4 ms·

Well that's brilliant ... take a wise behavior that far too few people do, and blame it for the world's problems. Our rulers know that if we don't save any mon

Well that's brilliant ... take a wise behavior that far too few people do, and blame it for the world's problems. Our rulers know that if we don't save any money, we'll be more vulnerable and dependent ... plus, it's too hard to tax saved money, whereas it's trivial to tax money that's moving.

harterrt 10y ago
I don't think the issue is that it's hard to tax savings. Printing money is a pretty effective tax. I think the real issue is the money multiplier effect. If I spend a dollar, it's spent and re-spent. This means that it gets to be taxed many times.
trendia 10y ago
First step is to blame it for the world's problems. Next is to remove the ability to use or store cash. Finally, charge to save with negative interest rates. And if negative interest rates don't spur growth, it's because they weren't negative enough!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zeahfj 10y ago
Next thing they'll be blaming AI and robots on destroying the world economy and not the bankers.
- vkou 10y ago
  In an economic system which requires either gainful employment, or humiliation, poverty, and destitution from its people, AI and robots are indeed destroying the economy. America produces more then it ever did, yet manufacturing is considered dead as a source of jobs. The small number of well-paid engineering jobs AI and robots create is dwarfed by those losses.
  - zeahfj 10y ago
    It only destroys imagined wealth and not actual wealth (more useful stuff is created). In the current system the new wealth creation is skewed to the already wealthy, hence why the majority will see a decline in living standard and the feeling of the destruction of the economy. However wealth disparities takes money to maintain, and it is inefficient. It requires taxpayer subsidies to be maintained. If the wealthy had to pay the unsubsidized cost of the police, legal system, and foreign wars to protect their investments they would stop being wealthy very quickly. So it's not AI or robots that will destroy the economy it's high income taxes and low capital taxes.
    - vkou 10y ago
      > If the wealthy had to pay the unsubsidized cost of the police, legal system, and foreign wars to protect their investments they would stop being wealthy very quickly. That will depend on how effectively we can replace those systems with AI and robots. We're on our way there with the legal system.
      - zeahfj 10y ago
        In order to maintain an ever increasing wealth disparity society will have to become more fascist and taxes more confiscatory. To prevent this you simply need to fight fascism in all its forms (including socialism and political correctness). This is guaranteed to happen eventually as fascist states are inherently unstable.
        vkou 10y ago
        Oh, we definitely need to fight political correctness. Your god-given right to be a rude motherfucker to whomever you feel like, whenever you feel like, without being subjected to any social censure, must be defended. I just don't understand why we can't call a _______ a _______ in polite company anymore.
        zeahfj 10y ago
marrs 10y ago
yeah, absolutely ridiculous. Create a burden for the state during bad times by not saving. Also, where is the money going to come from to buy and sell shares. Pension schemes are huge sources of investment. Isn't that also an economic driver? Besides which, the entire article is rendered moot by the fact that inflation exists precisely as a tax on savings.
- m_coder 10y ago
  Isn't the burden of the article poking at the people who have tremendous wealth and who use it to influence policy? >> inflation exists precisely as a tax on savings I don't think the article is suggesting that a person who has a savings account at the bank is the problem. Although the title is misleading in that case....

harterrt 10y ago

I don't think the issue is that it's hard to tax savings. Printing money is a pretty effective tax. I think the real issue is the money multiplier effect. If I spend a dollar, it's spent and re-spent. This means that it gets to be taxed many times.

trendia 10y ago

First step is to blame it for the world's problems. Next is to remove the ability to use or store cash. Finally, charge to save with negative interest rates. And if negative interest rates don't spur growth, it's because they weren't negative enough!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

zeahfj 10y ago

Next thing they'll be blaming AI and robots on destroying the world economy and not the bankers.

vkou 10y ago
In an economic system which requires either gainful employment, or humiliation, poverty, and destitution from its people, AI and robots are indeed destroying the economy. America produces more then it ever did, yet manufacturing is considered dead as a source of jobs. The small number of well-paid engineering jobs AI and robots create is dwarfed by those losses.
- zeahfj 10y ago
  It only destroys imagined wealth and not actual wealth (more useful stuff is created). In the current system the new wealth creation is skewed to the already wealthy, hence why the majority will see a decline in living standard and the feeling of the destruction of the economy. However wealth disparities takes money to maintain, and it is inefficient. It requires taxpayer subsidies to be maintained. If the wealthy had to pay the unsubsidized cost of the police, legal system, and foreign wars to protect their investments they would stop being wealthy very quickly. So it's not AI or robots that will destroy the economy it's high income taxes and low capital taxes.
  - vkou 10y ago
    > If the wealthy had to pay the unsubsidized cost of the police, legal system, and foreign wars to protect their investments they would stop being wealthy very quickly. That will depend on how effectively we can replace those systems with AI and robots. We're on our way there with the legal system.
    - zeahfj 10y ago
      In order to maintain an ever increasing wealth disparity society will have to become more fascist and taxes more confiscatory. To prevent this you simply need to fight fascism in all its forms (including socialism and political correctness). This is guaranteed to happen eventually as fascist states are inherently unstable.
      - vkou 10y ago
        Oh, we definitely need to fight political correctness. Your god-given right to be a rude motherfucker to whomever you feel like, whenever you feel like, without being subjected to any social censure, must be defended. I just don't understand why we can't call a _______ a _______ in polite company anymore.
        zeahfj 10y ago

marrs 10y ago

yeah, absolutely ridiculous. Create a burden for the state during bad times by not saving. Also, where is the money going to come from to buy and sell shares. Pension schemes are huge sources of investment. Isn't that also an economic driver? Besides which, the entire article is rendered moot by the fact that inflation exists precisely as a tax on savings.

m_coder 10y ago
Isn't the burden of the article poking at the people who have tremendous wealth and who use it to influence policy? >> inflation exists precisely as a tax on savings I don't think the article is suggesting that a person who has a savings account at the bank is the problem. Although the title is misleading in that case....