Dis die ou storie van as America nies kry ons verkoue. Die berig gaan aan om te se:

The drop in the stock market, through Friday, could cut overall spending by $140 billion, or 1.3 percent, over the coming year, says Paul Dales, senior U.S. economist at Capital Economics. Dales forecasts that the stock market turmoil could reduce the economy's annual growth rate by half a percentage point through 2012.

There isn't much to spare. In the first half of the year, the economy grew at a scant 0.8 percent annual rate. That helps explain the dive on Wall Street: Stocks are falling partly on fears that the nation could slip back into a recession.

David Kelly, chief market strategist with J.P. Morgan Funds, said he fears the market drop will become "a self-fulfilling prophecy ... and we'll just scare ourselves into a recession."

Tumbling stock prices could especially depress spending by wealthier consumers. Eighty percent of stocks belong to the richest 10 percent of Americans. And the richest 20 percent represent about 40 percent of consumer spending. Luxury retailers that have helped sustain the economy could suffer.

Even before stocks began dropping last month, consumers weren't exactly exuberant. In June, they reduced spending for the first time in 20 months. The Rasmussen Consumer Index, drawn from a national survey, found Monday that 70 percent of Americans think the economy is worsening. That's up from 45 percent at the start of the year.

The stock-market drop means "people will put off spending decisions, particularly for large-ticket items, and that will ... reduce growth," says Brian Gendreau, a market strategist with Cetera Financial Group and a finance professor at the University of Florida.

Rob Stein, senior portfolio manager at Astor Asset Management, worries that the stock market could remain depressed for months and hurt sales during the crucial holiday season. Still, he holds out hope.

Dit sal beslis ‘n groot effek hè in die spandeer patroon van jan-alleman, maar wat van die groot spandeerders soos ons fabrieke en myne? Joel Naroff van Naroff Economic Advisors  sê verder:

“Yet if the selloff in stocks continues, it could convince people we're heading toward another recession" -- and perhaps turn the fears into reality.

Sentiment among consumers is especially critical because of the outsize impact of their spending. But plunging stocks also hurt business confidence.

Companies whose share prices have sunk can't raise as much money by issuing shares to the public. Some will delay initial public offerings that would have generated cash they could have used to expand and hire.

U.S. companies are sitting on about $2 trillion in cash. Economists say their reluctance to spend that money is a big reason the economy is still sputtering.

Dit kan bevraag teken word of ons markte nie die regstelling nodig gehad het nie, maar dis is gewis dat dit ons verbruikers sal afskrik:

Patrick Sheehan of Palm Springs, Calif., says the stock plunge has "caused a lot of hysteria in people." Sheehan, co-creator of a documentary film festival, says he and his wife have already cut spending.

"We're bracing for the next storm," he says.

Technology consultant Greg Schulz of Stillwater, Minn., spent about $200 on memory and a hard drive for his computer a few days ago, even as the stock market was falling. He's still spending on essentials. But the market's continued fall has caused him to avoid any extravagances.

"I found a good bargain," Schulz said of the computer gear that will help him do his job better. "But am I going to go out and buy that new 80-inch 3D TV? Nope."

AP Business Writers Christopher S. Rugaber and Daniel Wagner in Washington, Joshua Freed in Minneapolis, Rachel Metz in San Francisco and Christopher Leonard in St. Louis contributed to this report.

Dit bly ‘n ope vraag wat die gevolge gaan wees, dit bekommer mens net dat baie medium en klein besighede nog nie die groei in die mark gevoel het nie en nou gaan dinge al weer suid. Dit sal beslis baie besighede hul deur laat toe maak as ons nie die een kan vermy nie.

 I like this guys idea. . . where do we start?

8 March 2011

 Question:  "What is the influence of crime on the S.A. Govt?"

 Answer:  Crime generates millions and millions of Rand's for the SA Government

 Here are the facts....

Example 1:

Take just one million home owners in Gauteng who pay for "armed crime reaction" (not crime prevention) where private security companies react AFTER the crime has taken place - no wonder they never  make any arrests!

This service costs on average R250 p.m. Therefore 1,000,000 x R240.00 x 12 months x 14% VAT, generates R403 million in tax revenue for the SA Govt!

 Example 2:

A car thief steals a R500,000 car and receives between R10,000 and R30,000 for his deed. The car owner is paid out by insurance and then purchases another similar vehicle, on which he pays 14% VAT of approx R70,000 as a direct result of crime. 

Who profited the most?  The thief or the SA Govt?  We must begin with a mechanism whereby the SA Govt is forced to reconsider this unconstitutional and immoral practice of profiting from crime!

All South Africans should demand that all payments related to protection of life and property should be VAT free and Tax deductible!  This principle should also apply to replacement of stolen property as well as estate duty. If a person dies as a result of crime we should also demand that estate duty not be paid. How much do you think the SA Govt. has made out of estate duty from the murders of 1300 South African farmers?

The S.A. Govt likes to compare us to overseas.

Well overseas your safety and security is covered by your income tax and is tax deductible!  It is time that South Africans stood together and made the Govt.  And public aware of the Govt's “income" from crime. In the meantime crime is the goose that lays the golden egg.

Is it also not unreasonable to expect victims of violence and hijackings to pay their own medical costs? The Govt. should pay for these expenses as well as family counselling for victims!

Come on South Africa, lets ask the right questions and demand the right answers!

                  ------------------- 

The way our government does their tax thinking

12 February 2011

The new toll road system of Gauteng makes me think of this story and I started to wonder if the government has really not maybe got the cat by the tail.

We have all seen what they spend the taxpayer's money on and I don’t think any of us can ever change that any more, but now I think it's the beginning of the end for the "living"
in this country. They will kill off the tree that bears the fruit

I found this story and thought it too good not to share. It was written by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for a couple of beers and the bill for all ten comes to R100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this;

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay R1
The sixth would pay R3
The seventh  would pay R7
The eighth would pay R12
The ninth would pay R18
The tenth  man (the richest) would pay R59

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the pub every day and seemed quite happy with
the arrangement, until one day, the publican threw them a curly one.

“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by R20″.
Drinks for you ten blokes will now cost just R80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.

They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men, – the paying customers?

How could they divide the R20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that R20 divided by six is R3.33.
But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man, would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the publican suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system
they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each bloke should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, – now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid R2 instead of R3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid R5 instead of R7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid R9 instead of R12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid R14 instead of R18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid R49 instead of R59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.  But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the R20 saving,” declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got R10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too.
It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get R10 back, when I got only R2?
The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all.
This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and
had their beers without him.  But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important.  They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction..

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

He ended by saying

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

Thank for the clear message.