PDA

View Full Version : Star's Financial Thread



starcreator
June 13th, 2007, 08:55 PM
I thought it'd be informative to start an advice thread for things like mortgages, personal loans, investments, tax advice, building one's credit, all that fun stuff.

Need to invest a large sum of money for the long term? Wondering to which type of IRA/RRSP you should contribute? Should you rent or buy? Should you get term or whole life insurance? Finding it hard to save money and budget effectively? Curious about the outcomes of various loan options? I'm certain we've got plenty of resident financial experts here anxious to help out with any inquiry you may have.

Ask away.

KevinBrowning
June 14th, 2007, 02:13 PM
Step 1: Immigrate to the United States.

CliveStaples
June 14th, 2007, 02:20 PM
That's not necessarily true, KB. Hong Kong isn't a bad place to live; it's very free by economic standards.

Dr. Gonzo
June 14th, 2007, 02:30 PM
If you want to buy something and not have to worry, then gold is the way to go. If you want to play the markets, start reading everything you can and don't sleep.

CliveStaples
June 14th, 2007, 02:32 PM
If you want to buy something and not have to worry, then gold is the way to go.

Not really. Gold has too many speculators, imo. I prefer real estate as an investment; rents naturally rise with wages, which are the best metric for measuring inflation. And everyone needs a place to live or a place to work, so there's always action.

starcreator
June 14th, 2007, 09:52 PM
Step 1: Immigrate to the United States.

Or, you know, anywhere else in the prosperous first world where there exist multimillionaires and billionaires (not to mention higher standards of living than the US).


Not really. Gold has too many speculators, imo. I prefer real estate as an investment; rents naturally rise with wages, which are the best metric for measuring inflation. And everyone needs a place to live or a place to work, so there's always action.

The ability to earn income while reaping the benefits of capital appreciation are why real estate is such an amazing investment. I mean, with what other investment can you see constant appreciation on 100% of the purchase price with 20-25% down? Not to mention the constantly rising rents, which (although initially they will likely only cover the mortgage) will eventually become a stream of inflation protected income.

CliveStaples
June 14th, 2007, 11:46 PM
Or, you know, anywhere else in the prosperous first world where there exist multimillionaires and billionaires (not to mention higher standards of living than the US).

Or, you know, anywhere else in the prosperous first world where there exists a system which encourages (or at least hinders less) the generation of wealth. Accordingly, moving to the U.S. is better than, say, moving to the UK.

starcreator
June 15th, 2007, 10:03 PM
Or, you know, anywhere else in the prosperous first world where there exists a system which encourages (or at least hinders less) the generation of wealth. Accordingly, moving to the U.S. is better than, say, moving to the UK.

Depends on a few things. The investment opportunities, obviously, because the fact that the US has more investment opportunity on average doesn't mean that it will for any particular immigrant. Secondly, how wealthy you are when you arrive. Someone with no money or education would probably be better off starting out in a nation that provides more opportunities to the lower classes to pursue their educational/career goals. For instance, someone who wants to be a doctor would do a lot better in a country with free post-secondary medical education.

Trendem
June 15th, 2007, 11:16 PM
Looks that one cannot start a financial thread without having it turn into another liberal vs conservative debate...

Anyway, US is ranked, like, what, tenth? in terms of economic openness, and you have income tax rates like, what, up to 35%? That's nothing to brag about, if we are talking about sheer money-grubbing capabilities.

Zhavric
June 16th, 2007, 05:41 AM
http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/3872/boc4bk0.jpg

FruitandNut
June 16th, 2007, 05:58 AM
Hey, Zhav, what's with the BOC stuff?

BOC is the the old British Oxygen Company - now gone global and diversified.

BOC Graduates-BOC Grads (http://www.bocgrads.co.uk/)

Trendem
June 16th, 2007, 06:03 AM
Here's guessing - it stands for "But Of Course"?

Dr. Gonzo
June 16th, 2007, 06:04 AM
Not really. Gold has too many speculators, imo. I prefer real estate as an investment; rents naturally rise with wages, which are the best metric for measuring inflation. And everyone needs a place to live or a place to work, so there's always action.
Wrong!!!!

It doesn't matter that a lot of people speculate on gold because we are talking about long term investing. Sure speculators sometimes either get short squeezed and the price goes up and sometimes gold gets shorted, but this is all in the short term.

In the long term, the price of gold will continue to rise because our goldarned government is chronically incapable of not inflating through the printing presses.

And now that you mention the metrics for measuring inflation. The BEST one is the current money supply. But conveniently the Fed stopped reporting the M3 report which gives the money aggregate.

Hmmm.

The problem with the price indices is that there is no real way to establish a price index for ALL goods. They are necessarily arbitrary and unscientific. So let's say that you might really like books. The Consumer Price Index doesn't use that when it reports on inflation. So maybe for you, the price is books is going up rapidly (because of competition with eBooks or the fact that Americans are idiots)...this doesn't get factored into inflation reports.

Similarly, prices in electronics have been going down consistently and have been able to offset the inflationary policies of the Fed.

Bottom line: the only real way to understand inflation is by understanding that it happens ONLY when the government prints more money. An increase in the supply of money without a corresponding increase in production is basically the definition of inflation.

Rising prices are not inflation...they are the result of inflation. You can still have inflation in the money supply without a rise of computer prices. This does not mean that you are not getting screwed.

The state always finds a way to do that.

MrShadow
October 22nd, 2007, 09:50 PM
Gold is a very bad investment. See for yourself:

Fool.com: Gold, or Fool's Gold? [Motley Fool Take] February 26, 2003 (http://www.fool.com/news/take/2003/mft/mft03022602.htm)

(Am I allowed to post links like this?)

5 years ago, buying CRVD stock (RIO:NYSE) would have yielded 2066% today!

Can This Stock Go Any Higher? (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/10/19/can-this-stock-go-any-higher.aspx)

ladyphoenix
October 23rd, 2007, 03:59 AM
Anyway, US is ranked, like, what, tenth? in terms of economic openness, and you have income tax rates like, what, up to 35%?For anyone who has a taxable income $336,550... I can't figure out what percentage of taxpayers make that much or more... And I'm looking like EVERYWHERE... The statistical abstract cuts off at $100,000... Though I did find this...


The Treasury analysis shows that the one percent of taxpayers with the highest incomes paid 34.3 percent of federal individual income taxes in 2003. Which I do not doubt.

How do you (any of you) think that helps/hinders economic growth in this country?

And regarding gold, Clive... a hundred years ago, an ounce of gold would buy you a well tailored suit. Today, what does an ounce of gold buy you? A well tailored suit. Gold is a "safe" investment in that its value rises to compete with inflation, but never more. Better than sticking your money in a bank and letting it sit, for sure. But nothing more than a safeguard against inflation...

YahooYeager
October 26th, 2007, 01:33 AM
If you want to buy something and not have to worry, then gold is the way to go. If you want to play the markets, start reading everything you can and don't sleep.

Anytime you invest you take a risk. All those people who bought their homes with no money down took a huge risk. They failed to see the possibility that when rates went up they would loose their homes. All the brokerage houses that bought the collateralized debt obligations took a risk too. If the dollar continues to weaken we are all in for a rotten ride. The white raven will spiral from heavenly heights into a hellish abyss. And while the purchasing power of our dollars are shrinking the money hungry democrats are going to tax Americans beyond their capacity to pay. They only good thing will be that our deficit will shrink when we have no money to spend and are eating rice and beans every day. No wonder they want to socialized health care.

starcreator
June 6th, 2008, 08:32 PM
Which I do not doubt.

How do you (any of you) think that helps/hinders economic growth in this country?

Because there isn't much of a difference in incentive between 20% and 35% for a billionaire. Nobody is going to halt investment and production because of a 15% tax differential, because every increase in income will yield a proportionally equivalent increase in after-tax income. Taxation in general yields certain economic consequences, but unless taxes are so high that they drive billionaires out of the country, I don't think taxing the rich is inherently detrimental to economic growth.

Squatch347
June 6th, 2008, 09:02 PM
Because there isn't much of a difference in incentive between 20% and 35% for a billionaire. Nobody is going to halt investment and production because of a 15% tax differential, because every increase in income will yield a proportionally equivalent increase in after-tax income. Taxation in general yields certain economic consequences, but unless taxes are so high that they drive billionaires out of the country, I don't think taxing the rich is inherently detrimental to economic growth.

I think this is untrue. For a billionaire the difference between 20 and 35 percent is still a large amount of money. If its 3 million, that still three million that isn't being invested in capital markets or growth.

starcreator
November 9th, 2008, 10:45 PM
Taxing the rich is less tangible; it makes a far smaller lifestyle difference, because they spend a smaller (usually fixed) proportion of their incomes anyway.