UNDERWRITER/ UNDERWRITER/ GOING PUBLIC: I chose an image of Fred Meyer to represent an
underwrite/underwriter/ going public because it is an example of a middle man
between an issuer of a security and investing public.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Investing 101!!
Friday, May 24, 2013
30 Years From Now...
I write to you twelve years down the road. From 2013 until now, times have definitely changed for the worse. Instead of making the difficult decisions necessary to altering the economic devastion, we have continued down the same path for years and unfortunately, our once great country is sinking deeper and deeper into the crapper. Twelve years ago, the American system was no doubt at a weak point. The finanacial sector had been revealed as weak, unemployement had heighted to about ten percent, etc. Because these flaws have only grown more evident, our dominance throughout the world has shrunk, but our tax prices have not. President Justin Bieber (haha no..) and the government have continuously been raising taxes as our national debt has sky rocketed in to the 16 trillions and the once 82 percent of GDP has risen to 100 percent.
On a more personal note, I am one of the 15% of unemployed Americans. For seven years I was a second grade teacher at Byrom Elementary School. As there has been slower GDP growth, a slower employement growth has resulted as well and more government jobs have been cut. In addition, gas prices have reached $8 a gallon as supply is extremely limited. My husband and I bought a family set of bikes and use these to transport ourselves and our two kids around the city. Speaking of cities, nearly one and a half million people are now moving to the cities to become part of the developing markets and as a result, there has been a rapid increase in output per worker. Lastly, over the last twelve years the government has established a much larger role in the economy and lives of the people. The governemt has had to involve themselves through intervention regarding regulation and the market place.
On a more personal note, I am one of the 15% of unemployed Americans. For seven years I was a second grade teacher at Byrom Elementary School. As there has been slower GDP growth, a slower employement growth has resulted as well and more government jobs have been cut. In addition, gas prices have reached $8 a gallon as supply is extremely limited. My husband and I bought a family set of bikes and use these to transport ourselves and our two kids around the city. Speaking of cities, nearly one and a half million people are now moving to the cities to become part of the developing markets and as a result, there has been a rapid increase in output per worker. Lastly, over the last twelve years the government has established a much larger role in the economy and lives of the people. The governemt has had to involve themselves through intervention regarding regulation and the market place.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Manifesto 2.0
1. In terms of the government and its rights to tax, this is the way it ought be... Unfortunately, taxes are an inevitable part of our lives. They are necessary to pay for schools, police, roads, military, etc. The catch is that the government takes a lot of the money that it receives and spends it on unnecessary expenses. The government no doubt has the right to tax people on what will benefit the nation as a whole, but when money is spent on things like the Yale duck science experiment or a not so historical museum, it raises concern for those working so hard to earn their money, only to have it taken away to pay for things that will not be useful to them presently or in the future. "If you want to get paid for doing something stupid, just turn to the
U.S. government. The U.S. government is paying researchers to play
video games, it is paying researchers to study the effects of cocaine on
Japanese quail" (The American Dream). In my opinion, the government ought to only collect taxes based on what the people absolutely need. This way taxes would be much lower and individuals could donate substantially more money to charities that could fund what is considered 'unnecessary'. In conclusion, the government, in my opinion, should step back in its role of taxing so heavily and begin to only take what is absolutely needed. The rest of the funding should come out of the pockets of those willing and motivated to fund it.
2. Personally, I am supportive of the way in which the government receives its revenue. Although, I do not support the fact that it has the power to continuously raise taxes with few restrictions or boundaries. Forty six percent of the revenue comes directly from individual income, and thirty five from social security and insurance, thus placing the majority of the burden on the people themselves. Once again, while I do believe in this taxing method and that it can be justified, I also think that there should be some definite restrictions as to high the taxes can be raised, as the people are directly affected by this. In my opinion, once again if taxes were to be lowered then businesses would be able to hire more employees and the government could spread its taxation out over a larger number of people rather than just simply raising the taxes for a smaller amount of workers. In conclusion, I support the fact that the government places a large amount of the tax burden on the people because we are the one's making the money and benefiting (most of the time) from how the government spends it, but the system does have flaws and to fix these, I suggest that taxes be lowered to expand the taxing pool.
3. I support the ways in which our government spends its money in terms of defense, discretionary, and other mandatory expenses. I do not support the system in terms of net interest, medicare & medicaid or social security. America plays a huge role on the world stage because of the ways in which we are able to financially assert ourselves on the battlefield. The government doesn't do a lot of things extremely well, but its spending towards the military is an exception. Discretionary spending is definitely necessary because of all of the random expenses that are required to keep our government functioning such as; security cars, white house toilet paper, etc. (hahaha) As I mentioned earlier almost half of the spending the government does is based on social security and medicare & medicaid. I am aware that these to programs are necessary and cannot be abolished, but in my opinion they should be made private. The government as of right now is planning on increasing these two programs which would also increase taxes, so why not just make them private and let the people deal with their own savings? It takes a government to make decisions in terms of the military, but a regular everyday person can deal with their own money.
4. In the Concords Coalition Federal Budget Challenge I made cuts on the arts, AMTRAK and I also made the decision to limit TRICARE health insurance for military retirees and their benefits. Each of these areas I feel could be cut down to help the economy without much of a negative affect. For instance, the arts could be funded through private charities as could the AMTRAK. If people want something bad enough they can pay for it themselves. In terms of the military benefits, I am very aware that these families deserve to be compensated, but in my opinion it may be a bit much to pay for the government to pay for entire families health insurance. People in the military make money while in there and in addition do not have college debt as it is paid for by the government. In my opinion it would not be bad to have those serving in the military pay for their health insurance. Lastly, I believe that our country could be saved from our debt crises if were to cut down substantially on the amount of money spent helping out other countries. It does not make sense to be pouring money in to these other struggling countries when we are struggling on our own! America should work on getting back on its own two feet for a while and then eventually continue to help others in need.
5. To represent the last point I made in my solution to solving the long term debt of this nation, I chose to post an airplane mask. As I said earlier, America should first be focusing on bettering itself before we assist other countries. This way, our country can be strong and better able to serve others. This being said, dealing with airplane mask is very closely related in that in the case of an emergency, an adult would need to always put their mask on first so that they are stable and able to help another passenger younger than them. America in this case is the older passenger who must first focus on themselves, and then once they are stable, help those in need.
tapestryofgrace.com
2. Personally, I am supportive of the way in which the government receives its revenue. Although, I do not support the fact that it has the power to continuously raise taxes with few restrictions or boundaries. Forty six percent of the revenue comes directly from individual income, and thirty five from social security and insurance, thus placing the majority of the burden on the people themselves. Once again, while I do believe in this taxing method and that it can be justified, I also think that there should be some definite restrictions as to high the taxes can be raised, as the people are directly affected by this. In my opinion, once again if taxes were to be lowered then businesses would be able to hire more employees and the government could spread its taxation out over a larger number of people rather than just simply raising the taxes for a smaller amount of workers. In conclusion, I support the fact that the government places a large amount of the tax burden on the people because we are the one's making the money and benefiting (most of the time) from how the government spends it, but the system does have flaws and to fix these, I suggest that taxes be lowered to expand the taxing pool.
3. I support the ways in which our government spends its money in terms of defense, discretionary, and other mandatory expenses. I do not support the system in terms of net interest, medicare & medicaid or social security. America plays a huge role on the world stage because of the ways in which we are able to financially assert ourselves on the battlefield. The government doesn't do a lot of things extremely well, but its spending towards the military is an exception. Discretionary spending is definitely necessary because of all of the random expenses that are required to keep our government functioning such as; security cars, white house toilet paper, etc. (hahaha) As I mentioned earlier almost half of the spending the government does is based on social security and medicare & medicaid. I am aware that these to programs are necessary and cannot be abolished, but in my opinion they should be made private. The government as of right now is planning on increasing these two programs which would also increase taxes, so why not just make them private and let the people deal with their own savings? It takes a government to make decisions in terms of the military, but a regular everyday person can deal with their own money.
4. In the Concords Coalition Federal Budget Challenge I made cuts on the arts, AMTRAK and I also made the decision to limit TRICARE health insurance for military retirees and their benefits. Each of these areas I feel could be cut down to help the economy without much of a negative affect. For instance, the arts could be funded through private charities as could the AMTRAK. If people want something bad enough they can pay for it themselves. In terms of the military benefits, I am very aware that these families deserve to be compensated, but in my opinion it may be a bit much to pay for the government to pay for entire families health insurance. People in the military make money while in there and in addition do not have college debt as it is paid for by the government. In my opinion it would not be bad to have those serving in the military pay for their health insurance. Lastly, I believe that our country could be saved from our debt crises if were to cut down substantially on the amount of money spent helping out other countries. It does not make sense to be pouring money in to these other struggling countries when we are struggling on our own! America should work on getting back on its own two feet for a while and then eventually continue to help others in need.
5. To represent the last point I made in my solution to solving the long term debt of this nation, I chose to post an airplane mask. As I said earlier, America should first be focusing on bettering itself before we assist other countries. This way, our country can be strong and better able to serve others. This being said, dealing with airplane mask is very closely related in that in the case of an emergency, an adult would need to always put their mask on first so that they are stable and able to help another passenger younger than them. America in this case is the older passenger who must first focus on themselves, and then once they are stable, help those in need.
tapestryofgrace.com Friday, May 10, 2013
TAXES!!
Flat Tax
Pros: In regards to a flat tax, all incomes are taxed at the exact same rate. You’re probably thinking, well wait a minute, what about the lower income tax payers? Won’t they have to pay way more in taxes from their income in this kind of system? Surprisingly, there are extreme benefits of the flat tax towards the lower class. “Since most people in low income brackets would pay much higher taxes under a 17% rate then they do now, flat tax plans usually exempt lower incomes entirely.” Also, in a flat tax only a person’s wage would be taxed and very little deductions would be allowed. Another pro to the flat tax is that it is incredibly simple. All of the complex loopholes in our current tax code would be taken away along with the seven million words that it consists of. Lastly, higher income tax payers would not have the opportunity to get away with cheating on their taxes through loopholes their professional accountants are able to find.
Cons: On the other hand, there are a great deal of politicians/regular everyday people that believe the flat tax would actually have a negative affect on low income families and it would greatly benefit the rich, even more so then our current tax system. This is because with a flat tax income is all that is taxed. Unfortunately, this would mean that because higher earning taxpayers are paid through benefits and savings, they would come out of tax season having paid nothing. On the other hand, low in come workers would still have to pay the percentage off their paycheck because they are actually getting paid directly for their labor. “And why should the manager of a billion dollar hedge fund get her 20% piece of the profits tax free while the people who deliver sandwiches to her have to pay tax on their salary and tips?”
I do not support the flat tax because of the unfair financial burden it would place on the benefit less lower income tax payers by taxing only their income received through labor.
Progressive Tax
Pros: In a Progressive tax system, taxes are income based. This means that a person with a low income will pay a lot less than a person who with a high one. “The tax cuts did, however, provide a large amount in credits, deductions and tax breaks for the lowest-income earners.” This in itself is a benefit to the economy because it distributes wealth in an effective way. Also, this means that if a tragedy were to strike or the economy goes in to a recession causing incomes to drop, taxes would drop as well.
Cons: The negative aspect of the progressive tax system is the fact that it is commonly considered unfair for the wealthy. This makes sense though because for all of the hard work that these people most likely put in to making their money, they don’t end up getting much out of it due to heavy taxes. Also, this discourages a lot of Americans from pursuing high paying careers because they know that the majority of their potential income will be taken away. “Opponents of the current U.S. income tax code argue that it discourages economic growth by unduly burdening high-income earners.”
I do not support progressive tax because it discourages Americans from working hard to make more money due to the unfair tax burden placed upon the wealthy.
National Sales Tax
Pros: Right off the bat, a positive aspect of national sales tax is that it is fair and supported by a great deal of people. This system would flat out make life a whole lot easier and would save Americans from reading the enormous tax code. Under sales tax, everyone would understand what and why they were paying, and there would not be any forms to fill out. Also, the government would receive more money in tax. Nobody would be able to get away with not paying their taxes and this would have a positive effect on our countries economy.
Cons: The biggest concern with the national sales tax is that it will place a heavier burden on our nations lower income citizens. There are a lot of people out there that spend every penny they have on food. “That is because most Americans must spend most or all of their yearly incomes just to make ends meet, whereas wealthier people need spend only part of their incomes, and can save the rest. Adding a sales tax would cause these individuals to pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes through their consumptions. This would create a negative chain effect because, one’s products become more expensive, the consumers will not have as much of a demand for them, and eventually our whole economy would go down the drain.
I support National Sales tax because of it's simplicity, fairness, and the fact that this system would have an overall positive effect on the economy.
VAT Tax
Pros: A VAT tax is basically a goods and services tax, this means that value is added to the product/service as it is bought and sold. This is an extremely simple and fair system because the people are taxed not on what they earn, but on what they consume. In recent years, VAT has been Also, the tax rate is the same on everything and there is much more compliance because a business must usually collect VAT on what it sells.
Cons: The VAT tax is a regressive tax. This means that it has the potential to greatly benefit the wealthier tax payers, and hurt the lower income tax payers over time. "The lower a person's income, the greater that proportion of that income goes into products and services". Also, the VAT does not generate an incredible amount of revenue for the government to be able to spend, mostly because of the amount that they have to pay to insure that everyone is paying this tax in the first place! This often means that those who do pay their taxes, have to pay more to make up for the cheaters. Lastly, the VAT tax is complicated and it would take a lot of time to make the transition from our current taxing system.
I do not support the VAT tax because of the cost it requires for enforcement, the overall burden it places on the poor, and the fact that it does not generate much money for the government.
Pros: In regards to a flat tax, all incomes are taxed at the exact same rate. You’re probably thinking, well wait a minute, what about the lower income tax payers? Won’t they have to pay way more in taxes from their income in this kind of system? Surprisingly, there are extreme benefits of the flat tax towards the lower class. “Since most people in low income brackets would pay much higher taxes under a 17% rate then they do now, flat tax plans usually exempt lower incomes entirely.” Also, in a flat tax only a person’s wage would be taxed and very little deductions would be allowed. Another pro to the flat tax is that it is incredibly simple. All of the complex loopholes in our current tax code would be taken away along with the seven million words that it consists of. Lastly, higher income tax payers would not have the opportunity to get away with cheating on their taxes through loopholes their professional accountants are able to find.
Cons: On the other hand, there are a great deal of politicians/regular everyday people that believe the flat tax would actually have a negative affect on low income families and it would greatly benefit the rich, even more so then our current tax system. This is because with a flat tax income is all that is taxed. Unfortunately, this would mean that because higher earning taxpayers are paid through benefits and savings, they would come out of tax season having paid nothing. On the other hand, low in come workers would still have to pay the percentage off their paycheck because they are actually getting paid directly for their labor. “And why should the manager of a billion dollar hedge fund get her 20% piece of the profits tax free while the people who deliver sandwiches to her have to pay tax on their salary and tips?”
I do not support the flat tax because of the unfair financial burden it would place on the benefit less lower income tax payers by taxing only their income received through labor.
Progressive Tax
Pros: In a Progressive tax system, taxes are income based. This means that a person with a low income will pay a lot less than a person who with a high one. “The tax cuts did, however, provide a large amount in credits, deductions and tax breaks for the lowest-income earners.” This in itself is a benefit to the economy because it distributes wealth in an effective way. Also, this means that if a tragedy were to strike or the economy goes in to a recession causing incomes to drop, taxes would drop as well.
Cons: The negative aspect of the progressive tax system is the fact that it is commonly considered unfair for the wealthy. This makes sense though because for all of the hard work that these people most likely put in to making their money, they don’t end up getting much out of it due to heavy taxes. Also, this discourages a lot of Americans from pursuing high paying careers because they know that the majority of their potential income will be taken away. “Opponents of the current U.S. income tax code argue that it discourages economic growth by unduly burdening high-income earners.”
I do not support progressive tax because it discourages Americans from working hard to make more money due to the unfair tax burden placed upon the wealthy.
Pros: Right off the bat, a positive aspect of national sales tax is that it is fair and supported by a great deal of people. This system would flat out make life a whole lot easier and would save Americans from reading the enormous tax code. Under sales tax, everyone would understand what and why they were paying, and there would not be any forms to fill out. Also, the government would receive more money in tax. Nobody would be able to get away with not paying their taxes and this would have a positive effect on our countries economy.
Cons: The biggest concern with the national sales tax is that it will place a heavier burden on our nations lower income citizens. There are a lot of people out there that spend every penny they have on food. “That is because most Americans must spend most or all of their yearly incomes just to make ends meet, whereas wealthier people need spend only part of their incomes, and can save the rest. Adding a sales tax would cause these individuals to pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes through their consumptions. This would create a negative chain effect because, one’s products become more expensive, the consumers will not have as much of a demand for them, and eventually our whole economy would go down the drain.
I support National Sales tax because of it's simplicity, fairness, and the fact that this system would have an overall positive effect on the economy.
VAT Tax
Pros: A VAT tax is basically a goods and services tax, this means that value is added to the product/service as it is bought and sold. This is an extremely simple and fair system because the people are taxed not on what they earn, but on what they consume. In recent years, VAT has been Also, the tax rate is the same on everything and there is much more compliance because a business must usually collect VAT on what it sells.
Cons: The VAT tax is a regressive tax. This means that it has the potential to greatly benefit the wealthier tax payers, and hurt the lower income tax payers over time. "The lower a person's income, the greater that proportion of that income goes into products and services". Also, the VAT does not generate an incredible amount of revenue for the government to be able to spend, mostly because of the amount that they have to pay to insure that everyone is paying this tax in the first place! This often means that those who do pay their taxes, have to pay more to make up for the cheaters. Lastly, the VAT tax is complicated and it would take a lot of time to make the transition from our current taxing system.
I do not support the VAT tax because of the cost it requires for enforcement, the overall burden it places on the poor, and the fact that it does not generate much money for the government.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
The Big Picture
With our national debt currently at
about 13 trillion, its clear that in order to decrease our national deficit, we
need to operate with a budget surplus. If I were to have the opportunity to
give the presidents financial advisors advice, I would first of all suggest a
possible rise in federal income tax by 1.5% or so over a 5-7 year time frame.
Also, I would suggest that the money the government does have should be spent a
little bit more carefully. For example, in class we learned that the government
has given money to Harvard to research ducks, this is no way is aiding the well
being of our country. Also, I would suggest creating jobs.
Our
nation is headed into another Great Depression if we are not able to turn
things around in a hurry. The majority of the power to create a change falls in
the hands of the president. Actually, a good place to begin cutting costs would
be in the executive and legislative branches themselves. If each member of
congress, and those involved in the white house could cut their budget down a
percentage, this could have a real benefit on spending. Also, our countries
largest investment is in our military. If we were to find ways to maintain our
national security, while at the same time cutting down on costs in this area,
our country would be spending a lot less each year.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
The Sequester
What is the sequester you may ask?
The sequester is a group of cuts made towards federal spending that is set to
take effect on March 1. These cuts are for the sole purpose of dragging our
countries butt out of debt. Initially, as stated in The Washington Post
article, “it was intended to serve as incentive for the Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction (aka the “Supercommittee”) to come to a deal to cut $1.5
trillion over 10 years.” Unfortunately, the committee did not follow through
with this plan and therefore, the sequester was not successfully avoided like
it could have been. The cuts involved with the sequester are going to be split
between our countries domestic and defense programs. This involves weapon
purchases, base operations, construction work and much more. The rest affects
payouts as in Social Security, Medicaid, etc. Not affected by the sequester are
low -income programs such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the
Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, as seen in the Washington Post in
a list of all exempt programs. Over the course of ten years, the plan is by
putting the sequester into effect, we will cut 1.5 trillion off of our debt,
which doesn’t seem like that much compared to the 16 trillion we currently owe.
The sequester is a
dreadful topic for many Americans and as we speak, it is being protested by
thousands. Even the president doesn’t want to see this program go in to affect
and has been searching for alternatives for a while now. According to the 6
Questions and Answers About the Sequester article, “The sequester
will mean such awful things because it forces agencies to cut indiscriminately,
instead of simply stripping money from their overall budgets.” The law forces
agency heads to cut the same amount from each of their programs. This means
that different areas of an agency such as the FBI, that are extremely important
to our countries well-being and safety will be cut financially and therefore
cannot do their job as affectively. An example of this is our terrorist
detecting unit. If they do not have the means to actively detect terrorists
before they strike, America is in for some rough times here pretty soon.
As I have mentioned before, congress
was allegedly planning on coming up with a way to avoid the sequester but did
not end up doing so. There was, however a short-plan put in place recently,
which was majorly encouraged by Obama. This can be seen in the CNN article when
it states in the text, “Tuesday, Obama urged Congress to pass a short-term deal
that puts off the cuts, allowing some breathing room for a long-term deficit
reduction plan. But Obama said any deal should include more revenue from ending
some tax breaks -- a stance that inflamed Republicans who already had to
swallow a tax increase for top earners in the fiscal cliff deal.” Many people
do not like the sequester because that believe that the government will take a
hit to too many programs and our national defense will be majorly weakened
because of it. The only real alternative however, is increasing taxes once
again, but it is also stated in the CNN article that, “Americans do not support
sacrificing real spending cuts for more tax hikes." It will be interesting
to see what happens with the sequester. Along with many others, I fear that our
country will only be put in a worse place because of it and the safety of our people will unfortunately be put in jeopardy.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Personal Manifesto!!!!!!
Taxes…
As we said in our discussion in class, the government has
the right to tax people if they are taxing for things that will truly benefit
those paying for it, such as the reconstruction of a highway, or a school tax.
On the other hand, if the government were to tax dogs, or bicycles, that would
be ridiculous.
Regulation of business…
The government has a lot of different responsibilities when
it comes to the overall regulation of businesses. There are a set amount of
laws that they put in place to keep certain aspects of businesses running
smoothly and efficiently. Examples of these keys aspects are; employment and
labor, advertising, the overall environment and safety and health. The
government clearly has a responsibility to recognize areas that are in need of
structure in order to pass a law.
In regards to employment and labor, the government has put in to place
laws that pertain to minimum wage, benefits, safety and health compliance, etc,
each benefiting the business itself and its workers.
Social programs…
In my opinion, it’s important for the government to have a
role in funding certain social programs that will benefit the people. That
being said, only if these social programs involve organized work intended to
advance the social conditions of a community, by providing psychological counseling,
guidance, and assistance such as social services, should the government assist
with funds. It’s important for a government to watch out for the well being of
its people.
Defense spending and veteran affairs…
The governments most important role in defense spending and
veterans affairs is its funding of salaries, training and health care of
uniformed and civilian personnel, and maintaining arms, equipment and
facilities. Overall the government is vital to the needs of the military and in
my opinion the fact that it plays such a huge role is key to its success.
Economic Development…
In my opinion the government
should be able to set up different laws such as minimum wage and health
benefits, etc in the workplace, but it should not get too involved with the day
to day. Also, when any type of business begins to go out of business, it is the
government’s job to take in to consideration what kind of loss this could bring
and whether or not to bail such a business out if need be.
Social Security and Medicare…
The government’s role in social security and Medicare is
determining who is going to receive it based on age, financial need and overall
circumstances. The government has complete control over who is qualified.
I don’t have a clear enough
opinion on government’s involvement in infrastructure, but I do know that the
government should fund science programs if and only if they are beneficial to
the growth of our country. There is no need to waste money on random science
projects when we could be spending it on true advancements.
Financial Aid…
It’s true that our country is in
deep, deep debt. Many people argue that spending money to benefit the needs of
foreign countries would cause America to sink further in to this debt hole of
ours, but I believe that in the long run, we could benefit from helping others.
By giving money to better a countries economy that is in need, we are opening
up opportunities to trade and gain new products. In my opinion, the government
should aid foreign countries that are truly in need and could eventually
benefit the U.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)