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 08-22-2017, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Forests of Maine
29,723 posts, read 47,495,927 times
Reputation: 17572

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim1921 View Post
Perhaps you can tell us as to how much we should all spend based on our incomes or net worth.
Thankfully there is no Net Worth tax
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2017, 06:39 PM
 
2,240 posts, read 1,388,386 times
Reputation: 4894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Submariner View Post
Thankfully there is no Net Worth tax
Certain state jurisdictions do for corporations. ��

No tax is off limits for the greedy tax man.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 09:02 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
3,408 posts, read 1,962,223 times
Reputation: 10027
At 65, I still only spend what I earn. The money I've saved over the years is for later, if I quit working someday. I thought this was the way you're supposed to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 10:51 PM
 
62 posts, read 20,556 times
Reputation: 86
I do not see this as an issue of hoarding or jealousy (I know some do), I see it as a fundamental structural problem. Since the trend for some time is that fewer people control more of the wealth, we seem to be on a path that may not work out for the economy or the middle class very well.

Is there a point that we should get really concerned? When 10% have 80% of the wealth? When 5% have 90% of the wealth? When 1% have 99% of the wealth?

I think the point here is not whether the wealthy deserve their wealth, but whether this is a sustainable economic direction for the mass populace. The middle class does not seem to be doing so well. Traditional pensions going away, high cost of home ownership and rent. Health care costs through the roof. Extremely low household wealth.

I fail to see this as encouraging or sustainable. We shall see soon if the upcoming tax reform favors high or low income by the numbers. Whether it has the potential to accelerate the wealth transfer or slow it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
13,116 posts, read 9,205,456 times
Reputation: 8988
The rich are hoarding notes? Do tell...

FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES
https://www.federalreserve.gov/RELEA...nt/default.htm
April 2017
M1 = $3,462.3 B; M2=$13,520.8 B
https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm
Q: How much U.S. currency is in circulation?
A: There was approximately $1.56 trillion in circulation as of July 12, 2017, of which $1.52 trillion was in Federal Reserve notes.
U.S. Population (2017) : 326,474,013
>>> $4,655 per capita <<<

Federal Budget (2017): $3.65 Trillion
<<< $11,180 per capita >>>
“HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM...”

Remember, Congress has no power to CREATE money. Congress can coin money (stamp bullion) or borrow money. IT cannot create bullion. Nor can it give that power to anyone else.

(Federal Reserve notes / dollar bills / are IOUs denominated in dollars (coin) but are NOT dollars.)

LEGAL TENDER STATUS
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...al-tender.aspx
". . .Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves..."
The "rich" are hoarding worthless IOUs that cannot be redeemed with lawful money (coin) since 1933.
That is FUN-NEE.
ROFLMAO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 11:15 PM
 
6,308 posts, read 4,769,309 times
Reputation: 8437
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006 View Post
Yup, I doubt he even pays less as a % of income in taxes. He takes a $100k/yr salary and typically receives another $400k+ in other forms of compensation. She'd need to make a lot of money every year to pay more than him even as a %.
He is talking about the money being made by his investments, which are primarily BRK stock. He pays the capital gain rate on that and his secretary pays ordinary income tax on her labor income.

Capital gains taxes are low because the money used to buy the investment has already been taxed, so a capital gains tax is double taxation and should be zero. I like Buffett, but if he wants to pay more tax he is free to do so - and he will still be a multibillionaire after paying it. The rest of us will not be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 11:17 PM
 
62 posts, read 20,556 times
Reputation: 86
As a medium of exchange, the currency seems to spend just fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,370 posts, read 6,790,399 times
Reputation: 14412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bronn View Post
As a medium of exchange, the currency seems to spend just fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
Capital gains taxes are low because the money used to buy the investment has already been taxed, so a capital gains tax is double taxation and should be zero. I like Buffett, but if he wants to pay more tax he is free to do so - and he will still be a multibillionaire after paying it. The rest of us will not be.
So much of the wealth created by Buffet, Gates, Bezos and many others would evaporate if the modern-day looters tried to "redistribute" it; but if it remains under private management in the non-profit sector it will stimulate job growth, but under the sort of stronger discipline that ruins the plans and dreams of Special Snowflakes.

This is the sort of "socialism" that even I can learn to live with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 12:03 AM
 
62 posts, read 20,556 times
Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Siegel View Post
He is talking about the money being made by his investments, which are primarily BRK stock. He pays the capital gain rate on that and his secretary pays ordinary income tax on her labor income.

Capital gains taxes are low because the money used to buy the investment has already been taxed, so a capital gains tax is double taxation and should be zero. I like Buffett, but if he wants to pay more tax he is free to do so - and he will still be a multibillionaire after paying it. The rest of us will not be.
The money I spend from my salary has been taxed previously. I still have to pay sales tax and state taxes, etc. Pretty much all money has been taxed previously.

I believe that the rationale for keeping cap gains tax low is to encourage investment, not double taxation.

But this is really a thread about wealth concentration and wealth transfer, not tax theory.

If this trend continues and we reach a point where 90% of US wealth is held by 1% of the populace do you view that as problematic? At what level should we start considering it a problem?

I can never get anyone to answer that question, for some reason.

Last edited by Bronn; 08-23-2017 at 12:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 12:07 AM
 
62 posts, read 20,556 times
Reputation: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
So much of the wealth created by Buffet, Gates, Bezos and many others would evaporate if the modern-day looters tried to "redistribute" it; but if it remains under private management in the non-profit sector it will stimulate job growth, but under the sort of stronger discipline that ruins the plans and dreams of Special Snowflakes.

This is the sort of "socialism" that even I can learn to live with.
Very vivid rhetoric. The "snowflake" trolling doesn't serve to add credibility or substance to a mature discussion.

If the middle class spends money does that not create growth/jobs?

Changing tax policy to minimize a rapid transfer of wealth is "looting"? If so, is lower taxation on the highest incomes the direction we should be going in? Maybe we should eliminate cap gains tax entirely? Or have we found the Goldilocks perfect tax balance to both encourage investment and keep the middle class purring along?

How about a flat tax on all income, earned and unearned? 10%, just like LTCG. That is probably what Buffet is paying right now.

No one will stop investing or chasing profits because their tax rate increases 5%. It might even incentivize them to work harder. LOL

Last edited by Bronn; 08-23-2017 at 12:21 AM..
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
Similar Threads
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