This is what the 5scammers expect, the check will new york asian escort only bounce about 3 weeks to a month later at which point your bank will take back the money leaving you short of the shipping money. The best way of avoiding this fraud is not to sell your vehicle to someone who wants to pay the shipper.I new york asian escorts hope all this hasn’t scared you away from the Internet, If you are sensible and wary about offers that seem too good to be true then you should be Ok, just new york escort apply the same commonsense you use in everyday life, after all if a stranger walked up to you in the street and said “Hi I am from your bank what’s new york escorts your credit card number and PIN”
Now if all the billionaires would pay $2 million for Asian escorts we might all have a nice night. (Above post reported.)
nm
Reported.
Tax the rich? How appalling. Now, if every person in the US gave $1000 in extra taxes, that would generate $3 billion! Way more money and much more fair, and in absolutely line with the sentiments of one of the major political parites, n’est-ce pas?
I think you are off by two orders of magnitude. Did you mean $300 billion?
Well let’s see what we could do:
The total household net worth in the US is $56.8 trillion. (cite)
The top 1% wealthiest in the US owned 34.6% of that wealth. (cite)
So, the top 1% have $19.7 trillion of net worth in the United States.
Granted this is not all in cash (a lot is in investments and property and such).
So, ask them to pony up just 10% of that, $1.97 trillion, and you have a pretty big dent.
They’d still have $17.73 trillion left over so that does not exactly make them poor by doing this.
If you want to spread the pain consider that the top 20% own 85% of all the wealth in the US. They (collectively) could make an even bigger dent and still be quite wealthy. (same cite as above)
I think if you start taxing assets, many US billionaires will find it cheaper to become citizens of Canada or some other country, or hide their assets offshore.
That probably has some negative consequences to your plan.
i’m not sure exactly who the creditors are, but i’m guessing about 2/3 of the repaid debt would go back to these top 20% wealthiest anyway.
Unlikely. They’d never find another country that has both the living standards of America and sucks up to the wealthy as much. It’s an empty threat.
If you tax assets, rather than income?
Yeah, there are plenty of countries with comparable living standards that would be much nicer to your money. Pretty much all of Western Europe, for example. What you lose in income taxes, you more than gain from avoiding asset taxes.
The OP was asking “what if every billionaire gave” money.
I never mentioned a tax.
I was merely pointing out that the wealthiest 1% (or better yet wealthiest 20%) could make a substantial dent in the US economy and still be considered exceptionally wealthy.
As for running to other countries why do you think they would prosper there? Are there a lot of CEO jobs open in Europe that Europeans can’t fill? CEOs in Europe work for considerably less than their US counterparts. I am sure the companies in Europe would be thrilled to pay a new CEO vastly more when they don’t have to.
And where will these rich people invest? It is a global economy. They’ll still be running money through the NYSE and other American exchanges. They will still invest in companies in the US that make them money. Wait till they get a load of European socialism when it comes to worker rights…they’ll pine for America’s lack of regulation.
In the end it is an empty threat.
Sure. I was responding to a separate idea that asset taxation was somehow “ok” and not a big deal, compared to income taxation.
Though, I think we still have the original problem - it sets up a bad precedent. What happens if your elected officials simply run up more debt without addressing underlying taxation or spending issues? This idea addresses the symptom but doesn’t address the fundamental problem.
Neither the deficit nor the debt is too bad, yet, as long as we address it with some combination of tax increases and moderated spending, particularly on health care. Having the rich donate money will help in the short term, but they’re nothing compared to resolving the underlying fundamental funding issues.
It’s kind of like giving money directly to a homeless person. Sure, giving spare change will make you feel better and the homeless person better off in the short term, but it’s not a long term solution for that person and may actually be counter-productive. Better to strike at the underlying issue and give time and money to charitable organizations.
If they gave the money without substantial changes in the underlying system I agree. For instance I think it would be fine for the rich people to demand Congress implement a strong form of PayGo (just an example…not here to debate PayGo). If Congress refuses then the money will not be donated.
As for being as useless as giving a poor person a dollar I think something that significantly paid down the debt would be useful. The US would then spend less money on interest payments and that money could be used to pay down the debt even further getting to a cycle of increasing wealth in the government to do the things it needs to.
Rich people aren’t going to give that much money out of the kindness of their hearts. Rich people tend to prefer giving money to their own personal charities and causes near to their own heart over giving to the federal government. There is an option to donate money to pay down the public debt in your IRS forms. Judging from the current debt, it’s not a very effective option.
Most rich people also don’t care about how useful it would be to have a federal government with less debt. Sure, it’s a nice idea and all, but so are puppies and rainbows. Rich people make decisions on how the resulting change affects themselves, personally.
Enter Dilbert Cartoonist, Scott Adams, who has already explained how to motivate rich folks into giving money to the federal govt.
This may seem kind of silly, but… why is paying off the debt such a big deal, anyway? It’s such a common topic of discussion in every country whose fiscal policy concerns me, but in every discussion it’s taken as a given rather than explained in detail. Government debt is the primary way private individuals can invest in infrastructure, and see a (small) return. At what point is the cost of interest payments greater than the expected return on investment on infrastructure programs like railroads (more efficient transport) or health care (fewer sick days), which lead to increased profitability, greater wealth, and higher government tax income?
Who calculates this? What variables are considered? When is debt good?
In most western countries, the deficit is structural. The state spends more on its day-to-day running than it takes in. If it were only investments, it wouldn’t be such a problem. But it isn’t. Most of the deficit is used to pay the salaries of civil servants, military expenses, social programs, education and so on…
By structural, you mean for maintenance-type costs rather than capital investments? (Maintaining a large civil servant base to handle other investments in infrastructure, that is.) Investing in social programs (including education) is similar to an investment in actual infrastructure – money is invested, with hopes of a return from the improved wealth creation caused by having an educated, safe and healthy workforce. The only difference is that it’s an investment in people and their skills rather than an investment in tangible structures.
Investing in the military is more like buying an insurance policy than investing in society, (though some money considered ‘military’ is actually education in the guise of job skills training) so on the whole it’s not really improving production efficiency and therefore not increasing GDP. I agree that having to use borrowed money to pay for a program with little return on investment probably isn’t a great idea.
Even if you took every penny they own from every billionaire in the U.S., it still wouldn’t really put a dent in the national debt.
Yeah yeah yeah, millionaires billionaires trillion dollar deficit, so are we getting Asian escorts or not? (I want mine to look like Harry Shum, Jr. or the guy who plays Glenn on Walking Dead.)