Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
waffler

[*] posted on 24-3-2009 at 02:50
Quote:
Originally posted by charles
Sounds like we could all do with a Maggie Thatcher back in control


I'll drink to that . cheers:
marymary100

[*] posted on 23-3-2009 at 23:27
She's in her dotage.
charles

[*] posted on 23-3-2009 at 21:31
Sounds like we could all do with a Maggie Thatcher back in control
scholar

[*] posted on 25-2-2009 at 04:52
Quote:
Originally posted by Daz
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
When John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush DECREASED taxes, MORE REVENUE came in, because a lower tax rate encourages more tax-generating business activity.


Certainly didn't help much over here when our loons tried that tactic with the VAT cut... A gimmick/soundbyte is all it was/is.
Now that you bring it up, the demonstrated success of the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush income tax cuts in bringing in additional revenue were all in the nature of income tax cuts. A person could reasonably say that those examples do not, themselves, prove that changes in other taxes (VAT, tariffs, sales tax, "sin" taxes {alcohol and tobacco} and special use tax) would have the identical revenue increasing effect.
delanti

[*] posted on 25-2-2009 at 03:16
I don't want this to turn into anti Democrat discussion. The reason being is that I am more concerned about the market than Government. Since the Market is not a person who can verbalize it's feelings we are always to a great extent guessing at what moves the Market whether it be up or down.

Sometimes it is what someone says and sometimes it is something they don't say. What I am concerned about is that since August 28th, something is causing a free fall in the market. I am not blaming the new administration because I don't know for a fact it is caused by them, that is why I asked the question, do they have the answer.

Today the Market took a nice move up, thats nice. Lets see what it does tomorrow after our President gives his speach.waveysmiley
Daz

[*] posted on 25-2-2009 at 01:14
Quote:
Originally posted by scholar
When John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush DECREASED taxes, MORE REVENUE came in, because a lower tax rate encourages more tax-generating business activity.


Certainly didn't help much over here when our loons tried that tactic with the VAT cut... A gimmick/soundbyte is all it was/is.
scholar

[*] posted on 25-2-2009 at 00:01
Quote:
Originally posted by delanti
Before the new administration took office they and the Democratic controlled Congress pressured the Bush administration to pass a large bail out bill. Since then, they have bailed out the auto industry and just passed the biggest stimulus bill in history. With everything they have done, the market remains in free fall.

Therefore, my question is do they have the answer or are they the cause? In the Dow Industrials chart below, look at the dot on the chart line for the date of August 28, 2008, the date it became apparent that Barack H. Obama was the Democrat nominee and likely next President of the United States.

Delanti, my understanding is that Bush's Secretary of Treasury, with Bush's agreement and support, pushed for the initial TARP legislation (the original bail-out bill). I am not inclined to credit it to Democrat pressure. In fact, it did not survive the first vote because a certain number of Democrats were unwilling to vote for it (because it was so unpopular), and Republicans decided they were unwilling to support a bill that even many Democrats realized was the wrong thing to do.

To you basic point: After the Porkulus Stimulus Bill was passed, the stock market fell. After Obama had his Presidential press conference, which focused on the economy, the stock market plunged. When his Sec. of Treasury spoke of his plans for recovery the next day, the stock market plunged again. When Obama spoke of his plan for government to help with the mortgage problems, the stock market fell again.

As bank stocks fell because of fears of nationalization, he said that he did not plan to nationalize the banks. When asked if he would NEVER nationalize the banks, he was not willing to put it that strongly. Bank stocks fell even lower.

In most cases, when Obama speaks of his ignorant, destructive economic policies, people who really know business and finances react in horror. scared_stiff scared_stiff

For example, Obama tried to reassure the nation by saying that he would follow a pay-as-you-go system. If the government was going to spend money, they would have to either cut another expenditure, or raise taxes. But, he hasn't been in favor of cutting much of anything except military expenditures. And, when taxes are increased, less money comes in, because the taxes choke the businesses. When John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush DECREASED taxes, MORE REVENUE came in, because a lower tax rate encourages more tax-generating business activity. If the overspending Republicans had not increased spending even more than the increased revenues that were coming in (some of which expense was necessary for increased security, for hurricane-related aid, and for military expenditures), we could have been in much better shape.
delanti

[*] posted on 24-2-2009 at 16:30
Quote:
Originally posted by waffler
Will stick to my 401k


Thats fine, but what happens if you loose your job and have to take your 401K money out? waveysmiley
janet

[*] posted on 24-2-2009 at 12:14
In the UK - think, ISA
waffler

[*] posted on 24-2-2009 at 01:15
Will stick to my 401k
LSemmens

[*] posted on 24-2-2009 at 00:08
Quote:
Originally posted by delanti
No Irish, no war and no shooting. Just trying to get my piece of the pie.waveysmiley

In our home when the boys were teens, if there was a piece of pie, there would be war, and shooting over it! boxing::D
delanti

[*] posted on 24-2-2009 at 00:02
Quote:
Originally posted by Quaver
Quote:
Originally posted by delanti
Back in 1996, I opened an IRA account at E*Trade.

What's an IRA account? Only one I know is: Irish Republican Army:D


Oops. In the US, we are allowed to place a portion of our take home after tax earning in a (Individual Retirement Account). It started out you could put in $2000.00 a year and now you can put in $6000.00 a year.The earnings on any monies is tax deferred until you start to draw it out after age 59 1/2. Then it is only taxable if your withdraws increase your adjusted gross earnings for the year to the point where you would owe taxes on your income. The best part is you can claim a deduction on your Income Tax Return for contributions to a IRA

The monies in an IRA can be just left as cash earning interest or invested in Stocks, bonds or Mutual Funds to increase their value. I kept a third of mine in a pretty safe Mutual Fund, one third in individual long term stocks and the other third varied between short term stock investments and cash in a money market account.

No Irish, no war and no shooting. Just trying to get my piece of the pie.waveysmiley

Must be Google is down?
LSemmens

[*] posted on 23-2-2009 at 23:50
I'm with Quaver! War is supposedly always good for the economy, or so I've heard, so investing ing the IRA may have been a wise move. What about the Taliban how are their stocks?
Nimuae

[*] posted on 23-2-2009 at 23:34
Isn't IRA similar to our Income Tax ? or even Inland Revenue ?
Quaver

[*] posted on 23-2-2009 at 22:19
Quote:
Originally posted by delanti
Back in 1996, I opened an IRA account at E*Trade.

What's an IRA account? Only one I know is: Irish Republican Army:D
delanti

[*] posted on 23-2-2009 at 18:39
Back in 1996, I opened an IRA account at E*Trade. I transferred my existing IRA into the new account and have managed my own account ever since. I did my own buying and selling of stocks in my account and managed to produce positive results above the S&P averages.

While not an expert by any means I have learned that there are many things that influence the market and it is sometimes difficult to put your finger on what makes it go up or down.

In the last 6 months, we have had our eye on housing and the mortgage crisis as the reason for the steep decline in the market. But what if that is not the reason? What if there was a parallel event that was really the reason for the decline.

Before the new administration took office they and the Democratic controlled Congress pressured the Bush administration to pass a large bail out bill. Since then, they have bailed out the auto industry and just passed the biggest stimulus bill in history. With everything they have done, the market remains in free fall.

Therefore, my question is do they have the answer or are they the cause? In the Dow Industrials chart below, look at the dot on the chart line for the date of August 28, 2008, the date it became apparent that Barack H. Obama was the Democrat nominee and likely next President of the United States.