Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BWAC who wrote (158034)	10/17/2008 11:59:13 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

How do you feel about Obamas targeted proposal to eliminate 27 million tax returns?

To: BWAC who wrote (158034)	10/17/2008 12:15:39 PM
From: TheStockFairy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

I woud pay 70% (I pay 42% now, state and federal from what I remember but it's more if we count in sales and property tax) if I had a governmental guarantee that my business would last forever and I would receive the same amount of income and profits. I'm willing to pay 90% in taxes if they agree not to confiscate my wealth through inflation. I was reading something from Keynes about the effects of long term compound interest and what was neat was the range of returns that was considered "dangerous ROI for savings" over the long term was 3% in the absence of inflation. I think that's what Franklin's ROI was for this Boston / Philly endowment. The richest of the rich have time to consider the plight of the masses. They also have enough wealth that some are taking it seriously enough to try and impact the entire world as opposed to making a few of their offspring rich. Lower rich guys have bills to pay and have to make sure they don't screw up the returns on their investments or overspend. Affluent are essentialy working class people that need to get to a job to pay their bills and while they have savings and assets, they aren't enough to cover them forever. Now, the middle class and the poor are always, and have always been in an intresting situation where for hundreds of years they were supposed to have supposedly risk free employment from the business class (where they never lose their job and they always have enough money to eat but they dont get much money in return). But that idea is long long gone and redistribution of wealth through taxation is just reimplementing an anchor on the earnings of the businessman. So, as I understand my own personal situation, what I need to do is continue to earn money forever. no matter how much you make, you have to make more to cover the risk of taxation, confiscation (physical, think gold or property), or inflation. I need to keep earning dollars in THAT DAYS dollar exchange price because my old dollars are worth less daily and the dollars I earn today will continue to fall in value. Any of that make sense?

To: BWAC who wrote (158034)	10/17/2008 12:34:37 PM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

And why are you so against a little redistribution of wealth? How about it is stealing what doesn't belong to you. You don't help the little guy become a big guy by making the laws protecting personal property weaker. This is what every single government that tried wealth or property redistribution learned the hard way. Aside from that I have totally selfish reasons, when the government takes money away from people who have a propensity to save and invest their marginal dollar and give it to those who have a propensity to spend their marginal dollar they reduce the amount of money available to turn into productive capital, at the same time inflating prices on those things that the low income earners need. If anyone doubts that throwing money at those with a marginal propensity to spend inflates prices they simply need to read this thread over from the beginning since it covers the entire history of the great housing inflation.