Page 28 of 28 FirstFirst ... 18262728
Results 271 to 273 of 273

Thread: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

  1. #271
    Professor
    Individual's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,789

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    Your points taken but they are not the issue. The issue is that no individual should be allowed to have that much power.

    Fortunately, Bezos is not Bin Laden. But, what if he were? Such a scenario is a possibility in this country, and that possibility should be reigned in and eliminated if possible.

    The less disposible income the middle class has, the worse the economy is, as the engine of job growth and the economy overall is driven by middle class disposable income.

    I"m not suggesting ending the potential to be wealthy in this country, and sure, a rich bin laden can do a lot o damage still, but an egregiously rich bin laden could have done far more damage, and that is what I believe should be reigned in, the power aspect that virtually unlimited wealth brings.
    Complaint noted.

  2. #272
    Sage
    JohnfrmClevelan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,953

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Well.. two points. One is that the Japanese and Chinese.. or manufacturer.. has more than one price depending on what the market they are selling to will bear. That's why you can buy materials in one market for 100 dollars.. and in another market. (regionally or nationally).. that price may be 200 dollars for the same material made by the same manufacturer. So.. the US market may already be paying MORE than those other markets are. So.. yes.. the Chinese and Japanese may easily be lowering their price.
    Secondly, your assumption would only work is if those other markets can absorb the extra supply created by the lack of US demand. Hardly likely given the size of the US market.
    Well, we were talking about my example. And the point was, and still is, that economies simply don't work in the way you are saying they would. Prices don't come down to meet whatever people can afford, period. Production does go unsold. Economies can and do contract for lack of demand.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Why? What stops them? IS there some regulation out there that prevents them from borrowing money? At one time.. the amount of credit that is being extended to people now.. was absolutely unheard of. Cripes.. you didn't even buy cars on credit. Now people put toasters on payment plans. The point is.. the growth was in part fueled by borrowing.. not by wage increases.
    Lenders stop them! What fantasy world are you living in, anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    So? You have a point here?
    Yes, I do. The point being that money doesn't just appear because you want to buy something. And poor people can't get any credit, let alone credit worth 20x their income - and they would be foolish to use it even if it were offered. The money that (potentially) buys production is easily traceable, if you just bother to learn where it comes from.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    They can still sell their production. You are still dealing with percentages.. not with actual dollars. SO.. if the prices are low enough.. yes.. they can purchase that production. Even with that small percentage of income. Say I make a million dollars a year.. and my lone employee makes just 5% of that. That's 50,000. You are saying that he can't purchase production because 50,000 isn't enough money to purchase production in this economy.? The point is..that you are dealing with percentages John..and not actual dollars. So your assumptions simply don't fly.
    No, in the real world you are dealing with dollars, not percentages. You can't purchase $1 trillion worth of production with $50 billion.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Secondly.. I hardly doubt that most people are only borrowing at a rate of 1% of their available salary. So the idea that 5% is wages and credit just adds 1%? Yeah... probably not.
    Going from 5% to 6% is an increase of 20%, genius. Cripes, even if you doubled what people could spend (that would be a 100% increase for the math impaired), you could still only buy 10% of domestic production.
    ___________________________________________

    Enchanted Necromancer Brings Life Back To Once-Dead Argument

  3. #273
    Sage
    JohnfrmClevelan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    5,953

    Re: a new U.S. wealth tax - only on the ultra-wealthy?

    (cont.)

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    third.. you are working on the premise that the 1% cares. Why should they care if "there is no money to buy production". Dude.. they are already in the 1%. They already have more money in savings than they could probably spend in a regular lifetime.. and if the "economy tanks"... it means that prices will be lower and labor will be lower for them basically making them even richer. AND they LOVE your economic idea John. Have government spending keep the masses just above real starvation. Especially if its deficit spending.. Awesome. Cuz it doesn't cost the 1% a dime.. and ultimately it will end up in their coffers anyway. In fact.. many of your proposals.. like a jobs guarantee.. probably will push even more inequity.
    Why would the 1% care? Because they own those companies. That's where their income comes from. In the currency of a failing economy. So they can't take their savings off to Thailand and live like kings, because their currency would be worthless, as there is no production it can buy.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Sure..and why does Ford company now try to control their costs.. especially with labor?
    Because they are as shortsighted as everybody else. It's the Paradox of Thrift, business sector edition.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Gee... because Ford is now an established company.. cars are an established entity.. and Ford now faces competition from international competitors that can produce with lower wage costs.
    A dramatically different scenario when Henry Ford was trying to establish market share more than 100 years ago.
    Honda and Toyota do just fine with American labor.

    Anyway, for the economy as a whole, we would still be better off if labor got a larger share of the income pie, regardless of the cost of labor overseas. The economy is still overwhelmingly domestic, and operates just fine with our relatively high cost of labor.

    Nope.. just an acknowledgment that production still continues.
    Production still continued in Venezuela and Zimbabwe, too.
    Last edited by JohnfrmClevelan; Today at 01:20 PM.
    ___________________________________________

    Enchanted Necromancer Brings Life Back To Once-Dead Argument

Page 28 of 28 FirstFirst ... 18262728

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •