Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue May 13, 2014, 06:50 PM
Number of posts: 6,446

Journal Archives

I can get you 9% if you don't mind Turkish Lira.

There may be a few problems along the way. Currency devaluation being the number one problem.

Or a military coup. Happens every so often.

Or you can make America great again, and buy US with a 2.5% return.

What's your preference? Not that it matters. Money -digits on a computer screen- will go were the rulers of the world decide it will go. That would leave you and I out of that decision making process.

The FED does what it does to protect the financial investment real estate (FIRE) industry. The entirety of which is debt. And it can produce enough debt at will. We saw that in action recently. Because of the scope of the collapse what did the FED do?

It LOWERED interest rates. Imagine that. It could drop rates and still attract buyer's. What did it do next? It recapitalized all the tier 1 banks reserves. The banks then financed the stock market back to where it was before the collapse.

Using other currencies to conduct international trade has been going on for as long as there has been international trade.

Countries have a choice in which currency they wish to trade by agreement with the trading partner. Many prefer to use US$ as a base currency because it is fairly stable compared to the rest of the world's currencies.

It is easier to value products in US$'s and no country can trade with the US unless they trade in US$.

If China wants to invest in Turkish Lira valued bonds, I guess the rest of the world would too. It's not uncommon. Let's say China will build a pipeline in Turkey, they would buy Turkish bonds to finance it for that government. Then exchange the bonds for Euro's at the settlement date, if that's what they agreed to do. The currency China might use to buy the Turkish bonds may be US$'s. They hold our bonds (debt) as part of their reserves.

Then there's is the fact that debt expands and contracts as national and world economies do. We set our, well the FED does, interest rates to match the economic situation. Some times conservatively, some times not.

We employ our financial power on some occasions to collapse other nation's currency to resolve political differences. We just don't talk about it. Like wise, we do help our allies when their FIRE industry gets into trouble.
As for the deficit, when a Nation has a large and complex FIRE industry, large amounts of debt are created. Now, when the private sector, the FIRE industry blows itself up, which it does, the FED steps in as does the government.

GDP. is the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders.

When that goes south, like a recession, like we just had, it's the job of the government and the FED to spend and lend and buy to get GDP back to positive territory.

Debt is created on the government side to sway the private sector back into shape.

Not the entire picture.

Clinton would have to win 90+% of the AA vote, 75% of the Latino vote, and 60+% of those under 50 with a massive turn out of each of those divisions. Anything less, by racial group or by age group makes it an election within a normal national election margins.

I would not count on the youth vote turning out in large numbers, Clinton does not do well in that field. Considering they did not vote for her when Obama ran his campaign. Or AA voters, other than party loyalists, granted there are more likely to vote a straight D ticket, there isn't the cultural appeal of voting for a fellow AA.

Who will bring in the greater of the white vote? I would think the Donald would. He has a broader appeal to independents and should they come out in large enough numbers, then you've got a very competitive election.

Independents did not come out for Romney, nor for Obama in large numbers in that election cycle. The first being an unlikable candidate and the second a large disappointment among those who elected him to his first term.

Independents know what they are getting with Clinton and it's not a positive reaction on their part. They haven't decided on the Donald, but, are apprehensive of what they've seen so far. They won't decide until after the national debates. And even then it will be very close.

Judging this far out in the GE cycle based on Obama's turn out, I think is more a what if, than a well paved way to the White House.

And I haven't even mentioned Sanders, who is still in the D race or a brokered R convention and going third party.

Consider, none of the demographics will matter should a terrorist attack of significance happen on US soil.

Look at the States in which the highest rates of homicide happen.

From 2014 FBI stats: Highest homicide rates per 100,000

1 Louisiana

2 Mississippi

3 Missouri Governor D

4 So. Carolina

5 Maryland Governor D

6 Nevada

7 Delaware Governor D

8 Florida

9 Alabama

10 Georgia

11 Tennessee

12 Alaska independent

13 Arkansas

14 Michigan

15 Illinois

16 No. Carolina

That's the top 16 for 2014. I could add more, the result will not change much. Just a little back ground.

How this works or may be not.

Self-employed people
The effective payroll tax rate based on private simulations for different income groups. Effective tax rate equals the payroll taxes paid divided by total income. Total income includes traditional measures of income, imputed undistributed corporate profits, nontaxable employee benefits, income of retirees, and nontaxable income. Payroll taxes include employee and employer FICA.

A tax similar to the FICA tax is imposed on the earnings of self-employed individuals, such as independent contractors and members of a partnership. This tax is imposed not by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act but instead by the Self-Employment Contributions Act of 1954, which is codified as Chapter 2 of Subtitle A of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 1401 through 26 U.S.C. § 1403 (the "SE Tax Act"). Under the SE Tax Act, self-employed people are responsible for the entire percentage of 15.3% (= 12.4% + 2.9% ); however, the 15.3% multiplier is applied to 92.35% of the business's net earnings from self-employment, rather than 100% of the gross earnings; the difference, 7.65%, is half of the 15.3%, and makes the calculation fair in comparison to that of regular (non-self-employed) employees. It does this by adjusting for the fact that employees' 7.65% share of their SE tax is multiplied against a number (their gross income) that does not include the putative "employer's half" of the self-employment tax. In other words, it makes the calculation fair because employees do not get taxed on their employers' contribution of the second half of FICA, therefore self-employed people should not get taxed on the second half of the self-employment tax. Similarly, self-employed people also deduct half of their self-employment tax (schedule SE) from their gross income on the way to arriving at their adjusted gross income (AGI). This levels the amount paid by self-employed persons in comparison to regular employees, who do not pay general income tax on their employers' contribution of the second half of FICA, just as they did not pay FICA tax on it either.

These calculations are made on Schedule SE: Self-Employment Tax, although that is not readily apparent to novice self-employed taxpayers, owing to the schedule's rather opaque name, which makes it sound like it is part of the general federal income tax. Some taxpayers have complained that Schedule SE's title should be changed to something such as "Self-Employment FICA Tax", so that its separateness from the general income tax is apparent, perhaps not realizing that the SE tax is not imposed by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) at all, and that neither SE taxes nor FICA taxes are "income taxes" imposed under Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

They have a proven track record of not reinvesting

after a tax amnesty on overseas profits. There is no reason to believe they would do anything other then feather their own nest.

Mainly by stock buy backs, that would make you happy and stock investors happy to a degree, but, that would not lead to investment into main street jobs in this country. Though a payment into the Federal Treasury of a several hundred billion dollars used for the reduction of the National Debt isn't possible given both party's political stands. Neither will grant advantage to the other when it comes to the politics of money.

The political parties will pass something under a bogus heading in order to fill their own campaign coffers. Looking out for themselves is what they do. Advantaging their corporate sponsors while demanding broad reductions in government spending, killing medicare and social security essentially, would fit well with this scheme.

I do agree the tax laws are ineffective. My solution. Eliminate all the loopholes by scraping the corporate tax code. Flat tax them at 4-6% on the year end balance sheet on total profit made any where. If they don't wish to pay, they are barred from doing business in the Continental United States. No more corporate welfare. No access to the market.

Worldwide taxation is very rare.

So is having an mixed economy of considerable complexity, a large consumer base that every one wants a piece of, the world's most effective military, the reserve currency status of the dollar and being a leader in technology, innovation and science.

Corporations can pay up, or someone will form a corporation that will.

GN z 11

On Thursday, astronomers at the Hubble Space Telescope announced that they’d seen back farther than they ever have before, to a galaxy 13.4 billion light years away in a time when the universe was just past its infancy.

Some of the best tax dollars ever spent.
Go to Page: 1