Book: Prosecutors were prepared to indict Clintons

[Denny Crane]

"Wright said: "Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false."

However, Clinton has steadfastly maintained that the statements he made in the Jones deposition were "legally accurate."

Lying, but not perjury. Lying is not an impeachable offense.

Actually, lying is an impeachable offense. The articles of impeachment drafted for Nixon included "making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;"

Also: "withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;"

And: "interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;"

And: "making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct:"

(See: http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml)

 

[MARIS61]

Permanently paid off some of the debt.

Fixed your misleading conclusion for you.

 

[yakbladder]

Denny, so far as I can tell, you call them straight up. The lefties here are personally attacking you in an uncalled for way- and they know it, but that's what lefties do. It's just their nature. So continue to post as you see it. For those who actually believe in fairness and honesty, they have no problems with your posts- may not always agree, but at least you make good efforts to back up your posts.

Repp'd.

Hrm..painting with an awfully large brush stroke there, Picasso... might want to look up hypocrite in your book to see what's there.

 

[Denny Crane]

Fixed your misleading conclusion for you.

No you didn't.

The national debt was $5.6T in 2000 when Clinton left office.

 

[barfo]

Temporarily paid down some of the debt.

You claim that the stock market crash caused people to mortgage their houses to pay 15% tax on their life savings. That would have happened in 2001, since the crash was in 2000. Yet cap gains tax collections went down in 2001. One would think, if the effect is as big as you were implying it was, that tax collections would have gone up.

I don't see anything wrong with what you are proposing in theory, but I highly doubt there were very many people actually affected in that way. You are taking a "could happen" scenario and asserting that it did happen, and that it happened to a huge number of people. If it had, we'd probably have heard about it before, and you wouldn't have to rely on one article that presents a hypothetical as evidence that it did happen.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

You claim that the stock market crash caused people to mortgage their houses to pay 15% tax on their life savings. That would have happened in 2001, since the crash was in 2000. Yet cap gains tax collections went down in 2001. One would think, if the effect is as big as you were implying it was, that tax collections would have gone up.

I don't see anything wrong with what you are proposing in theory, but I highly doubt there were very many people actually affected in that way. You are taking a "could happen" scenario and asserting that it did happen, and that it happened to a huge number of people. If it had, we'd probably have heard about it before, and you wouldn't have to rely on one article that presents a hypothetical as evidence that it did happen.

barfo

The gains were made in 1999, people paid their taxes for 1999 by April 15 of 2000.

 

[barfo]

The gains were made in 1999, people paid their taxes for 1999 by April 15 of 2000.

Well, now that doesn't make any damn sense at all.

Your article is about what happens *after* the crash. In the hypothetical, the mutual funds sell off old holdings with big gains *after* the crash, to pay off those who sold the shares in the fund. That means that the gains passed on to shareholders are in 2000, not 1999. Which means the taxes on those gains are due in 2001, not 2000.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Well, now that doesn't make any damn sense at all.

Your article is about what happens *after* the crash. In the hypothetical, the mutual funds sell off old holdings with big gains *after* the crash, to pay off those who sold the shares in the fund. That means that the gains passed on to shareholders are in 2000, not 1999. Which means the taxes on those gains are due in 2001, not 2000.

barfo

The gains were made in 1999, the losses were made in 2000 and carried forward.

People paid taxes on their gains made in 1999 on Apr. 15, 2000. The govt. saw less income in 2001 because people had losses in 2000 and paid those taxes on Apr. 15 2001.

Mutual funds are cooperatives where people pool their money and have a fund manager do the investment choices for them. When the fund sold stock in 1999 at a profit, people owed taxes on the capital gains for those transactions. When the fund sold stock in 2000 at a loss, people received capital losses, which can be used to was capital gains in the future (hence carried forward).


http://www.fa-mag.com/component/content/article/4-front-liine-news/268.html?Itemid=44

If so-so returns on many mutual funds last year and lousy returns on a lot of funds so far this year weren‚t bad enough, investors might‚ve noticed a nasty little surprise during the recent tax season––larger taxable distributions on their mutual funds.

According to a report by Lipper Inc., buy-and-hold investors of taxable mutual funds paid a record-setting amount of taxes for 2007 estimated at $33.8 billion. That was 42% more than the prior year, and it topped the previous record of $31.3 billion in 2000 during the zenith of the dot-com bubble.

Mutual fund distributions also set a record last year at $581.6 billion, which topped the prior standard of $418.5 billion set in 2006. Part of that is a function of size––the mutual fund industry has become a Goliath, and distributions come with the territory. Another cause is the selling associated with the recent rotation into growth-oriented and large-cap sectors after years of dominance by value-oriented and small- and mid-cap sectors.

As for the rise in taxable distributions for investors, a big factor is that tax-loss carryforwards from the dot-com crash of 2000-2002 have worked their way through the system and can‚t be counted on anymore to offset taxable gains.

 

[barfo]

The gains were made in 1999, the losses were made in 2000 and carried forward.

People paid taxes on their gains made in 1999 on Apr. 15, 2000. The govt. saw less income in 2001 because people had losses in 2000 and paid those taxes on Apr. 15 2001.

Mutual funds are cooperatives where people pool their money and have a fund manager do the investment choices for them. When the fund sold stock in 1999 at a profit, people owed taxes on the capital gains for those transactions. When the fund sold stock in 2000 at a loss, people received capital losses, which can be used to was capital gains in the future (hence carried forward).

Ok, now you are talking sense. Of course, none of that jives with your prior theory based on the about.com article, which was talking about gains caused due to selling in a bear market. 1999 was not a bear market.

As for the rise in taxable distributions for investors, a big factor is that tax-loss carryforwards from the dot-com crash of 2000-2002 have worked their way through the system and can‚t be counted on anymore to offset taxable gains.

What does that have to do with people mortgaging their houses in 2000 to pay their tax bills?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Ok, now you are talking sense. Of course, none of that jives with your prior theory based on the about.com article, which was talking about gains caused due to selling in a bear market. 1999 was not a bear market.

The point is that mutual funds pass on the gains/losses to the investors.

The bear market in 2000 was fueled by people needing to pay taxes on the gains made by their mutual funds in 1999. April 15th was a run on the banks effect (run on the mutual funds). It was a feedback loop, a downward spiral. The first group of people who sold enough of their mutual fund to pay their taxes put downward pressure on the stocks and forced the funds to sell whatever they could to provide people the liquidity to pay the taxes.

What does that have to do with people mortgaging their houses in 2000 to pay their tax bills?

barfo

If it didn't happen to lots of people, why would this article in an investment advisor industry magazine mention the capital losses? Like I said, they really happened.

 

[Denny Crane]

 

[barfo]

The point is that mutual funds pass on the gains/losses to the investors.

The bear market in 2000 was fueled by people needing to pay taxes on the gains made by their mutual funds in 1999. April 15th was a run on the banks effect (run on the mutual funds). It was a feedback loop, a downward spiral. The first group of people who sold enough of their mutual fund to pay their taxes put downward pressure on the stocks and forced the funds to sell whatever they could to provide people the liquidity to pay the taxes.

Ok, even assuming that what you wrote there about the cause of the crash is literally true, the "people have to mortgage their house to pay for the tax on gains" doesn't apply here. The people who sold in March/April 2000 had money to pay their taxes, because they'd just sold out. They didn't have to take out mortgages.

If it didn't happen to lots of people, why would this article in an investment advisor industry magazine mention the capital losses? Like I said, they really happened.

Well, of course losses happened. The stock market crashed. No one is disputing that. We were talking about taxes on gains not losses.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Ok, even assuming that what you wrote there about the cause of the crash is literally true, the "people have to mortgage their house to pay for the tax on gains" doesn't apply here. The people who sold in March/April 2000 had money to pay their taxes, because they'd just sold out. They didn't have to take out mortgages.



Well, of course losses happened. The stock market crashed. No one is disputing that. We were talking about taxes on gains not losses.

barfo

Look at the chart I just provided. People had illusory equity in their houses at the time. Their choice was to sell 15% of their mutual fund into a massively bear market or to find the 15% in one of their other assets. At the time, people didn't know what the NASDAQ's bottom would be, so why would they incur further losses when it seemed so likely the NASDAQ would continue to sell at outrageous valuations?

Regardless, people had to sell assets or borrow against assets to pay the 15% tax. If their entire life savings was $100K in a mutual fund, by the time they sold enough to pay that tax, their life savings could not possibly be more than $85K, and more than likely was considerably less.

Hence the surpluses were indeed illusory and unsustainable. You can't balance the budget for very long by taxing peoples' life savings. They simply will run out of life savings before very long.

 

[barfo]

Look at the chart I just provided. People had illusory equity in their houses at the time.

It's a pretty chart, I like it. But I don't see a lot of illusory equity in 2000. The housing price index looks to be about 120 in 2000. What do you think it should have been then?

Their choice was to sell 15% of their mutual fund into a massively bear market or to find the 15% in one of their other assets. At the time, people didn't know what the NASDAQ's bottom would be, so why would they incur further losses when it seemed so likely the NASDAQ would continue to sell at outrageous valuations?

Regardless, people had to sell assets or borrow against assets to pay the 15% tax.

Well, some people might have. Not everyone had a big cap gains tax bill that year, and some of those who did certainly must have had enough cash on hand to pay.

If their entire life savings was $100K in a mutual fund, by the time they sold enough to pay that tax, their life savings could not possibly be more than $85K, and more than likely was considerably less.

No, I don't think so. $100K in a mutual fund doesn't translate to $100K of capital gains, even in 1999.

Hence the surpluses were indeed illusory and unsustainable. You can't balance the budget for very long by taxing peoples' life savings. They simply will run out of life savings before very long.

You have yet to convince me that that actually happened to any significant degree.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

It's a pretty chart, I like it. But I don't see a lot of illusory equity in 2000. The housing price index looks to be about 120 in 2000. What do you think it should have been then?

Looks like 100 or less in 1999. 20% increase in a year?

Well, some people might have. Not everyone had a big cap gains tax bill that year, and some of those who did certainly must have had enough cash on hand to pay.

Some did, but mom and pop didn't.

No, I don't think so. $100K in a mutual fund doesn't translate to $100K of capital gains, even in 1999.

I'll repeat it. If you had $100K of net worth and only $1K in a mutual fund, you would owe $150 in taxes - it'd still be $150 of your life savings.

You have yet to convince me that that actually happened to any significant degree.

barfo

Done, see above.

 

[barfo]

Looks like 100 or less in 1999. 20% increase in a year?

Looks like about 110 in 1999 to me.

Some did, but mom and pop didn't.

Sorry to hear about your parents misfortune.

I'll repeat it. If you had $100K of net worth and only $1K in a mutual fund, you would owe $150 in taxes - it'd still be $150 of your life savings.

You can repeat it, but it doesn't make it less incorrect. Capital gains taxes are taxes on gains, not on the total value of the investment.

Done, see above.

Definitely not done.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Looks like about 110 in 1999 to me.



Sorry to hear about your parents misfortune.



You can repeat it, but it doesn't make it less incorrect. Capital gains taxes are taxes on gains, not on the total value of the investment.



Definitely not done.

barfo

My repeating it doesn't make it less correct, you mean.

If you have $1 in gains last year and $1 in losses this year, you paid $.15 and you have $.85 left.

No matter what numbers I use, you always end up with your life savings taxed. You didn't lose $.15 anywhere else, since the asset was worth $1 and still is $1.

 

[barfo]

My repeating it doesn't make it less correct, you mean.

well of course that's true also. Your incorrect statement is not any more incorrect because you repeated it.

If you have $1 in gains last year and $1 in losses this year, you paid $.15 and you have $.85 left.

No matter what numbers I use, you always end up with your life savings taxed. You didn't lose $.15 anywhere else, since the asset was worth $1 and still is $1.

well, then maybe you shouldn't invest if you don't want to pay cap Gains tax.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

well of course that's true also. Your incorrect statement is not any more incorrect because you repeated it.


well, then maybe you shouldn't invest if you don't want to pay cap Gains tax.

barfo

Good idea. Let's all be poor when it comes time to retire.

 

[barfo]

Good idea. Let's all be poor when it comes time to retire.

Not all of us. Just those who can't deal with capital gains taxes.

barfo