THE Super Ultra Wealthy Man can see the future, he sees horror ahead

volpunter said:
What is the difference between income and wealth nowadays? None. You are worth 8 billion on paper yet cannot even afford a sports car. Are you wealthy or generate great income? And why would it make a difference. Is it less unfair or more unfair if you earned 1 billion per year for 8 years managing an internet startup that has under its belt ONE game and other than that zero track record of success or reading trends, vs. having a pay day 8 years hence. My question is much more why one generates 35% income taxes off 8 billion USD while the other hardly counts for a drop in the bucket.

Further, what is fairer, the CEO who presided the accumulation of toxic assets on their balance sheets for decades, who was saved by the US government, and soon after pockets a cool 100 million in deferred "special awards"?

I think those are the issues the public gets sick and tired about. And it gets sick and tired to see obvious schmucks and know-nothings drive around in Ferraris and 20k watches on the wrist who can hardly read the time, who siphoned their quick riches off grey channels they cannot account for and would dare to ever want to account for. Those are the people who are cruising through our cities these days, people homegrown as well as welcomed with open arms straight from Russia, the Ukraine, and Co. Welcome to the new world order. Welcome to your home country where people can buy their visa status (yes I am talking about the US) rather than earn it. Inequality existed since the start of human kind but it is being pushed to the extremes, it is stretched and each rubber band if stretched to the extremes will give in at some point.
More...

Ugh...no. Wealth is VERY different then income. Wealth grows, income does not. If I have a billion dollars in wealth then that wealth is making money for me. If I make 10% a year on my various assets I'm making 100 million a year for doing nothing. Not a lot of guys out there making 100 million a year for doing nothing. Furthermore, that wealth is not static, it's growing, usually for tax purpose. So that billion today could be 10 billion 10 years from now.

Also, one can borrow against their wealth. This borrowed money can generate even more wealth. Furthermore, interest on borrowed wealth can be used as an expense to deduct from income reducing income taxes. Income is useless. Which is why wealthy people do everything in their power to rid themselves of income and earn money on assets. It's the same reason why corporations try to reduce income through debt expense to grow cash flows rather then report higher net incomes. For the tax benefit. No, income and wealth are most certainly NOT the same.
 
and why does that matter at all for the purposes of a debate of inequality? So you want to tax an inheritance to death but give a free-ticket (through various capital tax minimization schemes) to someone who chooses to have his 10 billion in accumulated "wealth" cashed in through the pipeline called "equity" or "investment"? Sorry but it does not make a difference regarding how to tax money, whether it be inheritance, equity, gold, income, wealth. See, the reason why we have uncountable loop holes, deductions, write-offs, a little less here, a little less there shit going on today is precisely we fall for the lies that the same green person a calls wealth and person b calls income are different. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both buys you a dinner or a space station depending on the amount. If we taxed everything at the same rate depending on amount the world would be a way better place , and most likely the overall tax rates FOR EVERYONE would be a lot lower. Why not? Because the richest who have their thumbs in politics for obvious reasons would never allow that to happen.

Maverick74 said:
Ugh...no. Wealth is VERY different then income. Wealth grows, income does not. If I have a billion dollars in wealth then that wealth is making money for me. If I make 10% a year on my various assets I'm making 100 million a year for doing nothing. Not a lot of guys out there making 100 million a year for doing nothing. Furthermore, that wealth is not static, it's growing, usually for tax purpose. So that billion today could be 10 billion 10 years from now.

Also, one can borrow against their wealth. This borrowed money can generate even more wealth. Furthermore, interest on borrowed wealth can be used as an expense to deduct from income reducing income taxes. Income is useless. Which is why wealthy people do everything in their power to rid themselves of income and earn money on assets. It's the same reason why corporations try to reduce income through debt expense to grow cash flows rather then report higher net incomes. For the tax benefit. No, income and wealth are most certainly NOT the same.
More...
 
volpunter said:
and why does that matter at all for the purposes of a debate of inequality? So you want to tax an inheritance to death but give a free-ticket (through various capital tax minimization schemes) to someone who chooses to have his 10 billion in accumulated "wealth" cashed in through the pipeline called "equity" or "investment"? Sorry but it does not make a difference regarding how to tax money, whether it be inheritance, equity, gold, income, wealth. See, the reason why we have uncountable loop holes, deductions, write-offs, a little less here, a little less there shit going on today is precisely we fall for the lies that the same green person a calls wealth and person b calls income are different. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both buys you a dinner or a space station depending on the amount. If we taxed everything at the same rate depending on amount the world would be a way better place , and most likely the overall tax rates FOR EVERYONE would be a lot lower.
More...

No, I still think you are confusing the two. Here is some reading material:

http://eriksoderstrom.com/5407/income-vs-wealth/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...wealth-not-income/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
 
The system is set up to create high tax paying drones who will not be able to withstand the ravages of inflation vs the top .05% cronies.
And the system is working.

The tax structure makes it very difficult for non top .02 percenters to accumulate investment capital inside of families. So within 2 generations even if you father was a very successful business man if he did not have super leveraged wealth creation... the people in those families are back to working class very high tax paying status. Their family no longer has the assets which can outstrip inflation. They were turned from potential crony competitors back to worker drones.

Whereas the the .02% very top asset accumulators get to find all sorts of tax loopholes to keep their assets away from the tax man... such as the corporation switching schemes the the top .02% are running now. In the past they had odd trusts such as the what... the generation skipping trust?

Someone posted a great article here a few months ago... showing that unless you make it into the .05% in American you really do not get to relax about money because the govt in ripping it from you in all sorts of ways... year after year.

I saw it in real life... my dad who was a lawyer for one of the largest oil companies in the world... steps away from the top... lived in greenwich... had to trade very successfully in his retirement to maintain a good lifestyle. His friends earnings and lifestyle were seriously decimated during their retirements... and these guys were the .2%. Now I never expected anything but my mom will has a good chance to use up the rest of the estate eating and paying taxes. And this was an estate that got 5 times larger due to trading in his retirement.

If people knew what this system of taxes and inflation were doing to their futures things would be different. But for generations americans did not have to worry about the future because the economy grew. Now we do. And it should become for more obvious... they the 99% are being seriously played by the system.





Martinghoul said:
I am really curious... How do "death taxes" create income inequality, jem? What's the exact mechanism?
More...
 
I am not confusing the two, I have worked for more than a dozen years professionally in finance, trust me when I tell you I am well aware of the definitions and implications.

I thought it is apparent that I tried to make a point when naively said the two are the same. When I said that I meant that the distinction itself is what greatly harms our society, the unproven claim by the super rich that if capital gains are taxed at the same rates than income is that capital will be transferred to other regions. If capital was taxed at income tax rates then all stakeholders (and in particular the most powerful and influential ones) in the system would actually force government to become leaner in order to reduce the burden of taxation. Further, why should capital disappear if a country charged money to have it repatriated at a later point in time. Let all the billionaires move their money to Monaco, if they truly found it compelling to live and die there they would already do so, no matter the taxes they pay on capital. By the way as far as I know (as non American) American citizens are taxed anywhere on the globe at least at similar rates than domestic US ones, at least when it comes to income taxes. I read similar things about capital gains. Most uber rich Americans I hear about seem to prefer their home turf. And the number of Americans surrendering their passports is incredibly low and most likely will stay low. So, it is far from a foregone conclusion to say that taxing capital gains at higher rates will cause it to flee.

Maverick74 said:
No, I still think you are confusing the two. Here is some reading material:

http://eriksoderstrom.com/5407/income-vs-wealth/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2...wealth-not-income/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
More...
 
volpunter said:
I am not confusing the two, I have worked for more than a dozen years professionally in finance, trust me when I tell you I am well aware of the definitions and implications.

I thought it is apparent that I tried to make a point when naively said the two are the same. When I said that I meant that the distinction itself is what greatly harms our society, the unproven claim by the super rich that if capital gains are taxed at the same rates than income is that capital will be transferred to other regions. If capital was taxed at income tax rates then all stakeholders (and in particular the most powerful and influential ones) in the system would actually force government to become leaner in order to reduce the burden of taxation. Further, why should capital disappear if a country charged money to have it repatriated at a later point in time. Let all the billionaires move their money to Monaco, if they truly found it compelling to live and die there they would already do so, most uber rich Americans I hear about seem to prefer their home turf. So, it is far from a foregone conclusion to say that taxing capital gains at higher rates will cause it to flee.
More...

OK, now you are on a completely different topic. It's tough to keep up. Capital gains has nothing to do with this debate and most of these "uber rich" are not even paying capital gains taxes so I'm not even sure where you are going with that. One more time, the whole point to having an asset is that there is no tax on that asset. In fact, the asset can generate expenses which actually reduce taxes.

I don't even know where to start about the capital gains statement about capital fleeing the country. Probably best not to start a whole other topic. I still think you are combining all these terms and taxes and ideas into one thing when they are not. All of these are completely separate topics.
 
I am sure the drug dealers think I am stupid, and I am probably nowhere near as well off as some of them. But I am also free. I prefer getting taxed to getting imprisoned, beaten and raped, but that's just me.

These are not tales of yesteryear, no. In the last 12 years, I have managed to jump start 2 different careers and 1 small business, despite my (late middle) age. I am not unique. I have a friend in her 60s who started a business in her basement 2 year ago with $2000 and is now pulling in a mid-6 figure income. Lots of obscure people toil away at these little things. Success is a matter of thinking smart and realizing when you have hit a snag and have to do something different. Giving up and moaning about how it is or was easier for everyone else does not cut it. I guess it's not very different from trading.
 
Luck is very much a part wealth. I dont know a sick person who got rich. He is too sick too work hard.

Now the state of USA. It is well known that the richest countries in the world have best education. High-tech. Thus, protectionism is key. And investing in education. Not importing low-skilled laborers from mexico. A rich economy is high-tech. AndA high tech economy needs high tech workers. The selfishness of employers is destroying USA. secretly employing illegals. Displacing american low-skilled, thus you have a huge underclass that will have no job in a recession.

Chinas science just surpassed USA in absolute terms. They still have got catching up to do relativly. But it is only a matter of time. 40% of universities are asian american!!! The age of asians is upon us. You complain about jews, but soon asians will surpass the jews as the peoples controlling the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top