Warren Buffet wall to wall CNBC. Guy is a jerk.

Discussion in 'Trading' started by seasideheights, May 2, 2008.

  1. Let's put it this way. Simple common sense would dictate that if we increase the capital gains rate to 90%, very few are going to be intererested in making long term investments. So when you say there would be little difference between 15% and 24%, you are now making claim that YOU know what tax rate can be applied that won't reduce interest in long term investment. Because we already know that there IS a level that would shut investment off.

    Actually economic theory would tell you that the higher the tax, the less of the activity. So activity gradually tapers down as the tax increases, until it ceases at some onerous level.

    You know, when you make the statement regarding a 3X investment, what you evidently didn't consider is that some people might make such an investment, all other things being equal, despite higher capital gains rates, but then might well decide that because the rate is so high, that they would not sell at all.

    Think this is not the case? Read about Warren Buffet sometime. His idea is to keep his investments....because the tax burden is high enough that it then discourages the idea of selling one to buy another....because each time you sell, you have a haircut to pay which means that your next investment must be that much more successful.

    Now, lets say you make the 3X investment, but then you don't sell because the tax rate is high enough to discourage. This means that activity drops, and ultimately LESS money is available for long term investment. Remember, it doesn't take everyone acting in this manner, just some will reduce investment.

    Now, if you don't think long term investment results in more jobs, and in general, higher economic growth, let me know. By the way, I know you understand that "long term investment" is not restricted to just stock market investments. It could be a private equity type of deal, venture capital, etc etc.

    The bottom line is that increasing capital gains taxes will discourage some participants. For other participants, it will reduce their desire to sell at all, and therefore reduce their activity. There is little doubt that at the margin, activity will decrease, and this will negatively impact both jobs and economic growth.

    #51     May 2, 2008
  2. Coolio


    The last thing Buffett wants is for others to get rich.

    In the short term if Obama gets elected all my trading will be in my IRA and Roth. If they want to tax my capital gains at 28% then I will generate $0 in capital gains.

    Obama is cool with this as he was recently quotes as saying that it is acceptable if revenues goes down, "this is about tax fairness."

    My plans to relocate to the Philippines are going into high gear.
    #52     May 3, 2008
  3. fhl


    Cap gains taxes are the "friction" that prevents capital from being moved to it's highest and best use. When you have to take a haircut to move the money from a dying industry to an innovative industry, the tax discourages this move.

    Reducing this friction, and encouraging money to move to it's highest and best use, improves economic growth.
    #53     May 3, 2008
  4. piezoe


    No, as a matter of fact, i don't think he stands a snowball's chance in hell. I think he stands a far better chance than that actually. I'd put the probability somewhere around 70%. If you can, put you personal views aside for a moment and look at reality. First reality, he is virtually certain to gain the Democratic Party's nomination and McCain is virtually certain to gain the Republican Party's Nomination. Now what are the chances that the Obama folks will be able to tie McCain to Bush administration policies. That's got to be pretty high. And furthermore, Obama, runs strongly among independents who will be able to vote in November. He has also been more successful than any other US politician at getting 18-20 something year-olds to not only register, but actually show up and vote!
    I think the main threat to his campaign is not Clinton nor McCain, but the potential loss of votes from the "African American" community if they should suddenly wake up to the reality that Obama is not black.
    #54     May 3, 2008
  5. Yes. The constant realignment of capital also provides signals to markets, eg when the pricing of certain companies/industries goes up or down, it tells the markets where to put their money. This is how to make an economy grow.
    #55     May 3, 2008
  6. Daal


    mccain is not black either
    #56     May 3, 2008
  7. piezoe


    True, but in McCains case it's evident from the outset. Put another way, the chance of McCain losing votes because it is discovered that he is actually black is zero, whereas the chance of Obama losing votes because it is discovered that he is not black is finite, and probably fairly high..
    #57     May 3, 2008
  8. Obama won't win in November. In fact I'm hoping he doesn't even get the nomination. I'm long $1000 of Gore at an avg of 4.9 on Intrade and short $500 worth of Obama at 76.

    Right now Obama is running in a primary environment that showcases his best demographic. He's outspending HC, receiving great endorsements and except for the Wright affair Obama garners lionized media attention. He runs in primaries that bring out a preponderance of blacks and white libs. The result? He's up a whopping 100k votes over Hillary. And thats among only Democrats. Just wait until you expand that sample and include Republicans and independents. Despite what you think Obama is NOT nailing the centrist Dem vote. I pour over every SurveyUSA poll (they're a stand out pollster) and his vast support is from Dems who identify themselves as "liberal". McCain is easily moderate enough to not give center left folks the willys. (no pun intended)

    Obama beats HC in states that no Democrat will win in the general and she wins decisively states that are a MUST win for the Democrats. Obama will never carry Ohio, Florida, Arkansas or Missouri.

    Not only that but he loses votes from key Dem groups. Latinos have been going 2-1 HC. The press doesn't say dick about some of these trends but here's one that's very revealing.
    In Chicago Obama beat HC 73-25. No surprise eh? However 8 of Chicago's 50 wards are majority Mexican. Guess what. HC carried all eight of them.

    The Jewish vote will also be split by an Obama nomination.

    For the Democrats to throw the Latino vote under the bus will be a very grave mistake. Those votes may NEVER come back to them.

    Obama not only loses but EOD could wind up losing big.

    #58     May 3, 2008
  9. Putting some of your RASCIST views aside. You are right. Obama was cute for a while. The cold reality is that working class whites alone outnumber blacks. Hispanics outnumber blacks. Politics is a numbers game. Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and the Great One are hammering this Rev. Wright business. I don't see how Obama can get enough votes to even challenge McCain, much less WIN.
    #59     May 3, 2008
  10. There's also that "spread betting" stuff in the U.K. Somehow by spread betting they trade FX and (if I'm not mistaken) even futures and stocks with no tax consequence.

    Overall, though, Euro taxes aren't desirable IMO...

    #60     May 3, 2008