Technology Stocks | The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Jim Mullens who wrote (8204)5/16/2012 6:29:22 PM
From: peterk4 Recommendations   of 8625
 
Jim- Sometimes invincible ignorance can never be enlightened

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (8205)5/16/2012 7:07:20 PM
From: Jim Mullens   of 8625
 
Art, re: the 2013 Fiscal Cliff

You said>>>>>>>>

Both hypothetical examples used an adjusted gross income that comprised salary alone, not income from dividends, capital gains, etc. This would skew the results for higher income even more, making it look like a person earning $100,000, without any other form of income would pay a lot more tax. That scenario would be an exception, rather than the rule.

2. Once again, you used data that examine only federal taxes, rather than ALL taxes. You can't make comprehensive judgments without considering ALL taxes. Is that difficult to understand?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, my examples were simple and hypothetical, but I do believe they typically represent middle income Americans.

Please go to the site yourself and plug in any numbers you want for dividends, cap gains, etc and run your own scenarios for middle income families (50,000, 75,000, 100,000 incomes), and show me where these families did not benefit significantly for “the Bush tax cuts” and will be significantly impacted if they aren’t extended.

I ran another scenario for $50,000 income with 4 children. Under “the Bush tax cuts” it had a $2,560) tax credit (refund with no taxes paid, and will **owe** $468 if not extended (http://goo.gl/FL3VE) . Thus, this helps to explain why about 47% of American families pay no federal income tax at all.

>>>>>>>>>>

Re: “……….Lower income taxpayers will continue to spend what they have on consumer items, with hardly anything left over for investing. But that's not too different from today's scenario, where investorsl have become too scared to do anything but sit on the sidelines, resulting in stocks like Qualcomm going down the tubes.”

If you take the time to run the numbers for middle income Americans ($50 /75 /100k), I believe you’ll find their income taxes will increase significantly, thus leaving less to be spent on consumer items, which will impact the general economy / stock market / perhaps even QCOM. Again, we’re speaking about the average American family (the bulk of the 99 %ers) paying about $3,000 more in fed income taxes, not chump change, and not used to buy consumer goods / services.


Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (8207)5/17/2012 12:04:48 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer1 Recommendation   of 8625
 
Jim, once again you are skirting the issue:

about 47% of American families pay no federal income tax at all

But most of those 47% of American families pay state and local taxes, state sales taxes, local property taxes, social security taxes, etc. etc. You have to consider the WHOLE TAX BURDEN, not just a piece of the action. Put those other taxes into your equation and then see what it looks like:

The average middle income taxpayer's taxes as a percentage of total income are considerably more than the less than 15% rate paid by Mitt Romney.

Art

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (8208)5/17/2012 1:22:09 PM
From: Jim Mullens   of 8625
 
Art, re: The 2013 Fiscal Cliff……………………

You say…………”Jim, once again you are skirting the issue:…”

The “issue” at hand deals with the article which John Hayman posted --- the looming “2013 Fiscal Cliff Could Crush Stocks” . I expanded this to discuss the impact of the 37% increase ($837 Billion) in Federal tax revenues predicted within “The FY2011 CBO Budget and Economic Outlook, resulting primarily from the expiration of “The 2001 Bush Tax Cuts”.

Rather than deal with that “issue”, you “skirt” such by dwelling on the wealthy don’t they fair share / the 1% vs the 99% issues.

Again, I linked a very illuminating site IMO that allows one to compare the Federal income tax (& PR tax) liability under the current rates and 2013 rates if the current rates are not extended.

The examples I ran ($50K, 75K, 100K) representing middle class Americans (99%ers) reflected Federal income tax increases of about $3,000. You dismissed those results saying they were hypothetical.

Did you take the time to run the numbers for your family using your real figures for 2012, and letting the program calculate what your new tax liability would be under the higher 2013 rates / deductions / exemption / credits schedules?

Did you take the time to run any numbers,

Did you even open the link to the site?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: DanD5/17/2012 6:45:49 PM
   of 8625
 
Picked up a June $55-$57.5 spread today. Paid $1.55. Break even would be ~$56.55.

If we go much lower, I might buy back the top end and sell some puts to finance it.
Dan D.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (8208)5/18/2012 12:17:09 PM
From: Jim Mullens1 Recommendation   of 8625
 
Art, Thanks again for engaging me in another very “interesting” debate.

From your PM, apparently you don’t want to publicly disclose that you feel debating the impending 37% increase in 2013 Federal taxes is relevant, not worth discussing.

I find it very revealing intellectually and character wise, that when presented with incontrovertible (incontestable) facts, you stubbornly close your mind and dismiss such a not relevant, nor worth discussing.

As such, sadly you place yourself in the position where any / all of your comments lose credibility.

For anyone interested, below is the link to the site that calculates the 2013 Federal income and payroll tax liabilities should the current lower 2012 tax rates not be extended. It’s quick and simple, just plug in the numbers (salaries, dividends, cap gains, personal exemptions, children, deduction (std / itemized), etc. It calculates the tax liabilities under the both the 2012 rates and 2013 if not extended. Again, in the three scenarios I ran, just the Fed income tax portion increased by about $3,000. In the case of a $50,000 income family with four children, they lost their $2,560 ”additional child tax credit” (tax refund) and will wind up paying $468 instead.

interactive.taxfoundation.org 

Middle income Americans paying $3,000 more to Uncle Sam in 2013, rather than spending that in the marketplace seems significant to me but…………………..?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (8211)5/18/2012 12:59:08 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer1 Recommendation   of 8625
 
Jim -- Debating the 37% increase you refer to is not relevant for a discussion board that deals with stocks like Qualcomm. In our discussion, both public and private, I have emphasized that one cannot evaluate tax burdens simply by citing federal income tax rates AND AT THE SAME TIME EXCLUDING other taxes that most people have to pay.

Throughout the 1940's, 50's, and 60's, and even more recently, federal tax rates were much higher than they are now, or than they were before the "temporary" Bush tax cuts. The stock markets didn't seem to mind. What made the stock markets work was the fact that income disparity between high and low income groups was much less than it is now (it's now the widest since 1929), and middle income groups had enough disposable income to invest in stocks. They are leaving the market in droves (over $400 billion taken out of the market in the last 4 years) partly because of fear, and partly because they have less money to invest than earlier.

The conservative, mercantilist analyses that have convinced some people that raising taxes is bad and that cutting purportedly unnecessary social spending is good have, unfortunately no basis in fact or in history.

Art

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (8212)5/18/2012 1:32:58 PM
From: Jim Mullens   of 8625
 
Art, re: the 2013 Fiscal Cliff……………………....................

We,re making progress.


So, now you’re open to publicly debate, and now accept the fact of a 37% Federal tax increase in 2013 (if the 2012 rates ,etc are not extended) , with the average American family paying about $3,000 more to Uncle Sam…. But believe that’s not relevant with stocks like QCOM?

So then I guess you feel the $3,000 bucks withdrawn from the general economy by the average American family will have little if any impact on corporate earnings?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

From: Jon Koplik5/18/2012 2:27:31 PM
3 Recommendations   of 8625
 
QCOM now down over $5.50 since Wed. A.M.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (8213)5/21/2012 7:58:07 AM
From: John Hayman   of 8625
 
Art/Jim,

The reason I posted that article by Don Luskin was BECAUSE of my QCOM dividend. I have gotten to the point in life where dividends are important, and not extending that tax cut has some implications.

I have no idea if the market will correct because this , but I may make corrections in my investing.

John
goQ!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.