Okay, rapid fire "food for thought".
Risk and its place in market places and the federal government
Government actions aimed at limiting the free fall (bail outs) have actually ENCOURAGED risk. When you are "too big to fail", you no longer need to worry about the actions you take. The point missed in all of this bailout arguing was that SMALL BUSINESS wasn't too big to fail, and simply..... failed.
Hedge fund managers are/were able to receive a percentage of the gains their hedge fund earns. However, if these hedge funds lose...... it is the investors that lose. This caused excessive speculation at others' expense.
INflation via money printing/creation
When the government creates money out of thin air, it is LITERALLY stealing from each person owning those dollars. The government is then able to spend this money. It is a taxless tax. It is like taking your 8 oz of iced tea and mixing it with another 8 oz of water. You now have 8oz of poor tasting tea and the one diluting just got something for nothing.
Dilution most affects those with more..... for obvious reasons.
Home equity/ stock equity
If your house is worth 100,000 in a depression and 400,000 in a period of prosperity, then what is it worth? It is only real when you make it real!
Values go up/stay up with a limited amount of sellers vs buyers. In a situation where everyone wants to realize their "greater fool theory" possessions at once, prices will necessarily plunge.
There will ALWAYS be poor people. The real thing worth looking at is income mobility
The liars and idiots use poverty numbers incorrectly to prove their points.
Capital Gains and the Tax
Capital gains are profits made on gambles. Your entire gain is taxable and only 3,xxx of capital losses are deductible. There is no tax bracket for wage earners earning negative incomes.
-You make 50,000 in capital gains in 2012 and pay 5,000 in taxes on it
-You LOSE 50,000 investing in 2013. You will then be able to deduct 3,xxx for nearly 20 years.
Can you now see why it is not such a cut and dry issue (for and against taxing it like regular income).
SAVINGS!!!!(not spending money)
This is something that democrats trash more than anything. So let's look at what happens when you are thrifty!
When you save 10,000$ and keep it in the bank, that is NOT 10 grand in isolation from the economy. That 10 grand is able to lent out.
Now let's look at two different scenarios.
You buy a car RIGHT NOW. You get an auto loan. Let's say you get a 10k loan, and over 5 years (principal + interest) you end up paying 12k(200/mo payments). It doesnt end there. There is a cost associated had you saved money and built interest on it.
You buy a car in 5 years. You save 200$/mo, but as interest compounds that accrues etc etc. At the end of the 5 year period you have 12k + the interest accrued. You can now afford the same car and have money left over OR afford a more expensive car. You can then begin saving for your next car. It is a vicious cycle of wealth building that only requires an investment of....... time
Why is it that politicians just don't get this?
Borrowing to produce is different than borrowing to consume!
The minimum wage laws actually create UNEMPLOYMENT. Those that maintain employment benefit, but individuals not hired receive 0$/hour
It is common sense. To stay in business you have to stay profitable. If you have 100 in sales, and 70 in operating costs, then you can afford 4 minimum wage workers. Were it lower, you could afford 5 or more lower paid workers.
I am not advocating low pay. I am simply advocating performanced based pay. If a company only wishes to pay $3/hour, then it won't have any applicants.
What the minimum wage laws have done is simply defer costs onto the government. Those that would have otherwise be employed are now on unemployment etc. This like many other things can't be removed/reduced once in place........ so it is only worth discussion.
Top-down versus bottom-up economics
The liars and idiots love this one. The over-simplified view:
T-D: give tax cuts to the rich and theyll hire more, they will then have money to spend.
B-U: Give poor people money to spend, which spurs demand and then business will hire.
Just consider not what we should do, but what we should be as a country.
Job growth would be greater if there was no income tax, kinda common sense right? Remember, you can save all you want, you are allowing someone else to spend with your savings. Just think, if you had more money in your pocket right now..... would you spend more? Whether it be now or over 10 years?
Subsidies are literally rewards to do a specific behavior. Just look at all of the government tax breaks and grants etc out there. That is what the government wants you to do.
Now look at what is taxed. That is essentially the inverse. The more you earn the more you are "punished".
If you have 5 kids, the government will bless you with monetary benefits. People no longer have to plan on when to have kids with whether it is affordable or not, they can just go "do it". It is a reward for (in many cases) bad behavior. Rewarding bad behavior only begets more bad behavior.
Most of these are rather impossible to remove/reduce, so just more food for thought.
What does stimulus cost? Rather, what does any government spending cost? The liars and idiots will throw out the $ amount first spent. When in a fiscal situation that we are in there are additional costs that are rarely, if ever noted.
if you are currently borrowing........
a4, b3, c2, d1
Additional borrowing increases the borrowing costs for current and future expenses. You get:
a5, b4, c3, d2, e1
The increased cost to borrow on every expense is the real additional cost.