[cherdano]

Alabama! Quite amazing that the closing pitch of "Please hold your nose and vote for a court-defying pedophile so we can pass an unpopular tax `reform' bill that cuts taxes for corporations and the very rich, but raises taxes for many middle class families by 2027" didn't quite carry the day.

[ldrews]

From Business Insider http://www.businessi...wnership-2013-3

Quote

Believe it or not, hedge funds do not run the stock market. In fact, they own only 3 percent of the market.

"Hedge funds and ETFs represent small but growing shares of the equity market," wrote Goldman Sachs' David Kostin in a new report to clients.

"Households directly own 38 percent of the US equity market," he wrote. "However, the total effective household ownership is closer to 80 percent when combined with indirect ownership in the form of mutual funds (20 percent), pension funds (16 percent), and insurance policy holdings (7 percent)."

Something to consider when thinking that the stock market benefits only the rich.

[cloa513]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-13, 18:29, said:

From Business Insider http://www.businessi...wnership-2013-3



Something to consider when thinking that the stock market benefits only the rich.

That rich people are part of the sector called households- it would enormous part of it.

[ldrews]

 cloa513, on 2017-December-13, 18:34, said:

That rich people are part of the sector called households- it would enormous part of it.

But aren't the rich the 1%? That is 1% of the households? Then the rest of the stock market advances accrue to the benefit of the other 99%.

[cloa513]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-13, 18:29, said:

From Business Insider http://www.businessi...wnership-2013-3



Something to consider when thinking that the stock market benefits only the rich.

Also ownership doesn't necessary mean it benefits them- some it would but someone has to be the patsy to take the losses.

[y66]

 cherdano, on 2017-December-13, 18:13, said:

Alabama! Quite amazing that the closing pitch of "Please hold your nose and vote for a court-defying pedophile so we can pass an unpopular tax `reform' bill that cuts taxes for corporations and the very rich, but raises taxes for many middle class families by 2027" didn't quite carry the day.

It's true that 650,000 people voted for the c-dp. That's why they call it the base.

But give credit where credit is due: 243,000 more people voted for the Dem candidate in the 2017 senate race than in the 2014 governor's race which is a lot considering only 428,000 people voted for the Dem candidate in 2014; and 100,000 fewer people voted for the cd-p than the Rep candidate for governor in 2014 even though 166,000 more people came out to vote in 2017.

Also, per NYT

Quote

Turnout in college towns was especially high in the Senate race, as was the antipathy toward Mr. Moore. Mr. Trump won Lee County, home to Auburn University, with 58 percent of the vote; Mr. Moore won just 41 percent.

College students “dislike Trump intensely, disagree dramatically with the G.O.P. on most or all social issues, and regard Republicans as being from a moon of Jupiter,” said Larry J. Sabato, the director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “Over time, this will be deadly to the G.O.P.”

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-13, 18:29, said:

From Business Insider http://www.businessi...wnership-2013-3



Something to consider when thinking that the stock market benefits only the rich.

Some useful numbers

https://www.npr.org/...he-conversation

[barmar]

 cloa513, on 2017-December-13, 21:50, said:

Also ownership doesn't necessary mean it benefits them- some it would but someone has to be the patsy to take the losses.

And if a poor person loses money, that's a significant hit to them. If a rich person loses money in the market, they have a huge cushion so they aren't impacted so much.

The important numbers in the article someone just posted are that more than 90% of the market is owned by the richest 20%. So even though most of the market is owned by families, it's mostly just rich families, not the general public. This is one of the fuels for the increase in income inequality.

[y66]

Fun read: An orgy of serious policy discussion with Paul Krugman and Ezra Klein

Krugman is as sharp as ever and refreshingly un-shrill, almost mellow.

[rmnka447]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-09, 17:23, said:

I thought MJ picked a fairly reasonable starting point for this analysis
Jan 1, 2010 is a nice round number

If you prefer, we can move back a year to the start of Obama's term...
Or chose the point where the S&P bottomed out...

FWIW, the reason that people look at long term trends is to avoid just the sort of cherry picking that you are doing,

Oh! If I start the analysis on 2015 look how weak things look!

Yep, you would think the Mother Jones chart was reasonable because of your world view lens. After all, the economy was doing just swimmingly going into the election. Unfortunately, that didn't jibe with what everyday Americans saw and felt. They were struggling day-to-day in an insipid economy and that was why Donald Trump was elected President.

[rmnka447]

 cherdano, on 2017-December-13, 18:13, said:

Alabama! Quite amazing that the closing pitch of "Please hold your nose and vote for a court-defying pedophile so we can pass an unpopular tax `reform' bill that cuts taxes for corporations and the very rich, but raises taxes for many middle class families by 2027" didn't quite carry the day.

Sounds vaguely familiar except for the tax comments like Democrats a year ago about voting for Hillary Clinton.

BTW, next year will middle class taxpayers be paying more or less taxes? The 2027 cutoff was to meet the conservative scoring assumptions and stay under the spending restrictions imposed by reconciliation.

Getting the corporate tax rate down is required to let US corporations remain competitive in global markets. If you want to promote globalism, then you need to give US corporations and workers a fair chance at competing with the rest of the world.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-December-14, 12:14, said:

Sounds vaguely familiar except for the tax comments like Democrats a year ago about voting for Hillary Clinton.

BTW, next year will middle class taxpayers be paying more or less taxes? The 2027 cutoff was to meet the conservative scoring assumptions and stay under the spending restrictions imposed by reconciliation.

Getting the corporate tax rate down is required to let US corporations remain competitive in global markets. If you want to promote globalism, then you need to give US corporations and workers a fair chance at competing with the rest of the world.

Hillary Clinton was not credibly accused of pedophelia.
Regardless of next year, the end result is the poor and lower middle classes eventually have to pay more and health insurance rates are projected to rise significantly with the loss of the mandate.
The effective rate (the one that are actual paid) for U.S. corporations is already competitive with the rest of the world.

Please, if you can find genuine data that refutes my three claims, please post it as I don't mind being corrected by facts. Thanks.

PS: Nor did Hillary Clinton ever state or act on the idea that personal religious beliefs were superior to rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Winstonm]

 rmnka447, on 2017-December-14, 11:56, said:

Yep, you would think the Mother Jones chart was reasonable because of your world view lens. After all, the economy was doing just swimmingly going into the election. Unfortunately, that didn't jibe with what everyday Americans saw and felt. They were struggling day-to-day in an insipid economy and that was why Donald Trump was elected President.

How wealth inequality now affects and has historically affected the middle and lower classes is more compelling information than the narrative you present. To expand your knowledge base, the affects of wealth inequality is an area you may want to research.

[Winstonm]

Here is your populist president at work: (emphasis added)

Quote

Federal regulators voted Thursday to allow Internet providers to speed up service for some apps and websites — and block or slow down others — in a decision repealing landmark, Obama-era regulations for broadband companies such as AT&T and Verizon.

The move to deregulate the telecom and cable industry is a major setback for tech companies, consumer groups and Democrats who lobbied heavily against the decision. And it marks a significant victory for Republicans who vowed to roll back the efforts of the prior administration, despite a recent survey showing that 83 percent of Americans — including 3 out of 4 Republicans — opposed the plan.

Take that, coal minors, auto workers, steel workers, and southern-state Christiams. Now that I've been elected I don't need you so: You're fired!

[Elianna]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-13, 21:47, said:

But aren't the rich the 1%? That is 1% of the households? Then the rest of the stock market advances accrue to the benefit of the other 99%.

Let's simplify the math. Let's say that there are 100 million households in the US. That means that 1 million are part of the 1%.

If 1 million households own stock, mathematically it is possible that 100% of stock-owning households are from the 1%. (It is also possible that 100% are from the 99%, I am making no claims either way).

Therefore, your statement makes absolutely no mathematical sense.

One cannot know what percentage of stock market advances accrue to the benefit of the 99% until one knows what percent of the stock market they make up. I would be beyond shocked if they make up 99% of the households investing in the stock market.

[ldrews]

 Elianna, on 2017-December-14, 13:18, said:

Let's simplify the math. Let's say that there are 100 million households in the US. That means that 1 million are part of the 1%.

If 1 million households own stock, mathematically it is possible that 100% of stock-owning households are from the 1%. (It is also possible that 100% are from the 99%, I am making no claims either way).

Therefore, your statement makes absolutely no mathematical sense.

One cannot know what percentage of stock market advances accrue to the benefit of the 99% until one knows what percent of the stock market they make up. I would be beyond shocked if they make up 99% of the households investing in the stock market.

Had you read the article you would have found the following:

Quote

"Households directly own 38 percent of the US equity market," he wrote. "However, the total effective household ownership is closer to 80 percent when combined with indirect ownership in the form of mutual funds (20 percent), pension funds (16 percent), and insurance policy holdings (7 percent)."

Since the bulk of stock ownership is in mutual funds, pension funds and insurance holdings, and I doubt that the 1% have much of their money in mutual funds, pension funds, and insurance holdings, then the bulk of the benefits would appear not to go to the 1%. The article does not talk about 401K programs, but I would suspect that another significant portion of stock ownership resides in 401Ks. Again, the wealthy tend not to use 401Ks, they have better, more sophisticated ways of investing. And my understanding is that the 1% tend to have their money in real estate, real estate limited partnerships, etc., not stocks. Do you have credible information to the contrary?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-14, 13:29, said:

And my understanding is that the 1% tend to have their money in real estate, real estate limited partnerships, etc., not stocks. Do you have credible information to the contrary?

Yes

[ldrews]

 hrothgar, on 2017-December-14, 14:03, said:

Yes

Great! Would you like to share or is under an NDA?

[cherdano]

 rmnka447, on 2017-December-14, 12:14, said:

Sounds vaguely familiar except for the tax comments like Democrats a year ago about voting for Hillary Clinton.

That sound you are hearing? Thats rmnka grinning because he thinks he landed a true zinger, while everybody else is just groaning about another diplay of his ignorance.

Quote

BTW, next year will middle class taxpayers be paying more or less taxes? The 2027 cutoff was to meet the conservative scoring assumptions and stay under the spending restrictions imposed by reconciliation.

Most of the individual tax cuts available to middle class taxpayers expire 2025. So by 2026, almost 50% of all taxpayers will pay higher taxes than without the plan. The only bracket still receiving significant tax breaks in 2026/27 are the top 1%. Do reconciliation rules require that the benefits of a tax cut go almost entirely to the top 1%?

[hrothgar]

 ldrews, on 2017-December-14, 15:50, said:

Great! Would you like to share or is under an NDA?

Certainly.

I am part of the 1% (At least if you are measuring income. Still have a ways to go in terms of wealth, but I expect to be there in the not too too distant future)
A few of my friends are also in the 1%, some in the .1%, one in the .01%.

Other than a couple people whose money is tied up in weird family trusts and the like, most of us have fairly boring investment portfolios.
Heavy on no load index funds and the like

When I am in the market (I am not right now) I tend to have a lot of money in the Powershares QQQ series 1 Trust ETF.

Very few of "my" crowd has money in weird tax avoidance schemes, real estate trusts, or the like.

I suspect that this is because most of use made our $$$ in tech. I suspect that if my friends were more involved in - say - finance the results might be different.

But, for the lower end of the 1%, whole lotta of stock in our investment portfolios (almost has to be by definition since a bunch of our $$$ is in 401Ks, IRAs, and the like and its much easier to have those in pretty vanilla investments)