forums

Off-Topic Stock Market & Crypto Discussion

mr.h said:
It was the the Fed policy of raising interest rates to fast, that caused financial insecurity.
Click to expand...

It was the banks who didn't hedge against rates going up! They assumed it would be 0% forever and didn't reduce risks. SVB didn't even reduce risks when the FED started raising rates. Blame the FED all you want as there is enough blame to go around. The executive branch, Congress, Bankers, Board of Directors, Investors, Depositors over $250k... they all had a hand in it.
 
Advertisement
One more thing, this isn't JUST the USA. Credit Suisse and European banks are in very similar positions thinking the ECB wouldn't raise rates thus having Mark to Market losses in the billions to trillions. Are we going to blame the ECB for all banking issues in Europe?
 
Tony4Miami said:
My question is, why didn't these Banking Executives see this happening??
Click to expand...

SVB didn't have the knowledge to manage a treasury from what I've heard/read. They also were big into risk-taking and likely thought the FED would have to pivot sooner allowing their Held to Maturity assets to become less underwater AND their depositors to raise more capital to deposit.
 
Last edited:
90scane said:
Inflation is a hidden tax. We make more, the government makes more. Thus, we are already raising taxes and spending because SS is increased based on inflation.

Raise taxes- ok
Cut spending- yes
Cut where? everywhere
Tax where? everywhere
How about focusing on underemployment and getting more people working? That way we decrease inflation via an increased supply of workforce AND it increases government revenues, too! How about documenting all illegals so they have to pay taxes and help offset healthcare?

Pardon the political views on a stock thread. This likely should be moved to the inflation thread.
Click to expand...
@SpikeUM We have spoken about this some, particularly in the context of Congress botching the one time repatriation of foreign earnings, but would you look to taxing global earnings of companies or offering another repatriation tied to capital expenditures in the US (e.g. not share buybacks or dividends)?
 
JD08 said:
1. Yes.
2. We spend billions on redundant programs, start there. Across the board flat tax.
Click to expand...
There is waste EVERYWHERE. It's built into government. A plan to cut waste would even cost billions..
I am more of a Fair Tax advocate where everybody pays a sales tax on purchases of goods and services, excluding food and medical. If you can afford to buy more, you pay more, but everyone pays, including people off the books.
 
mr.h said:
There is waste EVERYWHERE. It's built into government. A plan to cut waste would even cost billions..
I am more of a Fair Tax advocate where everybody pays a sales tax on purchases of goods and services, excluding food and medical. If you can afford to buy more, you pay more, but everyone pays, including people off the books.
Click to expand...
I started a thread with an example of ridiculous spending. I don't know if you've ever worked for government or close to government operations like a defense contractor, but there is a pervasive philosophy about making sure you use your entire budget lest it be cut the next year. That leads to managers, et al. making purchases just to make sure they used up their entire budget. Start there. Incentivize coming in under budget.

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive as the poor spend a higher percentage of their income.
 
JD08 said:
I started a thread with an example of ridiculous spending. I don't know if you've ever worked for government or close to government operations like a defense contractor, but there is a pervasive philosophy about making sure you use your entire budget lest it be cut the next year. That leads to managers, et al. making purchases just to make sure they used up their entire budget. Start there. Incentivize coming in under budget.

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive as the poor spend a higher percentage of their income.
Click to expand...
Can you imagine the anger towards Musk when he only has to pay taxes on what he spends while making billions every year?
 
Advertisement
JD08 said:
I started a thread with an example of ridiculous spending. I don't know if you've ever worked for government or close to government operations like a defense contractor, but there is a pervasive philosophy about making sure you use your entire budget lest it be cut the next year. That leads to managers, et al. making purchases just to make sure they used up their entire budget. Start there. Incentivize coming in under budget.

Consumption taxes are inherently regressive as the poor spend a higher percentage of their income.
Click to expand...
Even in business, managers tend to spend all of their budget. Think of the fair tax as a national sales tax. Yes the poor spends a higher percentage of their income, but the rich buy more “stuff”. Don’t forget essentials are not taxed.
You can use the same argument that a flat tax of 35% hurts a minimum wage earner more than a wealthy individual.
 
mr.h said:
Even in business, managers tend to spend all of their budget. Think of the fair tax as a national sales tax. Yes the poor spends a higher percentage of their income, but the rich buy more “stuff”. Don’t forget essentials are not taxed.
You can use the same argument that a flat tax of 35% hurts a minimum wage earner more than a wealthy individual.
Click to expand...
Go to a country with VAT and tell me it works.

A flat tax takes 35% of both the rich and poor = inherently fair. A poor person spends 100% of their income, a rich person spends a fraction of it.
 
90scane said:
You just said you wanted a fair tax vs a graduated tax structure. make up you mind
Click to expand...
No, I said a fair tax or a national sales tax is fairer than a flat tax. But remember, with any tax structure ,“The devil is in the details “.
 
wspcane said:
@SpikeUM We have spoken about this some, particularly in the context of Congress botching the one time repatriation of foreign earnings, but would you look to taxing global earnings of companies or offering another repatriation tied to capital expenditures in the US (e.g. not share buybacks or dividends)?
Click to expand...

Not 100% sure of your question, but anything inducement to repatriate is better longer term for the country, but its inflationary.
 
Advertisement
TheEye said:
Isn’t it amazing? You would think their salaries were based on some merit.
Click to expand...

I mentioned this is another post, the Boards of many institutions are poor to atrocious. Running a charity does not qualify you to be on a for profit board. Shareholders need to vote no much more often.

As an investor, do you want to be politically correct or make money? If its the latter, avoid companies with high ESG/DEI focus. Could be great causes, but they dont add to the bottom line, actually just the opposite, these banks going under are great examples.
 
Last edited:
SpikeUM said:
Not 100% sure of your question, but anything inducement to repatriate is better longer term for the country, but its inflationary.
Click to expand...
I guess my question is two fold. One is generally, adding taxes in times like this can be viewed as a negative, as it is adding an expense where there was none before. But if the tax is essentially voluntary based on the decision to repatriate, does it raise the same issues.

The second is if the US moved to tax worldwide income annually (e.g. removed the ability to keep income abroad and untaxed), possibly at a lower annual rate, what impact would that have on equities in the current climate?
 
Back
Top