USA Forum

[hhiusa]

And this is where hhiusa plays on the beach

That is a decent picture of the Corona del Mar state beach. Gotta love those tourists. There are better places in Newps with fewer tourists.

 

[Pat494]

Is there still gold in them thar hills ? That's what I wanta know.
It started at Sutter's Mill..............

Can Joe Average walk or prospect in the hills without obtaining the land owner's permission ?

 

[hhiusa]

Is there still gold in them thar hills ? That's what I wanta know.
It started at Sutter's Mill..............

Can Joe Average walk or prospect in the hills without obtaining the land owner's permission ?

It is capitalism baby. This reminds me of toy commercials as a child. Come buy land and go prospecting. "Mineral rights sold separately".

 

[Pat494]

It is capitalism baby. This reminds me of toy commercials as a child. Come buy land and go prospecting. "Mineral rights sold separately".

So I take it that's a no.
Does one pay by the day or go 50/50 on what's found usually ?
They will tax air one day I suppose.

Much the same where I live. I don't own the mineral rights under my house.

So if I wanted to do a bit of prospecting I might have to apply to a landowner for a price. What about National Parks ?

Are there any working gold mines left ?

 

[hhiusa]

So I take it that's a no.
Does one pay by the day or go 50/50 on what's found ?
They will tax air one day I suppose.

It is ironic that you are complaining about taxes in the U.S. when the U.K. has a great deal more taxes than here. Let us begin with stamp duty tax, which is the reason why most of you trade US equities and CFDs. Mansion tax? A tax on just being wealthy. It is more likely that the UK will tax air first in order to pay for their council estates and everybody who is living on the dole for an indefinite period of time.:whistling

 

[hhiusa]

Long live US capitalism

Ferrari IPO at the NYSE

 

[Pat494]

Wasn't really thinking of tax but since you mention it Mansion Tax was Gordon Brown's big idea if I remember correctly.

However I think there are a number of good reasons why the super rich can fork out say 10% of their wealth per year or do you want their future generations just not have to bother ? They can be super brats like celebs, Kardashians etc.

 

[hhiusa]

Wasn't really thinking of tax but since you mention it Mansion Tax was Gordon Brown's big idea if I remember correctly.

However I think there are a number of good reasons why the super rich can fork out say 10% of their wealth per year or do you want their future generations just not have to bother ? They can be super brats like celebs, Kardashians etc.

This is a bit of a pot kettle black argument. You were calling them super brats because they are entitled and yet you believe people are entitled to 10% of their income just because they are wealthy? Everbody is behaving the same. Everbody feels entitled, even those are not the 1%.

They earned that money whether or not you think they deserve it. 85% of wealthy Americans are first generation wealthy. Whatever they decide to do with their money should be up to them. If they want to leave to their children, there is nothing wrong with that. This is why Sweden abolished the inheritance tax. Once you have earned it and it has been taxed, the government got their share. They do not get to tax it just because it changed hands. Sweden also has low capital gains. Even though they have high taxes there, they do not tax you to death. They do not have a mansion tax.

 

[Pat494]

Inheritance taxes are what nearly finished off the rich in Britain. Many a country mansion had to be knocked down, sold or given to the National Trust after the owners died.
Some like the Rothchilds managed to keep their wealth. Many a tax haven has benefited from Socialism. Denis Healy famously promised such a high tax on the rich that their pips would squeak ! Corbyn would love to go back to Marxism but can't persuade even his colleagues.

Many of the great names from the past have seemingly gone quiet. Names like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Getty ( so mean he had a slot telephone installed for his guests ) , Hurst, Hughes ( went mad ) etc.

 

[hhiusa]

Inheritance taxes are what nearly finished off the rich in Britain. Many a country mansion had to be knocked down, sold or given to the National Trust after the owners died.
Some like the Rothchilds managed to keep their wealth. Many a tax haven has benefited from Socialism. Denis Healy famously promised such a high tax on the rich that their pips would squeak ! Corbyn would love to go back to Marxism but can't persuade even his colleagues.

Many of the great names from the past have seemingly gone quiet. Names like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford, Getty ( so mean he had a slot telephone installed for his guests ) , Hurst, Hughes ( went mad ) etc.

That is very anecdotal. Why do you believe you are entitled to somebody else's money again?

 

[Pat494]

That is very anecdotal. Why do you believe you are entitled to somebody else's money again?

A country needs everyone to be happy with their situation. That means sharing the wealth around a bit. If everyone has a stake in the operation and work as a team things should go well.

People hogging most of the wealth to themselves causes unnecessary friction.

 

[hhiusa]

A country needs everyone to be happy with their situation. That means sharing the wealth around a bit. If everyone has a stake in the operation and work as a team things should go well.

People hogging most of the wealth to themselves causes unnecessary friction.

People are not hogging wealth just because they make more money. Pay the prime minister £1,000,000 per year and nobody accuses him of being glutton or a thief, but when an investor makes £1,000,000 per year then he is automatically called greedy and a glutton.

 

[hhiusa]

Go to 3:34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pCybcpkm5c

 

[Pat494]

People are not hogging wealth just because they make more money. Pay the prime minister £1,000,000 per year and nobody accuses him of being glutton or a thief, but when an investor makes £1,000,000 per year then he is automatically called greedy and a glutton.

I am not suggesting rich people go out into the real world and distribute food or clothing if they don't want to but I am saying Government etc. should let the unfortunate or talentless live some sort of life. Some just weren't made for a factory/office work. They should have been born rich but weren't. It's those reasonably educated people that join terrorist organisations here in the UK. Don't let it happen in your country. Give them something worthwhile to do.
An interesting statistic today that the richest 60 people on the planet own over half the wealth. Well they won't for long if they have a barrel of a gun up their noses. So it is altruism with a purpose.

 

[counter_violent]

Thought hhiusa might like to study this.
Scary to think you owe your share of that to the government.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/02/infographic-visualizing-americas-new-19-trillion-debt/

 

[hhiusa]

Thought hhiusa might like to study this.
Scary to think you owe your share of that to the government.

http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/02/infographic-visualizing-americas-new-19-trillion-debt/

The same useless rhetoric. You have already illustrated your limited mathematics skills. You seem to confuse raw numbers with ratios.

I will try explaining again. To a country that makes ≈7 times less money than us, $19 trillion would appear to be a lot. It certainly would dwarf the UK's GDP. However, it is actually on par with the UK's debt-to-GDP ratio. :cheesy:

The US and the UK both spend about 100% of their GDP. The trade deficit is around 3.1 billion GBP. the UK's GDP is 2.89 billion USD.

Apparently you like infographics. Here is a graph of debt-to-GDP ratios.

 

[counter_violent]

The same useless rhetoric. You have already illustrated your limited mathematics skills. You seem to confuse raw numbers with ratios.

I will try explaining again. To a country that makes ≈7 times less money than us, $19 trillion would appear to be a lot. It certainly would dwarf the UK's GDP. However, it is actually on par with the UK's debt-to-GDP ratio. :cheesy:

The US and the UK both spend about 100% of their GDP. The trade deficit is around 3.1 billion GBP. the UK's GDP is 2.89 billion USD.

Apparently you like infographics. Here is a graph of debt-to-GDP ratios.

And I have explained to you on more than One occasion that regardless of the ratios and GDP, the UK govt is taking the problem seriously and has passed into law budgetary controls.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-law...ommit-government-to-budget-surplus-1444836251

So, perhaps you can enlighten the readers as to why the US continues to increase it's borrowing at an alarming trajectory, instead of dealing with the problem head on. Is it because all your politicians are weak willed, spineless incompetents or your systems of govt, not fit for purpose ?

 

[hhiusa]

And I have explained to you on more than One occasion that regardless of the ratios and GDP, the UK govt is taking the problem seriously and has passed into law budgetary controls.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-law...ommit-government-to-budget-surplus-1444836251

So, perhaps you can enlighten the readers as to why the US continues to increase it's borrowing at an alarming trajectory, instead of dealing with the problem head on. Is it because all your politicians are weak willed, spineless incompetents or your systems of govt, not fit for purpose ?

Whatever laws and budgets the UK has enacted, has not produced any results yet. The debt-to-GDP ratios remain similar as of 2015. Your point does not have any merit. Maybe the results will be more noticeable in the years to come.

 

[counter_violent]

Whatever laws and budgets the UK has enacted, has not produced any results yet. The debt-to-GDP ratios remain similar as of 2015. Your point does not have any merit. Maybe the results will be more noticeable in the years to come.

Typically, you avoided answering my questions. Is this because you cannot engage in logical debate?

 

[Oscar Reed]