The Rich Are Destroying the Economy

[apple0154]

Noooo, one has to leave just enough so people think they'll be rich one day. We can't take their dream.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The money is not coming back and the wealthy are not going to invest here if there are other countries producing the same thing for lower cost (wages). It's a simple as that.

I think Obama made that clear. The rust belt is going to continue to rust, etc.

It's all about innovation now. New products. New ideas.

That's just simply not true, when Reagan lowered top marginal rates from 71%, we experienced a tremendous boon in wealth coming back to the US. As you correctly pointed out earlier, rich people like to make money... whenever we make conditions conducive for them to do so, they will. You are talking about labor and wages in foreign countries, and there isn't anything we can do about that. We need to face the fact that it's better for us to have these third-world countries making a lot of our stuff at a fraction of the cost, than fooling with it ourselves. Yeah, it's jobs... menial labor type jobs which can't ever pay a decent wage here, because people won't pay $750 for a coffee maker. But this is an entirely different problem than the one we have been discussing. We are talking about taxation of high incomes, and people with wealth. What wealthy people do with their money to avoid paying income taxes, is a completely different ball of wax... how did we jump from that to foreign labor costs?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The bottom line is a relatively small but appreciable segment of society is experiencing rapid wealth increase while the rest of society is headed in the direction of the Chinese worker because the rest are doing the same job as the Chinese worker.

And this is the contrived meme put forth by Socialist Democrats who want to implement outright Marxism.

Sorry, I am not falling for it! "The Rich Get Richer, While The Poor Get Poorer" because that is the nature of human beings. Rich people tend to be more inclined to make money, they have a stronger drive, they are more committed, while a poor person generally isn't as inclined and motivated. Naturally, a rich person is likely to become richer, while a poor person is likely to become poorer...and it really doesn't matter what we do as a society, that will always be a fact of life. But you have taken this perfectly logical and natural fact of life, and attempted to use it to make some profound point for social justice. Nothing you can ever do, will change the fact that rich people have the propensity to make money and poor people don't.

 

[apple0154]

That's just simply not true, when Reagan lowered top marginal rates from 71%, we experienced a tremendous boon in wealth coming back to the US. As you correctly pointed out earlier, rich people like to make money... whenever we make conditions conducive for them to do so, they will. You are talking about labor and wages in foreign countries, and there isn't anything we can do about that. We need to face the fact that it's better for us to have these third-world countries making a lot of our stuff at a fraction of the cost, than fooling with it ourselves. Yeah, it's jobs... menial labor type jobs which can't ever pay a decent wage here, because people won't pay $750 for a coffee maker. But this is an entirely different problem than the one we have been discussing. We are talking about taxation of high incomes, and people with wealth. What wealthy people do with their money to avoid paying income taxes, is a completely different ball of wax... how did we jump from that to foreign labor costs?

It's not a jump. You talked about the rich investing money and I'm saying they won't invest here because of the wages. It has little to do with taxes.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It's not a jump. You talked about the rich investing money and I'm saying they won't invest here because of the wages. It has little to do with taxes.

Why do rich people even care about wages in a foreign country? They are investing money in an investment, hoping for a return on that investment, they don't have a personal stake in labor costs, for the most part. You are talking about an isolated few businesses who invest in foreign operations to take advantage of cheap labor, but that isn't the wealthy individuals who you want to raise top marginal income tax rates on, those are corporations who already pay corporate taxes, tariffs, regulatory fees, and assorted costs of doing business in a foreign country... it's a completely different thing from individual income tax payers.

 

[apple0154]

And this is the contrived meme put forth by Socialist Democrats who want to implement outright Marxism.

Sorry, I am not falling for it! "The Rich Get Richer, While The Poor Get Poorer" because that is the nature of human beings. Rich people tend to be more inclined to make money, they have a stronger drive, they are more committed, while a poor person generally isn't as inclined and motivated. Naturally, a rich person is likely to become richer, while a poor person is likely to become poorer...and it really doesn't matter what we do as a society, that will always be a fact of life. But you have taken this perfectly logical and natural fact of life, and attempted to use it to make some profound point for social justice. Nothing you can ever do, will change the fact that rich people have the propensity to make money and poor people don't.

The same old talking points of the wealthy. If only the poor were more committed, worked harder, applied themselves, had drive......

Generalities that mean nothing. If opportunities are open to everyone, if anyone can become wealthy, then make a specific list of the things they are to do. If anyone can do it, specify the "it". What, exactly, does a person do to get rich?

What course do they take in college/university? Where do they get the part time job or summer job? Specifically, what company do they apply to for the summer job?

We never hear any specifics. Anyone can do it but we never hear what the "it" is. And the reason we don't hear the "it" is because it's a combination of luck and circumstance.

A friend tells someone about a place that's hiring or a family member knows someone.

Side Note: One property I purchased was due to bumping into the Real Estate lady at the video store. I told her I was looking for another building (three apartments) and she told me about a place that was listed by a woman who inherited it and lived too far away to look after it (collect rents, etc.) and she was having problems collecting one rent and one apartment was empty but she wasn't around to interview prospective tenants so the place was for sale cheap. Real cheap! Just over 1/2 the market value.

You've heard the rest of the story. Developers moved into the neighborhood and while my first building increased 300% the cheap one also soared in value even more as I paid less for it. Maybe I should tell people how easy it is to make money in Real Estate. Hell, all you have to do is go to the video store! The rest will fall into place.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The same old talking points of the wealthy. If only the poor were more committed, worked harder, applied themselves, had drive......

If only they didn't have idiots like you telling them they were helpless victims and there was no hope for them. I honestly think that cuts to the root of what's the difference between left and right. The left doesn't believe in poor people, they think of them as victims, less fortunate ....As if prosperity comes from mere fortune, when it mostly comes from being smart, being motivated, dedicated to succeed, and taking advantage of opportunities as they are made available. I believe in people, it doesn't matter if they are poor, in fact, poverty can be a great motivator. Some of the most successful people society has to offer, came from humble backgrounds, where they learned the value of a dollar and worked hard for what they earned.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

People who earn large incomes have lobbied for the past 50+ years for lower top marginal rates, not "rich people!" That's where you and the pinhead libs seems to be having a problem. You mistakenly assume that all people earning high incomes are rich, and that all rich people earn high incomes, and that is a totally false assumption. People who are independently wealthy don't really give a shit if you raise income taxes to 100%... they don't need to make an income anymore. The more you raise income taxes, the more you discourage these rich people from earning an income.

Like I stated before, you are quite possibly the most moronic poster when it comes to economics. The above is complete stupidity. You are simply talking out of your ass.

While there may be individual years in which a rich person doesn't have a large income, those are rare and far between or they will not be 'rich' for long.

People who are independently wealthy most certainly DO care about the tax rates you buffoon. That is why they create tax shelters, use insurance products, invest overseas, etc.... to minimize the impact of higher taxes in the US you fucking idiot.

What is a fact is the principle we just went over. The more you increase income tax, the more you discourage income earning from people who don't have to earn income. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a one percent increase or a 70% increase... same principle applies. Subsequently, when you make it more attractive to earn an income, people with the wealth to do so, often will. Rich people like to make money, as we've pointed out before... so, when the conditions allow them to make more money, they don't mind doing it, they enjoy it and will continue to do it.

In the above you once again show how much of a novice you are with regards to economics. It most certainly DOES matter how much you increase the tax rates. As stated, you have no understanding of what Laffer was referring to.

You know, I am getting tired of you waddling in with nothing more than your OPINION and proclaiming that I am not only WRONG but a MORON to boot! If I am WRONG then you must provide some evidence to show I am wrong, you can't just proclaim me wrong because you say so! Sorry!

There really isn't any "uncertainty" at all among rich people.... they are VERY certain that this Administration, and liberal democrats in general, are hell-bent on raising upper income tax rates. Their response to this certainty, is to reduce the amount of taxable income they earn by reducing the amount of investment they make in new business or really anything other than tax-free securities and foreign entities you can't tax.

Seriously, you are a fucking moron. I have shown you time and again why you are wrong. I even highlighted WHAT they are uncertain about.... you in turn ignore it and again spout off your complete and total nonsense.

I haven't stomped my foot, I just pointed out that rich people aren't generally stupid, especially when it comes to money. Haven't you ever heard the phrase; A fool and his money are soon parted? It basically means what I said, which you apparently think is fucking retarded. Yeah, I guess there are some people who are rich and stupid for a short period of time, but I can't imagine someone so stupid as to invest in a losing proposition over a sure thing.

The point moron is that you continue using blanket statements about large groups of people. In this case, it is a group of people that you clearly have NO comprehension what they think or feel about the current economy and what the future brings.

Chinese currency is traded on the world market, and its value is based on the Chinese economy. Right now, the Chinese economy is booming, and American investors (aka: The Rich) are making a small fortune as a result of their investments in Chinese currency. What's more, is most of this money is overseas, in Swiss bank accounts and such, and untouchable by US tax collectors. If the Chinese currency begins to look risky... they will invest in the Brazilian currency... or Belize... or wherever... there is always some investment they can make to benefit themselves the most, and as long as mush-brains in America think they can "punish the rich" by raising top marginal income taxes, the one thing "the rich" won't be investing in, is US business ventures.

ROFLMAO.... seriously ditzie.... just stop.

And there you go again, calling me names and proclaiming me wrong based on nothing more than your OPINION! Rich people don't give a shit how much you raise top marginal income tax rates, they don't need or have to earn ANY FUCKING INCOME! They can pull every penny of their wealth out of the US market and invest in some foreign enterprise, and you can't touch a dime of their earnings unless they bring it back here. So go ahead and raise top marginal income tax rates all you like, all you are doing is driving away money!

Ditzie.... it is NOT opinion, it is FACT. They most certainly DO care about the tax rates you unbelievable dolt. One of us works with the wealthy every day, working with their investments, working to minimize tax impacts etc... that person is not you ditzie.

Fair tax is not highly regressive, we've been through this already in another thread. I do understand the Laffer Curve, but I don't consider it the Holy Grail like you seem to. Laffer says you can reach a point where cutting top marginal rates does not have any effect on increasing revenue, but you have chosen to turn that inside out and say Laffer surmises you can increase tax rates and maintain revenue growth to a certain extent. I pointed out the very principle in play, and how it defies logic, what you surmise. The more you increase income tax rates, the more you discourage income earning from people who no longer need to earn incomes. Can you refute that? Is that not a true statement?

1) The Fair tax IS highly regressive. Unlike you, I actually showed you the numbers as to WHY it is highly regressive, but as always, you ignore the actual numbers and sit their stomping your feet proclaiming to the world how smart you are.
2) No, you don't understand what Laffer was referring to. The fact that you state I have 'turned it inside out' proves that you DON'T have a clue. The point you miss dear ditzie is that if we are BELOW the efficient level of taxation, you CAN raise rates and still see revenue increase. It is that very simple concept and your inability to comprehend it that shows you for the fool that you are.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're still not getting the point, which is amazing since I dumbed it down about as much as possible. Rich people don't need to earn income, they are already wealthy. People who aren't yet rich, need to earn incomes to become rich, middle class and poor people need to earn income to survive, but rich people don't need to earn income, they already did. Now, I tried to illustrate how a rich person might choose to get by without earning an income, by throwing out a random figure of $100k, but you took that to be me literally saying that any and all rich people could maintain opulent lifestyles on $100k, and that's not what I said, nor the point I was trying to make. I don't know how else to make this point to a stupid person... A rich person could live whatever lifestyle they wanted to live, and spend whatever amount of their wealth to live it, pay all their bills, pay whatever taxes and fees they owe, and never touch the principle of their wealth. They do not have to earn incomes! That's the point! They can live whatever lifestyle they please... maybe they spend $100k... maybe they spend $1 million... they will pay whatever tax they owe, and pay their gardeners and housekeepers, and take the yacht to Europe... but they still won't have the need to earn an income, their wealth generates enough income for them to do pretty much whatever they please. Raise their income tax rates back up to 91% ...or 100%... it really doesn't matter to people who don't need to earn an income.

REALLY? DO tell us ditzie.... WHAT is it they are living on then? If they are not touching principal... WHAT are they spending?

You fucking moron.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not unless you take it out of the account.

wrong... it is STILL income and is STILL taxable.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

No Yurt, the economy was already destroyed before Obama tool office by corporations.

What we needed was an FDR, instead we got a Hoover.

Obama is pandering to Republicans, who are focused on total destruction of the economy through massive debt reductions and cutting programs people need the most in this economy.

FDR saved the banks asses, then he gave them the new rules.

Yet, the very rules put in place by FDR are the ones repealed by Clinton and the ones that Bush and Obama have refused to put back in place.

 

[DamnYankee]

wrong... it is STILL income and is STILL taxable.

Not for my investments.

 

[Canceled2]

Even though some finance experts want the US Treasury Secretary to declare China as a currency manipulator, equity markets across the world has made handsome gains whenever China has announced plans to make its currency, the yuan, more flexible against the dollar. As most of the Chinese manufacturing sector is working on thin margins, its clear that the Chinese government would not allow their currency to go down with the dollar ship. Although economists continue to be skeptical about the goodness of the Chinese currency moves, there is no doubt that China is ready to resume greater flexibility with its yuan.

For investors who want to invest in currency in the emerging Chinese market, a favorite investment vehicle continues to be the WisdomTree Dreyfus Chinese Yuan Fund (CYB). The ETF seeks to achieve total returns reflective of both money market rates in China available to foreign investors and changes in value of the Chinese Yuan relative to the U.S. dollar. The fund normally invests in a combination of U.S. money market securities with forward currency contracts and currency swaps that are designed to create a position economically similar to a money market security denominated in Chinese Yuan. The average portfolio maturity is 90 days or less. It does not purchase any money market securities with a remaining maturity of more than 397 calendar days. The fund is non-diversified.

A point to remember is that Chinese laws prevents the funds from directly investing in the renminbi, so they hold currency derivatives known as non deliverable forwards. These are similar to futures contracts, which reflect a market’s expectations. As a result the WisdomTree Dreyfus Chinese Yuan Fund (CYB) might not perfectly track the yuan.


Unlike other major currencies, the Yuan can’t be traded on the Forex market. WisdomTree’s CYB ETF is an actively managed ETF currently holding a compilation of futures contracts and swaps with different maturities that seeks to mirror the money market securities denominated in the Chinese Yuan. The fund has no current yield, so it is strictly an appreciation play versus the U.S. dollar.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 2008 China, was the world’s second largest
merchandise exporter and third largest importer. Over half of China’s trade is conducted by
foreign-invested firms in China. In 2008, foreign direct investment (FDI) in China totaled $92
billion, making it the destination for FDI among developing economies. The combination of large
trade surpluses, FDI flows, and large-scale purchases of foreign currency (especially dollars) has
helped make China the world’s largest holder of foreign exchange reserves at $2.3 trillion.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

REALLY? DO tell us ditzie.... WHAT is it they are living on then? If they are not touching principal... WHAT are they spending?

You fucking moron.

Interest and dividends, you fucking moron!

 

[Bonestorm]

Interest and dividends, you fucking moron!

So . . . income.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Interest and dividends, you fucking moron!

So.... that would be INCOME you fucking retard.... One way or another they pay taxes on div's and interest.... either directly or indirectly. Hence, they CARE what they are taxed at. If income is taxed at 100%... you said they would not care.... correct?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Even though some finance experts want the US Treasury Secretary to declare China as a currency manipulator, equity markets across the world has made handsome gains whenever China has announced plans to make its currency, the yuan, more flexible against the dollar. As most of the Chinese manufacturing sector is working on thin margins, its clear that the Chinese government would not allow their currency to go down with the dollar ship. Although economists continue to be skeptical about the goodness of the Chinese currency moves, there is no doubt that China is ready to resume greater flexibility with its yuan.

For investors who want to invest in currency in the emerging Chinese market, a favorite investment vehicle continues to be the WisdomTree Dreyfus Chinese Yuan Fund (CYB). The ETF seeks to achieve total returns reflective of both money market rates in China available to foreign investors and changes in value of the Chinese Yuan relative to the U.S. dollar. The fund normally invests in a combination of U.S. money market securities with forward currency contracts and currency swaps that are designed to create a position economically similar to a money market security denominated in Chinese Yuan. The average portfolio maturity is 90 days or less. It does not purchase any money market securities with a remaining maturity of more than 397 calendar days. The fund is non-diversified.

A point to remember is that Chinese laws prevents the funds from directly investing in the renminbi, so they hold currency derivatives known as non deliverable forwards. These are similar to futures contracts, which reflect a market’s expectations. As a result the WisdomTree Dreyfus Chinese Yuan Fund (CYB) might not perfectly track the yuan.


Unlike other major currencies, the Yuan can’t be traded on the Forex market. WisdomTree’s CYB ETF is an actively managed ETF currently holding a compilation of futures contracts and swaps with different maturities that seeks to mirror the money market securities denominated in the Chinese Yuan. The fund has no current yield, so it is strictly an appreciation play versus the U.S. dollar.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In 2008 China, was the world’s second largest
merchandise exporter and third largest importer. Over half of China’s trade is conducted by
foreign-invested firms in China. In 2008, foreign direct investment (FDI) in China totaled $92
billion, making it the destination for FDI among developing economies. The combination of large
trade surpluses, FDI flows, and large-scale purchases of foreign currency (especially dollars) has
helped make China the world’s largest holder of foreign exchange reserves at $2.3 trillion.

Your point?

None of the above changes the level of uncertainty with regards to China's currency.

1) There most certainly IS doubt as to how much China will allow its currency to fluctuate
2) There is most certainly a high degree of uncertainty with regards to how the real estate bubble in China will pan out
3) There is ALWAYS political risk involved with the Chinese currency

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not for my investments.

LOL... you STILL get taxed, you simply prepay the tax.

If you are invested in tax-exempt bonds, you are getting a lower interest rate than a taxable bond with similar risk/maturity/call features.

So tell us... what happens to your tax exempt yields as tax rates are increased? Do you suppose they will go UP or DOWN?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Like I stated before, you are quite possibly the most moronic poster when it comes to economics. The above is complete stupidity. You are simply talking out of your ass........................BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!

I didn't bother quoting all of what you wrote, because it is basically the same thing... Calling me an idiot, a moron, a dumbass, and reiterating that your opinion is right and my arguments are stupid, and you are correct and I am wrong....concluding with another helping of name-calling. This is really boring, you keep repeating the same stupid shit over and over, and calling me names in the process... what is up with that?

The FACTS ARE.... Rich people don't have to earn income, they are already WEALTHY! The more you attempt to tax incomes, the less incomes a rich person will make, because they don't like giving their money to the tax collector. Now it's true, they don't really care how much you raise income taxes, they don't need incomes, and there are plenty of ways to build wealth without earning a taxable income. They can keep their wealth secure, and earn enough interest and dividends to live off of, and they might even pay the highest tax rate on that money, but here's what they won't be doing... investing in business ventures, trying to make taxable income. You've discouraged that activity.

We've been over the Laffer curve as well, I explained it to you and even showed you where you had a convoluted perception of it, but you insist you are right and I am a moron. This is based on nothing but your personal opinion, apparently, because that is all you presented us. Even IF you are correct, and raising top marginal rates would result in increased revenues (it never has in history), there will still be less of the activity you are discouraging, income earning. It's really hard to calculate how much tax revenues were missed as a result, because they never existed. As a matter of basic logic, we know, the more you discourage an activity, the less of it you can expect to see.

Up to this point, you are doing a terrible job of refuting my points... AssClown has presented better arguments! I'm going to give you one more chance to have a reasoned conversation, because I think you have the potential, unlike some of the other pinheads here... But my patience is wearing thing, SF... you're going to have to come up with something besides your opinion and more cute names to call me.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I didn't bother quoting all of what you wrote, because it is basically the same thing... Calling me an idiot, a moron, a dumbass, and reiterating that your opinion is right and my arguments are stupid, and you are correct and I am wrong....concluding with another helping of name-calling. This is really boring, you keep repeating the same stupid shit over and over, and calling me names in the process... what is up with that?

When you continue spouting off the same nonsense over and over again, it still shocks you that others respond with the same answers to your stupidity over and over again? You are indeed a moron.

As for the whining about name calling.... this is coming from the person who calls everyone 'pinheads' non-stop???? ROFLMAO.... if you wish people to be more civil to you ditzie, perhaps you should lead by example.

The FACTS ARE.... Rich people don't have to earn income, they are already WEALTHY! The more you attempt to tax incomes, the less incomes a rich person will make, because they don't like giving their money to the tax collector. Now it's true, they don't really care how much you raise income taxes, they don't need incomes, and there are plenty of ways to build wealth without earning a taxable income. They can keep their wealth secure, and earn enough interest and dividends to live off of, and they might even pay the highest tax rate on that money, but here's what they won't be doing... investing in business ventures, trying to make taxable income. You've discouraged that activity.

first ditzie.... that is NOT a fact, that is your absurd opinion.

Second.... it is your absurd CLAIM/OPINION that rich people don't care how much you raise income taxes... they DO care you dolt. No matter how many times you proclaim otherwise. Investment strategies consistently focus on minimization of taxation coupled with maximization of return. This DOES NOT CHANGE whether they have $1mm or $500mm in investable assets.

Third, you continue spouting off PART of the economic theory as if you understand what it means. I have explained 100 times to you why you are wrong and that such BLANKET statements are a sign of ignorance on the topic.

We've been over the Laffer curve as well, I explained it to you and even showed you where you had a convoluted perception of it, but you insist you are right and I am a moron. This is based on nothing but your personal opinion, apparently, because that is all you presented us. Even IF you are correct, and raising top marginal rates would result in increased revenues (it never has in history), there will still be less of the activity you are discouraging, income earning. It's really hard to calculate how much tax revenues were missed as a result, because they never existed. As a matter of basic logic, we know, the more you discourage an activity, the less of it you can expect to see.

yes, we HAVE been over it. I have repeatedly pointed out why you are wrong. You continue to claim that my perception is 'convoluted' or some such nonsense, yet each time I explain PRECISELY why you are wrong, you ignore it. You continue instead to spout your same bullshit over and over again.

Since you CLAIM to understand the Laffer curve.... answer the following ditzie....

1) IS there an efficient level of taxation?
2) IF there is, then what happens if we are BELOW that level on the curve?

Up to this point, you are doing a terrible job of refuting my points... AssClown has presented better arguments! I'm going to give you one more chance to have a reasoned conversation, because I think you have the potential, unlike some of the other pinheads here... But my patience is wearing thing, SF... you're going to have to come up with something besides your opinion and more cute names to call me.

The above is quite comical ditzie. I have refuted each and every one of your insane comments. You know just enough to be dangerous, that is all. It would be similar to myself walking into an auto mechanics garage and instructing him/her how to rebuild an engine when the sum of my knowledge on auto repairs is changing the oil, plugs and brake pads.