too much money around
Discussion
I believe there is too much money around, mostly in the developed world. The underdeveloped world is rather short of it, mostly due to their own in-habitability to remove their biggest brakes. Mainly to underestimate the investor's fear to not get back their funds.
Too much money in the hands of the wrong people. There is no need to own 6 60 or 600 houses, or apartments. Neither is there a need to confiscate or else. People having a lot of money are hardly consuming. A new flat for their offspring and if that or a super yacht.
The idea to spend more is the solution to many problems. Years ago there was a current in the high finance in the US that shareholder value is dead. That people in lower classes need more money just to spend it. No commerce and the system becomes unstable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2019/08/...
It looks as if shareholder value went back on track, what went wrong?
Too much money in the hands of the wrong people. There is no need to own 6 60 or 600 houses, or apartments. Neither is there a need to confiscate or else. People having a lot of money are hardly consuming. A new flat for their offspring and if that or a super yacht.
The idea to spend more is the solution to many problems. Years ago there was a current in the high finance in the US that shareholder value is dead. That people in lower classes need more money just to spend it. No commerce and the system becomes unstable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2019/08/...
It looks as if shareholder value went back on track, what went wrong?
Edited by NickZ24 on Tuesday 29th October 21:44
You've described the classic capitalist conundrum that has been the subject of many a sixth-form argument and debating society topic for hundreds of years. And will continue to be so because the counter argument leads to communism. And so the argument should continue because the argument almost always leads to a sensible middle ground.
Wealth has long spawned philanthropy. In the the past, this has focused on arts, culture, education and science. Today, space exploration is not being funded by tax payers but by the likes of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, offshoots from which have the propensity to lead to more current problem solving.
And the process of wealth accumulation creates significant economic benefit to wider society.
There are perhaps discussions to be had around property ownership and the issues relating to the developing world are exceptionally complex but most rooted in governance and politics (or a lack of).
But, in relation to thread title, I don't think the issue is that there's too much money around. If there's a problem, it's that not enough of it gets spent. Economic health is determined not by how much money is in it, but by how much flows through it.
Wealth has long spawned philanthropy. In the the past, this has focused on arts, culture, education and science. Today, space exploration is not being funded by tax payers but by the likes of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, offshoots from which have the propensity to lead to more current problem solving.
And the process of wealth accumulation creates significant economic benefit to wider society.
There are perhaps discussions to be had around property ownership and the issues relating to the developing world are exceptionally complex but most rooted in governance and politics (or a lack of).
But, in relation to thread title, I don't think the issue is that there's too much money around. If there's a problem, it's that not enough of it gets spent. Economic health is determined not by how much money is in it, but by how much flows through it.
StevieBee said:
But, in relation to thread title, I don't think the issue is that there's too much money around. If there's a problem, it's that not enough of it gets spent. Economic health is determined not by how much money is in it, but by how much flows through it.
That's the nub - how to incentivise spending rather than hoarding.It's why targetting tax relief/incentives (carrot) at the worse off makes much more sense as they are more likely to spend any extra rather than hoard it.
With the exception of recovery of care costs which randomly hits the elderly, UK politicians have been very timid about wielding the stick at those in possession of accumulated/unrealised wealth.
oddman said:
That's the nub - how to incentivise spending rather than hoarding.
The easiest way would be to make inheritance tax 100%, or at least a high enough rate that it makes it a much better decision to spend your wealth on yourself or your family than to keep it until after you die. You could have a 0% rate for the first £300k or £500k or something so that people don't descend into poverty in their later years, but the rest would then be flowing through the economy.Won't be a popular move, but then any process to try and get people with accumulated wealth to part with it isn't going to go down well.
I do think there's to much money around but not in the way OP thinks. I think speculation in the tech market is a huge problem eg We Work - company can be completely unsustainable for many years but still be worth more than the moon!
Then when it all comes crashing down, you have investors clamouring around the guys next venture!!!
I think we are in a huge speculation bubble presently.
Then when it all comes crashing down, you have investors clamouring around the guys next venture!!!
I think we are in a huge speculation bubble presently.
Many very wealthy aren’t that rich though, small fractions of it.
Ie, Bezos would have to liquidate his Amazon position to get his money, and then he’d be a real tax target, it’d be at massive risk as no one will securely hold billions $
So they spend the proceeds, but you’d spend all day shopping and have 10,000 pairs of jeans, 5,000 shirts, 1,000 family hatchback cars…
So you buy yachts and stuff.
Or houses, and rent them to make more proceeds from.
If you (gov) take away their money all you do is say government or many poor people are better spending it than rich people… and I’d argue that’s not always the case.
Is a yacht factory or high end building/architecture businesses more beneficial to society than a hundred gambling shops, booze shops, vape shops etc
But really the too much money around is because it was debased and it went to the top, and largely the top already had enough.
I have no issue with the wealthy, but it has gone to a new extreme after covid and needs to be moderated.
That’s easy. Stop bailing out the businesses, start bailing out the individuals.
We’re about to see how that plays out with Boeing and Thames Water I think.
Who wins. The people with plenty of wealth already, or the majority with a lot less?
The winner will show who had the power, and who your governments represent.
Ie, Bezos would have to liquidate his Amazon position to get his money, and then he’d be a real tax target, it’d be at massive risk as no one will securely hold billions $
So they spend the proceeds, but you’d spend all day shopping and have 10,000 pairs of jeans, 5,000 shirts, 1,000 family hatchback cars…
So you buy yachts and stuff.
Or houses, and rent them to make more proceeds from.
If you (gov) take away their money all you do is say government or many poor people are better spending it than rich people… and I’d argue that’s not always the case.
Is a yacht factory or high end building/architecture businesses more beneficial to society than a hundred gambling shops, booze shops, vape shops etc
But really the too much money around is because it was debased and it went to the top, and largely the top already had enough.
I have no issue with the wealthy, but it has gone to a new extreme after covid and needs to be moderated.
That’s easy. Stop bailing out the businesses, start bailing out the individuals.
We’re about to see how that plays out with Boeing and Thames Water I think.
Who wins. The people with plenty of wealth already, or the majority with a lot less?
The winner will show who had the power, and who your governments represent.
If you work hard, why shouldn't you have lots of nice things and money in the bank? A lot of the wealthy employ people as well of course.
It's the sort of Socialist Politics of envy and just 'tax the rich' moronic thinking that I really despise. I guess they're just too dumb to understand though.
It's the sort of Socialist Politics of envy and just 'tax the rich' moronic thinking that I really despise. I guess they're just too dumb to understand though.
Timothy Bucktu said:
If you work hard, why shouldn't you have lots of nice things and money in the bank? A lot of the wealthy employ people as well of course.
It's the sort of Socialist Politics of envy and just 'tax the rich' moronic thinking that I really despise. I guess they're just too dumb to understand though.
Perhaps you were too dumb to understand the rich were never going to "tickle it down". It's the sort of Socialist Politics of envy and just 'tax the rich' moronic thinking that I really despise. I guess they're just too dumb to understand though.
Thing is, the very wealthy can usually avoid being taxed fully, so the government target the bit in the middle that have some, but not loads of wealth.
Some folk do just keep accumulating wealth, almost like its a habit they cant break and its more about the chase than the actual cash, plus the power, status and control you can wield.
Some folk do just keep accumulating wealth, almost like its a habit they cant break and its more about the chase than the actual cash, plus the power, status and control you can wield.
Very wealth people don't have sacks of cash sitting around. It's mostly wealth accumulated in building various businesses.
An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
98elise said:
Very wealth people don't have sacks of cash sitting around. It's mostly wealth accumulated in building various businesses.
An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
Completely in agreement with the above. Historically, have the "loans secured on assets instead of crystallising the value" schemes always been around, as to me thats both a clever way of avoiding selling assets and stinks to high heaven.An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
randlemarcus said:
98elise said:
Very wealth people don't have sacks of cash sitting around. It's mostly wealth accumulated in building various businesses.
An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
Completely in agreement with the above. Historically, have the "loans secured on assets instead of crystallising the value" schemes always been around, as to me thats both a clever way of avoiding selling assets and stinks to high heaven.An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
2008 financial crisis a bill the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 of $700B to save the banks.
So global financial crisis then averted with 'Billions' I'm sure there were other acts/bills/measures on top of the above.
However today 2023/24 it's reported "At current rates, the U.S. national debt is growing by a remarkable $1 trillion about every 100 days"
So in 15 years an amount debated and required to stop global financial armageddon, is routinely and barely mentioned added to the US debt.
So 15 years on and there is a huge amount of money out there and it continues to grow, with it would seem little chance/incentive/desire/ability to slow it let alone stop it?
Where does it all end up?
What would happen if it did all start getting spent, if the velocity of money increased, more inflation?
We can't just have more and more money right? but we also can't completely turn of the taps and break the system, so where does that leave us? More money as required and 'hope' for controllable inflation and maintaining confidence?
Feels like plate spinning as no one wants to smash one, but eventually there will just be too many........history and common sense tells you the answer but it's not one anyone wants to hear and to be fair they might not live to see, but it's deny it's inevitability?
So global financial crisis then averted with 'Billions' I'm sure there were other acts/bills/measures on top of the above.
However today 2023/24 it's reported "At current rates, the U.S. national debt is growing by a remarkable $1 trillion about every 100 days"
So in 15 years an amount debated and required to stop global financial armageddon, is routinely and barely mentioned added to the US debt.
So 15 years on and there is a huge amount of money out there and it continues to grow, with it would seem little chance/incentive/desire/ability to slow it let alone stop it?
Where does it all end up?
What would happen if it did all start getting spent, if the velocity of money increased, more inflation?
We can't just have more and more money right? but we also can't completely turn of the taps and break the system, so where does that leave us? More money as required and 'hope' for controllable inflation and maintaining confidence?
Feels like plate spinning as no one wants to smash one, but eventually there will just be too many........history and common sense tells you the answer but it's not one anyone wants to hear and to be fair they might not live to see, but it's deny it's inevitability?
popegregory said:
randlemarcus said:
98elise said:
Very wealth people don't have sacks of cash sitting around. It's mostly wealth accumulated in building various businesses.
An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
Completely in agreement with the above. Historically, have the "loans secured on assets instead of crystallising the value" schemes always been around, as to me thats both a clever way of avoiding selling assets and stinks to high heaven.An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
What do you feel is the appropriate tax on the value of shares/assets before they are sold?
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 30th October 12:51
randlemarcus said:
98elise said:
Very wealth people don't have sacks of cash sitting around. It's mostly wealth accumulated in building various businesses.
An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
Completely in agreement with the above. Historically, have the "loans secured on assets instead of crystallising the value" schemes always been around, as to me thats both a clever way of avoiding selling assets and stinks to high heaven.An easy to understand example is Elon Musk, possibly the world's richest individual.
His wealth is mainly his shares in Tesla and SpaceX. If he hasn't sold the then how much tax is owed? Nobody else has to pay tax on unrealised gains. You pay when you sell and crystalise any value.
It's not that different to anyone else owning a business, big or small. If say you've built a business which would have a value of say £1m if sold. Any salary or dividends you draw are already taxed, and you have no plans to sell until you retire. In the meantime how much tax should you be paying on that £1m asset?
It doesn't change the tax due on crystallisation though.
98elise said:
Nobody has said the wealth doesn't exist. Its that nobody pays tax on assets or gains until it's crystalised. That's not being a fanboy as you put it, it's how both you and I get tax on share ownership.
What do you feel is the appropriate tax on the value of shares/assets before they are sold?
More than it is, obviously. This appears to be the way in which people now own the world and in its current guise, they’re not paying enough for its upkeep.What do you feel is the appropriate tax on the value of shares/assets before they are sold?
Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 30th October 12:51
I should add though that I’m considering it globally (which makes it an awful lot more complex) as I’ve never bought into the taxing for taxations sake argument when a country is doing ok. As long as the country is paid for then let’s have billionaires all round; i just fundamentally disagree that we can afford people sitting on yachts when we’ve got people starving in the countries where the billionaire’s companies inevitably stole the resources and paid slave wages.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff