A New Tax?

[cre8tiff]

a few wildass cretins

 

Leave me out of this.

[Perchoutofwater]

That’s a really good question. Why in god’s name would you want to put money that you need to be liquid into the market? So, when you’re done complaining about the overreaching nature of this policy, you might want to write Big Brother a thank you note for saving you from yourself.

 

What’s one of the first questions any financial advisor asks you? How much of this money do you think you might need in the next few years? Whatever that amount is, they typically tell you to keep on the sidelines in some sort of lower yielding interest-earning account. If you’ve got money that you might need to bail out your business in the stock market, the least of your worries should be taxes or penalties involved in pulling it out too soon. You’re biggest concern is whether or not it’s even freaking there when you need it.

 

So, sounds like to me you’re seeing this as not only a penalty on using the markets in a manner other than that which they were designed for, but also a penalty on being stupid and reckless. Frankly, that’s fine with me.

 

Actually I have 25% of my portfolio in cash right now. Also, my company is incorporated so it insulates my personal finances to some degree. I was thinking more along the lines if I wanted to do the right thing rather than just what I'm legally required to do. Thanks for your useless condescending response. Go back to cooking road kill mutts.

[bpwallace49]

. Thanks for your useless condescending response. Go back to cooking road kill mutts.

 

Because that remark was perfectly civil and rational . . . .

[westvirginia]

That's a really good question. Why in god's name would you want to put money that you need to be liquid into the market? So, when you're done complaining about the overreaching nature of this policy, you might want to write Big Brother a thank you note for saving you from yourself.

 

What's one of the first questions any financial advisor asks you? How much of this money do you think you might need in the next few years? Whatever that amount is, they typically tell you to keep on the sidelines in some sort of lower yielding interest-earning account. If you've got money that you might need to bail out your business in the stock market, the least of your worries should be taxes or penalties involved in pulling it out too soon. You're biggest concern is whether or not it's even freaking there when you need it.

 

So, sounds like to me you're seeing this as not only a penalty on using the markets in a manner other than that which they were designed for, but also a penalty on being stupid and reckless. Frankly, that's fine with me.

 

If he's stupid and reckless, he won't long have that money. Who are you or anyone else to tell him how to use it?

[detlef]

Actually I have 25% of my portfolio in cash right now. Also, my company is incorporated so it insulates my personal finances to some degree. I was thinking more along the lines if I wanted to do the right thing rather than just what I'm legally required to do. Thanks for your useless condescending response. Go back to cooking road kill mutts.

Actually, I was rather certain that 1) you've got your crap together enough to have short term cash reserves, and 2) that you've likely got stock holdings that you've owned for more than a year which means that the short term gains tax wouldn't effect you since you could just sell the other stuff. In other words, you're arguing on behalf of someone else. Someone who may or may not even exist, and, more specifically, are doing something they shouldn't be doing anyway.

 

I mean, I get the unintended consequence deal, when that unintended consequence actually exists.

 

Now, again, the only reason why you would give two poops about capital gains tax and how it would affect money that you were putting away for the long haul was, "What if I need this money inside a year?" And, again, if you have any legitimate reason to think that, then you shouldn't be looking at the market anyway. So, it's an evil tax that could potentially keep people from doing something with their money that they probably shouldn't. There's something worth fighting against.

 

Further more, say you don't have any stocks that have been laying around for a while and you've got your cash stash and are still petrified by the fact that you could need to dip into your entire worldly possessions within the next year so you put it in the bank. So? It's not like it's under your mattress. The bank is just going to turn around and invest that money in the same sorts of things you were going to anyway. So, on the larger scale, the net effect of you getting spooked by the short term tax is essentially nothing.

 

If he's stupid and reckless, he won't long have that money. Who are you or anyone else to tell him how to use it?

You shouldn't drink and drive either.

 

You are quickly becoming an irrelevant mockery of your alleged political beliefs.

Edited September 3, 2009 by detlef

[westvirginia]

You shouldn't drink and drive either.

 

You are quickly becoming an irrelevant mockery of your alleged political beliefs.

 

 

Oh how so, pray tell? I would gladly give the obamessiah credit for anything he's gotten right, but the ONLY thing he's done to engender freedom in either this country or the rest of the world is the bullets those SEALs put in the pirates heads.

 

Give me one thing he's done to engender liberty and I'll gladly retract my statement.

 

ETA: Nice deflection though. You neither rebutted my point nor answered my question.

Edited September 3, 2009 by westvirginia

[detlef]

Oh how so, pray tell? I would gladly give the obamessiah credit for anything he's gotten right, but the ONLY thing he's done to engender freedom in either this country or the rest of the world is the bullets those SEALs put in the pirates heads.

 

Give me one thing he's done to engender liberty and I'll gladly retract my statement.

 

ETA: Nice deflection though. You neither rebutted my point nor answered my question.

Excuse me?

 

Which statement should you retract? How 'bout all the ones where you imply things are being banned when they're simply not.

 

And I'll give you a proper reply when you actually ask a real question, not just regurge more knee-jerk pap about the walls closing in.

[westvirginia]

Excuse me?

 

Which statement should you retract? How 'bout all the ones where you imply things are being banned when they're simply not.

 

And I'll give you a proper reply when you actually ask a real question, not just regurge more knee-jerk pap about the walls closing in.

 

My question was who are you to tell anyone how to use either their money or a free market. Would you brook government telling you that a Mexican restaurant was too risky and besides, you already own one and shouldn't we "give someone else a chance"? My contention is that taxation is purely for revenue raising, not to enforce some morality.

[Perchoutofwater]

Mexican food causes extreme build ups in methane which is a green house gas, which we all know is harmful to the environment. I think as good stewards of the earth we should impose and additional 50% tax on all profits on Mexican food. I mean it is for the common good and all.

[detlef]

My question was who are you to tell anyone how to use either their money or a free market. Would you brook government telling you that a Mexican restaurant was too risky and besides, you already own one and shouldn't we "give someone else a chance"? My contention is that taxation is purely for revenue raising, not to enforce some morality.

First off, that's your contention. But that doesn't mean that's how it should be. Tariffs, for instance are not only to raise revenue but to also discourage the import of goods at the expense of buying locally.

 

Secondly, don't confuse this as morality. The "morality card" is tossed around far more often then it should be and usually when someone has run out of legit points.

 

Next, I'm not telling anyone what they can or can't do and neither is the gov't in this case. You wanna day trade? Knock yourself out. No laws against it.

 

Lastly, my point with perch was that he was bringing up an unintended consequence of a tax that discourages people from abusing the markets. However, it just so happens that those unfairly caught in the crossfire should actually thank their lucky stars that the government placed a monetary "penalty" on handling their money that way because this policy just happened to save them from themselves. That was really it. If he wanted to actually point out a legitimate unintended consequence, he should have done so rather than just bringing up the first lame example that popped into his head.

[westvirginia]

First off, that's your contention. But that doesn't mean that's how it should be. Tariffs, for instance are not only to raise revenue but to also discourage the import of goods at the expense of buying locally.

 

Secondly, don't confuse this as morality. The "morality card" is tossed around far more often then it should be and usually when someone has run out of legit points.

 

Next, I'm not telling anyone what they can or can't do and neither is the gov't in this case. You wanna day trade? Knock yourself out. No laws against it.

 

Lastly, my point with perch was that he was bringing up an unintended consequence of a tax that discourages people from abusing the markets. However, it just so happens that those unfairly caught in the crossfire should actually thank their lucky stars that the government placed a monetary "penalty" on handling their money that way because this policy just happened to save them from themselves. That was really it. If he wanted to actually point out a legitimate unintended consequence, he should have done so rather than just bringing up the first lame example that popped into his head.

 

It most certainly is an issue of morality - people in favor of this feel that way because of some notion that some nebulous thing they call "day trading" is wrong - they make a judgment. Because they judge it wrong, they deem it should be punished. That, my friend, is morality.

 

What is wrong with someone freely giving their money for something of value? No matter the value might be solidly backed by assets or as ethereal as the morning mist. That is free trade. The more of that you kill, the longer this economic morass lasts.

 

You know what, I just became in favor of this. Go obamessiah! Get your dumb arse sent back to Chicago!

[Ursa Majoris]

My question was who are you to tell anyone how to use either their money or a free market.

Part of the libertarian ethos, so far as it actually has one, is total freedom as long as it impinges on no-one else's freedom, right? The problem that this proposal is trying to solve does indeed affect other people therefore the government is right to try to restrict it. The fact that they choose to do it by making it more expensive is not "banning".

 

Newsflash - the markets aren't free. Like everything else in society, they are all connected and what is done by one person is felt by another.

 

Do you support the right to drive on the left, BTW?

[WaterMan]

My question was who are you to tell anyone how to use either their money or a free market. Would you brook government telling you that a Mexican restaurant was too risky and besides, you already own one and shouldn't we "give someone else a chance"? My contention is that taxation is purely for revenue raising, not to enforce some morality.

 

I agree that the government shouldn't be able to tell me which drugs I can and can't buy.

[westvirginia]

I agree that the government shouldn't be able to tell me which drugs I can and can't buy.

 

OMG, it actually said something that makes sense. :faintsdeadaway:

[detlef]

Part of the libertarian ethos, so far as it actually has one, is total freedom as long as it impinges on no-one else's freedom, right? The problem that this proposal is trying to solve does indeed affect other people therefore the government is right to try to restrict it. The fact that they choose to do it by making it more expensive is not "banning".

 

Newsflash - the markets aren't free. Like everything else in society, they are all connected and what is done by one person is felt by another.

He shoots, he scores.

[westvirginia]

Part of the libertarian ethos, so far as it actually has one, is total freedom as long as it impinges on no-one else's freedom, right? The problem that this proposal is trying to solve does indeed affect other people therefore the government is right to try to restrict it. The fact that they choose to do it by making it more expensive is not "banning".

 

Newsflash - the markets aren't free. Like everything else in society, they are all connected and what is done by one person is felt by another.

 

Do you support the right to drive on the left, BTW?

 

 

He shoots, he scores.

 

By carrying those thoughts to their logical conclusion, then no one in a free marketplace is able to raise any price that might cause anyone else any harm. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHEAP GAS. You guys sure don't understand liberty very well.

[detlef]

By carrying those thoughts to a ridiculous extreme, then no one in a free marketplace is able to raise any price that might cause anyone else any harm. You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHEAP GAS. You guys sure don't understand liberty very well.

fixed

 

There are almost no laws put in place that would hold up to the slippery slope argument if you try hard enough.