How to distribute wealth equally?

[RainbowSingularity]

One way to do is the Government should tax the rich 50%, and give the money to the poor.

Generally, the less a person cares about other people, the more money they can make.
Most of the people who care about other people the most, do jobs that do not make them rich.
Then all the rich people who do not care about others use those people to make them money.
They also set up governments to control that and divert money to themselves.

school teachers & nurses wages/salarys are a good indicator.

 

[Write4U]

Generally, the less a person cares about other people, the more money they can make.
Most of the people who care about other people the most, do jobs that do not make them rich.
Then all the rich people who do not care about others use those people to make them money.
They also set up governments to control that and divert money to themselves.

school teachers & nurses wages/salarys are a good indicator.

I agree.

The key component in our example is the earning profits in the form of dividends from money itself, without producing a single thing.

This money is removed from the economy and just stashed away, tax free, on an island not in any way connected to industry but only to money itself. If this continues, less and less money becomes avaialable to industries or servives, which compensate with taxcuts which may buy a few hamburgers for the low wage earners, but can buy a million dollar yacht or a painting by Rembrandt.

That's not a ship which lifts all. It's a ship that constantly lowers liittle life boats in the middle of the ocean and tells you "either survive or die"

It's actually a perfect example of Darwininian evolution. We apply the fundamental concept of evolution to living things, but the Law of Evolution covers everything in the Evolving universe itself. It's a universal law, as much as the SOL, E = Mc2, and the mathematical Law of the Exponential function, which forbids further growth from limited resources in a limited environment.
We have already seen this in the several economic depression or collapses that has plagued the National and even the world's economies.

 

[gmilam]

I agree.

The key component in our example is the earning profits in the form of dividends from money itself, without producing a single thing.

This money is removed from the economy and just stashed away, tax free, on an island not in any way connected to industry but only to money itself.

How do you think money makes money when it is just "stashed away"?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I agree.

The key component in our example is the earning profits in the form of dividends from money itself, without producing a single thing.

This money is removed from the economy and just stashed away, tax free, on an island not in any way connected to industry but only to money itself. If this continues, less and less money becomes avaialable to industries or servives, which compensate with taxcuts which may buy a few hamburgers for the low wage earners, but can buy a million dollar yacht or a painting by Rembrandt.

That's not a ship which lifts all. It's a ship that constantly lowers liittle life boats in the middle of the ocean and tells you "either survive or die"

It's actually a perfect example of Darwininian evolution. We apply the fundamental concept of evolution to living things, but the Law of Evolution covers everything in the Evolving universe itself. It's a universal law, as much as the SOL, E = Mc2, and the mathematical Law of the Exponential function, which forbids further growth from limited resources in a limited environment.
We have already seen this in the several economic depression or collapses that has plagued the National and even the world's economies.

Excellent point. there are several exceptions which have come to mind. the likes of people who produce entertainment and reach many and get high rewards for doing so. it is in its self a good measure of pricise feedback for posatively effecting society and industry.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

How do you think money makes money when it is just "stashed away"?

read up on this type of thing to get a bit of an idea of what Write4u is referring to
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/07/leverage-pitfalls.asp

Typically, hedge funds became too greedy, stretched too far for return and took on too much leverage. This can be the result of overconfidence. This sense of overconfidence is common, as people of all upbringings and educational backgrounds have a tendency to correlate their level of intelligence with the ability to predict the future. Unfortunately, this just isn't how the markets work. In fact, they will almost certainly behave outside of your expectations. As such, failure to predict market behavior accurately is the primary driver of failed levered investments when coupled with a lack of cash on the sidelines.

Read more: [URL='https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/07/leverage-pitfalls.asp#ixzz59XmTOtut']Hedge Fund Failures Illuminate Leverage Pitfalls

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/optioninvestor/07/leverage-pitfalls.asp#ixzz59XmTOtut
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

[/URL]

 

[Write4U]

How do you think money makes money when it is just "stashed away"?

That money does not generate revenue for the Nation to provide necessary services and may provide jobs for say, infrastructure and maintenance.

What good is a few trillion sitting in a vault belonging to a single individual, while the Nation has to borrow on deficit spending and pay interest on those debts, which further deplete economy .

I am not sure how much we pay on interests to foreign banks, but I know when money leaves this country, it seldom comes back.
Who wants to invest in a failing economy?

What is the strength of a corporation? It's capital assets, no. Does that principle not apply to a Nation?
When the nation had a surplus, Bill Clinton wanted that applied to lower the National debt, and use those interest savings for the public good. I thought it was an excellent plan.

Comes Bush and uses this surplus to gives tax breaks to the very wealthy and proceeds to run the economy into the ground. Then just takes a trillion dollars out of the economy to pay those debts.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26987291/...-billion-financial-bailout-bill/#.WqbVQh3wbhc

The interest on the national debt is how much the federal government must pay on outstanding public debt each year. The current interest on the debt is $310 billion. That's from the federal budget for fiscal year 2018 (October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018).

https://www.thebalance.com/interest-on-the-national-debt-4119024

That translates into almost a billion dollars on interest per day! Are we kidding ourselves?

 

[billvon]

What good is a few trillion sitting in a vault belonging to a single individual, while the Nation has to borrow on deficit spending and pay interest on those debts, which further deplete economy .

No good at all.

However, no one has "a few trillion sitting in a vault." All billionaires and up have that money invested in companies and interests, like real estate and commodities. Thus that money is doing quite a bit of good - enabling new companies to open, existing companies to expand (and hire) and farmers to be able to afford to pay for crop harvesting.

I am not sure how much we pay on interests to foreign banks, but I know when money leaves this country, it seldom comes back.

Right - because it can make more money for the investor in foreign lands.

Who wants to invest in a failing economy?

No one. So it would make sense to not do things to make the US economy fail.

What is the strength of a corporation? It's capital assets, no. Does that principle not apply to a Nation?

Nope. Wealth does not define a nation. Would you rather live in Qatar or the US?

 

[Write4U]

Nope. Wealth does not define a nation. Would you rather live in Qatar or the US?

And who owns all the money in Qatar? The wealth of a nation can be used for the public good. Wealth in the hands of one person is only beneficial to that person (and his immediate family).

Kuwait is also a very wealthy nation. And they have established an educational fund which will provide free educaton to all for eternity. That is a forward looking investment for the nation, instead of instant gratification or quid pro quo for a few.

The one thing both Democrats and Republicans profess to support on a bipartisan basis is "infrastructure" (good for the nation's business). It used to be high on the list of promises.
Can you show me one major infrastructure investment since we started talking about it?
But we got a tax-cut of which some 70 % went to the most wealthy.
The other 30 % for distribution among a few hundred million working poor. Big stimulus for the economy?

 

[gmilam]

That money does not generate revenue for the Nation to provide necessary services and may provide jobs for say, infrastructure and maintenance.

What good is a few trillion sitting in a vault belonging to a single individual, while the Nation has to borrow on deficit spending and pay interest on those debts, which further deplete economy .

I think you're missing the point. Money does not earn interest by just "sitting in a vault". The bank loans it to others who use it to "produce things". The stock market is the same general idea, albeit a bit riskier. You can lose your investment.

And the profits people make from stocks are taxed. I must confess that I don't know what the current capital gains tax rates are.

 

[Write4U]

I think you're missing the point. Money does not earn interest by just "sitting in a vault". The bank loans it to others who use it to "produce things". The stock market is the same general idea, albeit a bit riskier. You can lose your investment.

And the bank does not make money on lending? It's the lending practices that are bankrupting the nation.

And the profits people make from stocks are taxed. I must confess that I don't know what the current capital gains tax rates are.

I believe it is 16% on average. I have always found it strange that "passive income" is taxed lower than "earned income".

 

[billvon]

And the bank does not make money on lending?

And investors make money on lending, yes. That's why most people can afford houses, for example.

It's the lending practices that are bankrupting the nation.

No, it's spending more than we take in that is bankrupting the nation.

I have two mortgages and I am far from bankrupt.

I believe it is 16% on average. I have always found it strange that "passive income" is taxed lower than "earned income".

This is to encourage people to invest the money in the economy rather than just leaving it "sitting in a vault."

 

[Write4U]

And investors make money on lending, yes. That's why most people can afford houses, for example.

Or being sold houses they cannot afford through "creative" financing.
Why did we have laws on the books that prevented bank speculations? Why have they been removed, if our economy is doing so well?
No, it's spending more than we take in that is bankrupting the nation.

I have two mortgages and I am far from bankrupt.

This is to encourage people to invest the money in the economy rather than just leaving it "sitting in a vault."[/QUOTE]

I'll tell you a story of an interview of a large farmer who received a massive return. The interviewer asked if the farmer was going to hire some extra labor with that money. His reponse was: "I have all the help I need, why should I hire laborers to stand around doing nothing? I put that money in the bank. At least I get a return on that."

 

[billvon]

Or being sold houses they cannot afford through "creative" financing.

Yes, that happens sometimes. The vast majority of people, of course, can afford the houses they buy.

Why did we have laws on the books that prevented bank speculations?

A reaction to the 2008 recession, which was largely due to an over-reliance on risky mortgage derivatives, coupled with a bursting real estate bubble.

Why have they been removed, if our economy is doing so well?

Because people are greedy.

I'll tell you a story of an interview of a large farmer who received a massive return. The interviewer asked if the farmer was going to hire some extra labor with that money. His reponse was: "I have all the help I need, why should I hire laborers to stand around doing nothing? I put that money in the bank. At least I get a return on that."

Yep. There are a few people like that. They tend to not make a lot of money. Most people invest when they come into money.

 

[iceaura]

No one. So it would make sense to not do things to make the US economy fail.

Which highlights the inadequacy of considering only "what makes sense" in explaining or predicting the behaviors of the very wealthy. They will - if not carefully regulated and heavily taxed - destroy the US economy, one way or another.

Very often the central issue is a commons, one that has not been brought under rigorous governance. There follows a tragedy of said commons.

Yep. There are a few people like that. They tend to not make a lot of money. Most people invest when they come into money.

Almost all very wealthy people and corporations are like that - not specifically putting their great piles of wealth into the bank, but definitely not hiring people and launching new businesses and so forth in the absence of likely payoff.

The entire economy suffers, as a consequence, when wealth accumulates at the top. Demand dries up, the work and risk of new productive enterprise diminishes in reliable or predictable payoff, and the rich deploy their "investments" elsewhere. More and more of their "investment" becomes devoted to the conspicuous consumption analog of taking in each other's washing. The entire economy can end up in a liquidity trap like Japan's, or involved in a bunch of wars, or buried in some kind of Mexican "400 families" situation.

Let things go too far, and finite resource ownership itself concentrates - so that the only way out is actual destruction: major "land reform" aka violent revolution, war lost or suffered badly by the accumulating class, natural disaster of sufficient destructive power. In Europe, the release provided by the Black Plague was matched later by continental scale war, destroying much of the accumulation. In the US the Civil War almost played the role of Plague, failing only to destroy the accumulation in the North where landholdings were less concentrated and the West where landholdings were less established and less economically oppressive.

 

[iceaura]

A reaction to the 2008 recession, which was largely due to an over-reliance on risky mortgage derivatives, coupled with a bursting real estate bubble.

First, a reaction to the Crash of 1929 - the culmination of quite similar behavior by Banking Man.
Onerous regulations and heavy taxes were imposed.
That established a full lifetime - two generations - of burgeoning and essentially drama-free economic prosperity, which lulled the overseers.
These regulations were then repealed, and the taxation regime accompanying them deconstructed, in stages.
The stepwise return to essentially fraudulent behavior and accumulation of untaxed wealth, ratcheting up after each stage, was immediate. That's how Banking Man rolls, given the opportunity.
And the culmination, which we are living through now, inevitable.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, that happens sometimes. The vast majority of people, of course, can afford the houses they buy.

You minimize the influence of con-artists. During the great crash, many people who could afford houses saw their entire equity diappear in front of their eyes.

A reaction to the 2008 recession, which was largely due to an over-reliance on risky mortgage derivatives, coupled with a bursting real estate bubble.

Were the buyers responsible for that. Especially those who always made their payments

Because people are greedy

Most people are not greedy, they just want a little house with a white picket fence. And rich people know how to exploit that. Trump bragged about making money from other people's misery and from his own bankruptcies.

Yep. There are a few people like that. They tend to not make a lot of money. Most people invest when they come into money.

Seen the stock market lately. How many people lost all of their meager investments. The stock market is wholly manipulated by Big Money. "Boosting" and "dumping", that's how it's done.

Oh and the new scam is credit cards. "THIS IS THE BEST A SAFEST CARD IN THE WORLD!!!", "0% INTEREST FOR 1 YEAR"
OR "EARN MONEY WHILE YOU ARE SHOPPING", until you are one day late with your payment and your rate goes up to 26% interest, unless you pay off the entire amount within 30 days.

Mind that I am not against Capitalism, I am against unregulated Capitalism. After all most of the money comes from resources which in reality belong to the Nation and it's citizenry.
Even when you have a house Big Business owns the air above your house and the ground below your feet. Frackers can drill under your house all they want and if you complain they condemn your property and use it for "development" of natural resources.

Such a nice word "Natural Resources". Did you know that radiation fall-out from nuclear bombs are counted as "Sunshine Units"?

Does Puerto Rico (a US protectorate) have electricity yet? They fight in our armies and pay taxes, but they can't vote. Their representation is an "observer" in congress.

 

[billvon]

Almost all very wealthy people and corporations are like that - not specifically putting their great piles of wealth into the bank, but definitely not hiring people and launching new businesses and so forth in the absence of likely payoff.

They do not hire people themselves. They invest in stocks and futures, and that money goes towards companies that are growing rapidly (because those generate the best returns) - and allows them to hire more people.

The entire economy suffers, as a consequence, when wealth accumulates at the top. Demand dries up, the work and risk of new productive enterprise diminishes in reliable or predictable payoff, and the rich deploy their "investments" elsewhere.

I agree that greater stratification of society is a problem. However, that is not due to people investing their money vs keeping it in a bank.

 

[river]

They do not hire people themselves. They invest in stocks and futures, and that money goes towards companies that are growing rapidly (because those generate the best returns) - and allows them to hire more people.

BS answer

 

[billvon]

You minimize the influence of con-artists.

Not at all; there are a great many con artists around, and they have a disproportionate influence. Nevertheless, for most people, mortgages are a good thing. Keep in mind that even during the worst of the great recession, default rates went from 1% to 5.5% - which means that the vast majority of mortgages were _not_ in default.

During the great crash, many people who could afford houses saw their entire equity diappear in front of their eyes.

Yes; that is a risk when you invest in ANYTHING, from real estate to growth stocks.

Were the buyers responsible for that. Especially those who always made their payments.

Nope. Nor was anyone else. (It would be equally accurate to say that everyone was.) Economies are cyclic and are a result of emergent behavior from the complex system that is our economy. Economic policies and regulations can help reduce the severity of the swings, but they cannot reduce the cyclic nature of that economy.

The vast majority of homeowners (>90%) kept their homes, and that's what a mortgage is for - to allow you to buy a home. A wise buyer buys a home with a mortgage they can afford, and then has a place to live. If they hold onto it for a while (>10 years) they pretty much always make money. If they prefer other investments, that's up to them. Real estate is convenient because it combines two desires (housing and investment) into one vehicle, but as an investment it is not notably better than others.

Most people are not greedy, they just want a little house with a white picket fence.

That's greed - wanting something more significant for yourself. (In the case above, an attractive house with property instead of a cheaper apartment.) However, there is nothing wrong with greed; it is what drives our economy, and indeed capitalism would fail without it. It is excessive/unregulated greed that causes problems.

Seen the stock market lately. How many people lost all of their meager investments. The stock market is wholly manipulated by Big Money. "Boosting" and "dumping", that's how it's done.

And when small investors do similar things (i.e. day trade, buy and sell on rumors and try to ride trends) sometimes they make it big. Sometimes they fail big. Long term investors know that keeping money in good funds will generally get you the best return. But then that greed thing comes in again, and people want to make more money in a shorter time. Get a zero down adjustable APR mortgage! Buy a home and flip it in six months! With the real estate market on fire, there's no way you can lose. Right?

Oh and the new scam is credit cards. "THIS IS THE BEST A SAFEST CARD IN THE WORLD!!!", "0% INTEREST FOR 1 YEAR"
OR "EARN MONEY WHILE YOU ARE SHOPPING", until you are one day late with your payment and your rate goes up to 26% interest, unless you pay off the entire amount within 30 days.

Yep. And don't forget payday loans; there is truly a sucker born every minute.

Mind that I am not against Capitalism, I am against unregulated Capitalism.

I agree. Regulation is important to prevent abuses.

Even when you have a house Big Business owns the air above your house and the ground below your feet.

Yep. It would be hard to prohibit airliners or satellites from crossing above your house.

 

[billvon]

BS answer

Glad you think so; means I am doing something right.