Take 25% from anyone's savings exceeding $3 million and redistribute it

Investment and savings are necessarily mutually exclusive because they are separate terms within the aggregate expenditure model. If you consider a given dollar to be both saved and invested, it is essentially spent twice in one transaction.[/quote]

So I guess all of those people putting aside money in their 401K and IRA funds are not "saving" for retirement. Everyone else understood that the OP was referring to "savings" in the broadest terms that included all liquid assets, such as checking/savings accounts, CDs, equities, etc.

OP, please move to North Korea if you want to live in a communist utopian world. Have fun!

jman1 wrote:

Cool, Shawn H. One question...why haven't you replied to the question 'Liberal Guy' asked you?

Probably because it was liberal nonsense. Some moronic statements don't even deserve a reply, and as I said before, you can try to teach ignorant people, but you can't fix stupid. But let me scan back through the post and see.

Ok, I see why I didn't respond to a question by Liberal Guy. It doesn't make any sense. He responded to another poster's comment that there should be a salary cap for life by saying, "That's a stupid idea." Then later he quoted a string of people, including me, and asked, "What part of stupid idea don't you understand?" I can't even tell whom he was addressing. Especially since I think a lifteime salary cap is a stupid idea, too. LOL.

bellomy wrote:

Investment and savings are necessarily mutually exclusive because they are separate terms within the aggregate expenditure model. If you consider a given dollar to be both saved and invested, it is essentially spent twice in one transaction.

So I guess all of those people putting aside money in their 401K and IRA funds are not "saving" for retirement. Everyone else understood that the OP was referring to "savings" in the broadest terms that included all liquid assets, such as checking/savings accounts, CDs, equities, etc.[/quote]

That was the OPs problem. He lumped assets together, which is completely absurd. Savings under the mattress are totally different than other financial instruments.

My point was reducing the available debt and equity capital through a confiscatory government program would have severe negative consequences beyond just reducing a dollar amount on a savingd account statement. Even reducing bank deposits has a deletorious effect on lending.

Taking "savings" is an idiotic concept. The money has already been taxed. Now its working. Rich people do not "save" like kids with a piggy bank.

I didn't read all the sh!t talking, but if you could get rid of the income tax, offsetting it with a wealth tax, then I actually think most conservatives and liberals would be in favor of it.

As conservatives say, taxes provide incentives. That's why they always want to lower taxes on the highest earners. Well, what if we eliminated taxes on income and replaced that with taxes on wealth?

#1 - we'd be providing a huge incentive to earn a wage.

#2 - we'd be disincentivizing (I know that's not a word) people sitting around on their wealth and not contributing.

As a side note to some of these responses, putting money into stocks is NOT investing. It is speculation. Any market purchase, other than an IPO, is speculation. Only IPO's are actually investments.

BTW, I think speculation income should be taxed like regular income. However, I do think real investment income should not be taxed at all.

landshark wrote:

bellomy wrote:

Investment and savings are necessarily mutually exclusive because they are separate terms within the aggregate expenditure model. If you consider a given dollar to be both saved and invested, it is essentially spent twice in one transaction.

So I guess all of those people putting aside money in their 401K and IRA funds are not "saving" for retirement. Everyone else understood that the OP was referring to "savings" in the broadest terms that included all liquid assets, such as checking/savings accounts, CDs, equities, etc.

That was the OPs problem. He lumped assets together, which is completely absurd. Savings under the mattress are totally different than other financial instruments.

My point was reducing the available debt and equity capital through a confiscatory government program would have severe negative consequences beyond just reducing a dollar amount on a savingd account statement. Even reducing bank deposits has a deletorious effect on lending.

Taking "savings" is an idiotic concept. The money has already been taxed. Now its working. Rich people do not "save" like kids with a piggy bank.[/quote]

Such a tax would have to include all investable assets not just more liquid ones. If the liberals went after stocks and bonds, intelligent conservatives would simply shift to real estate, metals, collectibles, currencies, etc.

Shawn H wrote:

Ok, I see why I didn't respond to a question by Liberal Guy. It doesn't make any sense. He responded to another poster's comment that there should be a salary cap for life by saying, "That's a stupid idea." Then later he quoted a string of people, including me, and asked, "What part of stupid idea don't you understand?" I can't even tell whom he was addressing. Especially since I think a lifteime salary cap is a stupid idea, too. LOL.

No, he disagreed with the OP, then you said they think alike. That's why he asked you what part of it being a stupid idea you didn't understand. So since you agree it's a stupid idea, he wondered why you were dissing him. I wonder about that too.

landshark wrote:

Taking "savings" is an idiotic concept. The money has already been taxed. Now its working. Rich people do not "save" like kids with a piggy bank.

Of course it was a idiotic concept because he was just trolling. Using it to improve infrastructure in poor areas? Come on. Seems like he got some of the reaction he wanted.

jman1 wrote:

Shawn H wrote:

Ok, I see why I didn't respond to a question by Liberal Guy. It doesn't make any sense. He responded to another poster's comment that there should be a salary cap for life by saying, "That's a stupid idea." Then later he quoted a string of people, including me, and asked, "What part of stupid idea don't you understand?" I can't even tell whom he was addressing. Especially since I think a lifteime salary cap is a stupid idea, too. LOL.

No, he disagreed with the OP, then you said they think alike. That's why he asked you what part of it being a stupid idea you didn't understand. So since you agree it's a stupid idea, he wondered why you were dissing him. I wonder about that too.

I guess there was a misunderstanding all around. I would never intentionally dis an intelligent conservative.

Wow, looks like you are ready to give 'Please Explain' a run for his money. This place is astounding!

ti30x wrote:

landshark wrote:

Taking "savings" is an idiotic concept. The money has already been taxed. Now its working. Rich people do not "save" like kids with a piggy bank.

Of course it was a idiotic concept because he was just trolling. Using it to improve infrastructure in poor areas? Come on. Seems like he got some of the reaction he wanted.

The OP trolled - got it. The majority of the rest of the thread is not trolls. Get it?

ANSWER = liberals[/quote]

Both of you get it. What I find so ironic is that there are actually people on a RUNNING forum who think like these liberals. Running gives back what you put into it. If you work hard, you are rewarded. If you work hard and are talented, you find competitive success. Good thing that running can't be controlled by liberals. If it were controlled by liberals, the faster you ran, the more rocks they would make you carry just to make things "fair." Human nature aspires to be better than we are. Human nature is competitive. Human nature wants to be rewarded for hard work and sweat. What holds true for running holds true in the rest of life. Let people strive for greatness. Let them be individuals. It makes perfect sense that if you take the motivation away, people would just sit on their asses. Or we would all just be "fun runners." Libs are so full of sh!t, and they don't even know it.[/quote]

you will never be great at anything, unfortunately. none of us here will. i can sense it. stop with all the competition nonsense and do some yoga. find your truth and release all these preconceptions about what makes life full -- i.e. "Success". and run faster, dammit! you're too slow!

Capitalism is just another "grand narrative" like communism, fascism, or any other "ism"; once you "believe" in its ability to solve the problems of humanity, or that it is "best" or "natural" then you've lost the plot.

Shawn H wrote:

jman1 wrote:

No, he disagreed with the OP, then you said they think alike. That's why he asked you what part of it being a stupid idea you didn't understand. So since you agree it's a stupid idea, he wondered why you were dissing him. I wonder about that too.

I guess there was a misunderstanding all around. I would never intentionally dis an intelligent conservative.

Yeah, you misunderstand that he's an intelligent liberal. Good for him.

God I love it. This is not only the post of the day, but the post of the year or possibly the decade. Thank you, thank you.

Actually, he forgot to use the word, 'libtard'. As a result his post really has no validity. Kind of like yours.

You Forgot Something wrote:

God I love it. This is not only the post of the day, but the post of the year or possibly the decade. Thank you, thank you.

Actually, he forgot to use the word, 'libtard'. As a result his post really has no validity. Kind of like yours.[/quote]

Libtard. There, I said it. Hahahaha.

no