Bitcoin Forum

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=286217

If congress imposed a 100% tax on everyone making over $250k, confiscated all of last year's profits by the Fortune 500 companies, and took all assets of America's 400 billionaires...we could fund our gov't for 8 months. Maybe its time to look at the real culprit here: the government and its spending problem.

we are discussing spending cuts but that and your article is zero reason to not roll back the tax cuts that have helped explode our deficit as bush's Treasury sect Paul O;Neil warned would happen, right before he was forced out for saying that.

Haha, I like how you say it exploded the deficit like it was somehow the government's money to begin with. You're funny.

The fact is the government is an inefficient and wasteful monster. There is no rational reason to justify throwing more money into the flames. Additional taxes build nothing. Most departments are ineffective and if they do anything right, it's serving cunning corporations.

Putting band-aids on the symptoms of a greater problem is inane. The main issue is spending and the government at large.

Agree.

WOW...WTF do they use all that cash on?!? Does it go back to helping society? It seems like the only thing they achieve is greater and greater debt.

It is spent on paying off loans so that more loans to the government can be made - basically what you just said!

more military than the next ten countries combined and an ineffective system of corporate welfare cleverly disguised as a healthcare system.

Why not tax the rich? They don't have enough? Just tax the little guy to high hell that is struggling already? Sounds like you are a rich man or with good money. To add to it, govt needs to impose legalization on Marijuana and tax it just like alcohol.

I'm just saying.

Um, military, police, fire, legal system, fda, transportation, keeping old people off the streets, and all that debt that people voted FOR before they decided, "Nuh-uh! Not MY debt, it's the governments!" Seriously, why is it that when people vote for politicians and decisions that, say, get us stuck in a decade-long war, it's all good, but as soon as those same people are asked to pay for the money borrowed to support that war, it's all, "don't look at me! It's not MY debt."

I am not opposed to a tiered tax system, tax the rich more than the poor, simply because of the huge tax loopholes our system has created of which the wealthy and large corporations take or get the advantage. If we are not going to a flat tax across the board the only way to even start to get the playing field even is a tiered tax system however the tax brackets need to be moved, $250k is not rich.

Multi-billion dollar corporations in this country are not paying any corporate income tax due to tax loopholes and credits. Granted yes those companies do pay other taxes however if you look at a company like GE which makes billions off the Federal and even local Gov'ts yet paid no corporate income tax last year it's clear they are not owning up to paying their fair share which in turn creates this country in which they are able to make those profits. Others like Microsoft, Intel and Google have moved vast amounts of money and corporate assets to other countries to avoid US taxes yet without the US those companies wouldn't exist. One of my pet peeves are actors who make millions offshore through various channels and they keep that money offshore buying up mansions on Lake Como, Italy or private islands in the Caribbean yet without the US and it's laws those actors wouldn't be crap.

So either we tier the system or we start from scratch and flat rate everyone based on their total revenue, US generated or not, the latter being my preference. If you want to claim US citizenship or be defended by US laws then pay up Google, Microsoft, Intel, GE, Exxon, Depp, DiCaprio, Onassis, Clooney and others.

Although I'm all for a tiered tax system, the things you pointed out warrant some explanation.
GE didn't pay any corporate taxes because they, and many other corps, are still recouping the losses they had in 2008. Negative profits (or profit losses) are allowed to be carried forward and deducted for a few years. Likely GE still had plenty to carry forward. It just means that, although they may have made a huge profit over the last year, they made pretty much nothing over the last 3 years.
As for why those tech companies moved overseas, it probably has almost nothing to do with taxes, and everything to do with being able to find a pool of highly skilled employees willing to work for much less money. Believe it or not, there are actual real problems with being able to find people skilled and educated enough in this country to do some of the things those companies need done :(

Seriously dude it's a historical fact that reducing Taxes increases Tax Receipts.  This is why the Globalists rate Tax Cuts.  It stimulate the economy and they don't like that.

could have fooled me

http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/xtotal-tax-revenue.png.pagespeed.ic.PJEixeECpG.png

Wrong on why Corporations like Google are in Ireland.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2011/mar/24/google-ireland-tax-reasons-bermuda

I am aware of how to carry forward a loss and I am also aware of how easy it is as a company to show no profit.

That's as valid as "It's a historical fact that increasing prices will raise profits." We also obviously know that 0% tax rate does not result in infinity% tax receipts.
There's an upside down hyperbola function with pretty much everything financial/economic. You just have to find the peak.

My god that is an idiotic thing to say because you're trying to argue with me by making my point for me.

"That's as valid as "It's a historical fact that increasing prices will raise profits."" Noting the Sarcasm in this statement please read the following.

increasing prices will raise profits - no they decrease profits
decreasing prices will raise profits - yes more people buy when it's cheaper

increasing taxes will raise tax revenue - no they decrease revenue
decreasing taxes will raise tax revenue - yes more people buy when it's cheaper to live

That being said please educate yourself to the following.


The tax cuts of the 1920s:

Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.


The Kennedy tax cuts:

President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.


The Reagan tax cuts"

President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

You're right, not a very good example. From my business education standpoint, you increase prices, you lose profits from competition. You decrease prices, you lose profits due to high variable costs not being covered. "decreasing prices will raise profits - yes more people buy when it's cheaper" only works if you're actually covering your costs, and the number of buyers (tax payers) isn't infinite. Both tax rates and product prices have diminishing returns, and both have peaks. We may be over the peak with too high of a tax rate, but we may also be on the other side of the peak with taxes being too low. That really depends on whom you ask (I have no opinion because I don't believe I am fully informed, but then neither are most of our politicians). Just automatic "lower taxes = higher tax revenues" is total BS.

Regarding your examples, the tax rate was easily too high when Reagan came to power, and it's good that he realized that, but don't forget that he also ended up raising taxes later when he realized the revenues were too low. Clinton raised taxes in the 90's, and we ended up increasing revenues and getting rid of the deficit. Bush lowered taxes (though also increased spending), and we have a HUGE debt. It really isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

Out of curiosity, though, why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues? Did the rich skimp out on paying taxes before? What about a decreasing tax rate drives up these tax revenues?

I don't have to believe.  The numbers are historical and  sourceable online.

"why do you believe that the reduction of tax rates in your examples resulted in the "rich" paying a higher share of tax revenues?"

I posted the graph. Even if you believe in the Laffer curve, it is a curve, not a straight line. There are plenty of contrary examples to any example you could give. As mentioned the Clinton/Bush years are quite indicative of a contrary position.

By "believe" I meant as in, how do you understand this system works? What is your "informed opinion" of it? Since if all you have is historical examples, without understanding the cause-effect, then you really do only have "belief," instead of actual understanding of how the system works.

this.

running a government isnt cheap even under ideal conditions...add in wars on multiple fronts and a government that has a penchant for handing out monetary handjobs to coporations and the upper 2%, and you get massive debt.

My examples are facts and figures accessible to anyone.  As for Bush and Clinton, creative accounting can do wonders can't it?  Just look at the unemployment rate.  It's more than 20%.  Unless ofcourse you creative accounting it down to less than 10% as is being done.

Um, military, police, fire, legal system, fda, transportation, keeping old people off the streets, and all that debt

Um, no. It does not take trillions to run these services.

Seriously?  I quote historical examples and you say they are only my beliefs?  LOL

Cause - Lower Taxes
Effect - Tax Receipts increase

Really Dude comon.  Making up an argument just to start an argument is just silly.

"Since if all you have is historical examples, without understanding the cause-effect, then you really do only have "belief,"

Also, if you get incompetent politicians the majority of time in a democratic system, it's broken. I will not have my money stolen from me by force and accept it because the dumbass populace can't vote.

Also, I don't plan on voting for this reason. I refuse to have anything to do with putting idiots in office.

"Oh but you could vote for SOMEBODY DIFFERENT!"

You're full of shit. There's never been great change through voting. We need a revolution fueled --sadly-- by the blood of patriots.

I'll settle for the blood of Tyrants thanks lol.

word.

I am amazed at how the populace still believes that they get to pick who they vote for not to mention that it makes a difference which of the chosen you vote for.

Uhhh, creative account works in both directions you realize?

The relationship between tax rates and tax receipts is complicated and certainly not as unidirectional as you seem to think. Go ahead and put lines in that longitudinal graph showing when tax rates changed and then look at who they changed for, etc.

This is a quite separate issue from whether taxes are moral, whether the electoral system is broken, whether majoritarian democracy is a good idea in theory or practice, etc etc etc.

All I'm asking is that you walk back your statement and admit that sometimes tax cuts have increased taxes received and sometimes they have decreased taxes received. Likewise with raising taxes.

I was asking you to explain why one causes the other. You gave me two historical occurences that happened at the same time, said, "See? Fact!" and claimed they are related. I'm not saying they are NOT related, but I want you to explain how one causes the change in the other. Specifically the part about lower tax rates making higher-income people participate in paying taxes more. That part doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Were they tax dodgers before? WHY does that happen?

I mean, I can say:
Cause - Inflaton
Effect - Hitler

and then claim "They are both historical facts. They both happened at about the same time." And even though all of those statements are perfectly true, including that Inflation did actually cause Hitler, someone who doesn't know why may balk and get really confused.

Oh, btw, the correct answer to Clinton was "He was president during an unprecedented technological revolution called the Internet, and the subsequent enabling of cheap globalization," so economy would've boomed and tax receipts increased regardless of what he may have done. Not "creative accounting." See? Explaining and supporting the claim.

If the government did that, I would have no incentive to make more money (or get a job)...

Just realized that the main flaw with the OP statement is that it's tantamount to:

If the bank asked you to pay them your whole paycheck for your monthly mortgage payment amount, you would not have enough money to pay off your mortgage.

Yeah, that's now how debt works.

Crazy me I thought certain things to be self evident.  I can only assume it consistent with common sense that if you tax someone excessively(take their money away from them) they are less inclined to spend their Income on anything other than the essentials of survival(Food, Housing, items necessary to keep you employed ect.).  Any extra is likely to be saved for a rainy day or an emergency.

Is it not reasonable to assume the same for Business Owners(if we are to categorize the so called Rich we can assume them to be owners/proprietors of business for this example).  When Businesses are taxed excessively we can expect the same contraction in spending.  No expansion is done, layoffs are likely to occur, production is cut back due to less business, excess business income is likely to be invested in Tax Exempt areas sitting stagnant generating no production value to the economy. In essence, businesses will conduct themselves in a similar fashion to an individual.  They will invest in only the essentials to keep the business afloat and perhaps eek out a small profit for themselves.

Let us examine an example where taxes are reasonably lower.  Things sway in the other direction now.  More money is allowed to stay in the pocket of individuals and businesses alike.  For individuals it is consistent with common sense that if you are allowed to keep more of your money then that money will be invested in things considered to be a bit more extravagant than just Survival Needs.  We can all appreciate this given we are all individuals.  Lower taxes on individuals stimulate spending.

Things can be assumed to be the same for Businesses.  If a business is allowed to keep more of its profits what will happen?  Investment in new opportunities, expansion, new workers hired, increased production due to higher demand from consumers, ect.  Money is not left stagnating unused.

When times are good you expand.  When times are bad you contract.  This is a basic tenet in so many areas of life it should be more obvious to people.

TheGer: As much as we all appreciate your "common sense" explanation - this very problem has been theorized and modeled many times, in many countries, under many tax conditions, with many datasets. Results tend to be muddied by confounding macro-economic factors, but the overall answer is that "it depends". It is certainly not self-evident that decreasing taxation increases economic activity much less that increasing txes actually decreases total tax receipts (or vice-versa), no matter what the supply-siders say.

It should be noted that before Reagan became president the defecit had been steadily dropping since world war 2, which cost a boatload of money. During and after reagan the defecit has been rising ever since, only slowing down and decreasing when clinton put in place tax reforms and tax rises. This alone should be fairly good evidence then decreasing taxes doesn't actually make more money since every time the tax rate has been decreased it's just resulted in the country getting into more debt.

https://i.imgur.com/nVKdT.jpg

ah, look at that tremendous fiscal responsibility under Reagan!

Reagan expanded the military and thankfully increased military pay after years of totally ignoring the armed services. Without those expenses I would argue the collapse of the USSR and the Soviet Bloc would not have happened or would have taken far longer. A united Germany which is now the powerhouse of the EU was a direct result of those expenses. Being able to respond to world issues with a "Big Stick" to back it are a direct result and remember that would include such things as Kosovo or the years of protecting the Kurds in northen Iraq. All that spending only raised the % of GDP going to debt by less than 15%.

Obama and the sloths that run our Gov't in DC on the other hand have increased that percentage by at least 15% and to what end? A bunch of people got cars they cannot afford in order to bail out the auto industry, which BTW failed and resulted in a full bailout. More people got to stay in homes they could not afford which in turn caused a bailout of the financial sector, a bailout or takeover of F&F which will likely need to be repeated as the exposure there exceeds $200 billion. Not to mention a takeover of healthcare which will result in more Gov't payouts of printed money of at least $940 BILLION per the CBO.

Now as a business owner you take on debt in order to expand and in the end become a better business. Do you see anywhere in the current spending or spending plans any attempt to become "better" at anything? At what point has the Gov't public service areas ever done something "Better" than the private sector? I love it when people cite roads and highways, transportation as an example since all the above are contracted out to, you got it, the private sector.

Reagan was a monster who wasted tens of billions of US dollars on essentially personnel projects, funding proxy wars against the dastardly commies and funding terrorism overseas. His Tax cuts did nothing but government income and the same reckless disregard for sanity is what has led bush to the idiotic tax cuts that the country is now stuck with. It doesn't help that any attempt to get those tax cuts removed is replied with "nope, heh" from the republicans.

And no, the primary factor as to why the USSR fell apart was because it's economy was a joke by 1980 due to years of economic stagnation due to various factors. Reagan was just a paranoid lunatic who saw communists everywhere and raised the budget for superfluous armed forces because of it.

It still bugs me how "rich" is commonly viewed by income, not assets.  I don't know why people care so much about the RATE at which one becomes rich - it just screws over risk-takers and helps old money.

I do not think i said the primary factor in the fall of the USSR was the US Defense buildup. I said without that buildup the collapse would have taken longer and there are studies that link the two, see Standford papers and papers by the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, yes I had to go find it just to back up my statement.

Second my point was for the money spent in the Reagan years we saw a direct benefit. I take it you have no family in the military, I do and can tell you being on Food Stamps while serving your country is pretty piss poor way to treat your armed services and that was the case under Carter. Without the buildup the US could not have met it's obligations around the world such as Kosovo and without arguing for or against the various activities I don't think you would say we shouldn't have gone into Kosovo, flown thousands of missions over northern Iraq, etc.

At the same time what have you seen from the Trillions spent by the current Gov't?

Sorry but your theorizations, models,and datasets don't hold much water when taking into account factual information from real events.

"It is certainly not self-evident that decreasing taxation increases economic activity"

That is a silly statement.  That's like saying if I give someone $500 they won't go out and spend some money.  Yes, spending money equates to economic activity.  In case it wasn't self-evident that is...

ok. you win thread.

Except in the real world, increasing taxation increases corporate borrowing/leverage, since interest paid on debt is tax deductible, and decreasing taxation decreases borrowing but also decreases leverage.
So, if government increases the tax rate, government's tax income is almost unaffected, but companies and corporations become more risky, and banks make higher profits, and if government decreases the tax rate, government's tax income is also almost unaffected, but the companies are less risky, and banks make fewer profits.
There are A LOT of external variables anti-tax people fail to take into account.

As for the "if I had more money, I'd hire more people" argument, that's not quite so clear cut either. Hiring and paying employees is a tax deductible business expense. If I make $1,000 a month in revenues, I can hire an employee for $300 a month, pay myself $400 a month, deduct that amount from $1,000 ($700 left), and then have my business either pay $300*70%=$210 under a high tax rate, or $300*25%= $75 under a low tax rate. That's also assuming the remaining $300 is pure profit, which in a competitive market is rarely the case. So, although high tax rate may affect my business growth (which is easily mitigated by borrowing and then deducting loan interest as described above), there really isn't much of an effect on employment, and a fairly small effect on the actual amount paid overall (relative to the revenue produced). Much larger effect is from the overall business revenue, which if I was a Keynesian, I would say is due to lack of buyers, and thus buyers should have their taxes lowered, not businesses, since buyer money translates into business revenue.
But I'm not one, so I'm not saying that's the case.

Your paragraphs are quite eloquent, but making statements contrary to common sense fail to convince me.  Your statements might be true, "Except in the real world".

That's kinda the problem. One of my favorite quotes is "common sense is just common, not necessarily sensible"
Things may look fairly straightforward, but then when you start digging, turns out there's way more underneath that you realized. I mean hell, it's kind of common sense that if a government raises taxes, it'll make more money, isn't it? Of course, you point out that no it isn't as self-evident as that. I just take it a step further.
Common sense is what makes a lot of the arm chair economists on the internets difficult to deal with for those with economic and/or business degrees. As for "the real world," what I'm talking about is how global business managers think. I'm just regurgitating things I learned from my professors, from reading dozens of Harvard Business School cases (def. not a Keynesian place), and from adjunct professors who teach part time but whose real job is actually running businesses. So, feel free to accuse me of not having an original thought and just regurgitating stuff, but don't accuse what I say as not being examples from "the real world."
By the way, please note that I'm not trying to promote raising taxes. I'm just pointing out that lowering them, or raising them, really doesn't have the results people assume it does.

The problem with economic and/or business degrees is that it amounts to programming you to be part of the system.  A cog in the system, not a Force in the system.  Those who are truely successful break and bend the mold, not conform to dogma and become drones in the business world.

Feel free to ask a successful business owner what he would do with an extra $100,000 he didn't have to pay in taxes?  Wether he invested it back in the business or kept the profits for himself one thing is obvious.  He's spending some of that money, which means economic stimulus. 

I can't make it more obvious than that, but if you want to convolute the issue I've raised then feel free.  Thus far I haven't seen a leg for you to stand on.  Plenty of factors effect plenty of things, but 2+2 still =4.

Do you become a force in the system by sheer spontaneous will power, or by learning about the system you wish to be a part of? Did you learn all the stuff you're posting about economics on here by being programmed by the sources you were reading? That whole "higher education is just indoctrination" is, frankly, bullshit. I'll grant you that some schools just program, and some students are to lazy to think on their own, but in both undergrad and grad schools I've been, you're given materials to learn. That material is usually case studies about real businesses, and their real screwups or strokes of genius, operating in a real business world. None of the material is plain regurgitation of old stuff, and it's up to the person to decide what to do with said material.



I'm saying a "successful business owner" wouldn't have to pay taxes. Investing money back in the business makes that money tax deductible. Your premise is that with lower taxes, he would have an extra $100,000, which he can reinvest in his business. My point is that he can reinvest that $100,000 in his business FIRST, and deduct it from his revenues, thus lowering his own tax rate in the process. Done well enough, the tax rate should have little effect on his actual business. Now, sure, the increase in the tax rate will affect the company profits (shareholder wealth, and all employee's, including his own, personal paychecks), and sure, there are some types of taxes that will hurt more than others, but for the most part, business activities, aka costs, are tax deductions, so they could actually be encouraged by higher tax rates. (The higher the tax rate, the more you should spend in your business, or borrow to expand, to reduce your taxable income/profit). I understand that's not an easy concept. Maybe it will help if you build a spreadsheet with first line having revenues, next few lines listing costs, including hiring new employees, and apply the difference in tax rates to the Net Profit (revenues - costs) to see how tax rates affect a hypothetical business. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to better explain this.


In this case, it's actually closer to 4-2=2, 2*50%=1, versus 4-3=1, 1*50%=0.5

A good portion of it they gave to those same billionaires and companies (at least the ones in the finance industry)

Think of it this way, if you drop taxes by half on corporations, you are essentially gambling that the additional 10% of revenue that the corporations get is going to increase their profit (by investments, etc) by 100% in the next fiscal year for it to even break even, something which is horrifically misguided.

The whole notion of "Tax the rich" is based on a fallacy. First, one must ask, who are the rich? The rich are the ones who in most all societies hold political power.  Having political power and connections is the easiest way to get and stay rich.

In the USA for example just look at the net worth of senior members of govt who make all the rules:

Barack H. Osama - Net worth $10.5m source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/21/the-net-worth-of-the-amer_n_825939.html?page=2)

Nancy Pelosi - Net worth $35.2m Source (http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-06-16/news/29687626_1_stock-gains-house-speaker-charles-rangel)

Harry Reid - Net worth estimated between $3.1 - $6.7 million source (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43684.html)

I can go on and on...

After decades of "socially progressive" policies all other the developed world we still see an increasing gap between rich and poor.

I wonder, are people really that stupid to believe this shit? Or is this some kind of sick joke and I'm in the twilight zone?

What will it take for you lefties to realize the plan ain't working?

First off yes the public is that stupid. Second off the plan is working.

The plan by the Left without a doubt and of late I am leaning to saying all Gov't is to make the public stupid and docile. They are the ones funding and controlling our education system which I think most anyone would agree SUCKS. No matter how good the teacher the administration of the educational system in this country is horrible. Second with a stupid populace you can't employ them as they are to stupid which leads to Gov't programs to "help" them. As more and more of the populace becomes dependent on a Gov't payout for their daily existence you find the general voting public is now to dumb to see the plan and to scared to make changes which would take away from their portion of the Gov't pie.

The ever shrinking middle class is taxed to keep the lower class quiet and subservient. The small percentage of upper class (rich) pretends to care by giving out more Gov't paychecks and the occasional charity donation which is meant only to keep the masses peaceful. Now the only thing the Gov't has to worry about is keeping the middle class quiet which they do by pretending to allow their votes actually matter, an occasional bone (income tax breaks) and if any of those middle class speak out they are immediately determined to be extremist, deviants, or worse by those that run the Gov't and pushed aside either by the controlled media or physically by the Gov't run storm troopers.

This article should have been titled Moronics 101.  I've wrote much on the same topic to which Henry Hazlitt argues in the same vein of.

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=28113.0

*Pulls out a dollar and looks at it*

I dunno.  It has Federal Reserve Bank written on it but doesn't have my name written on it.

That original post is just drivel. Try again.

What are you saying?  That if it has somebody's name on it, it is their possession?  Besides, the Federal Reserve is actually a private organization. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your point.

I'm sure you'll be the first to admit that governments have the bad habit of spending more than they earn. So when someone does not have that $500 that they supposedly were going to spend, and instead it's in the government's pocket, guess what? That $500 gets spent. Maybe it just gets spent paying down the national debt, in which case, it goes back into the institutions' pockets that lent it. Now they have money to invest. Or maybe it gets spent wastefully on some contract. In that case, it goes into the pocket of a contractor, and now he has that $500 to spend.

What goes around comes around.

Things that are owned, and money (which is something which is owned) are really components of a digestive process, where the system consumes, digests, and then emits energy and waste. The energy hopefully results in development. The waste is hopefully minimal.

Regarding the digestive metaphor, which is very accurate, it's one of the reasons you should be very careful about what the concept of ownership really means. That breath of air you just took - you've claimed it, and now you own it. But do you keep it in your lungs? No. Same goes for that plot of land you own. Essentially, you're a system which is digesting the land, and then outputting it back into the system at some later date. It should make you think twice about what ownership really means.

These are cyclic processes. Revenue, taxes, ownership...

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQuvrffP2hRrlYXzM8rnwmGhZgJdojZ7pOGp1u1tkw3oNSj3wPq                  https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQjQS5PIcvvx0c-YdZ4SPCrajA2WFD4hzuKRLofAw7Z-EuQwNen                  https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT6Pj950hSEIlmH3fc3Rj-moig_qgXdE4PxMQWtBadBDStn63kASA