U.S. Taxes: Who Makes And Who Pays - More Than The Rich Will Have To Pay More [View article]
david, the problem with your food/healthcare analogy is that as a society I don't believe that most people have a problems with some people eating steaks, lobster, and expensive organic vegetables because the have the income to support it and other eating much more modestly because they don't have the income. What I don't think that society is alright with is that those with means have access to high quality healthcare services and those with less means having to decide whether they can pay for high quality healthcare when needed or whether they pay their mortgage or for there children's education.
U.S. Taxes: Who Makes And Who Pays - More Than The Rich Will Have To Pay More [View article]
PPrice, I like to argue that income taxes tax income, not people. Thus if the tax brackets are designed that the first $25,000 of income is subject to an effective income tax rate of zero, then even someone earning $100,000 gets the first $25,000 of his or her income without paying federal income taxes on it. This is percisely where the current argument that is occurring over the $250,000 level. A family earning $250,000 receives the benefit of all of the Bush tax cuts being extended on income up to $250,000. By my calculations, assuming the IRS's data on average itemized deductions, a family earning $500,000 would only pay $5,000 more in federal income taxes if the top bracket goes up to 39.6%. That is only a 1% increase in taxes paid for a family earning $500,000. This hardly seems significant or something that would tank the economy or destroy jobs. However, the message is dumbed down and most people think that as soon as your income exceeds $250,000 you will see your taxes rise by 4.6%.
U.S. Taxes: Who Makes And Who Pays - More Than The Rich Will Have To Pay More [View article]
I would love to see IRS data which indicates how much AGI falls between $250,000 to $500,000 and how much is in excess of $500,000. If anyone knows how to get that data, please share that information. I believe, but cannot quantify it, that the most acceptable solution of the fiscal cliff tax argument and the solution that would generate the most additional revenue would be a flat tax at the top. If politician could agree to a flat tax on all sources of income over a certain AGI, I believe that that flat tax rate could be 35% or even lower and generate far more revenue than to simply increase the top tax bracket from 35% to 39.6%. A flat tax at the top would eliminate the ability of the very wealthy to manipulate how their income is reported in order lower their effective tax rate. Republicans would be able to say that they kept income taxes from being raised above 35% and democrats would be able to say that they increased cap gains tax rate, dividend tax rates, and capped the ability of the wealthy to use tax free bonds to escape paying "their fair share".
The one short-coming of this article is that it talks about the price of natural gas being an important determinant of the demand for coal, however that applies only to thermal coal, which Walter is not significantly exposed to. Walter is predominently at coking (met) coal company, which has nothing to do with power plants and there usage of natural gas or coal. It is for this tendancy to lump not distinguish between thermal coal and cokiing coal I believe that Walter has been unnecessarily punished. The diminished demand for thermal coal is more secular in nature in my opinion do to cheap natural gas and environmental regulations, whereas a drop in the price of coking coal is simply a cyclical event which will self correct.
Former Obama economics advisor Christina Romer lays out her plan for "compassionate deficit reduction," which includes higher taxes on the rich and lower tax breaks for them, as well as increased medicare contributions. But she's also in favor of increased tax breaks for firms that hire more people, as well as cuts in defense, agriculture, high-speed rail and healthcare where there's inefficiency. [View news story]
Romer is an economist and her assessment of how to attack deficit reduction in a way which will do the least harm to the economy of today and tomorrow is commonsense stuff. She is absolutely right that outright deep spending cuts in the near-term will likely do more harm than good. With the market telling us through the low interest rates on our U.S. government bonds that we have time to change our fiscal course, we don't have to make any sharp turns to satisfy those who we rely upon to purchase our debt. However, we have to demonstrate that the course correction that we implement will get us to where we need to be incrementally over time. We absolutely cannot do anything which will place any additional financial strain upon the working age middle class. The very wealthy are more wealthy, as a group, than ever before and the middle class, as a group, are experiencing more financial strain than ever before. It does not take a Phd economist to figure out where it does the least harm to impose additional tax burden.
The Affordable Care Act actually discourages small businesses from growing, says TheStreet.com's Robert Weinstein. Buried within 2,700 pages of the Act is a requirement that businesses provide all employees with "acceptable" health insurance coverage, but exempts businesses with 49 or fewer full time employees. For small business owners, this is a glaring disincentive not to grow beyond 49 employees as a result of the costs and additional regulations companies face with 50 or more. [View news story]
Neil459, unless you live in Montana in the middle of the woods and live off the land or live in a cardboard box under a bridge somewhere, you have to have reliable and affordable electricity and water. You can have a well as someone else pointed out, but you need electricity to pump the water from the well in order to keep water pressure sufficient to flow through the plumbing in your home.
Furthermore, the government, both Federal and State, tell companies how to act in regard to pollution, safety and in terms of employee benefits. People like you seem to be calling for a return to the industrial revolution times in this country when companies could pollute all they want, can be as lax as they want from a safety standpoint and can have work environment and hiring policies which are very detrimental to the worker. As a business man who is very concerned about my country, I don't understand how business people such as yourself typically aggressively oppose a single payer healthcare system, but at the same time don't want the government telling you that you have to provide health insurance there employees.
What you don't seem to understand is that the Federal Government under the constitution must act in ways to promote the general welfare of "we the people" not we the business owners. If the government is not going to enact policies to ensure that tens of millions of people do not go uninsured for healthcare services, who is going to fill that void. Obviously you have said that it won't be you as a business person.
Herb Greenberg Says Markets Are Broken [View article]
Broken or not, the market has always gone though periods when fundamentals are not the driving force of equity prices. I am a purist and hold onto the belief that prices and value should resemble each other and when they don't an opportunity exists to exploit the variance. The problem that I see today is that ETF's, HFT and Hedge Funds control such a large percentage of daily volume that "playing the market" or "gaming the market" is now driving pricing to such a large extent that investing on individual stock fundamentals is becoming a lost art.
Incessant blustering about debt default by politicians will eventually erode faith in the dollar, but an actual default, even for one day, could lead to catastrophic consequences similar to what Argentina faced in 2002. Of course, the U.S. is helped by having the world's reserve currency... for now. [View news story]
It's all noise. The 14th Amendment makes honoring our federal debt a constitutional obligation. The debt ceiling is not derived from the constitution. So if the debt ceiling not raised we still must honor out debt and that means that other spending obligations will have to cut. So no default will happen because it cannot happen.
It's irresponsible to even consider defaulting on debt payments, Alan Blinder writes - but it's not his biggest worry: "Should the view take hold that threats to default are now a permissible weapon of political combat in the world's greatest democracy, U.S. government debt will lose its exalted status as the safest asset money can buy - with unpleasant consequences for the dollar and interest rates." [View news story]
7. We eliminate the concept of a debt ceiling and replace it with actual legislation which puts controls on spending ( a budget). These controls then mandate the both parties get serious about compromising on everything from entitlement spending, military spending, government efficiency, and yes taxes, meaning tax simplification and possibly select tax increases and tax cuts.
The credit markets do not have a gun to our heads to make immediate and deep fiscal cuts. The urgency is propaganda created by "fiscal conservatives" who are using this fabricated urgency to try to justify cutting or eliminating the spending for which they idealogically have always disagreed upon. On the other hand they will advocate more and more tax cuts, more and more military spending and more and more corporate welfare.
Wake up S&P: The U.S. Can't Default on Its Debt [View article]
Our military and military industrial complex is a competitive advantage for the U.S. that we cannot afford to lose. However, what I cannot understand is why when we spend 10's of billions of dollars liberating an oil rich country like Kuwait, Iraq or even Libya why we do not insist upon an energy excise tax which is paid to the United States for a predetermined period of time in order to compensate us for the financial and human cost expended in order to accomplish the liberation?
Bernanke on '60 Minutes': Pants on Fire [View article]
Karl, you are completely ignoring the fact the Fed as of the Spring of 2009 can now regulate credit creation coming from the banking system if money supply/inflation measures begin to increase at an undesirable level by increasing the interest that the Fed pays the banks on reserve capital. Prior to 2009 the Fed's only method for curtailing credit creation was to "sell bonds" as you put and increase the Fed Funds and Discount Rate. They now have a new tool which they previously did not have which is a much more elegant and precise way to regulate money supply compared to the blunt instrument of the Fed Funds and Discount Rate.
Richard Koo, Nomura's chief economist, says reducing fiscal stimulus now would be folly, given that the private sector is still deleveraging. "Until people realize that they have contracted a completely different disease called balance sheet recession - where the private sector is minimizing debt instead of maximizing profits - a constructive policy dialogue is not likely to be possible." [View news story]
Thank you for the apology. I have spent over 15 years in this business "competing" against the asset gatherers which have tainted your impression of my profession. I have dedicated my professional career to differentiating my firm from those who are so obviously ethically challenged.
Richard Koo, Nomura's chief economist, says reducing fiscal stimulus now would be folly, given that the private sector is still deleveraging. "Until people realize that they have contracted a completely different disease called balance sheet recession - where the private sector is minimizing debt instead of maximizing profits - a constructive policy dialogue is not likely to be possible." [View news story]
Richard Koo has written several books and is a renouned expert on what Japan has done wrong during their 20+ year recession/depression. For this reason policy makers in this country should take his comments very seriously. All you have to do is look at our money supply over the last 12 months and you can see why we cannot remove stimulus or tighten monetary policy. Money supply, inspite of all of the government intervention has continued to remain very weak.
Who do you trust: Bernanke or the markets? Bernanke's rosy economic view conflicts with reality, Michael Pento says, and stocks and commodities are casting their votes. The Fed's failure to listen to the markets is the key reason for its "miserable record" of economic projections. "For the betterment of the nation, the next appointment to serve at the Fed should be someone from a trading pit and not from Princeton." [View news story]
I used to respect Pento's opinions whether I agreed or disagreed with them, however this comment eliminates that respect if he was at all serious in his suggestion. Markets are at best a mixed bag of accuracy in determining the direction of the economy. Markets are inherently driven by bids and asks and are very succeptable to human emotions, momentum and short-term trading strategies. All I have to say is a 30% weighting of the technology sector in late 1999 and 21% weighting of the financial sector in early 2008. How about investor capitulation which usually accompanies a market bottom?
Why to Avoid the Municipal Bond Market [View article]
I think you article short-changes those of us who are active managers in the municipal bond market. Not all muni debt is created equal and that is what makes actively investing in the muni market so compelling. For instance revenue bonds versus general obligation notes. Revenue bonds which have a debt service reserve fund, revenue bonds which are guaranteed by a strong corporate borrower, revenue bonds backed by strong colleges, and my favorite are bonds which are priced cheaply because they are "un-rated" because either they were a small issue and the issuer chose not to pay for the rating or they were insured and lost their insurance. Many of these un-rated bonds are trading as if they are below investment grade when in fact the underlying rating of the issuer is investment grade.
Roger, you paint the muni bond market with too wide of a brush.
U.S. Taxes: Who Makes And Who Pays - More Than The Rich Will Have To Pay More [View article]
U.S. Taxes: Who Makes And Who Pays - More Than The Rich Will Have To Pay More [View article]
U.S. Taxes: Who Makes And Who Pays - More Than The Rich Will Have To Pay More [View article]
Coal Stocks Look Ready To Run [View article]
Former Obama economics advisor Christina Romer lays out her plan for "compassionate deficit reduction," which includes higher taxes on the rich and lower tax breaks for them, as well as increased medicare contributions. But she's also in favor of increased tax breaks for firms that hire more people, as well as cuts in defense, agriculture, high-speed rail and healthcare where there's inefficiency. [View news story]
The Affordable Care Act actually discourages small businesses from growing, says TheStreet.com's Robert Weinstein. Buried within 2,700 pages of the Act is a requirement that businesses provide all employees with "acceptable" health insurance coverage, but exempts businesses with 49 or fewer full time employees. For small business owners, this is a glaring disincentive not to grow beyond 49 employees as a result of the costs and additional regulations companies face with 50 or more. [View news story]
Furthermore, the government, both Federal and State, tell companies how to act in regard to pollution, safety and in terms of employee benefits. People like you seem to be calling for a return to the industrial revolution times in this country when companies could pollute all they want, can be as lax as they want from a safety standpoint and can have work environment and hiring policies which are very detrimental to the worker. As a business man who is very concerned about my country, I don't understand how business people such as yourself typically aggressively oppose a single payer healthcare system, but at the same time don't want the government telling you that you have to provide health insurance there employees.
What you don't seem to understand is that the Federal Government under the constitution must act in ways to promote the general welfare of "we the people" not we the business owners. If the government is not going to enact policies to ensure that tens of millions of people do not go uninsured for healthcare services, who is going to fill that void. Obviously you have said that it won't be you as a business person.
Herb Greenberg Says Markets Are Broken [View article]
Incessant blustering about debt default by politicians will eventually erode faith in the dollar, but an actual default, even for one day, could lead to catastrophic consequences similar to what Argentina faced in 2002. Of course, the U.S. is helped by having the world's reserve currency... for now. [View news story]
It's irresponsible to even consider defaulting on debt payments, Alan Blinder writes - but it's not his biggest worry: "Should the view take hold that threats to default are now a permissible weapon of political combat in the world's greatest democracy, U.S. government debt will lose its exalted status as the safest asset money can buy - with unpleasant consequences for the dollar and interest rates." [View news story]
The credit markets do not have a gun to our heads to make immediate and deep fiscal cuts. The urgency is propaganda created by "fiscal conservatives" who are using this fabricated urgency to try to justify cutting or eliminating the spending for which they idealogically have always disagreed upon. On the other hand they will advocate more and more tax cuts, more and more military spending and more and more corporate welfare.
This is really all about politics at this point.
Wake up S&P: The U.S. Can't Default on Its Debt [View article]
Bernanke on '60 Minutes': Pants on Fire [View article]
Richard Koo, Nomura's chief economist, says reducing fiscal stimulus now would be folly, given that the private sector is still deleveraging. "Until people realize that they have contracted a completely different disease called balance sheet recession - where the private sector is minimizing debt instead of maximizing profits - a constructive policy dialogue is not likely to be possible." [View news story]
Richard Koo, Nomura's chief economist, says reducing fiscal stimulus now would be folly, given that the private sector is still deleveraging. "Until people realize that they have contracted a completely different disease called balance sheet recession - where the private sector is minimizing debt instead of maximizing profits - a constructive policy dialogue is not likely to be possible." [View news story]
Who do you trust: Bernanke or the markets? Bernanke's rosy economic view conflicts with reality, Michael Pento says, and stocks and commodities are casting their votes. The Fed's failure to listen to the markets is the key reason for its "miserable record" of economic projections. "For the betterment of the nation, the next appointment to serve at the Fed should be someone from a trading pit and not from Princeton." [View news story]
Why to Avoid the Municipal Bond Market [View article]
Roger, you paint the muni bond market with too wide of a brush.