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 02-02-2019, 05:05 PM
 
Location: Thailand
5,414 posts, read 2,570,558 times
Reputation: 10010

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
No. There are trillions of dollars in liquid accounts of billionaires, hedge funds and corporations. "US non-financial companies' cash and liquid investments will rise about 5% to $1.9 trillion at the end of 2017" -- Moody's.
How do numbers from non-financial companies cash and liquid investments prove that billionaires are hoarding cash? Companies have far more dynamic liquidity needs than personal investors, you're trying to prove X by pointing at Y.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
[*]The velocity of money is at historic lows (chart). Despite the fairly good economy, money is not circulating as fast as it used to. The only explanation for this is there's a good chunk of cash sitting idle in accounts, not moving; only a portion of available cash is actually circulating today.
Nope, this does not support your argument that billionaires are hoarding cash. You're incorrectly assuming that someone not spending money is the same thing as hoarding cash. Take an example of two billionaires:

The Businessman has 10 billion invested in the US stock market.
The Drug Kingpin has 10 billion in cash buried in Colombia.

These two have the same impact on the velocity of money since they aren't making transactions in the economy with their billions of dollars. One can hoard wealth (not spend) and still be invested in stocks and bonds that help drive the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2019, 07:17 PM
 
4,594 posts, read 5,499,952 times
Reputation: 4870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Yes, it IS the government's place to confiscate money. It's in the Constitution. See the 16th amendment.



That's exactly why the government passed the 16th amendment: to confiscate and reallocate money to make America a better place. Ideally tax policy is made to optimize economic activity and to keep the economy from becoming unbalanced.
No, it isnít, and youíre completely misunderstanding the point of taxation. It isnít and hasnít ever been to confiscate wealth - in fact, direct taxation is unconstitutional despite Warrenís ďplan,Ē the same amendment you cited ironically says exactly that! You can tax transactions and movements of money, you canít confiscate money just because someone has more than you think they should. Taxes are for paying for government services and our defense, theyíre not to ďequalizeĒ things so we can punish the winners of society. I donít know where you got that idea but itís not correct at all.

Optimizing economic activity isnít punishing wealth creation, by the way, so your point is moot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2019, 07:33 PM
 
17,177 posts, read 18,561,181 times
Reputation: 24941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
https://outline.com/xGfLGm

Key paragraph relevant to the Economics forum:

"[there is] evidence that extreme wealth has a corrosive effect on the economy. Wealth inequality places immense resources in the hands of people unable to spend it productively, and keeps it out of the hands of those who would put it to use instantly..."

This is exactly what I posted earlier... that the global savings glut, where ultra-wealthy individuals and institutions have mountains of excess cash sitting idle and doing nothing, is grossly unproductive. We need a wealth tax to siphon up dead cash to put it to productive use.

Why not tax a billionaire? If someone has $2 billion, and taxes knocks it down to $1.5 billion, will he or she even notice? Their lifestyle won't change, they can still buy whatever they want and have every need fulfilled.
I bet your tune changes if you’re that billionaire. It’s easy to say tax the rich, they can afford it. For the most part you have not a clue on how the weakthy work or spend money. Do you really think that taxing a few billionaires somehow is gonna put money in your hand? Give me a break. That’s not how taxation works.

Your post is nothing more than the typical “tax the rich because it will solve all the problems of the world” argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 01:38 AM
Status: "Loving the hilarity of CD." (set 29 days ago)
 
5,641 posts, read 2,566,054 times
Reputation: 5455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominftl View Post
Oh, and trickle down isnít stealing from the middle class and below? Who did Trumps tax scam benefit? Weíve tried trickle down twice and it doesnít work. The wealthy donít do much to improve jobs or economy. They buy back their stock and cut labor or move it to Mexico.
I know, right? Itís the poor that are building businesses, employing their fellow citizens, and paying all the taxes that keep the country running.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 04:04 AM
 
Location: Tucson/Nogales
16,786 posts, read 20,523,984 times
Reputation: 23090
Any time a political candidate talks about taxing the rich, without closing the many loopholes, it's nothing more than a political stunt to harvest votes. That candidate knows full well the biggest beneficiaries of raising the tax on the rich are their tax consultants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 06:20 AM
 
3,277 posts, read 1,383,205 times
Reputation: 2452
The current global economic trajectory will inevitably reach its limitations of growth. The key is to create a different trajectory where we reduce the human footprint substantially without creating global chaos.

One of the ways to do that is to incentivize innovation. You do this by creating national programs dedicated towards building a sustainable society, but you keep it open and broad enough to inspire creative thinking, which may lead to inventions that help lead us towards this objective.

That's where the tax money should be going towards; however, that would require discipline and selflessness. As you can tell from this thread, it's not going to happen.

Our current system incentivizes those who are already rich *ie "daddy's money," who lack any ability to innovate and/or skills and instead generally contribute to an unsustainable system that has resulted in at least 60% of existing animal species extinction since 1970. So where would capital be better allocated? In the institutions that help actual smart and talented people help innovate technology and potentially save billions of lives or some daddy's boy? You be the judge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 07:18 AM
 
Location: Thailand
5,414 posts, read 2,570,558 times
Reputation: 10010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jobster View Post
Our current system incentivizes those who are already rich *ie "daddy's money," who lack any ability to innovate and/or skills and instead generally contribute to an unsustainable system
Bezos had no incentive to innovate? It seems like he's got about 150 billion reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 07:24 AM
 
3,277 posts, read 1,383,205 times
Reputation: 2452
Quote:
Originally Posted by lieqiang View Post
Bezos had no incentive to innovate? It seems like he's got about 150 billion reasons.
What's Amazon's next venture?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/housi...122434959.html

Lol.

Wake up. All Bezos cares about is gettin his **** sucked. He's already rich homey.



https://images.in.com/uploads/2019/0...51.jpg?ver=0.2

"Free Market"

at tax payer expense, lol

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/...3-billion.html

http://www.fox5dc.com/news/48k-per-amazon-hq-job

https://theintercept.com/2018/11/15/...nia-subsidies/

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/opin...-one-more-dime

https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjourn...on-effect.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 07:28 AM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
16,203 posts, read 18,770,925 times
Reputation: 11718
Why don’t more people fall out of love with the bottom 20% of our society?

Aren’t people who can’t pull their own weight mostly a drag on the U.S. economy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2019, 08:01 AM
 
9,705 posts, read 11,612,649 times
Reputation: 13087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grlzrl View Post
This whole subject is a ridiculous discussion. EVERY billionaire would /could skirt this tax by setting up a foundation. They wouldn't be affected at all. Most of them already do this anyway.
Or leave the country like the Facebook guy did.......avoiding all US taxation!
Eduardo Luiz Saverin born March 19, 1982)is a Brazilian-born entrepreneur and angel investor. Saverin is one of the co-founders of Facebook. In 2012, he owned 53 million Facebook shares (approximately 2% of all outstanding shares), valued at approximately $2 billion at the time. He also invested in early-stage startups such as Qwiki and Jumio.

Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship in September 2011, and therefore avoided an estimated $700 million in capital gains taxes; this generated some media attention and controversy. Saverin stated that he renounced his citizenship because of his "interest in working and living in Singapore" where he has been since 2009, and denied that he left the U.S. to avoid paying taxes.


Get greedy and watch the billionaires leave.......paying NOTHING to the US Govt. My friend works for a billionaire, their main office for the company is in the Bahamas.......paying NOTHING in US income taxes on every dollar that runs through that office. The company is a worldwide enterprise and the billionaire is very well known.

For 700mm extra I'd leave the US too! Best part, as a Singapore citizen he has full access to visit the USA anytime he wants without the need for a visa.

A few years back the Canadian lottery was like 50mm (huge for them). We were in Toronto and bought a few tickets. The newspapers said the jackpot was non-taxed for the winner. But as a US citizen I would be on the hook for almost 40% in taxes (40% of 50mm is 20mm in taxes!). We had a group discussion at dinner if you would leave or not to avoid 20mm in taxes.

Despite what some people post in this thread, there is a difference between 30 and 50 million dollars! What aggravated me was paying 20mm in taxes on something that would have occurred in another country, totally outside the US!
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
Similar Threads
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