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)
 
Old 06-03-2019, 06:15 AM
 
1,148 posts, read 524,057 times
Reputation: 1228

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
Government sets the rules of the game and enforces them. The rules were changed ~40 years ago to make it easy for the rich to extract capital from the US economy and invest it overseas (for big profit). I said in the post you quoted that collecting $$$ isn't the point, rather influencing behavior... steering investment towards increasing domestic productivity. Production (and productive investment) are naturally depressed because wages (and buying power) are depressed. You can't expand debt to make up the difference forever.
I would venture a guess that the vast majority of overseas investment has been done by corporations, not by individuals extracting their capital from US corporate investments and then taking it overseas. That's what spurred the corporate inversion movement that was so popular and so vilified. The incentives are there for innovation (R&D credits, capital gains tax rates, carried interest taxation) for investment in new products and productivity enhancements. Wage gains just haven't been as robust. Seems to have gotten better recently but there's still room for improvement. I just don't see how raising tax rates for the wealthy makes that situation better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-03-2019, 06:26 AM
 
1,885 posts, read 801,717 times
Reputation: 2075
Most people aren't aware of this because they are too stupid and brainwashed and jealous. They think they deserve all the money rich people have and are just as good as them, when in reality they aren't. They think rich people pay LESS taxes, then when they are educated that they actually pay MORE taxes, they jump to other arguments out of frustration.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2019, 10:34 AM
Status: "Excited to move to Vegas!" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Beaverton, OR
5,535 posts, read 5,900,677 times
Reputation: 6310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berteau View Post
Most people aren't aware of this because they are too stupid and brainwashed and jealous. They think they deserve all the money rich people have and are just as good as them, when in reality they aren't. They think rich people pay LESS taxes, then when they are educated that they actually pay MORE taxes, they jump to other arguments out of frustration.
Bingo. Stupid people think stupid things, no surprise there! “But durrr why did da tax breaks help mostly the richer people?!” Gee umm I don’t know?! Could it possibly be because 47% of people don’t PAY federal taxes so even giving them a 100% tax break doesn’t do anything?! If one person spends $10,000 at a store and there’s a sale of 10% off, and someone else spends $5, it doesn’t make it “unfair” that the second guy only saved 50 cents and the first saved $1,000. It’s just basic math, any idiot should be able to figure out that if you spend more (pay more taxes), then when you get a percent break, you save more dollars. I cannot believe how stupid people are, that’s not a defensible position whatsoever. It’s just purely idiotic.

What they’re really saying is, “Well durrr I think da rich have enough money so they should give it to me.” No, no they should not, because you’re stupid and like stupid people always do, you’d spend it or lose it. Rich people reinvest money and grow the economy, they build skylines and companies, they invest in new tech and biotech, meanwhile their idiot counterparts are grabbing pitchforks because it’s “unfair” their McJob doesn’t pay $25/hour for a basic task even a trained monkey could accomplish.

All of this does prove one thing though - the liberals are right about education. Our system must suck so badly, otherwise we wouldn’t have so many stupid people who whine about things they don’t understand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2019, 04:24 PM
 
4,803 posts, read 1,210,739 times
Reputation: 3707
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
Government sets the rules of the game and enforces them. The rules were changed ~40 years ago to make it easy for the rich to extract capital from the US economy and invest it overseas (for big profit). I said in the post you quoted that collecting $$$ isn't the point, rather influencing behavior... steering investment towards increasing domestic productivity. Production (and productive investment) are naturally depressed because wages (and buying power) are depressed. You can't expand debt to make up the difference forever.



Prosperity is the sum of all goods and services produced. How the wealth from that gets divvied up is highly variable (and flexible!). If one is gathering $1B/yr into their accounts, that must necessarily subtract from the accounts of others. That isn't too esoteric is it?

Ideally you like the ones doing the "most good" to least get enough to give them an incentive to keep doing what they do. But the people who contribute most to our collective prosperity are inventors, scientists, and engineers who drive technological progress. Nearly all of them receive modest compensation, even the ones who come up with the most successful innovations.

Just as a random example, take the guys who got rich by engineering the financial debacle that hit the fan in 2008. Was their contribution to our society greater or less than the woman cleaning toilets for MW? Obviously that is an extreme example, but increasingly the way to get rich in our society is not by actually producing anything useful at all, but rather causing harm. The "game" has been rigged that way... and all of us "pay" for it.
I hope you are including the politicians who made policy that contributed to that mess. Like Bill Clinton, who repealed Glass Steagall and who got filthy rich after he left office.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2019, 11:21 PM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,416 posts, read 5,105,582 times
Reputation: 4457
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
Wage gains just haven't been as robust. Seems to have gotten better recently but there's still room for improvement. I just don't see how raising tax rates for the wealthy makes that situation better.
When taxes were high a company would do whatever was necessary to avoid having income that would be taxed at a high rate. Like investing in and expanding their business, or even increasing employee wages and benefits. This is what was done when our economy grew the fastest. Unions were strong then, so companies had a lot of pressure to increase wages if they were doing well.

It's been a fact since the start of the industrial revolution that consumer buying power must increase in step with production (and productivity) increases, else who will be able to buy? Because of this profits and income of the wealthy were effectively constrained by productivity increases as well. It's a symbiotic relationship for the country as a whole; we all get richer together, else it doesn't work. It was violated in the 1920s with disastrous consequences. The corrections made after that (higher taxes, stronger unions, higher wages, better public benefits, and limits on finance, etc) resulted in an extremely robust economy for about the next 45 years.

The big change started when Nixon killed Bretton Woods and we went to fiat currency. Fiat currency isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it allows for some financial shenanigans that weren't possible before. Particularly it made it easy to run a perpetual trade deficit, and a perpetual fiscal deficit (they go together).

Then the US encouraged companies to move production overseas and they'd retain easy access to US markets ("free" trade). Unions were gutted. Production would have been depressed because now we are producing less than we consume. But... not to worry... workforce participation increased because lots of women entered the workforce. This was one of the factors that kept consumption boosted. Another was easy credit. So even though wages were flat, consumption kept growing with the economy for a couple decades. And yes Grlzrl, illegal immigration is another factor that depresses wages and keeps consumption boosted.

The fortunes of the wealthy are no longer dependent on the fortunes of the rest of us, as the last 40 years have made plain. Fiat currency, trade and fiscal deficits, and financial BS and loose credit have made it possible. I keep thinking we are at the end of expanding private and fiscal debt and things are going to get real tough... or maybe even the consumers share of the pie will stop declining? ... but they keep kicking that can down the road.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2019, 04:20 AM
 
Location: Texas
1,970 posts, read 1,372,876 times
Reputation: 6740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatsright19 View Post
Right. For one thing, the laws didn’t make him rich. Or any billionaire.


Anywho, it’s not like the rich have money sitting in some big vault. It’s invested out in the economy and already aiding in economic prosperity. I don’t see the need for some incompetent government to take it and allocate it in their own way less efficiently. They already had one swing at it. They can try to get at it again when that wealth creates more profit yet again.
LMAO, the only thing most companies invest in are stock buybacks, not so much right now, most are stashing money waiting for signals on tariffs and the economy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2019, 04:23 AM
 
71,470 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49055
year over year both industrial production and capital spending stand at zero growth
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2019, 06:41 AM
 
1,148 posts, read 524,057 times
Reputation: 1228
Quote:
Originally Posted by rruff View Post
When taxes were high a company would do whatever was necessary to avoid having income that would be taxed at a high rate. Like investing in and expanding their business, or even increasing employee wages and benefits. This is what was done when our economy grew the fastest. Unions were strong then, so companies had a lot of pressure to increase wages if they were doing well.

It's been a fact since the start of the industrial revolution that consumer buying power must increase in step with production (and productivity) increases, else who will be able to buy? Because of this profits and income of the wealthy were effectively constrained by productivity increases as well. It's a symbiotic relationship for the country as a whole; we all get richer together, else it doesn't work. It was violated in the 1920s with disastrous consequences. The corrections made after that (higher taxes, stronger unions, higher wages, better public benefits, and limits on finance, etc) resulted in an extremely robust economy for about the next 45 years.

The big change started when Nixon killed Bretton Woods and we went to fiat currency. Fiat currency isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it allows for some financial shenanigans that weren't possible before. Particularly it made it easy to run a perpetual trade deficit, and a perpetual fiscal deficit (they go together).

Then the US encouraged companies to move production overseas and they'd retain easy access to US markets ("free" trade). Unions were gutted. Production would have been depressed because now we are producing less than we consume. But... not to worry... workforce participation increased because lots of women entered the workforce. This was one of the factors that kept consumption boosted. Another was easy credit. So even though wages were flat, consumption kept growing with the economy for a couple decades. And yes Grlzrl, illegal immigration is another factor that depresses wages and keeps consumption boosted.

The fortunes of the wealthy are no longer dependent on the fortunes of the rest of us, as the last 40 years have made plain. Fiat currency, trade and fiscal deficits, and financial BS and loose credit have made it possible. I keep thinking we are at the end of expanding private and fiscal debt and things are going to get real tough... or maybe even the consumers share of the pie will stop declining? ... but they keep kicking that can down the road.
As was pointed out before, higher tax rates for individuals did not equal higher effective tax rates for those individuals. Now you're calling for higher tax rates on corporations.

Before you claimed that individuals were extracting wealth from the domestic economy and redeploying it overseas. Now you're saying that corporations are the ones that sent investment and jobs overseas.

Can you tell us what point it is you're trying to make?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2019, 08:11 AM
 
8,309 posts, read 9,066,401 times
Reputation: 6672
I'm not sure what some of you all are talking about. The domestic business portion of Gross Private Domestic Investment was the highest it's ever been last quarter according to the St. Louis Fed.

rruff makes a number of odd claims but the backhanded claim that US business does not spend on capital goods and R&D is simply false as partially noted in GPDI plus US businesses invested more than $400 billion in R&D last year greatly eclipsing that of the federal gov.

The top 10 corporate R&D spenders invested ~$140 billion last year and the top 20 ~$215 billion.

The fact is over the last several years US private R&D spending has expanded strongly.

Sources St. Louis Fed. & The USBEA.

Last edited by EDS_; 06-04-2019 at 08:21 AM.. Reason: Also used Dallas Fed. and SMU numbers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2019, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Ruidoso, NM
5,416 posts, read 5,105,582 times
Reputation: 4457
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuiteLiving View Post
Can you tell us what point it is you're trying to make?
How did I not make it? Now your are just being argumentative for the sake of it. Don't make assumptions based on things I said that you don't understand.
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. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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