A summary of trickle down economic theory:

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm sorry you don't know anyone that was born poor or middle class who never became 'rich', but that says more about your friends that it does reality, doesn't it?

No I have real friends. My sister had an imaginary friend, but she doesn't talk to her anymore.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
Kidicious, There are so many problems with your theory that I really cannot begin to list them. Let me simply say that the aquisition and use of wealth is what enables a capitalist system. It is in essence a means of production.

Since I agree with you I don't know what you point is.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's got nothing to do with wages. That's the best part. You just tax all wealth at the same rate. People who inherit wealth will pay the most tax. The poor will pay none.

So, since wealth = benefit = wealth, and wealthy people receive wealth which is why they're wealthy, then what exactly are you talking about? A tax on assets? Annually? On a one time basis? A great way to destroy capital markets unless the tax is pathetically low, but hey...

I don't want to bother with inheritance taxes, so I'll just pay my kids X million a year, tax free.

Did you ever stop to think that your "real friends" who haven't become rich either (a) have other priorities; (b) haven't pursued opportunities to increase their earnings to create a pool of investible income; or (c) haven't managed their assets well, assuming "getting rich" was their goal?

Plato went from minimum wage to six figures on his own, so presumably he can accumulate a reasonable degree of wealth.

I've gone from minimum wage to high six figures in a good year, and seven figures in 2-3 more years barring major disasters and depending on what tax games I have to play to keep most of it for my own purposes.

So yes, in the real world, people can go from nothing to a reasonable degree of wealth, or even an unreasonable degree, and without breaking Federal controlled substance laws.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So, since wealth = benefit = wealth, and wealthy people receive wealth which is why they're wealthy, then what exactly are you talking about? A tax on assets? Annually? On a one time basis? A great way to destroy capital markets unless the tax is pathetically low, but hey...

I don't want to bother with inheritance taxes, so I'll just pay my kids X million a year, tax free.

No, it's an annual tax. No inheritance tax.

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Did you ever stop to think that your "real friends" who haven't become rich either (a) have other priorities; (b) haven't pursued opportunities to increase their earnings to create a pool of investible income; or (c) haven't managed their assets well, assuming "getting rich" was their goal?

Plato went from minimum wage to six figures on his own, so presumably he can accumulate a reasonable degree of wealth.

I've gone from minimum wage to high six figures in a good year, and seven figures in 2-3 more years barring major disasters and depending on what tax games I have to play to keep most of it for my own purposes.

So yes, in the real world, people can go from nothing to a reasonable degree of wealth, or even an unreasonable degree, and without breaking Federal controlled substance laws.

I didn't say people couldn't save money. I just said the people who become so wealthy that they would pay a substantial amount of tax in a wealth tax system are few and fair between.

[Kidlicious]

MtG,

The capital markets would adjust. The're good at that. Profits would increase because of increased spending. That would offset the consequences of the wealth tax, after the markets adjusted.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Hardly, since you have to raise two trillion and change to support the Federal budget each year.

If you take people like Gates, et al, you would effectively force them to liquidate their holdings a bit at a time to come up with the cash for the tax - flooding the market on the sale side. You would simply force people like that to move offshore and take their physical assets offshore.

Or do you want to start a global economic war by taxing foreign "wealth?"

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by PLATO1003 Taxes should be drastically cut when recission occurs and the government should spend in deficit. .... Taxes should be raised when inflationary pressure builds and the government should run a $0 deficit. [ Over the business cycle as a whole -AS]

This is the law acording to PLATO

This is practically a direct quote from Keynes The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. Every politician remembers the first part of this quote. Nobody remembers the second part. So you can see how we have got where we are.

Kid:

Remember that wealth is a stock, income is a flow. If you have an annual wealth tax you would be taxing the same wealth multiple times.

(edit: spelling)

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Hardly, since you have to raise two trillion and change to support the Federal budget each year.

If you take people like Gates, et al, you would effectively force them to liquidate their holdings a bit at a time to come up with the cash for the tax - flooding the market on the sale side. You would simply force people like that to move offshore and take their physical assets offshore.

Or do you want to start a global economic war by taxing foreign "wealth?"

You're picturing a huge tax evasion that wouldn't occur. People would still save and invest because interest and profit would go up.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Adam Smith

Kid:

Remember that wealth is a stock, income is a flow. If you have an annual wealth tax you would be taxing the same wealth multiple times.

(edit: spelling)

Yeah.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're picturing a huge tax evasion that wouldn't occur.

Rich people wouldn't evade taxes... OMG, I'm laughing so hard, I'm crying!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You're picturing a huge tax evasion that wouldn't occur. People would still save and invest because interest and profit would go up.

If you're going to tax "wealth" however you define it, confined to whoever you think is in the "silver spoon" set, and expect to raise two trillion and change a year, you sure as hell will see "tax avoidance."

Hell, if I was Gates or Ellison, et al, and the US was wacky enough to adopt your system, I'd buy citizenship elsewhere, renounce my US citizenship, and move my assets offshore.

Since a tax has to be paid in current flow (i.e. income), any tax system that affects only those who you say it would affect would require that most of those taxpayers sell off assets just to pay taxes on an annual basis.

You'd see (proportionately larger, of course) the same sort of capital flight as you'd see in any third world bananaland when the new thugocracy starts talking wealth redistribution.

Are you trolling, or do you actually believe the stuff you spout?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Hell, if I was Gates or Ellison, et al, and the US was wacky enough to adopt your system, I'd buy citizenship elsewhere, renounce my US citizenship, and move my assets offshore.

Some people would renounce their citizenship, but that would be a small enough portion. The economy would be growing much faster, and capital always follows a growing economy.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Are you trolling, or do you actually believe the stuff you spout?

I never just troll. Why are the various taxes that we have better than a single wealth tax? All of the taxes that we have have consequences too. You aren't looking at that.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Of course they have consequences. Which are spread somewhere between evenly and progressively across the whole population.

Capital doesn't follow a growing economy, capital follows wherever the opportunity / risk ratio is most favorable. If you tax wealth accumulation above a certain point, you can guarantee capital flight.

[HershOstropoler]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Some people would renounce their citizenship, but that would be a small enough portion. The economy would be growing much faster, and capital always follows a growing economy.

You are a bizarre mixture of Karl Marx and the average Wallstreet economist.

If you have been exposed to the most minimalistic understanding of economics, you have to know that you're spouting total bollocks.