Editor's Note: This article has been modified to reflect the expected 2013 reversion to the 20 percent U.S. capital gains tax of 2003. This article incorrectly stated that the rate would increase to 35 percent.
As of this writing, the note above has been added but the article is still incorrect.
Yes but both California and Florida were both in trouble before their current governors took office. Funny how this whole economic downturn started with a Republican in office and now we're supposed to believe a Republican will lead us out. The rich need to stop hoarding their wealth in order for the trickle down effect to work, I'd rather just give it to the middle class and let them do what they do best and spend that money which creates jobs.
California's legislature has been Democrat for more than two decades, which is why Big Arnie's accomplishments were rather less than expectations. New York's problems are because it's Assembly has been dominated by the Democrats for a similar period of time. And the current national downtown began with the swearing in of a Democrat-lead House of representatives in January of 2006. President Bush's "woeful economic record" is the direct result of Democrat intransigence before Jan 2006 and deliberate Democrat malevolent unco-opertion after. Where Florida fits could use a fuller explanation.
The rich are not hoarding their wealth, they are avoiding mischievous levies from a Federal establishment intent on fleecing them of honest gains. Arbitrary redistribution of wealth is a doctrine of abject failure because, as Baroness Thatcher pointed out, you will run out of other people's money.
The Democrats strike again. They won't be happy until they can turn their Great Recession into a Great Depression. Liberal Democrats were never happier than under FDR.
And there's no question that's what's happening. The three state in the worst economic shape--California, Illinois and New York, are heavily Democratic. And Detroit, perhaps the worst major city in the country, hasn't elected anyone but liberal Democrats in half a century.
Keep in mind another factor for Apple's stock fall. Many of those with Apple 'stuff' already have an older model. In this dismal Obama economy, they're going to be delaying upgrades.
You are over simplifying complex issues. More importantly, you are to your own detriment treating politics as a sport. The reality is there are both good democrats and good republicans. In addition, the US would greatly benefit from more than a two party system being that complex issues shouldn't be confined to merely two perspectives that are trying to make the other look bad while gaining power.
California, Illinois, New York, and Detroit are in the worst economic shape for a variety of reasons. First, controlling immigration is not a racial matter. It is an economic matter. When the US started we needed lots of workers to build the nation. There was no shortage of work. Now there is a shortage. It makes no sense to allow new people to enter the country when the people paying taxes that are already here are struggling to find work. Current policies allow immigrants to come in illegally. Most go to places like the cities you mention. Once there the States are forced by a Supreme Court decision to provide health care, schooling, and welfare. In other words, tax payers subsidize the cost to provide services for millions of people who came here illegally. Look at Countries like Norway, Sweden, or Finland with strong immigration polices. They are doing fairly well in this tough economy because they are controlling the population size.
Second, while the states you mention are in poor economic shape this can be attributed to population size. Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles are the most populated cites in the Country. Again, under Court rulings the states have to provide services such as schooling to everyone. Moreover, these states are the most populated because that is where most of the work was located. The work relocated, but the people remained.
Third, the top ten poorest states are Republican strong holds. This is based on the last US Census. You would think if Republican policies are the way to go those states would be doing pretty good economically, but not so much.
Fourth, the system worked much better when Republicans and Democrats controlled various government bodies thereby forcing them to work together to get things done and things happened slowly but the parties did compromise. Mitch McConnell said after the first President Obama election that his number one goal wasn't fixing the economy but to make sure President Obama wasn't reelected. He meant it. Over the last four years the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party refused to compromise on anything and insisted that the suppose to be temporary Bush Tax Cuts had to be extended as a condition for any other legislation to be passed. They filibustered over the majority vote consistently. Even the Republican Senate leader Boehner was deeply frustrated at times. The filibuster used to be a useful tool. If one congress person strongly disagreed with a bill he or she could go to the House or Senate Floor and hold up a bill by pleading to other members of the respective chambers to change their votes. Once the congress person gave up the floor, the majority vote would win the day. Now an elected member of congress merely has to say he or she is filibustering and the bill is defeated unless two third of the body of congress can override the filibuster. So one person can without explanation over ride the will of the majority. Again, the Tea Party did this repeatedly. Very little got passed. Even Reagan understood every once in a while a tax increase was a necessity to spur economic growth. Yet, many Republican signed a written oath prepared by a private lobbying entity swearing that they would never raise taxes no matter what. That is simply irresponsible. Further, this is despite the US tax rate for the wealthiest people in our Country being the lowest it has ever been.
Fifth, ironically the supposed temporary Bush tax break was intended to spur job growth. Instead, 2.1 million jobs were lost since they were implemented. Trickle down economics that many Republicans favor simply do not work. The inverse is true. A well off middle class spends money for their families thereby creating a demand for jobs. By the way, understanding that is how Roosevelt got the US out of the great depression. He created well paying government jobs and public work jobs. The people used the money to buy things from private companies, which in turn created more jobs.
Sixth, both the Republicans and Democrats sold the US out when they passed the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since the founding of our Country, it was understood import tariffs had to be imposed on Countries that had an unfair trade advantage. For instance, China subsidizes both its materials and work force. Moreover, it doesn't hold the same values towards humans that western countries hold thereby giving it another unfair advantage. So, we taxed these type of Countries goods being imported to protect american manufacturing and workers. The taxes from those jobs is what helped the country flourish both on the federal and local level. With NAFTA, we allowed Chinese goods to flow through Canada and Mexico without taxation thereby providing companies the motivation to relocate manufacturing overseas. The loss of the jobs and the associated taxes is why governments, especially local governments, are struggling having to downsize readily available services that have been available the 46 years I have been on the planet.
If you want the good times to roll again, it would be easy. Step one, repeal NAFTA. US politicians should worry about americans first. US workers shouldn't have to compete with countries like China who's economy is not compatible with our own. I am not saying we should not sell good made in places like China, just that they should be taxed to take away the economic advantage. Our country's founding fathers understood the importance of the import tax to protect american manufacturing and materials. Step two, tighten immigration. The more people you have, the more work you have to create. Three, change filibustering to how it used to be. A congress person can hold a bill up by speaking directly to the american people from the senate or house floor, but at the end of the day a simple majority wins. This would help clear up some current grid lock.
Cheers. By the way, even though I largely vote democrat, I consider myself to be an independent. I will also point out that Illinois, California, and New York are States where people with the highest level of education and the highest wealth earners live.
I don't know why no one is stating the obvious which is apple stocks are in a significant part a mom and pop stock and they need money for Christmas gifts...
I don't know why no one is stating the obvious which is apple stocks are in a significant part a mom and pop stock and they need money for Christmas gifts...
The rich are not hoarding their wealth, they are avoiding mischievous levies from a Federal establishment intent on fleecing them of honest gains. Arbitrary redistribution of wealth is a doctrine of abject failure because, as Baroness Thatcher pointed out, you will run out of other people's money.
Cheers
The problem with your view is it doesn't acknowledge two things. First, the tax rate for those earning over $250, 000 is the lowest it has ever been. It was even before the supposed temporary Bush tax breaks were imposed. Moreover, the super wealthy have far more deductions available to them then most folks. So, while I agree the federal government wastes money, the rich are hardly being fleeced in any historical context.
Second, there seems to be this new found mind set that the wealthy are completely self made. They often times leave out their public schooling, use of publicly funded institutions of higher education, libraries, roads, etc. We have a tiered tax system so those who have benefitted the most from the american system can pay a little more in taxes to give the next person an equal chance of achieving the so called american dream.
Since you are fond of Brits, I will quote you another. "Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civil society." Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. I will take good old Wendell over Thatcher any day.
I will also point out that Illinois, California, and New York are States where people with the highest level of education and the highest wealth earners live.
And they're blue states. Just goes to show that many very rich people aren't afraid to vote against self interest.
It just seems like yesterday when AAPL raced to $200 only to drop to $80 a short time later. The sky was falling. Apple was finished. End of story for a tech company that showed so much promise.
How is this relevant? If a capital gains tax would lower the market price of the stock, wouldn't that affect any stock that is reasonably expected to gain value over?
Apple continues to innovate and improve their products. While dell and hp churn out the same old crap, but now with win8. Once Apple captures the enterprise, it's all over.
Maybe the market is reacting to how the company is doing without Steve. There's been a lot of mistakes and very little being done about them. The product lines are turning into a mess with updates taking longer and then delays in delivery. If we're seeing the future of Apple, we will soon be talking about the good ol' days in the not too distant future.
Comments
Quote:
Editor's Note: This article has been modified to reflect the expected 2013 reversion to the 20 percent U.S. capital gains tax of 2003. This article incorrectly stated that the rate would increase to 35 percent.
As of this writing, the note above has been added but the article is still incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Yes but both California and Florida were both in trouble before their current governors took office. Funny how this whole economic downturn started with a Republican in office and now we're supposed to believe a Republican will lead us out. The rich need to stop hoarding their wealth in order for the trickle down effect to work, I'd rather just give it to the middle class and let them do what they do best and spend that money which creates jobs.
California's legislature has been Democrat for more than two decades, which is why Big Arnie's accomplishments were rather less than expectations. New York's problems are because it's Assembly has been dominated by the Democrats for a similar period of time. And the current national downtown began with the swearing in of a Democrat-lead House of representatives in January of 2006. President Bush's "woeful economic record" is the direct result of Democrat intransigence before Jan 2006 and deliberate Democrat malevolent unco-opertion after. Where Florida fits could use a fuller explanation.
The rich are not hoarding their wealth, they are avoiding mischievous levies from a Federal establishment intent on fleecing them of honest gains. Arbitrary redistribution of wealth is a doctrine of abject failure because, as Baroness Thatcher pointed out, you will run out of other people's money.
Cheers
You are over simplifying complex issues. More importantly, you are to your own detriment treating politics as a sport. The reality is there are both good democrats and good republicans. In addition, the US would greatly benefit from more than a two party system being that complex issues shouldn't be confined to merely two perspectives that are trying to make the other look bad while gaining power.
California, Illinois, New York, and Detroit are in the worst economic shape for a variety of reasons. First, controlling immigration is not a racial matter. It is an economic matter. When the US started we needed lots of workers to build the nation. There was no shortage of work. Now there is a shortage. It makes no sense to allow new people to enter the country when the people paying taxes that are already here are struggling to find work. Current policies allow immigrants to come in illegally. Most go to places like the cities you mention. Once there the States are forced by a Supreme Court decision to provide health care, schooling, and welfare. In other words, tax payers subsidize the cost to provide services for millions of people who came here illegally. Look at Countries like Norway, Sweden, or Finland with strong immigration polices. They are doing fairly well in this tough economy because they are controlling the population size.
Second, while the states you mention are in poor economic shape this can be attributed to population size. Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles are the most populated cites in the Country. Again, under Court rulings the states have to provide services such as schooling to everyone. Moreover, these states are the most populated because that is where most of the work was located. The work relocated, but the people remained.
Third, the top ten poorest states are Republican strong holds. This is based on the last US Census. You would think if Republican policies are the way to go those states would be doing pretty good economically, but not so much.
Fourth, the system worked much better when Republicans and Democrats controlled various government bodies thereby forcing them to work together to get things done and things happened slowly but the parties did compromise. Mitch McConnell said after the first President Obama election that his number one goal wasn't fixing the economy but to make sure President Obama wasn't reelected. He meant it. Over the last four years the Tea Party faction of the Republican Party refused to compromise on anything and insisted that the suppose to be temporary Bush Tax Cuts had to be extended as a condition for any other legislation to be passed. They filibustered over the majority vote consistently. Even the Republican Senate leader Boehner was deeply frustrated at times. The filibuster used to be a useful tool. If one congress person strongly disagreed with a bill he or she could go to the House or Senate Floor and hold up a bill by pleading to other members of the respective chambers to change their votes. Once the congress person gave up the floor, the majority vote would win the day. Now an elected member of congress merely has to say he or she is filibustering and the bill is defeated unless two third of the body of congress can override the filibuster. So one person can without explanation over ride the will of the majority. Again, the Tea Party did this repeatedly. Very little got passed. Even Reagan understood every once in a while a tax increase was a necessity to spur economic growth. Yet, many Republican signed a written oath prepared by a private lobbying entity swearing that they would never raise taxes no matter what. That is simply irresponsible. Further, this is despite the US tax rate for the wealthiest people in our Country being the lowest it has ever been.
Fifth, ironically the supposed temporary Bush tax break was intended to spur job growth. Instead, 2.1 million jobs were lost since they were implemented. Trickle down economics that many Republicans favor simply do not work. The inverse is true. A well off middle class spends money for their families thereby creating a demand for jobs. By the way, understanding that is how Roosevelt got the US out of the great depression. He created well paying government jobs and public work jobs. The people used the money to buy things from private companies, which in turn created more jobs.
Sixth, both the Republicans and Democrats sold the US out when they passed the North American Free Trade Agreement. Since the founding of our Country, it was understood import tariffs had to be imposed on Countries that had an unfair trade advantage. For instance, China subsidizes both its materials and work force. Moreover, it doesn't hold the same values towards humans that western countries hold thereby giving it another unfair advantage. So, we taxed these type of Countries goods being imported to protect american manufacturing and workers. The taxes from those jobs is what helped the country flourish both on the federal and local level. With NAFTA, we allowed Chinese goods to flow through Canada and Mexico without taxation thereby providing companies the motivation to relocate manufacturing overseas. The loss of the jobs and the associated taxes is why governments, especially local governments, are struggling having to downsize readily available services that have been available the 46 years I have been on the planet.
If you want the good times to roll again, it would be easy. Step one, repeal NAFTA. US politicians should worry about americans first. US workers shouldn't have to compete with countries like China who's economy is not compatible with our own. I am not saying we should not sell good made in places like China, just that they should be taxed to take away the economic advantage. Our country's founding fathers understood the importance of the import tax to protect american manufacturing and materials. Step two, tighten immigration. The more people you have, the more work you have to create. Three, change filibustering to how it used to be. A congress person can hold a bill up by speaking directly to the american people from the senate or house floor, but at the end of the day a simple majority wins. This would help clear up some current grid lock.
Cheers. By the way, even though I largely vote democrat, I consider myself to be an independent. I will also point out that Illinois, California, and New York are States where people with the highest level of education and the highest wealth earners live.
Why wouldn't they just take the dividends?
The problem with your view is it doesn't acknowledge two things. First, the tax rate for those earning over $250, 000 is the lowest it has ever been. It was even before the supposed temporary Bush tax breaks were imposed. Moreover, the super wealthy have far more deductions available to them then most folks. So, while I agree the federal government wastes money, the rich are hardly being fleeced in any historical context.
Second, there seems to be this new found mind set that the wealthy are completely self made. They often times leave out their public schooling, use of publicly funded institutions of higher education, libraries, roads, etc. We have a tiered tax system so those who have benefitted the most from the american system can pay a little more in taxes to give the next person an equal chance of achieving the so called american dream.
Since you are fond of Brits, I will quote you another. "Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civil society." Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. I will take good old Wendell over Thatcher any day.
And they're blue states. Just goes to show that many very rich people aren't afraid to vote against self interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Just goes to show that many very rich people aren't afraid to vote against self interest.
I doubt that's how they got rich in the first place.
I see no reason why they should suddenly discover self-loathing.
Quote:
dissuading investors from picking up Apple stock at its current relatively undervalued price.
Relatively Undervalued? According to whom? The market sets the value, and according to the market, Apple was over-valued, not under.
Originally Posted by Cash907
…according to the market, Apple was over-valued, not under.
Sure, if you ignore the P/E.
... and then it rose to $700.
deleted
Sep 21?
iPhone 5
I suggest USA government to charge those heavily for their escaping intentionally