The Super Rich Are Richer Than We Thought, Hiding Huge Sums

[Zaap]

You guys do know that Economics isn't a zero-sum game, right?

LOL. Says the guy making classic zero-sum arguments, like:

"Having a million people with a thousand extra dollars to spend a month is better for the economy then a single person with 100 Million dollars."

It's pure zero-sum thinking that believes one person having 100 million is at the expense of a million people not having 1 thousand dollars they otherwise would. Its just pure nonsense. There's no finite pile of money that gets split up among everyone so that one person having more means others have less... that dimbulb zero-sum thinking.

There's litterally no such thing (nor will there ever be) as taking one person's 100 mill (or whatever amount) and divvying it up among a million people in some warped idea of "fairness". If people want or need an extra $1k, the only way is to go earn it and add value into the economy that makes that $1k worth having in the first place. There is no "steal it from the rich guy" trade-up program that actually works, no matter how much lazy people dream of it.

Even at face value your whole premise is completely wrong. Even using your 100mil strawman as an example its easily seen for its flaws.

You say that one person's 100 mill does nothing; like it sits in an Uncle Scrooge vault litterally in the form of bills and gold coins that the rich guy jumps around in and skis on piles of.

So you somehow confiscate it and pass it around to a million people and they go buy 100 mill worth of Twinkies, iPods, burger king, clothes, beer, into a slot machine, whatever...

Okay. Money is spent. So then what?

Its a one time transaction. Where's your next 100 mill coming from to feed this raging economy you've created? More theft?

Meanwhile, the guy who has it in investments is allowing companies to use that money to do business, create jobs, grow and expand. This keeps taking place as long as the money is invested, traded, interest earned and more shares bought and sold. Its not just a one time transaction like your redistribution example, its an ongoing process. Even if the person just puts the 100mil in a bank its allowing the bank to invest in the economy and have capitol for loans.

Of course everyone else working, earning and spending their own money also drives the economy, but one doesn't actually exist at the expense of the other the way simplistic-minded people always bleat on about.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Are you blind or stupid? Read the thread, dipshit.

What makes you think I agree with that fuck? Because we both don't agree with you?

Again, you see things black and white, 1's and 0's, yes or no. You have proven yourself to not be a fully cognitively functioning adult. It would behoove you to take a 200 level psychology class on interpersonal relations and personality disorders. Usually these are 242 and 252. Maybe that would open your eyes on how you are perceived and how to fix it.

 

[kia75]

So, again, is the money these people are keeping being hoarded in mattresses? Or is it sitting in a bank account or some other type of account? And do you suppose it's sitting there in a heap, or is the bank lending it out to people and businesses?

If you're going to make an argument, make an argument instead of asking leading question.

Where you thing the money these people are hoarding is being kept? Do you think they're hoarding it in a matress? Or in a bank account or some other type of account?

I'm going to give you a hint, check the OP and it'll tell you exactly where the money is being kept. But again, YOU make YOUR argument. Don't rely on me to make your argument for you.

 

[Fern]

The question we should be asking is why do the wealthy from all over the world feel the need to keep so much of their money outside of the USA. They used to keep much of here.

IMO, when the wealthy move their money, whether it be in or out of the market or to a another country, it should tell us something.

Fern

 

[kia75]

Well Paul pays $4.50 for bread, because he paid $0.50 in taxes, and the baker paid $4.00 for grain because he paid taxes.

Wait, so who is killing the economy?

What is your argument? Are you really so ignorant that you're arguing that police officers and other government officials don't provide an economic good? Or that government can't put money in the economy by building roads and other such economic goods?

Again, we're dealing with very simple first semester economics but we can go as simple or as complex as you'd like.

 

[Matt1970]

What is your argument? Are you really so ignorant that you're arguing that police officers and other government officials don't provide an economic good? Or that government can't put money in the economy by building roads and other such economic goods?

Again, we're dealing with very simple first semester economics but we can go as simple or as complex as you'd like.

Perhaps you should learn what creating wealth actually means before you start teaching the complex economics.

 

[Incorruptible]

They're hiding money outside the US because taxes are too high. Also their money is being used for idiotic government programs and it's being wasted.

 

[kia75]

LOL. Says the guy making classic zero-sum arguments, like:

"Having a million people with a thousand extra dollars to spend a month is better for the economy then a single person with 100 Million dollars."

It's pure zero-sum thinking that believes one person having 100 million is at the expense of a million people not having 1 thousand dollars they otherwise would. Its just pure nonsense. There's no finite pile of money that gets split up among everyone so that one person having more means others have less... that dimbulb zero-sum thinking.

It's pure zero-sum thinking that believes a million people having $1,000 is at the expense of one person with 100 million dollars. It's just pure nonsense. There's no finite pile of money that gets split up among everyone so that some people having more means one person has less. That's dimbulb zero-sum thinking.


Glad we agree! A rising tide raises all boats.

There's litterally no such thing (nor will there ever be) as taking one person's 100 mill (or whatever amount) and divvying it up among a million people in some warped idea of "fairness". If people want or need an extra $1k, the only way is to go earn it and add value into the economy that makes that $1k worth having in the first place. There is no "steal it from the rich guy" trade-up program that actually works, no matter how much lazy people dream of it.

Even at face value your whole premise is completely wrong. Even using your 100mil strawman as an example its easily seen for its flaws.

So... Stealing is wrong? Glad we agree. I'm a bit confused why you bring up stealing. You're the one that mentioned stealing it from the rich guy.

So... you're saying that if 1000 people each made economic value that's worth an extra 1k, that's good, right? And it's better to have 1000 small businesses then 1 single super-business, right?

You say that one person's 100 mill does nothing; like it sits in an Uncle Scrooge vault litterally in the form of bills and gold coins that the rich guy jumps around in and skis on piles of.

So you're saying that putting all the money in a vault like Scrooge McDuck is bad. OK. I agree.

So you somehow confiscate it and pass it around to a million people and they go buy 100 mill worth of Twinkies, iPods, burger king, clothes, beer, into a slot machine, whatever...

Okay. Money is spent. So then what?

Its a one time transaction. Where's your next 100 mill coming from to feed this raging economy you've created? More theft?

Meanwhile, the guy who has it in investments is allowing companies to use that money to do business, create jobs, grow and expand. This keeps taking place as long as the money is invested, traded, interest earned and more shares bought and sold. Its not just a one time transaction like your redistribution example, its an ongoing process. Even if the person just puts the 100mil in a bank its allowing the bank to invest in the economy and have capitol for loans.

Ok, so let me make certain I understand what you're saying. Investing money into the economy helps the entire economy, right? Local banks re-invest the money locally, allow economic opportunities and help people make their own million dollars? Wonderful! We've got a thriving economy!


Now, let's pretend I "invest" $100 million dollars in the Cayman islands. How is a local businessman supposed to borrow money from the Cayman Islands? How does anyone borrow money from the Cayman Islands? Or other tax-cheat havens? What local industry can there be in the Cayman Islands for the Cayman bank to invest in? What happens to money put in off-shore accounts?

Of course everyone else working, earning and spending their own money also drives the economy, but one doesn't actually exist at the expense of the other the way simplistic-minded people always bleat on about.

Like all things, it's complicated. You're getting the term "financial investment" confused with "economic investment" (i.e. buying a million dollars worth of gold and hiding it under my bed in the hopes that the price of gold will go up is a "financial investment" but it isn't an "economic investment".) An economic investment would be something like new equipment, or training for employees, or something that helps the local company. Economic investments HELP the local economy. Financial Investments on the other hand can help or hinder the local economy. Investing in a new company can be beneficial for the economy, while investing in Gold is bad for the economy, because that money disappears from circulation.

Basically, putting your money in the bank is bad for the economy, because money in a bank is removed from circulation. The bank lending money out is good for the economy because it puts money into circulation. So a bank putting more money into circulation then it takes out is good. A bank taking out more money from circulation then it puts back in is bad for the economy. A bank in an off-shore haven tends to do the latter.

 

[kia75]

Perhaps you should learn what creating wealth actually means before you start teaching the complex economics.

Then what does it mean? Make your argument. Show your reasoning. I want to discuss things with you in good faith, but you're not making any arguments.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

They're hiding money outside the US because taxes are too high. Also their money is being used for idiotic government programs and it's being wasted.

Which is funny because our taxes for a western economy are VERY low...

This confirms you're a bot.

Also, if people break the law, shouldn't they be held accountable? Rich or poor?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Then what does it mean? Make your argument. Show your reasoning. I want to discuss things with you in good faith, but you're not making any arguments.

Matt argues, not discusses. It's a lost cause with him.

 

[Zaap]

So... Stealing is wrong? Glad we agree. I'm a bit confused why you bring up stealing. You're the one that mentioned stealing it from the rich guy.

Because you were spouting the usual nonsense about some 'better way' someone's 100 million is supposed to be spread through the economy.

So... you're saying that if 1000 people each made economic value that's worth an extra 1k, that's good, right? And it's better to have 1000 small businesses then 1 single super-business, right?

None of these things have a thing to do with each other, or anything I was saying. You're just tossing shit up to see what sticks at this point.

Now, let's pretend I "invest" $100 million dollars in the Cayman islands. How is a local businessman supposed to borrow money from the Cayman Islands? How does anyone borrow money from the Cayman Islands? Or other tax-cheat havens? What local industry can there be in the Cayman Islands for the Cayman bank to invest in? What happens to money put in off-shore accounts?

According to the usual tax and spend morons who're always pretending to manage everyone else's money, rich people only pay capital gains taxes. If you're paying capital gains taxes, then that's taxes on... *drumroll.....* capital gains! That means money you've invested and realized a profit on, or on the profit from the sale of property. That doesn't mean all your money is in the Caymans. But of course, when people are fantasy-managing other people's money, they can have things both ways, sideways, upside down, backward and whatever way they want to fantasize about.

As for putting money in offshore accounts and keeping as much of it out of the hands of busibody tax-and-spend losers, (or if a foreign investor, not bringing it here in the first place) I don't blame ANYONE for keeping their money out of the hands of greedy, stupid dimbulbs in this country. People in this country embracing a sub-third world culture of complete stupidity and ignorance are signaling to the financial world that they're forfeiting dibs on benefiting from any of that economic activity. There are other people throughout the world that are evolving in the other direction that more and more every day are demonstrating that they are a better bet.

Until our nation comes back to its senses and stops breeding and coddling dimbulbs en masse, I'm all for this.

Like all things, it's complicated. You're getting the term "financial investment" confused with "economic investment" (i.e. buying a million dollars worth of gold and hiding it under my bed in the hopes that the price of gold will go up is a "financial investment" but it isn't an "economic investment".)

Thats just a silly example you purposefully picked to make your point work. Most anyone with a decent amount of money invested doesn't just have it in gold stashed under the bed, they have a mix of stocks and bonds and such, along with hard assets.

An economic investment would be something like new equipment, or training for employees, or something that helps the local company. Economic investments HELP the local economy. Financial Investments on the other hand can help or hinder the local economy. Investing in a new company can be beneficial for the economy, while investing in Gold is bad for the economy, because that money disappears from circulation.

Again, your "gold as the only investment vehicle" example is just silly. Anyone with 100 million invested in stocks is doing a FUCK-TON more that's building up companies that money is invested in than your example of a bunch of people spending $1,000 ONE TIME.

Basically, putting your money in the bank is bad for the economy, because money in a bank is removed from circulation.

LOL! Okay, I give up. You're pretty clueless.

 

[kia75]

With all the back and forth sometimes the point of the thread, and the point of discussion is lost, so let me restate my point. I don't think the rich are immoral for using tax havens. I put no value judgement what-so-ever on doing this stuff. If I was rich, I'd do the same thing.

My position is that letting rich people put their money in tax havens is bad for the United States Economy, and the United States is stupid for letting so much money leave our economy.

Because you were spouting the usual nonsense about some 'better way' someone's 100 million is supposed to be spread through the economy.
None of these things have a thing to do with each other, or anything I was saying. You're just tossing shit up to see what sticks at this point.

The point is that a single rich person can't possibly spend a $100 million dollars, while many not as rich people can spend $1000 dollars. It is better for the economy to have many well-off people then a single super rich one.

According to the usual tax and spend morons who're always pretending to manage everyone else's money, rich people only pay capital gains taxes. If you're paying capital gains taxes, then that's taxes on... *drumroll.....* capital gains! That means money you've invested and realized a profit on, or on the profit from the sale of property. That doesn't mean all your money is in the Caymans. But of course, when people are fantasy-managing other people's money, they can have things both ways, sideways, upside down, backward and whatever way they want to fantasize about.

You're setting up a strawman. I've never said rich people ONLY pay Capital Gains tax, most people pay many kind of taxes such as sales taxes, property taxes, and income tax. Paying one doesn't mean that you don't pay for the others.

Saying I had milk for breakfast doesn't preclude me from also having eggs or pancakes. We're just talking about the milk for the moment.

As for putting money in offshore accounts and keeping as much of it out of the hands of busibody tax-and-spend losers, (or if a foreign investor, not bringing it here in the first place) I don't blame ANYONE for keeping their money out of the hands of greedy, stupid dimbulbs in this country. People in this country embracing a sub-third world culture of complete stupidity and ignorance are signaling to the financial world that they're forfeiting dibs on benefiting from any of that economic activity. There are other people throughout the world that are evolving in the other direction that more and more every day are demonstrating that they are a better bet.
Until our nation comes back to its senses and stops breeding and coddling dimbulbs en masse, I'm all for this.

You are confusing what's best for Rich People with what's best for the economy. If it was in my best interest to put my money in an off-shore account, I would do so in a heartbeat. At the same time you have to admit that it is bad for the American economy to have the rich put their money in a tax-haven. You play by the rules that exist, it doesn't mean you approve of the rules, or think they shouldn't be changed.

Thats just a silly example you purposefully picked to make your point work. Most anyone with a decent amount of money invested doesn't just have it in gold stashed under the bed, they have a mix of stocks and bonds and such, along with hard assets.

Again, your "gold as the only investment vehicle" example is just silly. Anyone with 100 million invested in stocks is doing a FUCK-TON more that's building up companies that money is invested in than your example of a bunch of people spending $1,000 ONE TIME.

Again, you're claiming absolutes when there isn't one. The hypothetical goldbug could invest in stocks AND buy gold. Someone can have money in a local bank AND a Cayman Island account. Someone can invest in stocks, buy gold, have cash, and have a Cayman Island account. Just because you do one thing doesn't mean you can't do other stuff. Just because someone had milk for breakfast doesn't mean they can't have a bagel and cereal too. But we're not talking about the bagel and cereal, we're talking about milk.

Confusing financial investment with economic investment is a real thing that's being done in this very thread. Investing in gold might be beneficial for you, but it's bad for the economy. You're right, I chose Gold because it's a well-known financial investment vehicle that's bad for the economy. Our hypothetical millionaire could be making tons of good economic investments and be a net plus for the economy, but all of his gold investments are and will be a loss for the economy, even if they turn out to be beneficial for him.

LOL! Okay, I give up. You're pretty clueless.

Sigh, The Paradox of Thrift is a well-known part of economic theory.

Again, I think you're confusing what's best for you, with what's best for the economy. I save money because, frankly, it'd be stupid for me not to. It's obvious that saving money is great for me.

At the same time, saving money removes the money from circulation. Removing money from circulation is BAD for the economy. Circulating money (i.e. spending it) is good for the economy. This is basic economic theory, first semester conversations.

 

[Sunburn74]

The two fundamental issues with the concentration of wealth in this country are:
1) as well concentrates, spending goes down, which means resources derived from public spending for public goods, public programs, and necessities go down. The simple way to think about it is like this: a guy who makes 1000 times what I make, doesn't spend 1000 times the money in the grocery store over the course of a year. As the OP points out, a lot of it essentially gets pulled out of circulation. The biggest hit from the lack of public financial resources derived from spending is likely educational funding which means you have a less educated populace, less lucrative jobs, less development overall as a country and etc.

2) It undermines democracy. As we all know, wealth is political say power and the concentration of wealth is the concentration of political power. When the top richest 400 people in the country, make more combined than the bottom 150 million, you can see how that top 400 have a much bigger say in the direction of the country. I'm pretty sure this is not the way its supposed to be.

 

[dmcowen674]

2) It undermines democracy. As we all know, wealth is political say power and the concentration of wealth is the concentration of political power. When the top richest 400 people in the country, make more combined than the bottom 150 million, you can see how that top 400 have a much bigger say in the direction of the country. I'm pretty sure this is not the way its supposed to be.

Well the Supreme Court think that's the way it is supposed to be as they just lifted the amount of money the rich are allowed to spend on putting who they want in office.

 

[boomerang]

The question we should be asking is why do the wealthy from all over the world feel the need to keep so much of their money outside of the USA. They used to keep much of here.

IMO, when the wealthy move their money, whether it be in or out of the market or to a another country, it should tell us something.

Fern

It tells me I should be following the example of the wealthy.

 

[bshole]

The reason I hate the rich is simple. They have subverted our government and taken away representative government. They have taken away the economic and political freedom of all other classes to enrich themselves. They have done this against the long term interests of this nation. The reason this country is failing is all down to one thing, the nefarious machinations of the gilded class and their puppets in the government.

 

[Matt1970]

The reason I hate the rich is simple. They have subverted our government and taken away representative government. They have taken away the economic and political freedom of all other classes to enrich themselves. They have done this against the long term interests of this nation. The reason this country is failing is all down to one thing, the nefarious machinations of the gilded class and their puppets in the government.

You are in the 5% you frekin moron.

 

[boomerang]

The reason I hate the rich is simple. They have subverted our government and taken away representative government. They have taken away the economic and political freedom of all other classes to enrich themselves. They have done this against the long term interests of this nation. The reason this country is failing is all down to one thing, the nefarious machinations of the gilded class and their puppets in the government.

Ah, the timeless argument. Suitable for any period in time in the last 50, 100, 150 years or more. The question is what are you willing to do to change the status quo? Continue to run your mouth?

 

[Matt1970]

Then what does it mean? Make your argument. Show your reasoning. I want to discuss things with you in good faith, but you're not making any arguments.

All you have done is show transfers of wealth. If I buy something you own for $20, then you turn around and buy something I own for $20, no wealth was created. No assets were brought into the market that currently weren't there before. Our economy has not increased in value.

 

[glenn1]

The two fundamental issues with the concentration of wealth in this country are:
1) as well concentrates, spending goes down, which means resources derived from public spending for public goods, public programs, and necessities go down. The simple way to think about it is like this: a guy who makes 1000 times what I make, doesn't spend 1000 times the money in the grocery store over the course of a year. As the OP points out, a lot of it essentially gets pulled out of circulation. The biggest hit from the lack of public financial resources derived from spending is likely educational funding which means you have a less educated populace, less lucrative jobs, less development overall as a country and etc.

So that's your big goal? To redistribute from the wealthy in order to drive an economy based upon consumer food staples? Do you really think the problems with this country are that we collectively don't spend enough on cigarettes, beer, and twinkies?

2) It undermines democracy. As we all know, wealth is political say power and the concentration of wealth is the concentration of political power. When the top richest 400 people in the country, make more combined than the bottom 150 million, you can see how that top 400 have a much bigger say in the direction of the country. I'm pretty sure this is not the way its supposed to be.

Again, you're focusing on the wrong problem. The concentration of political power drives the wealthy to shift their money into government, not vice versa. If the government wasn't this overarching behemoth spending trillions annually, then the rich would have little reason to try to buy influence because the return wouldn't be worth it. If you're going to have a big government to fund all the dreams and aspirations of the social welfare state, then quite frankly there's no real way to keep the rich from sticking their fingers into the pie. Thinking you can hand out trillions and it go exclusively to working poor, union members, and favored industries ("alternative energy! high-speed rail!") is simple naivete on the part of the left.

 

[Matt1970]

So that's your big goal? To redistribute from the wealthy in order to drive an economy based upon consumer food staples? Do you really think the problems with this country are that we collectively don't spend enough on cigarettes, beer, and twinkies?

It's pointless to argue economics with people who have been brainwashed into thinking that investing your money is detrimental to the economy.

 

[Incorruptible]

Which is funny because our taxes for a western economy are VERY low...

This confirms you're a bot.

Also, if people break the law, shouldn't they be held accountable? Rich or poor?

They're not low enough though and they should be lower. Replace the income tax with a flat tax.

 

[kia75]

All you have done is show transfers of wealth. If I buy something you own for $20, then you turn around and buy something I own for $20, no wealth was created. No assets were brought into the market that currently weren't there before. Our economy has not increased in value.

If we were showing a single object being sold then you'd be right (i.e. I sold you a marble, that you sold to someone else, that they sold to someone else). But instead I used a person turning bread, meat and other objects into a Sandwich. The making of a sandwich added value and wealth. The turning of grains into bread added value and wealth. The turning of seeds into grain added value and wealth.

Each step of the way we take something that was of less value (grain) into something other people want, creating value. That is how wealth is created. It's true, it's not very much wealth, but with enough sandwiches you have something like McDonald's, a mutli-million dollar company!


What do YOU mean by creating wealth.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Hopefully OP will get his wish and the rich will all renouce their U.S. citizenship. That'll really teach those billionaires.

These people all think they are so important to the economy. They are not. They can leave and others will fill their roles.