HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 12:52 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Connecticut is the wealthiest state in the country, and NJ is like #2 or #3. And CA is the innovation center of the planet and top 10 in wealth. Pretty good company, and if those are examples of a "ruined economy", I'll take it.

Also, CT still is (overall) lower tax than NY & NJ. Property taxes are much lower, while income taxes are roughly similar.

And it has nothing to do with "government overreach", the public in these states consistently votes to tax themselves for better services, whether the localities are conservative or liberal. Gold-plated schools and municipal services drive the tax burden. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know, but it's democracy in action.
Causation versus correlation. I’ve had this debate before.

You incorrectly link high taxes with successful States as somehow the former being causative of the latter. I beg to differ. I would view it being the opposite. As places become wealthier and it’s infrastructure ages, taxes go up.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 12:57 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
Causation versus correlation. I’ve had this debate before.

You incorrectly link high taxes with successful States as somehow the former being causative of the latter.
No, I made no such inference. In fact I argued against the opposite claim; which was that higher taxes harm states. There doesn't appear much of a relationship between relative tax burden and relative economic health.

Connecticut has arguably underperformed in recent years, but it probably isn't related to tax burden, which, again, is notably lower than in adjacent states.

Connecticut is like 90% suburban, and suburbs have underperformed relative to center cities. So yeah, all those suburban office parks and giant homes deep in the woods haven't done quite as well as closer-in locations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 3:09 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,219
I think what happens with high tax, wealthy States is analagous to what happens to people who get wealthy.

Man starts making a lot more money.
Man starts buying lots of stuff (cars, expensive furniture, clothes, houses, has a high maintenance girlfriend)
After some time, the bills come due (car payments, repairs, replacement furniture, home repairs, mortgages, taxes, property taxes, girlfriend wants a ring and she wants more clothes)
Man realizes that "holy shit!" the more money I make, the higher my expenses.

Thus, high expenses never made him wealthy. But they might make him broke if he can't raise his income.

That's my response to those hard core leftists who keep using the same mantra: "Well, New York and California are high tax States and they are still rich, so obviously high taxes are a good thing"
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 3:44 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Of the 8.5 million people in NYC, how many would you consider "super wealthy?"
ha yes -- and don't forget to consider cost of living. ie., only a few places in middle america approach 30% of your money toward housing, nyc is 40%. 30% is considered a comfortable amount. btw los angeles is 45% so housing is generally somewhat an even worse burden for their residents.

here is a recent look at that around the usa:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/07/here...ss-the-us.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 3:52 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
That's my response to those hard core leftists who keep using the same mantra: "Well, New York and California are high tax States and they are still rich, so obviously high taxes are a good thing"
Do you even know a single "hard core leftist" and have they actually claimed such a silly thing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 4:22 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Do you even know a single "hard core leftist" and have they actually claimed such a silly thing?
I've met tons. Anybody who claims that high taxes are a "good thing" is basically a hard core leftist.

High taxes should never been seen as a "good thing". At most, they should be viewed as a necessary evil.

But those who laud them and then point to New York, California, etc etc are nothing more than redistributionists (of wealth), and hence quasi-Socialists.

Once upon a time that was an extreme viewpoint in America, but now being a Socialist is as "hip" as Bob Marley.

And tying this back to the original topic of this thread--that's what Rent Control is, and why it's making a comeback in these "cool and hip" places despite how much of an irrational idea it is.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 4:29 PM
mrnyc mrnyc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,466
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I've met tons. Anybody who claims that high taxes are a "good thing" is basically a hard core leftist.

High taxes should never been seen as a "good thing". At most, they should be viewed as a necessary evil.

But those who laud them and then point to New York, California, etc etc are nothing more than redistributionists (of wealth), and hence quasi-Socialists.

Once upon a time that was an extreme viewpoint in America, but now being a Socialist is as "hip" as Bob Marley.

And tying this back to the original topic of this thread--that's what Rent Control is, and why it's making a comeback in these "cool and hip" places despite how much of an irrational idea it is.

redistribution is not knee jerk bad. actually once upon a time teddy and taft busted the trusts. rational people applaud that. it took leadership who had spines and were not corrupt to the core, so of course we won't be seeing that happen during this administration.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/dianahe.../#7108e4b3776d
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 4:32 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I've met tons. Anybody who claims that high taxes are a "good thing" is basically a hard core leftist.

High taxes should never been seen as a "good thing". At most, they should be viewed as a necessary evil.

But those who laud them and then point to New York, California, etc etc are nothing more than redistributionists (of wealth), and hence quasi-Socialists.

Once upon a time that was an extreme viewpoint in America, but now being a Socialist is as "hip" as Bob Marley.

And tying this back to the original topic of this thread--that's what Rent Control is, and why it's making a comeback in these "cool and hip" places despite how much of an irrational idea it is.
Rent control and socialism are only irrational to a capitalist. Capitalism and the free market aren't the same thing.

The focus of capitalism is wealth creation and keeping it all to oneself.
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 4:33 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I've met tons. Anybody who claims that high taxes are a "good thing" is basically a hard core leftist.
I've never met such a person, and I doubt you have. Doesn't sound like a "leftist", sounds like someone who doesn't understand money.

Voting for higher taxes doesn't mean you think it's "better" to pay more in taxes than less; it's a realization that things cost money and a willingness to pay for wants. But even Socialists don't prefer paying more than less; that makes no sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 5:05 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
I've never met such a person, and I doubt you have. Doesn't sound like a "leftist", sounds like someone who doesn't understand money.

Voting for higher taxes doesn't mean you think it's "better" to pay more in taxes than less; it's a realization that things cost money and a willingness to pay for wants. But even Socialists don't prefer paying more than less; that makes no sense.
I kind of agree, but I think you're missing my point. Yes, I know that high taxes are needed to pay for things, that's why I conceded in my earlier post that--at best--they should be viewed as a necessary evil. What they should NOT be used as, however, is a political weapon. Taxes should not be weaponized to turn one class of people against the other and lead to an identity battle. They should not be celebrated as a way for one group to make another "pay their fair share" and hence, basically redistribute wealth from one income group to another.

And that kind of crap happens all the time. See my example below with Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. See the part that I bolded below:

Quote:
Billionaire Illinois Gov. Pritzker seeks higher tax for rich

By JOHN O'CONNOR



SPRINGFIELD, Ill. -- Gov. J.B. Pritzker took the first step Thursday in fulfilling his touchstone campaign pledge of making the wealthy pay more in income taxes as the billionaire proposed a graduated income-tax structure that he said would generate $3.4 billion in new revenue for the financially-strapped state.

The Democrat wants to dump the state's flat-tax, now set at 4.95 percent, and join 35 other states with scaled-up rates for higher incomes. It would start at 4.75 percent for earnings up to $10,000 and levy a top rate of 7.95 percent on $1 million or more .

"Illinois' flat tax system is unfair to the middle class and to those who are striving to get to the middle class," said Pritzker, a hotel fortune heir and private-equity investor whose $3.2 billion net worth ranked him 251st on Forbes' wealthiest 400 Americans last fall. "People like me should pay more and people like you should pay less."
https://www.dailyherald.com/article/...ness/303079885
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 5:09 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Rent control and socialism are only irrational to a capitalist. Capitalism and the free market aren't the same thing.

The focus of capitalism is wealth creation and keeping it all to oneself.
I'm not too sure of the difference, but I would imagine that very light rent controls are probably more consistent with regulated Capitalism, whereas onerous and heavy rent controls (like what NY is passing) are bordering on Socialism.

My problem with any rent control is that I don't trust Governments not to trend down the slippery slope of creating greater and more overbearing regulations over time, and as populism demands...
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 7:30 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 1,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Do you even know a single "hard core leftist" and have they actually claimed such a silly thing?
Yeah, plenty. This is why Democrats show economic growth graphs from the Clinton years, when taxes were higher, to argue that raising taxes is GOOD for business. I've never understood how one could argue that with a straight face. They think that raising taxes increased business investment, without looking at *any* other factors that contributed to the 1990s growth.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 7:33 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 1,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Rent control and socialism are only irrational to a capitalist. Capitalism and the free market aren't the same thing.

The focus of capitalism is wealth creation and keeping it all to oneself.
The end of your made up definition reveals more about your own ideas than capitalism.

Does "keeping it all to oneself" mean keeping it from being taxed? Do you do your taxes every year? Do you take any deductions? If so, you are a greedy capitalist like you're describing.

What you are forgetting by merely mentioning "wealth creation" is that is the point. Without wealth creation stagnation sets in. No new jobs. No lending. No anything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 7:46 PM
mhays mhays is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 17,404
Communities that invest in themselves tend to draw the higher-value industries. That's because of what those taxes pay for, not because of the taxes themselves -- education, transit, protected land, and so on.

As for different tax rates based on income level...oh no, one of the basic elements of the US tax system! Let's not forget that higher-income people pay lower percentages than low-income people once other taxes are included...sales tax, social security, etc. Not to mention the ways we skew things to be easier for people with property and investments (myself included) with mortgage interest deduction and low capital gains taxes.
__________________
"Alot" isn't a word.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 7:50 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 471
My clients have access to unlimited capital, and they use it mis-educate people like jtown
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 8:03 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,110
This business about taxes and government over-reach is all relative. People and companies with taxable resources will always be considering the relative merits of staying where they are vs leaving for someplace that saves them money and resources. California and Connecticut and New York have advantages that lure businesses and bright, creative people to them, but at some point their high regulation and taxes are a sufficient countervailing force to drive other businesses and people away.

Crawford's defense of Connecticut doesn't change the fact that a number of major businesses have recently moved out of the state--and wealthy people also. And CA is constantly losing companies to places like Texas because they get tired of the high costs, high taxes and high regulation California imposes and decide the advantages of being in a place like the Bay Area vs a place like Austin aren't worth it.

New York has experienced the same eb and flow. I think right now, under de Blasio, New York is driving more companies and wealthy individuals away than it is attracting with its manifest assets. The reverse may have been true under Bloomberg.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 8:32 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,891
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
The end of your made up definition reveals more about your own ideas than capitalism.

Does "keeping it all to oneself" mean keeping it from being taxed? Do you do your taxes every year? Do you take any deductions? If so, you are a greedy capitalist like you're describing.

What you are forgetting by merely mentioning "wealth creation" is that is the point. Without wealth creation stagnation sets in. No new jobs. No lending. No anything.
It's not a made-up definition. I guess I just have to rephrase it so that you'll swallow it easier. The focus of a free market is the exchange of goods and services, and wealth.

The focus of capitalism is wealth creation and the ownership of that wealth, and making profit. But it doesn't stop at just making a profit; a capitalist seeks more capital, and will try and do anything to keep increasing profit, even if those profit goals are unrealistic. I'll use a friend's situation as an example. Back in the 90s, he worked for a store called Sur La Table, which used to be a family-owned small chain of stores out of Seattle. He worked at the Pasadena, CA store, which at the time was the only store in all of southern California. The Pasadena store was highly profitable, and there were regular customers who would drive within a hundred-mile radius just to shop at the Pasadena store. Then the company was sold and it became more of a corporate entity. They started expanding and opening more stores across the country, and more stores in southern California. It started eating the profits at the Pasadena store, and the customers who used to go there from far away started shopping at stores closer to them... BUT, corporate kept telling the Pasadena store that they weren't meeting their profit goals, but DUH, the other stores took that profit away. The Pasadena store was still very profitable, but not profitable enough, according to corporate. So of course, like in other big companies, they use that as an excuse to start reducing employees' hours/cutting their benefits, and laying them off, and then hiring new people at a lower wage, to meet their profit goals. That's capitalism. Nothing benevolent about it.

Capitalists are basically profit-hoarders. They constantly seek more and more capital. And they're not patriotic, either; they will go offshore for labor and materials to make even more profit. Japanese auto companies are capitalists too; they did exactly what American companies do. When Toyota and Nissan opened up auto plants in the US, our media was like "They're providing jobs for Americans!" Well yeah, that's one way of looking at it, but in reality, they were using cheap American labor (in comparison with the price of labor in Japan) to build the cars that Americans buy, and selling them directly to Americans without the tariffs and import taxes. Isn't that obvious?

Again, nothing benevolent about capitalism and capitalists. Amazon is the perfect example. Jeff Bezos is basically the richest man on earth, but wealth isn't created in a vacuum. He basically exploits his workers; Amazon workers aren't treated well nor are they paid well. In capitalism, there are the wealth creators (the workers/people who do the actual work), and the wealth takers (people like Bezos).

And so what if Bezos is a "philanthropist." The giving of wealth is funded by the stealing of wealth. Again, wealth isn't created in a vacuum. We wouldn't need philanthropy and charity if wealth were evenly distributed among the people.

And yes, I do indeed do my taxes every year. I don't itemize, so nope, no deductions. I don't own property, I don't have children, I don't have "investments." So no, I don't game the system like many other people do. Well, when I file my California state taxes, as a renter, I do take the "renter's credit" to reduce my California state income tax.
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 8:39 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 18,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Yeah, plenty.
Who? Name one. Who says higher taxes, all things equal, are better?

People who want higher taxes aren't saying "paying more is better" they're saying "we want to pay x to invest in y".
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Y
This is why Democrats show economic growth graphs from the Clinton years, when taxes were higher, to argue that raising taxes is GOOD for business.
I've never heard a single person make such an absurd argument. You're mischaracterizing the message, which is that high taxes don't necessarily stifle strong economies.

But even the looniest leftist wouldn't argue that economic growth would be higher if you paid more in taxes and flushed the extra $ down the toilet. They want high taxes to pay for stuff.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 8:51 PM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago region
Posts: 17,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
It's not a made-up definition. I guess I just have to rephrase it so that you'll swallow it easier. The focus of a free market is the exchange of goods and services, and wealth.

The focus of capitalism is wealth creation and the ownership of that wealth, and making profit. But it doesn't stop at just making a profit; a capitalist seeks more capital, and will try and do anything to keep increasing profit, even if those profit goals are unrealistic. I'll use a friend's situation as an example. Back in the 90s, he worked for a store called Sur La Table, which used to be a family-owned small chain of stores out of Seattle. He worked at the Pasadena, CA store, which at the time was the only store in all of southern California. The Pasadena store was highly profitable, and there were regular customers who would drive within a hundred-mile radius just to shop at the Pasadena store. Then the company was sold and it became more of a corporate entity. They started expanding and opening more stores across the country, and more stores in southern California. It started eating the profits at the Pasadena store, and the customers who used to go there from far away started shopping at stores closer to them... BUT, corporate kept telling the Pasadena store that they weren't meeting their profit goals, but DUH, the other stores took that profit away. The Pasadena store was still very profitable, but not profitable enough, according to corporate. So of course, like in other big companies, they use that as an excuse to start reducing employees' hours/cutting their benefits, and laying them off, and then hiring new people at a lower wage, to meet their profit goals. That's capitalism. Nothing benevolent about it.

Capitalists are basically profit-hoarders. They constantly seek more and more capital. And they're not patriotic, either; they will go offshore for labor and materials to make even more profit. Japanese auto companies are capitalists too; they did exactly what American companies do. When Toyota and Nissan opened up auto plants in the US, our media was like "They're providing jobs for Americans!" Well yeah, that's one way of looking at it, but in reality, they were using cheap American labor (in comparison with the price of labor in Japan) to build the cars that Americans buy, and selling them directly to Americans without the tariffs and import taxes. Isn't that obvious?

Again, nothing benevolent about capitalism and capitalists. Amazon is the perfect example. Jeff Bezos is basically the richest man on earth, but wealth isn't created in a vacuum. He basically exploits his workers; Amazon workers aren't treated well nor are they paid well. In capitalism, there are the wealth creators (the workers/people who do the actual work), and the wealth takers (people like Bezos).

And so what if Bezos is a "philanthropist." The giving of wealth is funded by the stealing of wealth. Again, wealth isn't created in a vacuum. We wouldn't need philanthropy and charity if wealth were evenly distributed among the people.
You are utilizing the worst aspects of Capitalism to justify some of the most heinous and irrational regulations wrought to contain it (ie Rent Control). Over and over again, stupid rules like this don't hurt the big players that your above post rails against. Instead, such rules hurt small mom and pop players who neither have the scale to deal with said regulations, nor the scale (and often not even the desire) to pull off what you described above.

Quote:
And yes, I do indeed do my taxes every year. I don't itemize, so nope, no deductions. I don't own property, I don't have children, I don't have "investments." So no, I don't game the system like many other people do.
^ You totally betray your Socialist biases right here. Since when are legal tax deductions "gaming" the system? There are IRS rules about what can and cannot be deducted. Plain and simple. If you take legal deductions, you aren't "gaming" the system. You try to make it sound as if one is cheating by doing that.
__________________
Eat less
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jun 20, 2019, 8:56 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norfolk, Va
Posts: 1,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
It's not a made-up definition. I guess I just have to rephrase it so that you'll swallow it easier. The focus of a free market is the exchange of goods and services, and wealth.

The focus of capitalism is wealth creation and the ownership of that wealth, and making profit. But it doesn't stop at just making a profit; a capitalist seeks more capital, and will try and do anything to keep increasing profit, even if those profit goals are unrealistic. I'll use a friend's situation as an example. Back in the 90s, he worked for a store called Sur La Table, which used to be a family-owned small chain of stores out of Seattle. He worked at the Pasadena, CA store, which at the time was the only store in all of southern California. The Pasadena store was highly profitable, and there were regular customers who would drive within a hundred-mile radius just to shop at the Pasadena store. Then the company was sold and it became more of a corporate entity. They started expanding and opening more stores across the country, and more stores in southern California. It started eating the profits at the Pasadena store, and the customers who used to go there from far away started shopping at stores closer to them... BUT, corporate kept telling the Pasadena store that they weren't meeting their profit goals, but DUH, the other stores took that profit away. The Pasadena store was still very profitable, but not profitable enough, according to corporate. So of course, like in other big companies, they use that as an excuse to start reducing employees' hours/cutting their benefits, and laying them off, and then hiring new people at a lower wage, to meet their profit goals. That's capitalism. Nothing benevolent about it.

Capitalists are basically profit-hoarders. They constantly seek more and more capital. And they're not patriotic, either; they will go offshore for labor and materials to make even more profit. Japanese auto companies are capitalists too; they did exactly what American companies do. When Toyota and Nissan opened up auto plants in the US, our media was like "They're providing jobs for Americans!" Well yeah, that's one way of looking at it, but in reality, they were using cheap American labor (in comparison with the price of labor in Japan) to build the cars that Americans buy, and selling them directly to Americans without the tariffs and import taxes. Isn't that obvious?

Again, nothing benevolent about capitalism and capitalists. Amazon is the perfect example. Jeff Bezos is basically the richest man on earth, but wealth isn't created in a vacuum. He basically exploits his workers; Amazon workers aren't treated well nor are they paid well. In capitalism, there are the wealth creators (the workers/people who do the actual work), and the wealth takers (people like Bezos).

And so what if Bezos is a "philanthropist." The giving of wealth is funded by the stealing of wealth. Again, wealth isn't created in a vacuum. We wouldn't need philanthropy and charity if wealth were evenly distributed among the people.

And yes, I do indeed do my taxes every year. I don't itemize, so nope, no deductions. I don't own property, I don't have children, I don't have "investments." So no, I don't game the system like many other people do. Well, when I file my California state taxes, as a renter, I do take the "renter's credit" to reduce my California state income tax.
Well, I agree companies that treat their employees right will win in the end. My girlfriends little brother, who is in college, just started working at Starbucks. He is blown away about how much better he is treated(in every way) vs. when he worked retail. That's a *good* thing and honestly, makes me less sick to spend an outrageous amount(for me) on a cup of coffee there.

Going offshore. You're starting to sound like Trump(jk). Think about it this way... The Iphone. How many Americans would be employed making the Iphone? Lets be generous and say 20k. Now, how many people own an Iphone? Maybe 70-100 million people(maybe I am being too generous there too)? If making the phone overseas saves these people 100 dollars, than the impact of that move is huge and impacts more people. Also, almost half of Americans own stock, so those stockholders win too.

Rich people don't just put their money in a savings account. They laugh at those interest rates. They invest it, and that investments either create jobs, create new products, or creates wealth.

Do you buy from Amazon? Maybe you don't, but most people do. They do because it gives them products at a really cheap price quick. How many people work for Amazon? Very little in comparison to their shoppers. Of course I think Bezos should pay more to his employees. I love the idea of employees sharing in profit in the form of stocks every year. But at the end of the day, he created Amazon. Most of us benefit from that. Thats more than almost anyone on Earth can say. That's a big deal.

How did he steal it? By selling my girlfriend an airfryer? No, wealth will never be distributed evenly. And thank God. There are very unfair things about life, even in the West. However, we are not all equal. I will never have the ability to play basketball like James or become a world-renowned doctor. That's fine. My skills are at a point where I make a comfortable middle-class living. It doesn't bother me that Bezos makes what I make in a year in a day(or whatever). I still buy from his company, because it allows me to keep more of my cash(and not leave the house).

It's not "gaming the system" by taking deductions. Its common sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:41 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.