Is everybody happy with they new tax law
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:02:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Debt as it relates to global economics is a transparent, phony concept period. There's no underlying standard or base to it. Debt is only real to common people tied to the banking systems via mortgages, credit cards or loans and the penalties for defaulting are governed only within the rules of the banking systems. Global (national) debt doesn't mean a thing. To be concerned with it assumes you think a "note" is going to be called and it is going to be repaid someday by someone. It isn't. It's factored into global trade and international finance. To think it is like a bank loan that has a maturity date tied to it isn't real. A maturity date doesn't exist. If there aren't enough revenues to pay the phony interest, the government just prints more money. === That's an interesting theory but there's plenty of historical evidence to indicate that there are consequences to excessive sovereign debt. I would hold up Brazil, Argentina, Greece and Italy as prime examples. Their debts eventually became so overwhelming that no one would lend to them on any terms, and their ability to conduct foreign trade was severely impacted. As they printed more and more money, their rate of inflation reached astronomical levels and currency became virtually worthless. It's not a good place to be. Eventually foreign banks and governments step into the situation and take charge on their terms. Do we really want the Chinese or Saudis dictating our internal policies? --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Is everybody happy with they new tax law
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:05:16 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 1/12/18 11:05 PM, wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:08:50 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: I have no interest in the "1% of the world." I think the pursuit of money for greed's sake is a sickness. Guilty? If what you have said is true you are the top 1% of the US and more like the top .0001% of the world. I bet you never said "naa, that's too much" and gave your employer some back. My employer has been me since the mid-1970s. === That would explain why you haven't been fired. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
Is everybody happy with they new tax law
|
Is everybody happy with they new tax law
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:02:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 1/12/2018 8:12 PM, wrote: I could argue either side of that. You do have a ****load of Gen Exers and Millennials chucking money into the market with their 401ks and that tends to support the bull but I still have a hard time ignoring the debt problem and the lack of real growth. We already borrow all of the money to run the government beyond entitlements and interest on the debt. What happens when revenue does not even cover that? The Fed already monetized $4.5T of our debt by buying unsold bonds. When will the world figure out our debt is a bad bet and stop renewing their bonds? Things will happen fast then. I know US "paper" is supposed to be the safest thing in the world but so was real estate ... until it wasn't. I was the one on these yacking boards who said real estate was cruising for a fall but I was 10-15 years early. I did not believe the elasticity of the financial markets to absorb that much bad debt. When it finally popped it was much worse than I predicted tho because it brought down the banking industry with it, not just the real estate market. I did not really understand the effect of the derivatives. This situation is worse than that. If the federal debt bubble pops the 30s will look like a bump in the road. It could take down "money" as we know it. Debt as it relates to global economics is a transparent, phony concept period. There's no underlying standard or base to it. Debt is only real to common people tied to the banking systems via mortgages, credit cards or loans and the penalties for defaulting are governed only within the rules of the banking systems. Global (national) debt doesn't mean a thing. To be concerned with it assumes you think a "note" is going to be called and it is going to be repaid someday by someone. It isn't. It's factored into global trade and international finance. To think it is like a bank loan that has a maturity date tied to it isn't real. A maturity date doesn't exist. If there aren't enough revenues to pay the phony interest, the government just prints more money. The problem is the interest we pay on a lot of that debt is real (private holders, foreign governments and now, SS/MC recipients) and there is a limit to how much money the government can just "print" before runaway inflation gobbles us all up. To start with the interest on the short term paper the government has to sell over to cover that interest will skyrocket, making the problem worse. This was the basis of a lot of Perot's "charts and graphs" that insured we would never have another viable 3d party candidate. Nobody wants to tell the emperor he has no clothes. You are really starting to sound like those people denying that there was ever a problem with housing. "I mean, who doesn't pay their mortgage" or so it was explained. |
Is everybody happy with they new tax law
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:05:16 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 1/12/18 11:05 PM, wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:08:50 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: I have no interest in the "1% of the world." I think the pursuit of money for greed's sake is a sickness. Guilty? If what you have said is true you are the top 1% of the US and more like the top .0001% of the world. I bet you never said "naa, that's too much" and gave your employer some back. My employer has been me since the mid-1970s. Maybe in the eyes of the IRS but your employer is everyone who employs your services. I bet you squeeze them as hard as you can. |
Is everybody happy with they new tax law
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:31:21 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 1/13/18 1:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:05:16 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/12/18 11:05 PM, wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:08:50 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: I have no interest in the "1% of the world." I think the pursuit of money for greed's sake is a sickness. Guilty? If what you have said is true you are the top 1% of the US and more like the top .0001% of the world. I bet you never said "naa, that's too much" and gave your employer some back. My employer has been me since the mid-1970s. Maybe in the eyes of the IRS but your employer is everyone who employs your services. I bet you squeeze them as hard as you can. Nope. In fact, often I have undercut the prices of competitors for monthly services covered by a contract. I haven't raised my price for researching and writing a 15-30 minute speech in 15 years, and I've lowered my price for visual presentations because the software these days is easier to use. A full-time staff speechwriter in DC for a major league client can command an annual salary of $150,000-$200,000, so if I can produce three or four speeches a year for a client, I'm a bargain. Serious annual reports are higher because there is so much back and forth, editing, lawyer and CPA demanded changes, et cetera. I don't mark up out-of-pocket expenses, such as graphics artists, travel, et cetera. I've had three clients under contract for 15-30 years. So you have a number of employers |
Is everybody happy with they new tax law
On 1/13/18 2:18 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:31:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/13/18 1:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:05:16 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/12/18 11:05 PM, wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:08:50 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: I have no interest in the "1% of the world." I think the pursuit of money for greed's sake is a sickness. Guilty? If what you have said is true you are the top 1% of the US and more like the top .0001% of the world. I bet you never said "naa, that's too much" and gave your employer some back. My employer has been me since the mid-1970s. Maybe in the eyes of the IRS but your employer is everyone who employs your services. I bet you squeeze them as hard as you can. Nope. In fact, often I have undercut the prices of competitors for monthly services covered by a contract. I haven't raised my price for researching and writing a 15-30 minute speech in 15 years, and I've lowered my price for visual presentations because the software these days is easier to use. A full-time staff speechwriter in DC for a major league client can command an annual salary of $150,000-$200,000, so if I can produce three or four speeches a year for a client, I'm a bargain. Serious annual reports are higher because there is so much back and forth, editing, lawyer and CPA demanded changes, et cetera. I don't mark up out-of-pocket expenses, such as graphics artists, travel, et cetera. I've had three clients under contract for 15-30 years. So you have a number of employers I did, early in my working life, but I've been a contractor since the mid-1970s. |
Is everybody happy with they new tax law
On 1/13/2018 1:11 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 07:02:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 1/12/2018 8:12 PM, wrote: I could argue either side of that. You do have a ****load of Gen Exers and Millennials chucking money into the market with their 401ks and that tends to support the bull but I still have a hard time ignoring the debt problem and the lack of real growth. We already borrow all of the money to run the government beyond entitlements and interest on the debt. What happens when revenue does not even cover that? The Fed already monetized $4.5T of our debt by buying unsold bonds. When will the world figure out our debt is a bad bet and stop renewing their bonds? Things will happen fast then. I know US "paper" is supposed to be the safest thing in the world but so was real estate ... until it wasn't. I was the one on these yacking boards who said real estate was cruising for a fall but I was 10-15 years early. I did not believe the elasticity of the financial markets to absorb that much bad debt. When it finally popped it was much worse than I predicted tho because it brought down the banking industry with it, not just the real estate market. I did not really understand the effect of the derivatives. This situation is worse than that. If the federal debt bubble pops the 30s will look like a bump in the road. It could take down "money" as we know it. Debt as it relates to global economics is a transparent, phony concept period. There's no underlying standard or base to it. Debt is only real to common people tied to the banking systems via mortgages, credit cards or loans and the penalties for defaulting are governed only within the rules of the banking systems. Global (national) debt doesn't mean a thing. To be concerned with it assumes you think a "note" is going to be called and it is going to be repaid someday by someone. It isn't. It's factored into global trade and international finance. To think it is like a bank loan that has a maturity date tied to it isn't real. A maturity date doesn't exist. If there aren't enough revenues to pay the phony interest, the government just prints more money. The problem is the interest we pay on a lot of that debt is real (private holders, foreign governments and now, SS/MC recipients) and there is a limit to how much money the government can just "print" before runaway inflation gobbles us all up. To start with the interest on the short term paper the government has to sell over to cover that interest will skyrocket, making the problem worse. This was the basis of a lot of Perot's "charts and graphs" that insured we would never have another viable 3d party candidate. Nobody wants to tell the emperor he has no clothes. You are really starting to sound like those people denying that there was ever a problem with housing. "I mean, who doesn't pay their mortgage" or so it was explained. Not me on the housing thing. I don't profess that I understood it all but I felt there was a major crash coming as early as 2002. We had purchased two houses in Florida and the annual appreciation at that time was about 23% in the Jupiter area. A guy I met down there was big time into flipping houses and tried several times to get me to join in with him buying and selling. No way, Jose'. We did ok on the two houses we had when we sold them but the warning signs were becoming clear. We got out in the nick of time. But, going back to the national "debt". I remember when Reagan came along and starting reversing the economically timid policies of Jimmy Carter (who still increased the national debt by 43% over his four year term). Reagan took a lot of heat for "spending our way to prosperity" and significantly increased the national debt. Well, that was almost 40 years ago. We're still here and the sky hasn't fallen. I remember talking to a money guy during the Reagan expansion and I recited the standard "national debt" concern that many had at the time. He just shook his head and said, "It only matters if it ends and you have to pay the piper. It's not going to end ... there's no bill to pay ... it's all artificial". In fact, the last POTUS who actually *reduced* the national debt was Calvin Coolidge in FY's 1924-1929. Shortly thereafter the stock market crashed and we were in a deep depression. |
Is everybody happy with they new tax law
On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 13:31:21 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/13/18 1:13 PM, wrote: On Sat, 13 Jan 2018 08:05:16 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 1/12/18 11:05 PM, wrote: On Fri, 12 Jan 2018 18:08:50 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: I have no interest in the "1% of the world." I think the pursuit of money for greed's sake is a sickness. Guilty? If what you have said is true you are the top 1% of the US and more like the top .0001% of the world. I bet you never said "naa, that's too much" and gave your employer some back. My employer has been me since the mid-1970s. Maybe in the eyes of the IRS but your employer is everyone who employs your services. I bet you squeeze them as hard as you can. Nope. In fact, often I have undercut the prices of competitors for monthly services covered by a contract. I haven't raised my price for researching and writing a 15-30 minute speech in 15 years, and I've lowered my price for visual presentations because the software these days is easier to use. A full-time staff speechwriter in DC for a major league client can command an annual salary of $150,000-$200,000, so if I can produce three or four speeches a year for a client, I'm a bargain. Serious annual reports are higher because there is so much back and forth, editing, lawyer and CPA demanded changes, et cetera. I don't mark up out-of-pocket expenses, such as graphics artists, travel, et cetera. I've had three clients under contract for 15-30 years. Harry, you are operating in a semi-retired, something to do mode. If you were actually running a business with employees with their costs you couldn't be as generous with your time or fees. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:12 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com