Is his subscription letter worth purchasing? For that matter, what do you guys think
of any of these guys? I've been following strategy lab over at MSN and was mulling
over purchasing therationalinvestor.com or validea.com.
So far the returns they advertise look good, just haven't been around for long.
Is there a website that rates/ranks these "stock gurus"?
-Joe
Save your money.
"Joe L" <> wrote in message
news:IolCe.10258$
> Is his subscription letter worth purchasing? For that matter, what do you
> guys think
> of any of these guys? I've been following strategy lab over at MSN and
> was mulling
> over purchasing therationalinvestor.com or validea.com.
>
> So far the returns they advertise look good, just haven't been around for
> long.
>
> Is there a website that rates/ranks these "stock gurus"?
>
> -Joe
Joe L wrote:
> Is his subscription letter worth purchasing?
No. I used to listen to his radio show and he's been dead wrong more
often than not.
> Is there a website that rates/ranks these "stock gurus"?
Not a website, but the Hulbert Financial Digest tracks the long-term
performance of hundreds of investment newsletters. You can order
reports on most of them.
There are very few newsletters that have existed long enough to ride
thru major bull and major bear markets and have done well in both market
environments. For example, Fabian started publishing in 1979, *after*
the severe bear market of 1973-74 was over. His timing model had never
been tested in a severe bear market before. And so, when the severe
bear market of 2000-2002 hit, his model fell apart. He kept mistaking
short-term rallies for new bull markets and so you got whipsawed again
and again.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steve is spot on. Back in 2001, I was intrigued with Fabian's newsletter.
When I discovered that his system was a simple moving average cross-over I
did some back testing over the last secular bear market, 1965 to 1982. His
system faired poorly, no better than buy-and-hold. You would have been much
better in a money market or T-bills.
This was born out by his whipsaw trades in the ensuing 2001-2002 bear
market.
"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:F3tCe.6217$
> Joe L wrote:
>> Is his subscription letter worth purchasing?
>
> No. I used to listen to his radio show and he's been dead wrong more
> often than not.
>
>
>> Is there a website that rates/ranks these "stock gurus"?
>
> Not a website, but the Hulbert Financial Digest tracks the long-term
> performance of hundreds of investment newsletters. You can order reports
> on most of them.
>
> There are very few newsletters that have existed long enough to ride thru
> major bull and major bear markets and have done well in both market
> environments. For example, Fabian started publishing in 1979, *after* the
> severe bear market of 1973-74 was over. His timing model had never been
> tested in a severe bear market before. And so, when the severe bear
> market of 2000-2002 hit, his model fell apart. He kept mistaking
> short-term rallies for new bull markets and so you got whipsawed again and
> again.
>
>
> --
> Steven D. Litvintchouk
> Email:
>
> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Marlowe wrote:
> Steve is spot on. Back in 2001, I was intrigued with Fabian's newsletter.
> When I discovered that his system was a simple moving average cross-over I
> did some back testing over the last secular bear market, 1965 to 1982. His
> system faired poorly, no better than buy-and-hold. You would have been much
> better in a money market or T-bills.
>
> This was born out by his whipsaw trades in the ensuing 2001-2002 bear
> market.
Which I believe is part of a new secular bear market that began in 2000
and may run thru the rest of this decade. The cyclical bull market we
enjoyed over the past year seems to be fizzling out; the S&P 500 has
made no real progress in 2005. That's very reminiscent of the sharp but
short cyclical bull market after the severe 1973-74 cyclical bear
market. If so, we may see another cyclical bear market next year.
That's why I believe the S&P 500 will be no higher in 2010 than it was
in 2000, and may well be lower.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
"Marlowe" <> wrote
> Steve is spot on. Back in 2001, I was intrigued with Fabian's newsletter.
> When I discovered that his system was a simple moving average cross-over I
> did some back testing over the last secular bear market, 1965 to 1982.
> His system faired poorly, no better than buy-and-hold. You would have
> been much better in a money market or T-bills.
Marlowe, you are going to think I'm just out to attack people. Not so.
You were claiming fabulous returns, even willing to post your statements
online.
Where are you in the current contest?
"Steven L." <> wrote in message
news:5VzCe.6355$
> Which I believe is part of a new secular bear market that began in 2000
> and may run thru the rest of this decade. The cyclical bull market we
> enjoyed over the past year seems to be fizzling out; the S&P 500 has
> made no real progress in 2005. That's very reminiscent of the sharp but
> short cyclical bull market after the severe 1973-74 cyclical bear
> market. If so, we may see another cyclical bear market next year.
>
> That's why I believe the S&P 500 will be no higher in 2010 than it was
> in 2000, and may well be lower.
I just don't see it happening. Adding 3 billion capitalists to the system
can't be all bad for corporate earnings. I admit that it is just a gut
feeling but I sense that we are on the verge of another bull run (barring,
of course any catastrophe). The economy seems to be picking up steam and
the outlook for earning seems positive, to me.
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Marlowe" <> wrote
>
>> Steve is spot on. Back in 2001, I was intrigued with Fabian's
>> newsletter. When I discovered that his system was a simple moving average
>> cross-over I did some back testing over the last secular bear market,
>> 1965 to 1982. His system faired poorly, no better than buy-and-hold. You
>> would have been much better in a money market or T-bills.
>
> Marlowe, you are going to think I'm just out to attack people. Not so.
> You were claiming fabulous returns, even willing to post your statements
> online.
I don't think I ever claimed I was making fabilous returns. I have made
good returns, enough to finance a comfortable retirement life style. My big
problem is that our biggest expense in retirement isn't the mortgage
payments on our new house, isn't medical expenses/medical insurance, auto
expenses, including fuel ... it is the combined federal and state income
taxes. And now my biggest fear is the potential rollback of the Bush tax
cuts. This could cause a lot of hurt for my wife and me.
I have had a good, long-term investment history that goes back to the 1960s.
Because of buying a new house in 1972, I got out of the market. Lucky for
me since the market was rolling over into a significant secular bear market.
Fast forward to August 1982 and studying the charts I jumped in with both
feet. All in as they said in Texas holdum. My friends thought I was crazy
since everyone knows you only lose money in the stock market. I remained
fully invested through early 2000 at which time I got out of equities and
into bonds and bear funds. Back into the market in March 2003 and although
not fully invested in equities. After all I have to reduce my risk because
I'm now retired. Year to date I have pulled 12.2% out of my IRA and the
present value is about the same as the beginning balance. For me that is a
good return. I could post all six of my monthly returns for 2005 and it
would substantiate this statement. But to fully appreciate my strategy it
isn't about my 6 month returns but rather my aggressive investments in the
1980s & 1990s, going defensive in 2000 and resuming (at a less agressive
pace) in 2003. I just couldn't find all the documentation to replay all
this history. Bottom line is that I cannot provide the full history. I
honestly believe that I had been a buy-and-hope type investor rather than a
market timer, my wife and I would have a very different retirement
lifestyle.
>
> Where are you in the current contest?
I'm about flat but I need to add in all the dividends/interest from several
of my holdings. Yahoo doesn't add them in and it is a bit of a headache to
do this. Been too busy to get to this.
>
>
>
>
Herb wrote:
> "Steven L." <> wrote in message
> news:5VzCe.6355$
>
>
>>Which I believe is part of a new secular bear market that began in 2000
>>and may run thru the rest of this decade. The cyclical bull market we
>>enjoyed over the past year seems to be fizzling out; the S&P 500 has
>>made no real progress in 2005. That's very reminiscent of the sharp but
>>short cyclical bull market after the severe 1973-74 cyclical bear
>>market. If so, we may see another cyclical bear market next year.
>>
>>That's why I believe the S&P 500 will be no higher in 2010 than it was
>>in 2000, and may well be lower.
>
>
> I just don't see it happening. Adding 3 billion capitalists to the system
> can't be all bad for corporate earnings. I admit that it is just a gut
> feeling but I sense that we are on the verge of another bull run (barring,
> of course any catastrophe). The economy seems to be picking up steam and
> the outlook for earning seems positive, to me.
>
>
>
Groove it, Herbie, baby! It's a bit worrying when I find myself agreeing
with some of the things you say.
I have just put nearly 20% of my real portfolio into a US index fund
based on the S&P500 so I am hoping you guys over there will get a grip
on things and start growing the economy again.
There can't be many mistakes left for you to make and your "leader"
should pass on to the rubber chicken circuit in a year or so. Will Arnie
be next? Is it time to change the law so foreign born citizens can
stand? He has resigned from Flex and Muscle & Fatness to leave his way
clear! What more can a man do?
Of course, my endorsement and the extra demand may be enough to
kick-start the economy :-)
"Marlowe" <> wrote
> I don't think I ever claimed I was making fabilous returns. I have made
> good returns, enough to finance a comfortable retirement life style. My
> big problem is that our biggest expense in retirement isn't the mortgage
> payments on our new house, isn't medical expenses/medical insurance, auto
> expenses, including fuel ... it is the combined federal and state income
> taxes. And now my biggest fear is the potential rollback of the Bush tax
> cuts. This could cause a lot of hurt for my wife and me.
You're not alone. Health insurance is the single biggest early retirement
killer. I don't know where it's all going to end up.
Ed wrote:
> "Marlowe" <> wrote
>
>
>>I don't think I ever claimed I was making fabilous returns. I have made
>>good returns, enough to finance a comfortable retirement life style. My
>>big problem is that our biggest expense in retirement isn't the mortgage
>>payments on our new house, isn't medical expenses/medical insurance, auto
>>expenses, including fuel ... it is the combined federal and state income
>>taxes. And now my biggest fear is the potential rollback of the Bush tax
>>cuts. This could cause a lot of hurt for my wife and me.
>
>
> You're not alone. Health insurance is the single biggest early retirement
> killer. I don't know where it's all going to end up.
>
>
>
You think your taxes are high? Have you looked at UK and European tax
rates? At least the National Health Service is free (or paid for out of
taxes).
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dbfih6$gno$
> Herb wrote:
> > "Steven L." <> wrote in message
> > news:5VzCe.6355$
> >
> >
> >>Which I believe is part of a new secular bear market that began in 2000
> >>and may run thru the rest of this decade. The cyclical bull market we
> >>enjoyed over the past year seems to be fizzling out; the S&P 500 has
> >>made no real progress in 2005. That's very reminiscent of the sharp but
> >>short cyclical bull market after the severe 1973-74 cyclical bear
> >>market. If so, we may see another cyclical bear market next year.
> >>
> >>That's why I believe the S&P 500 will be no higher in 2010 than it was
> >>in 2000, and may well be lower.
> >
> >
> > I just don't see it happening. Adding 3 billion capitalists to the
system
> > can't be all bad for corporate earnings. I admit that it is just a gut
> > feeling but I sense that we are on the verge of another bull run
(barring,
> > of course any catastrophe). The economy seems to be picking up steam
and
> > the outlook for earning seems positive, to me.
> >
> >
> >
> Groove it, Herbie, baby! It's a bit worrying when I find myself agreeing
> with some of the things you say.
>
> I have just put nearly 20% of my real portfolio into a US index fund
> based on the S&P500 so I am hoping you guys over there will get a grip
> on things and start growing the economy again.
>
> There can't be many mistakes left for you to make and your "leader"
> should pass on to the rubber chicken circuit in a year or so. Will Arnie
> be next? Is it time to change the law so foreign born citizens can
> stand? He has resigned from Flex and Muscle & Fatness to leave his way
> clear! What more can a man do?
>
> Of course, my endorsement and the extra demand may be enough to
> kick-start the economy :-)
Wow, David investing in the Evil Empire? Now I AM bullish.
David Wilkinson wrote:
> Herb wrote:
>
>> "Steven L." <> wrote in message
>> news:5VzCe.6355$
>>
>>
>>> Which I believe is part of a new secular bear market that began in 2000
>>> and may run thru the rest of this decade. The cyclical bull market we
>>> enjoyed over the past year seems to be fizzling out; the S&P 500 has
>>> made no real progress in 2005. That's very reminiscent of the sharp but
>>> short cyclical bull market after the severe 1973-74 cyclical bear
>>> market. If so, we may see another cyclical bear market next year.
>>>
>>> That's why I believe the S&P 500 will be no higher in 2010 than it was
>>> in 2000, and may well be lower.
>>
>>
>>
>> I just don't see it happening. Adding 3 billion capitalists to the
>> system
>> can't be all bad for corporate earnings. I admit that it is just a gut
>> feeling but I sense that we are on the verge of another bull run
>> (barring,
>> of course any catastrophe). The economy seems to be picking up steam and
>> the outlook for earning seems positive, to me.
>>
>>
>>
> Groove it, Herbie, baby! It's a bit worrying when I find myself agreeing
> with some of the things you say.
>
> I have just put nearly 20% of my real portfolio into a US index fund
> based on the S&P500 so I am hoping you guys over there will get a grip
> on things and start growing the economy again.
>
> There can't be many mistakes left for you to make and your "leader"
> should pass on to the rubber chicken circuit in a year or so.
If you are referring to Bush, he leaves office in January 2009. (He
just started his second term 6 months ago.)
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
David Wilkinson wrote:
> At least the National Health Service is free (or paid for out of
> taxes).
Worth every penny, from the horror stories I've heard about the NHS.
Every time some politician in America proposed some kind of national
health care system, I always ask the same question: Can he guarantee
that those of us who already have generous private insurance won't end
up with a worse quality of care under his proposed national health care
system?
I have never gotten an answer, which tells me the answer must be no.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email:
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L. <> wrote:
> Every time some politician in America proposed some kind of national
> health care system, I always ask the same question: Can he guarantee
> that those of us who already have generous private insurance won't end
> up with a worse quality of care under his proposed national health care
> system?
> I have never gotten an answer, which tells me the answer must be no.
What is the right solution to this? I'm disgusted at the cost of
health insurance and the quality of care we get from it. We spend
roughly $500 a month health insurance, placed $2,500 into a HSA and
have used it all up this year already.
We have two kids under the age of 5 and all 4 of us are in excellent
health.
Most of our friends make salaries similar to us (anywhere from 80k
to 200k a year) and there just isn't much positive that we find in
the health care system.
I'm not saying we need to go to single payer or socialized medicine
but I'm not convinced that HSA's will do the job either. If anything
at all, that gives insurance companies the incentive to off load the
cost of expenses to the people they insure. So you think they're
spending less or getting a tax break but at the end of the day
you're actually spending more.
My gut tells me that we're kinda screwed on this. The left in our
country wants something that most Americans don't (single payer
health care, or more government involvement) and the right in our
country will just bend over backwards and let the insurance companies
get whatever they want.
-Joe
Steven L. wrote:
> David Wilkinson wrote:
>
>> At least the National Health Service is free (or paid for out of taxes).
>
>
> Worth every penny, from the horror stories I've heard about the NHS.
>
But is this a balanced view? In any system individuals will make
mistakes and the only news the papers print is bad news. I have lived
with the NHS all my life and have only ever had excellent service from it.
I have been trying to find out the cost per family of the NHS from
Google but have not found the right info yet. A very approximate figure
is £833 per person per year. This is $1,456 p.a. or $121 per month. For
a family of four this would be $484 per month which is of a similar
order to the $500 quoted by Joe L in another note for US health
insurance costs. However he has another $2,500 (p.a.?) for something
else (HSA, whatever that is?)
The difference is that he says he has "used up" this amount in some way.
The UK NHS provides unlimited benefits. If you need a heart transplant
and 3 months in hospital and expensive after-care then you get it for no
extra cost.
There is a relatively small private health insurance market in the UK
but the premiums are high and rise very steeply with age and the
benefits are limited. If you choose to have private treatment and your
health insurance premiums provide for, say, £2,000 of operations and
whatever you have turns out to cost £20,000 then you have to pay the
extra £18,000 out of your own pocket. If you get it done on the NHS then
it costs nothing, whatever they need to do.
It is also worth noting that many private hospitals are small and have
limited facilities. If your problem turns out to be more serious than
expected then a private hospital may not have the facilities or
expertise or staff on hand to deal with it. Of course large London
private hospitals used by the rich and famous and members of the
Government will not have this problem but smaller provincial hospitals
may do. NHS hospitals are generally large, well-staffed and have the
best facilities and expertise available. Probably not as good as the
best in the world but pretty good all the same.
> Every time some politician in America proposed some kind of national
> health care system, I always ask the same question: Can he guarantee
> that those of us who already have generous private insurance won't end
> up with a worse quality of care under his proposed national health care
> system?
>
> I have never gotten an answer, which tells me the answer must be no.
>
>
If you took a vote in the UK on whether we wanted to shut down the NHS
and go over to a private health care system funded by health insurance I
am sure you would get an overwhelming NO. It would be political suicide
for any politician to even suggest holding such a poll.
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote
> But is this a balanced view? In any system individuals will make mistakes
> and the only news the papers print is bad news. I have lived with the NHS
> all my life and have only ever had excellent service from it.
I don't doubt it, same with Canada. Steven may have a great plan and fine
doctors but these are becoming less common. If a doctor orders a test that
must be done in a hospital it can take two months unless it's an emergency.
If your primary care doctor orders a visit to a specialist you can wait
months unless you see another person, sometimes a nurse practitioner and
even then it can take weeks.
I'd really like to know where all of this great care in the U.S. is. I
thought I had the dumbest doctor in Massachusetts until I tried to replace
him, I think I have now achieved that end.
Health care and health care insurance inflation is much higher than the long
term returns of the S&P500. Increases in insurance premiums of 15% - 25%
yearly are common.
I don't know what you pay in taxes and government fees but in my state it
really is a huge sum.
When you add real estate taxes, automobile excise taxes, sales taxes, fees
for automobile registration and drivers license, taxes on gasoline, tobacco,
and alcoholic beverages, etc.
It's a long list. We even have fees and taxes on telephone services and
cable television services.
Ed wrote:
> "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
>
>
>>But is this a balanced view? In any system individuals will make mistakes
>>and the only news the papers print is bad news. I have lived with the NHS
>>all my life and have only ever had excellent service from it.
>
>
> I don't doubt it, same with Canada. Steven may have a great plan and fine
> doctors but these are becoming less common. If a doctor orders a test that
> must be done in a hospital it can take two months unless it's an emergency.
>
> If your primary care doctor orders a visit to a specialist you can wait
> months unless you see another person, sometimes a nurse practitioner and
> even then it can take weeks.
>
> I'd really like to know where all of this great care in the U.S. is. I
> thought I had the dumbest doctor in Massachusetts until I tried to replace
> him, I think I have now achieved that end.
>
> Health care and health care insurance inflation is much higher than the long
> term returns of the S&P500. Increases in insurance premiums of 15% - 25%
> yearly are common.
>
> I don't know what you pay in taxes and government fees but in my state it
> really is a huge sum.
> When you add real estate taxes, automobile excise taxes, sales taxes, fees
> for automobile registration and drivers license, taxes on gasoline, tobacco,
> and alcoholic beverages, etc.
> It's a long list. We even have fees and taxes on telephone services and
> cable television services.
>
>
I would be surprised if we don't beat you on taxes. We have income tax
when you earn it, all sorts of taxes like Council tax to local
authorities and car tax, TV licenses. etc. even when you just stand
still and then VAT (Value Added Tax) when you spend it, on almost
everything. Then there is Stamp Duty on house sales and if you have
anything left at the end, Inheritance Tax on your estate. The big one
though is petrol tax which puts petrol (gas to you) up to about the
equivalent of $7/gal.
"David Wilkinson" <> wrote in message
news:dbicaq$ksr$
> I would be surprised if we don't beat you on taxes. We have income tax
> when you earn it, all sorts of taxes like Council tax to local
> authorities and car tax, TV licenses. etc. even when you just stand
> still and then VAT (Value Added Tax) when you spend it, on almost
> everything. Then there is Stamp Duty on house sales and if you have
> anything left at the end, Inheritance Tax on your estate. The big one
> though is petrol tax which puts petrol (gas to you) up to about the
> equivalent of $7/gal.
Massachusetts has an undeserved reputation for being the most heavily taxed
state. Even so, our taxes don't come close to those in European welfare
states.
People with "generous" healthcare benefits don't understand how much they
are paying for them. Employers don't grant insurance out of concern for
their employees, it is just a part of the compensation package.
Also, people don't realize that they may come into work, tomorrow, and find
the locks changed, their jobs exported and their "generous" healthcare
benefits gone.
I would like to know where the OP found a family plan for $500 a month. I
pay that for an individual (group) plan but get excellent service with no
waits, ready access to specialists and prescription coverage.
-herb
Herb <> wrote:
> I would like to know where the OP found a family plan for $500 a month. I
> pay that for an individual (group) plan but get excellent service with no
> waits, ready access to specialists and prescription coverage.
My family plan is thru my employer - JP Morgan Chase. I'm sure they're paying
a pretty penny on their end, even with the tax credits they're given for
supplying it.
I had to buy health care on my own for my daughter once and it was $83 a month
from Blue Cross. Actually, it was better than the work plan I'm on now.
I'd do some shopping around.
"Herb" <> wrote
> Massachusetts has an undeserved reputation for being the most heavily
> taxed
> state.
Massachusetts ranks 7th highest in the country on a per capita basis (2004).
Per capita, $2,602
1. Hawaii
2. Wyoming
3. Connecticut
4. Minnesota
5. Delaware
6. Vermont
As a percent of personal income, Massachusetts ranks 30.
This study is based on 2004 tax revenue by state.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Economic Anaylsis
I should add that the figures below do not include many taxes including real
estate taxes, excise taxes, etc. My real estate tax is twice what the per
capita figure of $2,602, if I paid this amount they are not including about
$5,200. This figure would be $6,000 if we add automobile excise taxes. Using
the per capita figure and including just these two other taxes would bring
me to $8,600
Hawaii at number one has a per capita figure of $3,048. As you can see I'm
way way over that. These studies are not all that useful.
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Herb" <> wrote
>
>> Massachusetts has an undeserved reputation for being the most heavily
>> taxed
>> state.
>
> Massachusetts ranks 7th highest in the country on a per capita basis
> (2004).
> Per capita, $2,602
>
> 1. Hawaii
> 2. Wyoming
> 3. Connecticut
> 4. Minnesota
> 5. Delaware
> 6. Vermont
>
> As a percent of personal income, Massachusetts ranks 30.
>
> This study is based on 2004 tax revenue by state.
> Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Economic Anaylsis
>
Wyoming has no state income tax ... go figure? Hawaii has high state
income taxes if you make over $80k, but if under your taxes are low. Not
surprised that Minnesota is on the top list, they have a lot of social
welfare spending.
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> "Herb" <> wrote
>
>> Massachusetts has an undeserved reputation for being the most heavily
>> taxed
>> state.
>
> Massachusetts ranks 7th highest in the country on a per capita basis
> (2004).
> Per capita, $2,602
>
> 1. Hawaii
> 2. Wyoming
> 3. Connecticut
> 4. Minnesota
> 5. Delaware
> 6. Vermont
>
> As a percent of personal income, Massachusetts ranks 30.
>
> This study is based on 2004 tax revenue by state.
> Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census and Bureau of Economic Anaylsis
>
"Ed" <> wrote in message
news:
> I should add that the figures below do not include many taxes
> including estate taxes, excise taxes, etc.
It depends in part, upon the state (whether the state collects the local
property taxes or whether it is collected by the localities). The 2004
local data do not seem to have been compiled yet. Here is what went into
the 2004 state figures:
Here's the "master" page for the data:
And if you look at the 2002 figures (the last ones compiled with complete
state and local revenues), you'll see that Mass. is close to the bottom of
the list (lowest) for taxes as a percentage of personal income:
> ...
> These studies are not all that useful.
Try looking at studies that provide more comprehensive breakdowns. For
example, following some of the links above can get you to:
This shows the typical taxes (income, property, sales, car) of a family of
four in the largest city in each state, for various household income levels.
At the $25K income level, Boston ranks 13th highest (combined state/local
8.0% rate), at $50K, still 13th (9.8%); at $75K 12th (10.5%); at $100K 15th
(10.3%); at $150K 19th (10.1%). Not exactly the progressive city that
people make it out to be (cf. NYC).
It goes into more detail on each different type of tax, as well.
--
Mark Freeland
I wrote in message news:PvdDe.4795$p%
> And if you look at the 2002 figures (the last ones compiled with
> complete state and local revenues), you'll see that Mass. is close
> to the bottom of the list (lowest) for taxes as a percentage of
> personal income:
>
Wrong link. Try again.
--
Mark Freeland
Ed <> wrote:
>> Massachusetts has an undeserved reputation for being the most heavily
>> taxed
>> state.
> Massachusetts ranks 7th highest in the country on a per capita basis (2004).
> Per capita, $2,602
The rate of taxation in Mass shouldn't discourage anyone from living there.
Really, you have more economic oppurtunity in a state like NY, California
or Mass then you will in say - Mississippi or Alabama.
David Wilkinson wrote:
> Ed wrote:
> > "David Wilkinson" <> wrote
> >
> >
> >
> I would be surprised if we don't beat you on taxes. We have income tax
> when you earn it, all sorts of taxes like Council tax to local
> authorities and car tax, TV licenses. etc. even when you just stand
> still and then VAT (Value Added Tax) when you spend it, on almost
> everything. Then there is Stamp Duty on house sales and if you have
> anything left at the end, Inheritance Tax on your estate. The big one
> though is petrol tax which puts petrol (gas to you) up to about the
> equivalent of $7/gal.
Doing a rough mental calculation: It's about $2.20 in the US I believe.
The UK is 90p ish a litre which is =A34.00 per Imperial Gallon or about
=A33.20 per US gallon (one fifth smaller) which is about $5.79 at
current exchange rates. Real petrol duties have fallen by about 10% in
the UK (ie after inflation) in the last 5 years. The real cost of
driving has fallen about 30% since the early 1970s (source: The
Economist) taking into account cost of car, road tax, petrol,
insurance-- it has risen by approximately 70% for bus users and 40% for
rail users in the same time.
- Americans pay directly for their health insurance. Coverage for a
typical family of 4 is, AFAIK, circa $5000 ( I know a couple in NYC who
pay over $6k a year, they are healthy and in their early 40s and have
no children). You would have to add this to their burden of taxation
to make a true like for like comparison. Obviously if you have a
serious pre existing condition you are uninsurable in the US.
- Relative to Europe, the UK has low income taxes but high consumption
taxes (especially petrol, alcohol and tobacco)
- certainly I pay lower income taxes than my friends in New York City
and my property taxes are far, far lower
- you can proxy total tax burden by percentage of GDP devoted to govt
spending/ GDP. In which case Japan is high 20s, US is low 30s, UK is
high 30s, rest of Europe is mid 40s to low 50s.
(warning: the local/state/ federal balance in the UK is very skewed
(only about 18% of local govt spending comes from local taxes, and
there are effectively no states) -- I am never sure whether these
ratios capture state and municipal spending fully (a big factor in the
US where property taxes pay for schools and in Canada and Germany).
The biggest 'tax' is the cost of housing. Boston is a high growth,
high income area but also one with very expensive housing. That, more
than anything, I suspect, accounts for the flight to the sunbelt
(companies want cheaper workers, so they move some place where you can
afford to pay people less, and workers, wanting cheaper homes or more
home for the money, move there as well) especially places like Las
Vegas and Atlanta.
You could argue the worst problem in Mass is local zoning laws which
restrict housing development.
Mass has high taxes (in terms of $/capita) because people are paid a
lot.
"darkness39" <> wrote
> Mass has high taxes (in terms of $/capita) because people are paid a
> lot.
Mass has a high tax burdon because it's a welfare state, you don't know what
you're talking about. The free-loaders, unions, welfare cheats all
contribute to the states problems. Massachusetts is too liberal and has no
problem attacking a working persons income to help out someone that doesn't
or won't work. People from all over the world come to this state for
handouts. It should be more difficult.
"darkness39" <> wrote
- Americans pay directly for their health insurance. Coverage for a
typical family of 4 is, AFAIK, circa $5000 ( I know a couple in NYC who
pay over $6k a year, they are healthy and in their early 40s and have
no children). You would have to add this to their burden of taxation
to make a true like for like comparison. Obviously if you have a
serious pre existing condition you are uninsurable in the US.
You're out of your mind. If a family plan is $6,000/year then it doesn't
cover anything.
Ed <> wrote:
> You're out of your mind. If a family plan is $6,000/year then it doesn't
> cover anything.
Are you saying it's more to cover a family? If you are then you're just
proving his point.
We spend about $8k a year - $6k on health insurance + 2K in a HSA account.
This is thru an employer. Talking to some people who work for other
fortune 500 companies, this is pretty common place.
"Mike Stone" <> wrote
> Ed <> wrote:
>> You're out of your mind. If a family plan is $6,000/year then it doesn't
>> cover anything.
>
> Are you saying it's more to cover a family? If you are then you're just
> proving his point.
How so? I've always had BlueCross/BlueShield of Massachusetts. The family
plan is more expensive than the individual plan with the same coverage. As I
recall, the difference isn't that great and it's the same for a family of 3
or a family of 6. The individual subsidizes the family. Forced charity. In
addition, a large percent of the premiums paid goes to fund free care for
those that elect not to work, forced charity.
> We spend about $8k a year - $6k on health insurance + 2K in a HSA account.
> This is thru an employer. Talking to some people who work for other
> fortune 500 companies, this is pretty common place.
And how much does your employer kick in?
What is covered?
What is not covered?
Do you have a co-pay?
Are hospital stays covered 100%?
Ed <> wrote:
>> We spend about $8k a year - $6k on health insurance + 2K in a HSA account.
>> This is thru an employer. Talking to some people who work for other
>> fortune 500 companies, this is pretty common place.
> And how much does your employer kick in?
> What is covered?
> What is not covered?
> Do you have a co-pay?
> Are hospital stays covered 100%?
It absolutely sucks. The HSA just gives the insurance company to pay
less and offload the costs onto us.
Doesn't everyone have a co-pay?
"Mike Stone" <> wrote in message
news:0dwDe.22828$
> Ed <> wrote:
>>> We spend about $8k a year - $6k on health insurance + 2K in a HSA
>>> account.
>>> This is thru an employer. Talking to some people who work for other
>>> fortune 500 companies, this is pretty common place.
>> And how much does your employer kick in?
>> What is covered?
>> What is not covered?
>> Do you have a co-pay?
>> Are hospital stays covered 100%?
>
> It absolutely sucks. The HSA just gives the insurance company to pay
> less and offload the costs onto us.
>
> Doesn't everyone have a co-pay?
My current plan:
$15 for office visits.
$10 for generic drugs, 90 days
$20 for brand name drugs, 90 days
Emergency room, $75
Cost through employer (wife's) $173.94/month or $2,087.28/year.
Covers myself and my wife.
No deductable.
Prior to this I was paying for the health insurance.
$1,000 deductable for each of us.
All other services were 20%/80% including drugs.
Cost, $6,400 but that was 5 years ago.
We always met the deductable bringing the actual cost to $8,400. The 20% we
paid always brought us to over $10,000 and more usually about $12,000. 5
years ago. Health care insurance has had some very healthy increases each
year for the last 5, I have no idea what it would cost not.
"Mike Stone" <> wrote in message
news:T9vDe.31123$
> Ed <> wrote:
>> You're out of your mind. If a family plan is $6,000/year then it doesn't
>> cover anything.
>
> Are you saying it's more to cover a family? If you are then you're just
> proving his point.
>
> We spend about $8k a year - $6k on health insurance + 2K in a HSA account.
> This is thru an employer. Talking to some people who work for other
> fortune 500 companies, this is pretty common place.
>
2 adults, 3 children.
$164 deducted from my check weekly ( I pay half the premiums cost)
$164 x 52 weeks = $8424 (my half) X's 2 = $16,848 annual premium,
for a 90/10 policy with a $1000.00 deductible.
For $702 a month, I could be in a new Bentley each year.
United Health Care, BITE ME!
Ed wrote:
> "darkness39" <> wrote
>
> > Mass has high taxes (in terms of $/capita) because people are paid a
> > lot.
>
> Mass has a high tax burdon because it's a welfare state, you don't know what
> you're talking about.
What you just said does not prove me wrong. Wages in Mass are well
above the national average so the same percentage tax take will lead to
a higher dollar figure. It's called mathematics.
The free-loaders, unions, welfare cheats all
> contribute to the states problems.
- can you cite stats on: incidence of welfare in Mass relative to other
NE states? Incidence of welfare cheats relative to other states?
- can you cite welfare paid for by the State as a share of state budget
and relative to other states?
- what percentage of those benefits are Federally Mandated and/ or with
the levels of benefit determined by the Federal government?
Massachusetts is too liberal
- define: it has one of the lowest divorce rates in the Union and a
relatively low crime rate. Is that too liberal?
and has no
> problem attacking a working persons income to help out someone that doesn't
> or won't work.
- what is labour force participation in Mass of people of working age
relative to other US states? (need to adjust for Mass' very large
college population)
You could argue Mass has too many students. The state makes an
extraordinary commitment to higher education, both public and private.
Those bloody Puritans ;-).
People from all over the world come to this state for
> handouts.
- Any cites? Sweden would be a better place to live in if you are
planning to scrounge, or Norway.
It should be more difficult.
- You could move to New Hampshire. It is not far ;-).
I am glad you agree US taxes are higher than they look on paper, when
you factor in health insurance.
I really think you would be better off moving to North Carolina or
Nevada (or even New Hampshire) rather than sitting on the internet and
bitching about Mass. You will undoubtedly be happier and taxes will
probably be lower (especially for those in the $200k+ bracket).
Next thing I know you are going to tell me the weather in Mass is
horrible ;-).
I am glad you agree US taxes are higher than they look on paper, when
you factor in health insurance.
I really think you would be better off moving to North Carolina or
Nevada (or even New Hampshire) rather than sitting on the internet and
bitching about Mass. You will undoubtedly be happier and taxes will
probably be lower (especially for those in the $200k+ bracket).
Next thing I know you are going to tell me the weather in Mass is
horrible ;-).
"darkness39" <> wrote
>> Mass has a high tax burdon because it's a welfare state, you don't know
>> what
>> you're talking about.
>
> What you just said does not prove me wrong. Wages in Mass are well
> above the national average so the same percentage tax take will lead to
> a higher dollar figure. It's called mathematics.
>
> The free-loaders, unions, welfare cheats all
>> contribute to the states problems.
>
> - can you cite stats on: incidence of welfare in Mass relative to other
> NE states? Incidence of welfare cheats relative to other states?
> - can you cite welfare paid for by the State as a share of state budget
> and relative to other states?
Very difficult to do so because much of this stuff is hidden from the
public.
> - what percentage of those benefits are Federally Mandated and/ or with
> the levels of benefit determined by the Federal government?
It doesn't matter to me, all that matters is the amount I must pay.
> Massachusetts is too liberal
>
> - define: it has one of the lowest divorce rates in the Union and a
> relatively low crime rate. Is that too liberal?
Too liberal as in Chet Atkins, Barney Frank, Michael Dukakis, the list goes
on.
Atkins for inviting the "boat people" to MA at enormous cost. Where is Chet
now?
Frank, becauses he's Frank.
Dukakis because he was so unhappy that 3 other states had higher taxes than
MA while he screwed up as governor went out and issued phoney ID's to
illegal aliens so that the could get welfare benefits.
> - what is labour force participation in Mass of people of working age
> relative to other US states? (need to adjust for Mass' very large
> college population)
....and don't forget to adjust for the illegal aliens, the new crop are
mostly from S. America.
Each time I visit the hospital the ER is full of these people. I wonder
who's paying for that?
> You could argue Mass has too many students. The state makes an
> extraordinary commitment to higher education, both public and private.
> Those bloody Puritans ;-).
>
> People from all over the world come to this state for
>> handouts.
>
> - Any cites? Sweden would be a better place to live in if you are
> planning to scrounge, or Norway.
I'll give it some thought. Anything warmer?
> - You could move to New Hampshire. It is not far ;-).
Lots of people did, lots came back. NH isn't as great as people think it is.
They may not have an income or sales tax but they have extremely high
property taxes as well as a host of fees to make up the money they need. The
sad thing is that a large percentage of NH residents work in MA. They must
pay MA income taxes in addition to their high RE taxes. This may be why so
many return to MA.
"darkness39" <> wrote
>I am glad you agree US taxes are higher than they look on paper, when
> you factor in health insurance.
Much higher. Heath insurance isn't a tax although it takes tax dollars to
pay for the care of those who don't have it.
> I really think you would be better off moving to North Carolina or
> Nevada (or even New Hampshire) rather than sitting on the internet and
> bitching about Mass. You will undoubtedly be happier and taxes will
> probably be lower (especially for those in the $200k+ bracket).
N. Carolina has too many hurricanes, no interest in Nevada.
> Next thing I know you are going to tell me the weather in Mass is
> horrible ;-).
It can be extreme but spring and fall are fantastic.
Ed <> wrote:
> Very difficult to do so because much of this stuff is hidden from the
> public.
No it isn't. Come on, you're building a straw man out of the state of
Massuchusetts based on GOP talking points and radio talk show vomit.
> It doesn't matter to me, all that matters is the amount I must pay.
The vast majority of this country's wealth is focused in on blue states.
They collect more in taxes and pay more in taxes than red states to the
federal government who in turn use more welfare.
Bottom line, there is much more welfare in red states then there are
in places like Mass.
> Each time I visit the hospital the ER is full of these people. I wonder
> who's paying for that?
Right, health insurance companies cutting benefits, raising premiums and
doubling their profits in the last few years has NOTHING to do with it.
"Mike Stone" <> wrote
> Bottom line, there is much more welfare in red states then there are
> in places like Mass.
Convince me. Saying it's so isn't enough.
>> Each time I visit the hospital the ER is full of these people. I wonder
>> who's paying for that?
>
> Right, health insurance companies cutting benefits, raising premiums and
> doubling their profits in the last few years has NOTHING to do with it.
Except for those premiums that are targeted to FreeCare, what does your
statement have to do with they large number of people that regularly use the
ER of the states hospitals as their free doctors office?
As far as insurance companies go, they are a big part of the problem.
Anything you have to say about health insurance that is bad will get my full
support.
Ed <> wrote:
> Convince me. Saying it's so isn't enough.
Here's the raw data. 30 red states, 21 blue states. The blue
states earn more money, pay more in taxes and get less back
from the federal government.
Add up the data on your own. Here are some people who already
have:
> Except for those premiums that are targeted to FreeCare, what does your
> statement have to do with they large number of people that regularly use the
> ER of the states hospitals as their free doctors office?
I'm an independant. I'm against illegal immigrants coming in and getting health
care. I'm sure this plays a part but I don't trust politicians when they scape
goat poor people and turn around and hand out welfare to the well todo and
cover it up by saying "that's capitalism!". Focusing on FreeCare is a diversionary
tactic.
So you've got a point there that I'm not going to argue against. But the statistics
on health care show that "FreeCare" is a very small percentage of this problem.
What government prospers without focused spending from the government & a strong
emphasis on the health and education of their people?
Take a look around the world and you'll see time and time again that privatization
of social security has been tried and failed, privatizing water systems and other
utlities has gone bust, flat taxes end up becoming progressive etc..etc..etc..etc..
I don't know why still cling to these beliefs. And no, I'm not advocating socialism
either.
-Mike
"Mike Stone" <> wrote
>> Convince me. Saying it's so isn't enough.
>
> Here's the raw data. 30 red states, 21 blue states. The blue
> states earn more money, pay more in taxes and get less back
> from the federal government.
Ok, but the federal tax brackets apply to everyone. What make the tax burdon
greater is what your state does to you.
> I'm an independant. I'm against illegal immigrants coming in and getting
> health
> care. I'm sure this plays a part but I don't trust politicians when they
> scape
> goat poor people and turn around and hand out welfare to the well todo
> and
> cover it up by saying "that's capitalism!". Focusing on FreeCare is a
> diversionary
> tactic.
I don't mean it to be diversionary. It's a real issue.
> So you've got a point there that I'm not going to argue against. But the
> statistics
> on health care show that "FreeCare" is a very small percentage of this
> problem.
Depends on how you look at it. By itself it may be small, but what it does
is pay hospitals so little it drives up costs for those that pay out of
pocket or through an insurance program. Hospitals blame Medicaid and
FreeCare for the $8 aspirin and the $129 box of facial tissue.
> What government prospers without focused spending from the government & a
> strong
> emphasis on the health and education of their people?
> Take a look around the world and you'll see time and time again that
> privatization
> of social security has been tried and failed, privatizing water systems
> and other
> utlities has gone bust, flat taxes end up becoming progressive
> etc..etc..etc..etc..
I don't know of many utilities that aren't private already with the
exception of water.
A flat tax isn't flat and you know that. I don't know how much one has to
earn before paying any tax but let's say it's $20,000. So everything over
this $20,000 would be subject to a flat tax of say 15%.
The person making $30,000 pays $1,500 in taxes, the person making $500,000
pays $72,000. What is flat about that? The second person made only 16.67
times what the first did and paid 49 times the tax.
Flat as a percentage of income.
Do your maths:
As your income rises under a flat tax system with a fixed exemption
level, your tax rate will converge on the flat tax rate.
If the basic exemption is zero then it automatically converges to the
tax rate.
What you are proposing is a lump sum, or poll, tax. Such has been
implemented in eg the UK to fund local government but it led to massive
nonpayment, riots and civil strife. Eventually the government modified
it to make it look more like a conventional property tax (based on the
value of the property you occupy).
Privatisation doesn't do away with the problem of Monopoly.
Telmex was privatised with a regime that allowd it to rip off its
customers, Mexico has some of the highest phone rates in the world. A
successful privatisation from the shareholder point of view, the
cornerstone of one of Mexico's largest conglomerates, but not from the
consumer point of view.
Basically monopolies exist where there are strong increasing returns to
scale (in the original telephone networks, there were different, rival
networks until the Bell System came along and forced everyone to use
the same technology and drove its competitors out of business).
So water supply is a natural monopoly. Ditto the electricity grid (but
modern metering technology makes it possible to buy power from
different producers, with the grid only applying a transport charge).
Phones used to be, now they are not (technology change).
They also exist where there are strong informational problems
(consumers can't find out what they need to know) or strong free rider
problems (law and order, fire departments, defence) where everyone
benefits, but the marginal customer will 'free ride' if offered the
chance.
Wherever you have these problems of monopoly, you wind up with someone
having to regulate the monopoly. Monopolies to profit maximise
overprice and under provide their services, unless they are regulated.
It's interesting Warren Buffet is buying heavily into regulated
industries (electricity)-- obviously the long run stable returns are
attractive, with similar characteristics to his earlier purchases of
newspapers.
In Red States, 'welfare' is often disguised as 'farm subsidies' or
'military bases' etc. We don't call it 'welfare' but it has similar
effects, except the benefit is given to fewer hands, normally.
The Wall Street Journal had a piece. The US subsidises each cotton
producer to the tune of an average of $850k pa. Most of them are in
Mississippi, the poorest state in the Union. Now if we simply
cancelled those subsidies, allowed cheaper foreign cotton to come in
(benefiting the US textile industry, which is concentrated in very low
wage, poor parts of the US), and gave that subsidy as a tax credit to
every family in Mississippi (we are talking several billion dollars
here), wouldn't Mississippi as as state be better off?
Are you saying that this isn't accurate?:
A flat tax isn't flat and you know that. I don't know how much one has to
earn before paying any tax but let's say it's $20,000. So everything over
this $20,000 would be subject to a flat tax of say 15%.
The person making $30,000 pays $1,500 in taxes, the person making $500,000
pays $72,000. What is flat about that? The second person made only 16.67
times what the first did and paid 49 times the tax.
"darkness39" <> wrote
> Flat as a percentage of income.
>
> Do your maths:
>
> As your income rises under a flat tax system with a fixed exemption
> level, your tax rate will converge on the flat tax rate.
>
> If the basic exemption is zero then it automatically converges to the
> tax rate.
>
> What you are proposing is a lump sum, or poll, tax. Such has been
> implemented in eg the UK to fund local government but it led to massive
> nonpayment, riots and civil strife. Eventually the government modified
> it to make it look more like a conventional property tax (based on the
> value of the property you occupy).
>
Ed <> wrote:
> Ok, but the federal tax brackets apply to everyone. What make the tax burdon
> greater is what your state does to you.
Which proves the point of the data I cited. Blue states have higher
income, fewer people, are less prevalent and pay more federal tax.
They get less back from the federal government. They subsidize
red states.
> Depends on how you look at it. By itself it may be small, but what it does
> is pay hospitals so little it drives up costs for those that pay out of
> pocket or through an insurance program. Hospitals blame Medicaid and
> FreeCare for the $8 aspirin and the $129 box of facial tissue.
Is there a model for free market health care anywhere in the world that
delivers results as well as some european countries with single payer?