Treasury secretary warns US could default on its debt as soon as June

[placeholder]

41 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I'm not "mixing and matching statistics". I was showing how the numbers from various sources differ greatly. Stop your flaming nonsense.

You weren't matching and mixing. But Longwood50 was.

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been removed. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

18 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

I am not saying that it is only one administrations fault.  Whether Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden all have spent money like drunken sailors.  This coming back to normal is a blatant false statement.  Traditionally the spending to GDP has been in the 18% - 20% range.  We are now at $6.6 trillion  in spending in 2021.  The GDP is $23.32 Trillion.  That is 28.3%

You are falling for the narrative that we need to do this because of the pandemic to "curb inflation"  That is as false as the Affordable Care Act was ever about making health care affordable.  All that and the stimulus spending names were to mislead the public into giant giveaways.  All that spending with borrowed money has come with today's inflation.  One way or another the USA now $31 trillion in direct federal debt and an estimated $100 trillion in unfunded mandates for things like social security, medicare and medicaid.  Social Security is a pay as you go program where current tax receipts are funding payouts and medicare and medicaid likewise have no funds but are federal outlays each year.  The technical definition of insolvency is when either your liabilities exceed your assets or your cash flow is insufficient to service your debt.  The very fact the USA has to borrow more money each year to service its debts is testimony to the fact it meets the technical definition of insolvency. 

 

You are posting excellent information. I hope you keep it up.????

[Longwood50]

On 1/21/2023 at 2:26 PM, heybruce said:

The top 1% own sixteen times as much wealth as the bottom 50%

Yes and so what.  That means they are doing the correct thing.  They are being productive.  As said, taxing them is a punishment for being productive members of society that give back more than they receive.  They pay 38 times the rate of the bottom 20%.  

This notion of taxing those who are successful , productive, and job creators to redistribute it to those who are unsuccessful non productive and have not job is ludicrous.  You want as a nation more Bill Gates, Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Sam Waltons, and Larry Ellison's not few.  

Does it not dawn on you that JOBS come from somewhere.  That is what benefits the typical person.  Those jobs come from entrepreneurs who are willing to take the risk of their own money.  Would you buy a lottery ticket if you knew the majority of your winnings would be confiscated.  The more you tax those who are successful the fewer successful people you will have.  That robs them of the money TO EXPAND.  Now if they get wealthy in the process so what.  That is like telling the car salesman that he is earning too much because he sells too many cars and taxing him to reduce his earnings.  


This mindset of taxing the wealthy is nothing more than a different term for Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto.  From each according to their ability and to each according to their needs.  

Now that may sound like Nirvana but it does not work.  If I was the government and I took from you the majority of what you earned from your salary just how incented are you to work or work more.  Do you really thing that doesn't apply to business people at all.  

The fact is that the best way to spread the wealth is to make more people engaged in making money.  That is jobs.  Jobs come from entrepreneurs and you want more of them. You take steps to encourage those who provide jobs not rob them for being successful in accomplishing that. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

31 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes and so what.  That means they are doing the correct thing.  They are being productive.  As said, taxing them is a punishment for being productive members of society that give back more than they receive.  They pay 38 times the rate of the bottom 20%.  

This notion of taxing those who are successful , productive, and job creators to redistribute it to those who are unsuccessful non productive and have not job is ludicrous.  You want as a nation more Bill Gates, Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Sam Waltons, and Larry Ellison's not few.  

Does it not dawn on you that JOBS come from somewhere.  That is what benefits the typical person.  Those jobs come from entrepreneurs who are willing to take the risk of their own money.  Would you buy a lottery ticket if you knew the majority of your winnings would be confiscated.  The more you tax those who are successful the fewer successful people you will have.  That robs them of the money TO EXPAND.  Now if they get wealthy in the process so what.  That is like telling the car salesman that he is earning too much because he sells too many cars and taxing him to reduce his earnings.  


This mindset of taxing the wealthy is nothing more than a different term for Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto.  From each according to their ability and to each according to their needs.  

Now that may sound like Nirvana but it does not work.  If I was the government and I took from you the majority of what you earned from your salary just how incented are you to work or work more.  Do you really thing that doesn't apply to business people at all.  

The fact is that the best way to spread the wealth is to make more people engaged in making money.  That is jobs.  Jobs come from entrepreneurs and you want more of them. You take steps to encourage those who provide jobs not rob them for being successful in accomplishing that. 

 

I fundamentally disagree. Have to go back a few years to when societies were more equal, but people were happier. Some people being really rich and loads of poor people does not make a happy society.

 

[Longwood50]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I fundamentally disagree. Have to go back a few years to when societies were more equal, but people were happier. Some people being really rich and loads of poor people does not make a happy society.

That is true, however you miss my point.  The answer is not to make the rich poorer but to make the poor richer.   You do not accomplish that by taking the capital that the wealthy use to expand their businesses.  

That is akin to robbing the farmer of his seed corn to make bread to feed the people.  Sounds humanitarian but next year there is less corn. 

Jobs create wealth and wealth is created by people risking their own money to start and expand businesses.  Take the money away from them does two things.  It diminishes their incentive to be in business and it robs them of the money to expand.  

Like it or not, the best way to increase wealth is to create jobs and in order to create those jobs you have to encourage not discourage those who create those jobs.  So what that Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, and Jeff Bezos are wealthy.  They employ hundreds of thousands of people all earning over $100,000 per year.  

You want to encourage rather than discourage manufacturing jobs that can employ those with limited skills.  Instead we tax them encouraging them to move their plants overseas.  

[placeholder]

On 1/21/2023 at 12:35 PM, Longwood50 said:

Again, the top tax rate is irrelevant.  It is how much that is paid not the rate.  Note over time the USA despite the wailing and knashing of teeth about paying "their fair share" has become more confiscatory to those at upper income levels not less.  That is why when they complain about tax cuts only benefiting the wealthy they are being deceptive.  Yes any tax cut benefits the wealthy more.  They are the ones paying the most and the lowest tax bracket tax filers in most cases pay zero or even get a refund on taxes not paid in the form of what is really a reverse income tax called an 'earned income credit" 

This chart by very liberal CNN very clearly shows the progression where the upper income groups now bear an increasingly large share of the federal income tax revenue. 





https://money.cnn.com/2013/03/12/news/economy/rich-taxes/

Of course it's not irrelevant. As the wealthy engross a greater and greater percentage of national wealth, naturally, they are going to be paying a higher percentage of the total.

And it's absolutely FALE that

 

Actually the richest Americans pay at a far lower tax rate than do average Americans.

America’s richest 400 families pay a lower tax rate than average taxpayer
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/23/americas-richest-400-families-pay-a-lower-tax-rate-than-average-taxpayer.html

The average American family pays 13.3%. The average superrich familyl pays 8.2%

[placeholder]

On 1/21/2023 at 10:23 AM, Longwood50 said:

As to this tirade about inheritance taxes they are the most unfair of all.  The person in order to have accumulated much money would have either inherited from a person already taxed before, or I would have had to earned it and at the highest tax rates.  So I am taxed once when I earn it and again when I die.  Sorry but that is confiscatory. e - Wikipedia

More nonsense. Money that is taxed once, shouldn't be taxed again. So the money I earn that has been subject to income tax shouldn't be subject to excise tax or sales tax or gasoline tax? Governments ordinarily tax money when it changes hands. When someone inherits money that's a change of hands. As for it being conficatory...confiscatory from whom? A corpse? Really?

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

That is true, however you miss my point.  The answer is not to make the rich poorer but to make the poor richer.   You do not accomplish that by taking the capital that the wealthy use to expand their businesses.  
 

So simplistic as to be ridiculous. If, in fact, all or most of the money that the wealthy earned was spent on productive investment you would have a point. But in fact, the money acquired by the wealthy is so unbalanced that they were actually willing to park it in govt bonds that paid negative interests. That's because they had nowhere productive to put it. The amount of money they have is so unbalanced that top end real estate and artworks have massively escalated in price. They have so much money that they invest in fake stuff like cryptocurrency. 

[ozimoron]

Debt ceiling: 2011 showdown leaves lessons for Biden, GOP

 

“That was the height of the ‘tea party’ stuff and they wanted to flex their muscles, but it’s just such a stupid way to try to do it — because you don’t really want to risk the good credit rating of the United States government,” Gale said. “I suspect most of these guys already knew it.”

 

Debt had doubled during the George W. Bush presidency and the post-9/11 wars overseas, and it skyrocketed under President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the Great Recession, teetering around $15 trillion.

 

 

 

https://apnews.com/article/biden-politics-united-states-government-national-debt-us-republican-party-d6bfc59aa623c8c972c44e1aced85d9c?utm_source=homepage&utm_medium=TopNews&utm_campaign=position_05

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

[placeholder]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Candide,

 

Go to google and find out what they say about a person who knows the truth, sees the truth but continues to believes the lies.  

The only way you could say the USA has returned to a more normal level of spending is if you are blind.  Historically we the USA spent about 18% to 19% of GDP.  We are now at 28.4% of GDP.  That is way abvove what has been historically "reasonable"
 

More falsehoods from you. No, "we" are not at 28.4% of GDP.

The federal government spent $6.27 trillion in FY 2022. This means federal spending was equal to 25% of the total gross domestic product (GDP), or economic activity, of the United States that year.

  https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#:~:text=The federal government spent %246.27,the United States that year.

And next year federal spending is expect to decline sharply. The Biden Administration proposed a budget of about 5.8 trillion which would bring the federal deficit down to about 23% of GDP. But since the Republicans hold the House it will most likely be less. What's more, the deficit would have been more had Biden not managed to get some tax increases passed over the unanimous objections of Republicans. If only 2 Republicans in the Senate had supported his tax cuts, the deficit reduction would have been even greater.

 

[candide]

3 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Candide,

 

Go to google and find out what they say about a person who knows the truth, sees the truth but continues to believes the lies.  

The only way you could say the USA has returned to a more normal level of spending is if you are blind.  Historically we the USA spent about 18% to 19% of GDP.  We are now at 28.4% of GDP.  That is way abvove what has been historically "reasonable"

Can't you read? Or are you knowingly changing the meaning of others' posts? I wrote "it starts going back to a more reasonable level", not "has returned to a more normal level".

 

Your percentage is also not accurate, BTW.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/#:~:text=Spending Trends Over Time and,the United States that year.

Edited January 24, 2023 by candide

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, candide said:

Can't you read? Or are you knowingly changing the meaning of others' posts? I wrote "it starts going back to a more reasonable level", not "has returned to a more normal level".

Anyway, as I've pointed out, it is returning to more normal levels. Given that Longwood consistently gets facts wrong and makes things up, it isn't surprising that this is the case.

[Longwood50]

5 hours ago, candide said:

Can't you read? Or are you knowingly changing the meaning of others' posts? I wrote "it starts going back to a more reasonable level", not "has returned to a more normal level".

As I said, one would have to be be blind to say that 28.6% is "reasonable" That is 50% higher than historical norms.  

Also try this, using a calculator.   Since I am guessing you don't remember how to calculate it, take the $6.8 trillion put that on top, that is colled the Numerator.  Put the 23.32 GDP on the bottom that is called the denominator.  If you then use that magic calculator to divide it will tell yo that amounts to 29.15%.  

Now some put government spending at $6.6 vs. $6.8 trillion.  One way or another if you find that REASONABLE as a percent of GDP or per person or per family, you must be smoking some really potent stuff. 

The federal government spent $6.8 trillion in FY2021 — or $20,634 per person. 

[placeholder]

19 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

As I said, one would have to be be blind to say that 28.6% is "reasonable" That is 50% higher than historical norms.  

Also try this, using a calculator.   Since I am guessing you don't remember how to calculate it, take the $6.8 trillion put that on top, that is colled the Numerator.  Put the 23.32 GDP on the bottom that is called the denominator.  If you then use that magic calculator to divide it will tell yo that amounts to 29.15%.  

Now some put government spending at $6.6 vs. $6.8 trillion.  One way or another if you find that REASONABLE as a percent of GDP or per person or per family, you must be smoking some really potent stuff. 

The federal government spent $6.8 trillion in FY2021 — or $20,634 per person. 

Let's take a look at an economy that has kept a tight rein on deficits.

 

Germany's total govt expenditure to gdp ratio in 2019 was 44.99%. So even before Covid Germany had a higher ratio of govt expenditure to GDP than did the USA up to that time. And when covid hit, Germany's ratio jumped to 50.41% in 2020 and 51.25% in 2021. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/624182/ratio-of-government-expenditure-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp-in-germany/

In the USA total government expenditure to the gdp ratio was 45.3%, in 2021 42.36 percent, and it's estimated  to have tumbled to 37.43% in 2022. In other words in Germany before covid hit the ratio was only slightly less than it was at its highest in the USA.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/268356/ratio-of-government-expenditure-to-gross-domestic-product-gdp-in-the-united-states/

The difference between the 2 countries is that Germans don't believe in magic tax cuts that pay for themselves.

https://www.worldwide-tax.com/germany/germany-taxes.asp#:~:text=In other words%2C the higher,imposed on the income tax.

And yet, somehow, the German economy has performed strongly for most of the 21st century.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

As I said, one would have to be be blind to say that 28.6% is "reasonable" That is 50% higher than historical norms.  

Also try this, using a calculator.   Since I am guessing you don't remember how to calculate it, take the $6.8 trillion put that on top, that is colled the Numerator.  Put the 23.32 GDP on the bottom that is called the denominator.  If you then use that magic calculator to divide it will tell yo that amounts to 29.15%.  

Now some put government spending at $6.6 vs. $6.8 trillion.  One way or another if you find that REASONABLE as a percent of GDP or per person or per family, you must be smoking some really potent stuff. 

The federal government spent $6.8 trillion in FY2021 — or $20,634 per person. 

What is it you don't understand in "starts going back"? 

Edited January 24, 2023 by candide

[heybruce]

14 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes and so what.  That means they are doing the correct thing.  They are being productive.  As said, taxing them is a punishment for being productive members of society that give back more than they receive.  They pay 38 times the rate of the bottom 20%.  

This notion of taxing those who are successful , productive, and job creators to redistribute it to those who are unsuccessful non productive and have not job is ludicrous.  You want as a nation more Bill Gates, Elon Musks, Jeff Bezos, Sam Waltons, and Larry Ellison's not few.  

Does it not dawn on you that JOBS come from somewhere.  That is what benefits the typical person.  Those jobs come from entrepreneurs who are willing to take the risk of their own money.  Would you buy a lottery ticket if you knew the majority of your winnings would be confiscated.  The more you tax those who are successful the fewer successful people you will have.  That robs them of the money TO EXPAND.  Now if they get wealthy in the process so what.  That is like telling the car salesman that he is earning too much because he sells too many cars and taxing him to reduce his earnings.  


This mindset of taxing the wealthy is nothing more than a different term for Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto.  From each according to their ability and to each according to their needs.  

Now that may sound like Nirvana but it does not work.  If I was the government and I took from you the majority of what you earned from your salary just how incented are you to work or work more.  Do you really thing that doesn't apply to business people at all.  

The fact is that the best way to spread the wealth is to make more people engaged in making money.  That is jobs.  Jobs come from entrepreneurs and you want more of them. You take steps to encourage those who provide jobs not rob them for being successful in accomplishing that.

"As said, taxing them is a punishment for being productive members of society that give back more than they receive.  They pay 38 times the rate of the bottom 20%."

 

The rich pay 38 times the rate of the bottom 20% on their income, not their wealth.  Perhaps you don't believe the rich have earned the increase in value of their investments.  Well then, let's tax their accumulated unearned wealth from investments at 100%.  After all, if they haven't earned it, why should they get to keep it?

 

The top 1%, and especially the top 0.01%, are very good at hiding income.  As one poster already explained, a common tactic is for people to never cash in investments but to "borrow" money using the investments as collateral.  They get money for their yacht without ever having to declare income.

 

Regardless, do these job creators build the roads, provide the utilities, educate their work force from grade school up, etc?  Their success is dependent upon a very expensive human and physical infrastructure  provided by the government.  That infrastructure must be paid for, and it is fair to ask those who benefit the most to pay the most.

 

Taxes come in three forms:  Taxes on earnings (income tax), taxes on purchases (sales tax) and taxes on wealth (property tax).  All have an impact on economies, just as paying your bills has an impact on your bank statement. However not paying your bills or taxes is not a legal option.

 

The rich are doing fine in America; better than ever.  The fact that their tax rate has been greatly reduced over the last 50 years has a lot to do with their success.  Taxes are clearly not preventing them from accumulating more wealth.  The rest of the population and the finances of the Federal government are not doing so well.  It's time for the small amount of wealth paid by the rich taxes to get a little bigger.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

That is true, however you miss my point.  The answer is not to make the rich poorer but to make the poor richer.   You do not accomplish that by taking the capital that the wealthy use to expand their businesses.  

That is akin to robbing the farmer of his seed corn to make bread to feed the people.  Sounds humanitarian but next year there is less corn. 

Jobs create wealth and wealth is created by people risking their own money to start and expand businesses.  Take the money away from them does two things.  It diminishes their incentive to be in business and it robs them of the money to expand.  

Like it or not, the best way to increase wealth is to create jobs and in order to create those jobs you have to encourage not discourage those who create those jobs.  So what that Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, and Jeff Bezos are wealthy.  They employ hundreds of thousands of people all earning over $100,000 per year.  

You want to encourage rather than discourage manufacturing jobs that can employ those with limited skills.  Instead we tax them encouraging them to move their plants overseas.  

Alas, you are speaking in 10 year ago mode. MS and Amazon ( your heroes ) just sacked thousands, factories are going AI/ robotics, the future for anyone unqualified is bleak.

Looks like the so called "living wage" will become the norm, and where is the money for that going to come from? IMO it will have to come from the top 10% as not many others will have much to tax.

[Pattaya Spotter]

That's okay, I don't hold any U.S. debt.

[thaibeachlovers]

If the US was an ordinary country I wouldn't give this the time of day, but the fact is that if the US has a problem we all do, as proven when they thought giving people that couldn't repay the mortgages lots of money a good idea.

[Longwood50]

On 1/25/2023 at 5:11 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Alas, you are speaking in 10 year ago mode. MS and Amazon ( your heroes ) just sacked thousands, factories are going AI/ robotics, the future for anyone unqualified is bleak.

You still miss my point.  Business will always seek efficiency since they keep what is left over.  And would you prefer that the buggy whip business was still around or that you staffed elevators to keep the person who staffed the elevator in decades past was still employed. 

Capital kept by an entrepreneur will go to other money making ventures.  Those replace the jobs lost to automation.  Failure to encourage the creation of and expansion of those new ventures means that the remaining businesses will in fact seek to reduce the numbers of employees and the more you tax them the greater the incentive to move their operations overseas. 

You want more business, you want existing business to expand, you want the business to survive through difficult times.  The more you confiscate from them the less ability they have to do any of that. 
Taking money from Peter to pay to Paul does not increase the wealth or prosperity of the country.  If anything it is a disincentive to Peter to earn the money in the first place.  Encourage Peter by letting him keep more of his money to start or grow his business and create jobs for Paul and everyone benefits.  

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Longwood50 said:

Capital kept by an entrepreneur will go to other money making ventures.  Those replace the jobs lost to automation.  Failure to encourage the creation of and expansion of those new ventures means that the remaining businesses will in fact seek to reduce the numbers of employees and the more you tax them the greater the incentive to move their operations overseas. 

As per usual, your explanations of the economic system are simplistic and lack reference to actual facts.

Companies like Apple and Alphabet have accummulated huge cash reserves because they can't find investment opportunities.

And what's even worse, huge amounts of corporate cash go to stock buybacks. This used to be illegal because it was considered stock price manipulation. Thanks to the Reagan administration, that's no longer the case.

.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

You still miss my point.  Business will always seek efficiency since they keep what is left over.  And would you prefer that the buggy whip business was still around or that you staffed elevators to keep the person who staffed the elevator in decades past was still employed. 

Capital kept by an entrepreneur will go to other money making ventures.  Those replace the jobs lost to automation.  Failure to encourage the creation of and expansion of those new ventures means that the remaining businesses will in fact seek to reduce the numbers of employees and the more you tax them the greater the incentive to move their operations overseas. 

You want more business, you want existing business to expand, you want the business to survive through difficult times.  The more you confiscate from them the less ability they have to do any of that. 
Taking money from Peter to pay to Paul does not increase the wealth or prosperity of the country.  If anything it is a disincentive to Peter to earn the money in the first place.  Encourage Peter by letting him keep more of his money to start or grow his business and create jobs for Paul and everyone benefits.  

 

You miss the point that businesses will not be employing people in future- it's going to be AI/ robotics as prices of the machines reduces. Of course it's going to fail as if people are surviving on the misnamed "living wage" they won't be able to buy any of the things they are selling. However, greed blinds businessmen with starry eyed pursuit of greater profit and to hell with people.

 

I might accept what you are saying except for the fact that the country I grew up in had more or less income parity, and virtually no unemployment. The state owned almost all the major industries and was in the business of training people for trades- uni was not the be all and end all that it is today- I didn't know anyone that went, despite it being free.

Unfortunately, a rotten PM with a privatisation agenda ruined it and greed now reins supreme.

Would I go back to then- absolutely.

[Longwood50]

On 1/25/2023 at 3:23 AM, heybruce said:

Regardless, do these job creators build the roads, provide the utilities, educate their work force from grade school up, etc? 

Ah the Elizabeth Warrent disciple.  And those roads, schools, and bridges that the public paid for, just where did they get the money to pay for those?  Did they inherit it, do they have a money tree in their back yard, or did they get a job and get paid.  Ergo, confiscate the profits of the company and rob it of capital to expand or start a new venture and guess what there are fewer people with jobs to pay for those roads, schools, and bridges. 

You are a classic example of class envy.  Its funny, people applaud those who can dunk a basketball, throw a baseball, or stand on stage and sing.  However let a person be successful in busines and they are evil personified when in fact without them society would crumble. 

As to the wealth that along with many others comments of yours is ridiculous.  The very fact that the wealthy despite paying the majority of taxes still accumulate wealth is testimony to them doing the right thing.  Also did it ever strike you that the wealth they create comes AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID THE MAJORITY OF THE TAX BILL.  
In communism the government owns everything and they dole out to those whatever they deem fit.  You would have it that it is an even more evil system where the private entrepreneur risks his/her money and if a failure takes the loss but if a success the government confiscates the majority of it and gives the owner again only what it thinks he should have. 

You of course make this unsubstantiated comment about the wealthy being good at hiding their money.  B*** S**t.  The only money you can hide is what is in your pocket.  Invest it in real estate, stock, precious metals, commodities or foreign bank accounts and there is a paper trail. 

Even if what you say was true which is is not, it does not dispute the fact that the top 1% after all their evil deeds still pay more than the bottom 90% pay in Federal Income Tax. 

It seems to gall you that someone becomes wealthy.  I say, SO WHAT.  The world is infinitely better off because of the contributions of Steve Jobs, Bill, Gates, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Sam Walton, Elon Musk and many others.  It is a very simple concept that you seem to lack the intellectual capability to understand or your envy blinds you.  You want more billionaires not fewer.  Society is better off with successful people than unsuccesful ones.  Jobs are created by successful people who do so to become wealthy and without jobs society is hurt.  The more you "punish" people for doing productive activities to create jobs the more you hurt the very people you say you are trying to help. 

Finally, you seem to be of this mindset that this wealth goes on to eternity.  One only has to look at the Bill Gates giving the majority of his money to the Gates Foundation and Warren Buffet already has said the majority of his fortune will go to a foundation.  They both recognize that retaining that money to do good things is preferable to having the government confiscate it through inheritance taxes.  So after paying the majority of the taxes via earnings during their lives, they accumulate wealth that again the government will confiscate another 40% of it at death and somehow you think that is fair. 

The siren song of from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs continues attract fools despite each and every example of it being shown to be a disaster.  Even China recognizes the folly of "communism" and in 2020 created more billinaires than the rest of the world combined.  They have learned the folly of confiscating the wealth of the successful.  One only has to look at the China has a long term 9% GDP growth rate versus the USA at 3.1%.  

Now this is a very simple concept but then again I have to be mindful of who I am talking to.  That GDP growth rate creating wealth and hence wealthy people, and it means that China is creating jobs and jobs help the average person.  So you would have it that to soothe your class envy you would sooner punish the wealthy than benefit the average guy.  Pretty Sad. 

https://www.ceotodaymagazine.com/2022/03/china-is-producing-new-billionaires-faster-than-any-other-country/

[Longwood50]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You miss the point that businesses will not be employing people in future- it's going to be AI/ robotics as prices of the machines reduces.

Will robotics change employment yes.  You will no longer have menial repetitive jobs performed manually.  However consider this.  If machines were able to produce everything required for mankind, food, clothing, shelter, cars etc.  NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY INCOME SINCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A JOB. 

 

Automation will reduce the need for human labor but increase employment in the robotics industry.  The robots don't build themselves.  Also labor will be shifted from manufacturing industries to service industries and more highly specialized jobs that require education.  

One way or another common sense you want to encourage people to be successful.  You want them to expand their business, start new ones.  Very simple economics, you tax things you want less of.  Cigarettes, gas guzzling cars, coal burning plants and you subsidize things you want more of, major USA subsidies include agriculture, housing, farm exports, electric cars, and health care. So confiscating the wealth is stealing the seed corn and you will get less of it.  Subsidizing by redistribution to others means you will have more with their hands out. You do not create wealth by taking from one to give to another.  You create wealth by job creation that allows the person to earn their wealth rather than it being given to them from the work of others. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Ah the Elizabeth Warrent disciple.  And those roads, schools, and bridges that the public paid for, just where did they get the money to pay for those?  Did they inherit it, do they have a money tree in their back yard, or did they get a job and get paid.  Ergo, confiscate the profits of the company and rob it of capital to expand or start a new venture and guess what there are fewer people with jobs to pay for those roads, schools, and bridges. 

You are a classic example of class envy.  Its funny, people applaud those who can dunk a basketball, throw a baseball, or stand on stage and sing.  However let a person be successful in busines and they are evil personified when in fact without them society would crumble. 

As to the wealth that along with many others comments of yours is ridiculous.  The very fact that the wealthy despite paying the majority of taxes still accumulate wealth is testimony to them doing the right thing.  Also did it ever strike you that the wealth they create comes AFTER THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID THE MAJORITY OF THE TAX BILL.  
In communism the government owns everything and they dole out to those whatever they deem fit.  You would have it that it is an even more evil system where the private entrepreneur risks his/her money and if a failure takes the loss but if a success the government confiscates the majority of it and gives the owner again only what it thinks he should have. 

You of course make this unsubstantiated comment about the wealthy being good at hiding their money.  B*** S**t.  The only money you can hide is what is in your pocket.  Invest it in real estate, stock, precious metals, commodities or foreign bank accounts and there is a paper trail. 

Even if what you say was true which is is not, it does not dispute the fact that the top 1% after all their evil deeds still pay more than the bottom 90% pay in Federal Income Tax. 

It seems to gall you that someone becomes wealthy.  I say, SO WHAT.  The world is infinitely better off because of the contributions of Steve Jobs, Bill, Gates, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Sam Walton, Elon Musk and many others.  It is a very simple concept that you seem to lack the intellectual capability to understand or your envy blinds you.  You want more billionaires not fewer.  Society is better off with successful people than unsuccesful ones.  Jobs are created by successful people who do so to become wealthy and without jobs society is hurt.  The more you "punish" people for doing productive activities to create jobs the more you hurt the very people you say you are trying to help. 

Finally, you seem to be of this mindset that this wealth goes on to eternity.  One only has to look at the Bill Gates giving the majority of his money to the Gates Foundation and Warren Buffet already has said the majority of his fortune will go to a foundation.  They both recognize that retaining that money to do good things is preferable to having the government confiscate it through inheritance taxes.  So after paying the majority of the taxes via earnings during their lives, they accumulate wealth that again the government will confiscate another 40% of it at death and somehow you think that is fair. 

The siren song of from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs continues attract fools despite each and every example of it being shown to be a disaster.  Even China recognizes the folly of "communism" and in 2020 created more billinaires than the rest of the world combined.  They have learned the folly of confiscating the wealth of the successful.  One only has to look at the China has a long term 9% GDP growth rate versus the USA at 3.1%.  

Now this is a very simple concept but then again I have to be mindful of who I am talking to.  That GDP growth rate creating wealth and hence wealthy people, and it means that China is creating jobs and jobs help the average person.  So you would have it that to soothe your class envy you would sooner punish the wealthy than benefit the average guy.  Pretty Sad. 

https://www.ceotodaymagazine.com/2022/03/china-is-producing-new-billionaires-faster-than-any-other-country/

And those roads, schools, and bridges that the public paid for, just where did they get the money to pay for those? 

 

To return to my childhood, all those were built and without any superstar rich people. Just by taxes of ordinary people.

 

You are a classic example of class envy.  Its funny, people applaud those who can dunk a basketball, throw a baseball, or stand on stage and sing.  However let a person be successful in busines and they are evil personified when in fact without them society would crumble. 

 

LOL. I don't applaud professional sports people. The country of my youth had no such- all amateur, yet they were successful, and more deserving of praise than any overpaid professional chasing a ball around.

If businessmen have a bad rep, it's because some deserve it. Evil personified, yes some are.

 

The world is infinitely better off because of the contributions of Steve Jobs, Bill, Gates,........., Jeff Bezos, ............, Elon Musk

 

Never heard of the two I deleted, but the remaining IMO are not as worthy as you think. The first two enabled social media, the most vile thing to ever happen to humanity IMO, Amazon is an example IMO of all that is bad about capitalism, and as for Musk, the less said the better.

 

Even China recognizes the folly of "communism" and in 2020 created more billinaires than the rest of the world combined. 

 

Seriously? Those billionaires were created at the expense of the millions that became virtual sweat shop slaves, ruthlessly exploited to give the party elites a life of luxury, and you think that is a good thing!

You do realise the peasants have no freedom, as we know it, don't you? Do you envy the farmer thrown off his land so apartments can be built for the wealthy?

 

I'll leave it there, as continuing would be pointless. I doubt we could ever agree on anything.

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

17 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Will robotics change employment yes.  You will no longer have menial repetitive jobs performed manually.  However consider this.  If machines were able to produce everything required for mankind, food, clothing, shelter, cars etc.  NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY INCOME SINCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A JOB. 

 

Automation will reduce the need for human labor but increase employment in the robotics industry.  The robots don't build themselves.  Also labor will be shifted from manufacturing industries to service industries and more highly specialized jobs that require education.  

One way or another common sense you want to encourage people to be successful.  You want them to expand their business, start new ones.  Very simple economics, you tax things you want less of.  Cigarettes, gas guzzling cars, coal burning plants and you subsidize things you want more of, major USA subsidies include agriculture, housing, farm exports, electric cars, and health care. So confiscating the wealth is stealing the seed corn and you will get less of it.  Subsidizing by redistribution to others means you will have more with their hands out. You do not create wealth by taking from one to give to another.  You create wealth by job creation that allows the person to earn their wealth rather than it being given to them from the work of others. 

 

Will robotics change employment yes.  You will no longer have menial repetitive jobs performed manually.  However consider this.  If machines were able to produce everything required for mankind, food, clothing, shelter, cars etc.  NO ONE WOULD BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE ANY INCOME SINCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A JOB. 

 

I am 100% aware of that, and it could be utopia where no one needs to work to obtain all they need, but I suspect the rich will never give up their privileged life so all can live as well as they.

 

Imagine a world where all can become poets, or artists, or musicians etc etc etc because they don't need to do a boring job to survive.

 

I have a darker idea of what will happen with millions of exploited struggling to survive while the rich live in gated communities guarded by militarised private police forces.

 

Perhaps it won't come to that- perhaps climate change will kill us all, or the war in Ukraine ( or the next one ) results in nuclear winter, or we just pollute ourselves to extinction.

[Longwood50]

On 1/26/2023 at 11:51 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

I am 100% aware of that, and it could be utopia where no one needs to work to obtain all they need,

Utopia?  No that would be the end of society as we know it.  Also as mentioned assuming that robotics could provide all the labor to produce everything mankind needed, no one would have a job with any income necessary to purchase anything.  Unless you believe in a magic lamp where a genie gives you everything you want, it isn't going to happen. 

[Longwood50]

On 1/26/2023 at 11:40 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

To return to my childhood, all those were built and without any superstar rich people. Just by taxes of ordinary people.

Again, you seem to have trouble "thinking"  Just where did those people who paid the taxes get their money from.  Unless your neighborhood had geese that laid golden eggs, or had money trees, they got that tax money from working at a job provided by some entrepreneur.  

Entrepreneurs if successful become wealthy.  If they didn't become wealthy they would not take the risk of their own money in the venture.  People buy lottery tickets because of the hope of a big payoff.  Same with those in business.  They are willing to gamble, and risk their money in order to obtain more than they otherwise could working for someone else. 

Money to pay for roads, schools, bridges, police etc is generated businesses.  They pay their workers and those workers pay taxes income, property, sales tax etc.  Remove the business and you have no workers, and no income to pay any taxes.  

So it is the wealth generation by business that improves society.  The more businesses there are, the more successful they are, the more income they generate and the more employees they hire.  That sir is what provides the income for societal benefits.  

 

[Berkshire]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Again, you seem to have trouble "thinking"  Just where did those people who paid the taxes get their money from.  Unless your neighborhood had geese that laid golden eggs, or had money trees, they got that tax money from working at a job provided by some entrepreneur.  

Entrepreneurs if successful become wealthy.  If they didn't become wealthy they would not take the risk of their own money in the venture.  People buy lottery tickets because of the hope of a big payoff.  Same with those in business.  They are willing to gamble, and risk their money in order to obtain more than they otherwise could working for someone else. 

Money to pay for roads, schools, bridges, police etc is generated businesses.  They pay their workers and those workers pay taxes income, property, sales tax etc.  Remove the business and you have no workers, and no income to pay any taxes.  

So it is the wealth generation by business that improves society.  The more businesses there are, the more successful they are, the more income they generate and the more employees they hire.  That sir is what provides the income for societal benefits.  

 

I think everyone who understands capitalism knows that entrepreneurs are essential.  No one disputes that.  But the massive wealth creation we've seen in recent decades are mostly the result of the capital markets.  Virtually all the top billionaires in the world are wealthy through stock ownership.  Hedge fund managers can make obscene amounts of money without producing anything.  I doubt anyone wants to go after small business owners, but that's what you seem to be implying.  You're trying to defend the ultra wealthy who themselves largely believe they should pay their fair share.