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.
The high rich do not pay taxes - they control everything..including the taxing system. Once in a while they will sacrafice what we consider a rich person to the taxing system - this scape goat is rich in OUR eyes but in the over all scheme of things...is an expendable chump in the eyes of the powers that be. You can NOT tax the rich - you can only tax the successful ..the real rich are past the concept of success...of money..as long as we think in terms of rich and poor and we envy those who are successful all is lost - My mother had this friend who was in his late 80s - who lived under communism and had come to Canada - He had one thing to say about systems - be they capitialist or communist - "They persecuted and pusnished those that were bright and worked hard" - go figure - and don't work to hard - they will take away your reward - that is the problem..ther TRUE rich do not want competition..so they nip YOU in the bud.
And when it comes to taxes it's really all about what the taxes are spent on. That is part of the problem in America, people hate paying taxes, because they feel that the government is just taking money out of their pockets, which is sad really, because the government is supposed to be for the people.
When I pay my taxes I'm buying my well-being, I'm buying good services that I get in return without questions of insurances, or tuition fees at universities or whatever, and sometimes when the government have taken too much they send a couple of thousand back.
You are correct. A huge portion of our tax dollars go to wasteful programs, fraud and other programs that most people do not want to fund.
Our country is way too big. It's impossible to manage a $3.6 trillion budget. Sweden would only be a large city in the USA, so it's much easier to manage.
I'm not interested in knowing whether you do your own taxes or not, or whether you know better than everybody else. Save it for another thread.
What I told you: I didn't notice the tax cuts. I won't notice the tax rates going back to Clinton years.
What I asked you: Did/would you?
That's a really strange question, but I'll indulge you. I will "notice" any changes to my taxes.
People aren't yet ready for that idea. You post about it, and people don't respond, because they don't understand the underlying concept behind it.
And of course, there's no way in hell that the existing elite would ever allow you to seperate productive activity from land rents, within the tax code. Too many of them made their wealth, and continue to grow it, in this monopolistic fashion.
Plus it would devalue land prices, but not existing mortgage costs. You'd see regular people going underwater with greater severity. Certain groups of society who refuse to take their losses on bad real estate investments would be up in arms at the suggestion.
That was the same problem back in the 19th century. However its inevitable at some point because most people fail to realize we had technological societies before like Rome and China destroyed by severing wealth from productivity . When the Roman gentry was destroyed we got the dark ages only to end up back into feudalism. Then there was another revolt. The FIRE sector is our royalty who now collects the surplus. I would have actually like it if Trump became president because that would have been our first of the new crop of land barons to directly rule over us. May as well get used to it. (Trump knows exactly the economics I am talking about) Now here we go again. It will be interesting to see the rentier class attempt to use small parcels to swell the numbers of "estate owners". However it will become increasingly difficult.
You are correct. A huge portion of our tax dollars go to wasteful programs, fraud and other programs that most people do not want to fund.
Our country is way too big. It's impossible to manage a $3.6 trillion budget. Sweden would only be a large city in the USA, so it's much easier to manage.
I know it's not simple, but on 300~million people there's bound to be a few capable ones to manage it, otherwise why are so many American universities ranked so high?
Granted, the Swedish population isn't even half that of New York, BUT the larger size also comes with benefits if the advantage of size is used properly.
This is a question of organization. my suggestion for that problem is using civil engineers rather than economists/bureaucrats, to empower efficiency through mathematical models rather than complicated jungles of rules nobody keeps track of.
I suspect there are the same issues in America with being so many rules to take care of different new exceptions that it becomes a jungle that demands a larger workforce than would otherwise be necessary, opening for opportunistic bureaucrats to take unnecessary space, both in terms of costs and jobs.
???? No, but we should cut government spending. Huge cuts are needed.
What he's saying is that we currently have two ways of growing the monetary supply and staving off deflation --
a. People borrowing money from banks. (in a fractional reserve system)
and
b. Government running deficits.
Regardless of whether you think the money supply should grow or not, or how you feel about debt, the fact is that people are NOT borrowing from banks in very large volumes right now; therefore the only source of monetary supply growth is coming from government deficits. The big picture is that government deficits, and private borrowing (for mortgages and such), are very closely connected with one another, as they are the methods our system has for creating new currency.
So in my opinion -- because I think deflation is catastrophic -- huge cuts in government spending (deficits) is exactly what we do not want, during our present contraction of private lending.
What he's saying is that you have two ways of growing the monetary supply and staving off deflation --
a. People borrowing money from banks.
b. Governments running deficits.
Regardless of whether you think the money supply should grow or not, or how you feel about debt, the fact is that people are NOT borrowing from banks in very large volumes right now; therefore the only source of monetary supply growth is coming from government deficits. The big picture is that government deficits, and private borrowing (for mortgages and such), are very closely connected with one another, as they are the methods our system has for creating new currency.
Amen to that. And along with it, this quote by Mark Cuban on one of his blogs:
"I’m not against government involvement in times of need. I am for recognizing that big public companies will continue to cut jobs in an effort to prop up stock prices, which in turn stimulates the need for more government involvement. Every cut job by the big companies extracts a cost on the American people in one way or another."
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.
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.
