On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:18:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:


The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions.

Evidence?

Do you listen to them at all? Or do you simply nod when they tell you
all the free stuff we will be getting.


Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.

Funny, originally stocks were simply ownership in a company and
profits were distributed as dividends. The secondary market for
equities perhaps shouldn't be used as the primary vehicle for
returns on investment; return the profits directly to the shareholders.

How long ago was "originally"?
Equities have always been traded and anything traded has a bid and
asked price. Maybe you spent too much time studying theory in
economics class and never heard about the reality.
To start with, dividends only come with profits and if people
invested, counting on immediate dividends, there would be no startups.
Buying stock is a gamble from day one and the value of that bet
changes as companies rise and fall in profitability.
Are you saying Google should still only be worth $85 a share (before
the split)?

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:18:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:


The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions.

Evidence?

Do you listen to them at all? Or do you simply nod when they tell you
all the free stuff we will be getting.

Neither. When they have a concrete plan I read it. I don't
listen to any talking heads (red or blue) on the idiot box.

And I don't get any free stuff. I pay taxes. More this
year than last thanks to Trumps "penalize the blue states" tax plan.

And probably more than you ever have.

On 11/15/2019 3:42 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:

That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.


What is true is that the wealthy will be looking to move stuff out of
taxable situations. France had a bunch of billionaires move across the
street to Belgium.

You can be sure the accountants and tax lawyers are already making plans
on how to set up trusts or start new religions or whatever it takes to
reduce payout.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 21:53:42 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:18:34 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:


The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions.

Evidence?

Do you listen to them at all? Or do you simply nod when they tell you
all the free stuff we will be getting.

Neither. When they have a concrete plan I read it. I don't
listen to any talking heads (red or blue) on the idiot box.

And I don't get any free stuff. I pay taxes. More this
year than last thanks to Trumps "penalize the blue states" tax plan.

And probably more than you ever have.

Ever is a long time. I used to live up in a tax happy state when the
bite was almost 30% of my gross just in state and federal income tax.
That was before the other taxes.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 14:19:10 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

That last is bull****.

and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never recovered.

And that's utterly mindless silly stuff too.

Argue with Milton Friedman and Krugman.

No point, they are ****wits on that.

All the middle class in here are doing fine.

While Ralph could be doing better, that has
nothing to do with the 2009 fiasco, its just
the result of what the operation he worked
for not being able to compete with china.

It wasn't my assertion.

But you did mindlessly wave it around.

And neither of them have ever been stupid enough
to make the earlier even more stupid claim.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:46:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.


Canada is doing just fine and I doubt even Sanders would tax
corporations enough to make life more difficult for corporations than
it is in Canada - which is NOT terribly onerous.

The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions. Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.
Long term deductions tend to incentivize leaving your money in an
investment for a while instead of day trading and adds some stability
to the market. .

But its still a stupid claim that if they get to do what they propose,
that the result of that would be much worse than 1929

"Scott Lurndal" wrote in message
...
writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:


The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions.

Evidence?
Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.

Funny, originally stocks were simply ownership in a
company and profits were distributed as dividends.

Plenty of them werent, they were invested in the company.

The secondary market for equities perhaps shouldn't
be used as the primary vehicle for returns on investment;
return the profits directly to the shareholders.

Problem is that it took a very long time for amazon to show a
profit and those immense costs have to be paid for somehow.

Twitter still doesn’t make a profit and neither does uber
and it is very far from clear that either of them ever will.

Tesla in spades.

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:31:50 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:46:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.


Canada is doing just fine and I doubt even Sanders would tax
corporations enough to make life more difficult for corporations than
it is in Canada - which is NOT terribly onerous.

The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions. Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.
Long term deductions tend to incentivize leaving your money in an
investment for a while instead of day trading and adds some stability
to the market. .
We have Capital Gains tax in Canada - with a reasonable lifetime
exemption and Canadian investors still invest pretty aggressively in
equities. Business startups are thriving.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then.

Bull****.

There was no real competition

More bull****, most obviously with Japan.

and moving your operation offshore was much harder,

More bull**** with India and Bangladesh etc.

if not impossible.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying
something with Boeing and GM and Ford alone.

and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and
associated economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/
resignation, which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today

That's bull**** to with the started claim.

and that was also when we decided deficits no longer mattered.

That's bull**** too. That happened during WW2,

The only thing that is holding down double
digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale

That's bull**** too.

and that can't last much longer.

That's bull**** too.

The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith

They economy is doing fine with a bit of a slowdown
world wide. Slowdowns at times are inevitable, stupid.

and credit of the US.

That's bull**** too.

I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now
be two impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.

Oh bull****. It did fine when Nixon got the bums rush.

The day the world markets decide we are really just
another banana republic selling worthless paper,

Taint gunna happen. The USA is STILL where the full
commercialisation of almost everything happens
first and that's not going to change any time soon.

Yes, most manufacturing except with cars and planes
and military hardware is now done offshore, but that
been very good for the consumers and the US economy
keeps doing fine regardless, because manufacturing is
only a time part of any modern first world economy now.

interest rates will spike

Fantasy.

and we won't be able to cover them with our revenue.

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying
something with govt debt. The reason that interest
rates on govt securitys wont spike is because there
is nowhere else for china to put its money, stupid.

We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%)
that would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.

But its less clear that we will see Carter era interest rates again.

And the govt debt was much higher when WW2 ended and
it was perfectly possible to reduce it dramatically over time
even while still spending much more on the cold war then.

That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs
to spend money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't
even make a dent in that deficit. All it will do is make them
move their money offshore making our problems worse.

That isnt how the dramatic reduction in govt
debt after WW2 had ended was done.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:18:11 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:31:50 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:46:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.


Canada is doing just fine and I doubt even Sanders would tax
corporations enough to make life more difficult for corporations than
it is in Canada - which is NOT terribly onerous.

The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions. Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.
Long term deductions tend to incentivize leaving your money in an
investment for a while instead of day trading and adds some stability
to the market. .
We have Capital Gains tax in Canada - with a reasonable lifetime
exemption and Canadian investors still invest pretty aggressively in
equities. Business startups are thriving.

I suppose the question I don't have the answer to is whether Canada
gives tax preference to long term capital gains over ordinary income.
If so, that is all we are talking about. Could we look at those rules?
Sure. I am not sure 1 year is "long term" and I am not sure the profit
on homes should be sheltered (zero up to a half million or something)
but it is what it is.
Voters determine tax policy for the masses and big money determines it
for the rest. Essentially we have voted the deficits we like to blame
politicians for. Everyone is ok taxing the other guy but they don't
want to pay themselves. That is why half of us don't pay income tax at
all. When my wife was working and we were making low 6 figures, we
paid 11%, now that she is retired too, it is more like 4%.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:13:26 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then.

Bull****.

There was no real competition

More bull****, most obviously with Japan.

In the late 40s and early 50s Japan was still a smoking hole in the
ground struggling to make a living making cheap copies of American
goods.
It wasn't until the transistor age that they actually made anything
worth buying and it wasn't until the 70s that they made a decent car.
Things moved pretty fast for them after that but that is not what we
are talking about.
The nose bleed US taxes were before JFK.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?

wrote
Rod Speed wrote
wrote
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then.

Bull****.

There was no real competition

More bull****, most obviously with Japan.

In the late 40s and early 50s Japan was
still a smoking hole in the ground

Another pig ignorant lie.

struggling to make a living making cheap copies of American goods.

Another pig ignorant lie.

It wasn't until the transistor age that they actually made anything worth
buying

Another pig ignorant lie with the lower level military
hardware that the US bought for the Korean War.

and it wasn't until the 70s that they made a decent car.

Another pig ignorant lie.

Things moved pretty fast for them after that
but that is not what we are talking about.
The nose bleed US taxes were before JFK.

They werent in fact a nose bleed for anyone.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal.
Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?

You're the one that needs to show hour you know they there will return any
time soon.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:47:32 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:18:11 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:31:50 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:46:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.


Canada is doing just fine and I doubt even Sanders would tax
corporations enough to make life more difficult for corporations than
it is in Canada - which is NOT terribly onerous.

The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions. Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.
Long term deductions tend to incentivize leaving your money in an
investment for a while instead of day trading and adds some stability
to the market. .
We have Capital Gains tax in Canada - with a reasonable lifetime
exemption and Canadian investors still invest pretty aggressively in
equities. Business startups are thriving.

I suppose the question I don't have the answer to is whether Canada
gives tax preference to long term capital gains over ordinary income.

Yes last I remember about half
If so, that is all we are talking about. Could we look at those rules?
Sure. I am not sure 1 year is "long term" and I am not sure the profit
on homes should be sheltered (zero up to a half million or something)
but it is what it is.

Principal residence is sheilded to 250,000 for a single personand
500,000 for a couple. - and total capital gains lifetime to 866,912 is
exempt. On income or rental property you can "1031" it into another
income property within 180 days without paying capital gains on it -
which means you can "defer" the tax.
A primary residence must have been lived in for 2 of the last 5 years
to qualify.

Also
The capital gains exemption (CGE) is available to individuals only,
not corporations, and forms a deduction (worth 50% of the exemption,
since 50% of capital gains are taxed) from net income. Benefits that
use net income, such as the age credit and OAS clawback, will be
calculated before the deduction is reflected.

To qualify for the exemption, three tests must be met at the time of
disposition.
•Small business corporation (SBC) test: All, or substantially all, of
the company’s assets must be used in an active business carried on
primarily in Canada. “All or substantially all” is generally
considered to mean at least 90%, using fair market value. Only the
company’s assets are considered in the criteria; debt and other
liabilities have no impact. Assets not listed on the balance sheet are
also included, such as goodwill and internally generated patents. The
reference to “primarily in Canada” generally means at least 50%.
•Holding period test: The disposed share must have been owned by the
shareholder or a related person throughout the 24-month period prior
to the disposition. This is an attempt to limit the CGE to longer-term
investments rather than rewarding quick flips.
•Basic asset test: Throughout the 24 months prior to the disposition,
the corporation had to have been a Canadian-controlled private
corporation and more than 50% of the company’s assets had to have been
used in an active business carried on primarily in Canada.

A series of tactics are commonly used to help qualify for or optimize
CGE.

Purify

When assets do not meet the 90% percent threshold for the SBC test,
shareholders can attempt to purify their assets—i.e., employ them in
earning active business income. To adjust the mix of active and
passive assets, a company could use passive assets to pay down
liabilities, buy active business assets or pay a dividend to the
shareholder. By recharacterizing or removing passive assets, the mix
of assets is re-proportioned to meet the 90/10 ratio of active to
passive.

Crystallize

Crystallization refers to claiming the CGE on qualifying shares that
the shareholder continues to own. When CGE is crystallized, the CGE
claimed is embedded in the adjusted cost base (ACB) of the shares held
by the shareholder, increasing the ACB by the amount of the CGE
claimed.




Say, for instance, a shareholder has $800,000 in CGE left and her
shares have an ACB of $1,000 and a fair market value of $850,000. If
she crystallizes her CGE, the ACB of the shares will increase to
$801,000 instead of $1,000.

The CGE claim cannot be immediately converted to cash without
triggering negative tax consequences. By embedding the amount claimed
in the ACB, it reduces the capital gain when the shareholder
eventually sells the shares. Crystallizing ensures a shareholder
benefits from this tax advantage without having to meet qualifying
criteria at the time of sale.

Multiply

Multiplication involves using the available CGE of other family
members. If several family members can claim their CGE at the time a
business is sold, the overall income tax liability can be reduced
across the family unit.

Pitfalls to watch for

When using these planning strategies, watch for anti-avoidance
measures and other tax implications, such as the following, to
minimize any unanticipated consequences.
•As mentioned, Section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act blocks shareholders
from using crystallization strategies to convert CGE into cash.
•The alternative minimum tax (AMT) can cause an unexpected tax
liability in the year CGE is claimed. Generally, this can occur when a
taxpayer crystallizes in a year of otherwise low income. While AMT is
refundable, a refund is generated only when AMT is less than* the
regular tax calculation in the subsequent seven years.
•A balance in a taxpayer’s cumulative net investment loss (CNIL)
account can restrict access to the CGE. As the name implies, this is a
cumulative calculation that considers all of an individual’s
investment income and investment expenses incurred after 1987. If the
calculation results in a net loss, the CNIL could impact a CGE claim.
•An allowable business investment loss (ABIL) could impact a CGE
claim. If an ABIL is realized in the year, whether or not it is
claimed on the tax return, it is used in the CGE calculation.
•The CGE could be denied if it is reasonable to conclude that a
significant portion of the capital gain realized on the disposition of
the shares is attributable to a lack of dividends having been paid on
the shares.
•The capital gain from a disposition and capital gain deduction must
be reported and claimed in the year of disposition. Failure to include
the deduction in the return cannot be corrected later.
•If the capital gain is realized in a trust and the trust allocates
the capital gain among several family members, these amounts are
payable to the family members. Using a family member’s CGE entitles
that person to a payment.

Voters determine tax policy for the masses and big money determines it
for the rest. Essentially we have voted the deficits we like to blame
politicians for. Everyone is ok taxing the other guy but they don't
want to pay themselves. That is why half of us don't pay income tax at
all. When my wife was working and we were making low 6 figures, we
paid 11%, now that she is retired too, it is more like 4%.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 12:55:48 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


No point, they are ****wits on that.

No ****wit around like you, you trolling senile Australian pest!

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 13:37:42 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Problem is that

Problem is that you are a trolling piece of senile Australian ****!

BTW, I'm pleased to see that you hope you still might win this game, my
senile punching bag! LOL Just adds so much more fun for me!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 12:58:35 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


But its still a stupid claim that if they get to do what they propose,
that the result of that would be much worse than 1929

Is that about American politics again, you senile "expert" in everything?
It's NONE of yours, you abnormal senile pest!

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

Is that about American finances, senile trolling asshole from Australia?
Well, it's ALL none of yours!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:07:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


And you know this how?

You're the one that needs to show hour you know they there will return any
time soon.

You retarded trolling piece of **** you! LOL

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:13:26 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH another load the senile asshole troll's troll****

....and much better air in here!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 19:03:44 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Another pig ignorant lie.

Nope, just another filthy troll on your part, you obnoxious senile pest!

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID:

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 1:54:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covYouering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Actually Tbonds peaked at ~16%. You're right, if you asked anyone
just a few years prior if that could happen, they would have said
no, never. It's certainly possible for rates to return to double
digits. One simple method would be for investor psychology to
change, where they come out of dreamland and realize the US is
piling up debt at an alarming rate, that we may not be able to pay
it back. And like we've agreed in the past, even if rates just
got back to their historic range, the increase in interest payments
on new debt, on debt rolled over increases dramatically and that
makes the deficits worse. If you looked at countries from Germany
to South America, to Greece, none of them would have thought they
would wind up busted either, but they did.

On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that. Smart thing I did was
take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 1:54:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and
a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal.
Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after
they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do
with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the
scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up
the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covYouering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Actually Tbonds peaked at ~16%. You're right, if you asked anyone
just a few years prior if that could happen, they would have said
no, never. It's certainly possible for rates to return to double
digits. One simple method would be for investor psychology to
change, where they come out of dreamland and realize the US is
piling up debt at an alarming rate, that we may not be able to pay
it back. And like we've agreed in the past, even if rates just
got back to their historic range, the increase in interest payments
on new debt, on debt rolled over increases dramatically and that
makes the deficits worse. If you looked at countries from Germany
to South America, to Greece, none of them would have thought they
would wind up busted either, but they did.

But the USA never did, and there is a reason for that.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 04:57:16 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


got back to their historic range, the increase in interest payments
on new debt, on debt rolled over increases dramatically and that
makes the deficits worse. If you looked at countries from Germany
to South America, to Greece, none of them would have thought they
would wind up busted either, but they did.

But the USA never did, and there is a reason for that.

Do you get some sort of senile sexual kick, every time you auto-contradict,
senile idiot? I sure would like to know your psychiatrists' diagnosis of
your abnormal mental condition! G

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On 11/16/2019 10:23 AM, Frank wrote:
On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed
and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal.
Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right.Â* Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense.Â*Â* Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise
after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again.Â* The economic malaise had nothing to do
with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly?Â*Â* From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise?Â*Â* Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing
that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the
scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding
up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%)
that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in
that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true.Â* Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that.Â* Smart thing I did was
take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

When I moved to CT in 1981 I was able to get a good deal at 15%.
Refinanced twice as the rates dropped.

I had an Excel spreadsheet from somewhere that showed you the savings if
you prepay. Every month I put the payment and extra payment and the
total savings showed. It was a visible incentive to pay it off quickly.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 03:42:29 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:47:32 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:18:11 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:31:50 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:46:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.


Canada is doing just fine and I doubt even Sanders would tax
corporations enough to make life more difficult for corporations than
it is in Canada - which is NOT terribly onerous.

The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions. Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.
Long term deductions tend to incentivize leaving your money in an
investment for a while instead of day trading and adds some stability
to the market. .
We have Capital Gains tax in Canada - with a reasonable lifetime
exemption and Canadian investors still invest pretty aggressively in
equities. Business startups are thriving.

I suppose the question I don't have the answer to is whether Canada
gives tax preference to long term capital gains over ordinary income.

Yes last I remember about half
If so, that is all we are talking about. Could we look at those rules?
Sure. I am not sure 1 year is "long term" and I am not sure the profit
on homes should be sheltered (zero up to a half million or something)
but it is what it is.

Principal residence is sheilded to 250,000 for a single personand
500,000 for a couple. - and total capital gains lifetime to 866,912 is
exempt. On income or rental property you can "1031" it into another
income property within 180 days without paying capital gains on it -
which means you can "defer" the tax.
A primary residence must have been lived in for 2 of the last 5 years
to qualify.

Also
The capital gains exemption (CGE) is available to individuals only,
not corporations, and forms a deduction (worth 50% of the exemption,
since 50% of capital gains are taxed) from net income. Benefits that
use net income, such as the age credit and OAS clawback, will be
calculated before the deduction is reflected.

To qualify for the exemption, three tests must be met at the time of
disposition.
€¢Small business corporation (SBC) test: All, or substantially all, of
the companys assets must be used in an active business carried on
primarily in Canada. €œAll or substantially all€� is generally
considered to mean at least 90%, using fair market value. Only the
companys assets are considered in the criteria; debt and other
liabilities have no impact. Assets not listed on the balance sheet are
also included, such as goodwill and internally generated patents. The
reference to €œprimarily in Canada€� generally means at least 50%.
€¢Holding period test: The disposed share must have been owned by the
shareholder or a related person throughout the 24-month period prior
to the disposition. This is an attempt to limit the CGE to longer-term
investments rather than rewarding quick flips.
€¢Basic asset test: Throughout the 24 months prior to the disposition,
the corporation had to have been a Canadian-controlled private
corporation and more than 50% of the companys assets had to have been
used in an active business carried on primarily in Canada.

A series of tactics are commonly used to help qualify for or optimize
CGE.

Purify

When assets do not meet the 90% percent threshold for the SBC test,
shareholders can attempt to purify their assets€”i.e., employ them in
earning active business income. To adjust the mix of active and
passive assets, a company could use passive assets to pay down
liabilities, buy active business assets or pay a dividend to the
shareholder. By recharacterizing or removing passive assets, the mix
of assets is re-proportioned to meet the 90/10 ratio of active to
passive.

Crystallize

Crystallization refers to claiming the CGE on qualifying shares that
the shareholder continues to own. When CGE is crystallized, the CGE
claimed is embedded in the adjusted cost base (ACB) of the shares held
by the shareholder, increasing the ACB by the amount of the CGE
claimed.




Say, for instance, a shareholder has $800,000 in CGE left and her
shares have an ACB of $1,000 and a fair market value of $850,000. If
she crystallizes her CGE, the ACB of the shares will increase to
$801,000 instead of $1,000.

The CGE claim cannot be immediately converted to cash without
triggering negative tax consequences. By embedding the amount claimed
in the ACB, it reduces the capital gain when the shareholder
eventually sells the shares. Crystallizing ensures a shareholder
benefits from this tax advantage without having to meet qualifying
criteria at the time of sale.

Multiply

Multiplication involves using the available CGE of other family
members. If several family members can claim their CGE at the time a
business is sold, the overall income tax liability can be reduced
across the family unit.

Pitfalls to watch for

When using these planning strategies, watch for anti-avoidance
measures and other tax implications, such as the following, to
minimize any unanticipated consequences.
€¢As mentioned, Section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act blocks shareholders
from using crystallization strategies to convert CGE into cash.
€¢The alternative minimum tax (AMT) can cause an unexpected tax
liability in the year CGE is claimed. Generally, this can occur when a
taxpayer crystallizes in a year of otherwise low income. While AMT is
refundable, a refund is generated only when AMT is less than* the
regular tax calculation in the subsequent seven years.
€¢A balance in a taxpayers cumulative net investment loss (CNIL)
account can restrict access to the CGE. As the name implies, this is a
cumulative calculation that considers all of an individuals
investment income and investment expenses incurred after 1987. If the
calculation results in a net loss, the CNIL could impact a CGE claim.
€¢An allowable business investment loss (ABIL) could impact a CGE
claim. If an ABIL is realized in the year, whether or not it is
claimed on the tax return, it is used in the CGE calculation.
€¢The CGE could be denied if it is reasonable to conclude that a
significant portion of the capital gain realized on the disposition of
the shares is attributable to a lack of dividends having been paid on
the shares.
€¢The capital gain from a disposition and capital gain deduction must
be reported and claimed in the year of disposition. Failure to include
the deduction in the return cannot be corrected later.
€¢If the capital gain is realized in a trust and the trust allocates
the capital gain among several family members, these amounts are
payable to the family members. Using a family members CGE entitles
that person to a payment.

I imagine the end result is about like the US but it seems more
complicated. Unusual for a place where the normal tax return seems to
be a one or 2 page document that should take 10-15 minutes to fill
out.
It takes me a couple hours and I have a pretty simple return. The
problem is the convoluted "work sheets" you need to run through to do
things like take 85% of your SS payments or figure out if your
dividends are taxable.

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 10:23:51 -0500, Frank "frank wrote:

On 11/16/2019 3:44 AM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:53:23 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Mortgage rates were 22% when I bought this house. Fortunately I was
able to assume the 6% existing mortgage on the property!!!!


Mine were 9% and they were heading up after that. Smart thing I did was
take 20 year mortgage and pay it off in 18.

I was lucky to lock in 7.25% in 1971. It was already creeping up. The
rate went up .25% from the time we signed the contract on the house
and the time the note went through (about a week).
I ended up getting $2,000 off the price of the house because the
contract was based on 7% and I had already taken posession of the
house.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 04:57:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 1:54:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and
a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal.
Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after
they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do
with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the
scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up
the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%) that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covYouering the outlay for the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Actually Tbonds peaked at ~16%. You're right, if you asked anyone
just a few years prior if that could happen, they would have said
no, never. It's certainly possible for rates to return to double
digits. One simple method would be for investor psychology to
change, where they come out of dreamland and realize the US is
piling up debt at an alarming rate, that we may not be able to pay
it back. And like we've agreed in the past, even if rates just
got back to their historic range, the increase in interest payments
on new debt, on debt rolled over increases dramatically and that
makes the deficits worse. If you looked at countries from Germany
to South America, to Greece, none of them would have thought they
would wind up busted either, but they did.

But the USA never did, and there is a reason for that.

You think that just because we used to be fiscally stable that we are
now? Great, buy some bonds. Tell your friends, tell your neighbors. We
need to keep that myth going. (at least another 10-20 years until I am
returned to the soil).

In article ,
says...

I imagine the end result is about like the US but it seems more
complicated. Unusual for a place where the normal tax return seems to
be a one or 2 page document that should take 10-15 minutes to fill
out.
It takes me a couple hours and I have a pretty simple return. The
problem is the convoluted "work sheets" you need to run through to do
things like take 85% of your SS payments or figure out if your
dividends are taxable.



I believe that was another thing my man Trump was suppose to do and make
a very short tax return paper.

Mine is simple now. Just a few stocks, my and wifes IRA and SS. Just
the standard deductions and state and local taxes.

I use a tax program like Turbo Tax on the computer, and it still takes a
while to work through all the questions on it.

I have no idea if it is done right or not. Just hope for the best.
Seem to recall that Einstein said something like taxes are not for math
people, but philosophers.

I have heard and know of one man that has called the IRS and gotten
several answers to the same question about something relative simple
like his teachers pension and taxes.

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 04:57:16 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 1:54:31 AM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 15:39:02 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 20:42:55 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 16:16:28 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott
Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed
and
a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal.
Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming
his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their
politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and
taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors
enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.

Nonsense. Corporations existed for seven decades with more
stringent restrictions and taxes than today and we did just fine.

We were not in a global economy then. There was no real competition
and moving your operation offshore was much harder, if not
impossible.


and it might not be one we recover from in my lifetime.
The middle class still hasn't recovered from the malaise after
they
removed Nixon. .

You're confused again. The economic malaise had nothing to do
with
Nixon and everything to do with the embargo.

There are plenty of economists who say the middle class never
recovered.

Never recovered from _what_ exactly? From the embargo and
associated
economic malaise? Certainly not from the
impeachment/resignation,
which nobody gave a **** about after 6 months.

It started the political divide that still exists today and that
was
also when we decided deficits no longer mattered. The only thing
that
is holding down double digit inflation is the Fed's thumb on the
scale
and that can't last much longer. The only thing that is holding up
the
economy these days is the blind faith and credit of the US.
I am not going to say Trump did any better but it is a 45 year old
problem, not helped by a forced resignation and what will now be
two
impeachments. That does not bode well for the republic.
The day the world markets decide we are really just another banana
republic selling worthless paper, interest rates will spike and we
won't be able to cover them with our revenue.
We take in about $2.4 trillion if you exclude FICA that is spent
before we even get it and at a Carter era interest rate (11-12%)
that
would barely cover the interest on the $22T debt.
That leaves nothing for anything else the government needs to spend
money on. Taxing the Forbes 400 at 90% won't even make a dent in
that
deficit. All it will do is make them move their money offshore
making
our problems worse.

Your saying it, doesn't make it true. Provide some citations to
actual,
you know, research that supports your supposition.

Which part confuses you? That Carter had a 11-12% interest rate on
federal paper. That is fact
That the debt is $22T? Fact
That 12% of $22T is $2.64T? Fact
That the total revenue minus the FICA is $2.4T? Fact
That the fact that the FICA is not even covYouering the outlay for
the
people we promised it to? Fact

You can't just say "NO" without being ready to tell me what part is
wrong. Tell me which one is not true.

Interest rates on govt debt arent going back to 11-12%

And you know this how?


Actually Tbonds peaked at ~16%. You're right, if you asked anyone
just a few years prior if that could happen, they would have said
no, never. It's certainly possible for rates to return to double
digits. One simple method would be for investor psychology to
change, where they come out of dreamland and realize the US is
piling up debt at an alarming rate, that we may not be able to pay
it back. And like we've agreed in the past, even if rates just
got back to their historic range, the increase in interest payments
on new debt, on debt rolled over increases dramatically and that
makes the deficits worse. If you looked at countries from Germany
to South America, to Greece, none of them would have thought they
would wind up busted either, but they did.

But the USA never did, and there is a reason for that.

You think that just because we used to be fiscally stable that we are now?

Nope, I realise that the USA has never been stupid
enough to do what Germany did between the wars,
or Greece has done recently, or Venezuela either
and that the WW2 govt debt was much higher
and that worked out fine.

Great, buy some bonds.

No thanks, I get a better return on the stock market.

Tell your friends, tell your neighbors.

Few of those have anything like my accumulated wealth.

We need to keep that myth going.

It isnt a myth, it's a fact that that's a safe place for your money,
although the returns arent anything special currently

(at least another 10-20 years until I am returned to the soil).

Makes more sense to be burned. At the stake in your case.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 07:47:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Nope

LOL

No

LOL

It isnt

LOL

****ed up psycho!

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 14:36:02 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 03:42:29 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 01:47:32 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 22:18:11 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:31:50 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 01:12:25 -0500, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 21:46:27 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 23:00:14 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:57:16 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:



You do have to take into account the market had just crashed and a
good percentage of that gain was just getting back to normal. Keeping
a rally going is as hard as watching the recovery from a crash.

I guarantee you there will be a big crash if they do succeed in
removing Trump

Yeah, right. Removing trump will fire up the market assuming his
successor manages to convince the rest of the world that trump
was an abberation instead of a new normal (but we're
still screwed in the long run due to the trump tax cuts and
insane annual budget deficits).

If you get democrats with the Sanders Warren tilt to their politics
they will target corporations with excessive regulations and taxes,
remove tax incentives to invest and generally scare investors enough
to make 1929 or 2009 look like a minor correction in the market.


Canada is doing just fine and I doubt even Sanders would tax
corporations enough to make life more difficult for corporations than
it is in Canada - which is NOT terribly onerous.

The one that gets lost in the noise is Sanders/Warren and others going
after the capital gains deductions. Without them, a good part of the
reason to invest in equities goes away.
Long term deductions tend to incentivize leaving your money in an
investment for a while instead of day trading and adds some stability
to the market. .
We have Capital Gains tax in Canada - with a reasonable lifetime
exemption and Canadian investors still invest pretty aggressively in
equities. Business startups are thriving.

I suppose the question I don't have the answer to is whether Canada
gives tax preference to long term capital gains over ordinary income.

Yes last I remember about half
If so, that is all we are talking about. Could we look at those rules?
Sure. I am not sure 1 year is "long term" and I am not sure the profit
on homes should be sheltered (zero up to a half million or something)
but it is what it is.

Principal residence is sheilded to 250,000 for a single personand
500,000 for a couple. - and total capital gains lifetime to 866,912 is
exempt. On income or rental property you can "1031" it into another
income property within 180 days without paying capital gains on it -
which means you can "defer" the tax.
A primary residence must have been lived in for 2 of the last 5 years
to qualify.

Also
The capital gains exemption (CGE) is available to individuals only,
not corporations, and forms a deduction (worth 50% of the exemption,
since 50% of capital gains are taxed) from net income. Benefits that
use net income, such as the age credit and OAS clawback, will be
calculated before the deduction is reflected.

To qualify for the exemption, three tests must be met at the time of
disposition.
•Small business corporation (SBC) test: All, or substantially all, of
the company’s assets must be used in an active business carried on
primarily in Canada. “All or substantially all” is generally
considered to mean at least 90%, using fair market value. Only the
company’s assets are considered in the criteria; debt and other
liabilities have no impact. Assets not listed on the balance sheet are
also included, such as goodwill and internally generated patents. The
reference to “primarily in Canada” generally means at least 50%.
•Holding period test: The disposed share must have been owned by the
shareholder or a related person throughout the 24-month period prior
to the disposition. This is an attempt to limit the CGE to longer-term
investments rather than rewarding quick flips.
•Basic asset test: Throughout the 24 months prior to the disposition,
the corporation had to have been a Canadian-controlled private
corporation and more than 50% of the company’s assets had to have been
used in an active business carried on primarily in Canada.

A series of tactics are commonly used to help qualify for or optimize
CGE.

Purify

When assets do not meet the 90% percent threshold for the SBC test,
shareholders can attempt to purify their assets—i.e., employ them in
earning active business income. To adjust the mix of active and
passive assets, a company could use passive assets to pay down
liabilities, buy active business assets or pay a dividend to the
shareholder. By recharacterizing or removing passive assets, the mix
of assets is re-proportioned to meet the 90/10 ratio of active to
passive.

Crystallize

Crystallization refers to claiming the CGE on qualifying shares that
the shareholder continues to own. When CGE is crystallized, the CGE
claimed is embedded in the adjusted cost base (ACB) of the shares held
by the shareholder, increasing the ACB by the amount of the CGE
claimed.




Say, for instance, a shareholder has $800,000 in CGE left and her
shares have an ACB of $1,000 and a fair market value of $850,000. If
she crystallizes her CGE, the ACB of the shares will increase to
$801,000 instead of $1,000.

The CGE claim cannot be immediately converted to cash without
triggering negative tax consequences. By embedding the amount claimed
in the ACB, it reduces the capital gain when the shareholder
eventually sells the shares. Crystallizing ensures a shareholder
benefits from this tax advantage without having to meet qualifying
criteria at the time of sale.

Multiply

Multiplication involves using the available CGE of other family
members. If several family members can claim their CGE at the time a
business is sold, the overall income tax liability can be reduced
across the family unit.

Pitfalls to watch for

When using these planning strategies, watch for anti-avoidance
measures and other tax implications, such as the following, to
minimize any unanticipated consequences.
•As mentioned, Section 84.1 of the Income Tax Act blocks shareholders
from using crystallization strategies to convert CGE into cash.
•The alternative minimum tax (AMT) can cause an unexpected tax
liability in the year CGE is claimed. Generally, this can occur when a
taxpayer crystallizes in a year of otherwise low income. While AMT is
refundable, a refund is generated only when AMT is less than* the
regular tax calculation in the subsequent seven years.
•A balance in a taxpayer’s cumulative net investment loss (CNIL)
account can restrict access to the CGE. As the name implies, this is a
cumulative calculation that considers all of an individual’s
investment income and investment expenses incurred after 1987. If the
calculation results in a net loss, the CNIL could impact a CGE claim.
•An allowable business investment loss (ABIL) could impact a CGE
claim. If an ABIL is realized in the year, whether or not it is
claimed on the tax return, it is used in the CGE calculation.
•The CGE could be denied if it is reasonable to conclude that a
significant portion of the capital gain realized on the disposition of
the shares is attributable to a lack of dividends having been paid on
the shares.
•The capital gain from a disposition and capital gain deduction must
be reported and claimed in the year of disposition. Failure to include
the deduction in the return cannot be corrected later.
•If the capital gain is realized in a trust and the trust allocates
the capital gain among several family members, these amounts are
payable to the family members. Using a family member’s CGE entitles
that person to a payment.

I imagine the end result is about like the US but it seems more
complicated. Unusual for a place where the normal tax return seems to
be a one or 2 page document that should take 10-15 minutes to fill
out.
It takes me a couple hours and I have a pretty simple return. The
problem is the convoluted "work sheets" you need to run through to do
things like take 85% of your SS payments or figure out if your
dividends are taxable.
I use a simple tax preparation package on my computer that does all
the calcs and what-ifs - and e-files for me.
I do mine. my wife's, both daughters, son-inlaw and stepmother for
about $30

On 11/16/2019 12:36 PM, wrote:
It takes me a couple hours and I have a pretty simple return. The
problem is the convoluted "work sheets" you need to run through to do
things like take 85% of your SS payments or figure out if your
dividends are taxable.

Disclaimer: I'm a programmer not an accountant but if any of my crew
wrote a section of code as murky as those worksheets they would spend
the next month assigned newbie cleanup tasks.

On 11/16/2019 03:00 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
I use a simple tax preparation package on my computer that does all
the calcs and what-ifs - and e-files for me.
I do mine. my wife's, both daughters, son-inlaw and stepmother for
about $30

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/tax...-doing-n736386

Yeah, but Canada isn't the bastion of free enterprise and the best
government money can buy. (if it were, you might want to return Trudeau
for a refund.)