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.
Investment has no value? Providing the capital for businesses to expand and therefore hire more employees has no value? Providing the capital for mortgages and every other kind of loan so people can buy homes, start/expand businesses, buy major appliances, etc., etc., has no value?
That HAS to be one of the most ludicrous things I've ever read on city-data.
Just out of curiosity, what line of work are you in that you've so clearly failed to grasp the basic laws of economics?
We need investment in jobs...not loans. Increasing the amounts people can borrow doesn't really help the economy right now........it's old school economics you use to back up your arguments but the environment has changed and we are so debt ridden as a society that the very last thing we need to do is increase loan amounts.
We need to make sure those investment dollars are going to job creating capital projects...not just increasing the cash value of a company.
Apple is one of the richest corporations in the USA.....it is just holding the cash -- it's not expanding significantly to increase jobs -- and those that hold their stock -- are not adding more jobs.
We can't afford to rely on old school theories. I do think infrastructure projects -- putting people to work NOW...is what we should do we with.
Trump is choosing to put in military projects...which is one way i guess but we aren't really in war time and our country is in dire need of infrastructure improvements.
When goods/services are not highly valued by society, they don't command and receive high prices. Likewise, the labor market is the same. Oversupply in many labor fields drives down the value of such labor, as well.
Again, out of curiosity, what line of work are you in that you've so clearly failed to grasp the basic laws of economics?
This is nonsense since the value of the dollar is based on goods and services. How can you say goods and services are not valued when that's what defines value? I already told you what I do. Let's see if you have the courage to do the same in return.
We don't tax wealth (except for the estate tax), so only a discussion of income is relevant.
OP asked: "Who are these 'rich' taxpayers we hear so much about?"
and specifically requested we: "think about what 'rich' actually means in this day and age."
So it's quite relevant. And the fact is, "Rich" cannot be found on an IRS form. The IRS doesn't go after wealth, and therefore looking at IRS data to figure out "how the rich are being taxed" is a fundamentally flawed approach.
It doesn't? Try getting a mortgage to buy a home, or a business loan, or any kind of credit to buy major appliances, etc., without others being willing to invest the capital to fund it.
Quote:
I'm a pharmaceutical scientist. Specifically in physical chemistry. I am not an economist. I'm just using my common sense.
Prime example. Common sense isn't all that common.
This is nonsense since the value of the dollar is based on goods and services. How can you say goods and services are not valued when that's what defines value?
Again it comes back to: Are all the purchases of those goods and services cash only? Or are the bulk of those purchases made via access to credit (capital provided by investors)?
It doesn't? Try getting a mortgage to buy a home, or a business loan, or any kind of credit to buy major appliances, etc., without others being willing to invest the capital to fund it.
Again, I'm not poo-pooing on capitalism. It's beyond useful and our society is dependent on it. As stated I'm pro-capitalism because it allows for growth. It allows for innovation, progress. That does not negate the fact that the value of the dollar is based on goods and services, which is work, in whatever form that may be. This is a measurable thing. It also does not negate the fact that a segment of the very wealthy do not work, do not produce anything or even invest in anything that produces something of value for that matter. How is any of that off the mark?
Quote:
Prime example. Common sense isn't all that common.
This is rather meaningless. Especially since you really don't discuss anything I've sad so far amd are just caught up with the idea that I don't personally value capitalism, which is untrue.
Again it comes back to: Are all the purchases of those goods and services cash only? Or are the bulk of those purchases made via access to credit (capital provided by investors)?
Doesn't matter to my point. The goods and services provided by the people of this planet is what gives the value of the dollar. It's what keeps our globe spinning so to speak. It's a part of life. It's what all life does (most of us at least). We work. First comes work, then comes the dollar, not the other way around. My point, for the 10th time, is that for many of the wealthy it's the latter, not the former. First comes the dollar without the work. Then comes more dollars without work and the value of these dollars is based on the work of others. Again, which is fine, but it needs to be taxed imo. When people come along and present these non-workers as victims, well, what do you expect? Not everyone is sipping from that pitcher of koolaide.
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.
