A few readers are under the assumption that I have forgotten about Steverman's Secret Financial Weapons of the Super Rich. Rest assured, I have not. Let's take a look at the next two shall we?
Lower Fees
Rich investors "should be able to get the absolute maximum discount," says Paul Sutherland, president of Financial and Investment Management Group, a wealth manager. They can wind up paying only 15 percent of a mutual fund's maximum fees, he says.
Financial Advice
The super-rich can afford the best advice. They can hire lawyers and accountants to lower their tax bills, insurance experts to get them the best deals and protection from losses, and personal financial advisers to scrutinize each investment.
So, yet another answer to the question, "How do the wealthy fuck people over?" is that the game is rigged in their favor. They always win. No wonder the right loves them so much!
22 comments:
So when I buy a can of Coke at 7-11 for a $1.00 then go to Costco and buy a case at $0.35 each, am I a rich person fucking people over by being able to rig the game? Or is it more likely that I am taking advantage of simple economics in action by buying in volume?
Can you see the relevance there M? Joe Average and his $5000 worth of investment compared to Chauncey McBucks and his $500,000? Which one is buying in bulk?
Financial Advise? Yeah, that's an awesome point too. How much are you willing to spend on experts to save you 1% on your taxes? Here's a hint, if your income is more you can spend more to save more. I could have spent $10,000 on financial advice this year - (I am not prohibited from utilizing their services) - but if after spending all that cash I only realized a tax savings of $1000 it doesn't actually make sense to do so does it?
But Chauncey on the other hand can spend that $10k on his taxable of $1 million and realize a $50 savings. It's not being rich Mark, it's math.
Errrm, make that...
But Chauncey on the other hand can spend that $10k on his taxable of $1 million and realize a $50k savings. It's not being rich Mark, it's math.
Why do these concepts continue to confound? Oh yeah, undereducated progressives!
Perhaps your silliest attempt to explain your economic theories, to date.
I choose to not refute a single word of it, in hopes you can get sillier in the future.
So, yet another answer to the question, "How do the wealthy fuck people over?"
In other words, it doesn't happen to actual people and you refuse to amend your beliefs to accord with reality.
I really didn't have much doubt about that M.
EAT THE RICH! and see what happens at just before the 8 minute mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ
EAT THE RICH!
Perhaps those that so greatly disdain/envy the wealthy hope that the ancient notion of becoming what you eat holds true in this case.
I finally got around to watching that video. Do you guys honestly think that video contains any facts or has any bearing on reality at all? Voices In My Head, indeed. Bill Whittle is angling to be the next Glenn Beck. Destroyed private capital...where exactly? It's the opposite that is actually true. Seriously, what's the matter with you people?
Do you guys honestly think that video contains any facts or has any bearing on reality at all?
What? Are you saying film/video is not a serious intellectual medium? Can't say about this one myself since I didn't bother - my experience has been that 99% of youtube is pure crap. But that's just my opinion, YMMV.
The medium has nothing to do with it, juris. It's the content which is a combination of lies and conservative "hit songs." No genetic fallacies here:)
Sad that you think that "Inside Job" is in the same category. There's a chasm of difference between Whittle and Ferguson. I won't hold my breath for you to see it. If it's lefty (i.e. something I don't like), then it has to be just like conservative lies and spin, right?
Projecting like a Saturday matinee.
Do you guys honestly think that video contains any facts or has any bearing on reality at all?
I know it is painful to face that your entire reality is laid out as completely wrong, yet again, but this time so plainly and graphically that all you can do is deny. Eat the Rich is EXACTLY what you have been advocating, M, and just like I pointed out from another source, this is not a revenue problem and you can't tax enough to get out of it. It is a spending problem that the democraps have accelerated exponentially and needs fixing.
"Do you guys honestly think that video contains any facts or has any bearing on reality at all?"
So you are saying that every single word in the video is a lie? No point in me watching it then. Give me one of the lies they tell, will you?
Yeah, I'd debate someone on lies in that video who is posting as Anonymous. 6Kings, what a sad comment and really telling at how much you misunderstand Mark. Correct me if I am wrong, Mark, but you have no problem with their being a class system with wealthy people, a middle class, and a lower class, correct? Or capitalism? What is he trying to say is that we can't have a plutocracy. it's dangerous. I've also read him say many times that spending cuts are fine but they won't be enough. Again, another inaccurate characterization. Why do you insist on carrying water for the wealthy? They are still going to be rich and just fine with any of the tax increases Mark or any Democrat would support. Why do you live in a paranoid fantasy, sir?
Yeah, I'd debate someone on lies in that video who is posting as Anonymous.
And you really are Santa, right?
Holy hysterical hypocrisy!
I've also read him say many times that spending cuts are fine but they won't be enough.
The U.S. govt has collected pretty close to 18% of GDP throughout the post WWII era. Doesn't matter the tax rate, roughly the same percent goes to the feds - that is history. Do you have some evidence that you can change that - I'd love to hear it. If not, then you better plan on cutting spending from over 21% of GDP to something in line with historic tax receipts.
Or should we just believe what fantasy characters have to say?
Ok, Santa. Pick a lie in that and point it out! I will personally email Whittle on a 'lie' so list it and the source you find that points to a lie.
But of course none of them are lies, 6Kings. He does have so many true believers:)
Santa, you are correct in your assessment. I have no problem with wealthy people. In fact, I am close friends with many and related to some. I have no problem with capitalism...an upper, middle and lower class. It's not the greatest system but it does work better than anything else out there.
The problem is that we have a large group of people (some who comment here) that are under the mistaken impression that welfare capitalism is socialism or totalitarianism. It's not. They think this because they are living in a fantasy land of imaginary problems. They are all too eager (see: angry, hateful, and fearful) to be fed this bill of goods by a small group of people that very much want a firm plutocracy. Why they carry water, as you put it, for these people is beyond me but it is ironic for they are, in fact, the "useful idiots."
Once again, attacking their opponents with what is their greatest weakness. A classic that never gets old!
Once again, attacking their opponents with what is their greatest weakness.
Preach it M, PREACH it. Don't dare discuss a fucking thing.
"Do you guys honestly think that video contains any facts or has any bearing on reality at all?"
So you are saying that every single word in the video is a lie? No point in me watching it then. Give me one of the lies they tell, will you?
That better? Can we open a dialogue now?
Going back to Guardducks first post, there is nothing stopping me from hiring lawyers and a team of accountants to help with my taxes but there is very little benefit for me to do that. The point isn't that I don't do it, the point is that I could if I wanted to.
Going to the link you posted about low mutual fund fees, The fees on my Roth IRA at Vanguard are only .26...way, way lower than the .50 that article talks about and way the hell lower than the 1.5% expense ratio that some people apparantly pay out.
Say you pay 1% annually to your "money guy" who has your $1 million total portfolio in mutual funds with 1.5% expense ratios (and I'm not even adding in marketing fees, load fees, etc that are common in many mutual funds).
On your portfolio of $1 million, you pay $25,000 a year in fees (1,000,000 x 2.5%).
On my portfolio of $1 million, I pay $2600 a year in fees (1,000,000 x .26).
The mutual fund I invest in is VLACX. .26 expense ratio, no load fees, no marketing fees. Look it up.
How would you like it if I "took" $25,000 out of your portfolio each year, simply for performing about 15 minutes of work to it each year for rebalancing?
Hell my annual fees are 50 percent less than the .50 rate that apparantly is the line where people get fucked over. I must REALLY be fucking people over.
Can you rephrase that statement Santa? My translational skills aren't up to par...
He can't rephrase it because I'm too busy fucking people over in this thread.
Post a Comment