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

You are not responding to my most recent question again, jem... Let me ask you again, a little differently.

In your latest post you bring up two separate issues. Firstly, the death taxes themselves, which, based on your own reasoning, reduce inequality. Indeed, you mention that death taxes "prevent the accumulation of capital" and "make it close to impossible for the children of small guys to become cronies over time". I assume that since you don't like cronyism, you should support the idea of death tax. Secondly, you mention a problem with the collection of all taxes, including the death tax. Specifically, it's the ability to avoid tax through sophisticated use of various loopholes, which is available to the ultra wealthy.

Have I understood you correctly?
 
completely misunderstood. I am against death taxes as it adds to the imbalance by being part of a tax structure which creates the imbalance.
the inequality stems form the fact the .o2% are gathering in all the assets. Taxing the rest of us... only increases the imbalance.

death taxes only nick or entirely misses the top .02% who control a disproportionately large portion of the wealth.
(same goes for income taxes) You can't fix the imbalance by taxing those 99__%ers.

if you wished to address the income inequality you would eliminate the death tax and the income tax on the 99.__%. or alternatively (which is not my choice) you could progressively tax the .02%... the cronies.

I am not for taxing the cronies... I am for removing the death tax and the income tax entirely. But if the cronies are going to argue for illogical taxes...
Then they should be the one paying the taxes because they are the ones who own the bulk of the imbalanced assets.

And a further note... the subject of taxing to impact inequality is a crazy leftist/communist idea.... what the hell are capitalist doing supporting such a notion?
the only answer is they are trying to cement in crony/socialism to cement in their control.

Finally I have nothing against the wealthy... I want to be one... I am simply arguing against the specious idea you can fix an imbalance by taxing those who do not control the wealth.


Martinghoul said:
You are not responding to my most recent question again, jem... Let me ask you again, a little differently.

In your latest post you bring up two separate issues. Firstly, the death taxes themselves, which, based on your own reasoning, reduce inequality. Indeed, you mention that death taxes "prevent the accumulation of capital" and "make it close to impossible for the children of small guys to become cronies over time". I assume that since you don't like cronyism, you should support the idea of death tax. Secondly, you mention a problem with the collection of all taxes, including the death tax. Specifically, it's the ability to avoid tax through sophisticated use of various loopholes, which is available to the ultra wealthy.

Have I understood you correctly?
More...
 
interesting analogy, and I guess that is exactly happening, the distributional properties have changed, and the odds are stacked more against the broad middle class advancing to a higher standard of living. Man is losing out more and more turf wars against machines and humans are not at all prepared for the enormous replacements of human labor in many industries that we are witnessing now.

panzerman said:
The bell curve will always exist, that is the way nature works. Government policy can alter the skew and kurtosis of the distribution, but can not change the fundamental normal distribution of wealth.

Communist theory tries for a uniform distribution, but that never really happens does it.
More...
 
well you are dreaming. Stop blaming the government alone, blame congress and the senate as well. And stop this ridiculous finger pointing between democrats and republicans. The answers needed are way too complex to be found by pointing fingers at individuals. And asking for no or low taxes works very well in cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, or Monaco where you have couple miles of streets to maintain, where you have low to no spending for defense, where there is no strain on the costs of education and the like.

And what are you talking about? Companies are raking in record earnings all around the globe. Why do you think the market is making new highs every other week? The truth is that companies are ridding themselves more and more of full time employees, not just in Japan but int he US as well. Boom in GDP growth because of lower taxes? Dream on. We have record corporate earnings and yet less and less people meaningfully employed. This cannot be the answer.

It could all come down to luck and to the invention of new technologies that enable higher efficiency and hence GDP growth. Or again more labor participation but I do not see that happening, the trend actually goes in the opposite direction.

The typical Republican scream that with lower taxes, smaller government all problems are solved is a pipe dream. The answer lies again in a broad based participation and more opportunities for the broad middle class. We need less Facebooks and more risk taking and entrepreneurship by the middle class to build small and mid-sized companies. That is how you can unlock efficiency. Unfortunately younger generations are way too busy texting and bullshitting around on Facebook and Co. in order to be engaged in building something exciting, something new. If anything that Facebook has brought humankind then it is a lethargy and numbness in our young generations.

jem said:
1. first of all when the Govt is running trillion dollar deficits anyway... personal income tax is really just stealing money from the tax payers who earned it.
Why not just let us keep the money we earn and distribute the monopoly money they have created as they see fit. They are no longer constrained by a balanced budget.
The correct move would eventually limit the size of govt... increase our economy massively and eventually balance the budget.
Capping spending where it is now... and eliminating income tax entirely is far more fair... than just taking big chunks of the working class' money and spending like hell anyway.

By capping the current spending levels and eliminating income tax... the economy would boom.
Our companies would be more profitable everyone would be "incentivised to work"
Govt expenditures would go down as people went back to work.
Govt revenues from the other tax sources would boom.
Inflation would take care of the rest until the budget balanced.

the economy and gdp would boom. Those in washinton would be forced to rework their now limited budget in a manner which is truly useful since and they would be more free to do it because far fewer would be lobbying for tax breaks. We would get back to a debate about real tradeoffs and real values... defense or or amnesty expenses... etc...?

I would also not some of the most import functions of govt you mentioned are carrried out at the state and local level, which have separate revenue sources.
Finally, we don't need probably half of what Washington D.C. does. The sequester illustrated that and its why the establishment had to find a way to get rid of the sequester.
More...
 
This subject can go very deep and I am just beginning to really touch on it here... but I can see we have to start with the basic assumptions that 99.9 % of the people in America make. Most americans think inflation is caused by govt spending.

Really?

Q. If the budget were balanced by the Federal Govt would there be inflation?
Yes or No...

Answer: We have no idea because currently we are not tracking M3 and even if we were I believe M3 would only gives us a partial idea of what the Federal Reserve was actually doing to the money supply. I contend that the large majority of the massive inflation we have experienced the last 50 years has been caused by the expansion of the the money supply through the electronic creation of dollars by the Federal Reserve and not govt spending.

Why? Until quantitative easing the govt was borrowing the money to finance its spending. So the money supply was not really expanding. There could have been some inflation cause by the distorted demand the govt made in some areas... but other areas would have seen lower demand. It is my thesis, the at least 700 percent inflation we have experienced in the last 50 years must have come from the expansion of the money supply... the untracked expansion. And that expansion must have been massive considered the historical demand for dollars the world once had. A demand sated with what must be trillions of dollars by the FED over that last 50 years. How many dollars a year has it been? Did they create more than the income tax would have brought in? Did they cause more inflation than an elimination of the income tax?

Therefore... eliminating the income tax but capping govt spending might have little impact on inflation.... We just don't know.

So since we don't know... and since we are probably not going to stop the FED from electronically printing as much as they want....

I can tell you that until we know what is happening with the money supply and the creation of electronic dollars... it is absolutely ridiculous to argue in any way that is fair to steal the money hard working americans make via an income tax. If the govt wants to help out those in need great... let them spend the money... there is no reasons to take ours. Not until the budget is balanced and the money supply tracked.






volpunter said:
well you are dreaming. Stop blaming the government alone, blame congress and the senate as well. And stop this ridiculous finger pointing between democrats and republicans. The answers needed are way too complex to be found by pointing fingers at individuals. And asking for no or low taxes works very well in cities like Hong Kong, Singapore, or Monaco where you have couple miles of streets to maintain, where you have low to no spending for defense, where there is no strain on the costs of education and the like.

And what are you talking about? Companies are raking in record earnings all around the globe. Why do you think the market is making new highs every other week? The truth is that companies are ridding themselves more and more of full time employees, not just in Japan but int he US as well. Boom in GDP growth because of lower taxes? Dream on. We have record corporate earnings and yet less and less people meaningfully employed. This cannot be the answer.

It could all come down to luck and to the invention of new technologies that enable higher efficiency and hence GDP growth. Or again more labor participation but I do not see that happening, the trend actually goes in the opposite direction.

The typical Republican scream that with lower taxes, smaller government all problems are solved is a pipe dream. The answer lies again in a broad based participation and more opportunities for the broad middle class. We need less Facebooks and more risk taking and entrepreneurship by the middle class to build small and mid-sized companies. That is how you can unlock efficiency. Unfortunately younger generations are way too busy texting and bullshitting around on Facebook and Co. in order to be engaged in building something exciting, something new. If anything that Facebook has brought humankind then it is a lethargy and numbness in our young generations.
More...
 
thank you.
I spent a long time trying to explain this to people... and its unbelievable to me... the fundamentals so clearly demonstrated there starting at 19 minutes and the recap is brilliant.

he even states this causes the disparity between the rich and the working class...

although I have not finished the video and I am not sure he will be addressing the money the fed lends/gives out around the world

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/iFDe5kUUyT0?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/iFDe5kUUyT0?hl=en_US&amp;version=3&amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top