• filter:

Chase CEO Jamie Dimon fed up

  • Page :
  • 1
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
Voting History
rated:

Member Summary
Most Recent Posts
the money has to come out of the corporation eventually

rufflesinc (Jul. 19, 2017 @ 1:31p) |

You fail to see the underlying notion of taxing all personal earnings, earned or unearned. That includes dividends. I wo... (more)

SummerSoFar (Jul. 19, 2017 @ 1:46p) |

You can't blame me for that, you separated capital gains from personal income and didn't mention dividends.

scripta (Jul. 19, 2017 @ 4:15p) |

Staff Summary
Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

rated:
eh, wut?

rated:
super useful link and summary thanks!

rated:

rated:
I didn't know Dimon was the final arbitrator.

rated:
It's just a short audio recording of Dimon speaking. Don't know who he's speaking to. Here's the approximate transcript:...you know, if this administration could make breakthroughs in taxes, infrastructure, regulatory reform... we have become one of the most bureaucratic, confusing, litigious societies on the planet. It's almost an embarrassment being an American citizen traveling around the world and listening to the stupid shit we have to deal with in this country. And at one point we all have to get our act together or we won't do what we're supposed to for the average Americans. And, unfortunately, people write about this [make it?] seem like it's for corporations -- it's not for corporations. Competitive taxes are important for business and business growth, which is important for jobs and wage growth. And, you know, honestly, we should be ringing that alarm bell, every single one of you, every time we talk to a client.

rated:
scripta said:   It's just a short audio recording of Dimon speaking. Don't know who he's speaking to. Here's the approximate transcript:
 

  Scripta the real MVP!

rated:
eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is

rated:
rufflesinc said:   eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is


What has that got to do with any of the macro-econ issues he rightly brought up? Unless you think stuck with (sub) 2% GDP growth forever is winning.

rated:
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is


What has that got to do with any of the macro-econ issues he rightly brought up? Unless you think stuck with (sub) 2% GDP growth forever is winning.

  does a higher GDP make you more money? The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth. that is what got to do.

and it's totally bs everything he brought up. he just using the usual boogeymen

rated:
Lowering corp tax rates wont mean more jobs or higher wages. States like Kansas and Missouri have already tested that hypothesis.

rated:
Dimon can pound sand all he wants. Drumpf don't care as he can't blame Barack for it.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   ...The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth.No, it doesn't. It means there's a lot of speculation and expectation of future growth. Corporate profits don't go up just because their stock prices go up.

rated:
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is


What has that got to do with any of the macro-econ issues he rightly brought up? Unless you think stuck with (sub) 2% GDP growth forever is winning.

  
Except the issues he brought up have relatively little to do with economic growth.  Sure, they affect it on the margins, but if you want to get to 3% GDP growth (as the President claims), you're going to need to do things like massively increase immigration, massively increase workforce participation (including among stay at home parents and the disabled), as well as get huge tech change tailwinds (think 3-4x what self-driving cars could bring).

rated:
scripta said:   
rufflesinc said:   ...The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth.
No, it doesn't. It means there's a lot of speculation and expectation of future growth. Corporate profits don't go up just because their stock prices go up.

  no, stock prices go up because corporate profits gone up

rated:
rufflesinc said:   scripta said:   rufflesinc said:   ...The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth.No, it doesn't. It means there's a lot of speculation and expectation of future growth. Corporate profits don't go up just because their stock prices go up.no, stock prices go up because corporate profits gone upThat's how ti should be, but it's not always so, and it's never a one-to-one relationship.

rated:
No, it works this way. 
 
We had old J. M. Keynes and his "animal spirits" back in the 20's.  He actually did quite well, in his personal accounts, betting on crowd psychology (the "madding of crowds", to steal a quote from a slightly earlier Englishman) and the like. Then Benjamin Graham and the super-rational, calculation-intensive, value stock analysis came into vogue.  Run the numbers from the ground up - and this was before computers, more-or-less!  It's tiring to even think about it.  Old Ben established the fact that value stocks, as compared to "regular" (e.g., S&P 500) stocks, historically provide on average a bit more return at the cost of a bit higher risk.  Except that now, after 2000, they don't.
 
In the 70's-80's Peter Lynch showed us the value of bottom-up stock picking. Unfortunately, of course, it cost us investors money to pay Peter and his team to find these 10-bagger stocks, and to trade them.  But it was worth it while it lasted.  About the same  time, John Bogle took a look at those nasty mutual fund fees and told us to forget about all this bottom-up stuff - top-down stock selection, indexes, and minimal fees, were what mattered instead.
 
Bogle said toss money into index funds, because a rising tide raises all (passive) boats.  But then Richard Thaler and the behavioral finance folks cautioned us that we were not really capable of being truly rational at all - which both active and passive investing would require - so really, why even try?  (Apparently we all thought our boats were special, whether they really were or not.  But the important thing turned out to be, they were OUR boats!)  In any case, back to old J. M. Keynes, in a way.  A full 360.  
 
So, how does it really work today?  You tell me.

rated:
Considering what Dimon makes annually is more than most people make their entire lives I am just not buying his sincerity.

rated:
kamalktk said:   Lowering corp tax rates wont mean more jobs or higher wages. States like Kansas and Missouri have already tested that hypothesis.

State level corp taxes are irrelevant. The US has one of the least competitive corp tax structures in the developed world.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is


What has that got to do with any of the macro-econ issues he rightly brought up? Unless you think stuck with (sub) 2% GDP growth forever is winning.

  does a higher GDP make you more money? The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth. that is what got to do.

and it's totally bs everything he brought up. he just using the usual boogeymen


Uh, what? Before the Trump rally, JPM stock was barely above what it was in 1999.

Growth is measured by GDP....not the earnings of one company. And certainly not the stock price.

And Dimon was not discussing anything that was JPM focused. He was talking about the overall US economy, and misguided policy making.

rated:
rascott said:   
kamalktk said:   Lowering corp tax rates wont mean more jobs or higher wages. States like Kansas and Missouri have already tested that hypothesis.

State level corp taxes are irrelevant. The US has one of the least competitive corp tax structures in the developed world.

  
All of this mishegoss around corporate tax rates can be solved with one simple action: Set them to zero and create a extremely progressive personal tax AND capital gains structure, topping out at over 50% for very high earners.

rated:
SummerSoFar said:   rascott said:   
kamalktk said:   Lowering corp tax rates wont mean more jobs or higher wages. States like Kansas and Missouri have already tested that hypothesis.

State level corp taxes are irrelevant. The US has one of the least competitive corp tax structures in the developed world.

  
All of this mishegoss around corporate tax rates can be solved with one simple action: Set them to zero and create a extremely progressive personal tax AND capital gains structure, topping out at over 50% for very high earners.


I'd agree. Corp taxes just get passed onto consumers anyway. All the while creating perverse incentives for keeping employment and HQs based in the US. This is actually an issue that economists of all sides agree on. What's not agreed upon is how you makeup the revenue.

0% is not likely (nor needed), however.

rated:
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is


What has that got to do with any of the macro-econ issues he rightly brought up? Unless you think stuck with (sub) 2% GDP growth forever is winning.

  does a higher GDP make you more money? The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth. that is what got to do.

and it's totally bs everything he brought up. he just using the usual boogeymen


Uh, what? Before the Trump rally, JPM stock was barely above what it was in 1999.

  weird, I had no idea Trump's rallies could affect stocks.

rated:
rascott said:   
SummerSoFar said:   
rascott said:   
kamalktk said:   Lowering corp tax rates wont mean more jobs or higher wages. States like Kansas and Missouri have already tested that hypothesis.

State level corp taxes are irrelevant. The US has one of the least competitive corp tax structures in the developed world.

  
All of this mishegoss around corporate tax rates can be solved with one simple action: Set them to zero and create a extremely progressive personal tax AND capital gains structure, topping out at over 50% for very high earners.


I'd agree. Corp taxes just get passed onto consumers anyway. All the while creating perverse incentives for keeping employment and HQs based in the US. This is actually an issue that economists of all sides agree on. What's not agreed upon is how you makeup the revenue.

 

i am ok with dropping corp taxes to 0% and increasing marginal tax rates on wealthy.

rated:
rascott said:   
kamalktk said:   Lowering corp tax rates wont mean more jobs or higher wages. States like Kansas and Missouri have already tested that hypothesis.

State level corp taxes are irrelevant. The US has one of the least competitive corp tax structures in the developed world.

  and yet, companies and dow are doing amzing

rated:
rufflesinc said:   rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is


What has that got to do with any of the macro-econ issues he rightly brought up? Unless you think stuck with (sub) 2% GDP growth forever is winning.

  does a higher GDP make you more money? The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth. that is what got to do.

and it's totally bs everything he brought up. he just using the usual boogeymen


Uh, what? Before the Trump rally, JPM stock was barely above what it was in 1999.

  weird, I had no idea Trump's rallies could affect stocks.


What's your point? JPM is up 35% since the election. Only on speculation....not some huge surge in earnings. Prior to that it was only a few points higher than its 1999 peak....so 17 years of zero return (ignoring its dividend).

rated:
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is


What has that got to do with any of the macro-econ issues he rightly brought up? Unless you think stuck with (sub) 2% GDP growth forever is winning.

  does a higher GDP make you more money? The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth. that is what got to do.

and it's totally bs everything he brought up. he just using the usual boogeymen


Uh, what? Before the Trump rally, JPM stock was barely above what it was in 1999.

  weird, I had no idea Trump's rallies could affect stocks.


What's your point? JPM is up 35% since the election. Only on speculation....not some huge surge in earnings. Prior to that it was only a few points higher than its 1999 peak....so 17 years of zero return (ignoring its dividend).

 um, no , it went from < $16 during recession to $67 before election

rated:
rufflesinc said:   rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is


What has that got to do with any of the macro-econ issues he rightly brought up? Unless you think stuck with (sub) 2% GDP growth forever is winning.

  does a higher GDP make you more money? The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth. that is what got to do.

and it's totally bs everything he brought up. he just using the usual boogeymen


Uh, what? Before the Trump rally, JPM stock was barely above what it was in 1999.

  weird, I had no idea Trump's rallies could affect stocks.


What's your point? JPM is up 35% since the election. Only on speculation....not some huge surge in earnings. Prior to that it was only a few points higher than its 1999 peak....so 17 years of zero return (ignoring its dividend).

 um, no , it went from < $16 during recession to $67 before election


No kidding? Bank stocks slowly recovered back to where they pre-financial crisis as the risk that they were going insolvent decreased. Again, so what? Stocks over-sold based upon fear in 2008-2010.

How does that have anything to do with long term economic (GDP) growth across the nation? Why are you fixated on stock prices of JPM, which has nothing to do with what Dimon was discussing?

rated:
Hear that? It's the world smallest Stradivari violin playing for the poor poppet.

rated:
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   
rascott said:   
rufflesinc said:   eat a sock dimond, Chase stock 6x since recession, if that's not growth, i don't know what is


What has that got to do with any of the macro-econ issues he rightly brought up? Unless you think stuck with (sub) 2% GDP growth forever is winning.

  does a higher GDP make you more money? The fact that Chase stock 6x means there is a lot of growth. that is what got to do.

and it's totally bs everything he brought up. he just using the usual boogeymen


Uh, what? Before the Trump rally, JPM stock was barely above what it was in 1999.

  weird, I had no idea Trump's rallies could affect stocks.


What's your point? JPM is up 35% since the election. Only on speculation....not some huge surge in earnings. Prior to that it was only a few points higher than its 1999 peak....so 17 years of zero return (ignoring its dividend).

 um, no , it went from < $16 during recession to $67 before election


No kidding? Bank stocks slowly recovered back to where they pre-financial crisis as the risk that they were going insolvent decreased. Again, so what? Stocks over-sold based upon fear in 2008-2010.

How does that have anything to do with long term economic (GDP) growth across the nation? Why are you fixated on stock prices of JPM, which has nothing to do with what Dimon was discussing?

  Dimon is CEO of JPM. dow was 14k peak before recession, 6.6k during recession, 17k before election. 

rated:
To summarize.....a widely respected bank CEO (and Democrat) says that Washington DC politics are dysfunctional....and FWF sticks up for DC, because the guy who said it is a rich banker.

rated:
rascott said:   To summarize.....a widely respected bank CEO (and Democrat) says that Washington DC politics are dysfunctional....and FWF sticks up for DC, because the guy who said it is a rich banker.
No, he said the policies, aka laws, are dysfunctional. Big difference

And one of the policies, litigation, has a states role

As a small business owner, I am impressed by how little red tape I get from govts. Most of the crap is from companies.

rated:
rascott said:   SummerSoFar said:   All of this mishegoss around corporate tax rates can be solved with one simple action: Set them to zero and create a extremely progressive personal tax AND capital gains structure, topping out at over 50% for very high earners.I'd agree. Corp taxes just get passed onto consumers anyway. All the while creating perverse incentives for keeping employment and HQs based in the US. This is actually an issue that economists of all sides agree on. What's not agreed upon is how you makeup the revenue.

0% is not likely (nor needed), however.
If corporate taxes were near 0%, it'd be a great incentive for more individuals to incorporate and pay themselves a low (but generally acceptable) wage, and more corporations would retain earnings or pay them out as dividends. Low taxable wages would result in very little income tax in your "extremely progressive personal tax" scheme and there would be no capital gains to tax.

Either way, most corporations never pay as much in taxes as the "tax rates" might suggest to an untrained eye.

rated:
scripta said:   rascott said:   SummerSoFar said:   All of this mishegoss around corporate tax rates can be solved with one simple action: Set them to zero and create a extremely progressive personal tax AND capital gains structure, topping out at over 50% for very high earners.I'd agree. Corp taxes just get passed onto consumers anyway. All the while creating perverse incentives for keeping employment and HQs based in the US. This is actually an issue that economists of all sides agree on. What's not agreed upon is how you makeup the revenue.

0% is not likely (nor needed), however.
If corporate taxes were near 0%, it'd be a great incentive for more individuals to incorporate and pay themselves a low (but generally acceptable) wage, .
the money has to come out of the corporation eventually

rated:
scripta said:   
rascott said:   
SummerSoFar said:   All of this mishegoss around corporate tax rates can be solved with one simple action: Set them to zero and create a extremely progressive personal tax AND capital gains structure, topping out at over 50% for very high earners.
I'd agree. Corp taxes just get passed onto consumers anyway. All the while creating perverse incentives for keeping employment and HQs based in the US. This is actually an issue that economists of all sides agree on. What's not agreed upon is how you makeup the revenue.

0% is not likely (nor needed), however.

If corporate taxes were near 0%, it'd be a great incentive for more individuals to incorporate and pay themselves a low (but generally acceptable) wage, and more corporations would retain earnings or pay them out as dividends. Low taxable wages would result in very little income tax in your "extremely progressive personal tax" scheme and there would be no capital gains to tax.

Either way, most corporations never pay as much in taxes as the "tax rates" might suggest to an untrained eye.

  You fail to see the underlying notion of taxing all personal earnings, earned or unearned. That includes dividends. I wouldn't propose to leave in such a glaring loophole.

rated:
rufflesinc said:   scripta said:   If corporate taxes were near 0%, it'd be a great incentive for more individuals to incorporate and pay themselves a low (but generally acceptable) wage, .the money has to come out of the corporation eventuallyNo, it doesn't. A person eventually reaches retirement age and is forced to take RMDs out of tax-advantaged accounts. A corporation does not retire or die, it can exist forever.
SummerSoFar said:   You fail to see the underlying notion of taxing all personal earnings, earned or unearned. That includes dividends. I wouldn't propose to leave in such a glaring loophole.You can't blame me for that, you separated capital gains from personal income and didn't mention dividends.

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2017