The growth of income inequality of the last 5 years is primarily being driven by the Federal Reserve.
You see the rich get their loans at 0.25% interest, that hedge funds can get use to gobble up large swathes of land and property and then charge us a much higher number on a mortgage, say 4-5%. You know what the difference between those two numbers are? It's called arbitrage, a basic concept of economics, and arbitrage enabled by the Fed is the primary driver of income inequality. Oh and what if you default on your mortgage you wonder, isn't the difference in rates because of risk the investors take? Well the Fed buys mortgage-backed securities. It has the rich covered. No risk profit, with none of the profits coming from increased productivity.
Wait, so you want me to pay tax on stuff I already own and paid taxes on? Year after year after year?
Yeah, I vote no on that.
The growth of income inequality of the last 5 years is primarily being driven by the Federal Reserve.
You see the rich get their loans at 0.25% interest, that hedge funds can get use to gobble up large swathes of land and property and then charge us a much higher number on a mortgage, say 4-5%. You know what the difference between those two numbers are? It's called arbitrage, a basic concept of economics, and arbitrage enabled by the Fed is the primary driver of income inequality. Oh and what if you default on your mortgage you wonder, isn't the difference in rates because of risk the investors take? Well the Fed buys mortgage-backed securities. It has the rich covered. No risk profit, with none of the profits coming from increased productivity.
There is no evidence for this assertion.
This is also not a case of arbitrage. Arbitrage is taking advantage of the price differential between two markets where there's no possibility of losing money (or in practice, only a very small one). Loaning out money at a higher rate than it takes you to borrow it is not arbitrage because there is a different risk profile involved for clients.
Mortgages are guaranteed basically by the federal government. The only risk is that the borrower pays you back in full in advance of the mortgage ending.
So how did all those financial companies go out of business because people didn't pay their mortgages?
Don't feel bad. Apparently a lot of professionals thought mortgages were "basically guaranteed" too.
many people think that rich people dont pay enough in taxes. a lot of this comes from the fact that their net worth is much higher than their income. one solution to this would be to start taxing peoples net worth as well as their income. say, %2 of net worth each year. it would be great for the deficit.
Mortgages are guaranteed basically by the federal government. The only risk is that the borrower pays you back in full in advance of the mortgage ending.
2%? Do you understand how that would destroy the investor class in this country? Dont forget a lot of middle class workers have retirement funds that would get hit with this. They arent savvy enough nor have enough time to invest to beat this 2% drain on their wealth.
2%? Do you understand how that would destroy the investor class in this country? Dont forget a lot of middle class workers have retirement funds that would get hit with this. They arent savvy enough nor have enough time to invest to beat this 2% drain on their wealth.
We should tax at 20% after 30 billion a year. Tax the charity contributions as well.
This is not accurate. Not only are not all mortgages guaranteed by the federal government (as we recently saw), but higher inflation rates can be very damaging to mortgage issuers.
The only way this would work is if we had a global wealth tax. Otherwise it would just destroy demand for wealth within an individual country. It would be easy to make it a wealth tax only on fortunes greater than X dollars, anyway.
The only way this would work is if we had a global wealth tax. Otherwise it would just destroy demand for wealth within an individual country. It would be easy to make it a wealth tax only on fortunes greater than X dollars, anyway.
But 2%? I think it is difficult enough beating inflation, maintenance fee's, transaction fee's, and capital gains taxes to generate wealth. Taking on a flat 2% cost of ownership would run down most people's wealth over time.
But 2%? I think it is difficult enough beating inflation, maintenance fee's, transaction fee's, and capital gains taxes to generate wealth. Taking on a flat 2% cost of ownership would run down most people's wealth over time.