Overall, over the long haul, I have done fairly well on Amazon... even after it fell on its face and came back strong... I then sold most of it, but I still owned a modest amount... until this morning. I sold every share of AMZN and put it all into Apple.
I bought the additional Apple shares at the morning's low, although it could certainly tank later in the day.
Why? Because the iPad is going to kill the Kindle, IMO. Simple logic. And because I think Apple is a good buy at this price point, even if it declines further.
Amazon can benefit from higher gas prices, but I think the future of the Kindle makes the stock too tricky for me, at least for now.
Also, I took profits and sold BIDU. Great stock, as I even recommended it again yesterday... and I might buy more, but it was too hard to resist taking those gains.
I never mentioned that I bought a lot more dividend-paying stocks yesterday, and sold chip-manufacturers. I also sold all my MSFT shares, a stock I've owned on and off, at least at some level, for a long time.
I am also waiting patiently for the financials to spring back to life. Only a matter of time.
Anyway, I am now further into AAPL... again... in a more significant way.
This irritates me to no end. Who is Goldman Sachs anyway? Those stinking SOB's! They should be forced to pay MUCH more than the $550 million fine. What an incredible injustice!
The way the system is set up they have a license to steal, are deemed too big to fail so risk doesn't matter, and the execs get glorified as rich people on the way up. They deserve to be punished with big prison times when found guilty of such gross negligence and conflicts of interest. There's not much difference between these guys and Madoff, if any at all. In fact I'd argue these guys are much worse as they introduce systemic economic problems while Madoff is very localized.
Interesting that in the past few days Goldman comes down on oil while B of A goes the exact opposiie. Now I wonder who's long and who's short. That's a real hard one to figure out.
I tell you--`When I pay more in tax than the big companies` yet also would have a minimum tax no matter what, the system is not functioning correctly...There should be a minimum tax for everything...I feel your outrage...Tony
How about Obama?... He is an ignorant liar...he simply does not understand the stupidity in his tax proposals, and then he lies without even flinching.
For example, Obama refers to tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires in his speech, yet he makes no proposals to address that... instead, he proposes significant tax increases on hard-workering Americans making $250K. Since when is $250K a millionaire, or billionaire?? That's a HUGE difference. It's a fundamental difference that our president is either deliberately ignoring, or else he is too stupid to understand it.
We already suffer from the equivalent of a hidden tax increase due to gasoline prices that have skyrocketed. The housing market is still crisis mode, and unemployment is still much too high. Not exactly a good time to increase taxes.
What a STUPID time to propose tax increases! Obama is an idiot! This is the time to cut taxes and reduce spending. Sadly, we have a president that has a very warped perspective. If he insists on increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires, then don't pretend to do it by penalizing those making $250K. That's a lie!
It all means that in the end, Obama is truly a lying idiot... and once again, he has proved his true colors. I can't wait to vote him out of office.
The government is just not being responsive as far as the tax code......If I had nothing but municipal bond holdings I think I would still have an alternative minimum tax.....I know in years past I sure did.....No matter what the deductions are, every entity should have an alternate minimum tax.....
I`m tired of the whole government situation with such a deficit, and it is definitely getting a little soft in the economy ---due to my exposure...not bad but definitely softer Tony
Alternative Minimum Tax is a stealth tax that should be banned. It has never been properly indexed, and at one time it was meant to place a minimum tax on large incomes that had lots of deductions, but then as time went on and salaries of average Americans increased to keep up with inflation, the AMT started to hit ordinary Americans with ordinary income.
Best way to tax the very wealthy is to put a consumption tax on luxury items, and to have a flat tax supplement on everyone making 5 million/ year and up... with a required index linked to inflation... and then leave the rest of us alone.
Sold Google days ago, and looks like I'll be glad I did! Also, bought more Ford at it's low today, which has already turned out to be a good move, and will get even better... and also sold MWW while I was able to break even on it. (MWW is a baloney stock that Cramer recommended... I mentioned it recently, and I won't listen to Cramer again... I prefer to do my own homework).
Also, I bought a little more Citi at its low today. Financials are performing horribly lately, and will therefore do better in the future. Might be a good time to ease into financials.
Also, I recently bought a bunch more dividend-paying stocks (IIRC, I posted to that effect), and they are doing VERY well, in spite of a bad market.
Overall, the market was declining since mid-February, then spiked at the end of March, before declining again. I am certain that I have reduced the impact of these declines by tweaking my portfolio on a regular basis.
As I move forward from this point, I am looking to buy more APPL on a significant dip, and most likely ANY stock that is in my portfolio that dips 2% or more. Every time I can pick up another 2%, they start to add up... and on an annual basis can make a sizeable difference.
Since when is $250K a millionaire, or billionaire?? That's a HUGE difference. It's a fundamental difference that our president is either deliberately ignoring, or else he is too stupid to understand it.
I think every thing he does is calculated to generate votes from the leeches in our society. Those are the bottom feeders and top tier elites.
Walter Williams wrote a good piece debunking the whole idea of solving our deficit problem by taxing the rich.
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
Nice thoughts, but continuing to keep everything at virtual historic lows won't solve anything either. This is a time of crisis, right? Handle it like during the last crisis.
I think some people mean well when they think taking money from those making $250k will help our government. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The government wasted the money it already had, and it is soooo wasteful that if the wasteful spending was stopped, there would be a surplus, and Americans could actually get a tax reduction.
Besides, just like the article pointed out, $250k is NOT in the same class as the wealthy... not even close.
Real tax reform is desperately needed. Simpler and fairer. Rewarding success and investment in American businesses. Rewarding growth, instead of penalizing it. Small businesses are constantly penalized, yet account for the vast majority of American business. It's just plain stupid... and counter-productive.
This is a time of crisis, right? Handle it like during the last crisis.
You mean elect another Ronald Reagan and trickle down economics. I like it, do you? He did manage to pull us out of the mire created by Carter. However this is a bigger mess made by Obama. Carter did not try to spend his grandkids money to get US out of the mess.
No, I mean previous wartime tax rates. Then we'll see the wealthy, who have it better here than in any other first world nation and than at any time in modern history, really cry about their poor lot.
Trickle down theory is the worst mixture of deception and delusion.
Economic policy under Ronnie was fleeting at best. Not fiscally conservative via any definition.
If you think that took money from most of the wealthy you are dreaming. They just hired smarter attorneys than the Feds have. When do you think guys like Joe Kennedy developed their offshore schemes to protect their wealth. When the tax rates hit 90% the only ones dinged were the dummies like entertainers, over paid execs and high paid sports stars.
As much as you would like to get into the wallets of the very wealthy, it ain't gonna happen. And they brag about it like Warren Buffett. Has he paid more tax since his idiotic remarks during the Obama campaign, when he endorsed him? I bet not.
It is amazing to me that so many Americans do not know the difference between the "well-off" and the "wealthy".
A Grand Canyon of difference. They are convinced (by the media and other means, largely controlled by the wealthy), that ordinary folks that are a bit successful, making all of $250k, are the "rich", taking advantage of tax breaks and tax loopholes.
Obama refers to billionaires in his speeches, but then proposes tax increases on those making $250k. This is the real deception.
I will explain in detail later how this is counter-productive... and how it is better to stimulate small business expansion in America. I am shocked that there are those that do not see and understand the massive mind manipulation done by the wealthy and those in power... to a large extent, one in the same.
If that's all the GOP can ante up, I don't look forward to the future. Daddy's wallet with multiple financial failures, and a hilarious fake tan and raccoon on his head to boot. Trustworthy!
Did the wealthy pay more or less in the past than today? Yes or no? Do they have it easier now or not?
What's the solution, zero taxes on the top couple %, and the rest will "trickle down" and stimulate everything for everyone else?
I would say they paid no more than today. I don't think anyone is suggesting zero taxes. Only those corporations close to the President get those kind of breaks, like GE. I think the top rate is more than enough. You keep glossing over the fact that the bottom 50% pay NO income tax. Yet they get the same or more benefits than the rich. The small business people being targeted work hard long hours. You like to dwell on the wealthy that were handed money without doing a thing. Such as the Kennedys. That money is protected by offshore trusts. It will continue to endow the heirs of the heirs into perpetuity. Remember when old Joe set that up he was on FDR's cabinet. He made him first head of the SEC. That is the same kind of inside route that Obama has given the head dog at GE. You think they will make rules to tax themselves. Not a chance.
That is so true. Well off is bills paid, car in the garage and income enough to pay your mortgage and expenses with at least 10% going to savings. That should cover most everyone on Edmund's.
The wealthy fly out to their yacht on a helicopter. And at least have a share of Net Jet. $250k for a family may not even be well off if you get over extended on house and car payments.
There's also a huge difference between earning $250K in the NYC or LA area (or any large business metropolis) and a small city where the cost of housing and taxes may be quite a bit lower. It always bothers me to no end when an income figure is thrown out as generic with equal weighting and no perspective on where life is lived, the way Obama and many politicians frequently state. If they want to look at it that way than all real estate and income taxes should also be equal.
Wealthy can be a perception as well. LaJolla, CA is filled with what looks like wealthy people. Then you look at the Foreclosures and it seems many are just better con artists than others. Living off of OPM.
The banks are letting people live in a lot of those multi million dollar homes without paying a dime. They got in on stated income which many high rollers are good at over estimating. When things went in the toilet their stated income went with it. Silly me I have over 50% cash into my home. I guess I won't take a loss unless I sell it before the market turns around. We love it up here in the hills East of San Diego, so we are well off.
There's a part of Marlboro NJ here, a town one over from me where folks built 8000-100000 foot homes, many now foreclosed or abandoned, but even in the good financial times these homes were largely devoid of furniture and decorations inside. Folks went all out for mansions, and landscaped them and kept the gropunds beautiful for the outside to see. They forgot that a well decorated smaller home would have been much nicer. Insecurities and the illusion of wealth vs the real thing - and they were just kidding themselves.
Wealth comes in all different flavors. It's relative of course and the best general term I can use to describe it is that one can buy what he or she wants without borrowing while amassing a high enough personal net worth to secure financial stability for your lifestyle when you retire. You can be wealthy and have one home and you can be wealth and have 10. Given how much work it is to have one home I certainly d'ont envy anyone with more than one. Someday I'd like to have a condo in Manhattan and a home either here or in the south. But that as far as I'll go to having more than one property for myself. A condo is minimal work compared to a home with land.
There's also a huge difference between earning $250K in the NYC or LA area (or any large business metropolis) and a small city where the cost of housing and taxes may be quite a bit lower. It always bothers me to no end when an income figure is thrown out as generic with equal weighting and no perspective on where life is lived, the way Obama and many politicians frequently state. If they want to look at it that way than all real estate and income taxes should also be equal.
WARNING: HUGE POST AHEAD!!
This is so true, and I remember posting about this the last time we were all talking about taxes. I think it is ridiculous for any politician to think that the cost of living in Arkansas, for example, is the same as the cost of living in New York, New Jersey, or California.
That aside, we can all debate this forever, but I maintain there is a massive and fundamental difference between those folks that are well-off and those that are wealthy. If Obama really wants to go after billionaires, then fine... go after billionaires... but don't even begin to try to con me into believing that Americans making $250K/year are billionaires. Bull...oney!!!
Place a supplemental mandatory tax on those making $5 mil/year, and then impose a consumption tax on luxury items. Then go with a flat income tax, and continue to allow the property taxes and mortgage payments to be deductible because they offset the differences in various states. Give significant tax benefits to small businesses, and reward business expansion, and reward hiring of employees. Realize that every additional employee out there adds another tax-payer!
Reward investment in America to put the brakes on sending our businesses and jobs overseas. International expansion is fine, but much of what happened has not been about expansion, but has been about cheaper foreign labor... because our government doesn't really reward investment in AMERICA. This needs to change.
All the things that goverment wants to bring about can be accomplished by rewarding success and not by punishing it.
As you and I know, because we are both in businesses that relate to advertising, a company can achieve significant revenue gains by promoting itself. Likewise, the U.S. Government can achieve INCREASED revenues by taking actions to PROMOTE business growth and to PROMOTE consumer spending, and to REWARD business success and to REWARD higher incomes, which all lead to a stimulated economy.
Anyone that thinks that the economy is stimulated by taking more money away from individuals and businesses is a fool. The opposite is true. The more money that is left in the pockets of American businesses and individuals, results in more economic stimulation, which further results in more revenues for the goverment. Anyone that can't see this is a fool. Only idiots believe that it is better to take as much as possible from America's successful small businesses and individuals in order to feed a wasteful-spending government that is obviously out of control... proven by the state of our economy and national debt.
Another area of great concern is the problem of entitlements... and illegal aliens that ultimately shrink our economy by taking services, and illegal payrolls... yet what taxes do they pay? And who, then, pays for the services they utilize? So, they essentially take out from the economy but return nothing. This is NUTS!
So much could and should be fixed. But the real question is why is it NOT fixed. Well, guess what? One reason is that the WEALTHY don't want it fixed. They want to convince us to increase taxes on small businesses and those making $250K/year. It's pathetic. They want to stay in control and send the jobs overseas where it's cheaper, and they want to see most Americans working until they die, without any real retirement, because if they have to keep working it is more profitable to the government, which means the government can get more money to waste, and the government (and big business) is off the hook to pay for any retirement entitlements. WORK TIL YOU DIE!... that's what they want!
And, they want to increase taxes on those that start to get well-off, because they don't want anyone else to reach any positions of true wealth, which would mean they would have to share the power and influence that goes along with having great wealth. It's all NUTS!... and there are sooooo many Americans that have taken the bait -- hook, line, and sinker... that the answer to our backwards budget woes are to increase taxes on the "rich"... well, that SOUNDS ok, but they have re-defined the word "rich" to mean those making $250K/year, instead of what it REALLY should mean... which is that the TRULY WEALTHY should pay more taxes, but let's face it... that just AIN'T GONNA HAPPPEN!!! They aren't about to tax THEMSELVES!!
Man, if I were in charge... I'd fix it all in short order. Not joking.
Now, that's unless I was a powerful billionaire, of course!!... because then I'd have to convince the American people that we need to raise taxes on the rich... all those hard-working successful folks that make more than $250K/year, who already pay most of the taxes... but they need to pay MORE, because as it turns out, and according to our President Obama, they are a SNEAKY bunch of folks that are taking tax breaks and using tax loopholes. And those sneaky rich folks are those that make around $250K/year. Let's increase THEIR taxes, and then the vast majority of voters can feel better... and vote for those politicians that help the billionaires.
Now... where's my helicopter? I need a lift to my yacht, so I can take a trip to a nice faraway place where no one will bother me while I check and see how much money I have in my foreign bank accounts. So nice being a billionaire, and it's nice that it's soooo easy to fool most of the American people.
Looking at the growing wealth gap since that time, I find that supposition hard to believe. Soon it will be a nice comfy 1/99 spread...some better invest in moats and mercenary protection forces.
The wealthy that were handed money, also like the Bush family et al. You turn everything political, it is very amusing, when the other side has offered virtually nothing superior in any kind of domestic or foreign policy.
Who gets more benefits? The sons of the poor go off and die in contrived wars so the sons of the top few can reap windfall profits in the parasitic military industrial complex.
No doubt 250K is an arbitrary number and in many places is far from wealthy. But is that really the point?
I'll wager those in that category here have it far better than in any other first world nation. And they still will even if there's a hike. Logically, we're all going to have to pay more as the boomers age and debts come due. Even the top few who have gotten away with a lot for a long time.
Will this have any impact on the stock. I doubt it.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), who admits to owning an iPad, blames the Apple Inc. product for "eliminating thousands of American jobs."
"A few short weeks ago I came to the House floor after having purchased an iPad and said that I happened to believe, Mr. Speaker, that at some point in time this new device, which is now probably responsible for eliminating thousands of American jobs. Now Borders is closing stores because, why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why do you need to go to Barnes & Noble? Buy an iPad and download your newspaper, download your book, download your magazine," Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL, Chicago) said on the House floor Friday afternoon.
Ironically, it was only last month that Rep. Jackson was promoting the Apple iPad and Amazon on the House floor.
The wealthy that were handed money, also like the Bush family et al. You turn everything political, it is very amusing
Handing down family fortunes is as old as mankind. The reason I always use the Kennedy's as an example is simple. Joe Kennedy set up the first off shore trust and wrote the book on protecting family fortunes from the government.
After Franklin Roosevelt called Joe to Washington, D.C. to clean up the securities industry, somebody asked FDR why he had tapped such a crook. "Takes one to catch one," replied Roosevelt.
Kennedy later claimed he knew the rampant stock speculation of the late 1920s would lead to a crash. It is said that he knew it was time to get out of the market when he received stock tips from a shoe-shine boy. Kennedy survived the crash "because he possessed a passion for facts, a complete lack of sentiment and a marvelous sense of timing." During the Great Depression Kennedy vastly increased his financial fortune by investing most of it in real estate. In 1929, Kennedy's fortune was estimated to be $4 million (equivalent to $51.3 million today). By 1935, his wealth had increased to $180 million (equivalent to $2.88 billion today)
My guess is he paid less taxes than any of us today. You get enough lawyers on it, they will find the loopholes or they know who to get, that will write them into the tax code. GE is the prime example.
That's what I'd like to know. WHO decides the tax brackets? IRS? Politicians? Obama? How did Obama pull $250K out of a hat? What did he base it upon? Why does he say that billionaires get tax breaks and use tax loopholes, but then he does nothing to increase THEIR taxes... instead he wants to increase the tax burden further on those hard-working Americans that already pay the most taxes.
Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has been complaining for years that his taxes are too low. Last June, he said at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton that he was taxed at only 17.7% last year on his $46 million in income, while his secretary paid 30% of her $60,000.
Buffett said he did an informal survey of federal taxes paid by his own office staff, and the average was 32.9%, compared to his 17.7%
If his secretaries adjusted gross is $60,000 in 2006 that comes out to $10,541 in Federal income tax. Which is only 18% not 30%. Buffett is leaving out information on the $46 million income he claims. Was that how much his stock in Berkshire went up. They do not pay dividends so something is screwy. I would bet he did not take that much in salary. Or did he take long term capital gains at 15%? So many of these high paid CEOs in reality get stock in lieu of cash. Then a year later they can sell the stock and only pay 15% long term capital gains.
My guess is if those capital gains were taxed on a scale starting with the first $250k at 15% and advance from there up to 50% you would see some changes in the way people get compensated. The Federal government has never hired the brightest and best. So they are at a disadvantage with the very wealthy that do hire the brightest and best.
You and I have to muddle along on our own or like myself and my 76 year old CPA that is getting tired of fighting with the IRS and their constantly changing rules.
Actually $60K translates to taxable income of $50,650 (after exemption and std deduction) and a tax of $8,850. There would be a $400 working credit so in the end the tax is $8,450 and the effective rate for his secretary is 14.1%. Buffett probably takes most of his money as dividend income so his rate is very low. The marginal tax on his secretary at $60K is indeed 25% but that is not the effective rate. If his staff has an effective tax rate of $32.9% then they are high income with probably a very high majhority of their income in W-2's.
If you intend to own certain stocks in your portfolio... then don't miss the opportunity to own them at a reduced price. Bought more CAT this morning at the opening seconds. Bought more AAPL at BELOW my $325 target!!... $322 and change... and could get cheaper. Even bought more BAC at the very open.
Do NOT be afraid. This is an opportunity. Don't wait until the market rebounds later. Do it NOW.
Do NOT be afraid. This is an opportunity. Don't wait until the market rebounds later. Do it NOW.
Well TM, I am more afraid than you seem to be this morning, but I did buy more AAPL a couple minutes ago at about $321. I hope your enthusiasm proves correct. Not that the market in general has been setting the world on fire, but for whatever reason (supply problems, competition, etc.) AAPL has been acting like it's going to zero the past few weeks.
I have complete trust that this stock will bounce back in a huge way. I just hope this is near the bottom this morning.
$321!! You did better than me. I just checked my purchase price and it was a little more than $322/share, as I did it in two trades and that was the average. But, I paid zero fees, and didn't buy a ton, so we are probably at a very similar result, within a few dollars.
I edited my post slightly to reflect that.
I truly believe we will be OK, but I still think there might be more trouble ahead for AAPL stock. I just don't want to miss these opportunities along the way.
If it goes under $320... I'll buy a little more.
EDIT: Just bought more at $320 and change!! YIKES!
I had a buy order for 100 shares in at $321 and it triggered. I put it there after I did my taxes and when I told you guys under $325 I'd consider it. I never put buy or sells in at whole numbers like 320 or 325. The market almost always seems to stop just short of those numbers or the next one down. I got burned once on a buy order that I had in at 20 and the soick stopped at 20.10. I'm expecting real strong earnings from Apple but am worried about their outlook because of Japan. Overall I think all earnings will be quite strong on average and this hic-cup is a great buying opportunity.
Everytime I think about BAC... I wonder if I'd be better off with HBAN or FITB... (I did ditch C, as I wasn't happy with their plan for a reverse split).
I bought PG with the proceeds from the C... don't have too much powder dry, right now...
I never put buy or sells in at whole numbers like 320 or 325. The market almost always seems to stop just short of those numbers or the next one down.
Len, I do the exact same thing unless I go to the market. For example, I will place a limit order to buy at $320.10. Or I may put a sell stop at $314.90 instead of $315. In the case of this morning, I placed an order to buy AAPL at $321.70. As it turns out, the stock was crapping out as I was placing the order and my fill was at $321.15.
Comments
I bought the additional Apple shares at the morning's low, although it could certainly tank later in the day.
Why? Because the iPad is going to kill the Kindle, IMO. Simple logic. And because I think Apple is a good buy at this price point, even if it declines further.
Amazon can benefit from higher gas prices, but I think the future of the Kindle makes the stock too tricky for me, at least for now.
Also, I took profits and sold BIDU. Great stock, as I even recommended it again yesterday... and I might buy more, but it was too hard to resist taking those gains.
I never mentioned that I bought a lot more dividend-paying stocks yesterday, and sold chip-manufacturers. I also sold all my MSFT shares, a stock I've owned on and off, at least at some level, for a long time.
I am also waiting patiently for the financials to spring back to life. Only a matter of time.
Anyway, I am now further into AAPL... again... in a more significant way.
TM
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/13/news/economy/goldman_sachs_senate_report/index.h- tm?hpt=T2
Public Hangings?
Firing Squads?
That would give the survivors pause, perhaps...
Interesting that in the past few days Goldman comes down on oil while B of A goes the exact opposiie. Now I wonder who's long and who's short. That's a real hard one to figure out.
For example, Obama refers to tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires in his speech, yet he makes no proposals to address that... instead, he proposes significant tax increases on hard-workering Americans making $250K. Since when is $250K a millionaire, or billionaire?? That's a HUGE difference. It's a fundamental difference that our president is either deliberately ignoring, or else he is too stupid to understand it.
We already suffer from the equivalent of a hidden tax increase due to gasoline prices that have skyrocketed. The housing market is still crisis mode, and unemployment is still much too high. Not exactly a good time to increase taxes.
What a STUPID time to propose tax increases! Obama is an idiot! This is the time to cut taxes and reduce spending. Sadly, we have a president that has a very warped perspective. If he insists on increasing taxes on millionaires and billionaires, then don't pretend to do it by penalizing those making $250K. That's a lie!
It all means that in the end, Obama is truly a lying idiot... and once again, he has proved his true colors. I can't wait to vote him out of office.
TM
I`m tired of the whole government situation with such a deficit, and it is definitely getting a little soft in the economy ---due to my exposure...not bad but definitely softer Tony
Best way to tax the very wealthy is to put a consumption tax on luxury items, and to have a flat tax supplement on everyone making 5 million/ year and up... with a required index linked to inflation... and then leave the rest of us alone.
TM
Also, I bought a little more Citi at its low today. Financials are performing horribly lately, and will therefore do better in the future. Might be a good time to ease into financials.
Also, I recently bought a bunch more dividend-paying stocks (IIRC, I posted to that effect), and they are doing VERY well, in spite of a bad market.
Overall, the market was declining since mid-February, then spiked at the end of March, before declining again. I am certain that I have reduced the impact of these declines by tweaking my portfolio on a regular basis.
As I move forward from this point, I am looking to buy more APPL on a significant dip, and most likely ANY stock that is in my portfolio that dips 2% or more. Every time I can pick up another 2%, they start to add up... and on an annual basis can make a sizeable difference.
TM
I think every thing he does is calculated to generate votes from the leeches in our society. Those are the bottom feeders and top tier elites.
Walter Williams wrote a good piece debunking the whole idea of solving our deficit problem by taxing the rich.
This year, Congress will spend $3.7 trillion dollars. That turns out to be about $10 billion per day. Can we prey upon the rich to cough up the money? According to IRS statistics, roughly 2 percent of U.S. households have an income of $250,000 and above. By the way, $250,000 per year hardly qualifies one as being rich. It's not even yacht and Learjet money. All told, households earning $250,000 and above account for 25 percent, or $1.97 trillion, of the nearly $8 trillion of total household income. If Congress imposed a 100 percent tax, taking all earnings above $250,000 per year, it would yield the princely sum of $1.4 trillion. That would keep the government running for 141 days, but there's a problem because there are 224 more days left in the year.
http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2011/04/13/eat_the_rich
I think some people mean well when they think taking money from those making $250k will help our government. However, nothing could be further from the truth.
The government wasted the money it already had, and it is soooo wasteful that if the wasteful spending was stopped, there would be a surplus, and Americans could actually get a tax reduction.
Besides, just like the article pointed out, $250k is NOT in the same class as the wealthy... not even close.
Real tax reform is desperately needed. Simpler and fairer. Rewarding success and investment in American businesses. Rewarding growth, instead of penalizing it. Small businesses are constantly penalized, yet account for the vast majority of American business. It's just plain stupid... and counter-productive.
Stop the waste. Reward growth and success.
TM
You mean elect another Ronald Reagan and trickle down economics. I like it, do you? He did manage to pull us out of the mire created by Carter. However this is a bigger mess made by Obama. Carter did not try to spend his grandkids money to get US out of the mess.
Trickle down theory is the worst mixture of deception and delusion.
Economic policy under Ronnie was fleeting at best. Not fiscally conservative via any definition.
If you think that took money from most of the wealthy you are dreaming. They just hired smarter attorneys than the Feds have. When do you think guys like Joe Kennedy developed their offshore schemes to protect their wealth. When the tax rates hit 90% the only ones dinged were the dummies like entertainers, over paid execs and high paid sports stars.
As much as you would like to get into the wallets of the very wealthy, it ain't gonna happen. And they brag about it like Warren Buffett. Has he paid more tax since his idiotic remarks during the Obama campaign, when he endorsed him? I bet not.
A Grand Canyon of difference. They are convinced (by the media and other means, largely controlled by the wealthy), that ordinary folks that are a bit successful, making all of $250k, are the "rich", taking advantage of tax breaks and tax loopholes.
Obama refers to billionaires in his speeches, but then proposes tax increases on those making $250k. This is the real deception.
I will explain in detail later how this is counter-productive... and how it is better to stimulate small business expansion in America. I am shocked that there are those that do not see and understand the massive mind manipulation done by the wealthy and those in power... to a large extent, one in the same.
TM
A Grand Canyon of difference.
You are exactly right.
If he continues to do well I hope the Republican Party gets behind him...else he may run as an independent, and we all know what that would mean.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
They have to have something better than that.
What's the solution, zero taxes on the top couple %, and the rest will "trickle down" and stimulate everything for everyone else?
What's the solution, zero taxes on the top couple %, and the rest will "trickle down" and stimulate everything for everyone else?
I would say they paid no more than today. I don't think anyone is suggesting zero taxes. Only those corporations close to the President get those kind of breaks, like GE. I think the top rate is more than enough. You keep glossing over the fact that the bottom 50% pay NO income tax. Yet they get the same or more benefits than the rich. The small business people being targeted work hard long hours. You like to dwell on the wealthy that were handed money without doing a thing. Such as the Kennedys. That money is protected by offshore trusts. It will continue to endow the heirs of the heirs into perpetuity. Remember when old Joe set that up he was on FDR's cabinet. He made him first head of the SEC. That is the same kind of inside route that Obama has given the head dog at GE. You think they will make rules to tax themselves. Not a chance.
TM
The wealthy fly out to their yacht on a helicopter. And at least have a share of Net Jet. $250k for a family may not even be well off if you get over extended on house and car payments.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
You live within your means and you are well-off.
Balance in investing is even the same.
Regards,
OW
The banks are letting people live in a lot of those multi million dollar homes without paying a dime. They got in on stated income which many high rollers are good at over estimating. When things went in the toilet their stated income went with it. Silly me I have over 50% cash into my home. I guess I won't take a loss unless I sell it before the market turns around. We love it up here in the hills East of San Diego, so we are well off.
No copter, yacht or Net Jet.
Wealth comes in all different flavors. It's relative of course and the best general term I can use to describe it is that one can buy what he or she wants without borrowing while amassing a high enough personal net worth to secure financial stability for your lifestyle when you retire. You can be wealthy and have one home and you can be wealth and have 10. Given how much work it is to have one home I certainly d'ont envy anyone with more than one. Someday I'd like to have a condo in Manhattan and a home either here or in the south. But that as far as I'll go to having more than one property for myself. A condo is minimal work compared to a home with land.
WARNING: HUGE POST AHEAD!!
This is so true, and I remember posting about this the last time we were all talking about taxes. I think it is ridiculous for any politician to think that the cost of living in Arkansas, for example, is the same as the cost of living in New York, New Jersey, or California.
That aside, we can all debate this forever, but I maintain there is a massive and fundamental difference between those folks that are well-off and those that are wealthy. If Obama really wants to go after billionaires, then fine... go after billionaires... but don't even begin to try to con me into believing that Americans making $250K/year are billionaires. Bull...oney!!!
Place a supplemental mandatory tax on those making $5 mil/year, and then impose a consumption tax on luxury items. Then go with a flat income tax, and continue to allow the property taxes and mortgage payments to be deductible because they offset the differences in various states. Give significant tax benefits to small businesses, and reward business expansion, and reward hiring of employees. Realize that every additional employee out there adds another tax-payer!
Reward investment in America to put the brakes on sending our businesses and jobs overseas. International expansion is fine, but much of what happened has not been about expansion, but has been about cheaper foreign labor... because our government doesn't really reward investment in AMERICA. This needs to change.
All the things that goverment wants to bring about can be accomplished by rewarding success and not by punishing it.
As you and I know, because we are both in businesses that relate to advertising, a company can achieve significant revenue gains by promoting itself. Likewise, the U.S. Government can achieve INCREASED revenues by taking actions to PROMOTE business growth and to PROMOTE consumer spending, and to REWARD business success and to REWARD higher incomes, which all lead to a stimulated economy.
Anyone that thinks that the economy is stimulated by taking more money away from individuals and businesses is a fool. The opposite is true. The more money that is left in the pockets of American businesses and individuals, results in more economic stimulation, which further results in more revenues for the goverment. Anyone that can't see this is a fool. Only idiots believe that it is better to take as much as possible from America's successful small businesses and individuals in order to feed a wasteful-spending government that is obviously out of control... proven by the state of our economy and national debt.
Another area of great concern is the problem of entitlements... and illegal aliens that ultimately shrink our economy by taking services, and illegal payrolls... yet what taxes do they pay? And who, then, pays for the services they utilize? So, they essentially take out from the economy but return nothing. This is NUTS!
So much could and should be fixed. But the real question is why is it NOT fixed. Well, guess what? One reason is that the WEALTHY don't want it fixed. They want to convince us to increase taxes on small businesses and those making $250K/year. It's pathetic. They want to stay in control and send the jobs overseas where it's cheaper, and they want to see most Americans working until they die, without any real retirement, because if they have to keep working it is more profitable to the government, which means the government can get more money to waste, and the government (and big business) is off the hook to pay for any retirement entitlements. WORK TIL YOU DIE!... that's what they want!
And, they want to increase taxes on those that start to get well-off, because they don't want anyone else to reach any positions of true wealth, which would mean they would have to share the power and influence that goes along with having great wealth. It's all NUTS!... and there are sooooo many Americans that have taken the bait -- hook, line, and sinker... that the answer to our backwards budget woes are to increase taxes on the "rich"... well, that SOUNDS ok, but they have re-defined the word "rich" to mean those making $250K/year, instead of what it REALLY should mean... which is that the TRULY WEALTHY should pay more taxes, but let's face it... that just AIN'T GONNA HAPPPEN!!! They aren't about to tax THEMSELVES!!
Man, if I were in charge... I'd fix it all in short order.
Now, that's unless I was a powerful billionaire, of course!!... because then I'd have to convince the American people that we need to raise taxes on the rich... all those hard-working successful folks that make more than $250K/year, who already pay most of the taxes... but they need to pay MORE, because as it turns out, and according to our President Obama, they are a SNEAKY bunch of folks that are taking tax breaks and using tax loopholes. And those sneaky rich folks are those that make around $250K/year. Let's increase THEIR taxes, and then the vast majority of voters can feel better... and vote for those politicians that help the billionaires.
Now... where's my helicopter? I need a lift to my yacht, so I can take a trip to a nice faraway place where no one will bother me while I check and see how much money I have in my foreign bank accounts. So nice being a billionaire, and it's nice that it's soooo easy to fool most of the American people.
TM
The wealthy that were handed money, also like the Bush family et al. You turn everything political, it is very amusing, when the other side has offered virtually nothing superior in any kind of domestic or foreign policy.
Who gets more benefits? The sons of the poor go off and die in contrived wars so the sons of the top few can reap windfall profits in the parasitic military industrial complex.
Parasites is correct.
And you think they make $250K/year? I beg to differ that they make a LOT more than that... and that THEY are the ones that should pay more taxes.
But they've got soooo many fooled into thinking that those making $250K/year are the ones that should pay more.
TM
I'll wager those in that category here have it far better than in any other first world nation. And they still will even if there's a hike. Logically, we're all going to have to pay more as the boomers age and debts come due. Even the top few who have gotten away with a lot for a long time.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), who admits to owning an iPad, blames the Apple Inc. product for "eliminating thousands of American jobs."
"A few short weeks ago I came to the House floor after having purchased an iPad and said that I happened to believe, Mr. Speaker, that at some point in time this new device, which is now probably responsible for eliminating thousands of American jobs. Now Borders is closing stores because, why do you need to go to Borders anymore? Why do you need to go to Barnes & Noble? Buy an iPad and download your newspaper, download your book, download your magazine," Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL, Chicago) said on the House floor Friday afternoon.
Ironically, it was only last month that Rep. Jackson was promoting the Apple iPad and Amazon on the House floor.
Handing down family fortunes is as old as mankind. The reason I always use the Kennedy's as an example is simple. Joe Kennedy set up the first off shore trust and wrote the book on protecting family fortunes from the government.
After Franklin Roosevelt called Joe to Washington, D.C. to clean up the securities industry, somebody asked FDR why he had tapped such a crook. "Takes one to catch one," replied Roosevelt.
Kennedy later claimed he knew the rampant stock speculation of the late 1920s would lead to a crash. It is said that he knew it was time to get out of the market when he received stock tips from a shoe-shine boy. Kennedy survived the crash "because he possessed a passion for facts, a complete lack of sentiment and a marvelous sense of timing." During the Great Depression Kennedy vastly increased his financial fortune by investing most of it in real estate. In 1929, Kennedy's fortune was estimated to be $4 million (equivalent to $51.3 million today). By 1935, his wealth had increased to $180 million (equivalent to $2.88 billion today)
My guess is he paid less taxes than any of us today. You get enough lawyers on it, they will find the loopholes or they know who to get, that will write them into the tax code. GE is the prime example.
That's what I'd like to know. WHO decides the tax brackets? IRS? Politicians? Obama? How did Obama pull $250K out of a hat? What did he base it upon? Why does he say that billionaires get tax breaks and use tax loopholes, but then he does nothing to increase THEIR taxes... instead he wants to increase the tax burden further on those hard-working Americans that already pay the most taxes.
TM
Multi-billionaire Warren Buffett has been complaining for years that his taxes are too low. Last June, he said at a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton that he was taxed at only 17.7% last year on his $46 million in income, while his secretary paid 30% of her $60,000.
Buffett said he did an informal survey of federal taxes paid by his own office staff, and the average was 32.9%, compared to his 17.7%
If his secretaries adjusted gross is $60,000 in 2006 that comes out to $10,541 in Federal income tax. Which is only 18% not 30%. Buffett is leaving out information on the $46 million income he claims. Was that how much his stock in Berkshire went up. They do not pay dividends so something is screwy. I would bet he did not take that much in salary. Or did he take long term capital gains at 15%? So many of these high paid CEOs in reality get stock in lieu of cash. Then a year later they can sell the stock and only pay 15% long term capital gains.
My guess is if those capital gains were taxed on a scale starting with the first $250k at 15% and advance from there up to 50% you would see some changes in the way people get compensated. The Federal government has never hired the brightest and best. So they are at a disadvantage with the very wealthy that do hire the brightest and best.
You and I have to muddle along on our own or like myself and my 76 year old CPA that is getting tired of fighting with the IRS and their constantly changing rules.
If you intend to own certain stocks in your portfolio... then don't miss the opportunity to own them at a reduced price. Bought more CAT this morning at the opening seconds. Bought more AAPL at BELOW my $325 target!!... $322 and change... and could get cheaper. Even bought more BAC at the very open.
Do NOT be afraid. This is an opportunity. Don't wait until the market rebounds later. Do it NOW.
TM
Well TM, I am more afraid than you seem to be this morning, but I did buy more AAPL a couple minutes ago at about $321. I hope your enthusiasm proves correct. Not that the market in general has been setting the world on fire, but for whatever reason (supply problems, competition, etc.) AAPL has been acting like it's going to zero
I have complete trust that this stock will bounce back in a huge way. I just hope this is near the bottom this morning.
I edited my post slightly to reflect that.
I truly believe we will be OK, but I still think there might be more trouble ahead for AAPL stock. I just don't want to miss these opportunities along the way.
If it goes under $320... I'll buy a little more.
EDIT: Just bought more at $320 and change!! YIKES!
TM
TM
I think they are trying to tell us that we are the only dumb asses.
I bought PG with the proceeds from the C... don't have too much powder dry, right now...
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
As I don't actively buy other than out of my paychecks, I can only hope it lets me buy more for the next pay period :shades:
Len, I do the exact same thing unless I go to the market. For example, I will place a limit order to buy at $320.10. Or I may put a sell stop at $314.90 instead of $315. In the case of this morning, I placed an order to buy AAPL at $321.70. As it turns out, the stock was crapping out as I was placing the order and my fill was at $321.15.