In reply to Ian F :
Did you and I read a different article?
Every word of that article is about how anxious BH is to SPEND the money they have, not sit on it.
Exactly my point.
In reply to Ian F :
Did you and I read a different article?
Every word of that article is about how anxious BH is to SPEND the money they have, not sit on it.
Exactly my point.
SVreX said:I also disagree that wealthy just stash money. Wealthy people do not leave money sitting idle- they want it working to make more money. That means they invest it in companies which make jobs for the rest of us, or in luxury items which also make jobs for the rest of us.
This doesn't have to be a matter of opinion, we can find facts:
https://www.financialsamurai.com/why-the-rich-hoard-so-much-cash/
http://theconservativeincomeinvestor.com/2017/02/01/why-the-mega-rich-hoard-so-much-cash/
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/10/billionaires-are-hoarding-cash.html
On the topic of luxury industry jobs, these tend to provide little to no middle-class employment - generally they employ sweatshop labor if mass production is involved, or a few highly skilled craftspeople for limited production items, and a few highly paid designers and executives.
I also just ran across this very relevant article which helps demonstrate why I see today's CEO compensation as a problem - not even necessarily a problem unto itself, but a problem because of the effects on the rest of the economy:
In reply to GameboyRMH :
I only read your first article. The only fact I see is that he did indeed write an article.
Assertions and opinions. No citations or references. No idea how big the sampling size
Who are these "wealthy people"? The article seems to reference primarily retirees, not CEOs. I think we all understand retirees invest very conservatively.
Are you suggesting we should redistribute the money in retiree's savings accounts? That sounds like theft.
I'll say it again. We can agree to disagree.
I did not read this whole thread. I have personal opinions and beliefs and will happily expound (as many of you know I am prone to do). That said, we have to remember that this issue, like much in life, mostly comes down to what you choose to believe, and that you can back any assertion up with someone's facts.
So, do you choose to believe that rich pay taxes? Or do you choose to believe they don't? Do you choose to believe that the rich are cheating and winning? Or do you believe you are one of the rich? Do you choose to take responsibility for your position? Or is everything someone else's fault?
My guess is that anyone's answers to the above questions are tied closely to their life happiness.
^Disclaimer: I believe I am rich, and that I pay an ass-load of taxes. I can very easily see how all of the answers to my questions might change if I did not believe I was rich.
SVreX said:GameboyRMH said:SVreX said:I don't give a rat's behind how much CEOs are paid. I know how MY company is run, and I know which companies I invest in that make me money. After that, who cares?
The "moral dilemna" of CEO pay comes down to people who are not CEOs being jealous of what they do not have, and wanting someone else to come in and "fix it". Plus a bunch of whining.
My solution for anyone who thinks CEO pay is unfair... Go get a business degree, work your ass off, and strive to become CEO. Problem solved.
I think it's a problem because that money didn't come out of nowhere - that money has been siphoned off from the rest of society, and taking that money out of the hands of working people who are likely to spend it and putting it into the hands of the rich who are likely to stash it is very economically damaging, another aspect of the problem that I'd be happy to discuss.
You can't solve this problem by becoming a CEO any more than you can solve a rash of theft by becoming a thief - if you're successful, it might seem like the problem is solved to you personally, but you've just put yourself on the other side of the problem.
We are gonna have to agree to disagree.
You are presupposing that large compensation for CEOs is a problem in of itself, and equating it to theft. I don't see it as a problem unto itself.
I also disagree that wealthy just stash money. Wealthy people do not leave money sitting idle- they want it working to make more money. That means they invest it in companies which make jobs for the rest of us, or in luxury items which also make jobs for the rest of us.
A wealthy man doesn't need money sitting in a bank if he has a piece of paper that says he owns a part of a company which is also bringing him residual income.
Sorry. Your income redistribution plan is uncompelling to me.
Let’s pretend for a moment that I’m one of the 1% yeah! I made it!!!!!
OK now I’m going to spend my billions. I’ll buy a few houses, a pent house in New York,plus a hunting lodge in Canada and maybe a beach front place in the Bahama’s.
Now how many refrigerators will I need or want? 15- 20? But if that money was spread out to the other 99% how many Refrigerators would be sold? 50-100 million? That’s a few factories and a whole lot of new jobs created.
Yes I realize I grossly over simplified the choices etc but my point is, when too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands the whole economy suffers.
I’m not saying the choices are extremes, rather pointing out that All things in moderation.
If you are a multi billionaire and you had to give up a billion dollars would you leave America and move to someplace that didn’t charge as much taxes? If so where would that be?
Robbie said:^Disclaimer: I believe I am rich, and that I pay an ass-load of taxes. I can very easily see how all of the answers to my questions might change if I did not believe I was rich.
What do you consider an "ass-load" of taxes? I'm doing my taxes right now and for 2017 I paid more in Fed tax than my gross income during some of my younger years working full-time. I still wouldn't consider myself "rich". While I'm not poor by any stretch, I look at the mortgages and car payments a lot of people make and can't comprehend doing that on my salary.
In reply to SVreX:
Ok, that was probably a bad example. I was more referring to companies like Apple who are sitting on large cash reserves and not doing much with it. Somewhat because it resides out of the country, and some for reasons not abundantly clear.
In reply to frenchyd :
Or maybe a different analogy.
What is better for the economy - 100 people buying $500 Whirlpool refrigerators or 10 people buying $5000 Sub Zero refrigerators?
frenchyd said:Let’s pretend for a moment that I’m one of the 1% yeah! I made it!!!!!
OK now I’m going to spend my billions. I’ll buy a few houses, a pent house in New York,plus a hunting lodge in Canada and maybe a beach front place in the Bahama’s.
Now how many refrigerators will I need or want? 15- 20? But if that money was spread out to the other 99% how many Refrigerators would be sold? 50-100 million? That’s a few factories and a whole lot of new jobs created.
Yes I realize I grossly over simplified the choices etc but my point is, when too much wealth is concentrated in too few hands the whole economy suffers.
I’m not saying the choices are extremes, rather pointing out that All things in moderation.
If you are a multi billionaire and you had to give up a billion dollars would you leave America and move to someplace that didn’t charge as much taxes? If so where would that be?
E36 M3 I'm not even a millionaire and I would consider leaving America!!
Robbie said:I did not read this whole thread. I have personal opinions and beliefs and will happily expound (as many of you know I am prone to do). That said, we have to remember that this issue, like much in life, mostly comes down to what you choose to believe, and that you can back any assertion up with someone's facts.
So, do you choose to believe that rich pay taxes? Or do you choose to believe they don't? Do you choose to believe that the rich are cheating and winning? Or do you believe you are one of the rich? Do you choose to take responsibility for your position? Or is everything someone else's fault?
My guess is that anyone's answers to the above questions are tied closely to their life happiness.
Rich or entitled?
I’m rich, I love people who love me in return. I have my health. I live in a custom built house I made with my own hands the way I wanted it made. I live where I want to live which is also the richest zip code in my state and among the richest in the nation.
I have a job I like that takes real skill and judgment. My hobbies have provided me with satisfaction and pleasure but continue to push my limits.
But I drive a School bus part time and my base salary is less than $20/ hr.
The one one thing I am not though is entitled.
Inherited wealth entitles a person to never worry about money. They have others, minions to do that for them.
In reply to Ian F :
Well, basically any money you 'make' and then pay in taxes will always feel like 'too much', so that is why I believe I pay for an 'ass-load'. Remember I said I 'believe' I am rich and I 'believe' I pay a lot in taxes. After that, the 'truth' doesn't really matter. However, since I like numbers, I did a quick average by searching for the US 2017 tax revenue (3.32 T), and divided it by 300 M people (a hack for easy numbers), and got about $11,000 tax revenue per person (not per tax payer). We're well above average...
Also, I just found this. PEW research is generally well respected. Funny how the top 20% of incomes pay the top 80% of taxes, or maybe exactly as expected, I guess.
In reply to frenchyd :
You're not really serious, are you?
You think that eliminating 1 billionaire is gonna lead to 50-100 million refrigerator purchases?
Sorry. I can't even laugh at that it's so absurd.
Just checking in to see if the usual players are running the show.
Yup.
Carry on, then.
Ian F said:In reply to frenchyd :
Or maybe a different analogy.
What is better for the economy - 100 people buying $500 Whirlpool refrigerators or 10 people buying $5000 Sub Zero refrigerators?
Ok, I can relate to that example a little better.
My short answer is, "I don't know".
My second answer would be to say nearly equal impact. Same dollar amount of consumerism. Same sales tax generated. Fewer jobs created with the Sub Zeros, but probably lower paid ones, so Federal income tax might be similar. The take home pay per worker with the Whirlpools is most likely much smaller. Whirlpool would definitely have higher production expenses and lower margins. I also happen to know (fact) that 90% of Whirlpool manufacturing happens in the Dominican Republic (even when they say "Made in America". No idea where Sub Zeroes are made.
So, the correct answer is probably "It depends".
But there is another aspect. The buyers of the Sub Zeroes would spend their excess income investing in companies (which would grow jobs). The buyers of the Whirlpools don't have excess money, but spend their money on consumables (Which may or may not generate jobs).
Definite "It depends".
In reply to Appleseed :
how has this gone on so long?
I just want to see if my page 1 prediction comes true.
In reply to frenchyd :
The articles Gameboy linked to state that the "wealthy" in this country are mostly NOT inherited wealth. They worked for it, are retired, and intend to keep it in their bank accounts and not spend it or invest it.
If we can't even agree on what is "wealthy", it's pretty hard to have this conversation.
My definition of wealth is about net worth, not income. Your big house in a nice zip code probably qualifies you. Your income is irrelevant.
And, I do not believe people who have wealth (net worth) should have it taken away from them. That's theft. So, your house is safe.
Taxes are not based on net worth. They are primarily based on income in a given year. There are plenty of wealthy people who have no income, and pay no income tax. Sounds like you are pretty close, based on things you've shared about your taxation percentages
That's why I am an advocate of a taxation system based on purchasing power, not income. Flat sales tax.
In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :
I would guess because it's been relatively civil, few personal attacks or people getting upset, just spirited debate of differing philosophies.
SVreX said:But there is another aspect. The buyers of the Sub Zeroes would spend their excess income investing in companies (which would grow jobs). The buyers of the Whirlpools don't have excess money, but spend their money on consumables (Which may or may not generate jobs).
Definite "It depends".
I'll agree with this for the most part except the reinvesting. Unless they are starting companies or buying into IPOs they probably aren't. They are just buying stock which is money coming from one investor to a different investor.
SVreX said:In reply to frenchyd :
The articles Gameboy linked to state that the "wealthy" in this country are mostly NOT inherited wealth. They worked for it, are retired, and intend to keep it in their bank accounts and not spend it or invest it.
If we can't even agree on what is "wealthy", it's pretty hard to have this conversation.
My definition of wealth is about net worth, not income. Your big house in a nice zip code probably qualifies you. Your income is irrelevant.
And, I do not believe people who have wealth (net worth) should have it taken away from them. That's theft. So, your house is safe.
Taxes are not based on net worth. They are primarily based on income in a given year. There are plenty of wealthy people who have no income, and pay no income tax. Sounds like you are pretty close, based on things you've shared about your taxation percentages
That's why I am an advocate of a taxation system based on purchasing power, not income. Flat sales tax.
Certain countries do tax net worth! Scary thought for sure.
SVreX said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
I only read your first article. The only fact I see is that he did indeed write an article.
Assertions and opinions. No citations or references. No idea how big the sampling size
Who are these "wealthy people"? The article seems to reference primarily retirees, not CEOs. I think we all understand retirees invest very conservatively.
Are you suggesting we should redistribute the money in retiree's savings accounts? That sounds like theft.
I'll say it again. We can agree to disagree.
I would've put my third article first if I knew you'd only read the first one - it cites a source of the Wealth-X Billionaire Census with a sample size of 2,437, and also references a UBS study.
The first article is about HNWIs which are people with more than $1M in liquid assets apart from their primary residence though.
I haven't suggested redistributing wealth, but rather encouraging a redistribution of income, in part through tax policy.
We can agree to disagree on opinions but we should be able to come to an agreement on facts.
In reply to SVreX : First I didn’t suggest eliminating a multi billionaire, just using one of his billions.
Second the concept of the needs of the one versus the needs of the many is easily understood. Don’t like my numbers? OK let’s use your numbers to make the point of discussion.
Third I have no problem with people getting wealthy from their efforts. I admire the Henry Ford, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc.
My issue is with inherited wealth. Entitlements because your great grandfather worked hard and created wealth.
Because wealth equals power. The more removed from the creation of wealth the greater the likelihood of a lack of reality.
A simple example of a lack of reality is art! Not it’s creation. The collection of art. Where absolutely silly prices are paid for art. Why? Because you can show off what you can have that others can’t. What entitles you to collect art? Money!!!
I’m better than you because I have more money.
Robbie said:In reply to Ian F :
Well, basically any money you 'make' and then pay in taxes will always feel like 'too much', so that is why I believe I pay for an 'ass-load'. Remember I said I 'believe' I am rich and I 'believe' I pay a lot in taxes. After that, the 'truth' doesn't really matter. However, since I like numbers, I did a quick average by searching for the US 2017 tax revenue (3.32 T), and divided it by 300 M people (a hack for easy numbers), and got about $11,000 tax revenue per person (not per tax payer). We're well above average...
Also, I just found this. PEW research is generally well respected. Funny how the top 20% of incomes pay the top 80% of taxes, or maybe exactly as expected, I guess.
I’m sorry but $250,000 income doesn’t get you in the one percent club. And dollars of tax paid has almost nothing to do with real wealth. One rather famous person refuses to make his tax records available. According to rumors because he doesn’t pay taxes. Taking fulll advantage of those 77,000+ pages of the tax code and hiring those $1000 hour tax lawyers to find the legal precedent which allows him to.
In reply to frenchyd :
In regards ti art you would also be surprised to find that they don't even use it to show off. Most of the art collected nowadays sits in warehouses around the world. Out of reach of tax authorities!
loosecannon said:My wife and I disagree on this. One of us thinks, generally speaking, that rich people pay a lot of taxes and one of us thinks the rich pay accountants to find ways where they don't pay any taxes-so, who is right? Any rich people on here? What % of your income goes to income tax?
Why would you/your wife believe that the 'rich' find ways out of paying taxes? What outlet told you that?
Yes, we (working Americans) all pay too much. I'm far from the top, but pay more than 30% to the man. A third of my working day goes to someone else, for many questionable purposes. That is far from OK.
I do not enjoy my money being spent by this idiot
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-gao-report_us_5ad4c289e4b077c89ceb3656
This topic is locked. No further posts are being accepted.
