Conquer Club

Income, Taxes, and Work

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby bedub1 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:58 am

John Below #1 works a normal 40 hours a week job, earns 50k a year. He get's taxed at a 25% tax rate.

Jane Blows #2 works a long 50 hours a week job, earning 150k a year. She get's taxed at a 28% tax rate.

Joe Blow #3 works his ass off, 60 hours a week, does damn good for himself, and ends up making 400k a year. He get's taxed at a 35% tax rate.

Mr Rich does nothing all year but party, relax on the beach, and snort blow. He makes 3.5 million dollars due to his fat stack of cash. He gets taxed at a 15% tax rate.

This seems completely backwards. Shouldn't Mr Rich get taxed at a %50 tax rate?
Colonel bedub1
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Apr 17, 2012 12:54 pm

No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.

You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.


Savings
Then, presumably, he lives off the earnings of his savings (which is investment); otherwise, he'll run out of money. His investment decisions (even if outsourced to a financial manager) provide funding to future projects of the producers, who in turn attempt to provide goods for consumers. That also contributes to the economy.


Conclusion: have a flat tax with an exemption to your first $20,000.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby KoolBak on Tue Apr 17, 2012 1:19 pm

Conclusion #2: Be Mr. Rich's heir and get rich once hims heart 'splodes........
"Gypsy told my fortune...she said that nothin showed...."

Neil Young....Like An Inca

AND:
riskllama wrote:Koolbak wins this thread.
User avatar
Cadet KoolBak
 
Posts: 7414
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 1:03 pm
Location: The beautiful Pacific Northwest

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby bedub1 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 2:25 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.
Colonel bedub1
 
Posts: 1005
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:41 am

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:08 pm

bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.


Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby Night Strike on Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:09 pm

bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.


If he's not working, then getting 15% of his money in taxes means the government is making a ton of money off him compared to other people who don't work.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby Dukasaur on Wed Apr 18, 2012 8:59 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.

You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.

Wrong. He creates nothing. You're committing the (very common) error of ignoring Say's Law.

Production equals consumption -- that is not negotiable. Since there are no practical limits to consumption, but there are practical limits to production, the latter is the only defining variable.

Inherited wealth is mortmain. It really makes no difference if Mr. Rich spends the money on caviar and cocaine himself, or if the governement taxes it all away, distributes it to welfare mothers in the Bronx, and they spend it all on caviar and cocaine. Economically there's no difference between parasites who inherited their unearned wealth and parasites who get it in the form of a monthly cheque.
ā€œā€ŽLife is a shipwreck, but we must not forget to sing in the lifeboats.ā€
― Voltaire
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Dukasaur
Community Team
Community Team
 
Posts: 28189
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby kentington on Wed Apr 18, 2012 9:50 am

Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.

You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.

Wrong. He creates nothing. You're committing the (very common) error of ignoring Say's Law.

Production equals consumption -- that is not negotiable. Since there are no practical limits to consumption, but there are practical limits to production, the latter is the only defining variable.

Inherited wealth is mortmain. It really makes no difference if Mr. Rich spends the money on caviar and cocaine himself, or if the governement taxes it all away, distributes it to welfare mothers in the Bronx, and they spend it all on caviar and cocaine. Economically there's no difference between parasites who inherited their unearned wealth and parasites who get it in the form of a monthly cheque.


Not completely accurate though. They will definitely be spending in different venues. The parasites who have only a portion of his money would not be spending it on caviar and cocaine.
User avatar
Sergeant kentington
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:05 am

Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.

You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.

Wrong. He creates nothing. You're committing the (very common) error of ignoring Say's Law.

Production equals consumption -- that is not negotiable. Since there are no practical limits to consumption, but there are practical limits to production, the latter is the only defining variable.


How can he create nothing if his money was exchanged for bonds, stocks, or investments in capital and equipment? How can he create nothing if his money is exchanged for an airline ticket to the beach? Let's use your logic: if you see a voluntary exchange, you'll say, "nothing was created! and never mind the mutual gain!," i.e. the additional capture of value from the exchange ex-ante. You're not making any sense. Clearly, value was created for both parties of the voluntary exchange ex-ante; otherwise, why would they trade if they didn't expect to gain additional value?


Say's Law
To simply sum it up it's "supply creates its own demand," but this isn't all of it.

An individual can either consume or save. There's a balance between the two. Curtailing present consumption leads to an increase in savings. This signals to producers to restrict their current production and prepare for an increase in future production. In this sense, "production equals consumption," but this is over time. It isn't instantaneous, and that's what you missed.

Production doesn't equal consumption. Otherwise, people would never make mistakes. Resources would be allocated with 100% efficiency. Producers would dedicate resources to their most highly valued uses, thus earning maximum profit in any endeavor. Drop the equilibrium thinking; it's causing you confusion.

And I don't see how this refutes what I'm saying. Say's Law can be used to describe how Mr. Rich contributes to the economy.


Dukasaur wrote:Inherited wealth is mortmain. It really makes no difference if Mr. Rich spends the money on caviar and cocaine himself, or if the governement taxes it all away, distributes it to welfare mothers in the Bronx, and they spend it all on caviar and cocaine. Economically there's no difference between parasites who inherited their unearned wealth and parasites who get it in the form of a monthly cheque.


Yes, there's a difference between public spenders and private spenders. There's totally different incentives at play! By saying they're the same, you're arguing that political and bureaucratic incentives are the exact same as profit and loss incentives. But they aren't, and I hope you can see that.

How can you say that their wealth is unearned? It was a voluntary, legal transfer of ownership rights. If that's unearned, then any gift you received is unearned. There's a difference between receiving property voluntarily from someone who dies and receiving property that was coerced from others through taxation. Think about it. Economically, yes, there's a huge difference. :/
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby saxitoxin on Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:27 pm

John Below #1 works a normal 40 hours a week job, earns 50k a year. He get's taxed at a 25% tax rate. pays $12,500 in taxes.

Jane Blows #2 works a long 50 hours a week job, earning 150k a year. She get's taxed at a 28% tax rate. pays $42,000 in taxes.

Joe Blow #3 works his ass off, 60 hours a week, does damn good for himself, and ends up making 400k a year. He get's taxed at a 35% tax rate. pays $140,000 in taxes.

Mr Rich does nothing all year but party, relax on the beach, and snort blow. He makes 3.5 million dollars due to his fat stack of cash. He gets taxed at a 15% tax rate. pays $525,000 in taxes.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13413
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby zimmah on Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:00 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.


Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?



the point is that the extremely rich people do not consume, that is what's killing the economy. the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.
Click image to enlarge.
image
User avatar
Major zimmah
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: VDLL

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:29 pm

zimmah wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.


Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?



the point is that the extremely rich people do not consume, that is what's killing the economy. the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.


If rich people didn't consume, then all their income would be dedicated to savings. But rich people do consume. Buying caviar, cigars, airline tickets to the beach, etc. are all forms of consumption.


"Stockpiling of money" is saving, and this money is also exchanged for bonds, shares, etc. . The sellers of these bonds take the money and spend it or save it. It isn't only stockpiled under the mattress, and if the money was stockpiled in a bank, then that again contributes to the economy. The deposit is a loan to the bank, which the bank then loans to others. (I'll admit that there's a problem with this credit expansion and contraction but that's a different topic).

So, "stockpiling money," which isn't the only thing that rich people do, still helps the economy. It provides more opportunities for more production and consumption. How are more opportunities hurtful to the majority?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby zimmah on Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:55 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
zimmah wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
bedub1 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Irrelevant. Everybody's savings and consumption decisions affect others. The fact is Mr. Rich isn't working. He doesn't have a job.


Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?



the point is that the extremely rich people do not consume, that is what's killing the economy. the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.


If rich people didn't consume, then all their income would be dedicated to savings. But rich people do consume. Buying caviar, cigars, airline tickets to the beach, etc. are all forms of consumption.


"Stockpiling of money" is saving, and this money is also exchanged for bonds, shares, etc. . The sellers of these bonds take the money and spend it or save it. It isn't only stockpiled under the mattress, and if the money was stockpiled in a bank, then that again contributes to the economy. The deposit is a loan to the bank, which the bank then loans to others. (I'll admit that there's a problem with this credit expansion and contraction but that's a different topic).

So, "stockpiling money," which isn't the only thing that rich people do, still helps the economy. It provides more opportunities for more production and consumption. How are more opportunities hurtful to the majority?


they still consume far less then they recieve. so it's stockpiling.
Click image to enlarge.
image
User avatar
Major zimmah
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: VDLL

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby patches70 on Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:10 pm

Zimmah wrote: the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.


It's a sad testament to a system that hold saving as a "bad thing" for the economy. "That money has got to keep up it's velocity through the system!"

The reason being is that the very velocity is the only thing that keeps the sham of a monetary system going.

What you say is not untrue. However, I ask you to consider-

When people invest in something, do they do it from a point of no resources or is it better to invest with excess?

What I mean is, is it better to borrow to invest or invest with what is in excess of your needs? That is what has happened to the US, we invest through debt instead of invest through excess that has been saved.

If everyone in the US actually saved instead of going further and further into debt, even more money would have to be created just to inject the cash needed to pay interest on that debt. One of the cons of the fractional reserve banking system. The money to pay back a debt exists, but the money to pay the interest does not. Money flowing keeps this particular con from reaching it's obvious eventual end point. It's why deflation is so severely feared by the money powers.

The over inflation of assets always crumbles eventually. But in it's death throes the savers have to be dealt with in an attempt to keep the doomed fiat currency alive. It's always happened this way through history with fiat money and the US is not immune.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:20 pm

zimmah wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
zimmah wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?



the point is that the extremely rich people do not consume, that is what's killing the economy. the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.


If rich people didn't consume, then all their income would be dedicated to savings. But rich people do consume. Buying caviar, cigars, airline tickets to the beach, etc. are all forms of consumption.


"Stockpiling of money" is saving, and this money is also exchanged for bonds, shares, etc. . The sellers of these bonds take the money and spend it or save it. It isn't only stockpiled under the mattress, and if the money was stockpiled in a bank, then that again contributes to the economy. The deposit is a loan to the bank, which the bank then loans to others. (I'll admit that there's a problem with this credit expansion and contraction but that's a different topic).

So, "stockpiling money," which isn't the only thing that rich people do, still helps the economy. It provides more opportunities for more production and consumption. How are more opportunities hurtful to the majority?


they still consume far less then they recieve. so it's stockpiling.


It makes sense to consume less than you earn; otherwise, you run out of money...

Besides, what's your point? The "stockpiled" money is still contributing. Your term is misleading you. Somehow, stockpiling, which isn't the only activity occurring, is evil... EVILLLL EVILLL!1
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby patches70 on Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:25 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
zimmah wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
zimmah wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Does consuming and saving some mix of $1 billion dollars affect others more than consuming and saving a grand total of $10?



the point is that the extremely rich people do not consume, that is what's killing the economy. the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.


If rich people didn't consume, then all their income would be dedicated to savings. But rich people do consume. Buying caviar, cigars, airline tickets to the beach, etc. are all forms of consumption.


"Stockpiling of money" is saving, and this money is also exchanged for bonds, shares, etc. . The sellers of these bonds take the money and spend it or save it. It isn't only stockpiled under the mattress, and if the money was stockpiled in a bank, then that again contributes to the economy. The deposit is a loan to the bank, which the bank then loans to others. (I'll admit that there's a problem with this credit expansion and contraction but that's a different topic).

So, "stockpiling money," which isn't the only thing that rich people do, still helps the economy. It provides more opportunities for more production and consumption. How are more opportunities hurtful to the majority?


they still consume far less then they recieve. so it's stockpiling.


It makes sense to consume less than you earn; otherwise, you run out of money...

Besides, what's your point? The "stockpiled" money is still contributing. Your term is misleading you. Somehow, stockpiling, which isn't the only activity occurring, is evil... EVILLLL EVILLL!1


And I always thought stockpiling money meant saving. I always thought saving was a good thing, not evil. You know "We gotta save the earth! Save the whales! Save your money! Save our resources!" Huh, I see now I must have been misinformed, saving (stockpiling) is evil!
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby zimmah on Wed Apr 18, 2012 2:55 pm

patches70 wrote:
Zimmah wrote: the stockpiling of money by a small minority hurts the majority.


It's a sad testament to a system that hold saving as a "bad thing" for the economy. "That money has got to keep up it's velocity through the system!"

The reason being is that the very velocity is the only thing that keeps the sham of a monetary system going.

What you say is not untrue. However, I ask you to consider-

When people invest in something, do they do it from a point of no resources or is it better to invest with excess?

What I mean is, is it better to borrow to invest or invest with what is in excess of your needs? That is what has happened to the US, we invest through debt instead of invest through excess that has been saved.

If everyone in the US actually saved instead of going further and further into debt, even more money would have to be created just to inject the cash needed to pay interest on that debt. One of the cons of the fractional reserve banking system. The money to pay back a debt exists, but the money to pay the interest does not. Money flowing keeps this particular con from reaching it's obvious eventual end point. It's why deflation is so severely feared by the money powers.

The over inflation of assets always crumbles eventually. But in it's death throes the savers have to be dealt with in an attempt to keep the doomed fiat currency alive. It's always happened this way through history with fiat money and the US is not immune.


the whole monetary system as we have it is quite bad. some powerful people and banks are able to print money either physically or virtually (by lending out money that does not exist for example). The whole concept of our economy relies about having more then anyone else, in other words, greed. The system does not support sharing resources at all.
Click image to enlarge.
image
User avatar
Major zimmah
 
Posts: 1652
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:43 pm
Location: VDLL

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Apr 18, 2012 3:22 pm

The "whole monetary system" does not support co-operatives and non-profit charities?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby Maugena on Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:55 pm

I understand you're quite educated when it comes to economics, BBS, so please, be gentle with me. :S

My thought at the moment is this...
There are many broken aspects of our current system, but one part that I feel should be completely eliminated is:
Borrowing and loaning.
It is a falsehood to say that loaning creates money. It does not. It merely reallocates a medium to another person with the assumption that it will be paid back in full, with interest. This method claims to say that the person that had initially saved the money still has claim to what they had put away despite it technically being gone. It's completely illegitimate. I'm honestly dumbfounded as to why we still have this. I understand that some people may need services or products that they may not be able to pay for currently and it may or may not be their fault for their predicament, but in the end it only benefits the people in need and the people making these illegitimate deals. It might be a bit much (okay, I'll give in and say it IS too much) to say that people should just be given what they need if they absolutely must have it, but debts should not be incurred. (I think to myself briefly about how it seems every single nation is in some kind of debt... which does not seem possible-shouldn't there be a balance for all the negative? Where is it, assuming it does exist?)
Anyway, I think based on my unprofessional, uneducated opinion, that all wealth derives directly from resources and the physical manifestation of ideas, or products.
I think that all people of a land should have some claim to resources, being a part of the nation, so that they may make a profit with it. The claims should be split equally amongst the entire population. There should also be no inheritance.

/incoherentrant

Well yeah, I think that's all I can muster for now. Fire away, BBS! ;P
Renewed yet infused with apathy.
Let's just have a good time, all right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjQii_BboIk
User avatar
New Recruit Maugena
 
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby Night Strike on Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:07 am

Loans are vital to our economy. They provide quick cash to businesses to make large capital improvements that will increase the earning power of the business, which will provide more jobs and taxes. Most businesses don't have enough cash on hand to engage in capital projects, even if they are making a profit. You're stifling economic growth by requiring all cash to be on hand. Stocks and bonds are also considered loans, which are vital to both businesses and governments to operate.

Loans are also very important for those people who choose to go to college. They allow young people to go to college even if they don't have the full costs saved up (or don't have rich parents to provide it to them). This almost always increases the earning power of the graduate, which allows them to earn more money early in their careers. Not only can they use this money to pay back the loans, but they will be able to spend more in the economy and begin saving more for retirement earlier.
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby patches70 on Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:08 am

Night Strike wrote:Loans are vital to our economy. They provide quick cash to businesses to make large capital improvements that will increase the earning power of the business, which will provide more jobs and taxes. Most businesses don't have enough cash on hand to engage in capital projects, even if they are making a profit. You're stifling economic growth by requiring all cash to be on hand. Stocks and bonds are also considered loans, which are vital to both businesses and governments to operate.

Loans are also very important for those people who choose to go to college. They allow young people to go to college even if they don't have the full costs saved up (or don't have rich parents to provide it to them). This almost always increases the earning power of the graduate, which allows them to earn more money early in their careers. Not only can they use this money to pay back the loans, but they will be able to spend more in the economy and begin saving more for retirement earlier.


Loans from existing resources is much different from loans from "money" created out of thin air. Which is what happens when you go to the bank and get a loan for school, or a car or a house.

It is hard for people to fathom because of certain misconceptions we have been led to believe for so long. When you take your money and deposit it into a bank, you think of that money as yours. You have an account statement and when you deposit money you see your statement increase by what you deposited. Therefore you think of it as yours.

But when you deposit money into a bank the money now belongs to the banks. Your account is a promise to pay. You may think this is just semantic, but the distinction is important to understand to begin to truly understand how we end up getting screwed. By "we" I mean everyone except the bankers.

When you want to buy a car but don't have the money. You go to the bank and sign an agreement that the bank credits your account for the loan and you agree to pay the loan back + interest. For collateral, the car you are going to buy is offered. If you don't pay, the bank can take the car.

Now understand, what you and the bank have just exchanged are promises to pay. both of you. The "money" used to buy your car is then simply created out of thin air with just a keystroke. You account is credited and you give the seller of the car a check.

If what you wanted was a car, and what the bank had was money, then why doesn't the bank simply buy the car with their money and then sell it to you for the cost + interest?
Because the bank isn't going to use it's own money. The money they get when people deposit money into bank accounts.

Banks create credit like this all the time. Every single day, thousands of times a day across the board. All the credit created that is used to buy real world things created by people who labored to bring those things. And when all that credit is created, the interest to pay it back is never created.

If it came to the point where everyone who owed a loan were to all have to pay it back at once + interest, there would be a mad scramble because there wouldn't be any actual money to pay the interest. This is ok because as credit is created and spent in the real world, that money circulates. Interest is paid by principle created from other people's loans.

In times where more is being paid back than is being loaned out, deflates the money supply and leads to deflation. If you had zero debt, deflation is a good thing. Everything is cheaper. You are getting, in effect, a dividend on your own money. You can buy more real world stuff.

For the banks, however, deflation is the end of the line because of how accounting is done. When you get a mortgage on a house, the principle is the liability which is offset by the worth of the asset (the house you don't own but put up as collateral). In deflationary periods the worth of that asset on the bank's books (your house) to offset the liability (your loan) is devalued to the point that banks can take massive loses.

This is a consequence of a debt based monetary system and is the reason that debt can never be dealt with. It doesn't matter if the tax code is reformed and simplified. It doesn't matter if there is a "balanced budget", it doesn't matter if the GDP grows. As long as we used debt based currency then there must always be debt, public and private. To eliminate the debt, to pay off the national debt, is to destroy the entire currency.

The total money supply being spent in the real world is 100%. The amount of actual, physical currency is only around 5% of that. Our system works well to facilitate commerce with but a fraction of actual money in the system. But the cons are that we, each and everyone of us, by hook or crook, are on the hook for debt. Even you who are debt free, when the banks fail they must be bailed out, the government must go into further debt to inject the money needed to pay merely the interest on past loans. This is taken from you in the form of taxes.

It's the monetary system that is at the root of it all, it is the root that is rotted that must at some point reach that level where the credit can no longer be expanded. Every credit expansion created by banks out of thin air dilutes the money already in circulation. Inflation. The process cannot continue forever. To control this the banks have created and use the business cycle.

The business cycle is treated as if it is a natural cycle like the water cycle. It is not. It is created by the banks as a means to extend the life of the debt based monetary system. In times of money expansion more and more people are hooked into loans (willingly hooked I add) and in times of money contraction the banks take possession of real world things from the percentage of people unable to repay their loans.

You think of different banks of operating independently of each other, but in reality the entire banking system works as a single entity. And it all starts with the misconception that the money you deposit into a bank is your money.
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby patches70 on Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:15 am

And another thing to remember, and how we know we are nearing the end of the line, is that we are now in a period of exponential money expansion in the form of credit created (money) out of thin air. It can only keep expanding at an insane rate just to keep up with what we are already in debt for.


This has happened before in history and the end result is always the same. A paradigm shift where one system ends and a new one begins, of the type you've never experienced in your lifetime. It will be a rude awakening for many...
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:34 am

Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.

You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.

Wrong. He creates nothing. You're committing the (very common) error of ignoring Say's Law.

Production equals consumption -- that is not negotiable. Since there are no practical limits to consumption, but there are practical limits to production, the latter is the only defining variable.

Inherited wealth is mortmain. It really makes no difference if Mr. Rich spends the money on caviar and cocaine himself, or if the governement taxes it all away, distributes it to welfare mothers in the Bronx, and they spend it all on caviar and cocaine. Economically there's no difference between parasites who inherited their unearned wealth and parasites who get it in the form of a monthly cheque.

You miss a couple of facts. The wealthy actually don't spend proportional amounts of their income. They tend to invest and save more than those with lesser incomes. They might spend more in absolute terms, but not proportionally. Giving $50,000 to 100 people in wages will spur the economy FAR more than giving 5,000,000 to one person.
Corporal PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 3085
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby Night Strike on Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:26 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:No because it's misleading to state that Mr. Rich "does nothing but party." His saving and consumption decisions affect others.

Consumption
Mr Rich adds to the economy of producers and consumers of that beach. His parties also contribute, as does his spending on cocaine. Taxing him takes money from the producers of alcohol, parties, tourist attractions, the transportation of these related goods (and the tourists), airlines, cars, the cocaine producers and distributors, etc. etc. etc.

You miss all the transactions which he creates within many markets.

Wrong. He creates nothing. You're committing the (very common) error of ignoring Say's Law.

Production equals consumption -- that is not negotiable. Since there are no practical limits to consumption, but there are practical limits to production, the latter is the only defining variable.

Inherited wealth is mortmain. It really makes no difference if Mr. Rich spends the money on caviar and cocaine himself, or if the governement taxes it all away, distributes it to welfare mothers in the Bronx, and they spend it all on caviar and cocaine. Economically there's no difference between parasites who inherited their unearned wealth and parasites who get it in the form of a monthly cheque.

You miss a couple of facts. The wealthy actually don't spend proportional amounts of their income. They tend to invest and save more than those with lesser incomes. They might spend more in absolute terms, but not proportionally. Giving $50,000 to 100 people in wages will spur the economy FAR more than giving 5,000,000 to one person.


So investments and savings (in a bank or other entity) don't lead to economic growth?
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Income, Taxes, and Work

Postby patches70 on Sat Apr 21, 2012 6:33 pm

Night Strike wrote:So investments and savings (in a bank or other entity) don't lead to economic growth?



That would be the optimum way to have real growth, instead of through credit created from nothing and spent as money for real things. You know this already, except you also know that saving is a sin, in economic terms-

Night Strike wrote:Loans are vital to our economy.


Credit creation is our economy. It doesn't lead to real growth because we are trading our future endeavors for money today.....
Private patches70
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 12:44 pm

Next

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users