Socialist hellhole California moves from 8th to 6th largest economy in the world, surpassing France

F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i don't recall him pretending to be a woman though.



so?

how many jobs are supported by a rich person buying a $150k car, whereas how many jobs and businesses are supported by 5 people making $30k a year and spreading it throughout all parts of the economy?

do you even think about the shit you say first?
Click to expand...
I enjoy pretending to be a woman. Sounds like your bigotry opposes my lifestyle.

I'm a well known idiot and here you are, once again, trying to reason with me. What does that say about you?

Strike 2.

You get one more chance.

:)
 
F

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
Big_Lou said:
Well, in that case, how cute are you on a scale of 1-10? I've got some beer and weed, do you give good head?

Regarding "looking good", I hone-in more on content than petty squabbling, though it can be a source of entertainment. ;)
Click to expand...

I made it through prison without getting shanked. How's that for a dick sucking resume'? :)
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
kmog33 said:
It's not savings, it's investments that are charged just like income in ca. So rather than 15% for capital gaines when I sell stock, my stock that I sell gets lumped into my income for the year so I have to pay all of the California and federal taxes for income, ssi, capital Gaines as well as a federal tax. In California, if you sell stock or investments, you lose more money than anywhere else in the us to Uncle Sam.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Savings investments... Same difference.

Anyway, tell me if it isn't this way. Suppose the state income rate for you is 10%.

So, 5 years ago you took 100k and invested it. It's done well and now worth 150k.

You should only be paying taxes on 50k if you liquidate that.

Unless you put them in a Roth IRA, taking pre tax income and investing it. Then you defer the taxes.

But in the vast majority of cases you're not paying taxes on the principal amount?
 
kmog33

kmog33

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
Savings investments... Same difference.

Anyway, tell me if it isn't this way. Suppose the state income rate for you is 10%.

So, 5 years ago you took 100k and invested it. It's done well and now worth 150k.

You should only be paying taxes on 50k if you liquidate that.

Unless you put them in a Roth IRA, taking pre tax income and investing it. Then you defer the taxes.

But in the vast majority of cases you're not paying taxes on the principal amount?
Click to expand...
If you weren't in ca, you'd be right as far as the long term Gaines. But in ca anytime you sell stock and the money is realized, you pay taxes on the entire amount sold to ca(as income for that to year) as well as the long term capital Gaines.

Savings and investments are very different. My savings accounts have money that I've already payed taxes on(or will pay this quarter). So I can spend all of the money there and not worry about it getting taxed with the exception of sales tax when I buy things. Stocks/investments I don't pay taxes on until they are realized and then I pay taxes on the long or short term Gaines plus the amount that was realized(in the state of ca).

The only other exceptions is if you are paid dividends. They are taxed yearly as they are paying you out while your stock sit and gain or lose value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The $1,000,000 was just an example. Take any 1,000 people in America who have $1,000 of disposable income and use them as an example instead and the point remains valid

1,000 lower-middle income people are likely to spend more in a year than 1 high income person (especially in a recession)
Click to expand...
So the important thing to the individual citizen is spending? The government needs to increase spending?

You do understand what you are saying right? Spending is taxed. The government is bent on increasing tax revenue by increasing spending. Which is not necessarily good for the average citizen.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
So the important thing to the individual citizen is spending? The government needs to increase spending?

You do understand what you are saying right? Spending is taxed. The government is bent on increasing tax revenue by increasing spending. Which is not necessarily good for the average citizen.
Click to expand...
"spending is bad!" exclaims the retard living in a nation whose economy is 70% based on aggregate demand.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
So the important thing to the individual citizen is spending? The government needs to increase spending?

You do understand what you are saying right? Spending is taxed. The government is bent on increasing tax revenue by increasing spending. Which is not necessarily good for the average citizen.
Click to expand...
Spending generates 80% of the economic growth in our economy

When the economy is strong, it's better for average citizens
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Spending generates 80% of the economic growth in our economy

When the economy is strong, it's better for average citizens
Click to expand...
You keep pointing out the massive disparity of wealth in our society then display ignorance when you turn around and say that poor people spending all their money is good for the economy. You dont create wealth by spending all your money. You create wealth by saving and investing in assets.

Which do you want Padwan? Cause what you are advocating is an economic model on meth.... No value is being created, just massive turnover and taxation of revenue which is good for the government but not necessarily good for the individual citizens.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
You keep pointing out the massive disparity of wealth in our society then display ignorance when you turn around and say that poor people spending all their money is good for the economy. You dont create wealth by spending all your money. You create wealth by saving and investing in assets.

Which do you want Padwan? Cause what you are advocating is an economic model on meth.... No value is being created, just massive turnover and taxation of revenue which is good for the government but not necessarily good for the individual citizens.
Click to expand...
The problem with income and wealth inequality is that poor people don't have enough money to spend
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The problem with income and wealth inequality is that poor people don't have enough money to spend
Click to expand...
If your theory is correct then the government simply needs to print 1 million dollars for every citizen and give it out. Everyone will have plenty of money to spend, the economy will skyrocket and poverty will be eliminated...

Wealth is not income or expense, it is the possession of assets. Maybe this is one of the sources of your confusion.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
You keep pointing out the massive disparity of wealth in our society then display ignorance when you turn around and say that poor people spending all their money is good for the economy. You dont create wealth by spending all your money. You create wealth by saving and investing in assets.

Which do you want Padwan? Cause what you are advocating is an economic model on meth.... No value is being created, just massive turnover and taxation of revenue which is good for the government but not necessarily good for the individual citizens.
Click to expand...
yes. people should stop spending their money. with less aggregate demand, there will be less jobs, and then less money, therefore less spending. this is a good cycle to perpetuate.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
If your theory is correct then the government simply needs to print 1 million dollars for every citizen and give it out. Everyone will have plenty of money to spend, the economy will skyrocket and poverty will be eliminated...

Wealth is not income or expense, it is the possession of assets. Maybe this is one of the sources of your confusion.
Click to expand...
You're not listening to what's being said and I don't have the time to waste. Go read what economists have to say about this problem and argue with them.
 
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
You're not listening to what's being said and I don't have the time to waste. Go read what economists have to say about this problem and argue with them.
Click to expand...
I am going to spell it out for you Padwan.

Ask yourself, if poverty is the problem, why doesnt the government just print 1 million dollars and give it to each poor person.

I will answer the question for you. Because the money would suddenly be worthless.

Why would the money be worthless? Because the monetary system is a representation of VALUE. Money was backed by gold at one point. Now it is backed by faith in the government. Printing trillions of dollars in currency would make the underlying wealth worth so much more that the paper would be almost worthless. That is why trillion dollar notes were printed in Zimbabwe. Food did not suddenly become 10,000 times more expensive, the monetary value that the paper represented diminished.

Taking money from one group and giving it to another does not create value. Jobs create value, businesses create value. The government cannot create value no matter how many times it tells you it can.

Economists have differing opinions on the matter. Politicians tax the populace and allocate the money. It is what they do. If you ask for a solution to a problem it involves regulation and taxation 99% of the time. Politicians hire economists to bullshit the populace. I am sure you can come up with a peer reviewed paper showing 97% of the economists in the country agree that... Oh wait, that is global warming... LOL!!

Maybe one of these days you will wake up and realize that the government no longer serves the people, it serves itself. To perpetuate revenue the government has overspent and is driving the economy into the ground. There are economists who agree it is the right thing to do and economists that agree it is the wrong thing to do. I have no intention of getting into a pissing match by providing competing positions on the issue.

We are 20 trillion dollars in debt due to these geniuses and things are not getting noticeably better.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
kmog33 said:
If you weren't in ca, you'd be right as far as the long term Gaines. But in ca anytime you sell stock and the money is realized, you pay taxes on the entire amount sold to ca(as income for that to year) as well as the long term capital Gaines.

Savings and investments are very different. My savings accounts have money that I've already payed taxes on(or will pay this quarter). So I can spend all of the money there and not worry about it getting taxed with the exception of sales tax when I buy things. Stocks/investments I don't pay taxes on until they are realized and then I pay taxes on the long or short term Gaines plus the amount that was realized(in the state of ca).

The only other exceptions is if you are paid dividends. They are taxed yearly as they are paying you out while your stock sit and gain or lose value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Investments are but a form of savings, it isn't important to me to debate those semantics though.

The only way that is remotely fair if you are using pretax income to fund your savings and investment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top