or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's "Buffett Rule" Rules OK!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's "Buffett Rule" Rules OK! - Page 3

post #81 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

It's not misleading at all. It's simply a fact that they pay 60% of the total tax bill. And why is their wealth increasing even part of the discussion? I don't care if their wealth increases faster than mine, because I realize that punishing them doesn't make me any richer. The problem, tonton, is that you're f**king OBSESSED with "income inequality" and wealth redistribution. My God...how in such a LAND OF OPPORTUNITY can we let the rich get richer and the middle class tread water?

You say all this as though you're completely ignorant that the economy bubble is about to burst if we don't do something about it. What shall we do? Tax those who can afford it to start fixing this mess?? FUCK NO, that's not faaair!!! Waaaaah!!!!!

And what's deliberately misleading about your idiotic statistic is the implication that it's not fair that the people earning 60% of the income are paying 60% of the taxes.
post #82 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You say all this as though you're completely ignorant that the economy bubble is about to burst if we don't do something about it. What shall we do? Tax those who can afford it to start fixing this mess?? FUCK NO, that's not faaair!!! Waaaaah!!!!!

What you cannot seem to get through your skull is that tax increases WON'T HELP THE ECONOMY. They won't do much to help the deficit, either...even assuming that they won't depress economic growth. It's simple math, tonton.

Quote:

And what's deliberately misleading about your idiotic statistic is the implication that it's not fair that the people earning 60% of the income are paying 60% of the taxes.

There is no implication at all. I'm merely stating a fact. And really, why don't you just come out and say what you believe? You think anyone making above $250,000 deserves to pay more. Why? Because you favor wealth redistribution to address "income inequality." This has to be it, because you're a smart guy. Surely you realize that raising taxes won't help the economy and closing loopholes/raising taxes on the rich won't mathematically come close to solving our debt and deficit problem.

Just f***** admit it.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #83 of 140
The buffet rule is bad for a couple reasons:

1. Tax free municipal bonds make the tax paid by the rich look lower than it really is.

When you buy a tax free municipal bond, you get a lower interest rate than you would get if you bought a normal bond. That difference is an implicit tax - the tax is real, but hidden in the difference between the two interest rates.

Most of the "millionaires who pay no tax" are getting all their income from tax free municipal bonds, so they aren't really "paying no tax" - the tax is just implicit.

One danger of the Buffet rule is that you will kill the entire municipal bond market. If there is a minimum tax, then it may make tax free municipal bonds taxable, and all of a sudden your town can't afford that new sewage plant or road repaving it has had its eye on.

Plus, it is outright theft. If your grandmother invested her whole $2 million retirement savings in tax free municipal bonds, then all of a sudden her income would become taxable, and that $2 million worth of bonds would only be worth $1.2 million instead. The federal government would have stolen the difference by breaking the promise of tax free status.

2. Capital gains taxes make income look higher than is really is

I bought some land for $100k, and sold it 15 years later for $150k. I had a $50k "gain" that I had to pay tax on, but after inflation I actually lost money.

The 15% long term capital gains tax is stupid BS thought up by somebody bad at math - it makes your income look bigger than it really is, and it can make your income look positive when it is really negative. A more rational capital gains system would be to multiply your cost basis by inflation, then use normal income tax on the difference between the adjusted cost basis and the sale price.

If we bump up long term capital gains taxes, then it will be too risky to hold long term investments - you can end up paying taxes on losses that look like gains, and the chance of that happening gets bigger the longer you hold the asset. This change could turn everybody into a short term trader.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #84 of 140
Nicely explained. I look forward to seeing the responses from Buffett's new BFFs.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #85 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Nicely explained. I look forward to seeing the responses from Buffett's new BFFs.

Agreed.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #86 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The buffet rule is bad for a couple reasons:

1. Tax free municipal bonds make the tax paid by the rich look lower than it really is.

When you buy a tax free municipal bond, you get a lower interest rate than you would get if you bought a normal bond. That difference is an implicit tax - the tax is real, but hidden in the difference between the two interest rates.

Most of the "millionaires who pay no tax" are getting all their income from tax free municipal bonds, so they aren't really "paying no tax" - the tax is just implicit.

One danger of the Buffet rule is that you will kill the entire municipal bond market. If there is a minimum tax, then it may make tax free municipal bonds taxable, and all of a sudden your town can't afford that new sewage plant or road repaving it has had its eye on.

Plus, it is outright theft. If your grandmother invested her whole $2 million retirement savings in tax free municipal bonds, then all of a sudden her income would become taxable, and that $2 million worth of bonds would only be worth $1.2 million instead. The federal government would have stolen the difference by breaking the promise of tax free status.

2. Capital gains taxes make income look higher than is really is

I bought some land for $100k, and sold it 15 years later for $150k. I had a $50k "gain" that I had to pay tax on, but after inflation I actually lost money.

The 15% long term capital gains tax is stupid BS thought up by somebody bad at math - it makes your income look bigger than it really is, and it can make your income look positive when it is really negative. A more rational capital gains system would be to multiply your cost basis by inflation, then use normal income tax on the difference between the adjusted cost basis and the sale price.

If we bump up long term capital gains taxes, then it will be too risky to hold long term investments - you can end up paying taxes on losses that look like gains, and the chance of that happening gets bigger the longer you hold the asset. This change could turn everybody into a short term trader.

How on earth do you figure that grannies $2 million would only be worth $1.2 million?

This new tax whatever becomes law is for those who's INCOMES is above $1 million each year, after all deductions.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #87 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

How on earth do you figure that grannies $2 million would only be worth $1.2 million?

This new tax whatever becomes law is for those who's INCOMES is above $1 million each year, after all deductions.

Go look up how bond pricing works. Suppose you had a bond that paid 3% interest tax free - if the government starts taxing it, the resale value of the bond drops. If you have to pay 33% tax (i.e. get 2% after tax instead of 3%), then the resale value of the bonds will also drop by 33%. In my example I assumed 40% tax - so $2 million worth of bonds drops in value to $1.2 million once the law is passed.

That grandmother could have gotten 5% on a taxable bond, all of a sudden she is locked in for the length of the bond at a lower rate (could be she gets a lot less income for 30 years if it is a long bond). She is screwed - her income drops dramatically because the government broke its promise, and now she takes a huge capital loss if she sells the bond.

If you are going to propose big changes to the tax code, it would be good to understand how it works first Hands... Buffet is total scum, he probably has a massive short on municipal bonds, which is why he proposed this in the first place.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #88 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Go look up how bond pricing works. Suppose you had a bond that paid 3% interest tax free - if the government starts taxing it, the resale value of the bond drops. If you have to pay 33% tax (i.e. get 2% after tax instead of 3%), then the resale value of the bonds will also drop by 33%. In my example I assumed 40% tax - so $2 million worth of bonds drops in value to $1.2 million once the law is passed.

That grandmother could have gotten 5% on a taxable bond, all of a sudden she is locked in for the length of the bond at a lower rate (could be she gets a lot less income for 30 years if it is a long bond). She is screwed - her income drops dramatically because the government broke its promise, and now she takes a huge capital loss if she sells the bond.

If you are going to propose big changes to the tax code, it would be good to understand how it works first Hands... Buffet is total scum, he probably has a massive short on municipal bonds, which is why he proposed this in the first place.


That certainly isn't going to happen and it is not anywhere near the goals of the Buffett Rule.

From Wiki-


"The Buffett Rule is a tax plan proposed by president Barack Obama in 2011. It would apply to individuals earning more than $1 million per year; this comprised the top 450,000 of Americans by income when the rule was proposed.

It is named after Warren Buffett, who publicly stated in early 2011 that he disagreed with the rich paying less in federal taxes than the middle class, and has voiced support for increased taxes on the wealthy. It introduces a higher minimum tax rate to the richest in the US, to ensure that they are taxed at the same rate as the less wealthy."
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffett_Rule
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #89 of 140
Thread Starter 
Mitt Romney likely pays about 14% on his $8 - $40 million a year or so income in Federal taxes (and remember these stinking lazy goons pay much less in local taxes etc as a percentage of their income than grannies do).


"When President Obama released his plan to implement the “Buffett rule” — which would ensure that millionaires can’t pay a lower tax rate than middle-class families — 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney derided it as “class warfare,”


Just how much Romney pays in taxes is, for the moment, a private matter. But his income is public knowledge. In August, Romney disclosed that in 2010 he and his wife made between $1.1 million and $2.8 million in royalties, salary, speaking fees and interest, most of which was likely taxed at a marginal rate of 35%, after accounting for deductions. The Romneys made an additional $5.5 million to $37.3 million from dividends and capital gains, which is generally taxed at a much lower rate of 15%.

Calculating the Romneys’ exact tax burden is not possible from the public records because of a number of factors, like the amount of money that Romney deducted from his taxes and the length of time that he owned investments, are unknown. But ballpark estimates are possible. Assuming that Romney declared roughly the same number of deductions as others in his income level and that his dividend and capital gains income qualified for the 15% bracket, Romney would have paid roughly 14% of his gross income in taxes to the federal government in 2010 according to Bob McIntyre, who crafts tax policy at the left-leaning Citizens for Tax Justice."
~ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...cent-tax-rate/


Bloomberg poll of global investors-

"Can Congress increase the income tax on the wealthy? It can if the latest Bloomberg Poll is any indicator -- global investors overwhelming support President Barack Obama's proposed tax increase on adults with adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more annually.

In the poll, 63 percent of those 1,031 global investors polled by Bloomberg News on Sept. 26 approved of President Obama's proposal, know as the "Buffett Rule" after Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) Chairman Warren Buffett.

Among U.S. investors, support for the tax hike on the wealthy was lower, with only 40 percent favoring it.

Europeans favored Obama's upper income tax 78 percent to 17 percent against. In Asia, the spread was 69 percent to 21 percent."
~ http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/2228...deficit-re.htm
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #90 of 140
Hands - you missed the whole point of my post, then posted meaningless gobledegook in response. Go back and read it, and try to understand the side effects that I pointed out.

I don't care if they tax the wealthy more, but if they plan on putting a lower limit on tax rates then they better think pretty hard about how it will effect long term capital gains and tax free municipal bonds. If they do it wrong, it could do a lot of damage.

Total outstanding tax free municipal bonds are $2.67 trillion, that is a lot of people that could be getting ripped off.

It could cause a run on tax free money market accounts, for one thing. And then those money market funds would be forced to liquidate and break the buck (due to the capital losses caused by the buffet rule).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #91 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Hands - you missed the whole point of my post, then posted meaningless gobledegook in response. Go back and read it, and try to understand the side effects that I pointed out.

I don't care if they tax the wealthy more, but if they plan on putting a lower limit on tax rates then they better think pretty hard about how it will effect long term capital gains and tax free municipal bonds. If they do it wrong, it could do a lot of damage.

Total outstanding tax free municipal bonds are $2.67 trillion, that is a lot of people that could be getting ripped off.

It could cause a run on tax free money market accounts, for one thing. And then those money market funds would be forced to liquidate and break the buck (due to the capital losses caused by the buffet rule).

If they up capital gains tax, they up capital gains tax. That effects everybody with capital gains income, so that will be avoided, as will anything else that shifts the burden down to the masses. This is the Buffett Rule, as I linked to wiki. This is about the top earners. The idea that it's going to be forced onto average citizens is just fearmongering gobbledygook. You profit big you pay more, not anywhere near as much as I'd like, but it's better than nothing.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #92 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If they up capital gains tax, they up capital gains tax. That effects everybody with capital gains income, so that will be avoided, as will anything else that shifts the burden down to the masses. This is the Buffett Rule, as I linked to wiki. This is about the top earners. The idea that it's going to be forced onto average citizens is just fearmongering gobbledygook. You profit big you pay more, not anywhere near as much as I'd like, but it's better than nothing.

You still don't understand how bonds work, which is why none of your responses make sense at all. Also, you need to go back and revisit what I said about capital gains - keep on re-reading it until you understand.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #93 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Most of the "millionaires who pay no tax" are getting all their income from tax free municipal bonds...

Is that so?
post #94 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Is that so?

Those municipal bonds are quite nice--and only rich people can really buy them. They come in huge multi-thousand dollar denominations. Those are investment vehicles that should be available to everyone--not just the rich.

Now, e#s claim is pretty extreme and does need support, but I understand the bonds' appeal. His calculations seem a bit wonky though at a quick glance.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #95 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Go look up how bond pricing works. Suppose you had a bond that paid 3% interest tax free - if the government starts taxing it, the resale value of the bond drops. If you have to pay 33% tax (i.e. get 2% after tax instead of 3%), then the resale value of the bonds will also drop by 33%. In my example I assumed 40% tax - so $2 million worth of bonds drops in value to $1.2 million once the law is passed.

That grandmother could have gotten 5% on a taxable bond, all of a sudden she is locked in for the length of the bond at a lower rate (could be she gets a lot less income for 30 years if it is a long bond). She is screwed - her income drops dramatically because the government broke its promise, and now she takes a huge capital loss if she sells the bond.

If you are going to propose big changes to the tax code, it would be good to understand how it works first Hands... Buffet is total scum, he probably has a massive short on municipal bonds, which is why he proposed this in the first place.

I don't see the bonds' values dropping by 33%. Assume a $10,000 bond with 3% interest paid once per year. 1 year goes by: $300 interest payment. If capital gains is applied, it's a $200 payment. I don't see how that would drop the bond's value to $6,666.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #96 of 140
Guys and gals, just wanted to mention you can open up a non-resident account in Australia and you can get up to 6% interest on cash and/or term deposits, $1 million AUD guaranteed by the govt until Feb 2012 then it's $250,000 AUD guaranteed by the government per individual per bank. 10% non-resident tax is deducted on the interests, but everything else, is yours to keep (and possibly report to the IRA in the US depending on double-taxation US-Australian laws).
post #97 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't see the bonds' values dropping by 33%. Assume a $10,000 bond with 3% interest paid once per year. 1 year goes by: $300 interest payment. If capital gains is applied, it's a $200 payment. I don't see how that would drop the bond's value to $6,666.

Suppose you buy a $10,000 30 year bond that pays 5% per year, then interest rates go up to 10% - your bond now is worth half as much. In effect it becomes a $5000 30 year bond that pays 10% instead of a $10,000 30 year bond that pays 5%. You have a 50% capital loss due to the change in interest rates.

Think about buying bonds after the change - would you be willing to pay the same amount of money for a 5% bond and a 10% bond? Of course not - you would pay half as much for the 5% bond.

The same thing happens if you revoke the tax free status of tax free bonds. It is just like interest rates jumped 40% and you are left in the lerch. The bonds are worth X, and they are worth a lot less than X if they are no longer tax free.

Capital gains and bonds are two separate issues, with different problems - you are mixing up the capital gains tax issue with the bond issue. Taxable bonds are subject to normal income taxes, not capital gains taxes (on the coupon, capital gains taxes are if you sell the bond early). The problem with capital gains and the buffet rule is that it will really discourage long term investments in anything - because of the weird way that they calculate capital gains, you can end up paying taxes on fake gains.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Guys and gals, just wanted to mention you can open up a non-resident account in Australia and you can get up to 6% interest on cash and/or term deposits, $1 million AUD guaranteed by the govt until Feb 2012 then it's $250,000 AUD guaranteed by the government per individual per bank. 10% non-resident tax is deducted on the interests, but everything else, is yours to keep (and possibly report to the IRA in the US depending on double-taxation US-Australian laws).

But you also get currency risk - if the Australian dollar drops back to 0.50 US then you lose half your money. My personal opinion is that Australia is in for some hard times - they have a real estate bubble, plus Europe will take out China, and China will take out Australia. No idea what will happen with the currency.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #98 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I don't see the bonds' values dropping by 33%. Assume a $10,000 bond with 3% interest paid once per year. 1 year goes by: $300 interest payment. If capital gains is applied, it's a $200 payment. I don't see how that would drop the bond's value to $6,666.

Most bonds are not purchased at face value. They pay that value as part of their interest.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #99 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If they up capital gains tax, they up capital gains tax. That effects everybody with capital gains income, so that will be avoided, as will anything else that shifts the burden down to the masses. This is the Buffett Rule, as I linked to wiki. This is about the top earners. The idea that it's going to be forced onto average citizens is just fearmongering gobbledygook. You profit big you pay more, not anywhere near as much as I'd like, but it's better than nothing.

What are "average citizens?" Hands, the issue here is one very, very simple lie. That lie is "the rich pay less taxes than the middle class." It's simply not true, especially when we're talking about earned income. Someone making $1,000,000 per year, for example, is paying far more in income taxes than you're average carpenter making $60,000 a year.

And honestly, that's not even the issue anyway. The really issue is that raising taxes will not help the economy NOR make much (if any) impact on the deficit/debt. You know this to be true, but continue to espouse the virtues of the bogus "Buffet Rule."
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #100 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Suppose you buy a $10,000 30 year bond that pays 5% per year, then interest rates go up to 10% - your bond now is worth half as much. In effect it becomes a $5000 30 year bond that pays 10% instead of a $10,000 30 year bond that pays 5%. You have a 50% capital loss due to the change in interest rates.

You are skipping steps here and leaving out the initial parameters. Show your work.

What type of municipal bond is this? Zero coupon with compound interest purchased at a much lower cost than face value? Traditional municipal bond with which there are annual or biannual payments? What was the purchase price of the bond? How do you make the leap to the bond being worth half as much? Show your math especially with that last one.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #101 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You are skipping steps here and leaving out the initial parameters. Show your work.

What type of municipal bond is this? Zero coupon with compound interest purchased at a much lower cost than face value? Traditional municipal bond with which there are annual or biannual payments? What was the purchase price of the bond? How do you make the leap to the bond being worth half as much? Show your math especially with that last one.

1. You buy a bond from the initial issuer, 30 year, 2% tax free annual coupon - at the same time the equivalent 30 year taxable bond is paying 3.2%.

The initial conditions don't matter - the bond you buy could also have initially be issued at a higher or lower interest rate, but based on your purchase price and the coupon payments you get 2% tax free.

Say that you paid $100k for the bond, and it pays $2000/year in interest. $100k in taxable bonds would pay $3200/year in interest, which is about $2000 after tax.

2. Buffet rule passes the next day, making your tax free status go away.

3. Now your bond is taxable, and the current tax free rate for bonds of that particular credit rating is 3.2%.

Your bond pays $2000 per year in interest. $2000 is 3.2% of $62,300. Your capital loss is $100k - 62,300 = $37,700. If you tried to sell your bond the day after the buffet tax was passed, you would get $62,300 for it, after having paid $100k the day before the buffet tax was passed.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #102 of 140
As someone who knows little about the bond market, I am finding this AI thread unusually educational.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #103 of 140
I understand the math behind the last part, but I'm still not seeing the logical leap to the lower selling price. The bond still pays out interest every year and can be redeemed for its full cash value upon maturity. You still receive $60,000 over thirty years and still get the $100k back at the end, too. I'd like to see some outside sources that verify the validity of your assumptions on sale price here.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #104 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I understand the math behind the last part, but I'm still not seeing the logical leap to the lower selling price. The bond still pays out interest every year and can be redeemed for its full cash value upon maturity. You still receive $60,000 over thirty years and still get the $100k back at the end, too. I'd like to see some outside sources that verify the validity of your assumptions on sale price here.

If two people approached you selling $100k bonds - one paid $3200/year and one paid $2000/year for the next 30 years, would you be willing to pay the same price for both bonds?
If not, the difference in price between the two bonds is how much bond holders would lose.

You are right that I over-simplified the calculation of the loss, but there is a loss.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #105 of 140
It would depend upon availability, but sure, I wouldn't pay as much for the one that gives less interest. Again, outside source please for the precise loss calculation. You just rephrased your initial $36,000 figure when you made this statement:

"If not, the difference in price between the two bonds is how much bond holders would lose."

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #106 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

As someone who knows little about the bond market, I am finding this AI thread unusually educational.

Nothing could surprise me more.

....tra la la..
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #107 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

It would depend upon availability, but sure, I wouldn't pay as much for the one that gives less interest. Again, outside source please for the precise loss calculation. You just rephrased your initial $36,000 figure when you made this statement:

"If not, the difference in price between the two bonds is how much bond holders would lose."

Here is a bond price calculator:

http://www.investopedia.com/calculat...#axzz1abPzdEe9

I started with 10000, 10/12/2011/ 10/12/2041, annual rate 2, yield 2, redemption value 10000

with both the yield and annual rate at 2%, the bond is worth $10k

Then changed the yield to 3.2 - value of bond drops to $7,707.61

This simulates the effect of the Buffet rule - you buy a 2% bond thinking that it is tax free, then things are no longer tax free, so you bond is now valued as if it were a taxable bond, and the current taxable bond rate is higher so you have a loss.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #108 of 140
Thread Starter 
This is like arguing that tax free bonds are like Hitler.

Sorry, but this is all retarded beyond belief.

Interestingly, i met a guy in real life the other day who was preaching that wind turbines kill all life down wind from the turbines.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!! AAAAAARRRRGGGG!
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #109 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

This is like arguing that tax free bonds are like Hitler.

Another post that makes no sense. I'm just going to ignore you - I don't think you have any interest in rational discussion.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #110 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Nothing could surprise me more.

....tra la la..

Ditto.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #111 of 140
Thread Starter 
This is like arguing that tax free bonds are like Hitler.

Sorry, but this is all retarded beyond belief.

Interestingly, i met a guy in real life the other day who was preaching that wind turbines kill all life down wind from the turbines. Im not kidding.

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!! AAAAAARRRRGGGG!

The realty is this leglislation is to be designed to target the Romneys not the Mc'Omnipotents. Capital gains arguments have substance, but

Ah forget it. this is all too fucked up to .....
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #112 of 140
BR? Tonton? Anyone on the left here care to handle this one?
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #113 of 140
If you are going to implement the "Buffet Rule", I think that you need to do the following:

1. Grandfather in all existing tax free bonds, the income from those bonds will not count as income subject to the Buffet Rule.

2. Change the capital gains tax rules - tax them like normal income, but multiply the cost basis by inflation.

Once you do these things, implementing something like the Buffet Rule will be less dangerous. However, once you do these things you will realize that the whole "Rich don't pay very much tax" meme is total BS, and the Buffett rule is pointless. IMHO - every case where "the rich pay a lower tax rate than the middle class" it is due to one of these two things.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #114 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

BR? Tonton? Anyone on the left here care to handle this one?

I suspect they're not stupid enough to bother with this shit.

In fairness e# cap gains is lower to reflect inflation, bit everything else is utter bullshit mental headfuck dumb.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #115 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I suspect they're not stupid enough to bother with this shit.

In fairness e# cap gains is lower to reflect inflation, bit everything else is utter bullshit mental headfuck dumb.

Right. So you don't understand it, then?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #116 of 140
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Right. So you don't understand it, then?

This is too silly for me. Sorry, im done wasting time on this bs, it's childlike, really.

No more. It's a waste of time for us all here to entertain this screwball bs.
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #117 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

But you also get currency risk - if the Australian dollar drops back to 0.50 US then you lose half your money. My personal opinion is that Australia is in for some hard times - they have a real estate bubble, plus Europe will take out China, and China will take out Australia. No idea what will happen with the currency.

Yup... But the likelihood of the AUD going down past 90c to the USD is quite low at this stage. There is such inherent weakness of the USD it really is quite scary. The only reason it remains "strong enough for now" is because it is the default reserve currency still so everyone sells of other currencies in bad economic times.

Personally I don't think things are as grim for Australia as you mention. But it's where I'm investing my next 1 or 2 years of my life, so perhaps I am biased.
post #118 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

This is too silly for me. Sorry, im done wasting time on this bs, it's childlike, really.

No more. It's a waste of time for us all here to entertain this screwball bs.

Silly? He just gave a very in-depth explanation of what the Buffett Rule would do to municipal/tax free bond holders. How is that silly?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #119 of 140

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #120 of 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Yup... But the likelihood of the AUD going down past 90c to the USD is quite low at this stage. There is such inherent weakness of the USD it really is quite scary. The only reason it remains "strong enough for now" is because it is the default reserve currency still so everyone sells of other currencies in bad economic times.

Personally I don't think things are as grim for Australia as you mention. But it's where I'm investing my next 1 or 2 years of my life, so perhaps I am biased.

AUD went down way more than that in 2008 - and the high Australian dollar is a pretty recent thing, really. I used to pay attention to it a lot in 1993-2005, and it mostly stayed in the 50 to 60 cents range.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Obama's "Buffett Rule" Rules OK!