MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tamaka
quote:
ORIGINAL: Edwird
quote:
ORIGINAL: tamaka
I didn't say it was evil but it could be.
It absolutely has been, while you were asleep, sorry you missed out on it. But you just woke up and had a pee and just noticed Buffett and apparently unaware of damage rendered while you snored. Good morning.
quote:
I'm usually right ; ) ... And we are lucky that Buffet hasn't decided to buy political influence, but counting on the goodnesd and benevolence of others is not really the best National Security policy, imo
It doesn't grow demand as i said. Thank you for evidently taking the time to ask someone who was educated so you could find out i was right and for taking the time to come back and edit your mistake. ; )
If an edit attending to initial response to idiocy makes your day, so be it, but no comment on how 'growing demand' works, or why it would be desirable?
I'll wait while you consult someone educated in the matter.
Well honestly i am just learning this stuff but from what i've gleaned so far, growing demand works when we can acquire new things, not just replace what we already had. The other side of the coin is that you need to have purchasing power... and if you merely think of purchasing power as money then you are going to run into a problem because if all you do is print money to buy things eventually the value of the dollar is going to fall and things will cost more money (a vicious cycle).
In order to build demand you must have something to supply (besided money). The supply of what people make is all that people have to offer in exchange for the things that they want.
I think this is probably what is causing the economic crisis in our country as we have only money to offer and that is why we have such a trade deficit and we owe trillions in debt.
How am i doing so far? Do i have this right?
Demand is demand regardless of the source. Yes, demand requires some wealth to exchange for what's called fulfillment and yes, to a large extent, govt. has overdone their economic and financial engineering. A plutocracy torn by the its social price and demands...will do that, Read on.
Aside from the rest of your rant, I understand your angst. What any economy and yes, this is true and is a basic...needs, is what called dollar velocity. That means simply more dollars in more hands.
NO, I am not talking govt. taking it and redistributing it. If that is what you seek, then your complaint as so many, relies on a fallacy. Something must be done by govt. I guess that would somehow, you don't otherwise know how, to address any man making $12 billion in a year.
Righteously...you can't, except one way...taxes. Do you pass a tax so high that Buffet retires and says fuck it ? No or soon there are fewer such sources like his, like it or not...to tax.
As I've tried to explain and this is not rocket surgery ok ? Buffet is drawn to use his capital to buy and sell or as a lender at times as in I think it was Goldman Sachs although Buffet as a lender is not part of the problem.
What we have is a disaster of a tax code. I don't need to create jobs or take risks to make money with money. I do not create jobs through demand with my billion$. The single greatest benefit to taxing Buffet's and all other billion$ from capital gains, is to reduce the tax on labor.
Even Adam Smith favored a progressive income tax system, Even Alex. Hamilton favored NO income tax on labor and a small tax on business...that would be enough.
SO, what do we do ? We tax all income at the same rate no matter what that rate is (lower now that all income is taxed the same) that helps the middle class and even though earning more...all of the way to the bottom to do what ? Pay less in taxes, create more demand, create more jobs which...creates more demand which creates more jobs.
We eliminate what's called capital gains and carried interest (whatever that is) and ALL income becomes the same.
Then and only then do we use the tax code for any incentive beyond what already exists in the marketplace and that would be in start-ups...real start-ups that create new jobs. Not some companies that are already a going concern, making money and will not be hiring in any great numbers.
The reason for stocks was to obtain debt-free capital that yes, could be used for anything but so what ? If a company is worth investing in, it will be after it raises start-up capital in any case.
So only start-up capital is awarded or enjoys any tax break plus it is the start-ups that are the greatest risks. Even then long term capital gains should be at least 2 or maybe even 4 years and batter yet 5 years...not 1.
There you have it. Tax the speculators and paper traders at the current income rates, lower middle class taxes and demand will pick, up, jobs will be created and so on and so on.
These policies have nothing to do with envy, or hate or just not liking the fact that any one person could make $12 billion in a year.
It is all merely technical and places any incentives...where they belong, in start-ups and the marketplace.
< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 12/31/2016 11:43:48 PM >
_____________________________
You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith
|
RE: Warren Buffet made $12 billion in 2016 - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread