Fear of equity wipeout by the government.

[jamis359]

Quote from Tide31:

...raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This...would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.

WSJ has gone off the deep end.

"Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow" -- I think the WSJ forgot the Dow went from 14,100 to 8,000 under Bush. That would be -6000 points for Bush, but only -1500 points for Obama. So who really killed the Dow, eh WSJ?

WSJ "...raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%... is pernicious... because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government." This is logically bankrupt. Anyone paying no taxes has a low income; they aren't cemented there -- there isn't anything stopping them from getting a higher income job, starting a new career, etc. Higher tax brackets rarely discourage people from accepting a higher paying position.

 

[poyayan]

Quote from otcstockfund:

uh dumbass equity holders are last in line in the event of a default or near default so of course they are going to be thrown under the bus

That tell you how many people here understand capital hierarchy structure...

 

[kandlekid]

New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38% ... would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.

everyone knows the top 1% of earners (say) pay something like 25 % of the income tax revenue, the top 10% something like 75%. so the WSJ's point is not that there will be much less revenue obtained, but that there is massive social engineering going on here. class warfare is putting it mildly.

 

[Corelio]

Quote from otcstockfund:

uh dumbass equity holders are last in line in the event of a default or near default so of course they are going to be thrown under the bus

I believe that you are completely missing the point that the OP raised with the thread.

Equity holders last in line....duuhh!

 

[nutmeg]

I think the WSJ forgot the Dow went from 14,100 to 8,000 under Bush. That would be -6000 points for Bush, but only -1500 points for Obama. So who really killed the Dow, eh WSJ?
----------------------

On the flipside. The rise in the DOW was a vote of confidence when the DEM's won a majority in '06.

 

[EMRGLOBAL]

I wonder if another reason you are seeing a major collapse in equities is due to the fear of the government coming in and wiping out or diluting equity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a lack of confidence beyond just, OBAMA and his move to dilute equity and pass it over to the "Have Nots".

Walls Street it's self, from Madoff, to sound bites of CNBC, to Life Insurance brokers, mortgage brokers, Stock Brokers all having ZERO clue.

The Curtain fell down and the "people" saw the wizard.....the fools.


People ask themselfs, "You mean to tell me with all these experts, with all these professional's, nobody saw this comming?"

End of story. Their will be books written about how 14500 turned into 5000 and how the Stock Market was destroyed.

There are plenty of other Investment vehicals, and I'm sure the market will be rebuilt in some decade. But for now, the writting is on the wall and the new administration, SOCIALISM is the new America.

 

[GTS]

Quote from Tide31:

Irm, this is my favorite quote from Friday's WSJ Opinion section:

New and expanded refundable tax credits would raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%. This is potentially the most pernicious feature of the president's budget, because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government.

While I generally disagree with raising the taxes on the top taxpayers (mainly because I am in that group) please keep in mind that the INCOME tax is not the only tax in this country.

There are many other taxes that everyone pays, no matter how low their income: SSA, sales, property, gasoline, registration, etc ... and most of these are a fixed percent not progressive which means that they hurt the lowest income people the most.

 

[Martinghoul]

Actually, what might be going on is a lot more funky... There's all sorts of interesting developments with the market starting to price in a non-zero probability of a global, govt-engineered debt-to-equity swap for troubled firms, such as the financials (the rating agencies are considering the possibilities). Point is they wanna try to spread the pain to the bondholders without triggering defaults. Feel free to make your own conclusions about what this implies...

 

[Tide31]

Quote from jamis359:

This is logically bankrupt. Anyone paying no taxes has a low income; they aren't cemented there -- there isn't anything stopping them from getting a higher income job, starting a new career, etc. Higher tax brackets rarely discourage people from accepting a higher paying position. -6000 Bush -1500 Obama

Think your missing the point. The article asks reader to infer that current administration by effectively 'lowering' taxes to zero secures a 'content' voting base to keep them in office with 50% in this camp.

Dow was below 7200 in October of '02 after 9/11 and dot.com bust.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from jamis359:

WSJ has gone off the deep end.

"Obama's Radicalism Is Killing the Dow" -- I think the WSJ forgot the Dow went from 14,100 to 8,000 under Bush. That would be -6000 points for Bush, but only -1500 points for Obama. So who really killed the Dow, eh WSJ?

WSJ "...raise the fraction of taxpayers paying no income taxes to almost 50% from 38%... is pernicious... because it would cement a permanent voting majority with no stake in controlling the cost of general government." This is logically bankrupt. Anyone paying no taxes has a low income; they aren't cemented there -- there isn't anything stopping them from getting a higher income job, starting a new career, etc. Higher tax brackets rarely discourage people from accepting a higher paying position.

Universal sufferage, is idiocy of the highest order if the majority effectively has to make no contribution.