Climates are warming on other planets in the solar system as well, and this is certainly without man's help....but if someone could figure out a way to make a buck by blaming it on man, they probably would.
You aren`t alone, as I --in the past--have been an admirer of Obama, and generally fault Greenspan, and Bush for the situation we find ourselves in.....All my life I have been trusting that taxes , as they are re-formulated, would be cut in ways that would overall produce a surplus.....Lately I have been wrong to have any trust, and I attribute that to the computer that is like a bright light in the bedroom...I had great hopes for Obama, and am disappointed in he, and the Democratic controlled congress.. Just call a tax increase a `tax increase` It will make it that much harder to accumulate a `nest egg` for your later years in life....Believe me ....Tony
Republicans focus less on consumer demand, and more on the impact of taxes on business hiring and investment. They observe loudly that raising upper-bracket tax rates hits ever-popular small businesses, whose profits show up on their individual returns. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, accuses President Barack Obama of pushing "job-killing tax hikes." But Leonard Burman, a Syracuse University economist who worked in the Clinton Treasury, counters that academic evidence "suggests strongly that higher marginal income-tax rates on high-income entrepreneurs are unlikely to result in significantly less employment or risk taking."
In fact, fewer small businesses would be hit than the rhetoric implies. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that only 3% of taxpayers who show business income on their returns would be touched by the Obama tax increase, though these 750,000 taxpayers account for half of the $1 trillion in business income reported on personal tax returns.
These are the key two paragraphs that I was looking for. There is no sense to argue anymore than we have already. I respect the opinion of all you guys (Gary, Len, TM, Houdini, etc.). I also hope taxes are not raised on anyone. But if they are, I hope the above thinking is correct and that there will be a minimal impact on small business and the economy.
.I had great hopes for Obama, and am disappointed in he, and the Democratic controlled congress.. Just call a tax increase a `tax increase` It will make it that much harder to accumulate a `nest egg` for your later years in life....Believe me
I know that millions out there are disappointed Tony. But I ask myself this question many times: Where would this nation be today without the big stimulus package and bailouts early in 2009? I know that Len for one would have gone about it a different way (Forgot the details. Maybe his plan would have been much better and as I told him, he would make a terrific Secretary Treasurer). I have a strong feeling however, that if this Administration had not taken the very quick actions they did early in the new Presidency, we would now be a in new Great Depression. In any case, it is only about 2 years until a new election and the American people can choose to go in a different direction if they like.
BTW, I will repeat again what I had told you before. You are a wonderful, kind hearted human being.
I actually agree with some of the stimulus, but let's be clear here. TARP was signed into law by Bush on October 3, 2008... not by Obama. Prior to that, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was signed into law by Bush on February 13, 2008... not by Obama.
Obama should be lowering taxes right now, not raising them. He should be creating and implementing large and simple-to-use tax incentives to cause the kind of behavior that gets businesses energized and expanding... and therefore hiring.
He should be attempting to put a halt to wasteful spending.
He should be focused on getting our nation energy independent as soon as possible, before certain folks in a certain part of the planet profoundly mess with us.
Heck, the way he sat back and watched BP nearly destroy the Gulf gave me another good clue about him.
I`m not giving up on Obama ...I am hopeful that what ever actually happens gets him back on track to what his true potential is.....Given the circumstances of the BP tragedy, I think he did a reasonable response, once he got going....Nothing is perfect, but overall we are on the mend so far.
Taxes are what they are, but life only blesses a person rarely, and the taxes then take a much bigger slice than it would appear...Lately the guys making the huge bucks have not been paying their share...I am...but the tax code should encompass all in a fair way...Not pit the wealthy against the rest of the people, or the rest of the people against the wealthy......I would imagine at one point in all our lives we were `the rest of the people` Thanks Tony
I am...but the tax code should encompass all in a fair way...Not pit the wealthy against the rest of the people, or the rest of the people against the wealthy......I would imagine at one point in all our lives we were `the rest of the people`
I agree and that's why we should have TM's flat tax implemented.
In fact, fewer small businesses would be hit than the rhetoric implies. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that only 3% of taxpayers who show business income on their returns would be touched by the Obama tax increase, though these 750,000 taxpayers account for half of the $1 trillion in business income reported on personal tax returns
Charlie,
Re-read what you posted. I think you missed it. The key word in the bold is "though". The 3% are responsible for half of all income as pointed out and I will bet you the ranch that 3% is also responsible for 80-90% of the hirings we are talking about in small business. Understand that these guys are counting the corner newstand as small business. My definition of small business is very different than theirs. It's businesses that hire permanent full time skilled labor and dominate job hirings in the US, and because they are small and serve the US primarily - they also keep those jobs here.
Note my post yesterday where I laid out the money available to a profitable small business that also has bank obligations and ratios to meet. Whoever this Burman guy is, he's dealing with the past and free flowing credit combined with bank covenant ratios that were loose. We have the eaxct opposite today. We d'ont have free flowing credit and all tax increases do is restrict bank covenant ratios even more to the detriment of expansion. I'd love for this guy to show me how raising taxes on profitable small businesses with loans is going to enable them to hire. He must be using hocus pocus because the math doesn't work.
In CA there are thousands of small businesses in the construction trades that are hanging on by a thread and a prayer. Any tax increase could send many over the edge. Many people think the extra tax money will come from the fat cats like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates. Nothing could be further from the truth. Those guys gauge their income to fit their expenses and minimize their tax liability. It has nothing to do with their net worth. People seem to think the higher tax will be taken from these billionaires assets. It will be the guy that owns the local plumbing business. The same one that is going to be strapped with untold more forms and regulations under the HC plan. This may be the final straw that breaks the small business man's back. Don't count on anyone at Walmart to fall into that $250k bracket aside from the 4-5 family members and a handful of executives. I personally know a plumber and an electrician that laid off everyone working for them and only take whatever work they can personally handle. Having a few employees has become unprofitable with all the hassles involved.
My prediction, the higher taxes and added paperwork will push more into the cash trade. If you need some plumbing work and company "A" will do it for $100 cash and company "B" wants $200 and takes a credit card. Which will you pick? Bartering is already making a lot of headway. Look for more.
If/when things ever get going again, they better not be so dependent upon those construction trades...it may sound harsh, but a lot of those jobs shouldn't have existed to begin with. People thought that housing market would go on forever.
This has nothing to do with Obama. I don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican President. They will not pass a flat tax due to the fact that there would be no tax loopholes for the very wealthy people. Why didn't Bush try to pass a flat tax?
Re-read what you posted. I think you missed it. The key word in the bold is "though".
I did read that statement, but I was focusing more on the study from the Syracuse University economist whose study determined that a tax increase would have little or no effect on job hirings. Obviously, you think that this is totally bogus.
As a matter of fact GW Bush did push for a Flat Tax in his second run at the WH. No one paid any attention.
Bush Reiterates Call for a Simpler Tax System President Says Current Laws Are a 'Complicated Mess'
By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 6, 2004; Page A04
PARKERSBURG, W.Va., Sept. 5 -- President Bush reasserted his call Sunday for a simpler tax system, and aides said he is considering pushing for a flat tax, which would set the same income-tax rate for most taxpayers, as a major priority if he were to win a second term.
In arguing for a rewrite of tax laws, Bush said that they are "a complicated mess" and "full of special-interest loopholes."
I am sure it cost him votes from those that live off of the rest of US, not paying any income tax.
I did read that statement, but I was focusing more on the study from the Syracuse University economist whose study determined that a tax increase would have little or no effect on job hirings. Obviously, you think that this is totally bogus.
I run the math on it and it doesn't work. Small business isn't hiring much now because it's strangled by tough loans, high interest rates on loans run thru hedge funds rather than banks and tough financial covenants, and those that aren't strangled are on guard against this tax increase. We had a meeting with 15 other businesses, most capable of hiring on a limited basis and everyone said they want clarification from Congress on what's going on with taxes and want to see freer lending before they'd do so. We ourselves have a potential TV station product that would require a $400K investment in 3 people and w'ont enact right now because it's an adjacent space rather than a crucial strategic move for us. With greater clarity on taxes and a feeling that Obama was pro business we'd do this in a heartbeat. Others we talked to in our area had similar product ideas and the same feeling on holding off on pulling any triggers. This is just a small sample in a NY suburb. Amplify that sample across the US and one can see how stifling the current administration is.
Cost cutting will lead to stronger Balance Sheets over time and that will draw banks back in eventually. But if taxes are raised than any small business going to cheaper lending will simply see that eroded by higher taxes. If a small business can't get out from under high interest rates from the frozen credit era and has to face higher taxes to boot, forget it. That's a death knell to job growth IMO.
As for the Syracuse economist - I'd love for him to show me his proof and I'd love to see what the past lending practices were in any examples he gives. Maybe in any examples he's using folks financed the tax increases.That's impossible now. And coming out of the worst economy in 70-80 years and facing an increase in tax and a government that is interfering far too much under a near socialist President I d'ont see any chance on earth of what he is saying. I'm optomistic on the economy but it's limited to a bounce back with small revenue growth and huge incremental margins driven by major cost cutting (and I d'ont think we are done with employee cut backs yet). I d'ont see growth to where we were let alone past that point. We need firm decision making by Obama that favors business enhancement and freer lending before any chance of getting the economy back to near where it was pe-crash and that will take years as it is. A tax increase will put us back a decade IMO.
everyone said they want clarification from Congress on what's going on with taxes and want to see freer lending before they'd do so.
I have been preaching this very thing since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007. The fear of higher taxes and the very negative attitude toward business has made an environment that is not healthy for new business or business expansion.
As far as lending. I have been working with Chase for 2 months to get my home refinanced at 60% of the current appraised value. Both my wife and I are over 800 credit score and we have enough cash in their bank to pay off the loan. My pension is easy to verify. My wife's income is from her deceased husband's trust. So we do a lot of swapping around to give the best return. They want to see steady income for 3 past years. The loan would cut our monthly payments by $1700 and they are still dragging their feet. I cannot imagine trying to get financing right now with bad credit or dicey financial history.
As for the Syracuse economist - I'd love for him to show me his proof and I'd love to see what the past lending practices were in any examples he gives. Maybe in any examples he's using folks financed the tax increases.That's impossible now.
Len, you have convinced me. We are dealing with a much more precarious economic environment now than what this guy has studied and what his statistics show. As I stated before, I sincerely hope that the Bush tax cuts are not allowed to expire for any income level.
Recovery loses speed as consumers turn cautious Recovery slows in second quarter to weakest pace in nearly a year as consumers turn cautious
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recovery lost momentum in the spring as growth slowed to a 2.4 percent pace, its most sluggish showing in nearly a year and too weak to drive down unemployment.
Consumers spent less, companies slowed their restocking of shelves and the nation's trade deficit dragged more on the economy in the April-to-June quarter. In a separate report, the Commerce Department said the recession was deeper than previously estimated.
Together, the reports raise doubts about whether employers will hire enough and consumers will spend enough to invigorate the economy. As unemployment remains near double digits, Congress could feel pressure to pass more stimulus measures to speed the recovery. So far, Republicans and some Democrats have blocked additional spending because of their concerns about the size of the deficit.
Investors reacted to the report with disappointment. Stock futures fell in the hour before the markets opened.
As I stated before, I sincerely hope that the Bush tax cuts are not allowed to expire for any income level.
That's definitely the smarter perspective. Glad you are aboard.
BTW, I have been buying a diversified group of stocks this morning during this third day of ho-hum market action. (I couldn't resist including AAPL in the mix).
BTW, I have been buying a diversified group of stocks this morning during this third day of ho-hum market action. (I couldn't resist including AAPL in the mix).
Although many news people report these statistics, don`t believe everything you read...Just look around---wherever you are- - and see the activity for yourself....Much of this reporting has a purpose behind it, and that is to create uncertainty , which makes for commissions.
One of the reasons I am disappointed in Obama, is that his administration spent so much time on the health bill, and neglected the final fixing and fine tuning the economic readjustments, which could have placed us on a more secure footing..addressing housing , and generally `encouraging` the banking industry to lend ,,,Tony
>neglected the final fixing and fine tuning the economic readjustments, which could have placed us on a more secure footing..addressing housing , and generally `encouraging` the banking industry to lend
A year late on this, isn't he? A push for real jobs creation and improvement last spring would have had things on an upswing. Instead we're treated to politicizing and all kinds of games to try to end run the Constitution. Even the aid to small business that didn't make it through the Democrat controlled house today or late yesterday was an effete, poorly molded bill with little loan incentive and lots of foottraps.
For Sopranos fans and from a comic relief standpoint, here's what this whole tax discussion reminds me of.
Paulie and a henchman go to rob the corner store which is now a Starbucks if I remember right. The kid at the cash register who has a gun pointed at him but who doesn't look scared looks at them and says "I can't open it, it's computer controlled, you need to buy something first". Paulie looks at the camera with a face that just makes you crack up. The Soprano's was almost a comedy in disguise. Obama is like the kid at the cash register. No experience to recognize, let alone deal with the danger that's right in front of his eyes and at the same time, like the kid at the the cash register he wants his handout and he'll worry about the consequences later.
This is what I was saying yesterday. He'll raise taxes and hope for the best. Never does it seem to occur to him or Congress that cutting spending is a much better way to reduce the deficit. And TM is 100% right. Any new money they get will simply be wasted away on other things rather than used to close the deficit. Very few Admins know how to save and this is the biggest spending Admin ever. It's like giving more money to an alcholic. Does anyone in his right mind think he'll spend in on getting care.
I'll take a position that is a bit more independent. It's kind of like the first law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed. In this case it is more like energy=economic vitality. So the Dems want to tax more and spend more, to "prime the pump". And that is going to bleed the wealthy even more dry, disturbing economic output. And the Repubs want to cut taxes, which will allow the rich to have more money -- but then the deficits get bigger and it is a bigger long term mess. It defers the pain and makes it bigger in the end.
The fact is that we have been living on borrowed time. Neither party's cute little games to help the economy are going to do anything more than create smoke and mirrors. Those tactics (from both parties) only add to the problem. We *are not* going to create more economic vitality than really exists as the actual productive output from our society. And there are a LOT of people riding on the government dole. And there are a LOT of rich riding high on exorbitant salaries and bonuses that have no relationship to the value they do (or don't) create. And sooner or later the house of cards is going to fix itself. And there is not a damn thing that either party is going to do to stop it.
So I say, take your own best defensive measures, and at least gain some entertainment value from the progressing train wreck. :surprise:
As far as lending. I have been working with Chase for 2 months to get my home refinanced at 60% of the current appraised value. Both my wife and I are over 800 credit score and we have enough cash in their bank to pay off the loan. My pension is easy to verify. My wife's income is from her deceased husband's trust. So we do a lot of swapping around to give the best return. They want to see steady income for 3 past years. The loan would cut our monthly payments by $1700 and they are still dragging their feet. I cannot imagine trying to get financing right now with bad credit or dicey financial history.
I have just dumped Chase for a credit union. They don't deserve my business, as they took bailouts. Screw the ba**ards.
So, let me warn you that this coming week could be tricky.
Several things might affect the markets.
One is China. China's latest PMI gets released tomorrow night. Could spell trouble, but will more likely come in above 50, and we'll avoid a big hit... hopefully.
Next, is Friday's jobs (not Steve... hahaha) report. Yes, we have to wait all week for this one. Better hope for something really terrific during the week, or else the market could have a small case of the jitters for much of the week, as it waits for Friday's jobs numbers. A bad report could wipe out a lot of recent gains.
Also, there's the Obama factor... ... too hard to predict what interference could be lurking from the White House. :surprise:
And the debate in Washington (and right here on this forum as well... LOL) about taxes will be getting heated up more and more during the week, and beyond.
Quality dividend-paying stocks might be the best bet this week, and long-term, of course.
Personally, I'm getting fond of the financials, and I've got my good bet in on American Tower (again), as I recently bought a sizeable number of shares.
By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, September 6, 2004; Page A04
PARKERSBURG, W.Va., Sept. 5 -- President Bush reasserted his call Sunday for a simpler tax system, and aides said he is considering pushing for a flat tax, which would set the same income-tax rate for most taxpayers, as a major priority if he were to win a second term.
Who controlled the Congress at that time? It's nice that Bush was in favor of a flat tax, but what happened? Absolutely nothing! Too many special interests groups do not want it.
As long as Attorneys are allowed to hang around Washington DC the tax code will be complex. It was written By Attorneys For Attorneys. A cash cow they will not give up without a fight.
As long as Attorneys are allowed to hang around Washington DC the tax code will be complex. It was written By Attorneys For Attorneys. A cash cow they will not give up without a fight
And, we know what party, primarily, is bankrolled by them.........
Here's a list of some stocks that I purchased last week:
There are others that I will post a little later. This group is totally under my direction, and I can get in and out instantly as I desire. I will continually modify this quite a bit over time, but it's a start.
AAPL... Apple Computer AMT... American Tower BAC... Bank of America C... Citigroup (bought for less than what I sold if for last week... sweet!) CRUS... Cirrus Logic F... Ford JDSU... JDS Uniphase QLIK... Qlik Technoogies VOD... Vodaphone
However, here's the fun part... there is now a second portfolio of stocks that I own. I am not totally sure what's in it, as I haven't even checked yet. Yes, I actually allowed my broker to put together a portfolio of stocks on his own!. This came after some discussion whereby I was goofing around with him, and telling him that I could beat him in the market.
So, we put together a little friendly competition.
The rule is that we each get $250,000 to work with. I already know that he has a formula to dollar-cost average his purchases into a six-month time frame, as he ramps up to the limit by purchasing around $40K of stocks every month for six months.
Me? I am already in at $200,000, with a very small and simple group of the above-mentioned stocks, and will make changes based upon how I read the market on an ongoing basis in real time.
I'll post my broker's portfolio at a later time when I get the chance to take a good look at it. I only glanced at it briefly so far, and it has a few of the same stocks, but a whole lot of different stocks (some I don't necessarily agree with... LOL), including some funds.
This is going to be exciting for me, and no matter who wins, I like the energy he now has to make the portfolio perform! Every broker should be like that!!
Many just like to nickel and dime you to death. No real incentive to make money for anyone but the firm. Until you pull out of their operation, and hear them cry. You are a brave investor. Hope your faith in the broker turns out well.
The deal here is that Gorilla Glass... a decades-old product made by Corning, could quickly become a billion dollar business within only a year. The glass is likely to be used in significantly increased amounts in the production of smartphones and flat-panel televisions.
I bought shares of Corning during this morning's market dip.
I love news like this... when there are actual concrete reasons to invest in a company. Like Apple with its iPhone, Qlik Technologies with its software, and Corning with its Gorilla Glass. Never a guarantee, but certainly makes great investment sense.
Check it out. Corning trades under the symbol GLW.
Given today's nasty overall market action, it might be a good time to buy.
QLIK is on fire. So glad I bought it again last week.
I am seriously considering adding even more myself, but it's price is up so much at this moment today, I think I want to see it pull back before I buy more. Personally, I think you would be fortunate to get it at $15 /share. Maybe more realistically, anything up to $15.40 would be fine in the long run, since that would be 50 cents below the high of $15.90 it hit earlier today. I'm going to watch it closely today.
Right after I posted this about buying QLIK above, I did pull the trigger and bought more at 15.28. I love the way it's been acting. I also bought a little GLW.
Wow... that's funny. I got 2,750 more shares at the exact same price (averaged... some were a little more, some a little less... with the same exact average). Might lose a little short-term, but I strongly believe we will be fine in the long run. Bravo!
edit... if it drops more today, I might buy some more and work today's average share price down. Prior to today, my most recent purchase was at $14.26
I sold some of the HYG that I had mentioned previously....One thing I can`t find out why the dollar amount of the monthly pay out seems to decline rather sharply over the last year....Asked many knowledgable people and no answer, so cut back....A large gain , and would continue to hold if I could get an answer...Tony
I bought 2,000 more shares of QLIK this morning at $15.01. I was going to put in my order at $15, but I have learned in the past that when placing limit orders, it is sometimes much better to add an extra penny or two, otherwise the order will never get executed and you can end up missing out entirely on buying the dip.
Once again, if it dips significantly more, I will buy more.
Comments
This is what I was saying yesterday. He'll raise taxes and hope for the best. Never does it seem to occur to him or Congress that cutting spending is a much better way to reduce the deficit. And TM is 100% right. Any new money they get will simply be wasted away on other things rather than used to close the deficit. Very few Admins know how to save and this is the biggest spending Admin ever. It's like giving more money to an alcholic. Does anyone in his right mind think he'll spend in on getting care.
President George W. Bush left behind a ticking time bomb that is set for Dec. 31, 2010. If Congress does nothing, taxes on wages, capital gains and dividends will leap, the estate tax will be resurrected at a 55% rate and the pesky alternative minimum tax will hit an additional 21 million taxpayers on 2010 returns.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans have an interest in letting that happen. Doing nothing would, Goldman Sachs economists estimate, amount to a tax increase equal to 2.5% of gross domestic product, the value of goods and services produced each year. But what Congress will do and when well, as one official puts it, this has become a gigantic Rubik's cube that everyone is twisting at the same time.
This is Washington, so take the politics first.
Despite misgivings from some Democrats, the Obama administration is pressing to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone with an income under $250,000 a year and to raise taxes on those above. Taxing the rich is red meat to the Democrats' left. Energizing them for the November congressional elections is key for the White House and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A recent Pew/National Journal poll found that only 11% of Democrats favor extending all the Bush tax cuts.
Republicans are happily staking out the no-new-taxes turf, playing to their traditional constituency. Pew says 52% of Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts. Republicans are convinced they can win votes by simultaneously blaming Democrats for the deficit and accusing of them of being tax raisers.
House Democrats are torn between taking a vote before the elections (so members can boast of having stopped a middle-class tax increase) and waiting for the Senate (so Democrats from rich suburban districts don't get stuck voting to raise taxes on over-$250,000 voters only to find the Senate will extend them for everyone.) Senate Democratic leaders promise a September vote, but it's far from clear they have the needed 60 votes.
The smart money in Washington says nothing gets done before a postelection lame-duck session.
Given the distressingly sluggish economy recovery, few see this as a propitious moment to increase taxes on anyone. But given the pressure to do something to reduce the budget deficit and the political appeal to Democrats of socking it to the rich, the argument is over how much damage raising upper-bracket taxes would do.
"Extending the tax cuts would provide some demand-side stimulus," says Donald Marron, who sat on the Bush Council of Economic Advisers and now heads the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "All else equal, the cuts that go to middle- and low-income taxpayers are likely to provide more demand-side stimulus in the near term, because they are less likely to be saved."
Republicans focus less on consumer demand, and more on the impact of taxes on business hiring and investment. They observe loudly that raising upper-bracket tax rates hits ever-popular small businesses, whose profits show up on their individual returns. John Boehner, the House Republican leader, accuses President Barack Obama of pushing "job-killing tax hikes." But Leonard Burman, a Syracuse University economist who worked in the Clinton Treasury, counters that academic evidence "suggests strongly that higher marginal income-tax rates on high-income entrepreneurs are unlikely to result in significantly less employment or risk taking."
In fact, fewer small businesses would be hit than the rhetoric implies. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that only 3% of taxpayers who show business income on their returns would be touched by the Obama tax increase, though these 750,000 taxpayers account for half of the $1 trillion in business income reported on personal tax returns.
And then there's the deficit. Raising taxes on the over-$250,000 crowd isn't going to cure it. The price tag on the Obama-backed extension of Mr. Bush's middle-class tax cuts and stopping the alternative minimum tax from reaching down into the middle class is $2.5 trillion over 10 years, the Joint Tax Committee says. Unofficial estimates circulating on Capitol Hill say that's about 85% of the price tag for extendingall the Bush tax cuts.
The administration argues that symbolism matters as much as dollars. It'll be hard for the U.S. government to persuade anyone that it takes the long-term deficit seriously if it won't even let a tax cut on the best-off Americans expire on schedule. Though he doesn't say so explicitly, Mr. Obama knows he is unlikely to wrestle down the deficit without also raising taxes on folks making less than $250,000 at some point.
So what happens? Political gridlock, wavering Senate Democrats, deficit angst and a gnawing sense that the tax code is due for an overhaul could combine to make a one- or two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts—perhaps all of them, perhaps only those Mr. Obama likes—likely.
This could tee up a massive tax and deficit package after the 2012 presidential elections. But one problem with that politically expedient solution: It would exacerbate the already overwhelming uncertainty hanging over the economy and discouraging business hiring and investment.
http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+tax+cuts&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firef- ox-a&rlz=1R1GGIC_en___US345
The earth has always gone thru warming and cooling cycles and always will, I hope. Climates are warming on other planets in the solar system as well, and this is certainly without man's help....but if someone could figure out a way to make a buck by blaming it on man, they probably would.
No argument, just my opinion.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
You aren`t alone, as I --in the past--have been an admirer of Obama, and generally fault Greenspan, and Bush for the situation we find ourselves in.....All my life I have been trusting that taxes , as they are re-formulated, would be cut in ways that would overall produce a surplus.....Lately I have been wrong to have any trust, and I attribute that to the computer that is like a bright light in the bedroom...I had great hopes for Obama, and am disappointed in he, and the Democratic controlled congress.. Just call a tax increase a `tax increase` It will make it that much harder to accumulate a `nest egg` for your later years in life....Believe me ....Tony
In fact, fewer small businesses would be hit than the rhetoric implies. The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that only 3% of taxpayers who show business income on their returns would be touched by the Obama tax increase, though these 750,000 taxpayers account for half of the $1 trillion in business income reported on personal tax returns.
These are the key two paragraphs that I was looking for. There is no sense to argue anymore than we have already. I respect the opinion of all you guys (Gary, Len, TM, Houdini, etc.). I also hope taxes are not raised on anyone. But if they are, I hope the above thinking is correct and that there will be a minimal impact on small business and the economy.
I know that millions out there are disappointed Tony. But I ask myself this question many times: Where would this nation be today without the big stimulus package and bailouts early in 2009? I know that Len for one would have gone about it a different way (Forgot the details. Maybe his plan would have been much better and as I told him, he would make a terrific Secretary Treasurer). I have a strong feeling however, that if this Administration had not taken the very quick actions they did early in the new Presidency, we would now be a in new Great Depression. In any case, it is only about 2 years until a new election and the American people can choose to go in a different direction if they like.
BTW, I will repeat again what I had told you before. You are a wonderful, kind hearted human being.
I actually agree with some of the stimulus, but let's be clear here. TARP was signed into law by Bush on October 3, 2008... not by Obama. Prior to that, the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 was signed into law by Bush on February 13, 2008... not by Obama.
Obama should be lowering taxes right now, not raising them. He should be creating and implementing large and simple-to-use tax incentives to cause the kind of behavior that gets businesses energized and expanding... and therefore hiring.
He should be attempting to put a halt to wasteful spending.
He should be focused on getting our nation energy independent as soon as possible, before certain folks in a certain part of the planet profoundly mess with us.
Heck, the way he sat back and watched BP nearly destroy the Gulf gave me another good clue about him.
TM
Taxes are what they are, but life only blesses a person rarely, and the taxes then take a much bigger slice than it would appear...Lately the guys making the huge bucks have not been paying their share...I am...but the tax code should encompass all in a fair way...Not pit the wealthy against the rest of the people, or the rest of the people against the wealthy......I would imagine at one point in all our lives we were `the rest of the people` Thanks Tony
I agree and that's why we should have TM's flat tax implemented.
But Obama won't support a flat tax. Why not?
TM
Charlie,
Re-read what you posted. I think you missed it. The key word in the bold is "though". The 3% are responsible for half of all income as pointed out and I will bet you the ranch that 3% is also responsible for 80-90% of the hirings we are talking about in small business. Understand that these guys are counting the corner newstand as small business. My definition of small business is very different than theirs. It's businesses that hire permanent full time skilled labor and dominate job hirings in the US, and because they are small and serve the US primarily - they also keep those jobs here.
Note my post yesterday where I laid out the money available to a profitable small business that also has bank obligations and ratios to meet. Whoever this Burman guy is, he's dealing with the past and free flowing credit combined with bank covenant ratios that were loose. We have the eaxct opposite today. We d'ont have free flowing credit and all tax increases do is restrict bank covenant ratios even more to the detriment of expansion. I'd love for this guy to show me how raising taxes on profitable small businesses with loans is going to enable them to hire. He must be using hocus pocus because the math doesn't work.
My prediction, the higher taxes and added paperwork will push more into the cash trade. If you need some plumbing work and company "A" will do it for $100 cash and company "B" wants $200 and takes a credit card. Which will you pick? Bartering is already making a lot of headway. Look for more.
This has nothing to do with Obama. I don't care if it's a Democrat or Republican President. They will not pass a flat tax due to the fact that there would be no tax loopholes for the very wealthy people. Why didn't Bush try to pass a flat tax?
I did read that statement, but I was focusing more on the study from the Syracuse University economist whose study determined that a tax increase would have little or no effect on job hirings. Obviously, you think that this is totally bogus.
Bush Reiterates Call for a Simpler Tax System
President Says Current Laws Are a 'Complicated Mess'
By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 6, 2004; Page A04
PARKERSBURG, W.Va., Sept. 5 -- President Bush reasserted his call Sunday for a simpler tax system, and aides said he is considering pushing for a flat tax, which would set the same income-tax rate for most taxpayers, as a major priority if he were to win a second term.
In arguing for a rewrite of tax laws, Bush said that they are "a complicated mess" and "full of special-interest loopholes."
I am sure it cost him votes from those that live off of the rest of US, not paying any income tax.
I run the math on it and it doesn't work. Small business isn't hiring much now because it's strangled by tough loans, high interest rates on loans run thru hedge funds rather than banks and tough financial covenants, and those that aren't strangled are on guard against this tax increase. We had a meeting with 15 other businesses, most capable of hiring on a limited basis and everyone said they want clarification from Congress on what's going on with taxes and want to see freer lending before they'd do so. We ourselves have a potential TV station product that would require a $400K investment in 3 people and w'ont enact right now because it's an adjacent space rather than a crucial strategic move for us. With greater clarity on taxes and a feeling that Obama was pro business we'd do this in a heartbeat. Others we talked to in our area had similar product ideas and the same feeling on holding off on pulling any triggers. This is just a small sample in a NY suburb. Amplify that sample across the US and one can see how stifling the current administration is.
Cost cutting will lead to stronger Balance Sheets over time and that will draw banks back in eventually. But if taxes are raised than any small business going to cheaper lending will simply see that eroded by higher taxes. If a small business can't get out from under high interest rates from the frozen credit era and has to face higher taxes to boot, forget it. That's a death knell to job growth IMO.
As for the Syracuse economist - I'd love for him to show me his proof and I'd love to see what the past lending practices were in any examples he gives. Maybe in any examples he's using folks financed the tax increases.That's impossible now. And coming out of the worst economy in 70-80 years and facing an increase in tax and a government that is interfering far too much under a near socialist President I d'ont see any chance on earth of what he is saying. I'm optomistic on the economy but it's limited to a bounce back with small revenue growth and huge incremental margins driven by major cost cutting (and I d'ont think we are done with employee cut backs yet). I d'ont see growth to where we were let alone past that point. We need firm decision making by Obama that favors business enhancement and freer lending before any chance of getting the economy back to near where it was pe-crash and that will take years as it is. A tax increase will put us back a decade IMO.
I have been preaching this very thing since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007. The fear of higher taxes and the very negative attitude toward business has made an environment that is not healthy for new business or business expansion.
As far as lending. I have been working with Chase for 2 months to get my home refinanced at 60% of the current appraised value. Both my wife and I are over 800 credit score and we have enough cash in their bank to pay off the loan. My pension is easy to verify. My wife's income is from her deceased husband's trust. So we do a lot of swapping around to give the best return. They want to see steady income for 3 past years. The loan would cut our monthly payments by $1700 and they are still dragging their feet. I cannot imagine trying to get financing right now with bad credit or dicey financial history.
Len, you have convinced me. We are dealing with a much more precarious economic environment now than what this guy has studied and what his statistics show. As I stated before, I sincerely hope that the Bush tax cuts are not allowed to expire for any income level.
Recovery slows in second quarter to weakest pace in nearly a year as consumers turn cautious
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The recovery lost momentum in the spring as growth slowed to a 2.4 percent pace, its most sluggish showing in nearly a year and too weak to drive down unemployment.
Consumers spent less, companies slowed their restocking of shelves and the nation's trade deficit dragged more on the economy in the April-to-June quarter. In a separate report, the Commerce Department said the recession was deeper than previously estimated.
Together, the reports raise doubts about whether employers will hire enough and consumers will spend enough to invigorate the economy. As unemployment remains near double digits, Congress could feel pressure to pass more stimulus measures to speed the recovery. So far, Republicans and some Democrats have blocked additional spending because of their concerns about the size of the deficit.
Investors reacted to the report with disappointment. Stock futures fell in the hour before the markets opened.
That's definitely the smarter perspective. Glad you are aboard.
BTW, I have been buying a diversified group of stocks this morning during this third day of ho-hum market action. (I couldn't resist including AAPL in the mix).
TM
Nice going Mr. Stock Market Guru!
One of the reasons I am disappointed in Obama, is that his administration spent so much time on the health bill, and neglected the final fixing and fine tuning the economic readjustments, which could have placed us on a more secure footing..addressing housing , and generally `encouraging` the banking industry to lend ,,,Tony
A year late on this, isn't he? A push for real jobs creation and improvement last spring would have had things on an upswing. Instead we're treated to politicizing and all kinds of games to try to end run the Constitution. Even the aid to small business that didn't make it through the Democrat controlled house today or late yesterday was an effete, poorly molded bill with little loan incentive and lots of foottraps.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Paulie and a henchman go to rob the corner store which is now a Starbucks if I remember right. The kid at the cash register who has a gun pointed at him but who doesn't look scared looks at them and says "I can't open it, it's computer controlled, you need to buy something first". Paulie looks at the camera with a face that just makes you crack up. The Soprano's was almost a comedy in disguise. Obama is like the kid at the cash register. No experience to recognize, let alone deal with the danger that's right in front of his eyes and at the same time, like the kid at the the cash register he wants his handout and he'll worry about the consequences later.
I'll take a position that is a bit more independent. It's kind of like the first law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed. In this case it is more like energy=economic vitality. So the Dems want to tax more and spend more, to "prime the pump". And that is going to bleed the wealthy even more dry, disturbing economic output. And the Repubs want to cut taxes, which will allow the rich to have more money -- but then the deficits get bigger and it is a bigger long term mess. It defers the pain and makes it bigger in the end.
The fact is that we have been living on borrowed time. Neither party's cute little games to help the economy are going to do anything more than create smoke and mirrors. Those tactics (from both parties) only add to the problem. We *are not* going to create more economic vitality than really exists as the actual productive output from our society. And there are a LOT of people riding on the government dole. And there are a LOT of rich riding high on exorbitant salaries and bonuses that have no relationship to the value they do (or don't) create. And sooner or later the house of cards is going to fix itself. And there is not a damn thing that either party is going to do to stop it.
So I say, take your own best defensive measures, and at least gain some entertainment value from the progressing train wreck. :surprise:
As far as lending. I have been working with Chase for 2 months to get my home refinanced at 60% of the current appraised value. Both my wife and I are over 800 credit score and we have enough cash in their bank to pay off the loan. My pension is easy to verify. My wife's income is from her deceased husband's trust. So we do a lot of swapping around to give the best return. They want to see steady income for 3 past years. The loan would cut our monthly payments by $1700 and they are still dragging their feet. I cannot imagine trying to get financing right now with bad credit or dicey financial history.
I have just dumped Chase for a credit union. They don't deserve my business, as they took bailouts. Screw the ba**ards.
I forgot who said it already, but it was something along the lines of being careful what you wished for.
Regardless, you've done a good thing Steve!!
TM
Er, losing battle, but anyone got any stock tips? :P
LOL... I got your back Steve.
So, let me warn you that this coming week could be tricky.
Several things might affect the markets.
One is China. China's latest PMI gets released tomorrow night. Could spell trouble, but will more likely come in above 50, and we'll avoid a big hit... hopefully.
Next, is Friday's jobs (not Steve... hahaha) report. Yes, we have to wait all week for this one. Better hope for something really terrific during the week, or else the market could have a small case of the jitters for much of the week, as it waits for Friday's jobs numbers. A bad report could wipe out a lot of recent gains.
Also, there's the Obama factor...
And the debate in Washington (and right here on this forum as well... LOL) about taxes will be getting heated up more and more during the week, and beyond.
Quality dividend-paying stocks might be the best bet this week, and long-term, of course.
Personally, I'm getting fond of the financials, and I've got my good bet in on American Tower (again), as I recently bought a sizeable number of shares.
TM
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 6, 2004; Page A04
PARKERSBURG, W.Va., Sept. 5 -- President Bush reasserted his call Sunday for a simpler tax system, and aides said he is considering pushing for a flat tax, which would set the same income-tax rate for most taxpayers, as a major priority if he were to win a second term.
Who controlled the Congress at that time? It's nice that Bush was in favor of a flat tax, but what happened? Absolutely nothing! Too many special interests groups do not want it.
And, we know what party, primarily, is bankrolled by them.........
There are others that I will post a little later. This group is totally under my direction, and I can get in and out instantly as I desire. I will continually modify this quite a bit over time, but it's a start.
AAPL... Apple Computer
AMT... American Tower
BAC... Bank of America
C... Citigroup (bought for less than what I sold if for last week... sweet!)
CRUS... Cirrus Logic
F... Ford
JDSU... JDS Uniphase
QLIK... Qlik Technoogies
VOD... Vodaphone
However, here's the fun part... there is now a second portfolio of stocks that I own. I am not totally sure what's in it, as I haven't even checked yet. Yes, I actually allowed my broker to put together a portfolio of stocks on his own!. This came after some discussion whereby I was goofing around with him, and telling him that I could beat him in the market.
So, we put together a little friendly competition.
The rule is that we each get $250,000 to work with. I already know that he has a formula to dollar-cost average his purchases into a six-month time frame, as he ramps up to the limit by purchasing around $40K of stocks every month for six months.
Me? I am already in at $200,000, with a very small and simple group of the above-mentioned stocks, and will make changes based upon how I read the market on an ongoing basis in real time.
I'll post my broker's portfolio at a later time when I get the chance to take a good look at it. I only glanced at it briefly so far, and it has a few of the same stocks, but a whole lot of different stocks (some I don't necessarily agree with... LOL), including some funds.
This is going to be exciting for me, and no matter who wins, I like the energy he now has to make the portfolio perform! Every broker should be like that!!
I'll keep you posted.
TM
Many just like to nickel and dime you to death. No real incentive to make money for anyone but the firm. Until you pull out of their operation, and hear them cry. You are a brave investor. Hope your faith in the broker turns out well.
Always good to take some chips off the table if they are stacking up. Good move.
TM
I bought shares of Corning during this morning's market dip.
I love news like this... when there are actual concrete reasons to invest in a company. Like Apple with its iPhone, Qlik Technologies with its software, and Corning with its Gorilla Glass. Never a guarantee, but certainly makes great investment sense.
Check it out. Corning trades under the symbol GLW.
Given today's nasty overall market action, it might be a good time to buy.
TM
I am thinking of buying some more QLIK at about $15 a share. What do you think?
I am considering GLW on your advice.
I am seriously considering adding even more myself, but it's price is up so much at this moment today, I think I want to see it pull back before I buy more. Personally, I think you would be fortunate to get it at $15 /share. Maybe more realistically, anything up to $15.40 would be fine in the long run, since that would be 50 cents below the high of $15.90 it hit earlier today. I'm going to watch it closely today.
TM
edit... if it drops more today, I might buy some more and work today's average share price down. Prior to today, my most recent purchase was at $14.26
TM
I bought 2,000 more shares of QLIK this morning at $15.01. I was going to put in my order at $15, but I have learned in the past that when placing limit orders, it is sometimes much better to add an extra penny or two, otherwise the order will never get executed and you can end up missing out entirely on buying the dip.
Once again, if it dips significantly more, I will buy more.
TM
QLIK reached a new high during today's session, briefly touching $16.04... and finally closing at $15.14.
TM