Redistribution of wealth

Society as a whole in not poorer because you either decide to spend money or save it! What you spend, is anothers gain. You buy land, somebody sold it to you there is no net loss to society.

It is a net gain of zero for society. All it does is shuffle the deck. Originally Posted by WTF

Sophistry! Money spent on imported cars, imported fuel, imported food and imported TVs and computers does not result in a zero sum game for the U.S. market or the U.S. society as a whole. It is the foreign importers that gain financially, and that translates into higher employment and greater prosperity for them. The only thing the U.S. gains is higher unemployment.

the ones who would have earned it will earn it still Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

WELL THEN WTF ARE THEY SCARED OF!

Git to earning and quit with this welfare for the kin of the rich crappolla!

Sophistry! Money spent on imported cars, imported fuel, imported food and imported TVs and computers does not result in a zero sum game for the U.S. market or the U.S. society as a whole. It is the foreign importers that gain financially, and that translates into higher employment and greater prosperity for them. The only thing the U.S. gains is higher unemployment. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Now you are talking about FREE TRADE.

I thought we were talking about WELFARE FOR THE RICH. You know the don't tax the money they left their kin who haven't done anything type welfare.

You wanna talk bout free trade we can do that too but I just wanna make sure you know what subject we are talking about.

Now you are talking about FREE TRADE.

I thought we were talking about WELFARE FOR THE RICH. You know the don't tax the money they left their kin who haven't done anything type welfare.

You wanna talk bout free trade we can do that too but I just wanna make sure you know what subject we are talking about. Originally Posted by WTF

I was contradicting your post where you erroneously claim that money spent, as a way to keep it from being seized by the government, in lieu of saving the money, to be used as investment capital, costs society nothing. Government tax policies that steal wealth not spent and/or devalues wealth saved undermines the bases of the American Free enterprise system. The result is more unemployment for American citizens, and that is a very real “cost.”

Seeing inequality and QE mentioned in the same thread makes it worth mentioning that one likely result of QE will be to make inequalty manifestly worse.

Now the continuation of QE is necessary to accommodate disastrous fiscal policy (too much government spending and large structural budget deficits). The Fed is now taking down new issuance of (mostly) 7s and 10s at the rate of at least $75 billion per month. Policymakers obviously are concerned that the market for longer dated Treasuries might collapse if they can't just take them over to the Marriner Eccles building and sell 'em there!

The economy is now hooked on QE, in my opinion, and winding down the Fed's balance sheet might cause a horrific spike in long rates following a failed Treasury auction. If that were to happen, the moribund housing market could be killed stone dead for years.

At the same time, QE has caused or heavily contributed to 50% or greater spikes over the last 18 months in the prices of oil and most agricultural commodities. Continuing price spikes are not unexpected, although there may be periodic corrections.

It has been said by many that overaccommodative monetary policy, eventually leading to currency debasement, can act as the cruelest tax of all -- and it hits the poor and the middle class, not the wealthy.

I'm afraid that anyone below about the 60th percentile of the income strata is in for a tough few years.

I was contradicting your post where you erroneously claim that money spent, as a way to keep it from being seized by the government, in lieu of saving the money, to be used as investment capital, costs society nothing. Government tax policies that steal wealth not spent and/or devalues wealth saved undermines the bases of the American Free enterprise system. The result is more unemployment for American citizens, and that is a very real “cost.” Originally Posted by I B Hankering

WE need to pay for all our toys. We do this by taxing folks or not having toys.

Or we do it the way we have been doing for the last thirty years. The way Reagan taught you. We buy it and put it on credit.

Then you have happening just what Capt in his prior post stated.

This is not rocket science. That is how dumb we as a country are in math.

It is spelled out for you what has happened and what is going to happen. It is a math problem. They are not that hard to figure....well figuring out when the house of cards falls is kinda hard but the other stuff is easy.

I agree with everything Capt stated.

You are still playing the blame game IB. The GOP blame game. You want your toys but you do not want to pay for them. That can not continue. That is something neither Dem or Repub can stop. The World banking system will take its toll.

WTF, it is a math game, but you are obviously looking at the wrong formula. Wake up, life is too short to sleep your way through on everyone elses shoulders.

This is not rocket science. That is how dumb we as a country are in math. Originally Posted by WTF

Then why don't you understand? When government policies mandate that 1) anything not invested in tangible property (read “spent money”) is subject to being rendered worthless by inflation, or 2) anything not spent will be confiscated by the government.

As PJ pointed out, there are basically two reasons why people work. One is to meet their own basic needs, and the second is to meet the needs of their family. Government policies that encourage rampant inflation (QE2) undermines the first, and government policies, such as the “Death Tax,” undermines the second. Both of these policies penalize saving. Without savings—without investment capital—capitalism fails; then, everyone will want to be on the “dole.”

We buy it and put it on credit. Then you have happening just what Capt in his prior post stated. Originally Posted by WTF

I think CaptainMidnight’s observations underscore my argument: the U.S. government's policies are forcing people to spend their earnings on tangible property now, because any money they might save will have no value in the future. So, if you agree with CaptainMidnight, why are you saying you disagree with me?

So, if you agree with CaptainMidnight, why are you saying you disagree with me? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Because I do not agree with your assumption of why people work.

One is to meet their own basic needs,


Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Agreed. A good thing for society as a whole. You still save as most folks do not know when they are going to die btw.

As PJ pointed out, there are basically two reasons why people work. One is to meet their own basic needs, and the second is to meet the needs of their family.



Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Meeting the needs of your family beyond a certain age is in effect WELFARE.

I do not care for WELFARE.

How many times do I gotta tell you guys this?

It is not good poliecy for the poor or the rich.

Work is good.

Welfare is not so good.

I am to lazy to go back and look but I doubt that PJ would say something as silly as the second statement.

What 80 year old man needs to set his 60 year old kid up?

Come on man! Stop trying to sell that crap.

If a person has made vast wealth in this country and the country is in debt, then the country needs to take a look at how this happened. When you die you are dead, give back to the country from which you have taken so much! FUC Or how about this, when you were alive you say "ENOUGH" WE cut Military spending, We cut Medicade and SS spending.

If you can get elected and do those things, you get to keep your fucn money. If not, the government will take it.

LIFE AIN"T FAIR....ask atl!

What 80 year old man needs to set his 60 year old kid up? Originally Posted by WTF

Hell, that 60 year old man is about to need that inheritance to pay for his health care.

What about the 40 year old man and wife killed in a car accident leaving a 10 year old son and an 8 year old daughter?

Hell, that 60 year old man is about to need that inheritance to pay for his health care.

What about the 40 year old man and wife killed in a car accident leaving a 10 year old son and an 8 year old daughter? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You do know there is an exemption up to like a million plus bucks...

Also there are no guarantees in life.

Also AlsoYou are free to pay for the kids education if you like.

You do know there is an exemption up to like a million plus bucks...

Also there are no guarantees in life.
Originally Posted by WTF

You’re suggesting—with a straight face—that Congress has morals and won’t deceive the public? It's laughable that you tell me Congress has set a limit at "a million plus bucks," and then you add "there are no guarantees." How ironic. Subconsciously, you must be expressing your awareness that limits set on Congress by Congress have no value. Such limits can be, and often are, changed the minute the public is distracted by other events.

Here’s a couple of things I do know. The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) was enacted by Congress in 1969 to soak the rich when a $200,000 dollar a year income was considered an unusually high annual income. It was aimed at collecting taxes from 155 very wealthy individuals. For example, in 1968, a congressman was paid $30,000 per year, while a congressman today collects $174,000 per year. Congress claimed the tax was only for the rich, and as such, it wouldn’t impact the middle class etc. It’s interesting to note that Congress initially exempted themselves by placing the penalty income bracket well above their own income level.

The original idea behind this tax was supposedly to prevent people with very high incomes—155 individuals—from using special tax benefits to pay little or no tax. With inflation, however, AMT has extended it’s reach, and now applies to some people today who don't have very high income according to today’s standards and/or who are unable to claim multiple special tax benefits. Now I ask you, has Congress amended the AMT to properly reflect inflation? Hell no. According to H&R Block, some 35 million Americans are now subject to the AMT. Congress has locked onto that teat, and it won’t give up sucking until that teat is sucked dry. For years, proposals to repeal or reform the AMT have gone nowhere in Congress. Until Congress acts, more and more Americans will be victimized by this so-called “soak the rich” tax.

BTW, here’s another example of the way a congressional “soak the rich” scheme impacted lower income groups.
.
In 1898 Congress imposed a 3% federal excise tax on long-distance calls to help pay for the Spanish-American War. It was designed as a tax on wealthy Americans, back when phone service was considered a luxury. The government collected that tax until 2006:108 years beyond the war's end. I paid that tax most of my adult life, and I by no means consider myself wealthy.

The exclusion on inheritance tax is currently $5M per person or $10M per couple. Personally, I'd like to see it a bit higher, but let's face it, it doesn't effect too many people now that can't afford it.

omg why is london banned?..I found her point of view way helpful.

omg why is london banned?..I found her point of view way helpful. Originally Posted by brandilynn

. . . and Naomi4U? I liked their convo and especially their Avatars.

The exclusion on inheritance tax is currently $5M per person or $10M per couple. Personally, I'd like to see it a bit higher, but let's face it, it doesn't effect too many people now that can't afford it. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

No, it doesn't affect too many people as a % of the population but it does cause problems for some notably people that have their net worth tied up in illiquid assets like a family business*.

2010 having no estate tax was a boon for some. The Steinbrenners of Yankees fame saved hundreds of millions by having the old man bite it last year & would have had to sell their cable network to retain control of the Yankees if he held on until this year. Hey Pitchers & Catcher report today!

Now most don't feel sympathy for billionaires like the Steinbrenners, but many families with much more modest estates face similar issues involving maybe having to sell assets at an imperfect time to satisfy Uncle Sam.

*there are many estate planinng strategies that can minimize this in many cases...but the fact that one has to go to great lengths & expense to employ complex strategies ("loopholes") to avoid/minimize taxes says volumes about how stupid the current statutes are...