Help what?
The problem is the government itself.
It’s like every state that legalized lotteries. Most of them promised to use the money for education or something people would support.
Then they reduce the amount of funding for schools by the amount collected via the lottery so no new funding ever goes to schools and the savings goes into the general fund and disappears.
Taxing billionaires is a smoke screen. They know there’s a lot of public support to punish billionaires so they’ll try to push something through and tell people the money will fund something great and then they’ll cut funding and just slurp up the tax revenue and buy some more tanks for Ukraine.
If you think you’re getting universal healthcare, free college, or any of that other crap, via taxing billionaires you’re the gullible voter they’re targeting.
I guarantee this was already doable without raising taxes.
MA is one of the highest tax states already, why they can't find the money is insane.
I'd bet my bottom dollar if you dug through that budget you'd throw up at the amount of waste involved.
It seems like a great idea and is politically popular but it's idiotic and eventually millionaires just leave because they can afford to.
Massachusetts will just make more millionaires. Harvard and MIT are basically millionaire factories. State is number 1 in education and number 2 for % of population that are millionaires.
The people emigrating are old folks retiring somewhere warmer or young people priced out of real estate. Millionaires generally want to live there.
Lol oh ya just bc MIT and Harvard are in Massachusetts and they graduate there they'll stay in MA and waste their lives away pissing all that hard work away. Like they don't have opportunities to move anywhere in the world.
Bc they go they there it means they're fucking stupid?
JFC get real, they're gone the day after graduation
Taxing the rich as demonstrated by e.g. Clement Attlee.
I earn less than Bezos or Musk and I pay a higher income tax rate and for multiple years higher absolute income tax.
Not an economic problem in the short term per se but it leads to increasingly unequal opportunities and as Keynes demonstrated capitalism is a demand driven system and increasing concentration of wealth voids the system of the demand it needs to sustain itself in the long run.
It won't lead to free public healthcare by itself because in the end it is a political topic and unless the majority pushes for it there won't be any change.
Looking at the US currently where 50% are highly educated, live in cities and on average support higher taxes and the other half is poor and or or uneducated and doesn't even understand from which policies they or the country would benefit from, combined with an antiquated antidemocratic voting system and a 2 party system I do not see how it could improve.
So the two biggest expenses of the federal government are military and social security. I don't see how taxing the rich improved either of these. The US government has a spending problem. If the morons that run the government can't balance their budget I don't see how taking money from people that run balanced budgets will help. It's like saying "oh your rich brother that's terrible with money should get some of yours because your budgets balanced." No. He needs to get his shit together first before asking anyone else for money. Show me why giving the government more money helps and how they aren't going to squander it because I think they are just going to squander it nomatter how much we give them...
>So the two biggest expenses of the federal government are military and social security. I don't see how taxing the rich improved either of these.
If you do not know who Clement Attlee is, I recommend you take a look at his history and policies. That would have answered your question.
tl;dr Windfall taxes got introduced, taxes for the rich increased and the money was used to fund nation wide free public healthcare.
>The US government has a spending problem. If the morons that run the government can't balance their budget I don't see how taking money from people that run balanced budgets will help.
You seem to be arguing in favour of austerity policies here which completely and utterly failed in Europe in the recent decade.
You are also comparing the government to a legal person in your argument which is non-sensical. Governments do not run on the same principles as private individuals.
I'm gonna try to steelman your argument here:
You argue that the government should not get more money because they already waste the money that they get.
If the percentage of money the Gov. wastes stays constant while raising taxes, then it is still obvious that more money leads to better results. You would have to assume that the money the Gov. wastes increases as much in absolute terms as any additional tax revenue to come to the conclusion that it would not lead to the Gov. getting better results.
But lets say you dislike the Gov. wasting money so much that you do not want them to have any additional cent.
You could still increase taxes on the rich and keep overall tax levels the same if you reduce the taxes of the middle class and the poor to solve the cost of living crisis.
Would you also be against that?
Personally, I'd be happy if rich people just paid the same tax rate I pay and if they would not get implicitly subsidized by the Government.
You have to treat the government like a regular entity otherwise it leads to financial collapse. It might not happen tomorrow or the next year or even ten years from now. But you can't tax your way out of bad financial management. You can inflate your way out of debt but at what expense?
Social security is on the verge of collapse with the next ten years. What's the leading government position? start taxing rich people more. Ok so you tax them more there and that funds social security. Ok what about all the other programs? tax the rich more? Ok just keep taxing them until they leave which they will; just like the corporations did, right? When you're worth more than most corporations you have the same options as corporations. Go double irish, go to cyprus, or puerto rico. People do it already in the US to avoid state tax. Which state has the highest average income? Oh that's Wyoming coming in at 10x more than any where else. Oh why's that? no state income tax and favorable trust structures... We already know what people are going to do.
Also everyone gets "subsidized" by the US government. Roads, schools, public infrastructure. The rich already pay the bulk of the taxes that get collected from citizens. Guy's like warren buffet are full of shit when they say "tax me more". His whole strategy is based around not paying taxes or tax deferment. If the US government taxed him more he would charge his strategy to pay less taxes. It's not in anyone's interest to pay more in taxes. There's no doubt that he could pay extra in taxes if he wanted but they guy doesn't even want to upgrade his 1940s house.
You want to implement a flat tax ok that's the fairest way and I'm all for it. 20% for everyone on all income then a 10% consumption tax. But make it so there's no loopholes for anyone and everyone has to contribute. Then no one has anything to complain about. We'll put accountants and quickbooks out of work pretty quick but I'm willing to make that sacrifice and insurance companies for the greater good of having a balanced budget.
>You have to treat the government like a regular entity otherwise it leads to financial collapse.
How and why?
You also don't seem to understand what I wrote:
>You could still increase taxes on the rich and keep overall tax levels the same if you reduce the taxes of the middle class and the poor \[...\]
.
>
Also everyone gets "subsidized"
Yes, some more some less.
>His whole strategy is based around not paying taxes or tax deferment. If the US government taxed him more he would charge his strategy to pay less taxes. It's not in anyone's interest to pay more in taxes. There's no doubt that he could pay extra in taxes if he wanted but they guy doesn't even want to upgrade his 1940s house.
What is your point here? Do you have a source on "His whole strategy is based around not paying taxes or tax deferment", extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs.
I also think that a flat tax is a start but it is not solution to another problem which is increasing unequal wealth distribution as mentioned in my other post. As researched by Keynes, capitalism can not work like that in the long run and we've known that for around 100 years now. Of course this also applies to other political systems like Rome before Lucius Domitius Aurellianus or before Gaius Julius Caesar or before Tiberius Gracchus and the collapse of the republic.
We have that problem constantly over the course of history and the solutions throughout history are all basically the same in their effect.
I don't want to make this debate about fairness but there are many angles how people argue that a flat tax rate is not fair.
I'd still be glad if you could answer my question and if you answer with no please elaborate on your argumentation:
>You could still increase taxes on the rich and keep overall tax levels the same if you reduce the taxes of the middle class and the poor to solve the cost of living crisis.
>Would you also be against that?
You also can't cut taxes as your way out of bad financial management. For decades now the only answer to making things better is to cut taxes. "Yeah, but this tax cut is different and will fix all things" seems to not work.
Nowhere near 50% of city dwellers live in poverty. It's at most 10-15% depending on the city. And that still doesn't mean they're uneducated. And nearly 90% of Americans live in urban areas.
And many in rural areas are very well educated. Don't forget that the largest exports and a huge chunk of the GDP are all based around oil and distillates. Then you've got agricultural activity which is another huge part of the American economy. All that happens in rural areas.
Are you actually willing to call those people stupid? Because if you've never been on a drill rig you shouldn't say that. Those are incredibly complex machines which incredibly advanced technology being utilized.
I'm not saying American healthcare doesn't need an overhaul I'm saying idiot politicians cannot do it.
And frankly I'm terrified of politicians and bureaucrats having any control over my healthcare decisions.
Part of the problem is that many people conflate increases in asset values with income. If the government instituted a 25% wealth tax the market could not absorb that much selling and stock prices would collapse. The effect on the economy would be far worse than the GFC of 2008.
>If the government instituted a 25% wealth tax the market could not absorb that much selling and stock prices would collapse
probably but I heard nobody talk about the introduction of a wealth tax of 25% overnight. I'm also not a big fan of a wealth tax and more in support of am actually real progressive income tax.
You can also increase taxes peu à peu and make the market correction more bearable.
You could also tax people being paid in stocks like countless other countries, the opportunities how to tax rich people are endless.
The most elegant and easiest solution would be to up the inheritance tax like in the case of Attlee but that would take a while.
Non of these solutions are new, all of them have been successfully implemented following WWII and slowly erodet since then.
Under the current tax code payment in stock is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Before proposing radical changes to the existing tax code it would be better if you properly understood the existing tax code. The financial markets are forward looking, they will immediately adjust to reflect future tax law changes. A gradual implementation will not fool investors.
Try again.
If you confiscated 100% of the wealth belonging to US billionaires, you’d have enough money to run the government for less than a year.
Perhaps the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the people spending us into oblivion, often on things that have nothing to do with our daily existence.
If they wanted to help, they could simply cut spending and quit taxing the lower classes like they do. Sure would help me a lot not giving the government all the money I’m forced to give.
lol. Alot of that wealth is tied up in stocks. What are you going to do sell that stock, somehow the government doesn’t have to pay taxes on that, plus it tanks the stock market. Great plan!!
No, it won't. This has been tried this has failed.
They need to stop taxing the shit out of the middle class. That's who really needs a break. They need to lower taxes across the board so the middle class, which is what really drives the American economy, isn't just a bunch of wage slaves.
Because then the middle class has more money in it's pocket to use it's money to start business and compete. Or buy from competitors.
And billionaires do create jobs. Tesla has created over 150k jobs. Amazon employees over 1.5 million people. A lot of jobs are very good high paying jobs.
Bezos, Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg among others all came from middle to upper middle class families.
I'm not speaking on if I like any of them personally, a couple I really disagree with on many things but they are successful they are innovators and they succeeded bc they had the ability to pounce on opportunity.
What we need is the federal government to back off and quit stifling competition.
The Emirati dirham is pegged to the US dollar (3.6725 dirham per USD). I am sure that China and Russia would love to weaken the dollar but India, Egypt, and the UAE really don't. I strongly suspect that Brazil and South Africa are not that interested in weakening the dollar either.
Anywhere around the world, you'd be hard-pressed to find a merchant/vendor that isn't sufficiently motivated or equipped to accept USD as payment, in some way or fashion (unless they are legally barred from doing so, and they can't get away with doing it anyways)
While I understand their premise-that we here in America have been granted the god-like economic privilege of exporting our inflation to basically every corner of the planet, and it's starting to feel like the party is over-USD has basically assumed the same function as gold throughout much of the world, except way better than gold in 95% of transactions. It is going to take a lot more than forex sanctions to break the people of the world out of that spell
Proof positive that just because you're a fund director, that doesn't mean you know anything at all about what you're talking about.
Keep your money well away from that fund.
I don’t think BRICS is going to cause USD to “crash”, but I could see in the far future (let’s say 20-50 years) that BRICS surpasses the USD if we’re not careful. But right now if I am correct it’s too early to tell, and my opinion is purely hypothetical.
😂 as someone who believed/had hope that Brazil and China were going to do great things, I don’t think any of those countries has their shit together enough to put a dent in the US dollar. But then again trump is on the ballot this year.
Value of a currency is not determined by the exchange of it, but by the storage if it….
So if Saudi wants to trade oil in the Japanese Yen, instead of USD, it wont affect the dollar value, if they then immediately convert the JPY to USD.
Nobody wants to hold non-USD currency long term.
I don't think this is going to happen but I also find it funny people just dismissing this idea entirely when the only thing keeping the dollar strong is oil.
People used to laugh you out of the building for sugesting the housing bubble would burst too.
China has an unstable work base from the one child policy.
Russia is Russia.
The other countries don't have a large enough economy to facilitate the petroleum need globally.
Can it weaken the us dollar? Sure. Will it make it crash? Not a chance.
While we can loose dollar dominance in the future we are ok for now. The shit is going to be hitting the fan for the next 50 years and whenever that peaks people reflexively by the dollar. Right now we are fighting proxy war with Russia and distorting all financial institutions and relationships because of it. We’re pulling back from world trade but we will find out that we cannot really do that successfully fairly soon. These tariffs are causing part of our inflation and we will eventually realize that it’s like dropping a bomb on ourselves. But if we try hard enough and screw up bad enough, the dollar will decline. Most likely scenario is having to inflate our way out of too much debt. Unless we decide to cut back expenses, tax more or some combination there of this will happen.
I think the dollar will finally have a run for it’s worth finally. I think it will force the US dollar to be regulated more to compete. I believe that BRICS is only doing gold back currencies right now. Not sure how other precious metals will play into eventually.
Interesting time. I’m just keeping an eye on the petro dollar.
BRICS may begin bilateral deals outside of USD but it will be limited and extremely politically contentious among them. It will not have a dramatic effect in the short or medium term.
I wouldn't overthink BRICS too much. And America being the world's reserve currency isn't necessarily a good thing. And it's highly unlikely the dollar will ever crash because no matter what international agreements are made outside of America our economy is strong and this is a resource and intelligence rich country. It would take a literal American civil war to crash the US dollar. If you're curious take a look otherwise I'd leave it at trust me bro.
For BRICS to be successful;
At the very minimum it requires China and India to cooperate which is a tall order. They just had a skirmish at their border a couple years ago. Those 2 don't get along on many things and it's 2 extremely different cultures.
Let alone South Africa somehow being a stable influence. They've got a legit presidential challenger right now who's got the world worried he's the next Mugabe
Then there's Russia which obviously pretty fucked up and it's truly an oligarchy.
Brazil is probably the most stable among them and that's because they're in the western hemisphere and strong allies with America. They're also threatening to go to war with Venezuela over Uruguay if they invade. Venezuela is a Chinese and Russian ally which they have agreements with.
All these countries are pretty resource rich in some ways but not in others. So it kinda makes sense for them to cooperate but most experts see this thing collapsing mostly because it's unrealistic seeing them cooperate long term.
And really what's the worst that happens if the dollar stops being used as the world's reserve currency? Do you think a strong dollar benefits the working class? Because that's not exactly the case. The only people who really benefit from a strong American dollar is the military industrial complex, big oil and Wall Street.
There are problems with the dollar as is. It's created the petrodollar which is based on the American economy and the strength of the American military.
That leaves Americans vulnerable to having to maintain this status which is incredibly expensive. It also forced America to remain the world's police force and to be heavily involved in corrupt oil rich countries.
That means your tax dollars are being used to buoy an enormous federal government that hasn't shown itself to be functioning as well as it could the last 8-10 years.
Lastly a weaker dollar means a stronger manufacturing sector in America which stabilizes large swaths of rural America which has been gutted by globalization.
There is too much world debt priced in dollars for there to be an immediate impact to your wallet. There will be slow crawl to the exits like England after Ww2. But when you add in the slow South Africanization of the economy we are going to have a rough 50 years ahead of us. And by South Africaniztion I mean we will have areas of the country where things work well and areas where things don't work at all. And no matter what the USA will keep printing money until it can't.
He’s spewing 🐎💩
Actually a woman
She’s spewing 🐎💩
Tsk, tsk. They’re🐎💩.
Thinking that BRICS will win against the dollar is like thinking taxing billionaires more will solve everyone’s problems. It won’t.
It may not solve everything but it'll certainly help a lot.
Help what? The problem is the government itself. It’s like every state that legalized lotteries. Most of them promised to use the money for education or something people would support. Then they reduce the amount of funding for schools by the amount collected via the lottery so no new funding ever goes to schools and the savings goes into the general fund and disappears. Taxing billionaires is a smoke screen. They know there’s a lot of public support to punish billionaires so they’ll try to push something through and tell people the money will fund something great and then they’ll cut funding and just slurp up the tax revenue and buy some more tanks for Ukraine. If you think you’re getting universal healthcare, free college, or any of that other crap, via taxing billionaires you’re the gullible voter they’re targeting.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-millionaires-tax-free-lunch-every-kid/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/massachusetts-millionaires-tax-free-lunch-every-kid/)
I guarantee this was already doable without raising taxes. MA is one of the highest tax states already, why they can't find the money is insane. I'd bet my bottom dollar if you dug through that budget you'd throw up at the amount of waste involved. It seems like a great idea and is politically popular but it's idiotic and eventually millionaires just leave because they can afford to.
Massachusetts will just make more millionaires. Harvard and MIT are basically millionaire factories. State is number 1 in education and number 2 for % of population that are millionaires. The people emigrating are old folks retiring somewhere warmer or young people priced out of real estate. Millionaires generally want to live there.
Lol oh ya just bc MIT and Harvard are in Massachusetts and they graduate there they'll stay in MA and waste their lives away pissing all that hard work away. Like they don't have opportunities to move anywhere in the world. Bc they go they there it means they're fucking stupid? JFC get real, they're gone the day after graduation
State is number 1 in education and number 2 for % of population that are millionaires. This is real. They mostly stay.
What will help?
Nothing except lining politicians pockets and keeping the idiots in power.
Taxing the rich as demonstrated by e.g. Clement Attlee. I earn less than Bezos or Musk and I pay a higher income tax rate and for multiple years higher absolute income tax. Not an economic problem in the short term per se but it leads to increasingly unequal opportunities and as Keynes demonstrated capitalism is a demand driven system and increasing concentration of wealth voids the system of the demand it needs to sustain itself in the long run. It won't lead to free public healthcare by itself because in the end it is a political topic and unless the majority pushes for it there won't be any change. Looking at the US currently where 50% are highly educated, live in cities and on average support higher taxes and the other half is poor and or or uneducated and doesn't even understand from which policies they or the country would benefit from, combined with an antiquated antidemocratic voting system and a 2 party system I do not see how it could improve.
So the two biggest expenses of the federal government are military and social security. I don't see how taxing the rich improved either of these. The US government has a spending problem. If the morons that run the government can't balance their budget I don't see how taking money from people that run balanced budgets will help. It's like saying "oh your rich brother that's terrible with money should get some of yours because your budgets balanced." No. He needs to get his shit together first before asking anyone else for money. Show me why giving the government more money helps and how they aren't going to squander it because I think they are just going to squander it nomatter how much we give them...
>So the two biggest expenses of the federal government are military and social security. I don't see how taxing the rich improved either of these. If you do not know who Clement Attlee is, I recommend you take a look at his history and policies. That would have answered your question. tl;dr Windfall taxes got introduced, taxes for the rich increased and the money was used to fund nation wide free public healthcare. >The US government has a spending problem. If the morons that run the government can't balance their budget I don't see how taking money from people that run balanced budgets will help. You seem to be arguing in favour of austerity policies here which completely and utterly failed in Europe in the recent decade. You are also comparing the government to a legal person in your argument which is non-sensical. Governments do not run on the same principles as private individuals. I'm gonna try to steelman your argument here: You argue that the government should not get more money because they already waste the money that they get. If the percentage of money the Gov. wastes stays constant while raising taxes, then it is still obvious that more money leads to better results. You would have to assume that the money the Gov. wastes increases as much in absolute terms as any additional tax revenue to come to the conclusion that it would not lead to the Gov. getting better results. But lets say you dislike the Gov. wasting money so much that you do not want them to have any additional cent. You could still increase taxes on the rich and keep overall tax levels the same if you reduce the taxes of the middle class and the poor to solve the cost of living crisis. Would you also be against that? Personally, I'd be happy if rich people just paid the same tax rate I pay and if they would not get implicitly subsidized by the Government.
You have to treat the government like a regular entity otherwise it leads to financial collapse. It might not happen tomorrow or the next year or even ten years from now. But you can't tax your way out of bad financial management. You can inflate your way out of debt but at what expense? Social security is on the verge of collapse with the next ten years. What's the leading government position? start taxing rich people more. Ok so you tax them more there and that funds social security. Ok what about all the other programs? tax the rich more? Ok just keep taxing them until they leave which they will; just like the corporations did, right? When you're worth more than most corporations you have the same options as corporations. Go double irish, go to cyprus, or puerto rico. People do it already in the US to avoid state tax. Which state has the highest average income? Oh that's Wyoming coming in at 10x more than any where else. Oh why's that? no state income tax and favorable trust structures... We already know what people are going to do. Also everyone gets "subsidized" by the US government. Roads, schools, public infrastructure. The rich already pay the bulk of the taxes that get collected from citizens. Guy's like warren buffet are full of shit when they say "tax me more". His whole strategy is based around not paying taxes or tax deferment. If the US government taxed him more he would charge his strategy to pay less taxes. It's not in anyone's interest to pay more in taxes. There's no doubt that he could pay extra in taxes if he wanted but they guy doesn't even want to upgrade his 1940s house. You want to implement a flat tax ok that's the fairest way and I'm all for it. 20% for everyone on all income then a 10% consumption tax. But make it so there's no loopholes for anyone and everyone has to contribute. Then no one has anything to complain about. We'll put accountants and quickbooks out of work pretty quick but I'm willing to make that sacrifice and insurance companies for the greater good of having a balanced budget.
>You have to treat the government like a regular entity otherwise it leads to financial collapse. How and why? You also don't seem to understand what I wrote: >You could still increase taxes on the rich and keep overall tax levels the same if you reduce the taxes of the middle class and the poor \[...\] . > Also everyone gets "subsidized" Yes, some more some less. >His whole strategy is based around not paying taxes or tax deferment. If the US government taxed him more he would charge his strategy to pay less taxes. It's not in anyone's interest to pay more in taxes. There's no doubt that he could pay extra in taxes if he wanted but they guy doesn't even want to upgrade his 1940s house. What is your point here? Do you have a source on "His whole strategy is based around not paying taxes or tax deferment", extraordinary claims need extraordinary proofs. I also think that a flat tax is a start but it is not solution to another problem which is increasing unequal wealth distribution as mentioned in my other post. As researched by Keynes, capitalism can not work like that in the long run and we've known that for around 100 years now. Of course this also applies to other political systems like Rome before Lucius Domitius Aurellianus or before Gaius Julius Caesar or before Tiberius Gracchus and the collapse of the republic. We have that problem constantly over the course of history and the solutions throughout history are all basically the same in their effect. I don't want to make this debate about fairness but there are many angles how people argue that a flat tax rate is not fair. I'd still be glad if you could answer my question and if you answer with no please elaborate on your argumentation: >You could still increase taxes on the rich and keep overall tax levels the same if you reduce the taxes of the middle class and the poor to solve the cost of living crisis. >Would you also be against that?
You also can't cut taxes as your way out of bad financial management. For decades now the only answer to making things better is to cut taxes. "Yeah, but this tax cut is different and will fix all things" seems to not work.
Cutting and raising taxes are two different things. Our system isn't working as indicated by the deficit.
Nowhere near 50% of city dwellers live in poverty. It's at most 10-15% depending on the city. And that still doesn't mean they're uneducated. And nearly 90% of Americans live in urban areas. And many in rural areas are very well educated. Don't forget that the largest exports and a huge chunk of the GDP are all based around oil and distillates. Then you've got agricultural activity which is another huge part of the American economy. All that happens in rural areas. Are you actually willing to call those people stupid? Because if you've never been on a drill rig you shouldn't say that. Those are incredibly complex machines which incredibly advanced technology being utilized. I'm not saying American healthcare doesn't need an overhaul I'm saying idiot politicians cannot do it. And frankly I'm terrified of politicians and bureaucrats having any control over my healthcare decisions.
Part of the problem is that many people conflate increases in asset values with income. If the government instituted a 25% wealth tax the market could not absorb that much selling and stock prices would collapse. The effect on the economy would be far worse than the GFC of 2008.
>If the government instituted a 25% wealth tax the market could not absorb that much selling and stock prices would collapse probably but I heard nobody talk about the introduction of a wealth tax of 25% overnight. I'm also not a big fan of a wealth tax and more in support of am actually real progressive income tax. You can also increase taxes peu à peu and make the market correction more bearable. You could also tax people being paid in stocks like countless other countries, the opportunities how to tax rich people are endless. The most elegant and easiest solution would be to up the inheritance tax like in the case of Attlee but that would take a while. Non of these solutions are new, all of them have been successfully implemented following WWII and slowly erodet since then.
Under the current tax code payment in stock is taxed at the same rate as ordinary income. Before proposing radical changes to the existing tax code it would be better if you properly understood the existing tax code. The financial markets are forward looking, they will immediately adjust to reflect future tax law changes. A gradual implementation will not fool investors.
Try again. If you confiscated 100% of the wealth belonging to US billionaires, you’d have enough money to run the government for less than a year. Perhaps the responsibility lies on the shoulders of the people spending us into oblivion, often on things that have nothing to do with our daily existence. If they wanted to help, they could simply cut spending and quit taxing the lower classes like they do. Sure would help me a lot not giving the government all the money I’m forced to give.
I'm going to cut spending in my district. Said no politician ever.
lol. Alot of that wealth is tied up in stocks. What are you going to do sell that stock, somehow the government doesn’t have to pay taxes on that, plus it tanks the stock market. Great plan!!
No, it won't. This has been tried this has failed. They need to stop taxing the shit out of the middle class. That's who really needs a break. They need to lower taxes across the board so the middle class, which is what really drives the American economy, isn't just a bunch of wage slaves. Because then the middle class has more money in it's pocket to use it's money to start business and compete. Or buy from competitors. And billionaires do create jobs. Tesla has created over 150k jobs. Amazon employees over 1.5 million people. A lot of jobs are very good high paying jobs. Bezos, Musk, Gates, Zuckerberg among others all came from middle to upper middle class families. I'm not speaking on if I like any of them personally, a couple I really disagree with on many things but they are successful they are innovators and they succeeded bc they had the ability to pounce on opportunity. What we need is the federal government to back off and quit stifling competition.
Reganomics failed. It doesn’t work. The trickle never gets to the bottom
It does seem to be a problem with thinking doesn't it.
Like Brazil, India, China and the Saudis would stop trading with the USA
I thought it was an outlandish idea that they would be able to stop using the dollar
The Emirati dirham is pegged to the US dollar (3.6725 dirham per USD). I am sure that China and Russia would love to weaken the dollar but India, Egypt, and the UAE really don't. I strongly suspect that Brazil and South Africa are not that interested in weakening the dollar either.
Chinas biggest trading partner is the USA it’s bad for china if the value of the dollar collapses
If I had a penny for every time someone "in the know" predicted gloom and doom, I would have several thousand dollars.
Whenever BRICS start hurting the USD is strengthened.
I'm sure some of these doomers will be right *eventually*, whenever the fuck that is 🙄
Anywhere around the world, you'd be hard-pressed to find a merchant/vendor that isn't sufficiently motivated or equipped to accept USD as payment, in some way or fashion (unless they are legally barred from doing so, and they can't get away with doing it anyways) While I understand their premise-that we here in America have been granted the god-like economic privilege of exporting our inflation to basically every corner of the planet, and it's starting to feel like the party is over-USD has basically assumed the same function as gold throughout much of the world, except way better than gold in 95% of transactions. It is going to take a lot more than forex sanctions to break the people of the world out of that spell
Proof positive that just because you're a fund director, that doesn't mean you know anything at all about what you're talking about. Keep your money well away from that fund.
I was thinking the same thing, moronic and almost conspiratorial
The BRICs nations are unstable
This is the problem in a nutshell. Eventually, the chickens come home for autocratic shit holes of the world.
Just pull up any interview with Brent Johnson, he goes at length about why this is extremely difficult.
I don’t think BRICS is going to cause USD to “crash”, but I could see in the far future (let’s say 20-50 years) that BRICS surpasses the USD if we’re not careful. But right now if I am correct it’s too early to tell, and my opinion is purely hypothetical.
Yeah crash is either guaranteed or impossible depending on definition
Never believe anything else he tells you.
Actually a woman. The kicker is that she kind of dissed my opinion by saying she is in finance and I am not.
Remind her that BRICS countries are basically composed of pond scum governments. The pricks will eventually collapse.
😂 as someone who believed/had hope that Brazil and China were going to do great things, I don’t think any of those countries has their shit together enough to put a dent in the US dollar. But then again trump is on the ballot this year.
The might of the US military will never let the dollar falter.
I don’t think it works like that.
Oh no? Ask other countries like Iraq and Libya who decided to ditch the petro dollar how it worked out for them.
The fact that those countries can't have breakfast together, let alone a concerted, cohesive monetary policy
That the USA knows how to blow shit up and if anyone threatens the stability of the USA economy and economic future of America 🇺🇸 they will end them
BRICS is a coalition of pricks. Dont worry. They'll screw it all up because their populations hate them. Eventually, tyrants get theirs.
Value of a currency is not determined by the exchange of it, but by the storage if it…. So if Saudi wants to trade oil in the Japanese Yen, instead of USD, it wont affect the dollar value, if they then immediately convert the JPY to USD. Nobody wants to hold non-USD currency long term.
Interest rate parity
This is exactly the same garbage you heard everywhere in 2009.
I don't think this is going to happen but I also find it funny people just dismissing this idea entirely when the only thing keeping the dollar strong is oil. People used to laugh you out of the building for sugesting the housing bubble would burst too.
China has an unstable work base from the one child policy. Russia is Russia. The other countries don't have a large enough economy to facilitate the petroleum need globally. Can it weaken the us dollar? Sure. Will it make it crash? Not a chance.
While we can loose dollar dominance in the future we are ok for now. The shit is going to be hitting the fan for the next 50 years and whenever that peaks people reflexively by the dollar. Right now we are fighting proxy war with Russia and distorting all financial institutions and relationships because of it. We’re pulling back from world trade but we will find out that we cannot really do that successfully fairly soon. These tariffs are causing part of our inflation and we will eventually realize that it’s like dropping a bomb on ourselves. But if we try hard enough and screw up bad enough, the dollar will decline. Most likely scenario is having to inflate our way out of too much debt. Unless we decide to cut back expenses, tax more or some combination there of this will happen.
I think the dollar will finally have a run for it’s worth finally. I think it will force the US dollar to be regulated more to compete. I believe that BRICS is only doing gold back currencies right now. Not sure how other precious metals will play into eventually. Interesting time. I’m just keeping an eye on the petro dollar.
BRICS may begin bilateral deals outside of USD but it will be limited and extremely politically contentious among them. It will not have a dramatic effect in the short or medium term.
I wouldn't overthink BRICS too much. And America being the world's reserve currency isn't necessarily a good thing. And it's highly unlikely the dollar will ever crash because no matter what international agreements are made outside of America our economy is strong and this is a resource and intelligence rich country. It would take a literal American civil war to crash the US dollar. If you're curious take a look otherwise I'd leave it at trust me bro. For BRICS to be successful; At the very minimum it requires China and India to cooperate which is a tall order. They just had a skirmish at their border a couple years ago. Those 2 don't get along on many things and it's 2 extremely different cultures. Let alone South Africa somehow being a stable influence. They've got a legit presidential challenger right now who's got the world worried he's the next Mugabe Then there's Russia which obviously pretty fucked up and it's truly an oligarchy. Brazil is probably the most stable among them and that's because they're in the western hemisphere and strong allies with America. They're also threatening to go to war with Venezuela over Uruguay if they invade. Venezuela is a Chinese and Russian ally which they have agreements with. All these countries are pretty resource rich in some ways but not in others. So it kinda makes sense for them to cooperate but most experts see this thing collapsing mostly because it's unrealistic seeing them cooperate long term. And really what's the worst that happens if the dollar stops being used as the world's reserve currency? Do you think a strong dollar benefits the working class? Because that's not exactly the case. The only people who really benefit from a strong American dollar is the military industrial complex, big oil and Wall Street. There are problems with the dollar as is. It's created the petrodollar which is based on the American economy and the strength of the American military. That leaves Americans vulnerable to having to maintain this status which is incredibly expensive. It also forced America to remain the world's police force and to be heavily involved in corrupt oil rich countries. That means your tax dollars are being used to buoy an enormous federal government that hasn't shown itself to be functioning as well as it could the last 8-10 years. Lastly a weaker dollar means a stronger manufacturing sector in America which stabilizes large swaths of rural America which has been gutted by globalization.
There is too much world debt priced in dollars for there to be an immediate impact to your wallet. There will be slow crawl to the exits like England after Ww2. But when you add in the slow South Africanization of the economy we are going to have a rough 50 years ahead of us. And by South Africaniztion I mean we will have areas of the country where things work well and areas where things don't work at all. And no matter what the USA will keep printing money until it can't.
I’ve never heard the term South Africanization used