my family left China for good reasons 

my family left China for good reasons 

Too bad.

Maybe you might have been one of the rising Chinese millionaires coming to Hawaii today, from Shenzhen or Shanghai, who are buying one of the many million dollar condos in Kaka'ako.   

Too bad.

Maybe you might have been one of the rising Chinese millionaires coming to Hawaii today, from Shenzhen or Shanghai, who are buying one of the many million dollar condos in Kaka'ako.   

you assume I haven't 

Speaking of the inflation rate, the unending printing of money by the US Federal Reserve, likewise, has and is continuing to deteriorate the purchasing power of US consumers.

one should not use their own system to base their criticism of another nation.

ummmmm.....

I find your response amusing

how do you know he's not  because your answer is correct?

That's the point.  China's economic model has elements of Marxism, Fascism, and Capitalism.

It is nearly impossible to have any pure economic -isms.

Fixed it for ya.

Not that it's impossible to set them up as pure examples, but in order to survive more than a few decades they need to abandon utopian ideals and attempt to realistically address our irrational human nature. The Workers, The Party, and Economic Man are all abstractions and inherently flawed.

the tax cut is an exercise in willful blindness. The same no doubt could be said for the 1981 Reagan tax cuts, which predictably led to unprecedented deficits when Republicans as well as Democrats balked at making offsetting budget cuts. Yet at the time a whole band of officials in the White House and the Congress clamored, in some cases desperately, for such reductions. They accepted a realm of objective reality that existed separately from their own wishes. But in 2017, when the Congressional Budget Office and other neutral arbiters concluded that the tax cuts would not begin to pay for themselves, the White House and congressional leaders simply dismissed the forecasts as too gloomy.

From
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/12/19/the-united-states-of-america-is-decadent-and-depraved/

Don't know if anybody remembers taking Economics, but borrowing their terms might help explain the point. The wealthy can choose to spend their money or not, so their demand for goods and services is elastic. Poor people have trouble meeting all their expenses, which means their demand is inelastic. Therefore if you want a guaranteed stimulation of the economy vs. hoping people don't sit on their loot and refuse to play ball it would make much more sense to have a $15 national minimum wage hike. That comes with it's own set of problems, but by definition there are no easy answers when you are facing but a predicament (end of empire and the resulting collective decline in our standard of living).

And the United states is a system of mixed capitalism and socialism, because FDR created the New Deal to stop a brewing Communist revolution. Heads were about to roll after the Depression so he gave the ultra wealthy a choice of keeping most of their money or losing everything to the mob. Some of the ultra wealthy still didn't get it and were dragged kicking and screaming into adopting watered down socialist policies. They couldn't understand he was literally saving their lives.

I think the best way to address income inequality is to increase the capital gains tax. The ultra wealthy don't make their money from wages, they make it from assets. Dynastic wealth can result in families getting richer by literally doing nothing vs those who actually contribute to production and innovation.

The top 1% of the 1% are the source of HALF of all capital gains. It's crazy that someone doing absolutely nothing gets taxed at 20% while a high achieving person who earns a salary gets taxed at nearly double.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I don't have time to read all 200 pages of the new tax plan, but I did use the comparison calculator from the old one to the new one.  And the new tax plan works in my favor.

I am also a business owner, but don't have much deductions, so that portion didn't harm me.  So I always take the standard deduction which has been doubled.

I read through as much of the tax bill as I could stomach. I have a lot of deductions every year and I was afraid I was going to lose some of them. But all of my regular deductions are still there. They are lowering the threshold for medical deductions to 7.5% from 10% for this year and next. So at least I'll be able to deduct some of my wife's medical expenses from this year and next year. The doubling of the standard deduction probably won't have much effect on my taxes. The lower tax rate will probably have a greater effect on my taxes from what I can tell.

I am no tax expert but from what I could understand of the bill, mostly only people who are in the upper wage earnings range and those who live in high tax states are the only ones who won't see any benefits from the tax bill. In other words, people who spend so much money every year that they pay more than $10,000 worth of sales tax will no longer be able to deduct more than that amount. And those who own properties in which they live that are worth more than $750,000 cannot deduct their mortgage interest past a certain amount. However, I also see that corporations and the top 1% earners (wages and/or business owners) seem to fare very well with this new bill. I am personally glad to see businesses getting a huge tax benefit as I have spent most of my life working for small to medium size family businesses, employee owned businesses and large public owned corporations and have personally benefited from their fortunes when the business climates are favorable. When the business climate has been only mediocre and/or bad my wages and lack of any type of stock option sharing/profit sharing/bonuses have also suffered. Even to the point of being laid off. So if this bill makes the business climate in this country favorable, then I'm all for it. JMHO

I think the best way to address income inequality is to increase the capital gains tax. The ultra wealthy don't make their money from wages, they make it from assets. Dynastic wealth can result in families getting richer by literally doing nothing vs those who actually contribute to production and innovation.

The top 1% of the 1% are the source of HALF of all capital gains. It's crazy that someone doing absolutely nothing gets taxed at 20% while a high achieving person who earns a salary gets taxed at nearly double.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Income inequality is not going to be resolved with taxes.  Looking to the government to enrich itself so they have more power by taxing the top 1% is naive.  How can taking from the rich to make them poorer make the low and middle classes better off?  It won't reduce the taxes YOU and I pay.  With the national debt at $20T, there's no way the government is going to redistribute the capital gains revenue.  You would be reducing how much of that investment can be reinvested into the market to help the economy versus being spent by the government.  Remember:  the government doesn't produce anything to contribute to the GDP. 

Investors' INCOME will still be the same.  Taxes will simply confiscate a portion of that income to punish them for making money on investments you believe others don't make.  The truth is, if you have mutual funds or like to buy stock to put your money to work for a college fund, afford a home, etc, you will also be hit with that tax no matter what income percentage you're in.

I am no tax expert but from what I could understand of the bill, mostly only people who are in the upper wage earnings range and those who live in high tax states are the only ones who won't see any benefits from the tax bill. In other words, people who spend so much money every year that they pay more than $10,000 worth of sales tax will no longer be able to deduct more than that amount.

They shoulda called it The Tax the Democrats bill. Eventually, most will accept the tax changes with their ~$600 tax benefit and forget that the rich are getting a ~$50k tax benefit. It will be nearly impossible for the Dems to reverse the changes but they can halt the entitlement reduction to lower the debt. Everything comes with a price. My wife started a consulting business so will be interesting to see how this goes with the taxes. We also have significant deductions as a result so not too worried about the SD. If Trump can stay on message next year, then the midterm elections won't be a total disaster (like it was in 2010). Too bad that's not in his character...

They shoulda called it The Tax the Democrats bill. Eventually, most will accept the tax changes with their ~$600 tax benefit and forget that the rich are getting a ~$50k tax benefit. It will be nearly impossible for the Dems to reverse the changes but they can halt the entitlement reduction to lower the debt. Everything comes with a price. My wife started a consulting business so will be interesting to see how this goes with the taxes. We also have significant deductions as a result so not too worried about the SD. If Trump can stay on message next year, then the midterm elections won't be a total disaster (like it was in 2010). Too bad that's not in his character...

You should watch this if you haven't.  Even the couple who itemized in the past and will now use the standard deduction saves over $600 in overall taxes due because of the lower rates.

Imagine, an MSM org like CBS actually proving Trump is right about the tax cut helping the middle class!   

https://www.cbsnews.com/videos/how-the-tax-bill-will-affect-the-returns-of-three-american-families/

Income inequality is not going to be resolved with taxes.  Looking to the government to enrich itself so they have more power by taxing the top 1% is naive.  How can taking from the rich to make them poorer make the low and middle classes better off?  It won't reduce the taxes YOU and I pay.  With the national debt at $20T, there's no way the government is going to redistribute the capital gains revenue.  You would be reducing how much of that investment can be reinvested into the market to help the economy versus being spent by the government.  Remember:  the government doesn't produce anything to contribute to the GDP. 

Investors' INCOME will still be the same.  Taxes will simply confiscate a portion of that income to punish them for making money on investments you believe others don't make.  The truth is, if you have mutual funds or like to buy stock to put your money to work for a college fund, afford a home, etc, you will also be hit with that tax no matter what income percentage you're in.

You're looking at it in a vacuum. Increasing one doesn't mean keeping all else the same. And I didn't say the 1%, I said the top 1% OF the 1%. They make up half of all capital gains in the US. Doesn't that sound ridiculously skewed to you? Yet it's never brought up because people are too busy bickering about a faux war between those making 50k and those making 500k.

Truth be told, neither of those are the ultra rich.

Think of someone who contributes nothing to society, let's say Paris Hilton for example. Her family has dynastic wealth. Her earnings increase even if she sits on the couch all day, and is taxed at a lower rate than a doctor who saves lives, had to go through medical school, etc.

Passive income is where rich people make their money, not from wages. Yes, a small portion of your income would be subject to higher taxes but that could easily be offset by a decrease in income tax.

I'd rather a productive member of society keep more earnings but maybe that's just me.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

You're looking at it in a vacuum. Increasing one doesn't mean keeping all else the same. And I didn't say the 1%, I said the top 1% OF the 1%. They make up half of all capital gains in the US. Doesn't that sound ridiculously skewed to you? Yet it's never brought up because people are too busy bickering about a faux war between those making 50k and those making 500k.

Truth be told, neither of those are the ultra rich.

Think of someone who contributes nothing to society, let's say Paris Hilton for example. Her family has dynastic wealth. Her earnings increase even if she sits on the couch all day, and is taxed at a lower rate than a doctor who saves lives, had to go through medical school, etc.

Passive income is where rich people make their money, not from wages. Yes, a small portion of your income would be subject to higher taxes but that could easily be offset by a decrease in income tax.

I'd rather a productive member of society keep more earnings but maybe that's just me.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

To answer the question, NO I do not see anything wrong (morally, legally or otherwise) with anyone making as much money as they possibly can.  The successes of others do not oppress me, nor do they make me angry.  Quite the contrary -- they demonstrate to me there is no limit to what I have the chance to attain.

If someone else having more means you have less, then that's a problem we can talk about.  However, that's not true.  There is unlimited wealth in the US.  What's limited is what some people believe is "right".

So, tell us ... what is your LIMIT for how much wealth is "enough?"  Does it even take into account what good that wealth may be doing while invested or when the earner spends it on goods, services and employees?  I'm really curious.  What is that number when someone crosses over from "productive well-to-do" to "that's just too much for one person who doesn't earn it?"

You're looking at it in a vacuum. Increasing one doesn't mean keeping all else the same. And I didn't say the 1%, I said the top 1% OF the 1%. They make up half of all capital gains in the US. Doesn't that sound ridiculously skewed to you? Yet it's never brought up because people are too busy bickering about a faux war between those making 50k and those making 500k.

Truth be told, neither of those are the ultra rich.

Think of someone who contributes nothing to society, let's say Paris Hilton for example. Her family has dynastic wealth. Her earnings increase even if she sits on the couch all day, and is taxed at a lower rate than a doctor who saves lives, had to go through medical school, etc.

Passive income is where rich people make their money, not from wages. Yes, a small portion of your income would be subject to higher taxes but that could easily be offset by a decrease in income tax.

I'd rather a productive member of society keep more earnings but maybe that's just me.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

She had a great video

To answer the question, NO I do not see anything wrong (morally, legally or otherwise) with anyone making as much money as they possibly can.  The successes of others do not oppress me, nor do they make me angry.  Quite the contrary -- they demonstrate to me there is no limit to what I have the chance to attain.

If someone else having more means you have less, then that's a problem we can talk about.  However, that's not true.  There is unlimited wealth in the US.  What's limited is what some people believe is "right".

So, tell us ... what is your LIMIT for how much wealth is "enough?"  Does it even take into account what good that wealth may be doing while invested or when the earner spends it on goods, services and employees?  I'm really curious.  What is that number when someone crosses over from "productive well-to-do" to "that's just too much for one person who doesn't earn it?"

It has nothing to do with limits, it has everything to do with an unfair tax scheme.  Do you think it's fair that a person who earns a million dollars via wages is taxed more than a person passively earning the same million?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

It has nothing to do with limits, it has everything to do with an unfair tax scheme.  Do you think it's fair that a person who earns a million dollars via wages is taxed more than a person passively earning the same million?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I have no problem with passive income being taxed the same as wages.  Do the passive investors use more public infrastructure?  Does the road they drive on cost more to maintain than the road we use?

No, it's not a matter of how the money was earned.  If someone has the financial acuity to make their income by working smarter, not harder, why punish them?  If that person is retirement age, they are ensuring they can maintain a comfortable standard of living in retirement instead of relying on Social Security and Medicare at tax payer expense.  Yeah, I know they paid into the system, but since the Congress raided the fund, the people drawing benefits are dependent on the people paying in now.

I'm not sure why there is all this talk about passive income compared to non-passive income? Passive income is taxed the same as earned or non-passive income except that wage taxes, SS and Medicare are not removed from the income prior to the owner receiving it. Otherwise it is added to your total income and becomes part of your Ajusted Gross Income (AGI) and is taxed at the same rate and just like any other non-passive income. And to say anyone who recieves passive income is rich is a fallacy as certain retirement income such as a pension is also considered passive income. Would you consider all the construction workers I know who never saved a penny and never invested in their lives that receive a pension when they retire as rich just because their pension is considered passive income? Seems like all my retired friends who receive a pension are barely making ends meet.

Passive income does not define rich people. Dividend income and interest income does not define rich people either as I had dividend income as a teenager. Every time I saved $100 from my car washing job I bought 4 shares of either SCE or PG&E. I certainly was not rich as I was earning $1.75/hour. I think smart people who invest their money properly or people who work hard all their lives to earn a pension (whether rich or poor) earn passive income. There are other forms of retirement income which is earned by hard working people earning small to moderate incomes all their lives also earn passive income. So I ask what does having passive income have to do with being rich?