Presidential debate...let's hear your thoughts

[TimToad]

Not really. In your examples, wealth is being accumulated by the individual, not created. There is no change to the total wealth of the group. Someone else has given up wealth to partake of the service. It is a zero sum game. Whereas the producer of a product, be it gold from the ground or corn from the field, adds to the total wealth of the group until the product is consumed or ceases to be useful and is depreciated.

Huh? I think Bob's many splendid exercises in semantics have me and probably others heads spinning.

How is a dynamic economic system with inflation in play and market place peaks and valleys in valuations a zero sum game?

If in Bob's definition, something tangible must be "produced" to generate income, and the government only taxes income, not wealth, what is it that Google or Facebook "produce" to generate their taxable income?

If yesterday Google did exactly what it always does and was worth $500 Billion and today through the magic of the market without doing or producing anything more it did than yesterday is now worth $600 Billion, is that not real if I as the sole owner of all the shares and decide to sell them all?

 

[Fred Weiss]

Huh? I think Bob's many splendid exercises in semantics have me and probably others heads spinning.

How is a dynamic economic system with inflation in play and market place peaks and valleys in valuations a zero sum game?

If in Bob's definition, something tangible must be "produced" to generate income, and the government only taxes income, not wealth, what is it that Google or Facebook "produce" to generate their taxable income?

If yesterday Google did exactly what it always does and was worth $500 Billion and today through the magic of the market without doing or producing anything more it did than yesterday is now worth $600 Billion, is that not real if I as the sole owner of all the shares and decide to sell them all?

There is a total difference between fluctuating markets and the measurement of wealth in terms of both tangible and intangible properties and goods. If someone is willing to pay $600 billion for what was valued at $500 billion, that is simply a matter of market fluctuation and a statement of investor belief that Google will either add wealth to the community in the form of new intellectual property (production) or that they will accumulate more wealth by increased sales. If the community has 1,000 bushels of corn in storage and Old MacDonald harvests another 1,000 bushels, the community has doubled its "wealth of corn" (production) until others in the community consume the corn.

 

[Gino]

:Sleeping:​

 

[bob]

Huh?If in Bob's definition, something tangible must be "produced" to generate income..

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Something must be produced to create wealth. Something which heretofore did not exist. Income can be produced by knocking over a gas station. Income has little to nothing to do with wealth.

 

[David Wright]

We need some Austrian school economists on here to back up Bob's assertions.
Fred gets it also.

 

[rossmosh]

Have people looked at Trump's tax plan? All of it benefits him and his friends. The most telling is him getting rid of the "death tax". The vast vast vast majority of Americans will simply not face any taxing when they die and give their money to immediate family. Trump happens to be the exception. "Because he's smart" he doesn't want to pay taxes. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me one bit of he ran for president just to pass this law. No one knows how much Trump is actually worth and what would be taxable under these laws, but it's fairly safe to say it's in the 10's of millions and likely in the 100's of millions.

My opinion is simple about trickle down economics. Evidence suggests that when wealthy make more money it doesn't effect the income of the rest of Americans. At the end of the day, you're just fighting over the scraps of the wealthy as they sit and profit off of you profiting. It just doesn't work. I'm not a big fan of taxing to hell the rich either, but the graph below proves that the wealth will simply pay themselves more and more when given the opportunity and not distribute raises and their spending will not truly positively effect middle class incomes.

Proof: https://www.advisorperspectives.com...5/u-s-household-incomes-a-49-year-perspective

 

[boxerbay]

man that was a lot of reading. can we just get to the good part were we start fighting calling each other names and throwing mud?

 

[randya]

My opinion is simple about trickle down economics. Evidence suggests that when wealthy make more money it doesn't effect the income of the rest of Americans.

[/url]

Look at any third world country with no middle class to support a growing economy, and watch where the wealth flows.

 

[randya]

As my old philosophy mentor was wont to say when confronted by tortured reasoning of this caliber; "Don't be an a$$."

It works this way: Since the invention of proper harness for draft animals ~10,000 years past, people could produce more than they could consume. Hence a surplus. Hence commerce. Hence civilization. Figure it out, it's not rocket surgery.

Hence a surplus.

Hence wealth?

Let's say you have a monopoly on draft animal harnesses, you are the only one with a surplus, hence no commerce.

It is not rocket surgery.

 

[HDvinyl]

man that was a lot of reading. can we just get to the good part were we start fighting calling each other names and throwing mud?

We'll leave that to the candidates.

 

[bob]

Look at any third world country with no middle class to support a growing economy, and watch where the wealth flows.

Cart before the horse.

The thing you call the 'middle class' is a consequence of the industrial revolution. That being the mass production of like products. This era is now waning and being replaced by the mass production of custom goods made possible mostly because of digital technology. Whether or not what is today's middle class survives the transition remains to be seen. Meddling by the apparatus will have little to no effect on its survival.

Hence a surplus.

Hence wealth?

Let's say you have a monopoly on draft animal harnesses, you are the only one with a surplus, hence no commerce.

It is not rocket surgery.

Let's say? Yet Another way to say 'If'. If my aunt were otherwise equipped she'd be my uncle. Posing a tortured material implication [that would an inane statement in the form 'IF A THEN B'] is a sophomoric exercise in mental masturbation and little else. Worse, of the four possible states of A and B [that being true or false] only one of those states, A and not B, makes the statement false. The statement is true for the three remaining iterations, A and B, not A and B, not A and not B. Thus the statement "if the moon is mad of green cheese then 2+2=4" is true. Meaningless but true nonetheless.

But, in the spirit of playing along, assume for the nonce that what you pose were true. The guy with the harness has a surplus. What does he do with it? Let it rot? Or barter that surplus for something that needs or wants but was too busy creating his surplus to build?

The latter is production of wealth as represented by the surplus. The former is stupidity.

 

[randya]

Cart before the horse.

The thing you call the 'middle class' is a consequence of the industrial revolution.

Yes, CONSUMERS

That being the mass production of like products. This era is now waning and being replaced by the mass production of custom goods made possible mostly because of digital technology. Whether or not what is today's middle class survives the transition remains to be seen. Meddling by the apparatus will have little to no effect on its survival.

Again what is wealth without consumers?
What is an economy without consumers?

The guy with the harness has a surplus. What does he do with it? Let it rot? Or barter that surplus for something that needs or wants but was too busy creating his surplus to build?

Without consumers to barter with, what choice does he have but let it rot?

The latter is production of wealth as represented by the surplus.

Again, I fail to see where surplus without consumers does generate wealth.
Do you have examples?

 

[boxerbay]

producers vs consumer debate here and how it applies to us.

you cant just tax the crap out of the rich. they will just move their operations overseas and completely avoid taxation. then you end up with less rich people and eventually your tax the rich plan is not effective because you've taxed them all out of the usa. where to you make up the deficit - middle class.

lowering taxes on business will not drive them away and will create a better environment for investment. investment will take place where the business know it will make more money. usa needs to be that place. not mexico. not overseas.

if you tax the crap out of the rich and they all go elsewhere your left with middle class consumers with no jobs.

it would be better to have a flat 15% tax with no loop holes so more people participate VS a 36% tax rate with less participation.

we need to stop vilifying successful people and take a bit more personal responsibility in oneself.

 

[Fred Weiss]

Yes, CONSUMERS



Again what is wealth without consumers?
What is an economy without consumers?






Without consumers to barter with, what choice does he have but let it rot?



Again, I fail to see where surplus without consumers does generate wealth.
Do you have examples?

What you are describing and failing understand is that commerce (the buying and selling of goods) may determine the value of any product but it has nothing to do with generating wealth. Wealth is nothing more than a measure of an individual's or group's holdings ... typically stated in the form of a widely accepted currency. The value of any given item is certainly made possible by the presence of an item to be sold, a seller and a buyer. The key difference here and what Bob and I and others are trying to get across is that such transactions DO NOT increase overall wealth. The providing of an item to market in the community that did not exist yesterday in a usable form is the only way overall wealth is created.

For example: You and your next door neighbor are both married. In your relationship, you have acquired as a consumer, both a rather tacky diamond engagement ring and a gold wedding band. Your neighbor went with just a gold wedding band. Neither of you saw any immediate change to your net worth because you each paid an amount that reflected the difference in the value of the goods being acquired. The jeweler from whom you bought the rings made a profit but then had to divide it up to pay his landlord, employees and suppliers ... all of whom saw their wealth acquisition (profit) disbursed into the overall economy so that barely a ripple resulted.

On the other hand, the diamond miner who found the diamond and the gold miner who extracted the gold both added wealth to both themselves and the overall wealth of the world because these resources did not previously exist in any usable form. That added wealth will exist for as long as the gold and diamonds exist and humans place value on them.

In summary, transactions between sellers and consumers is a zero sum game which do not add any new wealth to overall holdings. In your argument, neither the seller nor the consumer would have anything to transact without the producer. The producer is playing in a non zero sum game and is the one generating new wealth. It is only the providing of new tangible or intangible items that actually add to the overall wealth of any individual's or group's valuation of wealth.

In another example made more complicated because any number of manufacturers including a sign business add value, 3M buys chemicals mostly manufactured from petroleum extracted from the earth by drilling wells and pumping it out, then distilling it and refining it into different chemicals that 3M ultimately uses to manufacture an adhesive backed roll of printable media that the sign shop then adds value by imaging on it and turning it into a sign or a wrap or a banner. All are generating NEW wealth. This is a non zero sum game. The buyer displays the sign and acquires EXISTING wealth through greater sales of whatever the buyer sells. This is a zero sum game. Ultimately, however, the new wealth created in the non zero sum game is lost to the product wearing out or becoming outdated.

 

[randya]

producers vs consumer debate here and how it applies to us.

you cant just tax the crap out of the rich. they will just move their operations overseas and completely avoid taxation. then you end up with less rich people and eventually your tax the rich plan is not effective because you've taxed them all out of the usa. where to you make up the deficit - middle class.

Tariffs just like most everyone else uses to protect their own economy.
Called VATs now.

lowering taxes on business will not drive them away and will create a better environment for investment. investment will take place where the business know it will make more money. usa needs to be that place. not mexico. not overseas.

Currently, the Mexican VAT rate within 10 miles of the US southern border is 11%. This compares to the national standard VAT rate of 16%. The discount is to help keep Mexican companies competitive against imports from the US where there is no VAT. http://www.vatlive.com/americas/mexican-business-opposes-vat-boost-in-border-region/

So taxes have been lowered on the very rich in the US, where are the jobs?
Where is the money.

Not invested in foreign companys, but hoarded:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederi...21-trillion-offshore-study-says/#54e5f21a73d3

if you tax the crap out of the rich and they all go elsewhere your left with middle class consumers with no jobs.

it would be better to have a flat 15% tax with no loop holes so more people participate VS a 36% tax rate with less participation.

The rich arent willing to go from 0% tax rate to a 15%, that's why this hasnt happened, and WON'T happen from the top down.

we need to stop vilifying successful people and take a bit more personal responsibility in oneself.

Successful people make their success, at least in the US, from the commons, from the laws that allow them to operate and have intellectual property, from the schools that educate their workers to roads that get their workers to their shops, to electrical grid and water supply and the laws that allow competition.

Successful people should be lauded to their success and for supporting the infrastructure that allows them to be successful.
Those that fail to support the infrastructure that allowed their own success, should be called out on it.

 

[boxerbay]

I dont agree with any of this.

creating a VAT on imports only makes imports more expensive for unemployed people that cant buy anything anyways.
they are hoarding because the current direction of this economy with a 1% GDP growth is murky at best.
ford is investing in mexico. so is FCA. and other autos - why cheaper cost of labor and less red tape.
I think your confusing the corporate tax rate with a personal income tax rate. some rich people pay zero taxes because everything is done through corporations.

So you're saying USA should do more Solyndras? that was a flop.
Companies building infrastructure? they try but are held up with red tape and regulations - look at the pipe lines being held up - keystone and dakota. millions in extra costs.

there needs to be a better balance. it currently seems to be a hostile environment for companies that employ people.

the water of wealth will always flow and seek the least path of resistance. we should try to have it flow through usa.

Tariffs just like most everyone else uses to protect their own economy.
Called VATs now.




Currently, the Mexican VAT rate within 10 miles of the US southern border is 11%. This compares to the national standard VAT rate of 16%. The discount is to help keep Mexican companies competitive against imports from the US where there is no VAT. http://www.vatlive.com/americas/mexican-business-opposes-vat-boost-in-border-region/

So taxes have been lowered on the very rich in the US, where are the jobs?
Where is the money.

Not invested in foreign companys, but hoarded:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederi...21-trillion-offshore-study-says/#54e5f21a73d3




The rich arent willing to go from 0% tax rate to a 15%, that's why this hasnt happened, and WON'T happen from the top down.




Successful people make their success, at least in the US, from the commons, from the laws that allow them to operate and have intellectual property, from the schools that educate their workers to roads that get their workers to their shops, to electrical grid and water supply and the laws that allow competition.

Successful people should be lauded to their success and for supporting the infrastructure that allows them to be successful.
Those that fail to support the infrastructure that allowed their own success, should be called out on it.

 

[randya]

What you are describing and failing understand is that commerce (the buying and selling of goods) may determine the value of any product but it has nothing to do with generating wealth.

I am failing to understand that.

What is wealth without commerce?

The providing of an item to market in the community that did not exist yesterday in a usable form is the only way overall wealth is created.

A 'market' of what?

What is a market without consumers?

For example: You and your next door neighbor are both married. In your relationship, you have acquired as a consumer, both a rather tacky diamond engagement ring and a gold wedding band. Your neighbor went with just a gold wedding band. Neither of you saw any immediate change to your net worth because you each paid an amount that reflected the difference in the value of the goods being acquired. The jeweler from whom you bought the rings made a profit but then had to divide it up to pay his landlord, employees and suppliers ... all of whom saw their wealth acquisition (profit) disbursed into the overall economy so that barely a ripple resulted.

On the other hand, the diamond miner who found the diamond and the gold miner who extracted the gold both added wealth to both themselves and the overall wealth of the world because these resources did not previously exist in any usable form. That added wealth will exist for as long as the gold and diamonds exist and humans place value on them.

"and humans place value on them."

You mean a consumer market?

https://priceonomics.com/post/45768546804/diamonds-are-********

http://are.berkeley.edu/~sberto/DeBeersDiamondIndustry.pdf

In the diamond industry, by far, the largest 'wealth' is created by marketing, not diamonds or the true lack of scarcity, but by marketing to CONSUMERS.

In summary, transactions between sellers and consumers is a zero sum game which do not add any new wealth to overall holdings.

And yet without these transactions from consumers the diamonds have no value, and these transactions create value in the business that the store in which the rings were sold, value in land assessment of those businesses, value in the marketing used to attract consumers, value in the transportation of consumer to those businesses, value in the services surrounding diamonds, like weddings, bakeries, gowns and tuxes, etc.

In your argument, neither the seller nor the consumer would have anything to transact without the producer.

And without the seller and consumer what is the WEALTH of the product produced?

The producer is playing in a non zero sum game and is the one generating new wealth. It is only the providing of new tangible or intangible items that actually add to the overall wealth of any individual's or group's valuation of wealth.

No, again, without consumers who desire the product there is no valuation of wealth for the producers.

Back to widgets, you could produce a trillion widgets a second and produce absolutely no wealth in widgets.

 

[OldPaint]

bob is right on.........
i guess these youngin's never knew this but ill put it out there for em.
PROSTITUTION...............is the 2nd OLDEST PROFESSION
and she needed a sign)))))))))))))))from the 1st oldest profession)))))

 

[TimToad]

producers vs consumer debate here and how it applies to us.

you cant just tax the crap out of the rich. they will just move their operations overseas and completely avoid taxation. then you end up with less rich people and eventually your tax the rich plan is not effective because you've taxed them all out of the usa. where to you make up the deficit - middle class.

lowering taxes on business will not drive them away and will create a better environment for investment. investment will take place where the business know it will make more money. usa needs to be that place. not mexico. not overseas.

if you tax the crap out of the rich and they all go elsewhere your left with middle class consumers with no jobs.

it would be better to have a flat 15% tax with no loop holes so more people participate VS a 36% tax rate with less participation.

we need to stop vilifying successful people and take a bit more personal responsibility in oneself.

The rich have ALREADY moved their operations overseas and we have had some of the lowest "effective" (after deductions, expenses, depreciations, credits, exemptions, writeoffs, etc.) tax rates in the industrialized world for decades. Every year, thousands of U.S. based corporations pay little or no taxes on vast earnings just by taking advantage of legal loopholes.

There is no proof that lowering taxes on business or corporations results in higher investment levels or higher morals or better treatment towards workers.

Between 75 and 85% of all new jobs are created by companies with under 25 employees. We do not need to maintain a tax structure that is tilted so heavily in the favor of the largest corporations and against the true job creators.

A flat tax has never worked in a dynamic economy like ours and is regressive to those at the bottom. If you only make $20,000 per year and have to pay $3,000 of it in taxes, that is quite different than if you make $200,000 and have to pay $30,000 in terms of quality of life. Nearly anyone could live quite nicely on $170,000k per year, but try living on $17,000 for a year and tell me how fair a flat tax is.

Besides, those higher up on the economic ladder actually use and benefit more from our system than those toiling at the bottom end. There is no comparison to the social and economic benefits a wealthy person receives compared to those at the bottom. You think our armies are sent into countries to "protect our national interests" in order to preserve our freedom and glory? No, its usually to protect some resource or economic interest. That kind of muscle and protection costs money and human resources. That needs to be accounted for.

If the ultra wealthy showed any gratitude, loyalty and acknowledgment to our entire society's well being and contribution to their ability to get as rich as they do, they wouldn't be villified.

 

[randya]

I dont agree with any of this.

creating a VAT on imports only makes imports more expensive for unemployed people that cant buy anything anyways.

And yet it financed the US until the Income Tax

]Tariffs were the largest (approaching 95% at times) source of federal revenue until the Federal income tax began after 1913. For well over a century the federal government was largely financed by tariffs averaging about 20% on foreign imports. There are no tariffs for imports or shipments from other states. Since the 1940s, foreign trade policies have focused more on reciprocal tariffs and low tariff rates rather than using tariffs as a significant source of Federal tax revenue.

they are hoarding because the current direction of this economy with a 1% GDP growth is murky at best.

China still has a 6.9 % GDP growth, so why are they hording money?

ford is investing in mexico. so is FCA. and other autos - why cheaper cost of labor and less red tape.

Of course, people are more disposable and the water and air are dirty, and the authorities are openly corrupt.

Why arent YOU moving to Mexico

I think your confusing the corporate tax rate with a personal income tax rate. some rich people pay zero taxes because everything is done through corporations.

So I am not confusing the corporate tax rate with a personal income tax rate.
Many corporations pay 0 taxes, or actually get billions in refunds.
(But of course, they have lobbyists that you dont, to help formulate the tax code)

Here's another: Between 2008 and 2010, a dozen major US corporations—including General Electric, ExxonMobil, and Verizon—paid a negative tax rate, despite collectively recording $171 billion in pretax US profits, according to an analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. Taken together, these companies' tax burden was -$2.5 billion, and ten of the companies recorded at least one no-tax year between 2008 and 2010. http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2011/06/ge-exxon-10-other-major-corporations-paid-negative-tax-rate

So you're saying USA should do more Solyndras? that was a flop.

Not near the flop of giving 2.5 BILLION to a dozen of the most PROFITABLE corporations in America.

there needs to be a better balance. it currently seems to be a hostile environment for companies that employ people.

A hostility created by the tax lawyers of the very rich to stifle competition against them.

the water of wealth will always flow and seek the least path of resistance. we should try to have it flow through usa.

You mean by giving breaks so that they can take their PROFITS from America and hide them in overseas accounts?
Rather than hold them responsible?