If the U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff, the biggest impact in sheer dollars would land on...


If the U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff, the biggest impact in sheer dollars would land on relatively affluent households, but in terms of percentage of tax increases, low- and moderate-income taxpayers would face the biggest burden - an often overlooked part of the budget debate that’s beginning to draw attention as the year-end deadline nears.
Comments (88)
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    If we go over the "cliff" it will force lower Federal spending, isn't that what we want ?

     

    I really don't think there is a cliff.... it was born out of the media to generate news. I think it will likely be a step. Government regulations will need to pulled back if we want growth.
    24 Dec 2012, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Jason Tillberg
    , contributor
    Comments (1326) | Send Message
     
    we already fell off the cliff and have been in the ravine since 2009 .. we're still in it and soon it'll get dark and that's when the wolves and coyotes come out.

     

    raising taxes, cutting spending and reducing the trade deficit will help, but we're in this thing for good.. there is no way out.

     

    Interest on the debt make that simply impossible.
    24 Dec 2012, 04:05 PM Reply Like
  • Neal Razi
    , contributor
    Comments (1243) | Send Message
     
    You realize interest payments on the debt are at like a 30 year low as a % of GDP, right?
    24 Dec 2012, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    I checked my records I shorted the market on July 9 2007 a little early but cashed out on Oct.6 2008 a little early again but I get nervous when I'm making money. Went long back on April 2009 a little late been up ever since so kinda hard to say that we have been in a ravine since 2009 i'm still long cliff or no cliff nothing is telling me to sell right this second.
    24 Dec 2012, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    ...you must be a genius. Why aren't you running for gov't office?
    24 Dec 2012, 08:45 PM Reply Like
  • PeakOiler
    , contributor
    Comments (299) | Send Message
     
    No, govt regulations have nothing to do with low growth, only the lack of demand from consumers. Corporations have more cash today than at any time in history, and they refuse to deploy that cash because there is no one to buy the product once produced, the demand simply isn't there. Demand must pick up for growth, regulations have no impact at this point.
    24 Dec 2012, 09:18 PM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    LoL.....Don't want to have nothing to do with them Bozo's, I like my life. Not a genius you don't have to be just use common sense and listen to smart people.
    24 Dec 2012, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    Whoa - you are gonna have to show me some proof for that statement. "govt regulations have nothing to do with low growth".

     

    I have all kinds of examples of gov't regs (personally for EPA) that killed a business proposal because it would added $1M of req capital. If we don't spend the capital we get no growth. Another easy example is probably the Keystone project.

     

    Yeah businesses have money but they aren't spending it because they need to work out the rules and environment.
    24 Dec 2012, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1199) | Send Message
     
    ...you must be a genius. Why aren't you running for gov't office?

     

    He is over qualified and over rich
    ======================...
    "You know, I -- I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours "
    Man of the Year
    24 Dec 2012, 11:45 PM Reply Like
  • Sammy Lee
    , contributor
    Comments (336) | Send Message
     
    It's not a problem obviously if you assume that ZIRP is sustainable. I believe it isn't. If rates go up to five percent, our interest payments will overshadow the defense budget. This is not sustainable either. Hence, people like to call it a ZIRP "Trap."

     

    My nazi friend, I'm afraid there's only one real way that this thing is going to end. The sheer magnitude and scope of global debts and the social tensions created by forced deleveraging will end with a world war of some kind.

     

    The Japanese know this and have voted in the perfect man to start war atleast in southeast Asia. The same guy who's pissing off the Chinese over some rocks, and threatening the end of central bank independence if they don't target inflation. The Chinese are doing everything they can to hide the drop in trade and manufacturing and what better scapegoat than the Japanese who murdered millions of Chinese and Koreans and Filipinos during WW2?

     

    I want to be optimistic because the alternatives are so depressing, but the whole situation looks so damn fragile and dire.
    25 Dec 2012, 03:41 AM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1449) | Send Message
     
    Cliff is nothing more than hype by Special Interest Groups and MI complex. We're talking about 500 billion defense cuts OVER A DECADE! That's 50 billion a year cut where we are running over a trillion a year in deficits.

     

    Let the tax cuts expire. We easily survived higher taxes in the 90's and up to 2003 and at the time we were running a surplus. We should be demanding expiration of the tax cuts AND, A RETURN TO FISCAL SURPLUS as part of the bargain.

     

    This political BS has to stop.
    25 Dec 2012, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    I agree, the short term downside will be nothing but a buying opportunity.
    25 Dec 2012, 11:51 PM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (991) | Send Message
     
    So everyone pays a little more - BFD.

     

    Moral of the story is live within your means.
    24 Dec 2012, 03:45 PM Reply Like
  • Zach Tripp
    , contributor
    Comments (483) | Send Message
     
    Soldhigh, I think the point is that most people do not understand how huge the Bush tax cut for the middle- and lower-class families was. I have heard from the Democrats, including the POTUS and the main stream media that all of the Bush tax cuts were for the rich. Most of the tax cuts went to lower and middle income families. Remember that 47% Romney got in trouble for? It was approx. 25% until the Bush tax cuts. He removed about 25% more people from having to pay any federal income tax at all. A married couple filing jointly, making $65,500, will see their federal income taxes increase by 86% [15% -> 28%]

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    24 Dec 2012, 10:19 PM Reply Like
  • shild
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Hey 47% are the peo0ple who are net takers from the federal government, i.e. they take food stamps, social security, rent HUD, etc and this is WOTHOUT the Bush tax cuts we have 47% of pple net takers from the government!!
    25 Dec 2012, 02:50 PM Reply Like
  • shild
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    The 47% are people are the people that TAKE in money -- not only do they not pay taxes they take all types of programs from food stamps to medicaid to medicare to medicaid to social security etc., etc. plus the federal and state employess (and that totals more than 35% ++ of the economy) and the list goes on and on ... These takers are long-term program takers and will fight with their allies on the left and the unions that no entitlements or spending programsbe cut at all ... And thats why Obama is silent on the cuts in spending & refuses to have any part in reducing government spending, because a huge majority of the public pays no taxes and also takes programs and is subsidised for their very living by the government ... But tell me how long can than this last, with a huge (silent) majority of the country providing for the (vocal) majority ???
    27 Dec 2012, 05:51 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9113) | Send Message
     
    Lies. And more lies.

     

    For ten years the democrats have told us that the Bush tax cuts only helped the "rich".

     

    How can repealing them hurt the "low- and moderate-income taxpayers?

     

    Are the writers here telling us that we were lied to by the dems? Shocking, simply shocking.
    24 Dec 2012, 03:55 PM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    ...pretty apparent you get your info from FoxNews. Regardless, let's go for it. Bipartisan when they came up with it, and will get more revenue and deeper cuts than these guys are going to come up with. And only way we're going to get at the defense department, which has more spending than all the developed countries combined. Then, with gas so cheap now, slap a $.50/gal tax on it. (should have listened to Carter (Dem) and Anderson (Repub) 40 yrs ago.) Bitter medicine, but better to get it behind us.
    24 Dec 2012, 05:32 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    berb

     

    Just what we need is more government distortion of markets. The US might become the biggest oil producer in the world the way we are going and you want to put on a $.50 tax on consumption. Very regressive and dumb.

     

    Maybe you should get out of the Carter years and start reading what is going on around you today.
    24 Dec 2012, 09:57 PM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    @TVP--from the pov that "there's no man made climate change" and "we have limitless fossil fuels, so renewable alternatives aren't needed" your position is at least consistent. Germany is approaching 30% renewables and quick to credit Carter for instigating their efforts. Reagan pulled the solar panels off the WH and we've been sending $$$ all over the place since. ...Carter years?...You should get out of the early 1900's Oil Gusher Age. Interestingly enough, the first cars were electric and only went to gas when the black gold was discovered...over a hundred years later and now we're going back to electric cars. You guys talk about your grandkids, but you're willing to scrape every bit of coal and suck every drop of oil. Let the grandkids figure out how to clean the air and find alternative energies.
    24 Dec 2012, 11:35 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    I lived through the Carter years and he did not have a clue about a lot of things although a nice guy IMO.

     

    Tell me more about the electric cars being discovered before oil being discovered. This should be good.

     

    I believe food is the main culprit in diabetes so I want to tax that too and thereby drive down consumption. Just applying your logic to another problem.
    25 Dec 2012, 12:02 AM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (592) | Send Message
     
    Germany also has sky high elec. costs and grid instability, enough to make large corps. consider other countries.
    25 Dec 2012, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Lets re-visit 2001:

     

    President Bush said Saturday that the most important number in the budget he sends to Congress next week is the $5.6 trillion surplus it projects over the next 10 years.

     

    That huge projected surplus provides the underpinning of all the administration's tax-cut and spending plans, Mr. Bush said in his recorded weekly radio address.

     

    "A surplus in tax revenue, after all, means that taxpayers have been overcharged," the president said. "And usually when you've been overcharged, you expect to get something back." The surplus figure "counts more than any other" in the budget, he said.

     

    Democrats cautioned that surpluses projected over so long a period can turn into elusive fool's gold. And they continued to insist that as it stands the Bush tax-cut plan unfairly favors the wealthy over those of more modest means.

     

    He asserted that given the size of the expected surplus, his proposal leaves plenty of room for a large tax cut, while paying for increases in spending on education and for dealing with Social Security and Medicare.

     

    "Education gets the biggest increase of any department in the federal government," the president said. But he insisted that "as we give more to our schools we're going to expect more in return."

     

    "Social Security and Medicare will get every dollar they need to meet their commitments," Mr. Bush said. "And every dollar of Social Security and Medicare tax revenue will be reserved for Social Security and Medicare."

     

    He pledged that his spending plans will not neglect the national debt, now totaling about $5.7 trillion.

     

    "After paying the bills, my plan reduces the national debt, and fast," Mr. Bush said. "So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire. That would be a good worry to have."
    Democrats urged caution.
    25 Dec 2012, 10:12 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Big

     

    And your point?
    26 Dec 2012, 01:35 AM Reply Like
  • berbno1
    , contributor
    Comments (1558) | Send Message
     
    @TVP doubt if you'll bother informing yourself, but here goes:

     

    http://bit.ly/sHOjA4
    27 Dec 2012, 06:23 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    berb

     

    I found the article very interesting. Thanks.

     

    What I was questioning was the statement that black gold was first discovered in the past few hundred years. That goes back thousands of years.

     

    But I still like the article.
    27 Dec 2012, 08:35 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Awesome article. first electric cars built around 1840, that's around the time the first railroads were coming up in America. The first, or one of the first, was built less than 200 yards from my current location in Hamburg, South Carolina (I am in a condo on the Savannah River in Augusta, Georgia).
    27 Dec 2012, 09:06 PM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    WRONG
    27 Dec 2012, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Wrong about what?

     

    The first electric motor? I googled (You can to!) it and many sources confirm it. Now to the technical details of what electricity is or not, or might be, I will leave that to others. (BTW-It was an electromagnet)

     

    And as for the South Carolina Canal & railroad company, it was the first truly commercial railroad. Many before it was just used to haul coal, granite or dirt from one location to the river or dump site. This was the first that was specifically built for general commerce, but mainly to divert cotton from being exported from Savannah, to being exported from Charleston. It was also the longest railroad in the world at its time. The only other locomotive intended railroad was 16 miles, while this one was over 130 miles.
    29 Dec 2012, 02:28 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5156) | Send Message
     
    Cliff is being overhyped
    24 Dec 2012, 03:56 PM Reply Like
  • TGC004
    , contributor
    Comments (456) | Send Message
     
    If you happen to be in the AMT like many "well to do" folks, it doesn't matter, so lets go over the cliff and get those spending cuts! Making the taker class pay some more taxes will be good too.
    24 Dec 2012, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • Petrarch
    , contributor
    Comments (1126) | Send Message
     
    yes.

     

    I have changed my point of view on this. I paid over $120k in federal income taxes last year so a few thousand more will not kill me - so long as the takers get to pay more - and we get some cuts in spending. Any cuts are better than none - as the redistributionist in Chief wants.

     

    So as I see it - more people paying more taxes and spending cuts - not bad. And the Redistributionist in Chief to blame.

     

    If you voted for the great idiot this is exactly what you wanted. You knew he could not get to a compromise. He is intellectually unable to see the other side. Ask people who know - they will tell you - the knock has been that was and is an extremist. Think Jim Demint as POTUS. You knew the Redistributionist in Chief could not spend less - he just cannot cut anything (except defense) - and no matter all the platitudes - he wants to tax more. You got what you asked for. Enjoy.

     

    The path the US is on is not sustainable. By end of this decade the three largest outlays will be Medicare, SS and Interest. It is a short hop form there to Greece. Yes rates are low - that's nice but it will not last. Yes you can print money - and not have inflation. That's also nice but will not last. Eventually this stops working. Gravity kicks in. Now is the time to get the house in order. Too bad we have an economic idiot as President.

     

    Don't blame me I voted for Romney.

     

    P
    25 Dec 2012, 09:41 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5156) | Send Message
     
    Amen, P
    25 Dec 2012, 11:59 AM Reply Like
  • shild
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    "so long as the takers get to pay more" -- you know that will not happen, In America the takers of food stamps and medicaid and rent HUD subsidies and EIC credits keep the bacon whilst the middle-class pay for the laziness of the many.
    30 Dec 2012, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3316) | Send Message
     
    As usual the media is trying to sing to the uneducated.

     

    One thing the rich do very well, that the middle and lower classes do not.... they do not sit around waiting for bad things to happen, then cry about them.
    If anyone thinks that people with real wealth, real money and real power are sitting around waiting for things to get resolved, then they are truly living in a dream world.

     

    When are people going to wake up and realize that there is only one class that bears the brunt of every pathetic and bad decision that comes out of Washington: The middle class.

     

    Trust me folks: in the end, the rich are not going to pay,the poor are not going to pay and those tens of millions of Americans living off other Americans are not going to pay. The middle class are going to pay. Just like they always pay and yet they keep electing the same clowns to office (regardless of political sides) year after year, decade after decade.

     

    If you are not in self preservation mode at this point...yikes.
    24 Dec 2012, 04:59 PM Reply Like
  • Hoopono
    , contributor
    Comments (381) | Send Message
     
    Bravo Archman! You have nailed it perfectly. A lot of bleating about how the rich are taking advantage of everyone else but the facts reveal that it's the working stiff who consistently is screwed. It is insanity.
    24 Dec 2012, 05:17 PM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3316) | Send Message
     
    Thank you kindly Hoopono.
    For some like myself and you as well, it makes perfect sense and it is so easy to comprehend. However when dealing with the other 85% of Americans who are essentially helpless and brain dead at this point... there is nothing you can do for them and they are going to get everything they deserve.

     

    BTW:
    Anyone been trying to buy silver eagles lately? Many mints are sold out and unless you are buying the monster boxes for $18K+ they are impossible to find right now.

     

    Some of us smart folks who pay attention know exactly what is going on.
    24 Dec 2012, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Archman, thats a good comment.

     

    Now, if you would be so kind, can you comment on why 85% are so misinformed? Do you think its just human nature, media, politics, lack of education, to many wannabe investors or some other reason?

     

    I am a student and would appreciate any input. I try and pluck as much info from folks whom seem to peer through the fog better than others. (I am not saying this off of one comment, I read many of your comments after reading this one)
    25 Dec 2012, 04:23 AM Reply Like
  • SurfRat3
    , contributor
    Comments (77) | Send Message
     
    Agree 100% Archman! The financial world gets turned by a relatively small group of extremely rich and above all powerful people. They are in on all major economic decisions well before anyone else is even aware. When they wake up each morning, their first thought is make sure they do everything they possibly can to preserve prosperity for themselves and their families for generations to come.
    25 Dec 2012, 10:31 AM Reply Like
  • bgold1955
    , contributor
    Comments (2350) | Send Message
     
    85% brain dead? Wow, you must be real smart. You certainly think you are.
    25 Dec 2012, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3316) | Send Message
     
    "85% brain dead? Wow, you must be real smart. You certainly think you are."

     

    Yes I do....and I am.
    However I am not talking about the typical "smart". I am no smarter than anyone else around here.

     

    However, I am 100% smarter in regard to the things that matter, than the 85% of Americans who mean little if anything to the future of this country.

     

    Now back to our regularly scheduled reality TV show programming and Powerball drawings...(wink..wink)
    25 Dec 2012, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    The herd is where the dumb money and the ignorant reside. They have already been hit by the internet bubble, the housing bubble and coming up a federal debt bubble.

     

    Anyone see this on the news? Nope. It is more about class warfare and politicians grin screwing over the population.

     

    That is why the majority of people are uninformed and heading for their next fleecing. It is sad to watch but it just keeps on going.
    26 Dec 2012, 01:40 AM Reply Like
  • Zach Tripp
    , contributor
    Comments (483) | Send Message
     
    The rich make the tax laws. These rich law makers are put into office with the help of their rich friends, of coarse, the rich are not going to pay more. A fair, flat tax will never past if we keep voting the people into office. the poor will pay less and less and ensure their votes are kept
    28 Dec 2012, 10:07 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Zach

     

    The real story is that anyone who goes into office becomes rich by feeding at the public trough so they all end up in the same place but not necessarily rich going in. Platinum pensions, pay for life, etc.

     

    A flat tax would kill a lot of the corruption.
    28 Dec 2012, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (9113) | Send Message
     
    Archman
    Well stated.
    24 Dec 2012, 05:00 PM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3316) | Send Message
     
    Thank you. Have a happy holiday and new year ahead!
    24 Dec 2012, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • untrusting investor
    , contributor
    Comments (9903) | Send Message
     
    Inflation is a much bigger problem and increased tax for most americans than are fiscal cliff income taxes or payroll taxes.
    24 Dec 2012, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • Neal Razi
    , contributor
    Comments (1243) | Send Message
     
    That killer inflation rate of 1.7%?
    24 Dec 2012, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Sammy Lee
    , contributor
    Comments (336) | Send Message
     
    Again, you're looking at the superficial. If you haven't, you need to look are core inflation. Core inflation has been slowly rising. The Fed is printing $85 billion a month, and will continue for the foreseeable future. If the Fed wants inflation, they will get it by all means. The problem is can they control it. The answer is they can't. They can't raise rates. Like I said, we're in a zero interest rate policy trap.

     

    Volcker had to throw the economy under the bus to try get a handle on inflation. Ask yourself: if inflation ever gets to a point where it's going to be difficult for the Fed to put the brakes on it, how high would rates have to go? Bernanke is already monetizing the debt like crazy. The Chinese and Japanese will pull back big time. How long before the Fed monetizes one hundred percent?
    25 Dec 2012, 03:50 AM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    I look at "grocery inflation" above anything on its affect on American consumers. This is the basics that I buy at the grocery store every week, for the past 4 years or longer, I buy more, but this is what I ALWAYS GET, its a permanent shopping list. It includes

     

    1 gallon of milk
    2 4-packs of yogurt
    2 bunches of bananas
    1 LB of rice
    1 LB of red or navy or dry butter beans
    1 eggplant (When there in season)
    1 box of cereal (Generic kind)
    1 pack of (cant remember weight) Catfish/Tilapia mixed
    1 5-Lb roll of hamburger meat (Manufactured in my city!)

     

    None of these are usually on sale, except the hamburger meat and the catfish/tilapia sometimes.

     

    I used to spend less than 25$ 4 years ago, when I started working at Kroger. Last time I went (checks receipt) I spent 34.32 dollars. Same items in same quantities (A lot of slimming down of products portions distorts inflation). I know food is affected by inflation more than other items, but the last CPI report (http://1.usa.gov/rFGzWe) states food inflation is 1.8% YoY.

     

    Now I didn't take all the stat and calculus classes that the magicians at the BLS (Bunch of Loaded Shit department) did, but my math does not add up and I do not think others grocery bills does either.
    25 Dec 2012, 04:40 AM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Excuse me I should have put "or" for the hamburger meat Vs. Tilapia/Catfish. I switch up because Hamburger meat is unhealthy eating it every week and I think fish has to much mercury in it.
    25 Dec 2012, 05:15 AM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    . Kroger last quarter up 39% earnings over last years quarter.
    Keep shopping there your making them rich.
    25 Dec 2012, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • Edaugh
    , contributor
    Comments (179) | Send Message
     
    As an econ. student you should know the difference between elastic and inelastic products. Your shopping list is composed of all elastic products. Demand will change based on price. The food inflation totals assume that to most people your list is elastic...people will start to substitute similar things for a lower cost. When you compare your receipt, you don't take into account that maybe chicken has decreased 3% in that time frame but you did not notice because you continue to buy beef. Had you taken the time to be more flexible, you may not have seen such an increase.
    25 Dec 2012, 10:09 AM Reply Like
  • Neal Razi
    , contributor
    Comments (1243) | Send Message
     
    hey sammy, first of all, don't call me a nazi. That really makes me mad. It would be like me calling you a racial slur. Secondly, the core is 1.5, falling .1 year over year (latest PCE index). Thirdly, I know all about Volcker. There are risks to expanding the Federal Reserve. I think it's pretty clear, if you actually are do have knowledge of economics, the risks of doing nothing are far more dangerous than using Large Scale Asset Purchases while inflation is low.

     

    No shortage of demand for treasuries right now, no matter what spin you might be hearing. Sorry.
    25 Dec 2012, 10:41 AM Reply Like
  • Neal Razi
    , contributor
    Comments (1243) | Send Message
     
    Morrison, how does the price of buying a house stack up compared to last decade? Where's house inflation? And how much is your grocery bill compared with your mortgage?
    25 Dec 2012, 10:43 AM Reply Like
  • Neal Razi
    , contributor
    Comments (1243) | Send Message
     
    and there have been some severe weather related problems causing some strange pricing in any agricultural products over the last few years
    25 Dec 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5156) | Send Message
     
    @Neal.....too bad that inflation rate is irrelevant to most Americans.

     

    Kinds like the currently reported unemployment rate.

     

    Both numbers have been cooked so badly, they are far separated from reality
    25 Dec 2012, 12:01 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1199) | Send Message
     
    When you compare your receipt, you don't take into account that maybe chicken has decreased 3% in that time frame but you did not notice because you continue to buy beef. Had you taken the time to be more flexible, you may not have seen such an increase.
    ======================...
    Last time I checked sh.. is stable.
    Everything else is way up.

     

    Disclosure
    I am not shopping in Kroger
    25 Dec 2012, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • coddy0
    , contributor
    Comments (1199) | Send Message
     
    Morrison, how does the price of buying a house stack up compared to last decade? Where's house inflation? And how much is your grocery bill compared with your mortgage?
    ======================...
    buying a house
    In my ZIIP it is almost back to hi
    renting
    all time hi and growing
    grosery bill compare to mortgage
    this is wrong comparison
    grosery bill should be compared to whatever left after paying mortgage / rent / insurance / tax / tax / tax / fee
    25 Dec 2012, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    People who use housing as an inflation measure in the cost of living calculations irritate me. Monthly expenditures for living expenses should all that should be accounted.

     

    If housing is to be included call it out. I'm sure the number of people buying new cars and new houses is far less than the people buying gas and groceries.
    25 Dec 2012, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Bigfloridafish- I shop with whom is the cheapest. I am not making them rich with my meager grocery budget! Speaking of Florida fish, Kroger has some excellent swordfish steak on sale this week.
    25 Dec 2012, 08:29 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    "As an econ student"

     

    I am not an Econ student and your comment reeks of the typical "I am smarter than you" blah blah I see to often on this site.

     

    I changed thousands of tags a week and can tell you inflation has been way understated. I could make an index and use everything in the store, but that would take forever!

     

    Jesus Christ guys do any of you do your own shopping? Ask your wife if the grocery bill has gone up and stop trying to one up people on SA comments to appear smart or satisfy your self image.
    25 Dec 2012, 08:33 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    I am 21 and have no mortgage, thank God! I managed to re-fi my moms mortgage and drop her PMI, so her payments dropped from around $550 to like $305!

     

    But housing is not as important in calculating inflation, I believe, because its not bought frequently. We are exiting a bubble and people can avoid buying a house and some may never buy one. Groceries on the other hand cannot be put off. You may go to the grocery store 5,000 times in your life than the real estate office. So I think groceries are more important, vastly more important to the purchasing power of an individuals income.

     

    And if you look from the end of the bubble to now housing has had a decent run up. My city of Augusta, Georgia was not affected that much because costs to build a house is very low, we have almost no zoning laws restricting S/D, we had a ton of houses that already built and pretty easy to renovate and finally because our local economy has not attracted outsiders.
    25 Dec 2012, 08:41 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    I think the weather events are truly phenomenal and the price should taper off some. Corn, Soybeans and wheat comes to mind since they are grown in the Midwest.

     

    Down here in Georgia, Burke County (the rural county below mine) is a huge agriculture player. I drove past fields, upon fields, upon fields of dried up corn, peanuts, cotton and beans.

     

    Agriculture prices are really hard to track though. Every time I try and play SNG, DBC, JOE or some agriculture based ETF, I get burned severely. So I dont play in that sandbox, at least until I can meet someone who knows it and learn from them.
    25 Dec 2012, 08:47 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    "Had you taken the time to be more flexible, you may not have seen such an increase."

     

    Look I can point out one item that has shot up also! If you took more time to actually shop at the grocery store you would see the price increases.

     

    Do me a favor and go out in the real world and ask people, whom are poor, like myself, if they are getting more or less for their grocery bill. You guys on SA may not notice it because your income might be high and you may shop at whole foods or somewhere where the margin can be paid.

     

    You would think people would say "Yea, groceries are about the same as 4 years ago". But I hear the absolute opposite. I worked at a grocery store, 8 hours or more of looking at prices. I can tell you the price of almost any item in Kroger, and they have been increasing much faster than 2% or whatever the 4 year avg is for FOOD inflation.

     

    I cannot believe the gap between you guys, whom are supposed to be educated, and the common sense of the average citizen who has not taken a single economics class.
    25 Dec 2012, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Excellent, I'm going to warm up the grill.
    25 Dec 2012, 09:00 PM Reply Like
  • Bigfloridafish
    , contributor
    Comments (96) | Send Message
     
    Think if the government would stop paying farmers to not grow things the price would come down, after all the program was put in place to keep prices high.
    25 Dec 2012, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • danf
    , contributor
    Comments (770) | Send Message
     
    My biggest expense is taxes. They are going up significantly. But I can control that to a degree. I will cut my income in half next year I think.
    My next biggest expense is college tuition. Up 10% per year
    After that, my next biggest expense is medical care. Up 10% per year

     

    I dont pay that much attention to food

     

    Given that risk free return on deposits is 0, then even a small inflation is bad. I much prefer deflation. I think the cliff will be deflationary, so I guess I have to be in favor.
    25 Dec 2012, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (592) | Send Message
     
    You need to stop buying so much food and buy more houses; see, inflation really isn't that bad.like you're making it out to be. ;)
    25 Dec 2012, 11:40 PM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    @bigfloridafish

     

    I think some of the reason we subsidize food is defense related. I am sure the farmers groups and lobbyists probably bloat that up, but I imagine its somewhat true. But thats a whole 'nother story left to somebody else!
    26 Dec 2012, 12:33 AM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (883) | Send Message
     
    Republicans will be blamed for going off the cliff, they only look out for top 2%, but spend billions on Washington lobbying for more tax cuts and lower wages in America. In two more years hard-line Conservatives ( unemployed) will be walking the streets with their assault-rifles and bibles selling both.
    24 Dec 2012, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • Archman Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (3316) | Send Message
     
    Poor thing.
    Still believing that there are really 2 political parties in this country.

     

    No wonder people like you continue to be owned and spend your days blaming others for your uneducation of the truth.
    24 Dec 2012, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    I believe there are two parties - they just act the same, and the media business models creates the conflict to get more eyeballs looking at them.

     

    I think folks like Terry believe the media hype.
    24 Dec 2012, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Wow!

     

    Terry envisions in the future that the unemployed will have assault rifles and Bibles and be walking the street.

     

    Unemployed today have assault rifles and food stamps but why walk the street when you can just get a check delivered to your mailbox?
    24 Dec 2012, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (545) | Send Message
     
    Well we know what happens when anti-social doomers that lean republican have guns ....look at what happened in Connecticut. Time to ban guns.
    25 Dec 2012, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    anon

     

    Huh?

     

    Psycho with a gun he stole from his sane mother drives our national debate. Gun bans will not happen and we have so many guns in circulation now it is beyond any control.

     

    Would not mind if they got rid of gun shows.
    26 Dec 2012, 01:45 AM Reply Like
  • sethmcs
    , contributor
    Comments (3546) | Send Message
     
    Well repeal of the Bush tax cuts will cost me $4,400 all things being equal which they are not. I could up savings into an IRA or HSA and wipe most or all of that additional tax out. My point is if you understand tax law then you understand how to out maneuver the tax man.
    24 Dec 2012, 11:56 PM Reply Like
  • TomasViewPoint
    , contributor
    Comments (4911) | Send Message
     
    Already done that my friend.
    25 Dec 2012, 12:03 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5156) | Send Message
     
    You need to learn the difference between a tax deduction and a tax credit :)
    25 Dec 2012, 12:03 AM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    Deductions=Rich people (Individual Retirement Accounts, alimony payments, certain moving expenses, interest on student loans)

     

    Credits=Poor people and students (EITC, CTC, The American Opportunity Credit, The Lifetime Learning Credit)

     

    Deductions reduce taxable income.

     

    Credits reduce net taxes (AKA money directly back for most that pay no Federal income taxes)

     

    Am I right?
    25 Dec 2012, 04:57 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (5156) | Send Message
     
    Poor people can take deductions if they want. Most credits are off limits to rich people
    25 Dec 2012, 08:12 AM Reply Like
  • BlueCollarBlueDog
    , contributor
    Comments (107) | Send Message
     
    Merry Christmas, the anniversary of our Blessing.
    Archangel Gabriel, Mary, Elizabeth, shepherds, and wise Men
    bore him witness, I can do no less, as He is my Lord, Jesus.

     

    May peace be unto your house.
    25 Dec 2012, 06:32 AM Reply Like
  • Morrison International Acco...
    , contributor
    Comments (452) | Send Message
     
    May peace be upon you to Blue god!
    25 Dec 2012, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • b0a4pkd
    , contributor
    Comments (59) | Send Message
     
    Merry xmas guys. Here is my 2 cents. The reason why the prez positions himself as he does is because he knows there is absolute hatred for the wealthy. Middle class folks think taxing the rich more solves the problem. Lower class people think the world is an injustice. So, the tax issue encapsulates both into the same team. Very sad. I believe the true argument should be why are we all (those of us that do) paying so much taxes? Instead, sadly, the conversation is about making things more punitive for certain folks. Man! There's a recipe for success. As far as why people have these outlooks just ask yourself this question: how many kids and early 20 somethings are thinking about their financial well being? Almost no one. So they go thru life worry free until an unforeseen occurrence happens. That is why people want the government involved so much. No one plans and saves. But, almost everyone likes to charge. Really sad....This country is regressing. The only way to turn it around is for people to desire to do more for themselves without worrying about people with money. Till then these nuts in d.c. unfortunately are going to stay relevant. Too bad.....
    25 Dec 2012, 03:22 PM Reply Like
  • shild
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    Americans that I know do not hate the rich, they want to emulate them. Americans that I know want to work hard and make their way up the economic ladder. Americans that I know value liberty over class warfare, they also value the government out of their lives rather than government regulations and high taxes.
    This goes for poor and middle-class Americans. They wanted a good life for all and were happy when someone else made money, and wanted the government to keep its paws out of the hands of the citizens.
    27 Dec 2012, 05:57 PM Reply Like
  • Terry330
    , contributor
    Comments (883) | Send Message
     
    House Republicans rejected a plan that would have left tax rates in place for all but those with incomes above $1 million.
    25 Dec 2012, 08:44 PM Reply Like
  • mike8599
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    Ok you can read the headlines put out by the MSM - and your point is ?
    25 Dec 2012, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • shild
    , contributor
    Comments (52) | Send Message
     
    The 47% are people are the people that TAKE in money -- not only do they not pay taxes they take all types of programs from food stamps to medicaid to medicare to medicaid to social security etc., etc. plus the federal and state employess (and that totals more than 35% ++ of the economy) and the list goes on and on ... These takers are long-term program takers and will fight with their allies on the left and the unions that no entitlements or spending programsbe cut at all ... And thats why Obama is silent on the cuts in spending & refuses to have any part in reducing government spending, because a huge majority of the public pays no taxes and also takes programs and is subsidised for their very living by the government ... But tell me how long can than this last, with a huge (silent) majority of the country providing for the (vocal) majority ???

     

    Sounds like Greece ... or maybe Venezeula possibly ... Or Bolivia ???
    27 Dec 2012, 05:53 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Hub
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs