Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
eye h8 joo
.jpg "Research Chemical Sciences")
.png "Research Chemical Sciences")
What a God damn fucking shitty day
- Thread starter 75th
- Start date
eye h8 joo
needtogetarmy
CEO of Project Mayhem
Yes, in more ways than one.
As for dividends, it will have a negative impact but only to an extent. Only a small percentage of firms pay dividends. Furthermore, the research I have seen shows that when dividend taxes go up, firms pay fewer dividends. Every act has a consequence. In the end, the government will be raising less tax revenue because fewer firms will be paying dividends. The government is shooting itself in the foot.
Capital gains taxes have a much more pronounced effect. I am not fully aware of all of the domestic implications but I know in regards to international finance, fewer foreign firms will invest in the U.S. resulting in lower capital inflows into the US.
As for tax rates in general, look at the chart below. People blame Bush for destroying the economy because of lowering tax rates. Notice how net tax revenue increases when tax rates are reduced. Lower taxes can induce economic growth, which leads to more taxable income being generated, which results in higher federal tax revenues. The biggest fallacy I hear from liberals is that Bush's tax policies caused this mess. A quote I read in the WSJ sums my thoughts up regarding that: "Not one economist with an IQ over 60 believes that cutting taxes caused this mess."
This is not to say that increasing taxes is such a horrible thing. It is sometimes needed to slow down an overheated economy. A good example is Clinton's tax increases yet we witnessed an increase in tax revenue. This was possible because the US experienced exceptional economic growth between 1996 and 1999, mostly led by decreased energy costs and the internet bubble.
IMO Taxes must be dynamic and adjusted depending on the overall economic conditions. That said, raising taxes when the economy is tanking is voodoo economics. It will not help the economy grow. Hoover's policies are a good example. IMO Obama is following his path.
Yes, in more ways than one.
As for dividends, it will have a negative impact but only to an extent. Only a small percentage of firms pay dividends. Furthermore, the research I have seen shows that when dividend taxes go up, firms pay fewer dividends. Every act has a consequence. In the end, the government will be raising less tax revenue because fewer firms will be paying dividends. The government is shooting itself in the foot.
Capital gains taxes have a much more pronounced effect. I am not fully aware of all of the domestic implications but I know in regards to international finance, fewer foreign firms will invest in the U.S. resulting in lower capital inflows into the US.
As for tax rates in general, look at the chart below. People blame Bush for destroying the economy because of lowering tax rates. Notice how net tax revenue increases when tax rates are reduced. Lower taxes can induce economic growth, which leads to more taxable income being generated, which results in higher federal tax revenues. The biggest fallacy I hear from liberals is that Bush's tax policies caused this mess. A quote I read in the WSJ sums my thoughts up regarding that: "Not one economist with an IQ over 60 believes that cutting taxes caused this mess."
This is not to say that increasing taxes is such a horrible thing. It is sometimes needed to slow down an overheated economy. A good example is Clinton's tax increases yet we witnessed an increase in tax revenue. This was possible because the US experienced exceptional economic growth between 1996 and 1999, mostly led by decreased energy costs and the internet bubble.
IMO Taxes must be dynamic and adjusted depending on the overall economic conditions. That said, raising taxes when the economy is tanking is voodoo economics. It will not help the economy grow. Hoover's policies are a good example. IMO Obama is following his path.
good insight man
Yes, in more ways than one.
As for dividends, it will have a negative impact but only to an extent. Only a small percentage of firms pay dividends. Furthermore, the research I have seen shows that when dividend taxes go up, firms pay fewer dividends. Every act has a consequence. In the end, the government will be raising less tax revenue because fewer firms will be paying dividends. The government is shooting itself in the foot.
Capital gains taxes have a much more pronounced effect. I am not fully aware of all of the domestic implications but I know in regards to international finance, fewer foreign firms will invest in the U.S. resulting in lower capital inflows into the US.
As for tax rates in general, look at the chart below. People blame Bush for destroying the economy because of lowering tax rates. Notice how net tax revenue increases when tax rates are reduced. Lower taxes can induce economic growth, which leads to more taxable income being generated, which results in higher federal tax revenues. The biggest fallacy I hear from liberals is that Bush's tax policies caused this mess. A quote I read in the WSJ sums my thoughts up regarding that: "Not one economist with an IQ over 60 believes that cutting taxes caused this mess."
This is not to say that increasing taxes is such a horrible thing. It is sometimes needed to slow down an overheated economy. A good example is Clinton's tax increases yet we witnessed an increase in tax revenue. This was possible because the US experienced exceptional economic growth between 1996 and 1999, mostly led by decreased energy costs and the internet bubble.
IMO Taxes must be dynamic and adjusted depending on the overall economic conditions. That said, raising taxes when the economy is tanking is voodoo economics. It will not help the economy grow. Hoover's policies are a good example. IMO Obama is following his path.
Im sure youre familiar with Hauser's Law, which basically proves that no matter how high you raise tax rates, tax revenue (as a % of GDP) remains consistent.
Raising taxes encourages taxpayers to shift, hide and underreport income...and that simple fact aint going away any time soon. I read somewhere that for every 1% increase in taxes, there is 2% more money funneled into the "shadow economy."
I was wondering if someone could answer my question about high yield bonds...like on this bond:
Wolvering Tube Inc
Price: 99.00
Coupon (%): 10.500
Maturity Date: 1-Apr-2009
Yield to Maturity (%): 11.211
Current Yield (%): 10.606
Fitch Ratings: CCC
Coupon Payment Frequency: Semi-Annual
First Coupon Date: 1-Oct-2002
Type: Corporate
Callable: Yes
Since it matures in a lil under a month im not that concerned about the CCC rating...I was just wondering if i would get paid a coupon on the maturity date??? Also the YTM is 11 so i was wondering if this would be something that would be profitable...Ive never ever traded in bonds before so i know very little about them im just trying to figure some stuff out.
Wolvering Tube Inc
Price: 99.00
Coupon (%): 10.500
Maturity Date: 1-Apr-2009
Yield to Maturity (%): 11.211
Current Yield (%): 10.606
Fitch Ratings: CCC
Coupon Payment Frequency: Semi-Annual
First Coupon Date: 1-Oct-2002
Type: Corporate
Callable: Yes
Since it matures in a lil under a month im not that concerned about the CCC rating...I was just wondering if i would get paid a coupon on the maturity date??? Also the YTM is 11 so i was wondering if this would be something that would be profitable...Ive never ever traded in bonds before so i know very little about them im just trying to figure some stuff out.
The YTM of 11% (with the coupon being at 10.5) simply shows that the bond is trading at a discount, or below par (which is 100, and you see the bond is trading at 99).
When the bond matures youll get your principle plus the semi-annual interest payment (10.5% of whatever your investment is divided by 2).
Make sense?
