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.
We are talking about the 412. Most of the wealth is tied up in holdings, commodities, stocks etc. pretty easy to liquidate. I am being charitable, they can keep the land. We may lose a thousand each, but I believe in charity.
The question was what would stimulate demand. I am answering the question. I can think of nothing else that would be more effective.
Having $1.2 trillion in assets liquidated in the marketplace would crash all markets overnight.
Even if we did have some money left to spend, most people would either pay down debt or hoard it due to the financial collapse we would be experiencing.
Be that as it may, what justification would we have for stealing from people?
Having $1.2 trillion in assets liquidated in the marketplace would crash all markets overnight.
Even if we did have some money left to spend, most people would either pay down debt or hoard it due to the financial collapse we would be experiencing.
Be that as it may, what justification would we have for stealing from people?
It is really interesting. I did not see the opposition to the wars in the middle east that have cost billions or the tarp stimulus packages. You do understand that these will all have to paid for with tax dollars. The only difference is that this money would be paid for right now. Not thrown off onto future generations. It actually would be the most fiscally responsible thing to do instead of borrowing more money.
There is a more simple suggestion that accomplishes the same result but takes a little longer. Tax an estate of 10 million or more , 100% with no loop holes for trusts. This way he people can hold on to their money untll they die. These people are dieing everyday so there will be an immediate infusion into the economy with sustaining growth. How does that grab you. No moral problem then. They will be dead. The dead don't have any rights to money...so no theft.
It is really interesting. I did not see the opposition to the wars in the middle east that have cost billions or the tarp stimulus packages. You do understand that these will all have to paid for with tax dollars. The only difference is that this money would be paid for right now. Not thrown off onto future generations. It actually would be the most fiscally responsible thing to do instead of borrowing more money.
There is a more simple suggestion that accomplishes the same result but takes a little longer. Tax an estate of 10 million or more , 100% with no loop holes for trusts. This way he people can hold on to their money untll they die. These people are dieing everyday so there will be an immediate infusion into the economy with sustaining growth. How does that grab you.
You must not read my posts very often, I have been protesting wars since the Reagan years, I want ALL troops home from every nation and I was very much against ALL stimulus and bailouts.
It is not a revenue issue but spending, $6.2 trillion in spending at all government levels is just too high.
Again, you are looking at things as static, economics are not static they are fluid and controlled by humans who often times act irrationally. Many large estates are small businesses and much of the value is made up of the families input. Taking someones business does not seem fair.
The amount of money you are talking about is pennies, the unknown unknowns are massive.
But, that still doesn't answer what the justification you have for stealing?
You must not read my posts very often, I have been protesting wars since the Reagan years, I want ALL troops home from every nation and I was very much against ALL stimulus and bailouts.
It is not a revenue issue but spending, $6.2 trillion in spending at all government levels is just too high.
Again, you are looking at things as static, economics are not static they are fluid and controlled by humans who often times act irrationally. Many large estates are small businesses and much of the value is made up of the families input. Taking someones business does not seem fair.
The amount of money you are talking about is pennies, the unknown unknowns are massive.
But, that still doesn't answer what the justification you have for stealing?
Spending actually increases demand. Not spending decreases demand. This economics 101. Not fair? That seems like a word used by liberals. I think it is pretty unfair that 412 people own 1.2 trillion dollars. That seems a little unfair to me.
The question was what would help demand. Distributing the wealth of the very wealthy to the middle class would indeed increase demand. You may not like it, but it would be the quickest and most effective way to increase demand.
Like I said. They could keep their money until they die. Think about it this way. Gates dies a month later the middle class gets a check for $400. That is 100 million people get a check for $400. Gates won't need it anymore he will be dead. I know the thought is kind of morbid, but it would stimulate demand.
Spending actually increases demand. Not spending decreases demand. This economics 101.
You really don't listen to the economic establishment do you?
Demand has nothing to do with supply (no matter what conservatives say) you can't push on a string. Demand comes from our family formation cycle, not supply of available funds. No matter what kids need food, cloths, toys etc. Not having the funds does not take away the demand. We are in a long term cycle in reduction in demand due to the aging of our population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
Not fair? That seems like a word used by liberals. I think it is pretty unfair that 412 people own 1.2 trillion dollars. That seems a little unfair to me.
Ya, I am a classical liberal. it is all about being fair.
If those people used government privilege to gain their wealth, I am all for having them pay society the rental value of that privilege. Ted Turner is a billionaire because of his control of land and air spectrum's, both are natural monopolies that should be paid for.
If someone created their wealth from legitimate means, I could not in good conscience advocate the theft of their assets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hotair2
The question was what would help demand. Distributing the wealth of the very wealthy to the middle class would indeed increase demand. You may not like it, but it would be the quickest and most effective way to increase demand.
Like I said. They could keep their money until they die. Think about it this way. Gates dies a month later the middle class gets a check for $400. That is 100 million people get a check for $400. Gates won't need it anymore he will be dead. I know the thought is kind of morbid, but it would stimulate demand.
It would increase supply of funds, not demand. Plus it would create massive unintended consequences. I need to start calling you Ronnie for your supply-side economics.
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.
