I HATE rich people...

[Adam Jensen]

im not even csonservative, and am quite irritated by how some lib poopheads are trying to tell rich people how to spend their own money like what lol?

You might want to switch accounts before owning yourself like this.

[IIamaKing]

Another conservative enjoying irrational wealth hoarding because they don't understand how the modern economy works.

Another bitter jealous person.

[alturic]

You said this:



If you have nothing to spend it on, why keep it and hoard it instead of contributing to society?

Ahh, I get what you're trying to say, and this is exactly what I mean in terms of what you definition of "rich" is. I'm not celebrity rich. I wasn't born into millions and even now I'm only low 7 figure. So my view is one of a business owner, not Justin Beiber or someone else who truly, literally, does have way more money than they would ever be able to spend. I know that one day, my business could be gone.

[Raunchy]

Another conservative enjoying irrational wealth hoarding because they don't understand how the modern economy works.

i mean like any sane person you should be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, hey dont tell rich people how to spend their own money, how bout you pay more in taxes for the greater good, you can pay as much as you want personally, go ahead!

[PC2]

Most wealthy these days are simply born into it.

That depends, a million dollars isn't that much money any more in terms of many parents being able to accumulate it over time, so that is probably easily true for the low millions sector. However last time I checked Forbes 400, the ultra rich were largely self-made new money.

[Ghostpanther]

You said this:



If you have nothing to spend it on, why keep it and hoard it instead of contributing to society?

This may sound like running around in a circle, but if that it is their choice to do what they want with their money,then it is wrong for me to take more than I should based on my own personal morals. Which brings us back to the income taxes issue. A sales tax leaves it up to the individual what they want to spend their money on.

[Adam Jensen]

Another bitter jealous person.

Daelek said wasn't wrong. Money that moves helps the economy. Money that sits does not.

[Daelak]

The problem is not in the rich getting richer. It is how they are getting richer and how unfair the tax system is. So the blame is not the rich, but the system is rigged to favor them. It just common sense to make money, you need to spend money. And the rich can do that more than the poor can. Which without them, there would be less products to buy. I do not know how I can explain it any better. We may have to agree to disagree.

It isn't productive to assign blame. What isn't productive is widespread ignorance as to how the economy operates that includes the wealthy. The more money flowing in and out of the economy, the better ALL income and wealth levels will be. Higher equity returns, higher real estate appreciation, higher wage growth, higher GDP growth, and faster adoption into new technologies and sectors in a 21st century economy.

[Deleted]

This may sound like running around in a circle, but if that it is their choice to do what they want with their money,then it is wrong for me to take more than I should based on my own personal morals. Which brings us back to the income taxes issue. A sales tax leaves it up to the individual what they want to spend their money on.

If they don't want to contribute properly then they should be taxed on their wealth instead of being able to hoard it.

[Raunchy]

What Daelek said wasn't wrong. Money that moves helps the economy. Money that sits does not.

well the rich are not not going to pay more or listen to you, in the meantime how about you pay a little more to the govt, they take donations!

[alexw]

The rich (well, I'd say business owner, but not all business owners are "rich") certainly create jobs. I created 5 the instant I opened my business and current count is 37.

Perhaps you mean not ALL rich people create jobs. Again, the definition of "rich" is very subjective. Are we talking celebrity rich, or mid-six figure rich?

Lol. No. You didn't create those jobs. You filled positions within your company. That is not the same as creating jobs. You filled a demand for goods/services that already existed by filling those positions. Tell me, would you or would you not have hired if you could not sell your products? And if not how can that be if you are a job creator and the decider of if a job is created or not, when it is not you but customer demand that dictates whether a worker is hired? Are not simply acting as a hiring manager and not a job creator?

[PC2]

What Daelek said wasn't wrong. Money that moves helps the economy. Money that sits does not.

We already have metrics for that. The term 'velocity' is the poor mans GDP.

[Raunchy]

If they don't want to contribute properly then they should be taxed on their wealth instead of being able to hoard it.

same goes with you bub, pay more to the govt, they will gladly accept more money from you as well as the rich.

[alturic]

The problem is not in the rich getting richer. It is how they are getting richer and how unfair the tax system is. So the blame is not the rich, but the system is rigged to favor them. It just common sense to make money, you need to spend money. And the rich can do that more than the poor can. Which without them, there would be less products to buy. I do not know how I can explain it any better. We may have to agree to disagree.

I don't think we actually disagree on anything outside of how you think (correct me if I'm wrong?) that I should randomly buy things the family doesn't need. I agree, everyone should pay taxes. I of course, obviously, agree that it's easier for someone who has a little bit of excess income to be able to "take a chance" on a business idea (again, my view is one of a business owner, not celebrity) versus someone who lives paycheck-to-paycheck.

[Spectral]

What Daelek said wasn't wrong. Money that moves helps the economy. Money that sits does not.

While a bit broad, this is basically a truism. Velocity is good.

What chafes is when people extend from this basic truism (it's good when people buy things from each other) to a moral obligation on anyone that has money. It's just not. While policies that encourage people to buy things can be well advised, it just isn't morally obligatory for someone with savings to spend it for some amorphous "good of the economy", particularly if there's nothing to buy that's actually an efficient use of their money (as defined by "utility", feel free to use your own definition of utility).

So, yeah, his starting point that economic policy that encourages monetary velocity and stimulates demand is a good thing is basically correct, people are bound to get grumpy when this is spun as savings being "irrational hoarding".

[Deleted]

same goes with you bub, pay more to the govt, they will gladly accept more money from you as well as the rich.

Yeah, I can pay more on my non-existant income.

[Ghostpanther]

Ahh, I get what you're trying to say, and this is exactly what I mean in terms of what you definition of "rich" is. I'm not celebrity rich. I wasn't born into millions and even now I'm only low 7 figure. So my view is one of a business owner, not Justin Beiber or someone else who truly, literally, does have way more money than they would ever be able to spend. I know that one day, my business could be gone.

You do know that your low 7 figure income is far above the average working American family? For many you are indeed...rich. :P

[alturic]

They shouldn't have to but they should be encouraged to.

Why should I (anyone for that matter) be encouraged to spend money on something they might not need or want just because they have money? It makes zero sense, literally.

[Daelak]

i mean like any sane person you should be socially liberal and fiscally conservative, hey dont tell rich people how to spend their own money, how bout you pay more in taxes for the greater good, you can pay as much as you want personally, go ahead!

We should implement policies that increase public investment, because it will make the wealthy even more wealthier through real estate appreciation and equity returns in the financial markets.

[Kraenen]

Daelek said wasn't wrong. Money that moves helps the economy. Money that sits does not.

Is "money sitting" or "not helping" really the same as "inhibiting growth"?