So_Ginger Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This video argues that the needs of the rich are finite because they are only one person, and so they need to be taxed in order to stop money from being pulled out of circulation. Please watch and respond, dear scholar. http://www.upworthy.com/when-they-say-cutting-taxes-on-the-rich-means-job-creation-theyre-lying-just-ask-this-rich-guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Taxation is theft and theft is immoral. Money that stops circulating raises the value of all other money and therefore could never be said to be a problem for other people. Why did you post this twice? http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38810-new-viral-video-socialist-econ-redistribution-via-upworthy/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatrickC Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I must admit, I despair when I hear entrepreneurs talk like this (leftist propaganda). That said, he is probably right about most of his investment returns (other than actual business ones) are probably landing in the pockets of bankers and such like. Of course taxation is probably the worst place to put ones money.. Anyway, unless I missed something, where did this video suggest taxation was the best course for these millionaires capital. Perhaps it was just an inference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrCapitalism Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The critic of monetary freedom is not so easily silenced, however. There is, in particular, the ancient bugbear of "hoarding." The image is conjured up of the selfish old miser who, perhaps irrationally, perhaps from evil motives, hoards up gold unused in his cellar or treasure trove--thereby stopping the flow of circulation and trade, causing depressions and other problems. Is hoarding really a menace? In the first place, what has simply happened is an increased demand for money on the part of the miser. As a result, prices of goods fall, and the purchasing power of the gold-ounce rises. There has been no loss to society, which simply carries on with a lower active supply of more "powerful" gold ounces. Even in the worst possible view of the matter, then, nothing has gone wrong, and monetary freedom creates no difficulties. But there is more to the problem than that. For it is by no means irrational for people to desire more or less money in their cash balances. https://mises.org/money/2s9.asp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon U Posted February 9, 2014 Share Posted February 9, 2014 What cheeses me is the argument that the rich have to spend their money in a socially beneficial way. But who is to say how anyone spends that money? If they wanted to burn it in a pile - isn't that their right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted February 11, 2014 Share Posted February 11, 2014 this is based on the idea of the fiscal multiplier, that people on low incomes spend their money in their local economy which stimulates the economy because the people who they spend the money with spend it a lot closer etc. etc. etc. this is nominally true but misses the big picture, which is that saving creates long-term growth by contributing to capital investments which create jobs in the long term while spending on regular goods only keeps people in work in the short term while the goods are being bought. Stimulating spending is like a rush of energy from quickly eating a milk chocolate bar which makes you feel good for a while then sugar crash vs. a banana which is slow energy release that keeps you going for longer and also builds a healthy body in the long term because fruits are nutritious unlike milk chocolate. If some of the cash goes to stupid things like speculation that is because of government interference in the free market which makes this practice lucrative. It also misses out on the fact that there is a drop in the money being circulated with every purchase, because of the sales tax, corporation tax and then tax on incomes. If this dude says people can't afford to buy his products but he earns more than 1000 times more than the average American, then he can simply go into a shop, buy 1000 pillows, and have sets delivered to each of his local charity shops so people on low incomes can come in and purchase them. That way he can live by his proposed values. Alternatively he can increase the hourly wage of all their employees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LovePrevails Posted May 21, 2015 Share Posted May 21, 2015 SEE ALSO: https://mises.org/sites/default/files/QJAE_17_3_Boyes_0.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts