« First « Previous Comments 27 - 47 of 47 Search these comments
SunnyvaleCA says
And so the problem is not what they spend, but what they don't spend.
Money should circulate, not be accumulated.
I'm under the impression that most rich people have their money invested. Does that not circulate the money?
Hircus saysI'm under the impression that most rich people have their money invested. Does that not circulate the money?
If you think it is the same: give me all your money, I will lend it back to you at interests.
No difference, right?
If you want to collect more tax from the rich, do away with tax-exempt giving to charities, religion, and foundations. For example, the vast majority of Bill Gate's stock profits will never be taxed at all because the Gates Foundation is tax exempt.
As a percentage of tax revenue, the 'rich' pay waaay more than everyone else. In fact, they carry the freight.
I'm under the impression that most rich people have their money invested. Does that not circulate the money?
If anyone has anything to say that might help quantify the value of a "rich person dollar" vs a "middle class dollar", I'd love to hear it.
Yeah... over $150K is really RICH.
How about over $1 million?
The pool of capital chasing returns is ridiculously large, to the point where many government bonds have negative yields.
Private space programs like Spacex are long term stuff with no returns in the foreseeable future. I guess you could call that a charitable way to spend money. This is not an investment. This brings me back to my point: either rich people should spend most of what they have on charity or luxury or <>, or they should be taxed more.
$176,000 was spent on transportation.
$129,000 was spent on food, of which $78,000 was spent on food at home and $51,000 was spent eating out.
$108,000 was spent on insurance and pensions.
$31,000 was spent on apparel.
$49,000 was spent on entertainment.
$336,000 was spent on housing.
$36,000 was spent on cash contributions.
$71,000 was spent on healthcare.
The remaining $64,000 was spent in other areas.
That’s how a person bringing home a million bucks a year would spend their money if they subscribed to the exact same budget as the average American. A person prioritizing their spending like that is prioritizing in the exact same way the average American is, just with a bigger income to spend.
Did you miss my post above that one?
* If someone is successful that's bad, they should be forced to share what they've earned.
* Socialism works, despite Venezuela, Cuba, China,the USSR, and every other attempt at it failing miserably.
* Taking money from individuals and giving it to the government will make things better, despite the fact that our government has the largest deficit in history, spends recklessly, and wages endless wars ever since 1913.
Lame. You understand the point, but avoid it by discounting my choice of using SpaceX as an example instead of addressing the point that investment in businesses and other things often has very positive effects.
IMO such aversion tactics are often the sign of fear.
I'd love to hear your explanation why you think rich people should spend their money on luxury instead of investing in business, infrastructure, research .... all those great things we do that are funded with capital :)
No success is good, and should be rewarded by wealth. I don't subscribe to socialism.
Gov deficit:
- (1) is the source of money in circulation
- (2) can be closed by taxing back the same money, leaving plenty of wealth of successful people,
- (3) is often the source of long term sources of growth: Like infrastructures, like education, like the Internet... which was created and long financed by the government. like long term research often not done in private industry.
« First « Previous Comments 27 - 47 of 47 Search these comments
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-15/majority-americans-support-raising-top-tax-rate-70