The Rich Are Destroying the Economy

Did he say that? Or did Yurskin lend you his amazing psychic powers?

He didn't have to say it, like I said, he assumed you were smart enough to have your money in a tax-free account. Under such a condition, the interest is rolled over and you don't pay tax until it's withdrawn. But again, it was a grievous oversight on his part to assume you were that smart.
 
Keyword: most



Was that keyword in your reply to ROD?


toothy9.gif
 
He didn't have to say it, like I said, he assumed you were smart enough to have your money in a tax-free account. Under such a condition, the interest is rolled over and you don't pay tax until it's withdrawn. But again, it was a grievous oversight on his part to assume you were that smart.



So whenever someone you feel the need to speak for leaves out something that covers their ass, you "know" what they really meant? Awesome.





300px-Psychic-neon-sign.jpg
 
Yep, you are right! Didn't I clarify that rich people will pay whatever taxes they need to pay in order to live their lifestyles?

Are you still missing the point? I think you may be! Perhaps an analogy is in order?

*POOF* The magical money fairy has just deposited $50 million dollars in a tax-free account for you. If you take any of the money out, it is immediately subject to 39% income tax. The account earns you 3% interest per year, which is $1.5 million. You can leave as much of the money in the account as you like, and there will be no tax liability until you withdraw it. Several possibilities present themselves here... Do you withdraw just enough to live a fairly lush lifestyle..say $500,000? This would allow your fortune to increase by $1mil per year, and you could live pretty comfortably on $500k, and your tax bill would be $195k, leaving an actual $305k to spend. OR maybe you take $1 mil a year, leaving your fortune to grow by $500k, and a tax liability of $390k? Either case, your fortune is growing, you are living large, and paying taxes. Following so far???

Okay... your accountant has approached you with a very interesting business proposition... A small company has developed the newest latest innovative electronic device, which will soon be found in every home, it is certain to make you a fortune if you get in on the ground floor. They need a generous investment from you of $25 million. They estimate that you will recover your investment in a few years, and the potential profits could be more than a million per year from there on out... but there is always risk you could lose money, the economy could tank, the company could become entangled in litigation over copyright... nothing is ever a sure thing in the world of business, but this seems like a very good opportunity.

So here is your dilemma... Do you play it safe, keep the money in security investments, live off the interest, pay the low tax... or do you invest in this opportunity? Let's say you invest... Right away, you have to pay the tax on the withdrawal of $25 mil... ($9.75 mil) Within a few years, you are indeed (best case scenario) earning $1 mil, and paying $390k in taxes... you keep $610k (Your $25 mil would be earning 3% in the security account, or $750k, and you never had to pay tax or take a risk.)

If Rich People LIKE making money, why would they do something to LOSE money?

Clearly you have never invested capital and have no idea whatsoever what the fuck you are talking about.
 
Clearly you have never invested capital and have no idea whatsoever what the fuck you are talking about.

The example I gave is patterned after an actual business proposition I turned down 14 yrs ago. I don't have $50 mil, and the investment wasn't $25 mil, but the percentages were the same down the line, as well as the tax considerations. So you can think I am some naive idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about if you like, I certainly DO know what I am talking about, as I have experienced it myself.

People who have the capital to invest in business opportunities, are reluctant to do so because of taxation. They are taxed on the initial investment, as if it were income, and any return on that investment is also taxed at the highest rate, and there is always risks involved with investment. Thus, it is marginally better for a person with wealth, to keep their funds in secure tax-free investments, than to pay the taxes and penalties, take the risks, and if they make a windfall, have to pay tax on that too. There is simply nothing to encourage a wealthy person to do anything with their wealth, other than keep it safe in tax-free securities.
 
The example I gave is patterned after an actual business proposition I turned down 14 yrs ago. I don't have $50 mil, and the investment wasn't $25 mil, but the percentages were the same down the line, as well as the tax considerations. So you can think I am some naive idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about if you like, I certainly DO know what I am talking about, as I have experienced it myself. People who have the capital to invest in business opportunities, are reluctant to do so because of taxation. They are taxed on the initial investment, as if it were income, and any return on that investment is also taxed at the highest rate, and there is always risks involved with investment. Thus, it is marginally better for a person with wealth, to keep their funds in secure tax-free investments, than to pay the taxes and penalties, take the risks, and if they make a windfall, have to pay tax on that too. There is simply nothing to encourage a wealthy person to do anything with their wealth, other than keep it safe in tax-free securities.


Do you have any evidence to back any of this up?
 
The example I gave is patterned after an actual business proposition I turned down 14 yrs ago. I don't have $50 mil, and the investment wasn't $25 mil, but the percentages were the same down the line, as well as the tax considerations. So you can think I am some naive idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about if you like, I certainly DO know what I am talking about, as I have experienced it myself.

People who have the capital to invest in business opportunities, are reluctant to do so because of taxation. They are taxed on the initial investment, as if it were income, and any return on that investment is also taxed at the highest rate, and there is always risks involved with investment. Thus, it is marginally better for a person with wealth, to keep their funds in secure tax-free investments, than to pay the taxes and penalties, take the risks, and if they make a windfall, have to pay tax on that too. There is simply nothing to encourage a wealthy person to do anything with their wealth, other than keep it safe in tax-free securities.

Dix, your post reminds me of Joe the Plumber. Remember that dude who said he wouldn't buy a business if he has to pay an extra 3% on $25,000 profit ($750.00). He'd sacrifice $24,250 on principal....or is that stupidity?

The true business person likes to take risks. They enjoy that. They enjoy the thrill.

In any case taxing the wealthy is not about hitting those who have already made huge fortunes. Your example of $50 million deposited by the magical money fairy misses the point. The idea is to tax the people on their way there, taxing the person as they build their "50 million", not the government trying to get their hands on the 50 million. If the money is taxed while it's being earned, before it's socked away, then it doesn't matter what they do with it after that.

Tax the interest or any other money the original money makes. Now the business person has a choice. They can invest it hoping to make more or settle for basic bank interest and considering basic bank interest is usually below the cost of living (other than that short period during the early 80s) that means the wealthy person continues to lose money.

To be honest you sound like the typical lottery purchaser. The general sentiment is if they win they'll put the money in the bank and live off the interest. The problem is the money changes them. They don't think the same way. They don't want to continue living in their little house and driving their old car and taking the same old vacations and the same applies to the person with the $50 million collecting $1.5 million interest and living on $305k, as your example showed in Msg. 74. Their lifestyle while making that $50 million was not the lifestyle of someone making $305k/yr.

As Dune has said you have no idea what you're talking about. Your investment philosophy is that of Joe the Plumber and as for how wealthy people live...if anyone has a net worth of $50 million and is living on $305k/yr. something is sadly wrong.
 
Dixie's knowledge of the wealthy is probably limited to watching "Dynasty" re-runs on basic cable.
 
Dix, your post reminds me of Joe the Plumber. Remember that dude who said he wouldn't buy a business if he has to pay an extra 3% on $25,000 profit ($750.00). He'd sacrifice $24,250 on principal....or is that stupidity?

I have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about, or what Joe the Plumber actually said, or how you twisted and warped it in your pinhead mind. But... I would venture to guess, that it is indeed stupidity.

The true business person likes to take risks. They enjoy that. They enjoy the thrill.

Uhm, no... we discussed this earlier, and you said that rich people like to make money, which I agreed with you on. Let's not spoil the one thing we've agreed on, okay? Rich people like to make money, they do not like to take chances with money, especially stupid chances which risk their fortunes.

In any case taxing the wealthy is not about hitting those who have already made huge fortunes. Your example of $50 million deposited by the magical money fairy misses the point. The idea is to tax the people on their way there, taxing the person as they build their "50 million", not the government trying to get their hands on the 50 million. If the money is taxed while it's being earned, before it's socked away, then it doesn't matter what they do with it after that.

Oh, I am fully aware you don't really want to tax the rich, you want to tax people who are trying to become rich... that's exactly what I have been saying all along, Apple. "Tax the Rich" simply is a lie, you want to tax people who are on their way to becoming rich... thanks for admitting that!

As for what wealthy people do with their money, you claim it doesn't matter, but it does. This is what is wrong with the economy right now... no rich people are investing in shit... nothing is happening with that money... it is sitting idle in a security trust somewhere, maybe not even in this country... and it ain't moving as long as Socialist Communists are in control of our Government.

Tax the interest or any other money the original money makes. Now the business person has a choice. They can invest it hoping to make more or settle for basic bank interest and considering basic bank interest is usually below the cost of living (other than that short period during the early 80s) that means the wealthy person continues to lose money.

Or they can move their fortunes to overseas accounts and trade on the international market, where all of their gains can be sheltered from US taxation. That has been happening too... we currently have about $18 trillion of wealth abroad. But how does this help our economy, Apple???

To be honest you sound like the typical lottery purchaser. The general sentiment is if they win they'll put the money in the bank and live off the interest. The problem is the money changes them. They don't think the same way. They don't want to continue living in their little house and driving their old car and taking the same old vacations and the same applies to the person with the $50 million collecting $1.5 million interest and living on $305k, as your example showed in Msg. 74. Their lifestyle while making that $50 million was not the lifestyle of someone making $305k/yr.

Again, you miss the point of the example I gave. People with wealth, don't need to earn an income anymore. They can live comfortably and pay whatever excessive tax you put on them, and it doesn't bother them or change a thing about their lifestyle. Now...whether they take some of that socked-away wealth and invest it in a new business venture, creating new jobs and economic growth? That's a different matter... if they are MOTIVATED by the prospects of MAKING money.... they MAY take that risk, they MIGHT try to make more money with their wealth.... but again... they do not HAVE TO DO THIS! If the burden of doing it, or the cost in taxes, fees, regulations, eat up most of what they would make to do it... they won't, because they don't NEED to! What part of this are you not comprehending? Really? I mean, if you still do not understand and comprehend my point, keep reading this paragraph over and over until you understand! I can't explain it any more plainly.

As Dune has said you have no idea what you're talking about. Your investment philosophy is that of Joe the Plumber and as for how wealthy people live...if anyone has a net worth of $50 million and is living on $305k/yr. something is sadly wrong.

Wow, knowing you and Dune have proclaimed me to have no idea of something.... that is powerful stuff! Why don't you show me where I am wrong about something I've said, moron? Can you not do that?
 
Of course, the Dixtard has yet to show any evidence of being right...:rofl:
 
Oh, I am fully aware you don't really want to tax the rich, you want to tax people who are trying to become rich... that's exactly what I have been saying all along, Apple. "Tax the Rich" simply is a lie, you want to tax people who are on their way to becoming rich... thanks for admitting that!

As for what wealthy people do with their money, you claim it doesn't matter, but it does. This is what is wrong with the economy right now... no rich people are investing in shit... nothing is happening with that money... it is sitting idle in a security trust somewhere, maybe not even in this country... and it ain't moving as long as Socialist Communists are in control of our Government.

If taxes had been collected all along there wouldn’t be any problem with the rich holding on to their money. The taxes would have already been collected. Try to grasp that fact. That money would already be in the economy.

And you’re right. I don’t want to pick on the uber-wealthy. They have a right to do as they please with their money. The problem is they were not taxed sufficiently while they were making it.

Look, in another 30 years many of the uber-wealthy will be dead! That’s about the time all the social programs are scheduled to default so tax the inheritance. Start now and tax the big income earners and in 30 years the government will get an additional huge bonus. :)

Or they can move their fortunes to overseas accounts and trade on the international market, where all of their gains can be sheltered from US taxation. That has been happening too... we currently have about $18 trillion of wealth abroad. But how does this help our economy, Apple???

As I’ve written before they need money to live here so the government asks them where they are getting their money. It’s the same principal as how the government deals with ill-gotten goods from drug sales. If a person is living the life of a millionaire and claiming an income of $100k it’s pretty obvious.

Furthermore, if they move their money to overseas accounts it means they made their money here. Tax it as it is being made. Close all the loopholes. Then let them do whatever they want with it.

And another thing is this “cashless society” that’s being talked about. Many people are against it. (One world government and all the conspiracy nonsense.) The fact is wealthy people who earn money and do not declare it frequently pay cash for purchases. How does the government know one spends $500/wk on dining out ($100/day) if they pay cash? Or pay vacations with cash rather than CC? (Maybe a cashless society will benefit all.)

Again, you miss the point of the example I gave. People with wealth, don't need to earn an income anymore. They can live comfortably and pay whatever excessive tax you put on them, and it doesn't bother them or change a thing about their lifestyle. Now...whether they take some of that socked-away wealth and invest it in a new business venture, creating new jobs and economic growth? That's a different matter... if they are MOTIVATED by the prospects of MAKING money.... they MAY take that risk, they MIGHT try to make more money with their wealth.... but again... they do not HAVE TO DO THIS! If the burden of doing it, or the cost in taxes, fees, regulations, eat up most of what they would make to do it... they won't, because they don't NEED to! What part of this are you not comprehending? Really? I mean, if you still do not understand and comprehend my point, keep reading this paragraph over and over until you understand! I can't explain it any more plainly.

We can’t do anything about the Bush tax breaks and what resulted. However, as I explained earlier, we can start now. Tax the money as it’s being made. Then it won’t matter anymore. This conversation will never come up again as the tax would have been paid on the money up front just like regular people pay tax on money and then put it in their bank account. Close the loopholes. No tax-free money. Period!

Wow, knowing you and Dune have proclaimed me to have no idea of something.... that is powerful stuff! Why don't you show me where I am wrong about something I've said, moron? Can you not do that?

I already have. People with a net worth of $50 million will not live on a net salary/interest/whatever of 300k a year as you stated in your example. That is not only wrong, it’s complete foolishness. As Dune and I have explained that income would not pay the maintenance on the person’s lifestyle. Taxes, insurance, domestic help, etc. Do you think the multi-millionaire is going to get on a ladder and clean his windows? Clean the pool?

As I said before you’re talking like someone holding a lottery ticket but people don’t go from “regular” to wealthy overnight. Your example of the “magic money fairy” dropping $50 million shows the same way of thinking and it’s wrong.

As people slowly increase their wealth their lifestyle changes. They may start out earning $40,000/yr but after twenty years of being in business and building a fortune they do not go back to living like they did when they started. A person with $50 million in cash is not going to live on $300k a year.

The bottom line is you don’t know what you’re talking about. Your idea of how wealthy people live is your idea of how you think you’d live but it isn’t reality.

Was it you who said you lived on noodles while trying to afford college? If so, did you not think about how much money you’d have once you finished your studies and landed a job? I bet your dreams were really great and I bet reality is nothing like your dreams, right?

A word of advice for what it's worth. Not only do you appear to be someone who places extraordinary emphasis on money but your perception of wealth appears to be skewed. Be careful not to focus both eyes on the future while missing the present.
 
ApplesauceBrain: If taxes had been collected all along there wouldn’t be any problem with the rich holding on to their money. The taxes would have already been collected. Try to grasp that fact. That money would already be in the economy.

What? You don't even make any sense, moron! How would the money 'already be in the economy' if it's in a Swiss bank account? How can it be stimulating the economy if it's a treasury bond in a security deposit box? Please explain this to me, because in the world I live in, this wealth not being 'in the economy' is the real problem we are having right now. Try to grasp THAT fact!
 
What? You don't even make any sense, moron! How would the money 'already be in the economy' if it's in a Swiss bank account? How can it be stimulating the economy if it's a treasury bond in a security deposit box? Please explain this to me, because in the world I live in, this wealth not being 'in the economy' is the real problem we are having right now. Try to grasp THAT fact!

First, where did the money come from that's currently in the Swiss bank account? If it came from the US then it should have been taxed before it left the country the same way the average person's wages are taxed before they deposit them in a bank account.

Next, if we assume the money that's in the Swiss bank account was earned outside the US, fine. If/when the person requires some of that money and brings it to the US then tax it.

While some people will be able to sneak some of the money into the country the people who are caught should have their entire account seized. If that happened a few times others would think twice about trying to thwart the law.

I read somewhere the US is either currently or thinking about demanding foreign countries disclose any accounts belonging to US citizen's.

As for the money being in the economy I was referring to the taxes on it. Tax the money before it ends up in a foreign account or safety deposit box.

Was it really that difficult for you to understand?
 
First, where did the money come from that's currently in the Swiss bank account? If it came from the US then it should have been taxed before it left the country the same way the average person's wages are taxed before they deposit them in a bank account.

Next, if we assume the money that's in the Swiss bank account was earned outside the US, fine. If/when the person requires some of that money and brings it to the US then tax it.

While some people will be able to sneak some of the money into the country the people who are caught should have their entire account seized. If that happened a few times others would think twice about trying to thwart the law.

I read somewhere the US is either currently or thinking about demanding foreign countries disclose any accounts belonging to US citizen's.

As for the money being in the economy I was referring to the taxes on it. Tax the money before it ends up in a foreign account or safety deposit box.

Was it really that difficult for you to understand?

You are missing the whole entire point, because you are crazed and foaming at the mouth over taxes! You somehow think, the only thing that matters in any of this, is whether or not money has been taxed! The economy does not operate on the basis of what money has been sufficiently taxed and what money hasn't. The economy operates on people spending money, regardless of when or where it was taxed, or if it was even taxed at all. If people aren't spending money, the economy isn't growing, people aren't making money, and you have nothing to tax, because there is no income, because no one is spending money. You can raise tax rates all you like, it is not going to make people start spending money! THAT is the problem, THAT is why our economy sucks right now, and all you can do is myopically look at tax rates and whine they aren't high enough for top income earners. It is like your car having major engine problems, and you are obsessed with the dirt on the tires.

It doesn't matter if the money was taxed before it is put into a security trust, that doesn't make everything lovely, because if the money is sitting idle, it isn't helping the economy. As for foreign investment, you can't tax those, there is no means to do so. The foreign government where the investment is made, they can levy a tax, but it's outside the jurisdiction of the US, we have no way to impose a tax on people earning incomes elsewhere, and I am pretty sure the UN would not approve. So you won't stop people from making investments in foreign countries, and you can't tax them... so what are ya gonna do? ...And don't argue this with me, you can't tax incomes earned in foreign countries unless the US assumes sovereignty over them, and I don't think that is what you would recommend.
 
Wasn't there a budget surplus before Booooooooooosh cut taxes and started spending on 2 failed wars?
 
Wasn't there a budget surplus before Booooooooooosh cut taxes and started spending on 2 failed wars?

Actually, NO. In 1987, G.H.W. Bush signed a bill passed by a Democrat congress, which allows them to count the Social Security trust fund as part of the general funds. This money is supposed to be put away for future retirees, and not counted as money we have to spend. This change in the law, allows them to count this revenue as part of the general revenue, which made the 'budget deficit' appear to vanish under Clinton. Also, the one year in which Clinton supposedly 'balanced the budget' by using the smoke and mirrors of the SSI trust fund, the figures were based on the projected revenues for that year, which were never realized because the dotcom bubble burst. But this has made nice campaign fodder for Democrats for years, nonetheless.
 
Back
Top