Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love postings like this where people just embarass (sic) themself (sic) non stop.
What the hell do you mean they have no capital at risk? Do you even trade stock? Do you think there is some guarantee for stock traders?
That's mere baloney. This particular tax break, known as the carried-interest loophole, allows hedge fund managers to treat the money they receive from investors as capital gains, subject to a 15 percent tax rate. Though this money is a paycheck received for services, just like a movie star receiving a bonus if her movie does well. They have no money at risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
2) Dividends are only taxed twice if the company actually paid taxes. There are tons of profitable corporations that pay no taxes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
If there isnt profit, they cant be paying dividends
Either you are being dishonest or you are hopelessly uninformed, trying to argue that there are no profitable corporations that pay no taxes. Some of the largest corporations are highly profitable but pay no taxes.
The issue you asserted was double taxation. The corp. can't be taxed twice if it was never taxed once. Besides, who cares? I'm taxed more than once all the time. My income is taxed, then when I pay my cleaning lady with after-tax money, her income is taxed. It's no difference with dividends. The corp. pays taxes on profits, then when it pays part of those profits to shareholders they are taxed on their income.
Aside from Walidm's utterly poor description of fiat currency, he's pretty close to being right.
The United States, and in fact most nations, use a fiat currency. Essentially, the money we use has no intrinsic value. In the U.S., it's little more than cotton paper. Coins are an amalgam of cheap metals. They only have value because the government states that they have value.
There is a finite supply of legal tender in the country at any one time. The government is the sole supplier of that legal tender. They can, if they so choose, print more money. The problem with this, obviously, is an incredible inflation (a hyper-inflation) where both currency supply and prices go up. Zimbabwe is rather well known for succumbing to this problem. People became overnight millionaires, but the cost of goods rose equally high.
What taxes do, is "remove" that currency from supply. With finite currency, taxes collected result in a decreased supply of currency. Cutting spending tends to affect a different class more than another, because of the distributive nature of government programs, but does result in a similar case. Cutting spending forces the consumption of current supply.
The state has always had means to control the money in play through monetary policy. That would be tax cuts\increases, spending cuts\increases. It's also why understanding the difference between supply problems and demand problems determines when you increase taxes, cut spending, increase spending, or cut taxes.
Taxes are, as we all know, primarily levied against the wealthiest individuals. Part of the responsibility of being successful. Government spending tends to affect the poor and working class persons the most.
Supply-side economics in a recession fueled by low demand is asinine. You don't cut taxes on business, or your "job creators," when the problem isn't they don't have enough money (they do. 2 trillion in liquid assets alone), but rather, they don't have enough demand.
Demand is generated by the ~80% of the population, those making ~70k a year and less. Although they hold a small amount of the wealth, they generate the greatest velocity through their spending. More people = more velocity, generally.
Because those 80% of people are the ones most affected by spending cuts, and least affected by tax cuts, doing either of them doesn't help.
Want to move your economy? Invest in your demand. Spend.
There was no error in the description of MMT, only in your perception, though I'd say you're rather close to a correct description of the current issue before the State.
There was no error in the description of MMT, only in your perception, though I'd say you're rather close to a correct description of the current issue before the State.
I didn't say your description was erroneous, just poor.
Aside from Walidm's utterly poor description of fiat currency, he's pretty close to being right.
The United States, and in fact most nations, use a fiat currency. Essentially, the money we use has no intrinsic value. In the U.S., it's little more than cotton paper. Coins are an amalgam of cheap metals. They only have value because the government states that they have value.
There is a finite supply of legal tender in the country at any one time. The government is the sole supplier of that legal tender. They can, if they so choose, print more money. The problem with this, obviously, is an incredible inflation (a hyper-inflation) where both currency supply and prices go up. Zimbabwe is rather well known for succumbing to this problem. People became overnight millionaires, but the cost of goods rose equally high.
What taxes do, is "remove" that currency from supply. With finite currency, taxes collected result in a decreased supply of currency. Cutting spending tends to affect a different class more than another, because of the distributive nature of government programs, but does result in a similar case. Cutting spending forces the consumption of current supply.
The state has always had means to control the money in play through monetary policy. That would be tax cuts\increases, spending cuts\increases. It's also why understanding the difference between supply problems and demand problems determines when you increase taxes, cut spending, increase spending, or cut taxes.
Taxes are, as we all know, primarily levied against the wealthiest individuals. Part of the responsibility of being successful. Government spending tends to affect the poor and working class persons the most.
Supply-side economics in a recession fueled by low demand is asinine. You don't cut taxes on business, or your "job creators," when the problem isn't they don't have enough money (they do. 2 trillion in liquid assets alone), but rather, they don't have enough demand.
Demand is generated by the ~80% of the population, those making ~70k a year and less. Although they hold a small amount of the wealth, they generate the greatest velocity through their spending. More people = more velocity, generally.
Because those 80% of people are the ones most affected by spending cuts, and least affected by tax cuts, doing either of them doesn't help.
Want to move your economy? Invest in your demand. Spend.
One of the best posts I have seen here -- most notably what I have bolded. In addition, we have no hint of inflation or fear that borrowers are insecure about U.S. debt. 10-yr. Treasuries just sold for 1.67% interest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
