31 total posts
Technically speaking ...
taxes aren't handed to a person (the president) but to the state. The tariff (how much you must pay) and what the state does with it, is democratically and lawfully determined by the the congress (or whatever the legislative body is called).
If you think you pay too much or they are doing the wrong things with it, you can try to change or influence that by voting for other representatives or convincing the current ones that they made a bad decision.
I doubt if many of the riches would prefer a dictatorship. One notable exception: the French actor Gerard Depardieu who moved to Russia because he found the taxes in France too high.
Technically, you are correct...
...and, technically, Donald Trump doesn't have 4+ billion dollars. We all have what's in our pockets and maybe the top drawer of our dressers, etc. The rest in in the pockets of someone else. We have some control of our remaining wealth. Billionaires have control of large sums of money, of course, but they don't actually have it. If they want to spend a large sum of their wealth, technically, they must sell something to do it. That sale requires another buyer that can afford what another person wants to sell. We have a man who wants to be president that is openly hostile to wealthy people. He would like to relieve them of what he considers to be money they don't need and use it for programs he things are more worthy. What I am suggesting is that such a plan, in the longer term, is not sustainable.
RE: If they want to spend a large sum of their wealth,
If they want to spend a large sum of their wealth, technically, they must sell something to do it.
OR they could make a withdrawal from one of their bank accounts, take the cash and buy whatever they want...Of course they would have to give 5 days notice for large withdrawals.
5 days notice...maybe yes. Why?
Well...it's because they don't always have that kind of cash. They have to sell something to get it.
RE: They have to sell something to get it.
Yes. That is correct for standard checking/savings accounts
It's not correct for bank investment accounts that are not FDIC insured. I would think that very few people regularly keep large sums in liquid accounts as, due to the little or no interest they earn, inflation causes accounts to lose value over time. It may be that older folks are an exception.
RE: It's not correct for bank investment accounts
bank investment accounts?
Stocks held in a bank investment account?
Stock Settlement: Why You Need to Understand the T+3 Timeline
What is settlement?
When you buy or sell securities, settlement marks the official transfer of the securities to the buyer's account and the cash to the seller's account.
When does settlement occur?
For most stock trades, settlement occurs three business days after the day the order executes. Another way to remember this is through the abbreviation T+3, or trade date plus three days.
Not immediate...sell the stock, withdraw the cash? Or wait 3 business days for "settlement date" before you are able to withdraw the proceeds of the sale?
RE: I would think that very few people regularly keep large
I would think that very few people regularly keep large sums in liquid accounts as, due to the little or no interest they earn,
"very few" but $75 billion in Canada?
You missed my post about 'hoarding money in bank accounts"?
I missed your hoarding post?
Actually, I replied to it. You must have missed my reply. My reply was to question why that would be happening. If we think people are doing something they shouldn't do and we want to change their behavior, I think we should try to understand why they're acting that way.
So these economists have deduced
that the folks holding the 750 billion rather than buying stocks are doing so out of fear? Did they do research on this by interviewing these hoarders or just sit around and come up with their conclusions without doing so? There are other questions to be asked such as who is this good for and who is it bad for. If these hoarders would prefer to invest in stock, you'd ask them what it would take to get them to release that money. If you cannot meet their requirements, so what? It's there money.
Last sentence=their and not there.
RE: If you cannot meet their requirements, so what?
If you cannot meet their requirements, so what? It's there money.
and you also thought/claimed
I would think that very few people regularly keep large sums in liquid accounts.
I provided a link that shows something different.
I will admit that the link doesn't provide the "number of people or/and the number of accounts", but $750 Billion is a fair piece of change, for a country with 35 million people.
Why do you think people would start hoarding cash?
Is that desirable for the Canadian economy or undesirable? What should be done with folks who won't invest their excess earnings? Should they be punished for it or incentivized to do differently? What would be the possible or probable outcomes from each option?
Sounds rather like a High School essay question for a civics exam, doesn't it?
I think too many people...
...spend too much time, thinking about about other people's money and wealth, and not enough time minding their own business.
The very fact
that 388 went down to 62 richest in five years is a huge indication that because of BO's decision to dump $85B a month into Wall Street, he made the very richest even richer. All while liberals and Dems running for president condemn the very people they helped make richer.....and while those people/corporations keep donating to the liberals/Dems to keep that train rolling..
RE: $85B a month into Wall Street,
Glad to see you got your figures correct this time.
Well, being obnoxious
upon your returning to my posts hasn't changed any..........especially since you, again, have no opinion or a dispute about my assessment of the situation, other than to be happy that my figures are correct.
It would be a fact (maybe) if those 62 all lived in the USA. But I couldn't find stats about that in the links from JP. All I saw in a quick scan is that Asia is on the rise. So I think that only a minority of those 62 richest are in the USA.
BO surely has some power. But that doesn't extend to China and Russia. So maybe better blame Putin and Xi Jinping, if you want to blame somebody.
You're making an assumption
that only US citizens invest in 'our' Wall Street markets.....so why would it be a 'fact' if those 62 all lived in the US? There are many corporations and real estate purchases that are 'foreign' owned....do you think none of them invest in Wall Street? Liberals are always talking about 'global economy'.......but they neglect to tell the whole story, which means that with the 'help' of BO dumping $85B per month into what was SUPPOSED to be OUR economy actually made the WORLD's wealthiest, even more so.
I get the impression you object to the consequences of what the FED (that's not exactly Obama) did. That's a good start. Now continue as follows:
1. Read Piketty's "Capital in the twenty-first century".
2. Become socialist.
3. Start campaigning for Bernie Sanders.
Feds did/do BO's bidding, Kees
Why do you think we are $19T in debt now? $85Bx12x5 yrs = $5,100,000,000,000 now add in the two 'stimulus' trillions to that (TARP and the 'actual' separate stimulus from 2208 and 2009 and you're up to over $7T plus interest paid and still due on 'printed/borrowed' money.
Other countries have gone thru the same housing and banking turmoil at about the same time we did.......how many, including yours, have done what BO did?
Re: other countries
The ECB (European Central Bank) headed by Mario Draghi is doing the same: buying 60 billion euro of bonds each month to pump money in the economy and keep the interest rate low.
Probably he's educated in the same style of economy the FED officials are. Most economists agree that it makes sense. As a layman (like you) I can't tell, but I've never read a serious study indicating that the economy (in the USA and in Europe) would be in a significantly better state (average income, growth, jobs, and what more they use to define that state) than it is now if they had kept the interest at 4% in stead of lowering it to 0,15% or so. So maybe it would have been worse indeed. Anyway, that's what they think.
Did you ever read such studies?
Post was last edited on February 2, 2016 2:09 PM PST
RE:OUR economy actually made the WORLD's wealthiest,
OUR economy actually made the WORLD's wealthiest, even more so.
And also reduced them in number from 388 to 62?
So you're praising Obama?
only US citizens invest in 'our' Wall Street markets.
Not to worry...America takes a cut of any money those foreigners make on America.
Almost half the super-rich individuals are from the United States, 17 from Europe, and the rest from countries including China, Brazil, Mexico, Japan and Saudi Arabia.
No sympathy here for anyone that would spend $1million for a picture of a potatoe/potato ( In June of 1992 Quayle was still the vice-president of George H. W. Bush, and as vice-presidents often find themselves performing tasks that no one else wants to do, he was officiating at a spelling bee)
reduced the rich
"And also reduced them in number from 388 to 62?"
See, you should be happy about that. Fewer rich people. You can claim a victory and hope the other 62 are torn down too. Envy Towers must be a horrible place to live all the time.
RE:you had a president who called you "greedy" and generally
you had a president who called you "greedy" and generally showed disrespect for you because of your wealth,
I'd go on TV and boast that I'm very, very rich, and run for POTUS.
If I was a rich man...
Actually, I was going to end the OP with
a "Yidle-diddle-didle dum" but thought better of it...that someone would claim it to be offensive.
fleece the geese?
that would be quite the trick, LOL.