The death of the stock market- Hillaries new capital gains rules (doubling wait period)

[createdtoworship]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...al-gains-complexity-with-tax-rise-6-year-wait

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/details-hillary-clinton-s-capital-gains-tax-proposal

under the above article, Hillary's plan to recover the economy involves revamping the entire investment structure of the stock market.

right now you have to wait one year to get the lower capital gains tax benefit of 15%.

if you sell your asset with less than a one year hold under current law, you get taxed at your current tax bracket. In some cases up to nearly half of your investment, 43% (used to be 40% but not after obama care's taxes).

(when I first posted this thread I felt that doubling the wait was bad, but actually she is quadrupling it or sextupling it. Due to six year wait to not get taxed steep fines.

"The rate would drop to 39.8 percent after two years, 35.8 percent after three years, 31.8 percent after four years and 27.8 percent after five years. Taxpayers would have to hold onto assets for at least six years to get the 23.8 percent rate, which would remain the lowest available."
(quote from the bloomberg link above)

hillary proposes to double this wait period to two years.

So long term investors who hold assets greater than 4 months, but less than 13 months, now have to double that wait period.

in essence it takes many middle term investors and short term investors out of the market.

and supports long term only.

Well unfortunately one problem with pulling out investors out of the market, liquidity of assets goes down.
If you google the importance of liquidity is stock investing, you will see how important it is. In any duration, short, medium, or long term.

So under Hillaries new proposals if she gets elected, not only will this damage the stock market in a wide spread halt on investment, it will damage the economy that is ever so tied to the stock market due to a reduction in stock liquidity and asset liquidity.

40 % of corporations, hedge funds, and investment institutions will be required to close up their short term and middle term investments. (according to the above link 60% are exempt from capital gains).

as found in this well done study:

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/country/illiquidity.pdf

(you may think...."oh I am not a stock broker, I don't care..."

"but wait, your retirement is in an investment account, and not due to losing your tax incentive for medium and short term investment, Now you have to hold on to a losing fund, even if you don't want it because you held it less than two years."

Note: if you see a 20% capital gains tax, versus the 15% I put up above, that is correct because obama already raised it from 15-20 (I forgot), and raised other capital taxes as well, resulting in widespread corporate closures. Bernie Sanders has similiar tax restructuring hikes as well. Not good for any investor.

(now I understand raising taxes that make sense, tobacco, alchol, etc. But not taxes on honest investors. Democrats have increased government budget by such a huge amount with healthcare, as well as other programs, that if obama didn't push for taxation, he would have contributed to a deficit the size of the last four presidents combined. That is how much money democrats in office spend).

but don't take out the stock market, because you are on a spending spree.

 

[hislegacy]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...al-gains-complexity-with-tax-rise-6-year-wait

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/details-hillary-clinton-s-capital-gains-tax-proposal

under the above article, Hillary's plan to recover the economy involves revamping the entire investment structure of the stock market.

right now you have to wait one year to get the lower capital gains tax benefit of 15%.

if you sell your asset with less than a one year hold under current law, you get taxed at your current tax bracket. In some cases up to nearly half of your investment, 43% (used to be 40% but not after obama care's taxes).

(when I first posted this thread I felt that doubling the wait was bad, but actually she is quadrupling it or sextupling it. Due to six year wait to not get taxed steep fines.

"The rate would drop to 39.8 percent after two years, 35.8 percent after three years, 31.8 percent after four years and 27.8 percent after five years. Taxpayers would have to hold onto assets for at least six years to get the 23.8 percent rate, which would remain the lowest available."
(quote from the bloomberg link above)

hillary proposes to double this wait period to two years.

So long term investors who hold assets greater than 4 months, but less than 13 months, now have to double that wait period.

in essence it takes many middle term investors and short term investors out of the market.

and supports long term only.

Well unfortunately one problem with pulling out investors out of the market, liquidity of assets goes down.
If you google the importance of liquidity is stock investing, you will see how important it is. In any duration, short, medium, or long term.

So under Hillaries new proposals if she gets elected, not only will this damage the stock market in a wide spread halt on investment, it will damage the economy that is ever so tied to the stock market due to a reduction in stock liquidity and asset liquidity.

40 % of corporations, hedge funds, and investment institutions will be required to close up their short term and middle term investments. (according to the above link 60% are exempt from capital gains).

as found in this well done study:

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/country/illiquidity.pdf

(you may think...."oh I am not a stock broker, I don't care..."

"but wait, your retirement is in an investment account, and not due to losing your tax incentive for medium and short term investment, Now you have to hold on to a losing fund, even if you don't want it because you held it less than two years."

Note: if you see a 20% capital gains tax, versus the 15% I put up above, that is correct because obama already raised it from 15-20 (I forgot), and raised other capital taxes as well, resulting in widespread corporate closures. Bernie Sanders has similiar tax restructuring hikes as well. Not good for any investor.

(now I understand raising taxes that make sense, tobacco, alchol, etc. But not taxes on honest investors. Democrats have increased government budget by such a huge amount with healthcare, as well as other programs, that if obama didn't push for taxation, he would have contributed to a deficit the size of the last four presidents combined. That is how much money democrats in office spend).

but don't take out the stock market, because you are on a spending spree.

QFT

 

[NightHawkeye]

The real solution is a simple flat tax ... as proposed by Ted Cruz. With that there's no difference between long term and short term. Either would be taxed at 10%.

 

[Murby]

I have only two problems with your post..

The first...

it will damage the economy that is ever so tied to the stock market

You have that backwards.. The economy is not tied to the stock market.... the stock market is tied to the economy.. That's a significant error in perception.


And your second wopper of misconception,

But not taxes on honest investors.

The stock market is controlled by market makers and large investors and there is nothing honest about it.. I dabble in some day trading and am quite familiar with the way the game is played. To describe it as "honest" is just wrong on so many levels.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have only two problems with your post..

The first...

You have that backwards.. The economy is not tied to the stock market.... the stock market is tied to the economy.. That's a significant error in perception.


And your second wopper of misconception,

The stock market is controlled by market makers and large investors and there is nothing honest about it.. I dabble in some day trading and am quite familiar with the way the game is played. To describe it as "honest" is just wrong on so many levels.

it's fairly straight forward, trading.

(I do it several times a week).

but the economy consists of GDP, 12 central bank interactions and investements etc.

among some other things.

but the 12 central banks are what?

market makers.

so essentially (if they are susceptible to capital gains), and I am not positive they are. (please let me know)..

they have fund managers over investments, typically VP's.

and those managers will take assets from the bank, and sell them or buy them slowly in the stock market over weeks and months, so that other banks,and market movers, do not see their strategy.

so this tax essentially cripples the Federal Reserve banks investment on short term and middle term.

Also shorting stock for hedging is out of the question.

(now even if the Fed. REserve is not under capital gains), (and is is the 60% not taxed).

many other banks will still have this issue.

And there is nothing inherently immoral about buying low and selling high.

Or the reverse if you are shorting.

In the parable of the wise steward Jesus condemns the servant who buried the talent of gold, instead of turning the talent in to 2, or maybe 3 , or 4.

Bringing in 100-400% return.

His return was 0.

I am sure he had similar thoughts, oh, that investing is evil and too hard.

I would be better to bury it, because thieves can steel it!

Jesus said, to he who has, more will be given.

to he who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him and given to another (faithful steward).

now that parable applies to spiritual things, yes, but the emediate concept is business, and investment.

no one says, I am cashing my IRA, or 401K because it is in a mutual fund that allocates to apple stock, which puts many smaller tech stocks out of business!

thats crazy!

While many investors exploit new traders, and their money. They technically are not stealing. They are taking up the wise side of the trade. While we, who lost, are taken up the loser of the trade.

we who lost, are simply giving our money voluntarily to another trader. That trader got that money by wisdom of the markets in that specific session. So my money was not lost, it just became his money. But it's legal and fair, and it's how the stock markets work. I used to think stock markets were just ripping people off. and sometimes that is happening. But you can't say that every broker, is out to take advantage of the fresh meat that think they can be a day trader, in a two hour seminar. Or from youtube. It takes probably 10 years to be a trader. I am still learning, but it's a recreation. I still lose, but I manage my risk better than I did when I first started. I would lose upwards of 30% in one sitting. Now at most I lose 3%. But typically make it back when reversal happens (with change). But losing is part of trading, everyone does it. You simply have to manage your loses carefully. But technichally some other investor is owning the money you or I lost. My stop loss, was his entry point and so on.

next time, we learn our mistakes and try again, with less amount of revenue preferably, and work your way up little by little.

it's a trade, and it takes practice.

 

[stamperben]

Just an FYI gradyll...

The name is Hillary. To add possession to her name, a person such as yourself who demands a certain exactness from other posters in their responses to you should know that the spelling would be "Hillary's new" [whatever], not "Hillaries new"...
More explained here.

Are you uncertain about when to use an apostrophe? Many people have difficulty with this punctuation mark. The best way to get apostrophes right is to understand when and why they are used.

I felt the need to point this out to you for when I read the title of the thread I was taken aback at the lack of proper use of grammar. Maybe you were just in too much of a hurry to make your right-wing attack on the candidate because you might see more taxation on your vast stock market holdings? Never fear however, the taxes paid would go to the public good, something both Christians and others should be supportive of.

 

[iluvatar5150]

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...al-gains-complexity-with-tax-rise-6-year-wait

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/details-hillary-clinton-s-capital-gains-tax-proposal

under the above article, Hillary's plan to recover the economy involves revamping the entire investment structure of the stock market.

right now you have to wait one year to get the lower capital gains tax benefit of 15%.

if you sell your asset with less than a one year hold under current law, you get taxed at your current tax bracket. In some cases up to nearly half of your investment, 43% (used to be 40% but not after obama care's taxes).

That would be nearly half of the profit on your investment, not half of the whole investment.

(when I first posted this thread I felt that doubling the wait was bad, but actually she is quadrupling it or sextupling it. Due to six year wait to not get taxed steep fines.

It's not "steep fines" - it's income taxes, just like the income taxes on wages derived from labor.

"The rate would drop to 39.8 percent after two years, 35.8 percent after three years, 31.8 percent after four years and 27.8 percent after five years. Taxpayers would have to hold onto assets for at least six years to get the 23.8 percent rate, which would remain the lowest available."
(quote from the bloomberg link above)

hillary proposes to double this wait period to two years.

So long term investors who hold assets greater than 4 months, but less than 13 months, now have to double that wait period.

in essence it takes many middle term investors and short term investors out of the market.

and supports long term only.

Not quite - it still "supports" all of them. It just removes some of the skewed incentives for people to only think of short-term consequences.

Well unfortunately one problem with pulling out investors out of the market, liquidity of assets goes down.
If you google the importance of liquidity is stock investing, you will see how important it is. In any duration, short, medium, or long term.

So under Hillaries new proposals if she gets elected, not only will this damage the stock market in a wide spread halt on investment, it will damage the economy that is ever so tied to the stock market due to a reduction in stock liquidity and asset liquidity.

Our economy is already too closely tied to the stock market. We're already giving significantly more advantage to capital than we are to labor. I see no problem with correcting that imbalance.

40 % of corporations, hedge funds, and investment institutions will be required to close up their short term and middle term investments. (according to the above link 60% are exempt from capital gains).

as found in this well done study:

http://www.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pdfiles/country/illiquidity.pdf

1.) That's not a study. It's a powerpoint presentation put together by a professor for a class that he teaches.

2.) It says nothing about lower liquidity "requiring" firms to close up their short and middle-term investments. All it says is that illiquidity causes prices to be discounted. It also says that illiquidity can actually cause rates of return to be higher.

(you may think...."oh I am not a stock broker, I don't care..."

"but wait, your retirement is in an investment account, and not due to losing your tax incentive for medium and short term investment, Now you have to hold on to a losing fund, even if you don't want it because you held it less than two years."

You don't "have to" do anything. The choice is between taking your profit now and paying taxes on it or betting that it'll retain enough value in the future to make the lower tax rate pay for itself.

Note: if you see a 20% capital gains tax, versus the 15% I put up above, that is correct because obama already raised it from 15-20 (I forgot), and raised other capital taxes as well, resulting in widespread corporate closures. Bernie Sanders has similiar tax restructuring hikes as well. Not good for any investor.

What "widespread corporate closures" resulted from the hike from 15% to 20%?

(now I understand raising taxes that make sense, tobacco, alchol, etc. But not taxes on honest investors. Democrats have increased government budget by such a huge amount with healthcare, as well as other programs, that if obama didn't push for taxation, he would have contributed to a deficit the size of the last four presidents combined. That is how much money democrats in office spend).

Your description of government budgets is about as accurate as your description of the tax implications of trading stocks.

 

[Arcangl86]

I've never understood to begin with why capital gains are taxed differently then straight income anyway.

 

[createdtoworship]

Just an FYI gradyll...

The name is Hillary. To add possession to her name, a person such as yourself who demands a certain exactness from other posters in their responses to you should know that the spelling would be "Hillary's new" [whatever], not "Hillaries new"...
More explained here.


I felt the need to point this out to you for when I read the title of the thread I was taken aback at the lack of proper use of grammar. Maybe you were just in too much of a hurry to make your right-wing attack on the candidate because you might see more taxation on your vast stock market holdings? Never fear however, the taxes paid would go to the public good, something both Christians and others should be supportive of.

I saw that, but I personally don't think she will get far. With taxation that will cripple the economy, who would vote for her? If she becomes president, I may attempt to correct the misspell, (if it were possible)

 

[createdtoworship]

That would be nearly half of the profit on your investment, not half of the whole investment.



It's not "steep fines" - it's income taxes, just like the income taxes on wages derived from labor.



Not quite - it still "supports" all of them. It just removes some of the skewed incentives for people to only think of short-term consequences.



Our economy is already too closely tied to the stock market. We're already giving significantly more advantage to capital than we are to labor. I see no problem with correcting that imbalance.



1.) That's not a study. It's a powerpoint presentation put together by a professor for a class that he teaches.

2.) It says nothing about lower liquidity "requiring" firms to close up their short and middle-term investments. All it says is that illiquidity causes prices to be discounted. It also says that illiquidity can actually cause rates of return to be higher.



You don't "have to" do anything. The choice is between taking your profit now and paying taxes on it or betting that it'll retain enough value in the future to make the lower tax rate pay for itself.



What "widespread corporate closures" resulted from the hike from 15% to 20%?



Your description of government budgets is about as accurate as your description of the tax implications of trading stocks.

I apologize for the power point, (blushing)

however there is ample evidence in the OP as to the importance of liquidity not only for the stock market, but also for the economy.

And I am pretty sure if I look into the past recessions, that when the stock market plummeted. The economy goes off titler, the FED starts looking at interest rates, and quantative easing, and bailouts, and raising debt ceiling. While global the global economy looks at lowering the credit rating of the US. (as obama did because He can't stop binge shopping on the federal dime). The market is not the cause of all the strain on the economy, as you seem to indicate I said. (but I never said that).
The stock market affects the whole economy, the economy affects the stock market as well. And the ties are great for the US capital. You mention the fact that you do not see a good reason to tie in the stock market with economy. Well take the 500 top companies in the US, sell all their stock....till they go bankrupt. Then maybe you will have a stock market not tied to the economy. But try starting a country on that! Thats like communism. Not capitalism. It is very scary that you even remotely indicate a removal of the stock market from the economy.

 

[createdtoworship]

I've never understood to begin with why capital gains are taxed differently then straight income anyway.

it's an incentive to keep investors, banks, rich people, and even lowly brokers just trying to make a dime.....happy.

but again, if you don't like it.

take your retirement into consideration. Call your broker, and your tax professional. And tell them you wish to be taxed at your current bracket, for all investments. If a mutual fund you are holding changes allocations, that can be a problem for a law like this. Say they sell apple stock as the mutual funds earning sector, and choose another tech company like facebook or google. Well if that stock has not been owned for two years. They are paying top bracket. If the fund manager is getting taxed up the yin yang, it will trickle down to you in the form of higher fees. So instead of paying 1.5% of your gain of 3% you are paying 2.5%. So you walk away with half a percent gain for the year on your retirment. If the retirement loses (which I think will happen as markets recess, another 24 months), they you still pay the fee, but instead of negative 15% on your retirement, you are negative 18% (nearly a fifth of your entire value). IF you make that mistake more than a year or two on stock investment, you may find yourself working another 15 years, (until your 80). I can picture you in a cane, trying to do your job, with half inch thick glasses, and a hearing aid, with a back brace, gloves, shin splints, and knee pads. Because if you break the skin you die, because most 80 year olds are on blood thinners.

how fun is that?

all because of a tax law.

capital gains incetives are there for the same reason IRA tax incentives exist. So if you really want to be consistent. Take away the tax incentive for retirement accounts. As there is really nothing that makes you more special that a broker on wall street, so if their incentives are gone, so should yours. You are both tax payers, both human.

You are investing in retirement, they are investing for their bread and butter.

why not do what many others do, forget trying to retire and just live on wellfare?

to be consistent you would have to remove incentives from all parties.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I apologize for the power point, (blushing)

however there is ample evidence in the OP as to the importance of liquidity not only for the stock market, but also for the economy.

You've yet to show how this proposal would cause a significant hit to liquidity.

And I am pretty sure if I look into the past recessions, that when the stock market plummeted. The economy goes off titler, the FED starts looking at interest rates, and quantative easing, and bailouts, and raising debt ceiling.

Congress, not the Fed, raises the debt ceiling and they do it regardless of how well things are going.`

While global the global economy looks at lowering the credit rating of the US.

They did that because Republicans started playing games with the debt ceiling.

(as obama did because He can't stop binge shopping on the federal dime).

yeah, not quite.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S

The market is not the cause of all the strain on the economy, as you seem to indicate I said. (but I never said that).

I never said that, either.

You mention the fact that you do not see a good reason to tie in the stock market with economy.

No, that isn't what I said. I said it's too closely tied to the stock market. And I think our calculation of GDP (the growth of which is used to determine the success of the economy and whether or not we're in a recession) is skewed too heavily by the financial industry.

Well take the 500 top companies in the US, sell all their stock....till they go bankrupt. Then maybe you will have a stock market not tied to the economy. But try starting a country on that! Thats like communism. Not capitalism. It is very scary that you even remotely indicate a removal of the stock market from the economy.

Is English your first language? I'm not even trying to be a jerk by asking it - I'm serious. Because there seems to be a non-trivial communication barrier in this thread.

 

[createdtoworship]

You've yet to show how this proposal would cause a significant hit to liquidity.



Congress, not the Fed, raises the debt ceiling and they do it regardless of how well things are going.`



They did that because Republicans started playing games with the debt ceiling.



yeah, not quite.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S



I never said that, either.



No, that isn't what I said. I said it's too closely tied to the stock market. And I think our calculation of GDP (the growth of which is used to determine the success of the economy and whether or not we're in a recession) is skewed too heavily by the financial industry.



Is English your first language? I'm not even trying to be a jerk by asking it - I'm serious. Because there seems to be a non-trivial communication barrier in this thread.

I will look over your post later,

seeing there have been no sources for your information, at all.

up to this point,

I doubt your sources will be valid.

but again, I could be wrong.

if so, I will let you know,

thanks for the comment.

(english is my primary language, how about, you? Is it yours?)

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate post

 

[createdtoworship]

You've yet to show how this proposal would cause a significant hit to liquidity.



Congress, not the Fed, raises the debt ceiling and they do it regardless of how well things are going.`



They did that because Republicans started playing games with the debt ceiling.



yeah, not quite.

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYONGDA188S



I never said that, either.



No, that isn't what I said. I said it's too closely tied to the stock market. And I think our calculation of GDP (the growth of which is used to determine the success of the economy and whether or not we're in a recession) is skewed too heavily by the financial industry.



Is English your first language? I'm not even trying to be a jerk by asking it - I'm serious. Because there seems to be a non-trivial communication barrier in this thread.

I started a new thread about investing stocks:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-make-6-000-000-in-10-5-years-enough-to-retire.7939802/

if we can get past our political/religious differences, there is a lot of opportunity in the stock market. With well places stops and trailing stops, my setups lost only 6%(two 3%stops tripped), while going on to make 37% in 2016 year to date.

it's not a huge amount of money. But with the power of compound interest it multiplies effectively over less than 11 years to a value of over 6 million. It's not hard to do. Just 7 simple rules. Free charting software found many places online, an internet connection, and a robin hood account. (anyway, be the first to discuss with me on the above new thread). If there is any way I can explain the trade rules simpler I will. Let me know if you have any questions. I wish someone offered me the chance to ask any stock questions...a year ago. I would have been ahead a lot sooner.

 

[createdtoworship]

The real solution is a simple flat tax ... as proposed by Ted Cruz. With that there's no difference between long term and short term. Either would be taxed at 10%.

that would be optimal.

 

[Fantine]

Anyone who follows the stock market today sees the wild fluctuations, often based on things that have nothing to do with the basic fundamentals of companies. Stocks are affected by what happens around the world, who won the previous night's primary, just plain gossip, and lots of other factors. Low fees have made many play the stock market like a Vegas casino--often with better odds.

Taking steps to bring the stock market back to what it is intended to be--a way for individuals and funds to make long term investments in companies as "co-owners--" isn't a bad thing. I think it would result in companies paying more attention to their basic business and their employees--instead of looking for quick fixes, often involving layoffs or outsourcing, to hold the attention of their fickle shareholders.

 

[Paulos23]

Anyone who follows the stock market today sees the wild fluctuations, often based on things that have nothing to do with the basic fundamentals of companies. Stocks are affected by what happens around the world, who won the previous night's primary, just plain gossip, and lots of other factors. Low fees have made many play the stock market like a Vegas casino--often with better odds.

Taking steps to bring the stock market back to what it is intended to be--a way for individuals and funds to make long term investments in companies as "co-owners--" isn't a bad thing. I think it would result in companies paying more attention to their basic business and their employees--instead of looking for quick fixes, often involving layoffs or outsourcing, to hold the attention of their fickle shareholders.

I would love it if more companies did look after their business instead of what the stock is worth. I have known companies that took the long view, ignored the stock price and came out ahead. I have also seen companies panic about their stock price, slash their company into the bone to make it look like they had higher profits, and then tank as they couldn't keep the profits up with more cuts.

This rule change isn't going to hurt the economy at all. It will change behavior, but not as damaging as the OP thinks it will be.

 

[stamperben]

This rule change isn't going to hurt the economy at all. It will change behavior, but not as damaging as the OP thinks it will be.

I don't think the OP has a care in the world about "the economy", just his own economy.

 

[createdtoworship]

Anyone who follows the stock market today sees the wild fluctuations, often based on things that have nothing to do with the basic fundamentals of companies. Stocks are affected by what happens around the world, who won the previous night's primary, just plain gossip, and lots of other factors. Low fees have made many play the stock market like a Vegas casino--often with better odds.

Taking steps to bring the stock market back to what it is intended to be--a way for individuals and funds to make long term investments in companies as "co-owners--" isn't a bad thing. I think it would result in companies paying more attention to their basic business and their employees--instead of looking for quick fixes, often involving layoffs or outsourcing, to hold the attention of their fickle shareholders.

Your comment only applies to long hold strategies.

or buy and hold type investments.

what I do, it place a 2% stop loss, or a 3% stop loss on all investments, if it goes down that much, you exit the stock automatically, it sells at a market order.

it's not a perfect system, but right now a strategy I am using is pulling about 120% a year gain.

minus democratically raised capital gains of course.

so take off 30-43% off the top, and thats how much you can make a year, just in basic swing setup.

I don't hold the funds for long enough time periods to be affected by "wild fluctuations."

I personally would hold off on all long term investment for probably another two years, until the correction is over.

(reference: look at the monthly chart of the sp500, or Dowjones, and notice the MACD technical indicators, and you will see that there is another 2 years till we get a bull market again)

it's resembling 2002 all over again.

but all the stuff you mention, is calculable, and measurable.

I use investing.com economic calander for major daily changes.

anything you mention that could fluctuate the market will be on that calander, it's a global calander.

all markets are on it.

So you just watch and plan.

but that is for day traders, and long term investments (buy and hold).

I typically do swing trading.

I only need two indicators to know when a stock is undervalued, or oversold.

I buy when it is in red, or going down, just before it goes up.

I buy on RSI 20 signals.

anyway, more on this particular investment strategy here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-make-6-000-000-in-10-5-years-enough-to-retire.7939802/

my point being, is that if hillary or obama didn't have plans to raise capital gains, we could make a killing on swing trading, or day trading.

we could probably hit do so in 5 years instead of 10 years.

Retire that is, with little investment into the process.

anyway, I started a thread about this strategy above,

please direct all investment comments there.

that does not have to do with capital gains.