OT: Higher taxes..

o

t a

sn't

ics

s,

ton

om? =A0Gee, that sure seems like redistribution.

That's your error right there. Remember, we're talking about whether or no= t this is redistribution.

You said, if I understand you correctly, that the money is borrowed from pe= ople not inclined to spend or invest it. Obama then puts the money to good= use, then pays it back later, with interest. That's been your narrative.

Let's stop right there at the first step: exactly how does the gov't get th= ese people's money, the money that you say they're hoarding and afraid to i= nvest? Do they just walk in and give it to Obama? How does he get it?

So, money is somehow "borrowed." When it's time to make the payments, who = pays? Where does the gov't get the money from? Again, who pays? Who got = the benefit, and who pays?

--=20 Cheers, James Arthur

to

get a

isn't

omics

ons,

leton

e

ng

e

ng

e

whom? =A0Gee, that sure seems like redistribution.

r not this is redistribution.

people not inclined to spend or invest it. =A0Obama then puts the money to = good use, then pays it back later, with interest. =A0That's been your narra= tive.

these people's money, the money that you say they're hoarding and afraid to= invest? =A0Do they just walk in and give it to Obama? =A0How does he get i= t?

Beats me. You are the self-declared expert on the way the US government finances it's expenditures. It's obviously borrowing money somewhere, because the Tea Party nitwits almost stopped your country in it's tracks a few months ago by refusing to okay an increase in the borrowing limit. My impression is that your government - like most others - sells bonds which are to be eventually repaid and generate interest payments in the meantime.

who pays?

The government, by selling a new bunch of bonds or whatever.

The taxpayer, as always. We are all agreed about that.

The interest on money lent to the government comes back to the people who lent the money, so they benefit directly from that.

If the government spends the borrowed money wisely, they benefit - less directly - from the consequent improvement in the country or (as in the case of defence spending and stimulus spending) the absence of negative outcomes.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

oo.com

:

want to destroy

r and more

g was that

ush started

ing Social

scale.

nt of

not

and

nt of

not

and

Why? It's about when and how to invest, and it's good advice only in the sense that it often pays to question conventional wisdom, and sometimes pays to go against it. Most of the time conventional wisdom is correct, but when it isn't you can make a real killing.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

destroy

Social

Warren isn't worried about losing his job. Obama would float him a guarantee.

ng to

o get a

ur isn't

onomics

sions,

mpleton

the

ting

ate

ving

ple

n whom? =A0Gee, that sure seems like redistribution.

s t

or not this is redistribution.

m people not inclined to spend or invest it. =A0Obama then puts the money t= o good use, then pays it back later, with interest. =A0That's been your nar= rative.

t these people's money, the money that you say they're hoarding and afraid = to invest? =A0Do they just walk in and give it to Obama? =A0How does he get= it?

Right, the gov't sells bonds.

, who pays?

Unfortunately yes, correct: right now the government is borrowing more mone= y to make the payments on what it already owes.

What I meant to ask though, was "who ultimately provides the money that pay= s off the government's new debt?"

Right. The federal govt's bills are paid by that small section of the popu= lation that pays federal income tax.

With respect to the interest, that's a cost to the taxpayers not a benefit,= right? The taxpayers have to pay that interest.

As far as benefit, how about the people who received the stimulus spending?

As far as the question of redistribution, the benefits go to everyone, yet = are paid by a disproportionate few. That is redistribution. Keynesian sti= mulus, as practiced, is redistribution from few to many; a taking.

Worse, to no good end, but that's another topic.

--=20 Cheers, James Arthur

a, and

d e

r,

When you've just lost or might lose your job, it's usually a bad time to be= buying stocks. People who are fearful don't spend and invest. The forego= ing is why.

YMMV.

--=20 Cheers, James Arthur

ding to

to get a

thur isn't

economics

lusions,

simpleton

g the

enting

diate

giving

eople

on whom? =A0Gee, that sure seems like redistribution.

is

hat

er or not this is redistribution.

rom people not inclined to spend or invest it. =A0Obama then puts the money= to good use, then pays it back later, with interest. =A0That's been your n= arrative.

get these people's money, the money that you say they're hoarding and afrai= d to invest? =A0Do they just walk in and give it to Obama? =A0How does he g= et it?

ts, who pays?

ney to make the payments on what it already owes.

ays off the government's new debt?"

population that pays federal income tax.

That's not strictly accurate. When I last looked, something like half the population were submitting tax returns, even if most of them paid very little tax. Your point is that some 3% of the population pays about half the tax, but since the same fraction of the population earns perhaps a third of all the income, all this means is most of the population are pretty much non-playing spectators.

t, right? =A0The taxpayers have to pay that interest.

Correct.

g?

If the stimulus money was being sensibly directed, it would all be going to people who could be relied on to spend all of it. Your scheme of government means that quite a bit of it is being pork-barrelled off to people with enough money to be able to buy lobbying influence, who can't be relied on to spend it immediately.

The stimulus money definitely benefits the people who get it - it doesn't work properly if they don't immediately turn it into benefits

- but this is more about exploiting the poor's predictable behaviour as it is about giving them some kind of hand-out.

t are paid by a disproportionate few. =A0That is redistribution. =A0Keynesi= an stimulus, as practised, =A0is redistribution from few to many; a taking.

It might be, if the people who pay most of the federal income tax didn't also get most of the indirect benefits. Defence is the obvious example. It really doesn't make much difference to the poor who is running the country - they haven't got anything worth taking - while the 3% who pay half the income tax would be very much worse off if a different bunch of fat cats were creaming off most of the surplus generated by the economy.

That's been true over most of history. Being a member of a civil militias cost money - for arms and equipment - and was thus a desired status symbol amongst those with the money to afford it. The members of such militias had a lot more to defend than their poorer neighbours.

Your scepticism - or to be more precise, your incorrigible ignorance - about Keynesian economics is noted. The problem is that you are a deluded nitwit who happens to be able to manipulate a few very silly ideas in a way that makes them look as if they make sense.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ama, and

and

the

ner,

y.

be buying stocks. =A0People who are fearful don't spend and invest. =A0The = foregoing is why.

Human beings use two mechanisms to come to decisions. The slower one is more reliable, but being fearful tends to suppress it's use.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

pays off the government's new debt?"

e population that pays federal income tax.

Yes. Non-paying spectators, but who receive stimulus funds, e.g., unemploy= ment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded stimulus= jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.

fit, right? =A0The taxpayers have to pay that interest.

ing?

yet are paid by a disproportionate few. =A0That is redistribution. =A0Keyne= sian stimulus, as practised, =A0is redistribution from few to many; a takin= g.

One might argue that, or one might argue the reverse, that the poor, being = more desperate, have much, much more to lose--food, shelter, and their very= existence. "The fox is running for its dinner, but the rabbit is running = for its life." --Aesop's Fables

However you figure that part of the cost and benefit, it's only 1/5 of spen= ding; only 1/5 of the taxes are spent on it.

If the rationale is that excess defense benefit to the few justifies the ta= kings for stimulus, that only covers 1/5th of the bill. What about the oth= er 2/3rds of spending, which is straight redistribution, and which does not= benefit them?

=20

First, let's review: we've traced the process of funding Keynesian stimulus= , and have found it's funded by the (relatively few) taxpayers, but is rece= ived by the many. From few, to many. So, figure 2 applies.

Figure 1. - Unfair, exploitative system

.--------------------. | .------. .------. | | | $2 | | $5 | | | | Bob | | John | | | '------' '------' | '--------------------'

Now let's redistribute the wealth...

Figure 2. - Keynesian Stimulus .--------------------. | .------. .------. | | | $3 | | $4 | | | | Bob | | John | | | '------' '------' | '--------------------'

It is redistribution. Now the issue is "to no good end."

To repeat, Keynes says everyone prospers because this policy fires up John, who works harder and makes more stuff. Does it?

John's just been robbed. Why would John be encouraged? Because Bob possib= ly buys some of John's goods, with part of John's own loss?

If you try to hide this fact by borrowing the money, deficit-spending, that= makes it worse--that way John knows he's *going to be robbed* (plus intere= st), which makes him even more cautious.

And consider Bob. Why would Bob work harder simply because he got somethin= g free? If Bob's getting essential support like food or shelter, that actu= ally removes the need for Bob to do anything at all, right? Isn't this a c= omplete disincentive to work, in the extreme case.

So, Keynes thought this would make John work harder, hire more people. Did= it?

--=20 Cheers, James Arthur

Chimera (CIM) had a big sell off this morning, after about 45 minutes of trading it was down 6% on volume 5 times the normal full day trading. The day ended with over 10 times average daily trading volume. I didn't have the balls to buy more, and I'm kicking myself! It regained about half of it's loss by market close. They announced this morning a quarterly dividend payment of $0.11 which is what they have been paying. Note buying it cheaper makes the dividend return higher. It's 14.9% now.

Mikek

at pays off the government's new debt?"

the population that pays federal income tax.

ployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded stim= ulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.

Unemployment benefit, food stamps and the like have the advantage of keeping potential employees alive and - hopefully - healthy enough to work until some employer gets around to working out a way of using them to make more money. This sort of expenditure pays off for society as a whole, particularly for those with enough money to be in business of hiring other people to work for them.

As I understood it, General Motors was bailed out because it worked out cheaper to do that than to let them fold. Solyndra - solar cells - and Fiskers - electric car - weren't so much stimulus job creation as ill-judged investments in cutting down CO2 emissions. Are you telling us that these were the only examples of such investments, or merely withholding the information that other such investments were less ill- judged? It's you government and your economy, you tell me.

le

nefit, right? =A0The taxpayers have to pay that interest.

nding?

as

of

, yet are paid by a disproportionate few. =A0That is redistribution. =A0Key= nesian stimulus, as practised, =A0is redistribution from few to many; a tak= ing.

g more desperate, have much, much more to lose--food, shelter, and their ve= ry existence. =A0"The fox is running for its dinner, but the rabbit is runn= ing for its life." --Aesop's Fables

Unless the invading enemy wants to eat them - which doesn't seem to happen in wars between human beings - this is not a relevant point.

ending; only 1/5 of the taxes are spent on it.

Most government expenditure is of a similar nature; it benefits society as a whole. The well-off benefit more than the less well-off from the existence of stable and smoothly running society because they tend to be involved in larger-scale and more intricately organised activities which fall to pieces when exposed to quite minor social disruptions.

takings for stimulus, that only covers 1/5th of the bill. =A0What about the= other 2/3rds of spending, which is straight redistribution, and which does= not benefit them?

Which "two thirds" of the spending? You need to be a little more specific. I imagine that you have "social security" in mind, which does happen to benefit the well-off. They don't collect social security money directly, but it does work to their advantage in keeping temporarily redundant worker alive and more or less healthy until they can be redeployed, and discouraging them from getting upset about their situation and making their dissatifaction manifest by rioting and looting ...

us, and have found it's funded by the (relatively few) taxpayers, but is re= ceived by the many. =A0From few, to many. =A0So, figure 2 applies.

But the stimulus is aimed at keeping the economy out of recession, which disproportionately benefits the few who pay most of the tax - so from few, to many, back to benefiting the original few.

You haven't thought it through - not for the first time

n,

possibly buys some of John's goods, with part of John's own loss?

If John's business had low turnover - because of the recession - and its turnover improves - because of the stimulus spending, has he experienced a loss?

at makes it worse--that way John knows he's *going to be

But he hasn't been robbed - except perhaps by the ninja-loan-making bankers who created the depression in the first place. He's less well off than he would have been if the recession hadn't happened, but he's almost certainly going to end up better off than he would have been if Obama had followed Hoover and let nature take it's course, which reduced the US GDP by 25% between 1929 and 1933.

thing free? =A0If Bob's getting essential support like food or

ght? =A0Isn't this a complete disincentive to work, in the

As any right-wing nit-wit will tell you. In reality, people prefer working to collecting benefit. It gives them a much richer social life, appreciably more money and higher status in the community.

=A0Did it?

Keynes doesn't seem to have said anything of the sort. What he does seem to have had in mind was that John might see an opportunity to hire more people to work for him and thus earn him more money.

If you compare the trajectory of the US economy from 1929 to 1933 with trajectory of the US economy from 2008 to 2011, it would seem that Keynes was right.

The US economy shrank very rapidly in the last quarter of 2008 - by

1.6% - about the same rate as it shrank from 1929 to 1933 - but once the stimulus spending got under way the economy stopped shrinking and has in fact been expanding (albeit slowly) since then.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

BS

JA

unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and = taxpayer-funded stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or = Fiskers.

James, could you help me with a question that just occurred to me?

With US income tax law being rather redistributionist, i wonder, just how many Federal tax returns are for more that total Fedral income taxes = paid? Of those, what is the average excess (over what was paid) amount? Then i can multiply them and get the total over refund dollars to compare with the dollars Obummer dreams to get out of the rich and upper middle class.

Oh, and, the average income and the modal income of those who receive tax refunds in excess of total taxes paid?

?-)

Well, if you have the cash in your trading account and the approval, then sell puts to CIM at a lowball price and if they expire,you made money on the sale - and if they get "put" to you (ie gets exercised) then you own more CIM at a very good price that you can immediately sell calls at a decent higher strike price. And if it does not go up that far,you earned the premium and can repeat with more calls the next month.

I know about zip regarding puts and calls. Mikek

unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.

I'm not clear on exactly what you're asking. It sounds like you want to know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payments?

Whatever the question, the data's at the IRS Statists on Incom (SOI)(okay, it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).

You have to do your own research, wade through the spreadsheets, and add things up.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.

how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payments?

really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).

up.

I have heard numbers like ~47% are net zero or gainers... that's why Obama will be re-elected... those 47% are nutcases that think the goose can forever lay golden eggs :-( ...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, CTO                            |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.     Sometimes I even put it in the food.

lf

id

the

unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and taxpayer-funded = stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or Fiskers.

how

aid?

are

e

tax

to know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payments?

y, it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).

things up.

Jim-out-of-touch-with-reality-Thompson strikes again. Quite a few people who pay very little tax get a very little bit more than that back from the government. That particular goose doesn't lay "golden eggs", just the occasional food stamp.

The people who are going to vote for him are going to vote for him not because they are getting food stamps and minimal support from social security, but because his policies give them some hope of getting paid work. The unemployment figures are going down at the moment, which they wouldn't be doing if the economic idiots of the Tea Party got to put their demented misconceptions into practice.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

half

paid

the

unemployment, food stamps, and or artificially created and = taxpayer-funded stimulus jobs, e.g. General Motors, or Solyndra, or = Fiskers.

how

paid?

compare

middle

tax

know how many filers receive more in refunds than they made in payments?

That is part of the data i want. I was trying to be reasonably clear.

(SOI)(okay, it's really Statistics, but statists was pretty close).

This is somewhat helpful, but the data does not come presliced the way i want. Nor am i familiar with the site to get the slices i want easily.

things up.

I don't mind that so much, but where does one get reasonably easily defined random data slices? I think i could write an SQL query for what = i want but they have good reasons for not making that kind of access publicly available.

?-)

Look up option trading. You can buy or sell a put or call just like a stock or bond. They are contracts to buy (call) or sell (put) a stock; one contract covers 100 shares for the presumed trade. Say you have 100 shares of XYZ that normally trades around $5/share and the stock value is fairly stable. But say that you expect it to peak to $7/share and want to take advantage if that happens. So you sell a March 7.00 call and get $10.00 (before brokers fee) which you get to keep. The stock goes down, stays the same or goes up but not to $7.00 at the end of March the contract expires worthless and you keep the stock. So, feeling your oats, late Mar (after call has expired) or early Apr you sell an April $7.00 call and (say) get $15.00 maybe because the market also expects XYZ to go up. Repeat for the rest of the year or until XYZ actually sells. If the call gets exercised, you get $7.00/share (it is sold to buyer of call)..in the meantime you get to keep all dividends and premiums (what you got for selling the calls).

If you expect XYZ to go down or want to put a "stink" bid for it at (say) $3/share, then sell a put $3.00 (that is called the strike price) and collect the premium. If the stock does not go down to $3.00 you just repeat until you get "PUT" the stock **better** have the cash in the account to do "cover" the put; ya gotza be rich to do a margined put. If the stock does go down and you get "put" - buy the stock, then immediately sell a call to take advantage of the bargain and the nominal fact that Mister Market will expect the stock to recover (will make premium larger).