Jarhead
Gold Member
- Jan 11, 2010
- 20,670
- 2,378
- 245
No. That's not how investors look at it. Risk is balanced to reward, within an acceptable range. Taxes are anyone's guess. Example:
I need minimum 150% of what I put in, contrary to the "bird in the hand" maxim. So I risk a hundred grand for something I think will get me $150 back within the specified time, or better, hopefully.
What's my tax liability if I get $110,863 back, or $190,786 back, or anything in between? Or something more of less? How on earth do I know what in the fuck my increased tax might be?
I just look at return potential, and jump at anything that has a high probability of turning my buck into a buck-fifty, or thereabouts.
you dont even see it, but you are supporting my side of the debate.
You say....
"I need minimum 150% of what I put in"
Well....what you put in is POST TAX dollars......so your 150% has to be calcxulated as post tax dollars.....and so you need to know what the tax is going to be to decide if you can get the return you want.....and you need to use that tax percentage to determine if the investment is worthy.
And you are also supporting the point the GOP has been making......business owners and investors MUST Know what their tax liability will be so they can make educated decisions....so having the tax hikes looming gives business owners more reaon NOT to invest in their companies...for they cant determine what the optimum ROI will be.
Jeez..I read your post and I truly believed we were arguing the same side...but then I re -read some of your other posts and I realized you are just coinfused.
I see it; but's it's bullshit, as in shit, straight from a bull's ass (read: pseudo-economic nonsense, aka, politics masquerading as economics, or business methodology.)
in other words..
What you say, Jarhead, makes sense....so I will bow out by cursing and using terms like "masquerading"...
Sort of expe3cted it to end that way.
Last edited: