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, 02:56 PM
 
1,849 posts, read 637,089 times
Reputation: 1904

Advertisements

This might be the worst take I have ever read on this site. Capital investment and the growth and jobs that come with it would dry up overnight. Capital gains tax should be lowered to zero to get more people with capital to take risks. 0% cap gains would invite even high risk investments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
7,695 posts, read 2,064,138 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
Have no fear, because in this...new world...value of property will tank...so you wonít have to pay 200k for the next house either!

Or you can just walk into a different property because no one has property rights and the communities property is your property.
Your second paragraph is nonsense as people still can have personal property.

To your first, why is low value property bad?

This country doesnít like it because it means less tax revenue for the government and less profit for realtors, and less economic activity in general.

But why are any of these things bad? I think theyíre good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
7,695 posts, read 2,064,138 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by PuppiesandKittens View Post
Please- just move to North Korea. You'd have capitalism excluded to your heart's content, and you could leave the rest of us alone.
Read my posts in this thread.

A higher CGT would lower government revenue and power. I want less state power, not more.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
7,695 posts, read 2,064,138 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by cttransplant85 View Post
This might be the worst take I have ever read on this site. Capital investment and the growth and jobs that come with it would dry up overnight. Capital gains tax should be lowered to zero to get more people with capital to take risks. 0% cap gains would invite even high risk investments.
Again, as Iíve stated before, the goal is to get less corporate investment, not increase tax revenue (the opposite would happen due to less capital investment).

In exchange society wonít be reliant on corporate wealth and the stock market wouldnít control the greater economy. Local cooperative investments own by the users and scaled to the needs of people, not profit would take its place.

Yes overall capital investment would shrink, as would housing prices, but thatís a good thing for people, not a bad thing.

And of course the tax can be tied to inflation so homeowners donít lose wealth on there house.

Owning capital should not raise or lower wealth as capital value by itself does not create wealth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:32 PM
Status: "Loving the hilarity of CD." (set 9 hours ago)
 
5,403 posts, read 2,502,925 times
Reputation: 5285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Because I donít know nor do I see how this is relevant to my OP.
This is your post that started that line of discussion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
I don't want long term investment.

The goal is to lower all long and short term investments as not to inflate value and corporate wealth.

If society does not need to make money to survive, people would not be slaves to those with the greatest economic power.

Is life better when investments are growing the economy, or when people look after one another.
In this post, you claim that lowering long and short term investment would serve to not inflate corporate wealth. Inherent in that claim is that long and short term investment does inflate corporate wealth. The question that I posed is designed to get at how that happens.

Do you still believe what you posted above, in spite of your claim now that you don't understand it, or have you come off of that belief?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:34 PM
 
5,512 posts, read 2,459,657 times
Reputation: 1991
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheShadow View Post
And how would those individuals with 401k's fund their retirements if they are earning virtually nothing in their company's retirement savings plan???
We should go back to pensions then along with unions for bargaining power as they are entitled to under capitalism.

Workers in Communist Countries are not allowed to form unions.
In China, there is only one union, government approved lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:36 PM
 
5,512 posts, read 2,459,657 times
Reputation: 1991
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Saying things like this is why no one is taking you seriously.
It is not far off the mark when they have enough money to have the government work for them.
Who do you think was behind our trade agreements with China?
It was the chamber of commerce and a host of corporate and banking lobbyists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:50 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
7,695 posts, read 2,064,138 times
Reputation: 2254
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
This is your post that started that line of discussion:

In this post, you claim that lowering long and short term investment would serve to not inflate corporate wealth. Inherent in that claim is that long and short term investment does inflate corporate wealth. The question that I posed is designed to get at how that happens.

Do you still believe what you posted above, in spite of your claim now that you don't understand it, or have you come off of that belief?
I thought you were asking for an exact number.

Anyways rising stock value has the affect of making shareholders richer and giving the board more flexibility in how capital is spent.

But that is only in the question of stocks, investing in land startups, and state enterprises increases wealth as concerned to capital value.

Remember, stocks are not the only form of investment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 03:53 PM
 
8,612 posts, read 7,603,424 times
Reputation: 18684
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW View Post
We should go back to pensions then along with unions for bargaining power as they are entitled to under capitalism.

Workers in Communist Countries are not allowed to form unions.
In China, there is only one union, government approved lol.
Only 6% of Americans belong to unions outside government jobs. And that number will shrink fast, as they close those auto plants that make cars. Unions are a thing of the past in the private sector, and will soon be dead.

Pensions are a thing of the past. Biggest cause, the younger workers up to middle age, only plan on working for an employer for a short period of time then jumping ship. Pensions were to reward people that stayed working decade after decade. When the workers are no longer looking for long term employment, there is no need for pensions as the employees will not be there to collect a pension.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:04 PM
 
895 posts, read 401,687 times
Reputation: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I thought you were asking for an exact number.

Anyways rising stock value has the affect of making shareholders richer and giving the board more flexibility in how capital is spent.

But that is only in the question of stocks, investing in land startups, and state enterprises increases wealth as concerned to capital value.

Remember, stocks are not the only form of investment.
How? Shareholders expect the company to make money and for the stock value to go up. Meeting expectations doesn't give management or the board more flexibility. If they're making money it may give them more capital to invest or return to shareholders, but they still have to demonstrate to the shareholders that their capital allocation strategy is in the shareholders' best interest.
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