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 Today, 12:06 AM
Status: "Loving the hilarity of CD." (set 6 hours ago)
 
5,401 posts, read 2,502,925 times
Reputation: 5285

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Could you clarify your question, because from what I understood you claimed that because one person investing in Apple’s stock doesn’t change the value of the company stocks don’t affect Apple at all.

Which is ridiculous of course.
I made no such claim, stop making stuff up.

Here is the question again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
If I buy $1,000 of Apple stock today, by how much does Apple’s corporate wealth increase?
Note that I make no claims, I’m simply asking a question, germaine to the discussion based on your post to which I am responding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 12:20 AM
 
Location: midvalley Oregon and Eastside seattle area
3,330 posts, read 1,514,849 times
Reputation: 2636
^Apple stock purchase...Can I try?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:20 AM
 
5,706 posts, read 5,890,227 times
Reputation: 2546
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Why would I invest in companies that fuel our nation's economy and take the associated risk if a 10% gain becomes a 1% gain? Might as well dump it in a MM fund.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
You wouldn't, and that would be a good thing.

Corporations will have weaker economic influence over the economy, and provide more freedom for the non-executive class.

And why is corporate investment a good thing? Sometimes sure, but there are other modes of community investments (as seen in Nebraska) that doesn't require endless growth for societal stability.

edit: More is not always better
you should invest in companies unless they pay you the dividends to justify the purchase price. If not, then is just a ponzi scheme you are buying into

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I don't invest in the stock market and neither should you, it puts economic well being in danger and makes you a slave to the value of the corporate sector and leads you to support destructive public policy to save the wealth you have locked up in the market.

If taxes were raised to 90% 401ks and other investment tools would become less attractive and production/economic activity will become less inflated by capital investment and greed.
All we need to do is tax the finance sector higher. All the things you are saying about the economy starts with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:42 AM
 
5,706 posts, read 5,890,227 times
Reputation: 2546
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lincolnian View Post
This is ridiculous. Why would I want to take the risk and time and effort to invest or improve anything if my upside was limited to 10%? I suggest a different approach to capital gains whereas assets held less than 5 years are taxed at an ordinary income rate, 4 years at 80% of OI, 3 Years at 60% of OI, 2 Years at 40% of OI, and 1 year and less at 20% of OI. This approach would encourage long-term investment especially in equities.
At the moment is the best they can get. Sure they may want to horde, and wait, but more savings has its positives

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobster View Post
The problem with a high capital gains tax in the US is that investors will go outside the US to seek out investments. This will lower the tax revenue collected in the US.

The system is broken, but this is not the way to fix it. We need a paradigm change. It may come, but I doubt it or at least not in a way that you would be agreeable with.
We can make rules, and regulations to curb that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
mr free society wants the government to tax people more. that will really lead to more freedom!

the government is the opposite of freedom, every added penny is transferred from people to government reduces freedom.
But corporations can underpay everyone forcing the government to dole out more welfare, which in turn forces gubment to tax everyone more all for the sake of corporate profits. So in a way, the Corporations are taxing us. They just use a third party to do it. Plus the corporations are increasing the cost for their goods and services while all this happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
you want the government to take money from people and threaten them will violence and/or ruin if they dont comply.
Well hopefully they will use violence and take money from the wealthy if they dont comply as well. As long as everyone is treated equally, is all good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:19 AM
 
5,706 posts, read 5,890,227 times
Reputation: 2546
Quote:
Originally Posted by grouse789 View Post
Oh wait, I get it now. So the wealthy should create wealth for everyone else. So I can just stay home and be lazy.
Lol
Hmmm, nah I like taking care of my family, I enjoy making a lot of money at work and in the market. I also enjoy helping those in true need by giving. Because I make a lot, I can give a lot on my own. I certainly don't need the Govt telling me I need to help support some clown working at McD's.
Why does it have to be a clown working at McD's and not some clown working on Wallstreet like Bernie Madoff?

Quote:
Originally Posted by grouse789 View Post
Come to think of it, you should move to Uruguay. Nice pretty country, it's communist so they redistribute the wealth. If you have over say $500g's they help themselves to it. For the good of others. Why wait for America to change your utopia is waiting for you
Uruguay is pretty stable with high standard of living. Or do you mean to write Paraguay?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
I think there should be a 95% tax on the output of cooperatives. There's no input cost to what they produce since human capital has no value so its all profit. That will incentivize more production by the cooperative to meet their own needs as well as the needs of all those the federal government decides to distribute the 95%.

Makes about as much sense as the 90% capital gains tax.
If it can work on a cooperative, then why not on capital gains? Money is money, does not matter where it is coming from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Capital Gains Tax doesn't take what you produce, selling commodities or land does not equate to something you make.

Capital value shouldn't be the source of wealth creation as it doesn't involve real labor and production capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
My capital produced the capital gain.

Capital value isn't THE source of wealth creation, it is A source of wealth creation. Labor is another source.
It should be its own special class, since some people dont have to work to gain capital, or not all the capital is earned but created out of thin air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainNJ View Post
well, at least you admit that your goal is to make everyone poor (the natural result of socialism).
Everyone poor and on same level is still better than vast majority being poor, with 1% extremely wealthy. That is like medievel Europe with Serfs and landed aristocracy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 01:53 AM
 
5,706 posts, read 5,890,227 times
Reputation: 2546
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan View Post
No, the wealth is when you talk someone into buying it for more than what it was purchased for...

Take away investments and you stop technology/advancement

Tax everyone like it was 19xx and you have to force everyone to live like it too. Take away all the life saving medicine and care, take away your iPhone and air conditioning

Technology didn't advance in the middle ages because no one was funding it... Not investors or the oligarchy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
Yes, at a ridiculously slow pace. It literally took hundreds of years and multiple generations for Europeans to rediscover Roman cement...

Ok sure. Again, nobody is stopping you to donate all your money to charity and sit under a tree reading poetry.
The innovations, and advancements cannot take place without the break throughs that happen in the past. Obviously, the very beginnings are always going to be the hardest, therefore the slowest. We are at a stage in which we are no long in the first phases. So a lot of innovation seems like it is advancing at record pace. But really in the grand scheme of things, we are not moving all that fast.

Its not like we can cure common cold, fly through space FTL, still no flying hoverboards/flying cars, etc, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLSFan View Post
The motive for most of those was war... That isn't a better alternative, you want to advance by killing your opponents?

Money became the score keeper after kill numbers, investments are the weapons of the capital system. Remove it and you go back to scoring with kill counts

Any country without a strong investment system tend to be ruled by warlords and fear
Necessity will always be the mother of invention/innovation/discovery. War will always force the greatest necessities. This will never change.

A strong investment system will prompt countries to invade others to subjugate, and rule by fear, using armies, and generals etc, etc. It makes no difference

Quote:
Originally Posted by FelixTheCat View Post
I don't need to read up on anything. Businesses sell stock in order to grow, which leads to more hiring and more production. Come on, this is very basic stuff. It's almost like you are trying to not make sense.
Businesses sell stocks to make money for the people that control the company. Businesses have people behind them. It is just a front. Businesses dont do things on their own like a gestalt intelligence. Its people that make decisions, and reap the benefits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:13 AM
gg
 
Location: Pittsburgh
17,231 posts, read 17,500,298 times
Reputation: 10990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
If you look at the OP’s posting history, you’ll see he has some rather bizarre (to say the least) ideas when it comes to economics (and societal organization in general).
This just looks like a troll post really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:20 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
7,684 posts, read 2,064,138 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
In the US, it ended due to the outcome of the Civil War. It would have ended on its own due to no longer being economically viable.



I wait anxiously for you to tell me. . .
No, not really.

The cotton agricultural economy no longer was deemed non-efficient in terms of state power both internationally as concerned with competition and domestically as concerned with tax revenue and flexibility.

The Whigs and the Tories came around to supporting free trade in India and elsewhere because they could expand their share in Markets of the competing empires like the French, the Dutch and the Russians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:21 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
7,684 posts, read 2,064,138 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by gg View Post
This just looks like a troll post really.
Why?

I'm not trolling.

If you don't want to discuss CGT and their affect on the economy then just don't post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 07:47 AM
 
Location: Thailand
5,210 posts, read 2,488,615 times
Reputation: 9623
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133 View Post
you should invest in companies unless they pay you the dividends to justify the purchase price. If not, then is just a ponzi scheme you are buying into
You have no idea what you're talking about.

A ponzi scheme needs new investors to return a profit since there is no actual investment in anything that has value, new investor money is used to pay returns to old investors. If I invest in the stock of a company that doesn't return dividends, it can still return a profit because the company grow (in actual or perceived) value. It doesn't take any new investors for the stock price to rise along with the performance of a company, if it has 1,000 outstanding shares and doubles in size/sales/rev each share will be worth more and I can sell mine for a profit. This is not a ponzi scheme.

Sometimes I think "ponzi scheme" is the most overused term by people who understand the least.
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

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.

© 2005-2019, 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