LOL. No, I'm not talking about Nitro. He is not 50 years old. And a guy that losses money for 50 years in a row could be a scratch trader losing the vig only. Most bad traders are not consistently bad. That's just as hard as being consistently good. They usually are very inconsistent and grind their account down on commissions.
Kudos to MMs
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
LOL. No, I'm not talking about Nitro. He is not 50 years old. And a guy that losses money for 50 years in a row could be a scratch trader losing the vig only. Most bad traders are not consistently bad. That's just as hard as being consistently good. They usually are very inconsistent and grind their account down on commissions.
Nitro takes a lot of punches in his thread. Could he be also good at chessboxing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing
A counter intuitive day for VIX:
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^VIX+Interactive#symbol=^VIX;range=1d
It is actually red in the face of a 40 point SPX range (if you count overnight session in futures.)
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^VIX+Interactive#symbol=^VIX;range=1d
It is actually red in the face of a 40 point SPX range (if you count overnight session in futures.)
Not sure why Nitro didn't want to answer this but the point I was getting at is, no one wants to back a loser. Saying just raise taxes is the taxpayers equivalent to backing a loser. I'm all for social programs and helping out the poor. But first prove to me the program works. And before that, we need to get out of debt. Cut spending first. Reform the social programs so they actually work. Then we can have a conversation about raising taxes.
Nitro, we could tax the rich at 100% and the government will spend 150%. Then we are back to square one. And even after spending all that money, we get nothing out of it. As a trader I would think you would understand this. No one wants to back a loser.
No I would not back him.
I don't agree with your preposition either. This has been discussed on ET endlessly. It is not secret that the median income of the middle class and poor has stagnated and gone nowhere in the last ten years, while the income of the highest bracket earners is on an upward trend. There is evidence that the system is terribly tilted in favor of those that have money, to no benefit to society as a whole.
Regardless, I said raise taxes on everyone but genuinely collect 1% of taxes, not loopholed 1%. The poor will suffer a little bit more, to the middle class and the higher brackets, it is meaningless in the overall scheme of things. But what a difference that 1% can make, it, along side the cutting that is being discussed, would get us back on track to reducing the debt and being able to pay our bills in a comfortable manner.
I have no idea why people oppose raising taxes on such a humble scale.
Nitro, you can raise taxes 50% for all I care. That is not my argument. My point is, just like backing a bad trader, you are throwing good money after bad. You have very little knowledge of political history. In 1982 and 1990 our congress basically made the deal you suggest. We had a government shutdown basically and came to a standstill. Democrats said, if you give us the tax increases, we'll cut spending. So both Reagan and Bush Sr did just that. We raised taxes. And what did congress do? They spent more money. We went deeper into debt and those budget cuts never came to pass.
I'm all for raising taxes. But only after reform these social programs and cut spending. Then raise taxes to 90% for all I care.
And btw, you seem to have trouble understanding why there is a wealth gap. The rich DO NOT earn more then the middle class. They simply have assets that inflate more. Most rich people don't have "earned income". They have investment income. As their assets go up in value and as the middle class goes deeper in debt, the math becomes very easy to understand. The only way to bring that back in alignment is to actually confiscate the assets of the rich. That's called communism. And I know you don't support that. So it's a moot point.
The trading analogy is actually a good one. In trading, 5% of the traders earn 100% of the pie. The rest make little to nothing. If you were going to pay a tax and have that tax invested with someone, who would you pick, someone in the 5%, say Steve Cohen? Or some guy on ET that has lost money every year for 20 years. What if I told you that guy really needed the money Nitro. His kids are hungry. He is behind on his mortgage and he is about to lose his home. His family has no health insurance. Would you back him now? No, you still wouldn't.
That's not true. Most losing traders do take care of their family. They work night jobs, part time, even full time. But it's horribly inefficient, just like the government. And like the government, the trader always believes if he had more money, he would suddenly be a good trader and all problems would be solved. When in reality, he needs to stop throwing money away trading because it's not working for him. But he still goes to his friends, families and investors begging for more money just like the government.
And it is on topic as Nitro is the one who brought this up, not me. I simply responded to it.