Your Questions About Top 10 Money Making Stocks

Lizzie asks…

moving to argentina and playing poker?

I’m 18 years old. Yes I know, young and foolish and filled with hope for life just waiting to get his spirits crushed. And so, before stands me one option. Accept money from the parents i most deeply dislike, attend a state university, get some degree in financing, making my 60-80k over a career, maybe one day 100k?!?!, hope america’s infrastructure doesn’ collapse one day, and die on the inside, shitting on every ideal of freedom and staying true to your dreams i ever held. Or… I become a poker pro. Now just stay with me here. An online professional poker player might make anywhere from 15k (you gotta be god awful) to 100k a year (you gotta be really good). Its quiet even possible I hit it lucky and I win a few lucrative tournaments here and there, cashing in some extra few hundred grand. On average, lets say an online poker pro, as myself, will make 50k a year… (Then again, I say I’m going to be making hundreds of thousands, but thats just arrogance speaking =P)

At this point, financial analyst for the win. Poker earnings are still taxed as an income tax, the job would seem far to volatile and unreliable (no health benefeits and such), and quiet honestly I come out looking like a fool unless I am the new Phil Ivey of poker. Stage two… I move to buenos aires. Buenos Aires, Argentina, is deemed “the paris of south america”. With warm weather, great nice people, and a happy atmosphere, the place seems great from everything I ever read. Not once have I read anything bad about the place. On top of that, due to inflation, on 20k u.s. A year, I’d be living like a prince there (Somewhat). For example, on average a person there makes 1500 pesos a month, 18000 a year. The exchange rate is 1 us dollar to 3.5 pesos. Thus, 20k is 70k pesos. A top notch lawyer makes about 6k a month, or about the equivelant to my 20k U.S. (which i also plan to switch into euros, for the dollars quickly losing value). Anyways, with due practice and diligence, even if I hit the lowest of cielings in poker, I can live happily in argentina.

Part three. As a U.S. citizen, living abroad you still follow a U.S. income tax. At first I was infuriated by this, until I learned more… if you make under 95k a year though, your exempt from the income tax. :O. Thus, all my poker winnings now become tax free, and seeing as Argentina has much bigger problems to tackle, I don’t see them making online gambling a policy of theres anytime soon. But thats the beautty of online poker! If things get heated in Buenos aires, I pick up my things and move somewhere else. All I need is an internet connection and a bank account and whalla! I am employed no matter where I go :).

Part four. I get to argentina, I live happy, and say I’m not a retarted monkey at poker. I make say 50k a year? That leaves 30k a year extra. Those 30k, I invest in mutual fund, (stock and money), which can overtime lead to a year roi of say 5-10%. Say I get better at investing, manage to get my portofolio to a steady RoI of 8%, and continually pump in 30-50k of savings each year (hell, win a tournament or two, and I could throw in something like 100k in a given year.) In about 20 years, at that pace, my investment portfolio would be worth millions. Forty years? ITs not too hard to imagine anything in the range of 10-30 million.

Of course, this is all cirumstantial! I can get shot in the head by a maniac who randomly let out a gun shot in the direction of my window as soon as
I finished writing this. But what do you think? Is it too insane? I mean the average american savings per year is 400 bux, and on average the debt is something like 150k? Even as a financial analyst, pressured to live up to “Societal standards” I don’t see myself investing more than 6-10k a year, and thats without the strain of a family or wife. So, PUT IN YOUR INPUT GUYS!

John answers:

If you own a degree – or any other qualification – then you’ll already be in advace of of the bunch when it comes to looking for careers. My friend has a degree and he wasn’t sure what direction to go with it, but he discovered some good tips on the resource in the resource box below which aided him to decide that he wanted to be a lab assistant. There is loads of guidance on the resource regarding other careers.

Paul asks…

Stock market questions…. help?

I have a few question’s. i have been playing in a stock market game for a while. When i want to purchase a stock all i have to do is fill in how many stocks i want to buy and press submit. The system tells me that my order was placed. Lets say i place a order for a stock at $1 per share. Lets say u purchased 1000 shares of it. So i just spent $1000 plus my $7 for the transaction. Lets also say that for the past hour the stock was at $1.10 per share and it just went down to $1 per share when i purchased it. Does my order always stay at a $1 per share, even if just seconds after my purchase, the each share went back up to $1.10 a share? I am not sure if once my order is placed, that price i placed my order on is secure. Also, how long until i could turn around and sell it for the top dollar price? How fast would it take me to get my share put in my account? What would happen if i tried to sell my stocks for $1.10 a share (lets say all 1000 shares) and i placed the order, then just second after i placed my order, the stocks went down .15 cents per share. What would happen then. Would someone buy my shares for the $1.15 per share? or would i be SOL.

I am very interested in this short term trading. I have the time and money to set for hours in front of a computer and sell and trade stock fast. I don’t want to hang on to stock really long. In the stock market game, it seems that when i place a order for a stock at the price i see on my computer, that is the price i get it at. It seems to go straight into my account after the purchase. Then when the market goes up, even seconds after the buy, i can sell it for that price and almost instantly get that money back in my account, with the small profit i made. Is it all this easy? or is there some real time delay int the real world? If so, i could see the problems with the stock market being a hard game to play. I have seen stock within seconds just shoot up and go down. So my question is could one make money in these few second.

Thanks

John answers:

These are the sort of questions you should ask the platform provider. If you have a limit price then the sytem shouldn’t fill a trade outside your limits. The market prices are changing continuously. When you press submit there is only milliseconds delay although it may be a liquidity problem. If you are trying to buy 1000 shares at $1 and that is the Ask there may only be 500 shares on offer.

Helen asks…

Help which gift would be better for my mom for Christmas?

I am thing about getting her one or these gifts but which one should I get her and that means the other one I will get for her birthday

Its between

Uggs- The chocolate tasman one
http://s.onlineshoes.com/images/br027/84384_366_45.jpg
I know she really wants these

Or

A Vista gift card- I would put $25.00 on
http://www.ccurr.com/images/Safeway-Visa-Gift-Card_25-P.jpg

Also I am going to make her stocking pretty and put these items in it
Lip Stick
Farra Roche Chocolate
Chocolate Covered Cherry’s
Swedish Fish
Money just like 10 or 5 dollars

Also I am making her a poem by
writing it on the computer in cursive
then pasting it to a green or red construction paper
and decorating the back round and putting it on top or her
wrapped present

So which idea do you like better the ugg one or the vista gift card?

Plzz & Thxx

John answers:

The uggs, just because it’s nice to have an actual present to open on Christmas, a birthday is more of the day when you would give money. All the other ideas sound great as well.

Merry Christmas(=

please answer mine
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqgXi_s6x1zLNkIJ.iwdzFLg7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20081216232903AA4WDEb

Charles asks…

Is this how this trickle down economics works? Or is it really flood up?

Millionaires are so last millennium. The new Forbes 400 list of richest Americans is billionaires only.

If you’re net worth is a mere $999 million, forget it. A billion means a thousand million, and that’s the Forbes 400 minimum — up from $900 million in 2005.

Donald Trump and two of his kids grace the Forbes 400 cover, but ranked No. 94 with $2.9 billion, Trump’s a long way from No. 1 Bill Gates with $53 billion.

The combined wealth of the 400 richest Americans is a record-breaking $1.25 trillion. That’s about the same amount of combined wealth held by the 57 million households who make up half the U.S. population.

The economy is booming for billionaires. It’s a bust for many other Americans.

A record 400 Americans are billionaires — and a record 47 million Americans have no health insurance.

America has 400 billionaires — and 37 million people below the official poverty line.

The official poverty line for one person was just $9,973 in 2005 (latest data). That wouldn’t cover the custom-made men’s shoes ($4,128) and Hermes purse ($6,250) on the Forbes Cost of Living Extremely Well Index. The official poverty line of $15,577 for a three-person family is lower than the cost of the Patek Philippe men’s gold watch ($17,600).

The Forbes 400 minimum is up $100 million since 2005, but the federal minimum wage has been stuck at $5.15 an hour — just $10,712 a year — since 1997. GOP leaders in Congress have been holding a raise for minimum wage workers hostage to more giant tax cuts for wealthy inheritors.

Wealth isn’t trickling down. It’s flooding up — from workers to bosses, small investors to big, poorer to richer.

The heirs to Wal-Mart founders Sam and Bud Walton have a combined $82.5 billion — while the children of Wal-Mart workers swell the ranks of state health insurance programs for the neediest.

In today’s corporate America, workers see gutted paychecks and pensions despite rising worker productivity, while CEOs get golden pay, perks, pensions and parachutes. The pay gap between average workers and CEOs has grown nine times wider since the 1970s.

The number of billionaires is a record high, but the share of national income going to wages and salaries is at a record low.

U.S. corporate profits increased 21 percent in the past year, Market Watch reported in March. “Profits have been so high because almost all of the benefits from productivity improvements are flowing to the owners of capital rather than to the workers,” said Market Watch.

The wealthiest 1 percent of Americans (minimum net worth $6 million) owned 62 percent of the nation’s business assets, 51 percent of stocks and 70 percent of bonds as of 2004, according to the latest data from the Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances — which excludes the Forbes 400. That’s way up from 1989, when the wealthiest 1 percent owned 54 percent of business assets, 41 percent of stocks and 52 percent of bonds.

Our growing economy is not producing a growing middle class, but a richer aristocracy.

The high point for median household income — the income of the household in the middle — was $47,671 in 1999, adjusted for inflation. In 2005, median household income was $1,345 less at $46,326. In the same period, the Forbes 400 gained more than 100 billionaires.

Government policies are fueling rising inequality. Taxpayers with incomes above $1 million will see their after-tax income grow by about 6 percent this year thanks to tax cuts the nation can’t afford.

In an economy where money is flowing up to the very top, even college-educated workers are going backward. Inflation-adjusted median household income was lower in 2005 than 1999 even when the householder had a bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, professional degree or doctorate.

The problem is much bigger than the rich getting richer, while the poor get poorer. The really rich are getting richer at the expense of most everyone else.

Solutions include restoring the link between rising worker productivity and pay, raising the miserly minimum wage, narrowing the obscene pay gap between workers and CEOs, rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy — and stop taxing income from work more than income from capital gains.

John answers:

Trickle-down economics” and “trickle-down theory,” in United States political rhetoric, are characterizations by opponents (principally Democrats) of the policy of lowering taxes on high incomes and business activity. Proponents of these policies claim that they will promote new investment and economic growth, thereby indirectly benefitting people who do not directly pay the taxes. Opponents characterize this as a claim that the people who would otherwise pay the tax will distribute their benefit to less wealthy individuals, so that a fraction will reach the general population and stimulate the economy.[1] Proponents of the policies generally do not use the terms “trickle-down economics” themselves.

Today “trickle-down economics” is most closely identified with the economic policies of the Ronald Reagan administration, known as Reaganomics or supply-side economics. A major feature of these policies was the reduction of tax rates on capital gains, corporate income, and higher individual incomes, along with the reduction or elimination of various excise taxes. David Stockman, who as Reagan’s budget director championed these cuts but then became skeptical of them, told journalist William Greider that the term “supply-side economics” was used to promote a trickle-down idea.[2]

The term “trickle-down” comes from an analogy with a phenomenon in marketing, the trickle-down effect.

Richard asks…

Why do Liberals pick the small picture and ignore the big one?

Watch this video please, it’s from a primary debate Obama vs Hillary Clinton, on ABC.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpSDBu35K-8

Obama is asked about how he plans to do capital gains tax when the facts are displayed before him:

Bill Clinton Lowered it from 28% to 20% and the government took in more money.

George Bush Lowered it again (The Bush Tax Cuts Liberals Demonize) from 20% to 15%, and still the government took in more money.

So in both times we see an increase in the government revenue when you lower the tax. The reporter says in the 1980’s when the tax was increased to 28% the revenues went down so less money flowed into the government on a tax they raise.

So historically it’s proven when you lower taxes it increases spending giving people more money to purchase what they want, giving the economy the ability to choose, that’s freedom.

So why does Obama want to raise it from 15% to 28% when 100 million people own stock, the US population is 300 million, sounds like 1/3 the population to me, or 33%. Yet Liberals call the few rich elite 1%. (furthering my point Liberals are dumb)

[For the Liberals that don’t say that I am not talking about you, you’re not an idiot, just the ones that say numbers and percentages based on nothing]

So in conclusion, what happens is Obama says on the debate is he wants to raise it for the purpose of fairness, he points out that 29 billion dollars is made for 50 people. Is he retarded, he’s going to focus on 50 people when 100,000,000 own stock as well.

To show you how stupid and small scale this is let me put those 50 rich stock owners over the 100 million of people that own stock total to show you how small the picture is, 50:100,000,000

When reduced it is 1:20,000,000 because Obama want’s to be fair by taxing everyone 28% because 50 people made over a billion dollars when 100,000,000 people own stock total and will also be effected.

Liberals grow a spine and learn how things operate, disagree? Check the url, leave me a logic rebuttle, if not. Your statements are just banter and rubble that can’t hold value.

**DISCLAIMER – Please don’t tell me I am off on the US Population by rounding it to 300 Million, sorry it’s 304,059,724, like that is a big difference.

Also don’t tell me the guy on ABC news interviewing is a liar and making it up, please read the facts before you call someone is liar.

Also read everything, don’t give me your 10 seconds of what is on the top of your head. Take the time to research it.
How am I projecting, that’s real numbers screaming at your liberal face. Again uneducated people making uneducated answers.
Brown950: You’re the poster child for pop culture killing politics and why people don’t know anything. Stop coming on here and watch TMZ
How do you compare gay marriage to this? Are you a moron, when you exit the door of your house do you even care about homosexuals, I certainly don’t think about it when I see our tax dollars getting wasted.

I am sick and tired of Liberals like you Holy Cow that change the entire subject, in a financial crisis, you’re focusing on homosexuals getting married, who cares, we are 11 trillion in debt, what does it matter right now about a minority group getting married?
iamct01: You’re alittle ignorant Liberal read the facts 100,000,000 people are stock owners, the news reporter from ABC says so in the debate look it up if you disagree. Anyone can be rich off stock dividens, Obama the fascist Liberal wants to tax people who work hard. Owning stocks is extremely risky and should pay more for the risk. That’s why Dividens pay more, and letting your money sit in the bank collecting a fraction of a percent interest isn’t rewarding.

Learn how to invest money before you come here spewing your uneducated mind.
Suba: I am rude and impatient for people who on here make up facts, lie, and ignore the truth. Read what I am saying, I hate you fascist liberals that rewrite history and make stuff up. You make me mad to no end, I am civil and continue to be, but everything I say is backed by fact, I am sick of these liberal liars like Michael Moore that demonize stock brokers, when really being a stock broker is extremely stressful and has a suicide rating because of it. You liberals assume people sit in an office all day and do nothing, that’s a bureaucrat, not a business man.
bluechristy: You have no idea how a corporation structure even works, you just sit there in la la land making up things. CEO’s have to deal with the management, marketing team, share holders, from making the employees happy to cost of production costs being effective. These people are the President of the company, like how we have a President of this country. You’re ignorant to make a statement based on what you see. You see a CEO making millions, the man/woman is highly stressed. Walk the shoes of one before you criticize one. It’s easy to see the end product when you don’t understand how it functions.
jehen: So you’re telling me we should tax everyone’s assets they put their personal money into and steal from them because they personally paid for it them self to begin with. You make me sick to no end, how much taxation must be forced on you to where you’re fed up with being taxed? How much is the percent going to be where you call the government greedy for stealing most your earnings and you end up quitting your job just living off welfare/unemployment/food stamps. I hope to god you realize cause and effect soon enough before the government makes us all pay for the needy and will tax us into being the needy.
mommanuke: wow you give me the url of factcheck.org, obviously a liberal bias site, they also tell you 44,700 Americans die every year who don’t have health insurance but don’t tell you their causes of deaths.

What I am saying is, to define middle class by this site is saying if you make more then 200k you’re upper class, if you make 50k or less you’re middle class. Excuse me but the real estate market is done by value of location. Let me explain that to your naive liberal antics, in southern california the ghetto houses are valued at 320k, I am talking ghetto in compton, middle class homes here value at 500k-900k, this is in southern california. You go to middle of no where Oklahoma I can drop a massive mansion for 500k, that’s because the real estate isn’t worth the dirt it sits on.

You’re defining middle class by an amount of income, you’re naive because every place in the United States has a different cost of living. Being poor in So cal differs from value in another state.

John answers:

Iamct01, I work for a contractor, he works for a living. Sometimes he will borrow money to build a spec house to keep me and my co workers working when he doesn’t have any other projects going. The capital gains tax increase would hurt him and us that work for him. It would make it where he would not make as much money for sticking his neck out on the line by going in debt to keep us working. So if the tax is raised I would more than likely not have as much work because the risk of building a house would not be worth the reward of selling it if he loses another 13 percent because of higher taxes.

Here is an example of how it works. My boss borrows $100,000 to build a house. That keeps me and 3 or 4 other guys working for about 2 to 3 months building the house, along with roofers, dry wallers, heating and air contractors, electricians and plumbers. After the house is built he sells it for $150,000. At the current rate he made a capital gain of $50,000 and pays $7500 to the government leaving him $42,500. When you add in the few thousand that the real estate company makes and the interest payments on the loan and it is still worth while for him to stick his neck out and borrow that much money. If the tax goes up to 28% then the government takes $14,000 leaving him $36,000 to pay the real estate charges, and the interest payments on the loan. I have seen times when the house sat on the market until he made very little money other than his wages while he was working on the house. Taking another $6500 would not make it worth him taking the risk.

There are thousands if not millions of people this tax increase would hurt that have nothing to do with the very wealthy or the stock market. I am one of them.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.