Your point is well taken regarding one major type of tax -- personal income tax.
But the middle class and even the (working) poor still pay a lot in on Social Security and Medical taxes, sales and consumption taxes, property taxes, etc. Basically anyone working, and even retirees and others drawing a check, is paying a substantial amount in these other taxes. >>
Here is what happened on January 1st 2014:
Top Income Tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6% Top Income Payroll Tax went from 37.4% to 52.2% Capital Gains Tax went from 15% to 28% Dividend Tax went from 15% to 39.6%
>>
And what happened on 01/01/14 shouldn't matter if you're in the "middle class". According to most people here, only the Baleys of the world should have to be complaining about those things, and we should all be thankful that he is paying them because most of us, according to so many here, don't seem to be paying them because we aren't in the "top income tax bracket" and don't have any assets to be garnering capital gains or dividends from.
As for the litany of tax items you list, most of those are either inconsequential or aren't paid by many people in society. >>
Well, I know I've become a Hawaiian asset...over $10k in state taxes in the first 6 months alone. I won't get into Federal other than I could support two families of four for a year. I definitely feel the pinch in 2014. I just wish I would get smoe love instead of "you're not paying your fair share" or "at smoe point you've made enough money" and "you didn't build that." Next year I want a freaking thank you note for being a productive citizen. I guess I'm one the so-called "rich." Jeez, they make it sound like a four-letter word...er, ah...nevermind...
<< <i>So if you earn little income, you don't have to pay ANY capital gains or taxes on dividends. As far as I can tell, the rate went from 15% to 20%, NOT 28% or 39.6%. And even that 5% spike only applies if you are in the TOP bracket, which most people here don't seem to be, including by your own admission. If the best and only factually correct thing that you can complain about regarding this matter is the % of taxes on my cell phone bill, I think we're wasting our time here. >>
If you earn little income, chances are you are not in the middle class we are discussing. Your cellphone tax rate was thrown out there as an example of high taxes (look at it). Most Americans are making more than they were ten years ago but fail to realize that their real income (adjusted for inflation/loss of purchasing power) is actually less than it was ten years ago. All they know is that they are making more money, so they must be richer. These same Americans can't understand why they are more in debt just to maintain the quality of life they enjoyed ten years ago. And there lies the Great Washington/Wall St. Scam - slowly destroy the value of their dollar, slowly raise their taxes, toss in the occasional pay raise and just maybe they won't notice they are loosing ground. And if were lucky, they'll even pay us interest to replace the ground they lost.
Some of us notice, some of us don't. The ground that is lost does not just disappear - it found its way into the pockets of those that took it from you.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Only trying to help those that don't see the need for it.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Obviously the people here complaining don't even notice how much tax they even pay in the first place. It's ironic that some people here are singling out one member and complaining about how "they" are picking up the government tab when it is the tax contributions of people like that one member who are picking up THEIR tabs. But more than anything, even making money, human beings like to complain, even when it's obvious they don't know what their complaining about in the first place.
Let me be the first to note that I know exactly how much I pay in taxes every payroll because I write the checks to uncle sam. My only complaint about "one member" here is that sometimes when he takes a position that everything is pretty much fine, it does seem a bit aloof - and that's just my perspective but I also take his point to heart that you can't spend all of your time bemoaning the situation and never taking time to enjoy life. I get that. Fair enough?
The problem that I'm pointing out is the misuse of tax revenues, which is essentially the same thing as being overtaxed.
It's a misuse of tax revenues to bail out big banks that mismanaged their own portfolios and who use the excuse that the whole economy might crash if they weren't bailed out. Such crazy malarkey.
It's a misuse of tax revenues to bail out a failing company like GM and to keep the autoworker's union in business when both management and the union are 100% mutually to blame for running the company into the ground. It's a complete misappropriation of public funds to buy those union votes. The contract was between a private company and a union, not between the government and anyone else. The bondholders got screwed and existing laws were simply broken. Par for the course these days.
It's a misuse of tax revenues to give free stuff to people who have no interest in working for a living, whether or not it's their fault or simply because they are a product of the welfare system. There is no excuse for milking the system just because you can. To be 100% clear, I'm not including in this category those who are truly disabled, veterans who earned their benefits or retirees who actually worked for their retirements.
As to your point that the top 1% pay the majority of the taxes, it's been shown that even if 100% of the income from the top 1% were taken as tax, it wouldn't even put a dent in the spending budget. Therefore, to say that the middle class isn't paying the bill is incorrect.
Our biggest problem in my opinion is that the politicians in DC are indeed bought & paid for by big business, big unions and foreign interests. Practically no one actually represents the individual in D.C. My complaint is that the only folks who pay for all of this are those very individuals who go to work every day and hope to provide for the future only to see much of their effort wasted by groups of elitist cronies who also pretend that they have someone's interest in mind besides their own.
If you are a politician, a union hack, a big business lobbyist, a non-US citizen or a slacker I'm sorry but I disagree totally with your position. If you are none of those, hopefully someday you will realize that you've been had.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
he takes a position that everything is pretty much fine
No, that's the position that is assumed by others in this kind of conversation. It goes something like this:
Someone else: "All the markets are rigged and America is dying, and THEY are the reason we're not happy." Baley: "Well, isn't that maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration? Do not the choices of individuals play some part in their results?" Someone: "Oh, so everything is just perfect then? You want more fraud, corruption, taxes?!?" Baley: "<sigh>" I guess I'll go outside and sit in the shade of a tree
Someone else: "All the markets are rigged and America is dying, and THEY are the reason we're not happy." Baley: "Well, isn't that maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration? Do not the choices of individuals play some part in their results?" Someone: "Oh, so everything is just perfect then? You want more fraud, corruption, taxes?!?" Baley: "<sigh>" I guess I'll go outside and sit in the shade of a tree
Well, the markets are rigged, and America's in trouble. This worries me. Well, I suppose I gotta get back to work.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>I never understand threads like this. A taxpayer can't be barely getting by AND paying a lot of taxes. The middle class doesn't pay THAT much of the income. That's not opinion, that's a FACT. Basically, most of them are free riders or pretty close to. There are PLENTY that pay essentially nothing or literally nothing.
I won't disagree with anyone, one way other other, that wants to laud or complain about Fed or government policy, which may or may not be run well or as as well as can be. But let's not get into how 'we' or 'I' am footing the bill for all of these 'other' people on the government rolls, because it's primarily the rich that picks of that tab by a WIDE margin. I'm not even saying they shouldn't pick up more but if you're complaining about your economic lot in this country (and you truly are "middle class"), one could very well argue that you're not even footing the bill for your own freight, let alone 'others'. >>
A small business owner that is single is at a 42% marginal tax rate in my state. Add in mandatory health insurance and the number is 50%. Don't forget sales, property, gas and sin taxes.
It's a misuse of tax revenues to bail out big banks that mismanaged their own portfolios and who use the excuse that the whole economy might crash if they weren't bailed out. Such crazy malarkey.
I agree, but most of the banks paid back the TARP. We were lucky only because the Fed could print money out of thin air and give it to the banks by buying their bad debt to repay it in diluted dollars(2007-2014 cumulative rate of inflation is 15% Inflation Calculator). A majority of the $750 Billion Tarp Money is now on the FEDs 4 Trillion Balance sheet now. It never solved anything other than shifting the insolvency of the banks to the FED. Take away the world's reserve currency and I doubt TARP would be able to be paid back. Next time will be different. I don't find it impossible that the FEDs balance sheet could reach $10-$20 Trillion or more when the derivatives market explodes.
<< <i>It's a misuse of tax revenues to bail out big banks that mismanaged their own portfolios and who use the excuse that the whole economy might crash if they weren't bailed out. Such crazy malarkey.
I agree, but most of the banks paid back the TARP. We were lucky only because the Fed could print money out of thin air and give it to the banks by buying their bad debt to repay it in diluted dollars(2007-2014 cumulative rate of inflation is 15% Inflation Calculator). A majority of the $750 Billion Tarp Money is now on the FEDs 4 Trillion Balance sheet now. It never solved anything other than shifting the insolvency of the banks to the FED. Take away the world's reserve currency and I doubt TARP would be able to be paid back. Next time will be different. I don't find it impossible that the FEDs balance sheet could reach $10-$20 Trillion or more when the derivatives market explodes. >>
The FED and Treasury paid out anywhere from $10-$20 TRILLION to hundreds/thousands of corporations/people around the world. The TARP was hardly a dent in this total amount....no more than an ante at a big hand in a big stakes poker game. The 6 largest US banks are still insolvent if they had to unwind all their assets (specifically $300 TRILL in otc derivative bets). The MBS and CDS failures alone in the 2007-2011 period totaled around $30-$40 TRILL notional. TARP money didn't cover that. We the taxpayers are now on the hook for that. Considering that the $250 TRILL in otc interest rate swaps were not even touched last around....the next time should be a whopper.
<< <i>I have no complaints, I have dollar protection.
Only trying to help those that don't see the need for it. >>
Dollar "protection" can come in many forms, not just PMs, and I do not complain either as I understand the roles of various asset classes.
he MBS and CDS failures alone in the 2007-2011 period totaled around $30-$40 TRILL notional. TARP money didn't cover that. We the taxpayers are now on the hook for that.
the MBS and CDS failures alone in the 2007-2011 period totaled around $30-$40 TRILL notional. TARP money didn't cover that. We the taxpayers are now on the hook for that.
Figured how?
Where do you think QE has been going ------------------> straight to the balance sheets of the failed banks, and that's where it has stayed. QE has never been about the economy. Instead of QE, they've apparently found another way to keep this process going. I'm sure that we'll all find out what they're doing to create more $trillions of public debt soon enough.
And now, your bank deposits are unsecured credits, and YOUR DEPOSITS are actually behind the banks derivatives in the order of priority during a liquidation if the bank should fail. It's Bizzarro World in finance now. What they've managed to accomplish is criminal. But, but, but...they managed to do the same thing to GM's bondholders, so why not expand the program in it's scope? Done!
Dollar "protection" can come in many forms, not just PMs, and I do not complain either as I understand the roles of various asset classes.
This isn't your father's financial system anymore. The banks and politicians have managed to re-order the valuations of nearly every asset class that matters. In my opinion, we have no idea now as to any relative values or how the new laws & regulations have altered the relative values of all traditional investments.
Every time they change a law or regulation that affects asset valuations, the relative values of assets change. It's always been this way, but I think that bigger changes have taken place and the complexities of this matrix of laws & regulations is pretty much a trap for most unsuspecting investors. I don't think most people will see it coming because they're too impressed with all of their stock market gains lately. Note that all these gains are taxed (skimmed) annually, and a major loss doesn't recoup those paid taxes.
Do I know which asset class is safe, or better? Nope, and neither does anyone else who isn't making the rules.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
I've explained this before and shown how misleading and the term is.
This isn't your father's financial system anymore. The banks and politicians have managed to re-order the valuations of nearly every asset class that matters. In my opinion, we have no idea now as to any relative values or how the new laws & regulations have altered the relative values of all traditional investments.
They said the same in 1810, 1860, 1865, 1873, 1894, 1931, 1941, 1973, 1987, 1999, 2008......
Do I know which asset class is safe, or better? Nope, and neither does anyone else who isn't making the rules.
All are better or safe than than others at any given time.
I've explained this before and shown how misleading and the term is.
Then why did they change the law at all? Your deposits are subordinated to the bank's P&L position, and if they have negative equity you are already in trouble. It's only misleading because nobody cares enough to bring this to the attention of depositors.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so. >>
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days.
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so. >>
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days. >>
That is almost hard to believe. My savings account is in a credit union, and they generally have better rates than big banks. Im getting .4% on my account. TBH, I don't keep my money there to make money...I keep it there because I do not like keeping it in the house.
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so. >>
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days. >>
Double check, more likely .3 percent. They are your deposits until they are not.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so. >>
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days. >>
Double check, more likely .3 percent. They are your deposits until they are not. >>
<< <i>And now, your bank deposits are unsecured credits
I've explained this before and shown how misleading and the term is.
Then why did they change the law at all? Your deposits are subordinated to the bank's P&L position, and if they have negative equity you are already in trouble. It's only misleading because nobody cares enough to bring this to the attention of depositors. >>
This. And by law now, besides taking a back seat to the bank's P&L sheet, even the otc derivatives owned by the bank get priority over your cash "loans" to the bank. So figure among the 6 largest US banks, there are $300 TRILL bank "bets" that are to be paid ahead of all the depositor's combined ($7.3 TRILL in savings among all US banks). A simple 2.5% failure rate on those derivatives would basically wipe out all savings accounts. Fwiw, the failure rate on MBS and CDS derivatives back in 2006-2011 was well above 2.5%.
<< <i>I have not been privy to the notion of being subordinated to the bank's P&L sheet. I'm not even sure exactly what that means and I'm a CPA, though maybe not a very good one. Anywho, are we saying that there is some loophole in FDIC insurance coverage whereby depositors won't get there deposits back in the event of a calamity? >>
No, that is not what is being stated. It's like this: In a calamity the banks won't have to pay you but the FDIC (for what it's worth) will cover your losses up to the $250,000 limit per account. Your money is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Gov't.
the FDIC only has the funds to cover less than 2% of all US deposits. If things get bad enough to where your bank doesn't have your money, FDIC will be of little help. FDIC is more of a marketing scam to make you think your money is safe. One reason for bailouts in 2009 was the lack of FDIC funds to make account holders whole. Bailouts were necessary to avoid rioting in the streets.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
I have not been privy to the notion of being subordinated to the bank's P&L sheet. I'm not even sure exactly what that means and I'm a CPA, though maybe not a very good one.
* - correction - subordinated to the bank's Balance Sheet. As a CPA, you must know that GAAP no longer apply to the valuations of the un-sellable derivatives on the books of all these megabanks. Your FASB sold all of us down the river.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days.
>> Double check, more likely .3 percent. They are your deposits until they are not. >>
Actually it's 3.01%. >>
That is a good rate for anything without a term, most pay about nothing.
<< <i>Bank deposits are treated the same way they were 50 years ago. So much fear. No wonder the obvious is not clear. >>
And bank risk compared to 50 yrs. ago?
Bank deposits are now just another stack of chips at the poker table. They are not protected by bank effort as they were 50 years ago. With the repeal of depositor (and taxpayer) protections of Glass Steagall and the failure of congress to regulate derivatives, even when advised to by then CFTC chairman Brooksley Born (she was fighting opposing congressional testimony by Greenspan) banks cannot be compared to their role 50, 40, 30 or even 20 yrs. ago. Their role alone in the 2008 crisis should have taught you that. Their ability to wildly gamble with your deposits should concern you as both an account holder and as a taxpayer.
With the protection of a heavily lobbied congress and a hands-off attitude of regulators and enforcers, banks no longer view their customers in the same light. Fifty years ago (and less) banks made loans strictly on credit worthiness without the ability to pass off bad loans to the suckers and to the taxpayers. The obvious is clear: anyone who thinks banks now put their customers first is living in the 1960's. Your bank will always appear to be working for you and will not pick your pocket until they run out of other pockets. Any fear of banks is fully justified based on their recent history.
Please tell me that you already knew this.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Printing more money is the "stealth mode" of stealing from you, as both a taxpayer and as inflation affected consumer.
<< <i> Your FASB sold all of us down the river. >>
Your elected leaders sold you down the river. Congress (who funds FASB and who is heavily, heavily lobbied by bank money) demanded FASB change the mark-to-market accounting rules. Without the change, your cohodk recommended bank's insolvency could not be hidden from you.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Nothing new in what you say. It's been going on thousands of years before the advent of the United States of America. >>
What is new is that "your" deposits are now fair game. Those with bank deposits need to be aware of this. And yes, I have bank deposits. But knowing this new risk provokes closer monitoring of my bank's health. When and if the time comes those at the front of the withdrawal line stand the best chance.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Nothing new in what you say. It's been going on thousands of years before the advent of the United States of America. >>
What is new is that "your" deposits are now fair game. Those with bank deposits need to be aware of this. And yes, I have bank deposits. But knowing this new risk provokes closer monitoring of my bank's health. When and if the time comes those at the front of the withdrawal line stand the best chance. >>
If that's the way you feel about it, there's no point in putting money in the bank in the first place. >>
Greater risk in mailing cash to pay the bills. Risk assesment is an important part of financial activity just as it is in many other areas of life. To blindly trust one who holds your money is a fool's game - just ask former account holders of MF Global.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i> the government will calm the masses by covering deposits. I would also think they'll probably wind up covering in excess of the FDIC limit as well. >>
Another nanny state program that has stuck us in either low gear or reverse for many decades.
All the tax funded social programs have robbed our income and net worth. Instead of saving for a rainy day, the government is good enough to charge us confiscatory tax rates and they will kindly take care of us.
Why bother saving for a rainy day when $300 a week and a box of food pantry staples will sustain us.
Nothing better for morale and self esteem than groveling before a fat bureaucrat for food to feed your family.
....and how about socialized medicine. We are required to pay for smoking, gluttonous drunken neighbors for every sniffle and DUI car wreck. When we are ill, we have to drive 100 miles to a specialist and beg for him to accept a mutinous ACA approved insurance policy.
....and how about socialized medicine. We are required to pay for smoking, gluttonous drunken neighbors for every sniffle and DUI car wreck. When we are ill, we have to drive 100 miles to a specialist and beg for him to accept a mutinous ACA approved insurance policy.
What a disaster.....what a mess. >>
Sadly this seems to be the case. My wife whom had shoulder surgery recently was caught in the bureaucratic ACA red tape. Countless hours wasted on the phone, incompetent providers, etc...she recently found a mom & pop physical therapist (cash only) that is finally helping her get her range of motion back. So frustrating that I was feeling anxiety about it all. My thought is to do my best to eat healthy organic farmers market foods, stay physical (pun intended) and avoid the sick care system as much as possible.
BST references: jdimmick;Gerard;wondercoin;claychaser;agentjim007;CCC2010;guitarwes;TAMU15;Zubie;mariner67;segoja;Smittys;kaz;CARDSANDCOINS;FadeToBlack; jrt103;tizofthe;bronze6827;mkman;Scootersdad;AllCoinsRule;coindeuce;dmarks;piecesofme; and many more
"...the notion that gold or silver or platinum has ANY intrinsic value."
An unfortunate notion that gold has intrinsic value, a common mistake. Intrinsic value is based on the underlying asset and gold has no underlying assets. Gold IS the underlying asset and therefore has no intrinsic value, only a cash price.
<< <i> The only thing that can be said about it is that it's a pretty rock, and some people might not even give you the "pretty" part, though I would. >>
Gold is nearly indestructible, highly malleable and has many uses in manufacturing. It is also highly prized as jewelry.
That is not to say that it is properly valued at $1300. That is more a function of monetary policy and skilled or reckless governance.
All of that is absolutely true. And at the end of the day, you're saying what I'm saying. That it isn't remotely essential to mankind in any shape or form. Now, if with a sprinkle of salt and a two garlic cloves, an ounce of gold would turn into 1000 gallons of fresh water, then I'd have an entirely different opinion on the matter. >>
There's no magic, only science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, but if you look hard enough, you might find someone who will make the trade you propose for gold.
It's currently much easier to find someone who takes cash, check, credit card, money order, or bank wire for their extra water that they have for sale.
<< <i>In today's society, VERY FEW people (except for apparently a bunch doom a gloomers here) would argue that shelter, transportation and clothing aren't essential to mankind. >>
You are bending the argument to fit your agenda. To exist we only need a handful of life giving components. Mankind survived up until a few thousand years ago with little more than the bare essentials. Interesting though that gold was highly valued during those times as well.
In this country, we can all choose how to spend our disposable income (except for health insurance which is mandated by an overbearing government). Some would spend the extra $700 on an Ipad or I phone or a modest vacation. Others would buy 3 shares of Tesla stock and another might buy a half ounce of gold with the money.
In that regard, we all value precious metals at a different level. Though you say it is like any other stone or mineral, I suspect that given the opportunity to pick some up at $900 an ounce, you would not hesitate to pick some up.
I met a lady today who's old boss sold his business for 580 million, but she stayed on with the corporation. She's ready to retire and said, "I've met the richest men who are never happy" I said, "Now you met a poor old ba----rd who's never happy". " Who do you like better ? " She started laughing and said, "You men are all the same , MISERABLE ".
I've chosen to make my irrational bet on gold, which I consider to be a much more rational bet on 10101010101's or paper.
Someone (it might even have been on this Forum) once said,
An unfortunate notion that gold has intrinsic value, a common mistake. Intrinsic value is based on the underlying asset and gold has no underlying assets. Gold IS the underlying asset and therefore has no intrinsic value, only a cash price.
Got GOLD?
But this:
We aren't cavemen anymore. A LOT of people would argue that internet, tv, radio, computers, etc. are all "essential" in today's society. NO ONE should realistically be saying that about gold. Because there is essentially NO useful purpose for it. No one has EVER needed a pretty rock (which is PREDOMINANTLY its purpose). That some want to utilize disposable income for it is one thing. That it actually provides ANY sort of real functional use is not even debatable. It doesn't.
.........is spoken like a banker. What you blindly overlook is that gold is able to function as a store of value, whereas government-issued paper has inevitably FAILED every time out of the gate. Paper currency has NEVER been able to retain value for it's owner, and the single reason is because governments have NEVER been able to resist the temptation to steal from their citizenry via inflation. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that "this time is different" as it concerns the dollar. The trends are certainly very clear.
Yes, we're not cavemen anymore. I remember the good old days when banks could survive and perform their function with the interest from loans and still manage to pay interest on savings deposits. But now, the banks no longer use just fiat money creation combined with fractional reserve banking to skim their profits. They've figured out ways to multiply their leverage and shift all of the risk onto their victims through the most corrupt processes thought of yet, including mortgage securitization, interest rate swaps and high frequency trading.
And the hits just keep on coming, with the obscene changes in bankruptcy asset liquidation priority and the free pass given to bank executives who should have been subpoenaed instead of being given bailouts. None of this makes me think that there's a fiscal turnaround in the cards. Why anyone would believe so is a really good question, so please offer your theory as to how this system is going to sustain itself, if you have one.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so. >>
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days. >>
Double check, more likely .3 percent. They are your deposits until they are not. >>
Actually it's 3.01%. >>
Your bank pays an interest rate of 3.01% for deposits UP TO 15K??? Pray tell, what bank is that??
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Your bank pays an interest rate of 3.01% for deposits UP TO 15K??? Pray tell, what bank is that??
Is your bank financially stable? Sometimes offering high interest rates on deposits is a warning sign that banks are desperate for depositors and may be in trouble.
I think comments like your's illustrate the complete naivety of the metal bulls. Gold IMO has really NEVER been a store of value. It WAS money for thousands or years. Then for a brief period of a couple hundred years, it "backed" currency, until that relationship ended. They drift further and further apart and while you think that is somehow a detriment to paper currency, IMO it's actually a significant detriment to gold as with each passing year, it is relegated to having ZERO role in the economy and in finance, other than for mere speculation, and who knows when that might end.....
For a pretty rock, it sure begs the question why the world's central banks have an inventory of 32,000 tonnes of gold (approx 20% of the world's total above ground supply). If it's useless, there can be no rationalization made as to why the banks would keep this stuff. Therefore, it's far from useless to them. For centuries gold was used as a debt extinguisher between counter-parties. The banks still use gold and gold swaps as a means to settle their debts and balance of payments. They do this because they don't 100% trust the paper system that they all currently use. Empty the vaults of the CB's and I'll be the first to admit that gold no longer plays a role in the 21st century financial system. Even if the banks made that decision, it would not erase the growing demand we see from the citizens of Asia and Europe. Those countries have learned the hard lessons of paper currencies failing. Let us know when Central Banks start storing things other than gold in their vaults (ie dirt or land).
Once again, it's a pretty rock. That's all. It's not even rare. As I've mentioned in the past, there's enough gold inside the earth to provide BILLIONS of POUNDS of it for each human being alive.
Surprised you didn't mention all the gold in seawater too or even outer-space...lol. And once we get the technology to mine the earth's core we will all be awash in gold. First though, let's figure out how to mine gold only 3 miles deep into the earth's crust. That's about the limit of current technology and it's not even cost effective to do so. Land covers the entire earth's surface that isn't already underwater...that's certainly not rare....and not rarer than gold. If you can count all the gold at the earth's core, then I'll count all the "land" below the world's oceans and water sources (71% of the earth's surface). Put on a scuba mask and some flippers and claim your gold and land down-under.
Land is not an eternal "store of value" since it can be taken from you (just like anything else). I've seen my local towns and state confiscate people's property under eminent domain laws. These days though, you can just take property under the threat of national security risks, rico, suspicion, etc. The irony of those eminent domain confiscations were that the properties were never used for their intended purposes and now sit unused, some of them being a blight on the community. Whatever you think you own as at the whims of your government. They helped to create the conditions where you acquired it (or so they think) and they can just as easily take it back.
I don't know that because I don't follow the banking industry. As for FASB, and every other organization or individual, there all just looking out for themselves, present company excluded...of course.
Considering that the "assets" of the 6 largest US banks is 65% of US GDP it would be a good idea to know something about them and how they operate. FASB is not looking out for themselves. They are there to look out for the govt, large banks and corporations. The 6 largest US companies by market cap is only 17% of US GDP. The market cap of those same 6 banks is 6% of GDP. What's wrong with this picture other than a lot of leverage and valuing assets as you please since the FASB works for you? Flipping (or laundering) money is obviously far more profitable than flipping burgers.
Last I checked platinum and palladium weren't useless either. Without them, the "necessary" car you drive probably couldn't meet govt emissions standards.
Of all the minerals mined from the Earth, none is more useful than gold. Its usefulness is derived from a diversity of special properties. Gold conducts electricity, does not tarnish, is very easy to work, can be drawn into wire, can be hammered into thin sheets, alloys with many other metals, can be melted and cast into highly detailed shapes, has a wonderful color and a brilliant luster. Gold is a memorable metal that occupies a special place in the human mind.
When Spanish explorers first arrived in the "New World" they met the native South Americans. These two cultures had been separated by a vast ocean, they had never touched one another, they spoke different languages and lived entirely different lives. Yet they had one thing in common - they both held gold in highest esteem and used it to make some of their most important objects.
Throughout the history of our planet almost every established culture has used gold to symbolize power, beauty, purity and accomplishment. Today we continue to use gold for our most significant objects: wedding rings, Olympic medals, Oscars, Grammys, money, crucifixes and ecclesiastical art. No other substance of the same rarity holds a more visible and prominent place in our society.
Last I checked, geology.com wasn't a gold bug site. Read that first sentence again. "None is more USEFUL than gold." Wonder why they said that? Did the gold bugs buy them off? After all you have copper, zinc, lead, graphite, uranium, rare earths, etc. and they chose gold as THE most important mined element....and they didn't even reference the banking system in that first paragraph. Later on they do agree that gold is an investment medium used around the world. Are investments therefore "useless" since much of that activity is just speculation. I guess if one was living in a cave (or their car....or a in a van down by the river) they might not know that gold does have uses in modern society. Nowhere in that article did I find the word "uselessness." Everything on this planet has a use and a purpose.
Full Definition of USEFUL 1 : capable of being put to use; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose <useful tools> 2 : of a valuable or productive kind <do something useful with your life>
Comments
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Baseball,
Your point is well taken regarding one major type of tax -- personal income tax.
But the middle class and even the (working) poor still pay a lot in on Social Security and Medical taxes, sales and consumption taxes, property taxes, etc. Basically anyone working, and even retirees and others drawing a check, is paying a substantial amount in these other taxes. >>
Here is what happened on January 1st 2014:
Top Income Tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%
Top Income Payroll Tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%
Capital Gains Tax went from 15% to 28%
Dividend Tax went from 15% to 39.6%
>>
And what happened on 01/01/14 shouldn't matter if you're in the "middle class". According to most people here, only the Baleys of the world should have to be complaining about those things, and we should all be thankful that he is paying them because most of us, according to so many here, don't seem to be paying them because we aren't in the "top income tax bracket" and don't have any assets to be garnering capital gains or dividends from.
As for the litany of tax items you list, most of those are either inconsequential or aren't paid by many people in society. >>
Well, I know I've become a Hawaiian asset...over $10k in state taxes in the first 6 months alone. I won't get into Federal other than I could support two families of four for a year. I definitely feel the pinch in 2014. I just wish I would get smoe love instead of "you're not paying your fair share" or "at smoe point you've made enough money" and "you didn't build that." Next year I want a freaking thank you note for being a productive citizen. I guess I'm one the so-called "rich." Jeez, they make it sound like a four-letter word...er, ah...nevermind...
<< <i>So if you earn little income, you don't have to pay ANY capital gains or taxes on dividends. As far as I can tell, the rate went from 15% to 20%, NOT 28% or 39.6%. And even that 5% spike only applies if you are in the TOP bracket, which most people here don't seem to be, including by your own admission. If the best and only factually correct thing that you can complain about regarding this matter is the % of taxes on my cell phone bill, I think we're wasting our time here. >>
If you earn little income, chances are you are not in the middle class we are discussing. Your cellphone tax rate was thrown out there as an example of high taxes (look at it). Most Americans are making more than they were ten years ago but fail to realize that their real income (adjusted for inflation/loss of purchasing power) is actually less than it was ten years ago. All they know is that they are making more money, so they must be richer. These same Americans can't understand why they are more in debt just to maintain the quality of life they enjoyed ten years ago. And there lies the Great Washington/Wall St. Scam - slowly destroy the value of their dollar, slowly raise their taxes, toss in the occasional pay raise and just maybe they won't notice they are loosing ground. And if were lucky, they'll even pay us interest to replace the ground they lost.
Some of us notice, some of us don't. The ground that is lost does not just disappear - it found its way into the pockets of those that took it from you.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Only trying to help those that don't see the need for it.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Let me be the first to note that I know exactly how much I pay in taxes every payroll because I write the checks to uncle sam. My only complaint about "one member" here is that sometimes when he takes a position that everything is pretty much fine, it does seem a bit aloof - and that's just my perspective but I also take his point to heart that you can't spend all of your time bemoaning the situation and never taking time to enjoy life. I get that. Fair enough?
The problem that I'm pointing out is the misuse of tax revenues, which is essentially the same thing as being overtaxed.
It's a misuse of tax revenues to bail out big banks that mismanaged their own portfolios and who use the excuse that the whole economy might crash if they weren't bailed out. Such crazy malarkey.
It's a misuse of tax revenues to bail out a failing company like GM and to keep the autoworker's union in business when both management and the union are 100% mutually to blame for running the company into the ground. It's a complete misappropriation of public funds to buy those union votes. The contract was between a private company and a union, not between the government and anyone else. The bondholders got screwed and existing laws were simply broken. Par for the course these days.
It's a misuse of tax revenues to give free stuff to people who have no interest in working for a living, whether or not it's their fault or simply because they are a product of the welfare system. There is no excuse for milking the system just because you can. To be 100% clear, I'm not including in this category those who are truly disabled, veterans who earned their benefits or retirees who actually worked for their retirements.
As to your point that the top 1% pay the majority of the taxes, it's been shown that even if 100% of the income from the top 1% were taken as tax, it wouldn't even put a dent in the spending budget. Therefore, to say that the middle class isn't paying the bill is incorrect.
Our biggest problem in my opinion is that the politicians in DC are indeed bought & paid for by big business, big unions and foreign interests. Practically no one actually represents the individual in D.C. My complaint is that the only folks who pay for all of this are those very individuals who go to work every day and hope to provide for the future only to see much of their effort wasted by groups of elitist cronies who also pretend that they have someone's interest in mind besides their own.
If you are a politician, a union hack, a big business lobbyist, a non-US citizen or a slacker I'm sorry but I disagree totally with your position. If you are none of those, hopefully someday you will realize that you've been had.
I knew it would happen.
No, that's the position that is assumed by others in this kind of conversation. It goes something like this:
Someone else: "All the markets are rigged and America is dying, and THEY are the reason we're not happy."
Baley: "Well, isn't that maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration? Do not the choices of individuals play some part in their results?"
Someone: "Oh, so everything is just perfect then? You want more fraud, corruption, taxes?!?"
Baley: "<sigh>" I guess I'll go outside and sit in the shade of a tree
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Baley: "Well, isn't that maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration? Do not the choices of individuals play some part in their results?"
Someone: "Oh, so everything is just perfect then? You want more fraud, corruption, taxes?!?"
Baley: "<sigh>" I guess I'll go outside and sit in the shade of a tree
Well, the markets are rigged, and America's in trouble. This worries me. Well, I suppose I gotta get back to work.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>I never understand threads like this. A taxpayer can't be barely getting by AND paying a lot of taxes. The middle class doesn't pay THAT much of the income. That's not opinion, that's a FACT. Basically, most of them are free riders or pretty close to. There are PLENTY that pay essentially nothing or literally nothing.
I won't disagree with anyone, one way other other, that wants to laud or complain about Fed or government policy, which may or may not be run well or as as well as can be. But let's not get into how 'we' or 'I' am footing the bill for all of these 'other' people on the government rolls, because it's primarily the rich that picks of that tab by a WIDE margin. I'm not even saying they shouldn't pick up more but if you're complaining about your economic lot in this country (and you truly are "middle class"), one could very well argue that you're not even footing the bill for your own freight, let alone 'others'. >>
A small business owner that is single is at a 42% marginal tax rate in my state. Add in mandatory health insurance and the number is 50%. Don't forget sales, property, gas and sin taxes.
I think that qualifies as carrying ones weight.
I agree, but most of the banks paid back the TARP. We were lucky only because the Fed could print money out of thin air and give it to the banks by buying their bad debt to repay it in diluted dollars(2007-2014 cumulative rate of inflation is 15% Inflation Calculator). A majority of the $750 Billion Tarp Money is now on the FEDs 4 Trillion Balance sheet now. It never solved anything other than shifting the insolvency of the banks to the FED. Take away the world's reserve currency and I doubt TARP would be able to be paid back. Next time will be different. I don't find it impossible that the FEDs balance sheet could reach $10-$20 Trillion or more when the derivatives market explodes.
Box of 20
<< <i>It's a misuse of tax revenues to bail out big banks that mismanaged their own portfolios and who use the excuse that the whole economy might crash if they weren't bailed out. Such crazy malarkey.
I agree, but most of the banks paid back the TARP. We were lucky only because the Fed could print money out of thin air and give it to the banks by buying their bad debt to repay it in diluted dollars(2007-2014 cumulative rate of inflation is 15% Inflation Calculator). A majority of the $750 Billion Tarp Money is now on the FEDs 4 Trillion Balance sheet now. It never solved anything other than shifting the insolvency of the banks to the FED. Take away the world's reserve currency and I doubt TARP would be able to be paid back. Next time will be different. I don't find it impossible that the FEDs balance sheet could reach $10-$20 Trillion or more when the derivatives market explodes. >>
The FED and Treasury paid out anywhere from $10-$20 TRILLION to hundreds/thousands of corporations/people around the world. The TARP was hardly a dent in this total amount....no more than an ante at a big hand in a big stakes poker game. The 6 largest US banks are still insolvent if they had to unwind all their assets (specifically $300 TRILL in otc derivative bets). The MBS and CDS failures alone in the 2007-2011 period totaled around $30-$40 TRILL notional. TARP money didn't cover that. We the taxpayers are now on the hook for that. Considering that the $250 TRILL in otc interest rate swaps were not even touched last around....the next time should be a whopper.
<< <i>I have no complaints, I have dollar protection.
Only trying to help those that don't see the need for it. >>
Dollar "protection" can come in many forms, not just PMs, and I do not complain either as I understand the roles of various asset classes.
he MBS and CDS failures alone in the 2007-2011 period totaled around $30-$40 TRILL notional. TARP money didn't cover that. We the taxpayers are now on the hook for that.
Figured how?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Figured how?
Where do you think QE has been going ------------------> straight to the balance sheets of the failed banks, and that's where it has stayed. QE has never been about the economy. Instead of QE, they've apparently found another way to keep this process going. I'm sure that we'll all find out what they're doing to create more $trillions of public debt soon enough.
And now, your bank deposits are unsecured credits, and YOUR DEPOSITS are actually behind the banks derivatives in the order of priority during a liquidation if the bank should fail. It's Bizzarro World in finance now. What they've managed to accomplish is criminal. But, but, but...they managed to do the same thing to GM's bondholders, so why not expand the program in it's scope? Done!
Dollar "protection" can come in many forms, not just PMs, and I do not complain either as I understand the roles of various asset classes.
This isn't your father's financial system anymore. The banks and politicians have managed to re-order the valuations of nearly every asset class that matters. In my opinion, we have no idea now as to any relative values or how the new laws & regulations have altered the relative values of all traditional investments.
Every time they change a law or regulation that affects asset valuations, the relative values of assets change. It's always been this way, but I think that bigger changes have taken place and the complexities of this matrix of laws & regulations is pretty much a trap for most unsuspecting investors. I don't think most people will see it coming because they're too impressed with all of their stock market gains lately. Note that all these gains are taxed (skimmed) annually, and a major loss doesn't recoup those paid taxes.
Do I know which asset class is safe, or better? Nope, and neither does anyone else who isn't making the rules.
I knew it would happen.
I've explained this before and shown how misleading and the term is.
This isn't your father's financial system anymore. The banks and politicians have managed to re-order the valuations of nearly every asset class that matters. In my opinion, we have no idea now as to any relative values or how the new laws & regulations have altered the relative values of all traditional investments.
They said the same in 1810, 1860, 1865, 1873, 1894, 1931, 1941, 1973, 1987, 1999, 2008......
Do I know which asset class is safe, or better? Nope, and neither does anyone else who isn't making the rules.
All are better or safe than than others at any given time.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I've explained this before and shown how misleading and the term is.
Then why did they change the law at all? Your deposits are subordinated to the bank's P&L position, and if they have negative equity you are already in trouble. It's only misleading because nobody cares enough to bring this to the attention of depositors.
I knew it would happen.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so.
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days.
<< <i>
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so.
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days. >>
That is almost hard to believe. My savings account is in a credit union, and they generally have better rates than big banks. Im getting .4% on my account. TBH, I don't keep my money there to make money...I keep it there because I do not like keeping it in the house.
Edited to remove irrelevant info.
MY GOLD TYPE SET https://pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/complete-type-sets/gold-type-set-12-piece-circulation-strikes-1839-1933/publishedset/321940
<< <i>
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so.
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days. >>
Double check, more likely .3 percent. They are your deposits until they are not.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so.
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days. >>
Double check, more likely .3 percent. They are your deposits until they are not. >>
Actually it's 3.01%.
<< <i>And now, your bank deposits are unsecured credits
I've explained this before and shown how misleading and the term is.
Then why did they change the law at all? Your deposits are subordinated to the bank's P&L position, and if they have negative equity you are already in trouble. It's only misleading because nobody cares enough to bring this to the attention of depositors. >>
This. And by law now, besides taking a back seat to the bank's P&L sheet, even the otc derivatives owned by the bank get priority over your cash "loans" to the bank. So figure among the 6 largest US banks, there are $300 TRILL bank "bets" that are to be paid ahead of all the depositor's combined ($7.3 TRILL in savings among all US banks). A simple 2.5% failure rate on those derivatives would basically wipe out all savings accounts. Fwiw, the failure rate on MBS and CDS derivatives back in 2006-2011 was well above 2.5%.
<< <i>I have not been privy to the notion of being subordinated to the bank's P&L sheet. I'm not even sure exactly what that means and I'm a CPA, though maybe not a very good one. Anywho, are we saying that there is some loophole in FDIC insurance coverage whereby depositors won't get there deposits back in the event of a calamity? >>
No, that is not what is being stated. It's like this: In a calamity the banks won't have to pay you but the FDIC (for what it's worth) will cover your losses up to the $250,000 limit per account. Your money is backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Gov't.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
* - correction - subordinated to the bank's Balance Sheet. As a CPA, you must know that GAAP no longer apply to the valuations of the un-sellable derivatives on the books of all these megabanks. Your FASB sold all of us down the river.
I knew it would happen.
OP, sorry if this has nothing to do with original thread.
<< <i>Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days.
>> Double check, more likely .3 percent. They are your deposits until they are not. >>
Actually it's 3.01%. >>
That is a good rate for anything without a term, most pay about nothing.
So much fear. No wonder the obvious is not clear.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Bank deposits are treated the same way they were 50 years ago. So much fear. No wonder the obvious is not clear. >>
And bank risk compared to 50 yrs. ago?
Bank deposits are now just another stack of chips at the poker table. They are not protected by bank effort as they were 50 years ago. With the repeal of depositor (and taxpayer) protections of Glass Steagall and the failure of congress to regulate derivatives, even when advised to by then CFTC chairman Brooksley Born (she was fighting opposing congressional testimony by Greenspan) banks cannot be compared to their role 50, 40, 30 or even 20 yrs. ago. Their role alone in the 2008 crisis should have taught you that. Their ability to wildly gamble with your deposits should concern you as both an account holder and as a taxpayer.
With the protection of a heavily lobbied congress and a hands-off attitude of regulators and enforcers, banks no longer view their customers in the same light. Fifty years ago (and less) banks made loans strictly on credit worthiness without the ability to pass off bad loans to the suckers and to the taxpayers. The obvious is clear: anyone who thinks banks now put their customers first is living in the 1960's. Your bank will always appear to be working for you and will not pick your pocket until they run out of other pockets. Any fear of banks is fully justified based on their recent history.
Please tell me that you already knew this.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i> Your FASB sold all of us down the river. >>
Your elected leaders sold you down the river. Congress (who funds FASB and who is heavily, heavily lobbied by bank money) demanded FASB change the mark-to-market accounting rules. Without the change, your cohodk recommended bank's insolvency could not be hidden from you.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>Nothing new in what you say. It's been going on thousands of years before the advent of the United States of America. >>
What is new is that "your" deposits are now fair game. Those with bank deposits need to be aware of this. And yes, I have bank deposits. But knowing this new risk provokes closer monitoring of my bank's health. When and if the time comes those at the front of the withdrawal line stand the best chance.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Nothing new in what you say. It's been going on thousands of years before the advent of the United States of America. >>
What is new is that "your" deposits are now fair game. Those with bank deposits need to be aware of this. And yes, I have bank deposits. But knowing this new risk provokes closer monitoring of my bank's health. When and if the time comes those at the front of the withdrawal line stand the best chance. >>
If that's the way you feel about it, there's no point in putting money in the bank in the first place. >>
Greater risk in mailing cash to pay the bills. Risk assesment is an important part of financial activity just as it is in many other areas of life. To blindly trust one who holds your money is a fool's game - just ask former account holders of MF Global.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i> the government will calm the masses by covering deposits. I would also think they'll probably wind up covering in excess of the FDIC limit as well. >>
Another nanny state program that has stuck us in either low gear or reverse for many decades.
All the tax funded social programs have robbed our income and net worth. Instead of saving for a rainy day, the government is good enough to charge us confiscatory tax rates and they will kindly take care of us.
Why bother saving for a rainy day when $300 a week and a box of food pantry staples will sustain us.
Nothing better for morale and self esteem than groveling before a fat bureaucrat for food to feed your family.
....and how about socialized medicine. We are required to pay for smoking, gluttonous drunken neighbors for every sniffle and DUI car wreck. When we are ill, we have to drive 100 miles to a specialist and beg for him to accept a mutinous ACA approved insurance policy.
What a disaster.....what a mess.
<< <i>
<< <i>
....and how about socialized medicine. We are required to pay for smoking, gluttonous drunken neighbors for every sniffle and DUI car wreck. When we are ill, we have to drive 100 miles to a specialist and beg for him to accept a mutinous ACA approved insurance policy.
What a disaster.....what a mess. >>
Sadly this seems to be the case. My wife whom had shoulder surgery recently was caught in the bureaucratic ACA red tape. Countless hours wasted on the phone, incompetent providers, etc...she recently found a mom & pop physical therapist (cash only) that is finally helping her get her range of motion back. So frustrating that I was feeling anxiety about it all. My thought is to do my best to eat healthy organic farmers market foods, stay physical (pun intended) and avoid the sick care system as much as possible.
jdimmick;Gerard;wondercoin;claychaser;agentjim007;CCC2010;guitarwes;TAMU15;Zubie;mariner67;segoja;Smittys;kaz;CARDSANDCOINS;FadeToBlack;
jrt103;tizofthe;bronze6827;mkman;Scootersdad;AllCoinsRule;coindeuce;dmarks;piecesofme; and many more
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
An unfortunate notion that gold has intrinsic value, a common mistake. Intrinsic value is based on the underlying asset and gold has no underlying assets. Gold IS the underlying asset and therefore has no intrinsic value, only a cash price.
Got GOLD?
<< <i> The only thing that can be said about it is that it's a pretty rock, and some people might not even give you the "pretty" part, though I would. >>
Gold is nearly indestructible, highly malleable and has many uses in manufacturing. It is also highly prized as jewelry.
That is not to say that it is properly valued at $1300. That is more a function of monetary policy and skilled or reckless governance.
There's no magic, only science, mathematics, engineering, and technology, but if you look hard enough, you might find someone who will make the trade you propose for gold.
It's currently much easier to find someone who takes cash, check, credit card, money order, or bank wire for their extra water that they have for sale.
but all that's ending soon, I hear and read
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>That it isn't remotely essential to mankind in any shape or form. >>
Same is true of a home, car, medical insurance and clothing.
All that is essential is air, water, an apple tree and a temperate climate.
<< <i>In today's society, VERY FEW people (except for apparently a bunch doom a gloomers here) would argue that shelter, transportation and clothing aren't essential to mankind. >>
You are bending the argument to fit your agenda. To exist we only need a handful of life giving components. Mankind survived up until a few thousand years ago with little more than the bare essentials. Interesting though that gold was highly valued during those times as well.
In this country, we can all choose how to spend our disposable income (except for health insurance which is mandated by an overbearing government). Some would spend the extra $700 on an Ipad or I phone or a modest vacation. Others would buy 3 shares of Tesla stock and another might buy a half ounce of gold with the money.
In that regard, we all value precious metals at a different level. Though you say it is like any other stone or mineral, I suspect that given the opportunity to pick some up at $900 an ounce, you would not hesitate to pick some up.
Yeah, LMAoooo, you mustn't do that! bwhahahahahhaHAH
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>You are bending the argument to fit your agenda.
Yeah, LMAoooo, you mustn't do that! bwhahahahahhaHAH >>
Not the first to do that here, certainly.
Tough to argue that an new Toyota, Condo on the beach and an Iphone are essential to mankind.
<< <i>A LOT of people would argue that internet, tv, radio, computers, etc. are all "essential" in today's society >>
I don't have a TV. Tossed the last one in 1996. If I didn't need the computer for business it would go in the garbage as well.
You sound like a guy that wimpers like a baby if mobile phone service is lost for 20 minutes.
Life offers a bunch more than that. Get outside and take a nice hike, breathe in some fresh air and leave the "essentials" at home.
I said, "Now you met a poor old ba----rd who's never happy". " Who do you like better ? " She started laughing and said, "You men are all the same , MISERABLE ".
Someone (it might even have been on this Forum) once said,
An unfortunate notion that gold has intrinsic value, a common mistake. Intrinsic value is based on the underlying asset and gold has no underlying assets. Gold IS the underlying asset and therefore has no intrinsic value, only a cash price.
Got GOLD?
But this:
We aren't cavemen anymore. A LOT of people would argue that internet, tv, radio, computers, etc. are all "essential" in today's society. NO ONE should realistically be saying that about gold. Because there is essentially NO useful purpose for it. No one has EVER needed a pretty rock (which is PREDOMINANTLY its purpose). That some want to utilize disposable income for it is one thing. That it actually provides ANY sort of real functional use is not even debatable. It doesn't.
.........is spoken like a banker. What you blindly overlook is that gold is able to function as a store of value, whereas government-issued paper has inevitably FAILED every time out of the gate. Paper currency has NEVER been able to retain value for it's owner, and the single reason is because governments have NEVER been able to resist the temptation to steal from their citizenry via inflation. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that "this time is different" as it concerns the dollar. The trends are certainly very clear.
Yes, we're not cavemen anymore. I remember the good old days when banks could survive and perform their function with the interest from loans and still manage to pay interest on savings deposits. But now, the banks no longer use just fiat money creation combined with fractional reserve banking to skim their profits. They've figured out ways to multiply their leverage and shift all of the risk onto their victims through the most corrupt processes thought of yet, including mortgage securitization, interest rate swaps and high frequency trading.
And the hits just keep on coming, with the obscene changes in bankruptcy asset liquidation priority and the free pass given to bank executives who should have been subpoenaed instead of being given bailouts. None of this makes me think that there's a fiscal turnaround in the cards. Why anyone would believe so is a really good question, so please offer your theory as to how this system is going to sustain itself, if you have one.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>They are not your deposits, they belong to the bank. You made a loan to them that they promise to pay back. And in small print: if they are able to do so.
Of course they do. My local bank pays 3% interest of deposits up to $15k. You can earn $450/year in interest. Not much but better than most interest bearing accounts these days. >>
Double check, more likely .3 percent. They are your deposits until they are not. >>
Actually it's 3.01%.
Your bank pays an interest rate of 3.01% for deposits UP TO 15K??? Pray tell, what bank is that??
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Is your bank financially stable? Sometimes offering high interest rates on deposits is a warning sign that banks are desperate for depositors and may be in trouble.
Box of 20
For a pretty rock, it sure begs the question why the world's central banks have an inventory of 32,000 tonnes of gold (approx 20% of the world's total above ground supply). If it's useless, there can be no rationalization made as to why the banks would keep this stuff. Therefore, it's far from useless to them. For centuries gold was used as a debt extinguisher between counter-parties. The banks still use gold and gold swaps as a means to settle their debts and balance of payments. They do this because they don't 100% trust the paper system that they all currently use. Empty the vaults of the CB's and I'll be the first to admit that gold no longer plays a role in the 21st century financial system. Even if the banks made that decision, it would not erase the growing demand we see from the citizens of Asia and Europe. Those countries have learned the hard lessons of paper currencies failing. Let us know when Central Banks start storing things other than gold in their vaults (ie dirt or land).
Once again, it's a pretty rock. That's all. It's not even rare. As I've mentioned in the past, there's enough gold inside the earth to provide BILLIONS of POUNDS of it for each human being alive.
Surprised you didn't mention all the gold in seawater too or even outer-space...lol. And once we get the technology to mine the earth's core we will all be awash in gold. First though, let's figure out how to mine gold only 3
miles deep into the earth's crust. That's about the limit of current technology and it's not even cost effective to do so. Land covers the entire earth's surface that isn't already underwater...that's certainly not rare....and not rarer
than gold. If you can count all the gold at the earth's core, then I'll count all the "land" below the world's oceans and water sources (71% of the earth's surface). Put on a scuba mask and some flippers and claim your gold and
land down-under.
Land is not an eternal "store of value" since it can be taken from you (just like anything else). I've seen my local towns and state confiscate people's property under eminent domain laws. These days though, you can just
take property under the threat of national security risks, rico, suspicion, etc. The irony of those eminent domain confiscations were that the properties were never used for their intended purposes and now sit unused, some of
them being a blight on the community. Whatever you think you own as at the whims of your government. They helped to create the conditions where you acquired it (or so they think) and they can just as easily take it back.
I don't know that because I don't follow the banking industry. As for FASB, and every other organization or individual, there all just looking out for themselves, present company excluded...of course.
Considering that the "assets" of the 6 largest US banks is 65% of US GDP it would be a good idea to know something about them and how they operate. FASB is not looking out for themselves. They are there to look out for the
govt, large banks and corporations. The 6 largest US companies by market cap is only 17% of US GDP. The market cap of those same 6 banks is 6% of GDP. What's wrong with this picture other than a lot of leverage and
valuing assets as you please since the FASB works for you? Flipping (or laundering) money is obviously far more profitable than flipping burgers.
Last I checked platinum and palladium weren't useless either. Without them, the "necessary" car you drive probably couldn't meet govt emissions standards.
Of all the minerals mined from the Earth, none is more useful than gold. Its usefulness is derived from a diversity of special properties. Gold conducts electricity, does not tarnish, is very easy to work, can be drawn into wire, can be hammered into thin sheets, alloys with many other metals, can be melted and cast into highly detailed shapes, has a wonderful color and a brilliant luster. Gold is a memorable metal that occupies a special place in the human mind.
When Spanish explorers first arrived in the "New World" they met the native South Americans. These two cultures had been separated by a vast ocean, they had never touched one another, they spoke different languages and lived entirely different lives. Yet they had one thing in common - they both held gold in highest esteem and used it to make some of their most important objects.
Throughout the history of our planet almost every established culture has used gold to symbolize power, beauty, purity and accomplishment. Today we continue to use gold for our most significant objects: wedding rings, Olympic medals, Oscars, Grammys, money, crucifixes and ecclesiastical art. No other substance of the same rarity holds a more visible and prominent place in our society.
Last I checked, geology.com wasn't a gold bug site. Read that first sentence again. "None is more USEFUL than gold." Wonder why they said that? Did the gold bugs buy them off? After all you have copper, zinc, lead, graphite, uranium, rare earths, etc. and they chose gold as THE most important mined element....and they didn't even reference the banking system in that first paragraph. Later on they do agree that gold is an investment medium used around the world. Are investments therefore "useless" since much of that activity is just speculation. I guess if one was living in a cave (or their car....or a in a van down by the river) they might not know that gold does have uses in modern society. Nowhere in that article did I find the word "uselessness." Everything on this planet has a use and a purpose.
Full Definition of USEFUL
1
: capable of being put to use; especially : serviceable for an end or purpose <useful tools>
2
: of a valuable or productive kind <do something useful with your life>