patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
735,592 comments in 75,673 posts by 10,907 registered users, 8 online now: curious2, FortWayne, FP, freespeechforever, HEY YOU, lebowski522, Straw Man, SubOink

new post

What is the value

By GonzoReal   2012 Dec 21, 10:22pm   26,213 views   104 comments   watch (0)   quote      

Of all the hookers in tahoe?

« First     « Previous     Comments 25-64 of 104     Next »     Last »

25   Bellingham Bill   70/70 = 100% civil   2012 Dec 23, 11:37am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Meccos says

First of all money does equal wealth

Money purchases wealth. It is not wealth.

Savings and other financial arrangements are not wealth. They are claims on money, two steps removed from wealth.

Wealth is that which satisfies human wants or needs.

We also call capital wealth that which assists in the creation and distribution of wealth, but that could also just be called "capital" without any loss of precision.

So everyone who makes above 160K, which are the 5%, they just "monetize their ownership of wealth?"

It is a continuum, yes. You have the Romney 0.1% who operate at a higher plane of economic parasitism, and you have Iwog and wife who operate a lower level of rent-seeking.

But it's very easy to find a rent-seeker, just remove them from the picture and see if the wealth-creation picture decreases at all.

If it doesn't, you've found the rent-seeker!

Rent-seekers LOVE confusing wealth-creation with monetary income, since they get the latter without much if any of the former.

We are against this philosophy that the rich are bad and they need to be somehow penalized for being rich. Just as you randomly chose

5% is not random. $160,000 is where it becomes DAMN hard to find an honest wage-paying job in this country, even though our per-worker GDP is $120,000 now:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=e0F

Adding in per-worker WAGES (red):

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=e0G

shows the increasing disconnect wealth-creation with wages we have in this country.

Villainize people because they are bad, not just because they are rich.

I am very careful who I villainize, in my above. There are no shortage of targets in this country.

But as Churchill said in 1909:

It is not the individual I attack, it is the system. It is not the man who is bad, it is the law which is bad. It is not the man who is blameworthy for doing what the law allows and what other men do, it is the State which would be blameworthy were it not to endeavour to reform the law and correct the practice. We do not want to punish the [rent-seeker]. We want to alter the law.

The reason I write what I write here is that not even the 99% movement with their months sitting in the drum circles and liberal application of pot could figure out the true systemic imbalances of this country.

They have been hidden well. It's all hidden in plain sight, but like fish in water the rent seeking is so hard for everyone to see since it surrounds us and influences us constantly.

26   Meccos     2012 Dec 23, 2:20pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Bellingham Bill says

Money purchases wealth. It is not wealth.

I like how you make your own definitions.
Bellingham Bill says

It is a continuum, yes. You have the Romney 0.1% who operate at a higher plane of economic parasitism, and you have Iwog and wife who operate a lower level of rent-seeking.

The problem with calling any of these people parasites is the fact that they actually provide a service that other people willingly paying for. Regardless of what you may think about how people earn their money, they do so because someone finds a general worth in what they offer. As much as I disagree with IWOG, there is nothing wrong or parasitic about him being a landlord. He provides a service that people willingly pay for.

Bellingham Bill says

5% is not random. $160,000 is where it becomes DAMN hard to find an honest wage-paying job in this country, even though our per-worker GDP is $120,000 now:

no 5% is random. are all people who are in the 5.1% category considered not to be parasites by your standards? What about those who fall in the 4.999999% category. The fact is that it is random. You chose a fairly high level of earning and simply categorized them based on their level of income. LIke I said before, the rich are villainized for simply being rich.
Many of us may agree with your ideas if you could actually make distinctions in how money is made rather than generalizing "the rich" for being parasites.

Bellingham Bill says

I am very careful who I villainize, in my above. There are no shortage of targets in this country.

There may be no shortage, however you are not careful at all. You chose the top 5%... that does not seem to be very selective nor careful at all. And in doing so, you have called many of us who fit into your category of the top 5% as "parasites" as you so called it.

As I mentioned in previous post, you may find more supporters of your views if you would stop the blatant attack on the fact of simply being rich and rather focus on the specifics of immoral or illegal wealth accumulation

27   Bellingham Bill   70/70 = 100% civil   2012 Dec 23, 2:55pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote    

Meccos says

I like how you make your own definitions.

It is very important to understand terms in economics. As Henry George said ca 1870:

"Certain words — such as wealth, capital, rent, and wages — require a much more specific meaning in economic reasoning than they do in everyday speech. Unfortunately, even among economists, there is no agreement on the meaning of these terms. Different writers give different meanings to the same term. Even worse, one author will use the same term in different senses. Nothing shows the importance of precise language like the spectacle of the brightest thinkers basing important conclusions on the same word used in different senses."

and:

"Wealth, then, may be defined as natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion to fit them for the gratification of human desires."

If Henry George is too radical for you, we can turn to Adam Smith, who defined it in passing as:

"the annual produce of the land and labour of the society"

Land and labor do not produce money, printing presses and banks do.

The problem with calling any of these people parasites is the fact that they actually provide a service that other people willingly paying for.

And that's the crux of the problem here, this "willingly" thing. Power comes from controlling scarcity, and there is nothing more scarce than unclaimed land in our economy.

I defy you to find economically useful unclaimed land in your community.

The rent flows from land ownership are maybe a trillion or so.

The rent flows from health care are easily more than that, it's easier to figure out since we can compare our $8500/capita health expense with eg. Canada's $4400, and multiplying the difference by our 300M people.

LIke I said before, the rich are villainized for simply being rich.

Yes, that is the fault of the 99% movement.

But it is very hard to find a member of the 1% who got there by honest work and receives his current income in wealth-accreting activity aka "labor".

This is the point you continue to ignore, preferring to argue about idiotic dividing lines that do not exist in complex economies.

Yes, parasitical wealth is where we find it. And in this economy we find it in way too many places.

FWIW, I think the Eurosocialist economies do use too blunt an instrument to rebalance their economies -- I would like to think that targeting the rent-seeking directly they would not have to have such a high degree of progressive taxation.

I can especially say that France's 75% marginal tax rate is largely counter-productive I would think..

You chose the top 5%... that does not seem to be very selective nor careful at all. And in doing so, you have called many of us who fit into your category of the top 5% as "parasites" as you so called it.

I go into sufficient detail as to how the 5% of this economy are engaged in rent-seeking. Your criticism here is just diversionary noise-making.

Obviously not the entire top 5% of this economy is engaged in rent-seeking. But the higher you go, the greater the degree of the rent-seeking and wealth transfer UP the socio-economic pyramid.

It is these asymmetrical wealth transfers that are killing velocity in our paycheck economy and may yet cause what economy we do have left to throw a rod this decade or next.

But, oddly, you will find very little discussion of this issue in the media. Stiglitz, Krugman, Reich -- that's about it.

Republicans have their "Job Creator" bullshit and they're sticking to it.

28   Vicente     2012 Dec 23, 3:30pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Bellingham Bill says

Obviously not the entire top 5% of this economy is engaged in rent-seeking. But the higher you go, the greater the degree of the rent-seeking and wealth transfer UP the socio-economic pyramid.

Well spoken.

Technology field use to be considered the frontline proving that individuals with a big idea and hard work could strike it rich. It's now dominated by patent portfolio warfare and legal maneuvering and acquisitions.

29   Meccos     2012 Dec 24, 1:21am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Bellingham Bill says

Land and labor do not produce money, printing presses and banks do.

You are right about this if you want to get technical. But this is analogous to saying flour and bakers do not produce bread, it is the bread machines, the ovens and bread company that produces it. It is rather pointless and a matter of irrelevant technical distinction for the purposes of the previous conversation.

Bellingham Bill says

And that's the crux of the problem here, this "willingly" thing. Power comes from controlling scarcity, and there is nothing more scarce than unclaimed land in our economy.

WHy is this even brought up? way to hijack another thread with your rent seeking and land ownership crap.

Bellingham Bill says

But it is very hard to find a member of the 1% who got there by honest work and receives his current income in wealth-accreting activity aka "labor".

First, are we now talking about the top 1% or the top 5%? The way you change from 1 to 5%, it sure does seem this is arbitrary.
Second, what do you define as "labor" and "honest work"? Do farmers create wealth? Do service profession create wealth? teachers, doctors, police, dry cleaners? stock brokers? TV anchors? Bell boys? crossing guards? land owners who rent their property?

Bellingham Bill says

This is the point you continue to ignore, preferring to argue about idiotic dividing lines that do not exist in complex economies.

The problem is that you are the one who keeps bringing up the dividing lines. This is EXACTLY my point. You arbitrarily pick out the top 5%, now the top 1% with generalized claims. Your argument is "generally these people do this, rent seeker, blah blah blah."

Bellingham Bill says

I go into sufficient detail as to how the 5% of this economy are engaged in rent-seeking.

No you dont. Your whole case is based on this argument, but you barely discuss it.

30   Meccos     2012 Dec 24, 1:40am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The Professor says

You can buy bread with money but you can't eat money.

WTF? and?

The Professor says

This thread is about rent seeking.

NO this thread now has become about rent-seeking, which is the case anytime Bill enters the conversation.

31   Meccos     2012 Dec 24, 1:45am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The Professor says

Meccos says

NO this thread now has become about rent-seeking, which is the case anytime Bill enters the conversation.

Nope. It is my thread and it has always been about rent seeking.

Thats funny, you never mentioned it.... until after Bill started talking about it. HAHAH

32   Meccos     2012 Dec 24, 1:51am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

I never denied that some UBER wealthy make money that way. The fact that we have so many lobbies is evidence that this happens. I dont think anyone denies this happens. THe problem I have is that you and others categorize everyone who is "the rich" and generalize all if not most of these "rich" as rent seekers.

33   Meccos     2012 Dec 24, 1:52am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

BTW what is the "UBER" rich? Lets first define that.

34   BlueSardine   511/518 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 24, 11:58am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

"now", Einstein....

The Professor says

I know realize that I have chosen the wrong forum to spew my socialist utopian ideals.

35   BlueSardine   511/518 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 24, 12:16pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

All the more reason to address this immediately.
For your reputation....

The Professor says

SoftShell says

"now", Einstein....

The Professor says

I know realize that I have chosen the wrong forum to spew my socialist utopian ideals.

How about the day after tomorrow? I have a party to go to.

36   Meccos     2012 Dec 24, 12:57pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

The Professor says

Meccos says

BTW what is the "UBER" rich? Lets first define that.

People that already make more than they, their children, and grandchildren can ever spend yet still want to make more by exploiting the working class.

If one's goal is to make more and more, is there anything wrong with that? As I mentioned previously, you need to make a distinction of those who want to make more and more and those who exploit. Although they can be one of the same, they are not always as you and a few others seem to suggest. This is your fundamental problem and until you can clearly delineate those who exploit and those who do not, there will always be people who disagree with your views on "the rich". Furthermore, your arguments would be much stronger and in fact I may even agree with you, if your focus was solely on those who exploit, rather than this generalization on "the rich".

The Professor says

They produce nothing but collect rent and profits.

This is also something which you must support. Who decides what is produced is of value or increases wealth? So do only the "UBER rich" not produce anything? Do all UBER rich not produce anything? What do you consider the production of something of value or increased wealth? Does a school teacher produce anything? Does a doctor produce anything? Does a walking guard produce anything? Does a financial planner produce anything? Does security guard produce anything?

If as you say the uber rich does not produce anything, do you say that only because they are uber rich? Would you say the same of the poor who produce nothing? Do you consider the poor who do not work and collect food stamps as one of those who produce nothing? If so they are on your radar as well?

37   Vicente     2012 Dec 24, 1:36pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Meccos says

Do you consider the poor who do not work and collect food stamps as one of those who produce nothing? If so they are on your radar as well?

Radar for taxes? You aren't making any sense. Unless of course you are heading off into welfare queen arguments. You are attempting to split hairs, because you can't bring yourself to admit the core thesis is correct. The rent-seeking ultra-rich have perverted the economy for their own ends. It will end when all the real wealth is in their hands. We used to have some mechanisms to ensure permanent dynasties were avoided, but that is being eroded. Whether Shaq collects a few million or not is irrelevant "lost in the noise" bullshit that only an idiot would bother with.

As Chris Rock said: Shaq, he's just rich. The guy who writes his paycheck, he's WEALTHY!

38   Meccos     2012 Dec 24, 2:15pm  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Vicente says

Radar for taxes?

If you cant understand figure of speech, then that is your problem.

Vicente says

The rent-seeking ultra-rich have perverted the economy for their own ends.

Why is it that you and the few others on this thread cant seem to wrap your head around the idea of differentiating those who seek to exploit others for gain and those who do not. Again for the millionth time, you and professor have the fundamental problem of being unable or unwilling to differentiate those "rent seekers" with the rest of the "wealthy". Not everyone who is rich is a rent seeker. Envy is an ugly thing.

39   Meccos     2012 Dec 24, 2:25pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

The Professor says

The fed is creating money out of thin air stealing the labor of the masses.

I didnt see this comment until now. I 100% agree with this and I will be the first person to tell you that what the fed is doing is BS. Like I said, I also have issues with those who steal wealth from others, but it is a far stretch to portray all of the rich with what the fed does. In fact I would argue that the fed creating money out of thin air steals from the majority of those who you consider to be "rich" as well.

40   BlueSardine   511/518 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 24, 11:44pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

The Professor, in essence, is saying once you reach XXX dollars, it turns from "making more" to "exploitation".

Only the Diaper Doper Babies get to set that threshold....

Meccos says

The Professor says

Meccos says

BTW what is the "UBER" rich? Lets first define that.

People that already make more than they, their children, and grandchildren can ever spend yet still want to make more by exploiting the working class.

If one's goal is to make more and more, is there anything wrong with that? As I mentioned previously, you need to make a distinction of those who want to make more and more and those who exploit

41   BlueSardine   511/518 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 25, 12:04am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

Why do you not consider 'providing rental space' a service?
Is it not better than living under a bridge??

The Professor says

SoftShell says

The Professor, in essence, is saying once you reach XXX dollars, it turns from "making more" to "exploitation".

Nope. Not what I said or meant.

If you can make a product or provide a service that is useful to humankind you deserve to be handsomely rewarded.

42   Vicente     2012 Dec 25, 1:54am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Meccos says

Again for the millionth time, you and professor have the fundamental problem of being unable or unwilling to differentiate those "rent seekers" with the rest of the "wealthy".

If you have great wealth, you are probably a rent-seeker. Look at the Forbes richest list, it's full of 'em.

In any case I have no "envy", I merely demand sensible tax policies regarding them. Thanks for caring!

I suppose if you are going to paint me as a relentless "rich hater" then you are a relentless unpaid "class warrior" who thinks everyone else is a taker, moocher, welfare queen, or a socialist. Large majority of Americans believe the wealth gap needs fixing, so you'd better get used to being in the minority.

http://www.mybudget360.com/wealth-inequality-rivals-the-months-prior-to-the-great-depression-america-wealth-distribution/

43   FortWayne   381/385 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 25, 2:06am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote    

What is with the new generation and such a lean toward the failure of socialism.

44   BlueSardine   511/518 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 25, 3:09am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

So it would seem you are for landlords/investors that purchase homes outright, then rent them out at the going rate for the location....

No use of bank money needed....

The Professor says

The Professor says

SoftShell says

Why do you not consider 'providing rental space' a service?

I do.

I have mixed feelings on landlords. Some are good; they provide a service by maintaining property and letting it out to people who for one reason or another do not want to "own".

And then there are the investors. They use other peoples money and prevent young familys from buying a home. They then turn around and rent the home to the priced out young family for more rent than they would have paid in mortgage.

45   Meccos     2012 Dec 25, 5:19am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The Professor says

SoftShell says

The Professor, in essence, is saying once you reach XXX dollars, it turns from "making more" to "exploitation".

Nope. Not what I said or meant.

If you can make a product or provide a service that is useful to humankind you deserve to be handsomely rewarded.

If so then you need to make this distinction rather than just generalizing the rich which is what happens on this form alll the time. The problem is that you and others are not very clear on this distinction and generalize all the rich as rent seekers.

46   Meccos     2012 Dec 25, 5:27am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Define specifically who these rent seeking exploiters are, rather than generalizing them as the rich and I guarantee you that you will have less people oppose your views

47   Meccos     2012 Dec 25, 11:17am  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The Professor says

Meccos says

Define specifically who these rent seeking exploiters are

You want names?

No but if you are making accusations about a group of people then I would think you can be more specific than blaming "the rich". After all "the rich" is a very ambiguous term and quite arbitrary as we have all seen on th is forum.

48   taxee     2012 Dec 25, 11:55am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

I suspect the truth of the matter is that most rent seeking was/is being done now in the name of retired working people unbeknownst to and uncontrolled by them, through pension funds and annuities via MBS that were created by crooks to exploit both home buyers and pensioners. Now the poor fed has to buy all those homes with their keyboard to save the old folks. You couldn't make this stuff up.

49   Nobody     2012 Dec 27, 4:53am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

The Professor says

How much wealth and power does an individual need?

That's a dumb question. Have you ever heard of a term "Hoarding?"

50   Nobody     2012 Dec 27, 4:55am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

When FEDs implemented QE, we should have increased the tax. When you make that much US$, we should have known that most of it will just go to the top 1%. And top1% will use that money to extract more money from the rest.

I am surprised to realize that not many people know the phrase "Mo money gets Mo money."

51   Meccos     2012 Dec 27, 11:41pm  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

The Professor says

Nobody says

Have you ever heard of a term "Hoarding?"

I do it myself. I call it investing for retirement, but not by exploiting my fellow!

So. What is it that you do differently from the top 5% that you criticize? Please tell me specifics and also evidence to back this up. And I don't want to hear about the billionaires since they are not the 5% nor even the 1%...but rather the .01%.

52   BlueSardine   511/518 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 28, 12:02am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

There's not a single form of investment that, when broken down into individual components, cannot be traced back to some kind of human exploitation...

Maybe what you really mean is the 'degree' of human exploitation..

The Professor says

Nobody says

Have you ever heard of a term "Hoarding?"

I do it myself. I call it investing for retirement, but not by exploiting my fellow!

53   Robber Baron Elite Scum     2012 Dec 28, 1:30am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

why don't we tax the peasants?

54   BlueSardine   511/518 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 28, 1:42am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

How can you achieve this without someone being exploited?

The Professor says

SoftShell says

Maybe what you really mean is the 'degree' of human exploitation..

Nope. From the slave labor in China to the renter in America ALL exploitation should be stopped.

Humankind should be able to get together and solve the worlds problems.

Call me naive, ignorant, or stupid, I prefer "Idealist".

55   Peter P   78/78 = 100% civil   2012 Dec 30, 3:16am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Yep. This is why I support having a wealth tax instead of an income tax. The most practical form of wealth tax is the Land Value Tax because you cannot hide real properties.

If government is the protector of wealth, tax can be seen as a form of insurance premium.

56   Peter P   78/78 = 100% civil   2012 Dec 30, 3:19am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

All morality arguments of taxation are based on the false assumption that equality is a virtue. This could be an artifact of democracy. In the end, we will get mediocrity.

No. We are NOT equal. Even if we are all equal, some will always be more equal.

It is either men exploiting men, or the other way around.

57   FortWayne   381/385 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 30, 9:14am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Equal sharing of misery is not a value nor a good goal to achieve.

58   Patrick   1777/1777 = 100% civil   2012 Dec 30, 9:22am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Peter P says

Yep. This is why I support having a wealth tax instead of an income tax. The most practical form of wealth tax is the Land Value Tax because you cannot hide real properties.

If government is the protector of wealth, tax can be seen as a form of insurance premium.

I agree!

A 2% annual tax on wealth alone could replace all income tax, all sales tax, and all other taxes.

2% is not too much to ask in return for hiring armed peasants (police, judicial system, national guard) willing to shoot at unarmed peasants to protect 98% of your wealth.

Especially if your investment income exceeds 2%.

59   Entitlemented   199/199 = 100% civil   2012 Dec 30, 10:10am  ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Since in the past generation the US has slowed in R&D and manufacturing, the effects of the contributors kicking up to the rim of Champagne glass are the root cause of the malaise, not the wealthy.....

60   Dan8267   2517/2549 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 30, 11:10am  ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The Professor says

How about we take 10% a year of everything over $10,000,000 in accrued wealth from the upper class? When their wealth fell below ten million they would still have enough to live fairly comfortably.

The problem isn't that some people have vast amounts of wealth. The problem is how those people got those vast amounts of wealth. The richest in our society become that rich by stealing wealth from the rest of us. The theft is legal, because the wealthy make the laws, but it's theft nonetheless. The problem is that their parasitic activities impoverish the rest of us.

For the few wealthy that made their money by inventing something or entertaining, those rich do not impoverish us and so there is no reason to begrudge them their riches. Those few wealthy actually increase our wealth as well.

But for the vast majority of the ultra-wealthy, their wealth comes from zero-sum games that cost the rest of us. The answer isn't to tax them. Under your proposal, those people would simply wastefully spend all money they acquire over the ten million on absurd luxuries. No, the answer isn't to tax them. The answer is to prevent those parasites from siphoning off our wealth in the first place. Those parasitic wealthy should not even exist in the first place.

61   Meccos     2012 Dec 30, 3:05pm  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

@Dan8267

I 100% agree with your post above...

62   oliverks1     2012 Dec 30, 3:56pm  ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Meccos says

If one's goal is to make more and more, is there anything wrong with that?

Is snorting more and more coke a good idea? Could there be an addiction here?

63   FortWayne   381/385 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 31, 12:51am  ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Dan8267 says

The problem isn't that some people have vast amounts of wealth. The problem is how those people got those vast amounts of wealth. The richest in our society become that rich by stealing wealth from the rest of us. The theft is legal, because the wealthy make the laws, but it's theft nonetheless. The problem is that their parasitic activities impoverish the rest of us.

That's our government, an old boys club that takes care of the old boys club taxing, stealing, plundering the working people. That's the real welfare state of America.

They work for a few years and get their salary for a lifetime by taxing the rest of us to pay for their lavish lifestyles.

64   Dan8267   2517/2549 = 98% civil   2012 Dec 31, 12:53am  ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The Professor says

Agreed. But how?

There are a number of structural changes that we can make to eliminate financial parasitic behavior. No single change will solve the problem, and the fight is to a certain extent an arms race, but here are a few changes that will significantly improve things and greatly reduce parasitic behavior.

Change 1: Captain Gains Tax

Capital gains on anything should be set with the following formula.
taxRate = 1.00 - 0.01 * floor(numberOfMonthsCommodityIsHeld)

This simply formula would have prevented the Dot Com Bubble, the Housing Bubble, and the Second Great Depression. It would also prevent most financial parasitic behavior including the extremely dangerous practice of microtrading, holding assets for nanoseconds in order to manipulate the market.

The Goldman Sachs of the world would not be able to do nearly as much damage if this single change were made.

Change 2: Enforce Anti-Trust Laws

Any company that is too big to fail is, by definition, too big to exist. All banks that got the $16 trillion in interest free loans should be nationalized and all profits from them should go back to paying back the tax payer and dollar holder via paying off the national debt and offsetting the inflation of the past 10 years with an equal amount of deflation. These banks can be denationalized by liquidating them and selling the assets to smaller, more responsible banks.

Any other company that is too big to fail or gets too big to fail should be broken up into smaller companies. Company mergers/buyouts should not be allowed if a company has more than 1% of the market share of any industry.

Change 3: Tax the land, not the house.

A 6% tax on the value of land would stop parasites, including banks and real estate investment firms, from hording land and preventing its productive use.

I personally don't believe in taxing the buildings as that discourages production of high quality, valuable buildings, but if buildings are to be taxed, they should be taxed equally as opposed to the policies in states like Florida that tax younger people more than older people.

Change 4: Eliminate all deductions from all income taxes.

Do not lower the tax rates, just eliminate all deductions. Do not replace an income tax with a sales tax.

Eliminating these deductions will prevent the richest corporations and individuals from paying an effective lower rate than the middle class.

Change 5: Apply income taxes after capital gains taxes rather than instead of it.

Any income from capital gains should be taxed at income tax levels after the capital gains tax has been applied. This will prevent capital from devouring everything like a black hole. Right now, capital makes itself necessary by sucking all available capital. It's a positive feedback system that benefits those who do not have to produce anything while enslaving those who do produce wealth, the middle class.

« First     « Previous     Comments 25-64 of 104     Next »     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home