4 ms·

They do not take all of the circulating money (That would be nonsense because the circle would stop) but in Austria approx. 42%. Since national economy is a ci

by holri 10y ago

They do not take all of the circulating money (That would be nonsense because the circle would stop) but in Austria approx. 42%. Since national economy is a circle that money is not lost as an expense but is again invested in the economy and is coming back. ROI is a term of business administration and not national economy and therefore not applicable to the economies of Cities.

sebastianconcpt 10y ago
They don't take all the money, I'm showing you the absurd case so you can explain why would be moral any sub case of it. Can you explain that? So you first start talking that "spending other people's money" is not spending but "investing", I think spending is spending and not "investing" but trying to follow your reasoning I ask for its ROI, then you fail to show that its ROI is positive and then, "because is a city" not show any other alternative that shows that your "investing" has any chance to provide a positive ROI to the people you've taken that money from (at gunpoint). Explain how your immoral "investing" is "good"?
- holri 10y ago
  The world is not binary. Between 0 Tax and 100% Tax is a lot. National economy is something completely different than business economy. The main difference is the tax cycle in national economy. A simplified example: If the city of Vienna spends 1 Euro in buying trams, this Euro goes to the company Siemens in Vienna building those. Siemens employs a Viennese worker getting this money. 42 Cent of this invested Euro comes back to the city as tax. And a small part of the new tram. And a better public transport because of this new tram. And a new company settling in Vienna because of it's superior transport system. And another part of the 1 EUR comes back again as tax of this new company. If clever done this cycle does not stop. Asking for ROI of Vienna's infrastructure investments is as absurd as asking how much tax did a business get back from his investments.
  - sebastianconcpt 10y ago
    That does not answer my specific questions
    - holri 10y ago
      As I explained your question is absurd.

by holri 10y ago

sebastianconcpt 10y ago

They don't take all the money, I'm showing you the absurd case so you can explain why would be moral any sub case of it. Can you explain that? So you first start talking that "spending other people's money" is not spending but "investing", I think spending is spending and not "investing" but trying to follow your reasoning I ask for its ROI, then you fail to show that its ROI is positive and then, "because is a city" not show any other alternative that shows that your "investing" has any chance to provide a positive ROI to the people you've taken that money from (at gunpoint). Explain how your immoral "investing" is "good"?

holri 10y ago
The world is not binary. Between 0 Tax and 100% Tax is a lot. National economy is something completely different than business economy. The main difference is the tax cycle in national economy. A simplified example: If the city of Vienna spends 1 Euro in buying trams, this Euro goes to the company Siemens in Vienna building those. Siemens employs a Viennese worker getting this money. 42 Cent of this invested Euro comes back to the city as tax. And a small part of the new tram. And a better public transport because of this new tram. And a new company settling in Vienna because of it's superior transport system. And another part of the 1 EUR comes back again as tax of this new company. If clever done this cycle does not stop. Asking for ROI of Vienna's infrastructure investments is as absurd as asking how much tax did a business get back from his investments.
- sebastianconcpt 10y ago
  That does not answer my specific questions
  - holri 10y ago
    As I explained your question is absurd.