|
|
Why is this getting no play??
Oh, yeah, forgot: If this was Palin or McCain, the press and YOU
would have a field day with it. Biden is a cheap *******. As is John Effin Kerry! Dave |
Why is this getting no play??
|
Why is this getting no play??
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:59:56 -0500, Kevin Vang
wrote: I ain't no tax lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you're not REQUIRED to declare your charitable donations on your tax returns. If you don't want the deduction, you are free to leave that line blank. -- What you have to ask yourself, Kevin, is: Would I have this same argument and defend it if the person was Palin or mcCain. I doubt that very much. You are making excuses. Biden consistently gave around $300/year, year after year, until last year when he gave a more acceptable (but still cheap) $1000. The same thing happened when Kerry ran for potus; he upped his giving. They are the Ruling Class. The Ruling Class does not need to give of their monies; they just vote more taxes. Dave |
Why is this getting no play??
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 19:29:19 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: . because Dave's idea of political discourse is to lie. And you're a liar. I have said repeatedly that Cleland was/is a hero. He has a SS which he EARNED. Unfortunately, he did NOT earn the PH that he claimed on his web site. His horrific injuries were caused by a grenade that fell off of someone's belt. That kind of accident happens even in peace time at training facilities. The PH is for being wounded *by enemy fire* in a war zone. So, YOU are the liar. Dave |
Why is this getting no play??
Dave LaCourse wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote: I'm not buying that cock and bull, Louie. You can't tell me that the only safety net for the indigent in the state of Massachusetts is one can of FDA tuna per month. I even provided you with the web site which proves otherwise. You figure it out: ... Already did that. If you want to believe that your largesse is the sole reason some people in Massachusetts don't starve to death you go right ahead and believe it. Just don't expect that I will. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Why is this getting no play??
On Oct 11, 4:10*am, Dave LaCourse wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:59:56 -0500, Kevin Vang wrote: I ain't no tax lawyer, but I'm pretty sure you're not REQUIRED to declare your charitable donations on your tax returns. *If you don't want the deduction, you are free to leave that line blank. -- What you have to ask yourself, Kevin, is: *Would I have this same argument and defend it if the person was Palin or mcCain. *I doubt that very much. *You are making excuses. *Biden consistently gave around $300/year, year after year, until last year when he gave a more acceptable (but still cheap) $1000. *The same thing happened when Kerry ran for potus; he upped his giving. *They are the Ruling Class. The Ruling Class does not need to give of their monies; they just vote more taxes. * Dave You are not "having an argument" LaCourse, you are merely continuing to spout rubbish about a man who may just be careful with his money, or may not even declare charitable works/donations on his tax returns. Many don΄t, because the reason they donate in the first place is not to set off their taxes, but to help people. Also, and another thing you seem quite unable to grasp, giving money ( or indeed "****bags"!), does not really help anybody much, or for very long. Although it may help tide them over temporarily in an emergency. The only way to help such people in any sensible way is to ensure that they have the opportunity to get education, jobs, and social security, and thus to help themselves. Having to depend on dubious charity from people like you is demeaning in the extreme. The more one reads here about your ideas and attitudes to politics and other things, the more it becomes clear that you and others like you are a major part of the problem. Small minded bull**** is apparently more important to you than seeing your country run properly. YOU are the "ruling class" LaCourse, and that is why things have gone to hell. You are an ignorant, arrogant,self-centred ****bag. It seems you "donate" in order to brag about it. That is not donating LaCourse, it is obviously in your case the sad attempt to "buy approval" from those you consider your peers, or once again to browbeat and belittle others with your "generosity". Lastly, giving somebody money or food, although it may or may not be generous per se, and sometimes necessary to help them out, when you are in a position to do so, doing it all the time merely makes them dependent on you, and does not solve their problems. |
Why is this getting no play??
On Oct 9, 8:20*pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy. Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending. Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress. Better the "failed policies" of taxation to pay for spending (a la Clinton) then the failed policies of borrowing from China, Saudi Arabia, et al to pay for the huge "expansion of government spending" of this administration. In the coming months when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year. We've had a hell of a stampede without it. Might as well hit them up for some cash on the way out, help to offset the investor bailout. |
Why is this getting no play??
On Oct 10, 2:20*am, "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote:
Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy. Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending. Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress. In the coming months when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year. It is quite amazing how stupid you people are, and your total failure to grasp even simple economic facts is quite astounding. Your readiness, indeed eagerness, to inflict violence on others who do not see things as you do is also an indication of how stupid and dangerous you are. The simple fact that all these parasites and politicians ride on your backs because you allow it, and that money is the means by which they do it, apparently escapes you. Money itself is useless and intrinsically worthless, it is merely a medium of exchange. You can not eat it or breathe it, it will hot help you when you are ill, at any particular time it is only worth what others are willing to exchange for it. Really severe problems arise when most people acquire large amounts of money, because they confuse the money they possess with what they are actually worth, this is especially so when they acquire far beyond what they may be worthy of, or capable of using properly. Misuse of money and power is the single main reason for all the problems in the world, ( religious bull**** is probably a poor second). Instead of asking yourselves and others something like, "How can we ensure that life is good for all", your questions are always along the lines of "How can I ensure that I get a bigger slice of the cake". You also see nothing wrong in politicians and others who operate more or less solely on this principle. Quite a few of you are also obviously quite convinced that denigrating others makes you better than them, or meets with the approval of those you consider your peers. You have nothing even remotely sensible to suggest or implement, but you are constantly ready and eager to attack and destroy others. Your party political and other ideological ****e underlines your inherent stupidity. These things are what allow others to control you, and your spouting of it illustrates most graphically how effective it is in doing so. Learn to think for yourself. |
Why is this getting no play??
On Oct 10, 5:28*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:28:24 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On Oct 10, 11:11*am, "Bob Weinberger" wrote: Oh. I believe you. In fact I made some nice change shorting some issues before things went into complete freefall. Actualy I look at the present situation as a buying opportunity, but I don't want to move too soon or abruptly. My questions were in response to beancounter's prediction of a the liklihood of a stampede to sell assets in anticipation of an increase in capital gains taxes. *The profits I referred to are the type of long term capital gain profits he was talking about. The number of people, who have made long term capital gains in this market and for whom the threat of increased taxes thereon would tip their decision to sell, are not numerous enough to constitute a "stampede" . Bob Weinberger . wrote in message . .. On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:36:40 -0700, "Bob Weinberger" wrote: "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message ... swnip In the coming months - when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate - there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year. As compared to the current stampede? With the exception of precious metals and possibly a few other tangible assets, what profits? Bob Weinberger Bob, trust me on this or don't, but there is ALWAYS honest profit to be made in any market - if someone is losing money, someone is making it. |
Why is this getting no play??
On Oct 11, 7:48*am, riverman wrote:
On Oct 10, 5:28*pm, wrote: On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:28:24 -0700 (PDT), riverman wrote: On Oct 10, 11:11*am, "Bob Weinberger" wrote: Oh. I believe you. In fact I made some nice change shorting some issues before things went into complete freefall. Actualy I look at the present situation as a buying opportunity, but I don't want to move too soon or abruptly. My questions were in response to beancounter's prediction of a the liklihood of a stampede to sell assets in anticipation of an increase in capital gains taxes. *The profits I referred to are the type of long term capital gain profits he was talking about. The number of people, who have made long term capital gains in this market and for whom the threat of increased taxes thereon would tip their decision to sell, are not numerous enough to constitute a "stampede" . Bob Weinberger . wrote in message . .. On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:36:40 -0700, "Bob Weinberger" wrote: "~^ beancounter ~^" wrote in message ... swnip In the coming months - when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate - there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year. As compared to the current stampede? With the exception of precious metals and possibly a few other tangible assets, what profits? Bob Weinberger Bob, trust me on this or don't, but there is ALWAYS honest profit to be made in any market - if someone is losing money, someone is making it. Hell, if it weren't for the "Great Depression," you very well might have never heard of Joe Kennedy and his spawn. *And we made money in October '87, which was another supposed "end of the world." *In fact, if they listened to me, at least two ROFFians made something on the order of 25% on whatever they invested in the last coupla months. *Hell, I'm up about 65% or so on the year. HTH, R ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**-Hidequoted text - - Show quoted text - Especially, if I am not mistaken, because you don't actually owe any cap gains UNTIL you sell. Why folks would choose to dump assets and invoke taxes to avoid invoking taxes is beyond me.... That doesn't surprise me... IAC, let's assume all assets are long-term (over 1 year) and not worry about net CG - the concept is the same...capital loss can offset capital gain, so if you, for example, bought GM at 50 and can plainly see it ain't getting anywhere near that during the current tax year, the next year, or until you plan to sell it, you can take the hit now and have the capital loss to offset a capital gain. *And/or if you are currently in a lower tax bracket but know that you won't be in the next year, that can come into play - 5% versus 15%. *That, combined with carrying forward (and back, for a company or against other income, with limits, for an individual ) can make selling at loss, well, less painful. *Now, if you believe (or in some cases, know) that your capital gain tax consequences (again, long term, as the short term rates being affected and coming into play is really doubtful given the timeframe involved) are going to increase and you have an asset that you believe will not gain enough to cover the rise in LTCG tax during the period before the rise in LTCG tax, it would make sense to sell and be taxed at 5 or 15% now rather than a higher rate later, esp. if you are wanting to liquidate to cash or other instruments with tax benefits anyway. HTH, R ...and the fact that (prudent) investors have to know this kind of gobbledygook is one of the reasons that the US tax system needs a MAJOR overhaul... --riverman- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Yes, I understand selling at a loss to offset gains elsewhere, or to ameliorate windfalls in the future, but as Bob says: I don't think the number of people looking at selling LT investments now to shelter their profits against CG taxes is significant enough to change the current market trend. In fact, I bet there are a lot more people who have been in for the short- or medium term who would be more motivated by an increased CG tax to hold on and try to recover their ST losses. The real losers will be the people set to retire in 3-5 years. They will have lost a ton of value in the current crash, then get hit with a large CG tax when they withdraw the rest. Hopefully they don't have all their eggs in one basket... In any case, its a fart in a hurricane. --riverman One fart in a hurricane is doubtless of little consequence, unless it is really noxious and you happen to be close. 700 billion farts drown out the hurricane itself, and more and more farts are swelling this particular disturbance, and more and more people are ****ting themselves trying to avoid farting too hard. The global economic collapse is accelerating, and there is as yet no end in sight. There may be a few who actually profit short term from various disasters, but eventually the results of this global economic failure will have disastrous effects on just about everybody. It has already had disastrous effects on a very large number of people, and is continuing to do so. This is because these systems are based on trust and control. Loss of trust causes them to spiral out of control, and further decreases trust, causing more loss of control. This devalues everything upon which the system is based, so even "profit" made on such speculations is eventually diminished or simply negated, along with a devaluation of the initial assets. This is an inevitable consequence of too many farts. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter