To my question: "Do they save or spend too much?"
I found Hiram's answer fascinating: "They tend to invest too much, and spend in ways that are wasteful."
Primarily because I have no idea what it means.
In my personal life I keep 2 sets of books. The first is the income and spending side. These are the funds I earn at my job and spend way too fast. The second is the long term savings or net worth accts. Thankfully my Parents beat it into my head to start saving some of the "income" early and often. Of course, this meant I had to be willing to live "below my means" in order to start that nest egg. Now that nest is pretty sizable, usually growing and I am certainly not touching it until the "income" side starts to decrease.
I don't see it as terribly different for most of the "Rich". Bill Gates has a huge nest egg that he has grown over the years. This nest egg funds the ongoing operations of likely hundreds of companies. He really isn't going to break into it, and would we really want him to?
As for spending "unwisely", is there such a thing? I mean no one would benefit if one went out and burned a pile of money. Other than that it seems that someone always benefits from most other transactions.
Being a "buy and use" it guy, I have never understood collectors and what they choose to buy. Yet even in this seemingly senseless transaction, many people gain. Look at the Antique Roadshow... Someone with excess money buys an old painting for $10,000. The agent gets a cut and the seller get cash. Then these folks can reinvest their gains or use them to pay employees, go to the D\dentist, buy clothes and even pay taxes.
I will never understand how folks think the Government spends more wisely... Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
My complaint continues to be with the super rich who pay too little taxes, partly because most of their income is capital gains. I am not going to attempt to say who should pay more or how much more, I am just certain that more dollars collected from them could be better spent putting people to work on something like fixing america's schools today than the wealthy buying more art, or sports cars, another vacation home, a jet, or a a bigger yacht There are plenty of unmet public needs for which the government could spend $ more wisely than leaving nearly all of it it in the hands of the mega rich.
As you can see I have calmed down enough to include hyperlinks and I am now working on finding a way to channel my anger through an activist organization.
The only people who can spend unwisely are governments. That is because each of us spends only what we are willing to spend to acquire that which we wish to acquire. Since it is OUR money, it is our choice as to what it goes towards. I suppose it is possible to "save" or invest too much, living so far below one's means that life is miserable (root word is "miser," you know) but even at that it is still a personal decision and government ought to butt out. The reason why capital gains are taxed at a lower rate is to encourage investment. Tax at a higher rate and investment drops, the economy slows, and government collects LESS in taxes. TANSTAAFL.
I also need to say that the problem of "too much investment," as opposed to too much spending, does NOT apply to government because government cannot and does not invest. They can spend money, which they first take from some productive individual or purpose, but it doesn't matter much what they spend it on, because there is no "return" on that investment to the people who produced the wealth in the first place. At the very best, government spends exactly the same dollars on exactly what the people who paid those tax dollars in would have bought. Everything beyond that is some form of waste.
J. Ewing
It looks like those yachts are employing a lot of people Thyssen Krupp And this is only the group that builds them.
Then you add the companies that provide the raw materials, the companies that provide the engines, drives and other purchased components, the sales organizations, the maintenance and Operation, etc. It looks like that $300 million dollar boat is providing for a whole lotta middle class supporting employment.
Definitely much more than that art collector...
As for "My complaint continues to be with the super rich who pay too little taxes, partly because most of their income is capital gains." Now you do understand that "Investors" are as likely to take those gains that they do not lose to the Gov't and reinvest them back into the companies that provide those middle class jobs that pay those taxes that fund those school teachers. These folks aren't likely to put it in cash and stuff it in their mattress.
And if they do get conservative somewhere along the line, they will likely buy government bonds that allow our Government to keep spending more than they make. I guess I would rather have that debt owned by our home grown super rich than those of foreign countries.
Now I of course do disagree with the statement that "government cannot and does not invest".
Since I equate Government with Our Society, and taxes with people paying dues. These dues are paid into Our Society so that we can all benefit from just that Investment that J denied exists.
We would not be the country we are without Our Society's investment in our infrastructure, education, security, Laws/Regulations, etc.
Many of the Misers would choose to not spend on things that improve our country, yet as part of their agreeing to live here.... They will pay whether they want to or not...
And as always, if you do not like our society's rules.. People are free to lobby or move to some third world country that does not force the spend of "their" money. Of course there may be some downsides to that for them... (ie less income potential, less security, fewer capable employees, etc)
The only people who can spend unwisely are governments.
I would add Denny Hecker's name to the list.
--Hiram
I think you are confusing government spending on legitimate purposes like infrastructure and defense with "investments." It's partly a matter of definition. If government were a corporation, all of these expenses would go on the expense side of the ledger. We spend money today, out of current revenues, to procure something that we wish to buy today. We do NOT spend out of a stock of "capital" that we get from willing investors hoping for a monetary return from our continuing (and more productive, presumably) operation. Government builds the road, and (presumably) society benefits by moving goods and services more economically to market, and government "profits" by taxing the increased economic activity. But they NEVER, you notice, pay back the original "investors." The money is gone and the books are washed.
On the other hand, if you consider that enough private companies or individuals believe they could increase profits from a road directly from X to Y, why could they NOT get together and build it? Maybe charge a toll for anybody that did not chip in on the original but later wanted to use it? THAT is an investment. Anything which government spends on, which people would spend on privately given the organizational ability to do so, is a waste to the degree that government does it less efficiently, and spends money from those who do not benefit from the service to do it.
J. Ewing
Companies and Government both spend "expense" and "capital". And of course we are all getting a huge return on our dues/investment.
We have a safe, stable, and law governed society where we are free to work, invest and make lots of money. (and even keep most of it) I can't think of any other better investment or return.
As I mentioned, we are all free to move to Mexico. They likely have much lower "dues". Though the security, services and rule of law may leave something to be desired.
The reality is that Government is what happened when many people wanted to invest in new roads, better security, standard laws, improved education, etc. This entity was not forced on our Society as it is in many other countries. We as a whole freely chose it. And we as a whole guide it forward.
And yes Denny Hecker did not do so well... Though his activities are funding a lot of lawyers, Judges, etc. However, let's not confuse poor ethics and illegal activities with poor spending.
"We have a safe, stable, and law governed society where we are free to work, invest and make lots of money. (and even keep most of it) I can't think of any other better investment or return."
So why aren't taxes voluntary? Heck, /I/ would certainly be willing to pay for THAT, in a heartbeat! In fact, without quibbling with the details, I'll pay my "dues" for the Defense Department (about 25%), for courts and law enforcement (about 2%), and half of "other" (about 3%). Education and roads are largely paid out of my state taxes, so they don't count. By my reckoning, then, my taxes (and federal spending) should be 70% lower, no tax increase needed.
I still say these things aren't investments in the same sense as private investments in private enterprise, but that distinction is incidental when you consider how much more government spends that is NOT invested in any sense. Again, I think government, unless tightly constrained, is the greatest mechanism for wasting money conceived by man. If I stood on a street corner throwing dollar bills down the drain I could do better. First, it would be my money I did it with and second, it wouldn't come back to me as over-regulation of my neighbor's productive enterprise.
J. Ewing
As I have said before and I will say again, technically they are voluntary... We are free to move to another country/society at any time.
Please expand on "over regulation"? That sounds interesting...
No, we are NOT free to move to another country at any time. That represents a huge financial, emotional, spiritual, mental and physical cost that is not voluntary. Why should my government, that supposedly represents and looks after my interests, force me to choose between that cost and the huge cost of unnecessarily high taxation here at home? And it is forcing that choice; it is not a voluntary choice because taxes and regulation aren't voluntary. Don't believe me, try not paying your taxes, or just underpaying them a little.
I don't seem to be explaining this very well. What I have pointed out is that government not only spends huge amounts of money that I would not spend given the choice, on things that I do not see a benefit from (therefore, I'm not making an "investment") but moreover and in most cases they spend that money doing things, i.e. regulating and taxing, that actually hamper private investment and private enterprise-- things like Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, the IRS, Social Security, etc. It's a monster for which the solution isn't hoping that he will eat you last, but rather that the monster be starved into submission.
J. Ewing
The relationship we have with our government isn't contractual, it's based on a covenant. "Covenant" is a concept familiar to many Christians, maybe from Sunday school classes. What it means is that we are bound by the agreements of others. God and Abraham made a covenant that Jews and Christians would say bind some or all of us. So did God and Moses.
Covenant is also a legal term. In terms of legal philosophy, the constitution is a covenant that binds us along with the laws passed under it's provisions, even though none of us actually signed it ourselves. You may disagree with that. You may think that you are not bound by a constitution or laws that you have not personally agreed to, and that is your right, and it's one protected by the very documents you reject. It is my opinion, however, that the rejection of the constitution and the constitutional government, which is becoming increasingly widespread is why our system is failing.
--Hiram
Our government/society has been tasked by our ancestors/society with balancing and looking out for everyone's interest, not just J Ewing's. This is where Conservatives seem to get self centered and forget this.
In fact the Constitution/Covenant committed us not to only helping fellow Americans, but to inferred helping the down trodden everywhere. They were definitely some idealistic folk.
As for freedom, I am often told by people that they are frustrated by their boss, employer, job, etc. Or spouses that complain that they want to be home with their kids. In all these cases these folks state your same argument that they have to "keep their job". They insist that they have no choice. I then remind them as I am with you, these are all choices in our country. Thank God !!!
As for Dodd-Frank, Sarbanes-Oxley, the IRS, Social Security, etc. You can thank those that were extremely self centered for forcing Society to try and protect against their past abuses being repeated.
If everyone could just live a virtuous and giving live, just think of all the laws and regs we could get rid of. And we would not need any policemen, judges, lawyers, etc. Now isn't that silly talk.
"Our government/society has been tasked by our ancestors/society with balancing and looking out for everyone's interest, not just J Ewing's."
I don't think our government has been tasked with much of anything at all. Perhaps the most important thing to understand about our constitution is that it isn't a policy document. It set up a mechanism for deciding political issues, it didn't decide them itself for the most part.
The founders weren't big on the downtrodden. They were men of property, the elite of their day. Some of them held their fellow human beings in bondage. They viewed the public and public opinion with deep suspicion, something that shows in a number of ways in the document they created. They weren't big on foreign adventurism, even the ones who would do such adventuring when the opportunity arose.
--Hiram
Hiram,
You have convinced me, screw the poor, down trodden and lazy... I'm in it for me... Oops, my Conservative side is showing again.
But on a more serious note, I agree that I was incorrect about the Constitution guiding us that way. Though some of the ammendments seem to support the concept.
Here are some more guiding documents that have shape our society's belief system.
Give us your poor...
Declaration of Independence
And we build on this history every year our Society votes people into office that further "helping the down trodden everywhere".
Maybe they are wrong and the pendulum needs to swing back towards self reliance?
Well, neither the poems of Emma Lazarus, nor the observations of Mr. Jefferson concerning American independence have the force of law.
--Hiram
I agree... Just giving you a hard time.
The Constitution is indeed a covenant, but it is binding only on government and what government may properly due without decreasing individual freedoms. As I have pointed out, about 70% of what our federal government does would not pass Constitutional muster or "original intent." If the Government doesn't live within its proper and highly specific bounds, why am I bound by this far more nebulous "covenant"?
J. Ewing
If this is true, in your opinion why haven't the US Distrct and Supreme Courts resolved these issues?
It seems to me folks would be bringing the "violating laws" they oppose to them as soon as they could. It seems to be talked about everytime a controversial bill is passed.
So is 70% your number or the Supreme Court's number? I am guessing they have a different opinion. Thoughts?
"If the Government doesn't live within its proper and highly specific bounds, why am I bound by this far more nebulous "covenant"?"
Under the covenant, you don't get to make that call. The constitution provides a process through which laws can be reviewed, for among other things, what it's proper bounds might be and whether it lives within those bounds. The covenant binds us whether we agree with those decisions or not.
--Hiram
The 70% is my number, based on excluding from the federal budget all transfer payments to individuals. I don't care how many acts of Congress or the courts say it is "legal" by majority rule. It is still like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. And how does that system work when you run out of sheep?
J. Ewing
So you are saying the Supreme Court of America is corrupted due to the personal bias its Justices carry? Even though near wars have been fought between the Left and Right to ensure their viewpoints are fairly addressed by its membership. Interesting.
Any chance that your legal opinions are just incorrect?
So you are saying the Supreme Court of America is corrupted due to the personal bias its Justices carry?
I don't think that remark was imputed to me, and I wouldn't refer to corruption, but sure, court decision are influenced by what we personal perspectives, something we could call bias. That's just the way of things.
Any chance that your legal opinions are just incorrect?
My opinions are often different from the Supreme Court's. That doesn't make them wrong or the Supreme Court's opinions wrong. The law is not like arithmetic where the rightness and wrongness of answers is a routine thing. That the opinions of the Supreme Court are law, and that they are binding, even when the court has the presumptuousness to disagree with me is something I accept. It's a part of the covenant.
--Hiram
I don't think the courts should be involved in setting US tax and spending decisions-- that's a job for the legislature and the jumble of rulings related to such properly legislative decisions are testament to that problem. We should not have to go to the courts to get Congress to live within its proper Constitutional (or moral) authority.
Taking from one citizen to give to another is theft, pure and simple. Doing it under color of authority doesn't change that, it just leads to problems exactly like what we have now, where government is running out of "other people's money" to spend. Again, the only party that can "spend poorly" is government, because they are spending somebody else's money on a third party. They don't care how much they spend or what gets bought or what the third party might need or want.
J. Ewing
Taking from one citizen to give to another is theft, pure and simple.
The other day, I took a tube of toothpaste out of a Target store. Did I commit theft? Did it make a difference that I paid for it? Taxes are legal, and the people, through their elected officials have the right to impose them and to decide what to do with them. The constitution is not some sort of organizing document for a criminal cabal.
--Hiram
Ah, but the Constitution as written did not contain a progressive income tax provision. That was purely a creation of the 16th Amendment and a money-grubbing liberal Congress. Even then, it was promised that only the very rich would pay any taxes at all, and then only 1% or so. Indeed, there is a famous quote from a lone Congressional voice stating that "If we pass this tax as it is now written, it could eventually be driven up, by future Congresses, to as much as 1%!" That's certainly a case of not knowing the half of it.
But, since that is what we were promised or had reason to expect, how is our current 10, 20 or even 35% tax rates something we "covenanted" for? And if the legitimate purpose of taxation is to fund the necessary and essential operations of government, then why is the giving of ANY tax money to individuals not an illegitimate act equivalent to thievery? Government SERVICES should go to everybody equally, and essentially they do. But government cash should pay for those services, not end up in individual citizen pockets.
J. Ewing
"Ah, but the Constitution as written did not contain a progressive income tax provision."
They left that issue to policy makers. Quite rightly. It's really important to understand that the Constitution is not a policy document. It did nothing more than create institutions of government which would decide policy.
"But, since that is what we were promised or had reason to expect, how is our current 10, 20 or even 35% tax rates something we "covenanted" for?"
The covenant is that we are bound by the laws our elected officials enact. And those are the provisions our elected officials enacted.
"And if the legitimate purpose of taxation is to fund the necessary and essential operations of government, then why is the giving of ANY tax money to individuals not an illegitimate act equivalent to thievery?"
Because theft is the taking of property without right. We, through our elected officials, have the right to enact tax laws, and to distribute the money generated by such taxes as we see fit.
Is the constitution legitimate? Or illegitimate? If the former, what the government does is lawful. If the latter, what the government does is not lawful.
--Hiram
Why are the citizens the ones bound by the Constitution, while anything government does is "legitimate"? Isn't the situation and, indeed, the desired "original intent" that it should be exactly the other way around? Just because government decides to do something does not mean that is what "we" want them to do. Obamacare is a great example. If it is stricken down as unconstitutional at some future (but hopefully imminent) date, is it constitutional up to that time, or not? If the court finds it constitutional today by 5-4, and 20 years from now reverses itself 4-5, was it ever legitimate? Governments arrogate power unto themselves and personal freedom is diminished; it is the way of things. As messy as freedom is, where some people work hard and get rich and others take it easier and do not, it is not the purpose nor capability of government to create a "fair" result. No one person or group has the ability nor the right to do that, because it isn't possible.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment