Socialist hellhole California moves from 8th to 6th largest economy in the world, surpassing France

[UncleBuck]

I am going to spell it out for you Padwan.

Ask yourself, if poverty is the problem, why doesnt the government just print 1 million dollars and give it to each poor person.

I will answer the question for you. Because the money would suddenly be worthless.

Why would the money be worthless? Because the monetary system is a representation of VALUE. Money was backed by gold at one point. Now it is backed by faith in the government. Printing trillions of dollars in currency would make the underlying wealth worth so much more that the paper would be almost worthless. That is why trillion dollar notes were printed in Zimbabwe. Food did not suddenly become 10,000 times more expensive, the monetary value that the paper represented diminished.

Taking money from one group and giving it to another does not create value. Jobs create value, businesses create value. The government cannot create value no matter how many times it tells you it can.

Economists have differing opinions on the matter. Politicians tax the populace and allocate the money. It is what they do. If you ask for a solution to a problem it involves regulation and taxation 99% of the time. Politicians hire economists to bullshit the populace. I am sure you can come up with a peer reviewed paper showing 97% of the economists in the country agree that... Oh wait, that is global warming... LOL!!

Maybe one of these days you will wake up and realize that the government no longer serves the people, it serves itself. To perpetuate revenue the government has overspent and is driving the economy into the ground. There are economists who agree it is the right thing to do and economists that agree it is the wrong thing to do. I have no intention of getting into a pissing match by providing competing positions on the issue.

We are 20 trillion dollars in debt due to these geniuses and things are not getting noticeably better.

zimbabwe, global warming hoaxes, printing a million bucks for everyone in the nation...what a thrilling ride in the mind of a retarded person.

 

[kmog33]

Investments are but a form of savings, it isn't important to me to debate those semantics though.

The only way that is remotely fair if you are using pretax income to fund your savings and investment.

No, savings and investments are totally different.

With investments, like stocks, you don't pay taxes on anything after whatever initial capital is put in until you sell your investments/stock (This is assuming you are a tax paying citizen and already payed taxes on the money you invested at the time you were paid with that money). At the point of selling, California charges you on the amount you sold. The federal government also taxes you an additional long or short term Gaines tax on top of your ca income tax.

Savings is money you have already paid taxes on. Like a savings account. I can literally spend my savings account to 0 on whatever I want and the only additional tax i might ever pay on that money is sales tax for the things that I bought(if in somewhere that applies).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThickStemz]

not even remotely.

only a subway sandwich maker would think that.

What is the purpose of savings?

What is the purpose of investment?

They're both saving. The differences are only because of the addition of risk and time frame and goal.

Savings is simply setting aside wealth in the present for use later. Are you telling me neither a savings account, a 401k, stocks, nor government bonds will take money I have today and return it to me later with more than I put in? Are you telling me there is a difference because i can put one on a schedule and chart and know what I'm going to have, and when, but not another one?

It's like youre trying to tell me a concord and c-130 aren't both aeroplanes, because one can fly fast.

 

[MrRoboto]

You're missing the point

It is more likely for poorer people with an extra thousand dollars to spend every penny of it than it is for one millionaire to spend every penny of his million dollars. Poor people spend a higher percentage of their income than rich people (including investments). You're trying to use the example of someone like Elon Musk investing a million dollars into SpaceX vs. a thousand random people spending a thousand dollars each. Not every millionaire out there is like Elon Musk, in fact, the vast majority of them aren't. Most wealthy people save their money, especially in recessions/depressions which stalls economic activity throughout society.

To frame it another way, if I told you your life depended on choosing correctly which group of people (1000 v. 1) caused more economic growth, would you choose 1000 people spending $1,000 each or 1 person spending $1mil?

Yes, let's trust the economy to those who spend every last cent. Great economic plan. Then they will be broke and need more from the "government". Oh and next week guess what? Broke again. Need more. Guess what those 1000 people are buying with their $1000 dollars? Walmart shit. Its not made in the USA and that money is isn't staying here either. Some of it ends up back in the rich Walton's pockets tho, so there's that.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

So the important thing to the individual citizen is spending? The government needs to increase spending?

You do understand what you are saying right? Spending is taxed. The government is bent on increasing tax revenue by increasing spending. Which is not necessarily good for the average citizen.

You become more unhinged with each passing day

 

[ThickStemz]

No, savings and investments are totally different.

With investments, like stocks, you don't pay taxes on anything after whatever initial capital is put in until you sell your investments/stock (This is assuming you are a tax paying citizen and already payed taxes on the money you invested at the time you were paid with that money). At the point of selling, California charges you on the amount you sold. The federal government also taxes you an additional long or short term Gaines tax on top of your ca income tax.

Savings is money you have already paid taxes on. Like a savings account. I can literally spend my savings account to 0 on whatever I want and the only additional tax i might ever pay on that money is sales tax for the things that I bought(if in somewhere that applies).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're talking about a bank account, I'm talking about a life choice. Am I going to have savings. Not how am I going to do it.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You become more unhinged with each passing day

His assumption that the government is evil will do that to you..

 

[kmog33]

You're talking about a bank account, I'm talking about a life choice. Am I going to have savings. Not how am I going to do it.

No matter how you skew it, Investments are not savings. Government cannot touch savings.

Investments are more like income/assets.

Ie you can't say stocks are savings because at any point your stock could potentially go into negative value.

Savings are saved, and therefore are not theoretical assets and generally have an actual fixed amount plus fixed amount of interest, whereas stocks can drastically change value at any point, in any direction. I will never have less than I have in my savings right now, unless I spend the capital, which defeats the point of savings or investments.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fogdog]

I am going to spell it out for you Padwan.

Ask yourself, if poverty is the problem, why doesnt the government just print 1 million dollars and give it to each poor person.

I will answer the question for you. Because the money would suddenly be worthless.

Why would the money be worthless? Because the monetary system is a representation of VALUE. Money was backed by gold at one point. Now it is backed by faith in the government. Printing trillions of dollars in currency would make the underlying wealth worth so much more that the paper would be almost worthless. That is why trillion dollar notes were printed in Zimbabwe. Food did not suddenly become 10,000 times more expensive, the monetary value that the paper represented diminished.

Taking money from one group and giving it to another does not create value. Jobs create value, businesses create value. The government cannot create value no matter how many times it tells you it can.

Economists have differing opinions on the matter. Politicians tax the populace and allocate the money. It is what they do. If you ask for a solution to a problem it involves regulation and taxation 99% of the time. Politicians hire economists to bullshit the populace. I am sure you can come up with a peer reviewed paper showing 97% of the economists in the country agree that... Oh wait, that is global warming... LOL!!

Maybe one of these days you will wake up and realize that the government no longer serves the people, it serves itself. To perpetuate revenue the government has overspent and is driving the economy into the ground. There are economists who agree it is the right thing to do and economists that agree it is the wrong thing to do. I have no intention of getting into a pissing match by providing competing positions on the issue.

We are 20 trillion dollars in debt due to these geniuses and things are not getting noticeably better.

to spell out,

1. to explain something explicitly, so that the meaning is unmistakable:

I don't see where you explain anything so that it is unmistakable

You ask questions and make declarations that are pretty much debatable if we are generous. Then you take a few shots, some of which only highlight your ignorance. But you don't explain anything so that it is unmistakable.

So, let me spell it out for you. California has a government and electorate that support a strong social support system, good education, good transportation system a healthy environment and world class research; in other words, a liberal government. Because California's electorate supports a liberal government, California's economy is kicking ass over any other state and most countries over the past 100, 50, 20, 10 or 5 years, pick your interval.

 

[Fogdog]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2015/03/04/california-has-more-billionaires-than-every-country-except-the-u-s-and-china/#5a15281d51a7

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/73297/real_estate/top_10_us_counties_with_the_most_millionaires.html

Big surprise, ca has the largest number of millionaires of any city. A million dollars is NOT a lot of money out here. You can barely even buy a nice house in a nice neighborhood for that. Houses are selling for a median price of $500k in all of la, but that includes all of the places you don't want to live.

For reference, a 1200sq ft 3 bedroom house in an ok area here goes for an average of $875k-1.2M... If you want to live in a nice area you're looking at $1.5M-15M. And if you want to look like a baller in Beverly Hills or Manhattan beach etc, you're looking at $10M-100M depending on how extravagant you feel like being.

Billionaires are popping up more often than not out here. A million dollars isn't shit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which came first, the fabulous economy or the large number of millionaires? I'm speaking of CA, not Monte Carlo, by the way.

 

[Fogdog]

No matter how you skew it, Investments are not savings. Government cannot touch savings.

Investments are more like income/assets.

Ie you can't say stocks are savings because at any point your stock could potentially go into negative value.

Savings are saved, and therefore are not theoretical assets and generally have an actual fixed amount plus fixed amount of interest, whereas stocks can drastically change value at any point, in any direction. I will never have less than I have in my savings right now, unless I spend the capital, which defeats the point of savings or investments.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What do you call bonds?

 

[abandonconflict]

You dont create wealth by spending all your money. You create wealth by saving and investing in assets.

Labor creates all wealth.

 

[fdd2blk]

You're not listening to what's being said and I don't have the time to waste. Go read what economists have to say about this problem and argue with them.

Starts thread.
Doesn't want to talk about it.

 

[kmog33]

What do you call bonds?

Depends on if they're savings or treasury bonds I think.

Edit: I was wrong had to look it up.

All bonds are exempt from local and state taxes, but still are federally taxable.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThickStemz]

No matter how you skew it, Investments are not savings. Government cannot touch savings.

Investments are more like income/assets.

Ie you can't say stocks are savings because at any point your stock could potentially go into negative value.

Savings are saved, and therefore are not theoretical assets and generally have an actual fixed amount plus fixed amount of interest, whereas stocks can drastically change value at any point, in any direction. I will never have less than I have in my savings right now, unless I spend the capital, which defeats the point of savings or investments.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your savings are government insured to 200k, risk is still there, it is just much less and. It all depends on what we then call an investment, where that line is drawn. There is a continuous array of products that are just incrementally more risky. To go from a savings account to a CD to a government bond to yada yada up until you're buying individual stocks.

The point remains that the unifying theme of setting aside current assets for use later. Investing is just a way to save. We buy investments to preserve our wealth, to proserve is to save.

I doesn't really matter what you call it. Doing both is called saving.

 

[kmog33]

Your savings are government insured to 200k, risk is still there, it is just much less and. It all depends on what we then call an investment, where that line is drawn. There is a continuous array of products that are just incrementally more risky. To go from a savings account to a CD to a government bond to yada yada up until you're buying individual stocks.

The point remains that the unifying theme of setting aside current assets for use later. Investing is just a way to save. We buy investments to preserve our wealth, to proserve is to save.

I doesn't really matter what you call it. Doing both is called saving.

Investing into stocks is putting money into stocks that may or may not make you money. Hence "investment". Saving is putting money into non risk accounts where there will undoubtedly be a gain from deposit to withdrawal. Savings also cannot be taxed as the actual physical dollar amount has already been realized and taxed, so if I had $300k in savings, I could use 100% of it towards my downpayment on a house. And as the money already existed in savings, I will not be taxed on using money I've already payed taxes on to buy something. Whereas, if I sell $300k in stock, I will have to pay capital Gaines and California income tax. It will also add whatever I sold to my income for that tax year. Paying with savings will not be taxed as income. I already made the money and paid taxes on it. Paying from savings will go on taxes as a deficit not a profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mynameisnobody]

What do you call bonds?

The ropes your boyfriend tied you with night before last.

 

[ThickStemz]

Investing into stocks is putting money into stocks that may or may not make you money. Hence "investment". Saving is putting money into non risk accounts where there will undoubtedly be a gain from deposit to withdrawal. Savings also cannot be taxed as the actual physical dollar amount has already been realized and taxed, so if I had $300k in savings, I could use 100% of it towards my downpayment on a house. And as the money already existed in savings, I will not be taxed on using money I've already payed taxes on to buy something. Whereas, if I sell $300k in stock, I will have to pay capital Gaines and California income tax. It will also add whatever I sold to my income for that tax year. Paying with savings will not be taxed as income. I already made the money and paid taxes on it. Paying from savings will go on taxes as a deficit not a profit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't gain. It stores your money. You're going to take a loss in value. Inflation occurs while you get well below 1% in any guaranteed type. So to earn something people choose a different menthod to save it 'long term.'

But you're not buying enough stocks to run the business. You're not buying enough to have any influence in the shareholders meeting, it is done for the pure reaon of placing something of value aside to have it more useful later.

It's savings, long term in a bank will 100% lead to loss through inflation. That a risk too.

 

[kmog33]

You don't gain. It stores your money. You're going to take a loss in value. Inflation occurs while you get well below 1% in any guaranteed type. So to earn something people choose a different mention to save it 'long term.'

But you're not buying enough stocks to run the business. You're not buying enough to have any influence in the shareholders meeting, it is done for the pure reaon of placing something of value aside to have it more useful later.

It's savings, long term in a bank will 100% lead to loss through inflation. That a risk too.

https://www.sec.gov/rss/ask_investor_ed/saveinvest.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ThickStemz]

https://www.sec.gov/rss/ask_investor_ed/saveinvest.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course they have a different definition. Investing is a specific kind of saving.

Here is the saving pattern when you start out life. You accumulate enough cash through saving until one day you look up and realize that you've got enough liquid assets to cover any likely emergency and to cover your liabilities for a few months should anything happen. You ask yourself, would it be wiser to preserve this incoming wealth the same way, or might I have slightly different purposes for which I need to save now?

Savings and investing are two forms of the same behavior.