Ao minuto: Trump quer "paz e harmonia" no Médio Oriente após retaliação iraniana

[Lion_Heart]

...

[Lion_Heart]

Ora bem, vamos la ver se entendi:

cortes são maus (não é o que os porquitos estão a fazer?) e gastar a custa dos outros é que é bom!

e isto nao e?

[Quimporta]

pelo que diz tem "estado a comprar acções todos os dias". Podia dizer era quais

Mas ele diz, não porque queira, mas porque a isso é obrigado. Apesar do estatuto especial que conseguiu obter da SEC.

Dizes que o Warren Buffett é "obrigado" exactamente a fazer o quê? A "comprar" ou a "dizer que está a comprar"?

Esta opinião é "interessante por ser desinteressada".
Um gezilionário americano a dizer "aumentem-me os impostos que é justo, não afecta a economia e eu gosto", é no mínimo invulgar.

[LTCM]

pelo que diz tem "estado a comprar acções todos os dias". Podia dizer era quais

Mas ele diz, não porque queira, mas porque a isso é obrigado. Apesar do estatuto especial que conseguiu obter da SEC.

[pcamposm]

Importantíssimo. Parabéns.

Ainda ontem toquei neste assunto num post acerca do S&P500.

[Quimporta]

Hoje na ligação matinal da SIC à Reuters, o reporter referia que os mercados US fecharam em baixa reagindo às declarações de um Senador Democrata, referindo um impasse nas negociações em volta do Fiscal Cliff.

Sabe-se que esta gente tenta sempre arranjar explicação para tudo, mas todos os dias há todo tipo de declarações e palpites, ums pessimistas outros não, e não me parece que os mais credíveis sejam logo os dos políticos.

Buffet sim. Tem cartel como investidor para servir de referência, e pelo que diz tem "estado a comprar acções todos os dias". Podia dizer era quais

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc65c36f" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=49976804&width=420&height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc65c36f" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=49976804&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>

[Quimporta]

Buffet tem o crédito de ter estado em absoluto silêncio na campanha eleitoral e não ser do lote dos que oferecem almoços, a pagar mais tarde.

A Minimum Tax for the Wealthy
New York Times, By WARREN E. BUFFETT
November 25, 2012, Omaha

SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.”

Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist.

Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent — and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered.

Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation’s economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground.

So let’s forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp — capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities.

And, wow, do we have plenty to invest. The Forbes 400, the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That’s more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust.

A huge tail wind from tax cuts has pushed us along. In 1992, the tax paid by the 400 highest incomes in the United States (a different universe from the Forbes list) averaged 26.4 percent of adjusted gross income. In 2009, the most recent year reported, the rate was 19.9 percent. It’s nice to have friends in high places.

The group’s average income in 2009 was $202 million — which works out to a “wage” of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I’m assuming they’re paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And — brace yourself — a few actually paid nothing.

This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that’s the place to start. I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so.

Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy.

Above all, we should not postpone these changes in the name of “reforming” the tax code. True, changes are badly needed. We need to get rid of arrangements like “carried interest” that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains. And it’s sickening that a Cayman Islands mail drop can be central to tax maneuvering by wealthy individuals and corporations.

But the reform of such complexities should not promote delay in our correcting simple and expensive inequities. We can’t let those who want to protect the privileged get away with insisting that we do nothing until we can do everything.

Our government’s goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of G.D.P. and spend about 21 percent of G.D.P. — levels that have been attained over extended periods in the past and can clearly be reached again. As the math makes clear, this won’t stem our budget deficits; in fact, it will continue them. But assuming even conservative projections about inflation and economic growth, this ratio of revenue to spending will keep America’s debt stable in relation to the country’s economic output.

In the last fiscal year, we were far away from this fiscal balance — bringing in 15.5 percent of G.D.P. in revenue and spending 22.4 percent. Correcting our course will require major concessions by both Republicans and Democrats.

All of America is waiting for Congress to offer a realistic and concrete plan for getting back to this fiscally sound path. Nothing less is acceptable.

In the meantime, maybe you’ll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won’t go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds. Send him my way. Let me unburden him.

Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.

[Quimporta]

The Fiscal Cliff for Dummies
Forbes, Tony Nitti, Contributor, 10/30/2012


Admit it. You’ve got no clue what the “fiscal cliff” is. You’ve heard the term repeated endlessly by talking heads on Fox News, CNN and Bloomberg, but try as you might to become enlightened, you’ve found the detail surrounding this hotly-debated cliff to be woefully lacking. And with time, you’ve only become more convinced that the “fiscal cliff” is one of those things that everyone simply pretends to understand, but nobody actually does, like poetry or hockey.

And you might be right. But that won’t stop me from trying to explain what little sense I can make of it. And as I tend to do when the topic gets tricky, I’m going with the Q&A format. Lets get started.

Q: OK, smart guy…so what is the fiscal cliff?

A: The “fiscal cliff” is a term used to describe the convergence of two events on December 31, 2012 — the expiration of almost every tax cut enacted since 2001 and a scheduled reduction in government spending — that, if the experts are to be believed, when taken together will threaten to bankrupt America, shift the world balance of power, and knock Earth off its orbit, sending it hurtling through cold, dark space.

Q: I’m confused. We clearly have a bloated deficit, so I would think that generating more tax revenue while cutting spending would be a good thing. How can more cash in and less cash out be bad?

A: Don’t ask me; I slept through both micro and macro economics in college. Luckily, it turns out you can just write “supply and demand” for every answer on the final and walk away with a C+. But according to the econ eggheads, while America will indeed enjoy a short term decrease in the deficit, the combined effect of the tax increases and reduced government spending will result in a huge fiscal contraction: a decrease in GDP, an increase in unemployment, dogs and dogs living together…mass hysteria.

Q You know, that wasn’t a ton of help. Perhaps you’ll be of greater use if we stick to the tax side of things. So which tax provisions are set to expire?

A: You name ‘em. The Tax Policy Center issued a report earlier this month that breaks up into nine categories those tax provisions that — in the absence of future legislation — are set to expire at midnight on December 31st:

* Bush-Era Tax Cuts : this includes the return of the current 10/15/25/28/33/35% individual tax rate brackets to the pre-2001 rates of 15/28/31/36/39.6%, the return of the tax-rate on long term capital gains and qualified dividends from 15% to 20% and 39.6%, respectively, and the return of the limitation on itemized deductions and phase out of personal exemptions.

* Obama-Era Tax Cuts: on January 1, 2013, several provisions that benefit the lower classes — most notably the increased child tax and earned income credits and the expanded education credits — are slated to expire.

* The Estate Tax: the estate tax exemption and tax rate are currently at $5,120,000 and 35%, respectively. Come January, they will return to $1,000,000 and 55%.

* Expiration of the AMT Patch: The most recent patch raised the AMT exemption for 2010 and 2011 from $45,000 to $74,450 for MFJ. In 2013, this will reset to $45,000, pulling tens of millions of taxpayers into AMT.

* Temporary Payroll Tax Cut: For 2011 and 2012, the employee’s share of Social Security tax was cut from 6.2% to 4.2%. This rate cut expires at year end.

* Obamacare Taxes: Starting in 2013, taxpayers earning more than $250,000 will pay an additional 0.9% tax on their wages and 3.8% on their unearned income (interest, dividends, capital gains.)

* Extenders: As we discussed yesterday afternoon, there are a host of provisions set to expire at year end that regularly do so, before Congress retroactively resuscitates them. Foremost among the “extender” provisions are the R&D credit and the personal deduction for state and local income taxes.

Q: That is a lot of tax increases. Has anyone put a price tag on those provisions yet?

A: The TPC puts the total additional tax revenue for 2013 over 2012 at $536 billion, or a 21% increase.

(...)

[Quimporta]

Como um presidente pode intervir na vida política, mostrando determinação sem comprometer o papel de árbitro.

Mais ou menos como o nosso Aníbal...

Obama: I'd Wash Boehner's Car to Get Deficit Deal
Friday, 26 Oct 2012 11:16 PM

President Barack Obama said on Friday a bipartisan panel's deficit reduction recommendation went too far on spending cuts, especially for defense, but set the right tone by also proposing revenue increases.

Obama said the plan put forward by the bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission — and held out by some as a model compromise that distributes the pain evenly — cut defense spending too deeply.

"They wanted ... defense cuts that were steeper than I felt comfortable with as commander in chief," he said.

The president, who is in a tight re-election battle with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, said he would be eager to re-engage congressional Republicans in negotiations to achieve a broad deficit reduction deal right away. A deal could be accomplished in as little as four months, he said.

"I've said to folks, I'll wash (House Speaker) John Boehner's car, I'll walk (Republican Senate leader) Mitch McConnell's dog, I'll do whatever is required to get this done," Obama said in an interview with radio host Michael Smerconish that was released on Friday.

[Quimporta]

Pistolas ja eles tem , ouro é ja não sei

Isso são eles, e tu achas que escapas? Viste o "Mad Max" ?!

Antes que a conversa se torne “fact free”, e por essa razão acalorada sem necessidade, convêm rever alguns elementos base.
Neste caso, começo por deixar a evolução da dívida/PIB.

(Fonte: Congressional Budget Office)

[Pantone]

Avizinha-se o maior corte na despesa do Estado que há memória, e de repente são todos Keynesianos!

O corte na despesa afinal já é contraccionário e vai ter efeitos devastadores... e parece que é preciso evitá-lo... benvindos ao clube!

[Lion_Heart]

Pistolas ja eles tem , ouro é ja não sei


Quanto ao resto , quem pode, pode , e quem manda, manda.

[Quimporta]

Crio este tópico para debater uma das mais decisivas batalhas dos próximos anos no que respeita à manutenção da credibilidade do sistema capitalista, e do modo de vida ocidental como o conhecemos.

Pelo Natal, os eleitos (Presidente e Congressistas) vão ter que ter um acordo relativamente a um plano que evite novos cortes no rating da dívida do país, o que iria fazer parecer os problemas na Europa uma indegestão por comer muitas rabanadas.

A imagem da Michele e do Obama bateu o recordedo número the tweets, o que demonstra que não é só a América que acredita no presidente. O mundo inteiro vai estar agora com os olhos postos na inevitável aproximação entre os dois partidos, e a rezar para que prevaleça o bom senso.

Caso contrário ... é começar a comprar ouro e pistolas...

Now, hug a Republican
A budget deal makes sense for the re-elected president, his opponents, his country and the world
The Economist, Nov 10th 2012

LET him savour, for a day or two, a victory that many had said could not happen. No president since FDR had been re-elected with unemployment so high. The country seemed pessimistic and bitterly divided, on racial grounds even more than on economic ones. His best-known achievement, health-care reform, had turned out to be deeply unpopular. The Republicans spent $800m trying to remove him. Yet on November 6th Barack Obama carried all the states he won four years ago, bar only Indiana and North Carolina, for a solid victory over Mitt Romney of 332 electoral-college votes to 206; the Democrats tightened their grip on a Senate they had once been expected to lose; and the president gave his best speech for several years.

In fact, Mr Obama’s victory is both smaller and potentially bigger than that. Smaller because it was a less impressive feat than it immediately feels (see article), and a lot of hard work lies ahead of him. Bigger because if this president, who has so often failed to find achievements to match his lofty words, can reach out to the Republicans, together they have a rare opportunity: to cement a much more substantial legacy for Mr Obama, to make the American right electable again, and to do their country’s finances and politics a power of good.

(...)

In less than two months’ time, unless a deal is struck, America will fall off a “fiscal cliff” that will, through a combination of automatic tax rises and spending cuts, subtract as much as 5% from GDP in a year. That would be a disaster for an economy growing at an annual rate of barely 2%. But behind this immediate crisis is the deeper one: America taxes itself like a small-state economy, and spends like a big-state one. Add in an ageing population, and it is going broke. Mr Obama will be pilloried by history if he does nothing to fix that, though the bond markets would probably punish him well before he left office.

Mr Obama ought to tackle the two problems at once, so that the deal to stop the economy going off the cliff is tied into longer-term reform. He will not be able to hammer out all the details of those reforms, but he can force agreement on the main parts, based on Bowles-Simpson, which he should endorse rapidly. That means being very clear about how much deficit-reduction will come from tax rises (which Republicans hate) and how much from spending cuts (which Democrats loathe); about which tax-exemptions must go or be curtailed; just how far entitlements like Medicare and Social Security will have to be scaled back by the use of means-testing, delayed retirement and less generous indexation; and much else in the same vein.

Mr Obama came close to getting a deal along these lines with the current Republican speaker, John Boehner, in July 2011, but his failure to work successfully with Republicans has been woeful. He must now do everything he can to hug them close. This time that means offering them proof that he really intends to be more bipartisan. A pro-business treasury secretary would be a start: the names of Larry Fink or Mark Warner come to mind. Swift approval for the Keystone XL pipeline connecting Canada with the Gulf of Mexico would also help. In his first term, Mr Obama broadly got the economics right, but his White House waged a destructive war of words against business. If he wants to help America’s poor (see article), he would do better to embrace a truly progressive agenda, based on competition, reforming government so that it targets spending on the most needy, and reforming taxes.

(...)