Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

Status
Not open for further replies.
At 4% interest in 20 years the asset would grow to $220,000. Her $20,000 means that with inflation she took a loss. I hope YOU don't have a job that requires math. Jesus Christ, next time do some basic math before you arrogantly lecture someone on math, got it?
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Are you kidding me? Seriously? 20 years, twenty thousand dollars? That's the return on $100,000 dollars? Do me a favor, don't lecture me on math. BTW, for the last decade I was an auditor and I actually know the rule of 72, you? I actually know how to factor inflation. You?
Click to expand...

Mr Auditor, I hope you didn't try telling the IRS that she took a loss on the house. Oh, and yes, I know the rule of 72. 72/rate of return=# of years it takes to double an investment.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
At 4% interest in 20 years the asset would grow to $220,000. Her $20,000 means that with inflation she took a loss. I hope YOU don't have a job that requires math. Jesus Christ, next time do some basic math before you arrogantly lecture someone on math, got it?
Click to expand...

LOL. How many years in the last 20 has the inflation rate been equal to or greater than 4%? Without even looking it up, I can tell you it's not greater than one or two; it might even be zero.

ETA: One precisely; 1991.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
Are you kidding me? Seriously? 20 years, twenty thousand dollars? That's the return on $100,000 dollars?
Click to expand...

2 percent a year simple interest. Of course with no inflation figured in. My numbers about the same but I did get the value of a roof over my head and a tax deduction. On the other hand a boatload of maintenance means my "break even" really won't be.

It's not the rate of return though it's about how chaotic and unpredictable things have gotten. You do the right things, work, save, stay insured, it's been the American trajectory that you can educate your kids, maybe get ahead. All that stability just blew up. Quite a few people feel betrayed. They did things right and got told - screw you anyway, bud. That does make them mad. Don't the banks deserve blame?
 
Minoosh said:
2 percent a year simple interest. Of course with no inflation figured in. My numbers about the same but I did get the value of a roof over my head and a tax deduction. On the other hand a boatload of maintenance means my "break even" really won't be.

It's not the rate of return though it's about how chaotic and unpredictable things have gotten. You do the right things, work, save, stay insured, it's been the American trajectory that you can educate your kids, maybe get ahead. All that stability just blew up. Quite a few people feel betrayed. They did things right and got told - screw you anyway, bud. That does make them mad. Don't the banks deserve blame?
Click to expand...
Agreed, however I would not have put $100,000 into a simple interest account. A 5 year CD will yield 2.5 compound. 4% is not impossible for a 20 year investment.
 
RandFan said:
Oh come on. Be honest. Her purchasing power was less, right? Are you really going to deny inflation? It doesn't exist?

Capital gains tax doesn't allow taking a loss for inflation. However, the tax rate for capital gains takes into account inflation. The laws for investments don't negate inflation.
Click to expand...

But we're still missing information in order to judge the investment. How much did she put down on the house? If she put down 100% then your argument is reasonable; after inflation, she lost money on the house. If she put down $20,000 (a pretty sizable down payment) then she probably broke even or came out ahead on the deal. A higher down payment and she lost money after inflation; a lower down payment and she made money.

More important in my mind is that her story is hardly a heart-wrencher compared to the millions of people who bought in 2003-2008, who really, really lost money, not even considering inflation. There have been many cases where people lost money on paper because they didn't sell at the top of the market; my parents sold their home in 1999 for $250,000; about three years earlier it would have been worth $400,000. And this was during those golden Clinton years you remember.
 
Brainster said:
But we're still missing information in order to judge the investment.
Click to expand...
She paid cash for the house.


There have been many cases where people lost money on paper because they didn't sell at the top of the market
Click to expand...
Losing money because of shenanigans isn't obviated by market fluctuations. Please to provide charts or numbers that shows a housing market crash comprable to the losses in 2008-2009?
 
Neally said:
Really? You think that 31% of mainstream America would support violence to advance their agenda like the protesters do?
Click to expand...
I'm very certain the percentages would match. What stats do you have for the percentages that support violence? Or are you imagining that all of the protestors are blood thirsty?
 
RandFan said:
I'm very certain the percentages would match. What stats do you have for the percentages that support violence? Or are you imagining that all of the protestors are blood thirsty?
Click to expand...


Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.
Click to expand...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html
 
Last edited:
Virus said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html

Democrats need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes
Click to expand...
Hmmmm....

New CNN Poll: Majority want tax increase for wealthy and deep spending cuts

Polls show most Americans support raising taxes on wealthy

I can't say I find the article objective... at all. These poll results have been reported for months. WSJ doesn't know?

Do ya think that maybe, just maybe, the Republicans need to say they are with the voters who want HIGHER TAXES for the wealthy?
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
"Our research..." Methodology? Peer review? Control?
Click to expand...

RandFan said:
Hmmmm....

New CNN Poll: Majority want tax increase for wealthy and deep spending cuts

Polls show most Americans support raising taxes on wealthy
Click to expand...

Oh, the irony.

Your links aren't peer reviewed either. I'm not sure when I've seen a public opinion poll that was, nor do I see any reason to submit such a poll for peer review. And it looks like the CBS poll might have controlled for party affiliation (though they don't describe their analysis methods), but your CNN poll shows no signs of controlling for anything. I'm always a fan of having details of polling methods, but your criticism is hypocritical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom