Why Are We Afraid to Tax the Super-Rich?

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

but many CEOs don't create wealth at all, they just manipulate it and skim a few $millions off the top.

But MOST make business decisions that keep the business healthy many other people employed.
MANY educators sit on their ass holding xeroxed classes and surf the web. MOST impart useful knowledge and problem solving skills to their students.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Quote

but many CEOs don't create wealth at all, they just manipulate it and skim a few $millions off the top.

But MOST make business decisions that keep the business healthy many other people employed.
MANY educators sit on their ass holding xeroxed classes and surf the web. MOST impart useful knowledge and problem solving skills to their students.

I think THIS part of the discussion is about those that raped the US (and world) economy with their greed and incompetence, but still walked away with huge bonuses.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,467]

>I'll give you entrepreneurs, who actually create wealth . . .

?? They just move it around, from VC's to salaries, from customers to suppliers and from sales to accounts payable. Then they skim a little off the top for themselves.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

my proposition is that by not taking on the liability of a student loan - students will immediately spend more
(does that make sense)

No, your proposition was to steal a bunch of money, so that "Our kids could actually leave college without carrying tens of thousands of dollars of debt on their backs."

Now you're saying that we should give them free tuition and they'll rack up just as much debt (because again, they have no income) on beer, ski trips, and pot?

Well, it makes as much sense as using "returned" TARP money on job programs.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

>I'll give you entrepreneurs, who actually create wealth . . .

?? They just move it around, from VC's to salaries, from customers to suppliers and from sales to accounts payable. Then they skim a little off the top for themselves.

I created mine. Really. I have the press in the basement.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

And of course, this is a one time deal, as those people immediately tell the world to fuck off. The deficit again zooms up over a trillion dollars. Worse as you've again reduced government income. Buffer retires - something that all Bershire investors have been fearing for a long time. You can invest in B-H for $82 right, DD. Well, until your retarded tax was applied. Now you're back to Tbills and money markets getting less than 1%. At least you'll have toilet paper.

It isn't even a one time deal as once the legislation was looking like it would pass the majority would quickly move before it could enacted and enforced.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[futuredivot 0]

Quote

I think THIS part of the discussion is about those that raped the US (and world) economy

Actually the whole discussion is a bunch of jealous bullshit from people that apparently aren't happy with their level of success and instead of applying and improving themselves would rather park on their asses and have the fruits of other's labor handed to them. YOUR redirection is the typical-"gee, I've said something that I can't defend even in my own convoluted reasoning so lets look in another direction" thing that I've come to expect from you.

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[nanook 1]

Quote

remember this time was for hundreds of thousands of years - the much greater part of our civilised existance. barter trade grew between hunter gatherer groups that had a surplus of goods. seasonal proto 'markets' arose at special sites where more varieties of surplus goods were bartered.

But with the beginning of central civilizations, irreversable technological thought and processes took place. We can't go back there, so the old way of doing business is obsolete and impossible.

Quote

assume we have an economy with 100 units total of money. this money gets exchanged from person to person and back round again - the same 100 units of money, a very primitive 'economy'. assume a bank at one point holds all the 100 units of money. when that money is exchanged it is exchanged only for the promise of more money back in return. at the end of the loan period 110 units of money is expected to be repaid to the bank. where does that extra 10 units come from?

From the assets created by the borrower. Everything comes from raw materials or some other useless form. when the useless form is transferred into something useful for someone else, you got wealth. Now what has to happen is currency would have to be printed to match the total amount of new assets in that economy. That currency represents the amount of money borrowed and created and goes back to the bank. The bank now has 110 and there's 110 or more of assets by the borrower. Don't confuse money and the asset that the said money represents. Assets theoretically can be created till resources are used up. This is where wealth comes from. Money is just the instrument that moves it from people to people. The economy has to be careful to match the value to the currency. It's a near impossible feat.

Quote

the very basic function of money though - is as a promise/iou

You are almost there.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[brenthutch 388]

In a global perspective anyone making over $20,000 per year is super rich. We should take away everything above $20k per year and distribute it to everyone else to make everything fair.

If you don’t agree with me you are worse than Hitler.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Before we raise anyone's taxes, or cut anyone's taxes, the budget needs to be evicerated. What do we absolutely, positively, HAVE to spend? As in line by line, page by page, item by item, strike it out and cut it to the bone. Only then do we have a starting point to rebuild. A huge task yes, but it needs to happen nonetheless. millions to plant wildflowers along the interstate system? $1.5 billion to subsidize high-def TV converter boxes?

$685 billion on a military where other first-world countries with comparable land size and borders to protect spend just $21B (Canada).

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Drew don't compare Canada's military spending with the USA's. The two simply can not be compared. Canada gets off easy by relying on the USA for it's national defense. Russia (or China) would already be occupying Canada right now and soaking up Canada's natural resources if the USA didn't have the military that it has.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[billvon 2,467]

>>>the budget needs to be evicerated.

>>$685 billion on a military where other first-world countries with
>>comparable land size and borders to protect spend just $21B.

>don't compare Canada's military spending with the USA's.

Which, ironically, is the process that prevents the budget from ever being eviscerated. "Cut X, Y and Z to the bone." "Wait, you can't cut X." "That's fine but you can't cut Y." "I'm all for it, but it's absurd to cut Z." Result - a lot of talking and promises and no budget cuts.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Drew don't compare Canada's military spending with the USA's. The two simply can not be compared.

Sure they can.

Quote

Canada gets off easy by relying on the USA for it's national defense.

There's also NATO. I doubt any of the other member nations to encourage invasions or terrorist attacks by failing to respond to such activity in Canada or the US.

Quote

Russia (or China) would already be occupying Canada right now and soaking up Canada's natural resources if the USA didn't have the military that it has.

Russia hasn't been a problem since the Soviet Union went bankrupt trying to keep up with US spending.

China would probably rather sell you guys cheap consumer goods than invade although if that changed there's always NATO.

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

the answer is simple - there's no such thing as interest, since that's a mathematical concept.

this is a very important point
(we now have two languages - an analogue, verbal one, and a digital, mathematical one. first we named things - now we price them)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

No, your proposition was to steal a bunch of money, so that "Our kids could actually leave college without carrying tens of thousands of dollars of debt on their backs."

my proposition is to tax the super rich
(the world won't fall apart you know)

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

It isn't even a one time deal as once the legislation was looking like it would pass the majority would quickly move before it could enacted and enforced.

move where - we're talking about 400 super rich here. they'll be easy to track down

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[dreamdancer 0]

Quote

Quote

remember this time was for hundreds of thousands of years - the much greater part of our civilised existance. barter trade grew between hunter gatherer groups that had a surplus of goods. seasonal proto 'markets' arose at special sites where more varieties of surplus goods were bartered.

But with the beginning of central civilizations, irreversable technological thought and processes took place. We can't go back there, so the old way of doing business is obsolete and impossible.

right, we can only go forwards. but we have to understand why money was created to attempt to understand where it is evolving to next
in a way a barter trade is a perfect trade. it's like a simple little equation. we both swap goods - there is no money needed and we both walk away immediately satisfied.

stay away from moving propellers - they bite
blue skies from thai sky adventures
good solid response-provoking keyboarding

[sundevil777 94]

Quote

assume we have an economy with 100 units total of money. this money gets exchanged from person to person and back round again - the same 100 units of money, a very primitive 'economy'. assume a bank at one point holds all the 100 units of money. when that money is exchanged it is exchanged only for the promise of more money back in return. at the end of the loan period 110 units of money is expected to be repaid to the bank. where does that extra 10 units come from?

Now you've demonstrated that you did not pay attention in economics class. However, you have shown you think you have it all figured out. You know not of what you speak. The economy does not operate on a fixed total of wealth. One person gaining wealth does not depend on another losing wealth. Marxists don't like to accept this, but it is true.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

>at the end of the loan period 110 units of money is expected to be
>repaid to the bank. where does that extra 10 units come from?

From another loan the bank has made to someone else.

Note that if your bank reports a cash reserve of $2 million, they do not have $2 million worth of currency. It's all on paper.

this is a closed economy - all 100 units of money have been loaned out. now the bank expects 110 units back. where does that extra 10 units of money come from?

It's called economic growth; for which zero is not an option. If your model rests on ZEG, it is all wet.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

There's also NATO.

NATO? huh? ...

You have not been paying attention to Afghanistan and who is doing the heavy lifting there. Then again with the American media you guys likely don't know what's going on there. Let's refresh the memory of who in NATO is doing anything in Afghanistan.

1) USA
2) UK
3) Canada
4) there is no 4 ... maybe the Netherlands ... not really ...

NATO would not come to Canada's defense if (I don't know) the USA decided to invade and occupy Canada. You say Russia and China would not invade and it's easy to say that when the most powerful military in the world is next door. But take that US military out of the picture and Canada has a lot of natural resources that any power would love to have.

PS: the USA spends an awful lot of money on their military and could likely cut back if they decided not to be the world police. In that regard there is no argument from me.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

No, your proposition was to steal a bunch of money, so that "Our kids could actually leave college without carrying tens of thousands of dollars of debt on their backs."

my proposition is to tax the super rich
(the world won't fall apart you know)

The super rich are already taxed and it's not working. Why not tax everyone?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

my proposition is to tax the super rich

Man up dude and tell us how much

Also, you haven't told anyone on here WHO the super-rich are. I've named a few people (Madonna) I mean if you don't call Madonna super rich then you are craaaazy. That's why you're all bark and no bite. You come up with these utopian ideas of taxing the 'super rich' so we can all have better lives.

How much do you want to tax Madonna?

[loumeinhart 0]

Quote

in a way a barter trade is a perfect trade. it's like a simple little equation. we both swap goods - there is no money needed and we both walk away immediately satisfied.

Right. Except what if you don't have what I want.

I need a pair of quality shades/goggles for the upcoming season. I have a stack of books, an old computer monitor, a car, and a dog. Which one should I trade for a new set of gatorz?

Imagine the chaos when people walk down the street dragging everything they own shouting "Someone trade me a gallon of gas"!!

[billvon 2,467]

>this is a very important point

And what would that be? Math is bad?

[chutem 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

remember this time was for hundreds of thousands of years - the much greater part of our civilised existance. barter trade grew between hunter gatherer groups that had a surplus of goods. seasonal proto 'markets' arose at special sites where more varieties of surplus goods were bartered.

But with the beginning of central civilizations, irreversable technological thought and processes took place. We can't go back there, so the old way of doing business is obsolete and impossible.

right, we can only go forwards. but we have to understand why money was created to attempt to understand where it is evolving to next
in a way a barter trade is a perfect trade. it's like a simple little equation. we both swap goods - there is no money needed and we both walk away immediately satisfied.

Wow, this barter system sounds great for people who have things. (the rich) I'm surprised to see you so enamored with a system that leaves the poor shit out of luck with nothing to barter.

James