This post is even funnier because you don’t know what I do for a living. I guess I could list all my degrees and background but it’s more fun staying anonymous. “My review of financials” and “someone such as myself” tell me all I need to know about you.
The markets aren’t always rational, I think to assume you can consistently outmaneuver a mostly irrational movement, forced buys and sells by funds and indexes, and high frequency algorithms is a bit of hubris. I will say paid professionals that can’t outperform the dart throwig monkeys have a handicap in that many basically HAVE to invest the $$$ in their portfolios, sometimes it’s written in stone per the prospectus of the fund, but there is always a general pressure to “do something” that makes them seem smarter than the next guy (otherwise what are they being paid for?). A patient individual investor doesn’t have such pressures and can have money sitting in the sweep account waiting to pounce. So theoretically a very skilled individual investor might at least expect to outperform monkeys (especially net of advisor fees). However outperforming the index long term is challenging. Even when seemingly obvious opportunities to buy present themselves, to outperform you also need to lock in gains. You telling me you havent seen gains round trip from 100% back down to a loss? Or sold after a big gain only to miss further big moves? Literally everyone who actively trades makes those “mistakes” all the time. I think unless people have some huge outperforming gain they are content with and switch to a more conservative investing strategy, active investors will always generally come back to the mean. At least nowadays most aren’t also losing money to trading fees.
You’re so naive lol! While there is a portion of the code that is gamed….it has nothing to do with the inheritance tax. It has everything to do with the iso loopholes. But you prefer to be manipulated by the Buffetts of the world that play you like a fiddle. Buffett has so many on the left fooled it is laughable. If you think he is going to let the government get more of his money for the good of the government…you are a fool! He will make sure government gets as few dollars as possible!
As I recall you once said you were working on an accounting program? Nothing wrong with that. Not sure how that relates to your acumen in “shitcoins”, which I view as essentially a universe of pyramid schemes.
I agree with this overall. I have crushed it and I have been killed with trades. I still mess around. But play the aggressive side a bit more than the conservative side. While I still mess around with options for fun. I focus on the ETFs (qqq/spy/etc) and big boy dividend stocks. I do have a riskier dividend stock I am loaded up on and to this day will buy if it goes below $5 (5 year history of owning it is monthly payments that today are just under 20% yearly which include the cut in the middle of Covid/it got crushed equity and wish I bought more when it was under $3 durning Covid with the dividend cut). I am not killing it yet long term on this one but overall happy and like it going forward. But there are a few really good big boy dividend buys out there with current yields. I dropped a bunch last week on one. Funny thing is it popped which is great. But I kind of like it where it is at as I think there is very little risk with the yield (PM me and I will explain but we have a few libs here that I prefer don’t know)…
Apparently there's 2 of them, 'magnetofsnatch' and 'snatchmagnet', and they often seem to post in the same thread, as they have in this thread. Not sure if it's just one person who's posting under 2 different usernames or if there are actually 2 people who thought 'snatch' made a really cool username.
I’m not an accountant nor do I do any accounting work. Shitcoins are purely gambling. I never suggested they were appropriate for everyone. The amount of conclusions drawn on these boards are interesting.
Sorry the name that looks like dingleberries was taken. I assure you we are two different people and he’s an asshole.
These types of moronic arguments are one of the reasons I left the Republican Party 20 years ago. By most measures the tax burden of the wealthy, compared to their income and wealth, is lower than it has historically been. The reasons the top pay such a high share 1. Their share of income has doubled in about 40 years from 7.3% to 14.6%. That compares to the top 1% paying about 20% of Fed income taxes 40 years ago to 46% now. So their share of income doubled, and their share of taxes slightly more than doubled. 2. Income tax rates for most people- bottom 90% or so, have gone down fairly dramatically thus lowering their share. So it isn’t the Rich paying more, it’s everybody else paying less. 3. Within that 40 years payroll taxes have increased substantially for about 85% of the population, somewhat offsetting their lower share of income taxes We are running 2 trillion dollar deficits. Nobody wants 2 trillion, or even 1 trillion in spending cuts. Most of the partisan debates are over about 100-200 billion of spending per year. So we need more taxes. A lot more. Unless you want to run large deficits. frankly I don’t care how we get it. The burden needs to go across all incomes. But if you think we are going to get big dollars taxing the lower 50% you will be sorely disappointed.
An increase in his net worth is not income. We don't tax increases in net worth until the assets are turned into cash. Just because the stock prize of Amazon went up does not make it a taxable event. Now if he sold stock or exercised options, like Elon Musk did years ago and paid the largest personal tax bill in history, he is not taxed on his net worth increase. But I am sure you knew that and are just using his growth in net worth to attempt to make a political point to those who don't understand the tax structure.
Exactly. I will piss off many democrats, as we need to have some control of spending and a good chunk of that needs to be reigning in entitlement spending, or at least leveling the trend. Higher retirement ages. Using more accurate less favorable cpi indexing of entitlements. Potentially higher premiums for Medicare - above certain income levels (IIRMA). General spending caps to control domestic spending. I piss off conservatives because I say we need more taxes. The rich need to contribute more, but rates are already fairly high, so not a lot more. FICA caps need to be raised or eliminated. The Trump tax cuts should be allowed to reverse in 2026 as scheduled. The Trump corporate income tax cuts were excessive, 25-28% with tightening some exemptions would have been sufficient. Small business owners got a tax cut at the same time, really for no other reason than since corporate taxes were cut then we had to give small business pass throughs (like S corps) a tax cut too. Profits were at record highs before the corporate tax cuts. There was no reason to cut them so much. If people aren’t willing to accept something along the outlines of above, they just aren’t serious about the issue.
The lower 50% pay less than they ever have lol. Don’t get me wrong the code is screwed up. But when you pay nothing in federal income taxes as is the case for the vast majority of the bottom 50%…that is a problem. End of the day this is a spending issue in reality. But if we can whine about the super rich…
There is real fairness here. But the part that bothers me is the SS. The program is a Ponzi scheme. It does not need the cap increased to continue and screw older generations. It does need to be means tested though. But seriously means tested. In order to get to a reasonable spot where we are able to lower the rate and should be able to lower the max taxable it will take a few decades. And as you said. That will never happen because the solution requires both puns and dems to say no for different reasons.
Yes, I'm using his net worth, and the vast increase in it over just a few years, to make a political point about why we need to tax wealth in addition to income (whether you know about the tax structure or not). It's kinda obvious.
