I think households should be treated as corporations, and their documented expenses deducted from their documented income. This would put individuals and households on the same footing as corporations, and shift the burden to those households which manage to have something left over at the end of the year. Since the poorer households do tend to spend all of their income, this would inherently shift the tax burden to the wealthy.
Yes, it becomes a game of spending all that income, but that spending is what drives the economy. Increasing savings generates money for banks, and gives the government something to borrow, but causes the economy itself to stagnate.
I have even more radical ideas on how to fund a government.... :-)
It seems like this would discourage saving for important things like retirement and education. It would also encourage everyone to buy lots of assets that they didn't need (yachts, etc), thereby pulling their money out of the banking system and driving interest rates up for everyone.
Because saving allows a person to invest in self-improvement, withstand hardship, or allow retirement, without having to impose on anyone else to pay for it.
That's certainly what the banks and stock exchanges want you to think. That's what keeps them in business.
Might it not be better to buy a solid item, such as gold or land, and then sell it again when you need the money? That's what the truly wealthy do. That's what you're doing when you invest in stocks, unless you pick them solely on the basis of expected dividend payment.
Best of all: Start or buy a business which you will eventually turn over to other people to manage. You get a chunk of the profit; they get jobs and the economy is enlarged instead of shrunken.
Putting your savings in real estate was all the rage five years ago or so. It didn't work out so well...
As for using it to start a business, most people have neither the time, the skill, nor the inclination to become entrepreneurs. Even among those who do, the majority of startups still fail and go broke. This would seem not to be the sort of thing for most people's retirement nest egg.
Money and securities are liquid, and dollars, at least, are reasonably stable in value (at least compared to the alternatives). You can move in and out of them with much lower transaction overhead than most other assets. That seems a more likely explanation for their popularity than a banking industry conspiracy.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Yes, it becomes a game of spending all that income, but that spending is what drives the economy. Increasing savings generates money for banks, and gives the government something to borrow, but causes the economy itself to stagnate.
I have even more radical ideas on how to fund a government.... :-)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Might it not be better to buy a solid item, such as gold or land, and then sell it again when you need the money? That's what the truly wealthy do. That's what you're doing when you invest in stocks, unless you pick them solely on the basis of expected dividend payment.
Best of all: Start or buy a business which you will eventually turn over to other people to manage. You get a chunk of the profit; they get jobs and the economy is enlarged instead of shrunken.
no subject
As for using it to start a business, most people have neither the time, the skill, nor the inclination to become entrepreneurs. Even among those who do, the majority of startups still fail and go broke. This would seem not to be the sort of thing for most people's retirement nest egg.
Money and securities are liquid, and dollars, at least, are reasonably stable in value (at least compared to the alternatives). You can move in and out of them with much lower transaction overhead than most other assets. That seems a more likely explanation for their popularity than a banking industry conspiracy.