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.
"[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.
Oh, ok so it's the government's place to steal money from people if they decide that person doesn't really need it? Who appointed the government the judge of what someone else needs? I'd rather INDIVIDUALS decide what they need, and if they earned their money legitimately, they're entitled to every dollar they make. It's not a question of "what's good for society," it's a question of individuals being protected from overreach by governments. Wealth redistribution is not a government's job whatsoever and it baffles my mind how anyone can think that.
Beyond that, it's shocking how naive people are that they think if someone is worth $2 billion, that money is magically just sitting in some bank account and they're really not even using it. You don't really think that, do you? You realize that if someone is worth $2 billion, most of that is probably EQUITY in a business they own, don't you? My paper net worth makes me seem like a very wealthy man, but I don't have much cash. I have a comfortable amount, I'm doing fine, I can eat out whenever I want reasonably speaking, I can buy myself a new video game or go watch a movie in IMAX and not sweat it out. But I live a more upper middle class lifestyle because my investments are for the future, they are capital assets, they're not just money sitting in a bank somewhere. In fact, those assets employee a LOT of people! The money IS invested.
Where do you think wealthy peoples' money is? I know a lot of people with net worths from $50 million to $400 million and some of them are hilariously broke on a day to day basis. Don't get me wrong, they live wealthy, but when you take extravagant vacations, and most of your equity is in your own company, then the "wealth" they've created is paper wealth, it's not liquid cash. I've seen a guy who is worth at least $200 million need a $10,000 loan because he didn't have the cash until later in the week. It's not always so easy to take distributions from your own company, not only because there are off years, but because you want to reinvest capital to continue to grow the business. I've had some large payouts before that I put immediately back into other investments in hopes of a brighter future. The capital is being used, trust me, it's not sitting somewhere.
Do you think Jeff Bezos just dives into a big vault of his $87 billion or whatever it is? That value is almost entirely his Amazon stock holdings, and if he were to be taxed on his actual wealth, i.e. have it taken away, he'd have to sell stock, which would inundate the market with Amazon stock, sending the price plummeting. It's things like this where I really think we need some better education in this country of how business and economics works.
that the global savings glut, where ultra-wealthy individuals and institutions have mountains of excess cash sitting idle and doing nothing, is grossly unproductive
Which billionaire has their fortune sitting in mountains of excess cash? Probably some Colombian or Mexican drug kingpin who you couldn't tax wealth on even if you wanted to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA
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.
Someone living in a tin-roof shack in Myanmar might be thinking you could take 250k from rich westerners who have a million and they'd never notice and would still have their every want and need fulfilled, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
I think we should always strive for an optimal outcome for all. I don't have a problem with Billionnaires but it does seem like concentrating wealth in the hands of the few is not optimal but on the other hand, billionaires striving through investing is a driver for our economy that benefits us all.
On the whole, I would be in favor of a wealth tax on billionaires as long as wasn't extremely high and the revenues go to pay down debt.
... 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..."
Simply because wealth is held by a specific individual, does not mean that individual is 'hoarding' that wealth.
'hoarding' is when you take your cash to stuff it in a mason jar and bury it in your backyard. Where it rests without anyone else having access to it.
I believe that 99.99% of Americans have their money deposited in bank accounts or invested in the stock market [either through mutual funds or 401Ks].
When money is in a bank, that money is being loaned out to other individuals where it is being used and it is circulating in the economy.
When money is put into stocks, it is again circulating in the economy.
For a person to have some extreme level of Net Worth, does not equate that he is hoarding anything. Any money that person has is still circulating the economy.
Quote:
... 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 do not understand why people insist that such money is 'sitting idle'. Is it in a mason jar buried somewhere?
Oh, and trickle down isn’t stealing from the middle class and below? Who did Trumps tax scam benefit? We’ve tried trickle down twice and it doesn’t work. The wealthy don’t do much to improve jobs or economy. They buy back their stock and cut labor or move it to Mexico.
The money to run society has to come from somewhere. That needs to be balanced with leaving people enough incentive to want to work hard and build wealth for their families. Currently we run 500 billion to trillion dollar deficits yearly. I would think something needs to change, unless we can run debt like this in perpetuity. I'd be in favor of raising taxes on everyone with a bit more emphasis on the elderly for the express purpose of lowering the debt. I'm sorry to say, I don't have much faith that the money would actually be used for that purpose though.
The money to run society has to come from somewhere. That needs to be balanced with leaving people enough incentive to want to work hard and build wealth for their families. Currently we run 500 billion to trillion dollar deficits yearly. I would think something needs to change, unless we can run debt like this in perpetuity. I'd be in favor of raising taxes on everyone with a bit more emphasis on the elderly for the express purpose of lowering the debt. I'm sorry to say, I don't have much faith that the money would actually be used for that purpose though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tominftl
Oh, and trickle down isn’t stealing from the middle class and below? Who did Trumps tax scam benefit? We’ve tried trickle down twice and it doesn’t work. The wealthy don’t do much to improve jobs or economy. They buy back their stock and cut labor or move it to Mexico.
Most of the wealth that the Leftist greed-heads seek to "redistribute" exists only on paper, in "speculative interest" -- the unrealistic "value" of the stock of a handful of big winners like Amazon, Microsoft, Netflix, etc.
"Because you're never accused of greed for coveting the fruits of other peoples success -- only for wanting to keep more of your own" (Joseph Sorban)
And the greatest triumph of the free enterprise system and the "Wall Street" used as a whipping-boy by the usual collection of losers and thugs is that the wealth it creates evaporates, (usually temporarily), when the point-and-grunts start pointing in the same direction, and grunting in the same key.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-02-2019 at 08:55 AM..
"[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.
If you look at who the billionaires are, many of them made their wealth by starting up companies that became very successful, and their wealth is mainly the value of shares they own in those companies. Taking away the shares could easily result in these folks losing control of their companies, ultimately dropping the value for the other share holders. Where's the benefit in that? Taxing the capital gains when they sell shares is a better means to tax wealth, as you would be taxing an event that turned potentially useful wealth into actual cash that can be used for other purposes.
Why vilify billionaires, after that it’s going to come down to millionaires, then the thousandaires. Give it a break, LA times.
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.
