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.
Wow, really? Owning property is now illegal in your world? You're going to force by law someone to DO something? That will go down in flames, just as ObamaCare is. You can't punish non-action.
Speaking of Property Tax - they should be ended as well. As it is, someone that owns a home is NEVER free. They always have the threat of having their home taken away from them, even if they own that home free and clear.
There are some Democrats (current actual active politicians) who do believe upon death that all assets should be taken into the government for the common good over the family of the deceased. Hail Satan I guess would be their next campaign motto!
The government already has forced old people to spend what they could not afford to when banks started only giving 1% returns or less.
They went into the stock market making it high, the big boys got out and the old people took it in the shorts.
Then they've had to spend principal because there is no interest because the low rates were buying young people homes they'd eventually get foreclosed out of.
Isn't life wonderful?
The Federal Reserve is responsible for interest rates being so low. The reason that interest rates are so low is because the fed is trying pump more money into the economy by spurring lending. The problem is the banks are not lending the money and the wealthy are not spending so the money supply and transactions are low. As long as that is the case, you will not see a high interest rate.
The only way that you will see interest rates go higher is for the people with the wealth to not be allowed to hoard it. Taxing the top 2% at 45% of capital gains would go a long way to that end.
You don't seem to understand the point of the thread and velocity. I have posted some articles for you to read if you are interested. "Rebuying", I am assuming you mean buying something else would be the whole point. That is what you need to have velocity...Continual buying. You are also stuck in the tax system paradigm that we have now. Obviously what I am advocating would be a change in the tax laws to encourage velocity. Locking away profits would be the antitheses of what I am suggesting.
Please read this article. If you have another answer to the problem that we are in, I would like to know what you come up with.
I completely understand the point you are TRYING to make.. its just WRONG.. When you increase taxes, you DECREASE velocity, not increase it.. Thats how tax cuts sometimes pay for themself, you seem to understand the concept, you just have it backwards..
I am sure in his plan 1031 exchanges would be baned.
Which would yield the opposite effect the OP is trying to obtain.. 1031's are offered because they do increase velocity.. Ban them, and you decrease velocity..
Assume this. Jon inherits 10,000 acres of unimproved land. The state and local govt has no property taxes. Jon is a hermit and loves living out in the woods. He has no disincentive for keeping the land. The county where he lives has only 10,010 acres including Jon's land. The county can not grow because it has limited places to grow because of all of Jon's land.
County puts a tax on land $100 per acre per year. Jon can't afford this. He sells most of his land, which is then used to build houses businesses etc. You have growth, transactions etc. This is the benefit of the tax. Of course could decide to cut trees down and sell them, lease part of it out, or otherwise make use of it. Either way you are creating transactions.
This of course is an analogy because this is what is already occurring with property tax. The same thing could be used to free the money from the hoarders so that it can be used to provide growth.
Actually most property tax is on the developed portion of property. It should be the opposite encouraging development and discouraging hoarding. I agree with all of that, the difference is you are calling for Capital Gains tax and you assume a transaction will "fix" the economy. There would be economic benefits but our systemic problems are way beyond simple revenue schemes.
The government already has forced old people to spend what they could not afford to when banks started only giving 1% returns or less.
They went into the stock market making it high, the big boys got out and the old people took it in the shorts.
Then they've had to spend principal because there is no interest because the low rates were buying young people homes they'd eventually get foreclosed out of.
Isn't life wonderful?
That is a monetary a banking issue, a whole other problem.
I completely understand the point you are TRYING to make.. its just WRONG.. When you increase taxes, you DECREASE velocity, not increase it.. Thats how tax cuts sometimes pay for themself, you seem to understand the concept, you just have it backwards..
When you decrease taxes and give more money to those who will actually put the money into the flow of commerce...yes that increases velocity...correct. However, putting more money in the hands of those who will only put into static investments (top 2%) does not increase but decrease the velocity. It is not an all or nothing type thing. Your statement is just dogma.
When you decrease taxes and give more money to those who will actually put the money into the flow of commerce...yes that increases velocity...correct. However, putting more money in the hands of those who will only put into static investments (top 2%) does not increase but decrease the velocity. It is not an all or nothing type thing. Your statement is just dogma.
Anything you disagree with, that proves you wrong is just dogma.. Gotcha..
NEWS FLASH.. NO ONE puts money into static investments, not even the top 2%.. the fact that you think they do proves you dont have a clue what the hell you are talking about.. There is no such thing as a static investment because over time, the tax write offs lose their value and they have to move their investments intos omething else...
You have no clue what the hell you are talking about, just a liberal wet dream using imaginary scenarios that dont exist in society..
The Federal Reserve is responsible for interest rates being so low. The reason that interest rates are so low is because the fed is trying pump more money into the economy by spurring lending. The problem is the banks are not lending the money and the wealthy are not spending so the money supply and transactions are low. As long as that is the case, you will not see a high interest rate.
The only way that you will see interest rates go higher is for the people with the wealth to not be allowed to hoard it. Taxing the top 2% at 45% of capital gains would go a long way to that end.
This stuff goes way back though, before the little rise in the stock market during Clinton.
Remember the rise and fall?
Older folks desperate for any way to not lose their life savings went into the stock market in mass over the low interest rates for savings.
They were amateurs and they took it in the shorts and have been since then.
When you decrease taxes and give more money to those who will actually put the money into the flow of commerce...yes that increases velocity...correct. However, putting more money in the hands of those who will only put into static investments (top 2%) does not increase but decrease the velocity. It is not an all or nothing type thing. Your statement is just dogma.
Problem is taxes are collected and the treasury is raided to buy votes to stay in power.
The result is a broke nation, heavily overpaid government employees and a depended class of people on social programs past the short term (in exchange for the right vote).
Politicians fear the balanced budget amendment because a lot of the above would mostly disappear as it exists today.
As it is it can't go on much longer, we are on vapors.
Anything you disagree with, that proves you wrong is just dogma.. Gotcha..
NEWS FLASH.. NO ONE puts money into static investments, not even the top 2%.. the fact that you think they do proves you dont have a clue what the hell you are talking about.. There is no such thing as a static investment because over time, the tax write offs lose their value and they have to move their investments intos omething else...
You have no clue what the hell you are talking about, just a liberal wet dream using imaginary scenarios that dont exist in society..
I am using terms like static to make this conversation as elementary as possible so that you may understand. As much as people would like to make this liberal or conservative it is neither.
Maybe we can both agree on something. In order for the economy to grow you need transactions to occur? You need money in the hands of people who will actually spend it. Do we agree on that?
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.
