U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2017, 10:54 AM
 
4,229 posts, read 1,905,340 times
Reputation: 3782

Advertisements

It's a double-entry system. A $10 bill in circulation is an asset to the holder and a liability to the issuer. There's not a lot of ways around that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2017, 12:17 PM
 
1,268 posts, read 758,889 times
Reputation: 2623
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWFL_Native View Post
You tax the wealthiest generation in history that is responsible for this debt. They got rich and the country went on the verge of bankruptcy to support it. A death tax is required to pay it down.
I'd be okay with this. The early boomers started us on this path with Reaganomics bs. The later boomers are complicit with hugely expensive medical care and giveaways like Medicare Part D. Someone needs to make sure Gen X and Millennials aren't stuck with the bill. Oh wait, we already have been. /smdh

Quote:
Originally Posted by functionofx View Post
No country has ever taxed itself to prosperity. Even seizing assets of all the very rich in the United States would not cover a year of our federal budget.

Taxation is regressive, and holds down GDP growth, it also encourages money to leave while discouraging investment. The very rich, usually manage to avoid all taxes, in part due to being smart, having a hoard of fiscal helpers, and paying lobbyists to help preserve their wealth.

Taxation can't be a solution for our debt, at least not taxation of all wealthy people.

If you hate the 1%, and earn over $32,400 U.S. per year, be careful. Earning that much puts you in the 1% of the world in terms of income. Are You in the Top One Percent of the World? | Investopedia

Should we take all your $32,000 now, or later?
Is everything a matter of extremes? LOL

Why not just add new tax brackets to those who make multiple millions of dollars per year? I mean, at what point does it just go into investment accounts and not circulate into the economy? And before someone says something stupid like "investment accounts do circulate into the economy" think about the recent expansion in companies buying back their stock. That $ invested goes to increasing the price per share for that shareholder. That's about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 02:12 PM
 
Location: Marin County, CA
681 posts, read 346,426 times
Reputation: 720
Let's see:

drops the most eye opening and relevant link in this thread yesterday - no reps, or comments.

Sounds about right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 02:22 PM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,842 posts, read 57,851,863 times
Reputation: 29235
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodUsernamesWereTaken View Post
drops the most eye opening and relevant link in this thread yesterday - no reps, or comments.
Awww.. are your feelings hurt?


Forum posting 101 lesson:
You can't just drop a link and call it a post.
At the least you need an introduction statement about why/how YOU think it's relevant...
and even better to also include a pertinent quote from the link.

hth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 02:50 PM
 
17,615 posts, read 12,203,533 times
Reputation: 12851
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGoodUsernamesWereTaken View Post
Let's see:

drops the most eye opening and relevant link in this thread yesterday - no reps, or comments.

Sounds about right.
Your link really was a non event. You provided no commentary and linked to something that's very easy to find

Last edited by Lowexpectations; 02-02-2017 at 03:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 03:29 PM
 
Location: New England
1,553 posts, read 656,190 times
Reputation: 1384
Quote:
Originally Posted by stockwiz View Post
I think they're using fuzzy math to calculate this.. how much you make is relative to what the cost of goods are in your local currencies.. I bet most Europeans have a better standard of living than someone in the US making $32K/year. Chuckle. I'm not saying we have it bad in the US.. even the poorest people have a better standard of living than most Indians, Chinese, etc... but I'd hardly call $32K "rich" and if you're anywhere close to a big metro where housing prices are high, that won't get you very far at all. That's barely acceptable out here in the middle of nowhere, South Dakota.. if you buy a home 15 miles away that's 75 years old. Won't be buying a home in Brookings on that salary.. maybe a mobile home... due to local ongoing supply issues.

Example... Russia's average wage is about $17K per year vs our $46K, but a lot of items cost a lot less. This "strong dollar" is one of the reasons a lot of companies now make things overseas in places like China.. in fact it's probably the main reason.

Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not ok

Looking at these prices confirms we kind of have expensive internet here but compared to us they pay a lot for gas and clothing relative to their wages. Interesting.
It isn't my math. The source was attributed. The source is correct, you wish to add other considerations, which seems odd as those hostile to the 1% don't offer them much quarter. Why offer any quarter or caveat to the 1% of the world?

Last edited by Yac; 02-17-2017 at 07:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 03:31 PM
 
Location: New England
1,553 posts, read 656,190 times
Reputation: 1384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Augiec View Post



Is everything a matter of extremes? LOL

Why not just add new tax brackets to those who make multiple millions of dollars per year? I mean, at what point does it just go into investment accounts and not circulate into the economy? And before someone says something stupid like "investment accounts do circulate into the economy" think about the recent expansion in companies buying back their stock. That $ invested goes to increasing the price per share for that shareholder. That's about it.
Your reply is misplaced. My reply was to a post suggesting taxing people to pay off our national debt and improve the economy. Anyone who makes such a suggestion is making an extreme suggestion, to reply and demonstrate it is in error is not extreme.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 03:34 PM
 
Location: New England
1,553 posts, read 656,190 times
Reputation: 1384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub-911 View Post
The debt was very nearly paid off in 1836. We won't make that mistake again.


If it has taxing and currency-issuing authority, it is impossible for a national government to go bankrupt. Thinking that national governments are just like households is a huge blunder. The economy exists in three distinct sectors -- household, business, and government. There are reasons for that.
The debt was entirely paid off in 1836, Jackson paid it off, cut government, and got rid of the 2nd National Bank. It was quite a fight. At the same time, he was concerned about insurrection of Southern States. Quite some history there. Jackson liked gold, silver and copper, he hated banks, and hated fiat currency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Texas
3,253 posts, read 1,552,880 times
Reputation: 3078
It's not possible to pay off the debt. It was never designed to be paid off. In a sense, if you wanted to pay off the debt tomorrow, you simply manufacture enough money to put us back at zero. But physically there is not enough money in circulation to pay off the debt+interest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2017, 06:42 PM
 
8,279 posts, read 3,454,476 times
Reputation: 1584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak Cravings View Post
It's not possible to pay off the debt. It was never designed to be paid off. In a sense, if you wanted to pay off the debt tomorrow, you simply manufacture enough money to put us back at zero. But physically there is not enough money in circulation to pay off the debt+interest.
Circulating currency is but a small portion of all USD. IMO it will never happen, but if there is the will, there is a way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion_dollar_coin
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top