THREAD IS CLOSED!!! Ask Rande 6000+ USE NEW THREAD
- Karin_
- Rande
- Rande
- Karin_
- Rande
- SteveT
- Rande
- Kirk
- Rande
- SteveT
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Next »
» Rande - Karin,
Karin,You should be able to find all you need, including links, at the following sites:
http://www.bondsonline.com/
(check out municipal bonds on the left-hand menu)
-- posted by Rande
» Rande - Don't recommend TA, short-term trading, etc.
Don't recommend TA, short-term trading, etc., but it's interesting to see what these guys are up to now and then. Here's the latest from trader Marder at CBSM:Excerpt:
From the standpoint of the successful intermediate-term trader who specializes in tech issues, there are only two things you need to know to be positive on the current market. First, the Nasdaq Composite has been under accumulation, setting higher highs and higher lows. "Accumulation" refers to up days coinciding with higher volume, and down or flat days correlating with easing volume. This tells you institutions are buying stock, on balance. This is important because mutual funds, pension funds and other big players provide the rocket fuel for any legitimate market advance. Moreover, the fact that the Nasdaq is printing higher highs and higher lows provides you with objective evidence that the intermediate trend is up.
Second, leadership is excellent. Specifically, numerous growth stocks are building and breaking out of bases, most on strong volume. This is the most bullish thing a market can do following a severe sell-off.
-- posted by Rande
» Karin_ - Thank you Rande!
July 19, 2000Senate Approves Legislation
To Ease 'Marriage Penalty'
By JIM VANDEHEI
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTON -- Republicans succeeded in passing in the Senate a sweeping tax cut for married couples, but there is still a risk they may be overplaying a winning political hand.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, for one, fears the GOP may be doing just that, despite the party's success on the issue so far. So he is lobbying Senate Republicans to scale back the 10-year, $248 billion bill they passed and call President Clinton's bluff.
Mr. Clinton vowed to veto the Senate plan, which passed 61-38, calling it "fiscally irresponsible, poorly targeted and regressive."
-- posted by Karin_
» Rande - And, speaking of those wonderful tax cuts.
And, speaking of those wonderful tax cuts....Kudlow: Tax Cuts Are Lifting Stocks
Tax-cut fever has broken out in Washington, and it's a key driver behind the 10-percent stock market rebound since late May.
Conventional analysts keep obsessing about second-quarter corporate profits. But that's yesterday's news. The real-time stock market is already a couple of weeks into the third quarter.
It's tomorrow's earnings that drive today's share prices. But future profits will be heavily influenced by the outlook for tax policy, which is the principle regulator of economic growth.
And the really big news is the unexpected tax-cutting tide coming from Congress. It's the new, new thing in economic policy. A pro-growth, pro-investor, pro-profits and pro-wealth creation tonic for the stock market.
The latest new tax-cut thing is the passage of an estate tax phase-out, which swept the Senate by a 59-to-39 margin. Nine Democrats, or 20 percent of their caucus, voted to repeal the so-called death tax. This is new news. It shows the political clout of the new Investor Class, a group that I believe is the invisible whip-hand of American politics today.
Current law imposes a 55-percent marginal tax rate on estates above $675,000 for singles and $1.35 million for marrieds. But in a decade where household wealth has increased by $20 trillion, those thresholds are way too low. And the 55-percent tax rate is the last lingering tax remnant above 50 percent. All the rest were slashed by Reagan in 1981 and 1986.
Think of this: A family that owns an annually increasing 401(k), along with a variable annuity or a variable life insurance contract, as well as a medium-sized home, will have little difficulty clearing the $1.35 million wealth threshold in today's prosperous Internet economy.
Think of this: All that old-time-religion political rhetoric about not helping rich people misses the very essence of current economic life. More and more folks are getting rich on a daily basis. And those that haven't already, aspire to do so in the near future.
This prosperity spirit has become so pervasive that even President Clinton had to take time out from his class-warfare bashing of the rich in order to present his own means-tested and politically targeted estate tax-cut plan. And, when not trashing oil, insurance and tobacco companies, Veep Al Gore supports the administration proposal.
The president says he will veto the Republican estate tax elimination plan. Perhaps he will. But recall, in 1997 he vetoed the capital gains tax cut a couple of times before he finally signed it into law. So it's not over until it's over.
Besides helping too many super-rich people, the president's big gripe against the Republican bill is cost. According to the Clinton Treasury Department, the GOP bill will cost nearly $200 billion over 10 years. The president's bill, meanwhile, would only lose a hundred billion. Guess you get what you pay for.
But ace supply-side revenue estimators Gary and Aldona Robbins, who worked in the Reagan Treasury Department, think otherwise. They believe that the growth- and wealth-creating incentive effects of abolishing the 55-percent estate-tax rate would generate $700 billion in added gross domestic product.
The economic principle here is simple: By taxing investment and wealth less, more investment and wealth will be supplied. So will more risk-taking. New and larger estates are made more likely if the estate tax is eliminated. The economy's potential to grow would expand.
So, the Robbins' believe, after seven years, nearly $150 billion in added revenues from higher income, payroll, excise and other federal taxes would virtually cancel any net revenue loss. Of course, in a dynamic model of economic growth, substantial stock market appreciation as a result of this pro-growth tax cut would generate an avalanche of capital gains-related tax revenues. In the end, estate tax elimination would probably be revenue positive, actually increasing projected budget surpluses.
No wonder stock market investors are in a buying mood. They figure that sooner or later, pro-growth tax-cuts are coming. As economist Arthur Laffer recently put it, the growing stockpile of anticipated federal surpluses amounts to "an inventory of future tax-cuts."
Clinton may veto the estate-tax cut, but GOP Congressional leaders have more up their sleeves. There's a marriage penalty relief bill that would raise the standard deduction to $8,800 and broaden the 28-percent income-tax-bracket threshold to prevent real income bracket creep.
Also, both the Senate and House tax-writing committees are cooking up a super-saver expansion of 401(k)s and IRAs. This may also include "back-ended" Roth IRAs. All pro-investor, pro-growth and pro-wealth.
And don't forget, the Republicans have already passed and the president has signed a bill to lower the Social Security earnings test for post-retirement working seniors. Also a pro-productivity and pro-growth measure. All those graybeards will teach the sub-gen-X-ers how to show up on time, tie their ties and . . . spell and, like . . . speak properly.
I can't remember who first said it, but Republicans were put on this planet in order to cut taxes. That's really all they ever do well, when they do it.
So the stock market is probably just as pleasantly surprised as I am that the GOP Congress is in fact fulfilling its heavenly purpose.
Therefore, just as the pessimistic bubbleheads and irrational expectionists thought their day had come, the prospect of pro-growth tax cuts has revived the equity market animal spirits. If not now, then future Congresses and future presidents will be taking action to bolster future earnings.
-- posted by Rande
» Rande - Steve,
Steve,Amen to that. BTW, that $5K is still slightly below where the original IRA contributory amount of $1500 would be today if adjusted for inflation from the beginning. Senator Roth of Roth IRA fame, who has also championed the contribution limit increases for IRAs and 401(k)s as well as relaxed restrictions on other qualified plans including greater portability, is leaving quite an excellent legacy for himself, is he not?
-- posted by Rande
» Kirk - As a small time person
....working for myself, the $5000 IRA would be really nice. NO need to worry about hiring accountants and tax experts to figure out the rules to do a self directed IRA (or whatever it is called that lets you put away a percentage of income, but you don't know how much until the tax year is over). This way, I'd just stick the $5000 in the IRA at the start of the year and forget about the rest. VERY nice feature for us semiretired folks that want to make a small income and can then shelter a portion of it for when we "really retire". I wonder if we could get the Government to "match" some of it? ...8) I'd LOVE it if they let me divert some of my SOcial Security $ as a match. Good for everyone!-- posted by Kirk
» SteveT - Try to catch Money Line on CNN tonight some guests are Abbey Jos
Try to catch Money Line on CNN tonight some guests are Abbey Joseph Cohen reportedly giving market outlook. Now that Woman can move markets;) Jamie Dimon, and Steve Jobs are also scheduled, maybe worth a look.-- posted by SteveT
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.