Right because of how we do taxes. Like you, I don’t disagree with the sentiment.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
Good point. I know of some blue collar millionaires that their net worth is in stocks but earn less than 75K annually. Impossible? No, they live below their means and are long time stock investors. " Make sure your $$ works harder than you do. " Its a mindset lifestyle of sacrifice and risk taking.
Last edited:
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
Drats. Thought I solved the deficit problem.:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/whoownsthenationdebtgettyimage-88cd7018bc4b44bf8de6f18cdc9dc89b.jpg)
Who Owns the US National Debt?
The majority of the U.S. national debt is owned by Social Security, the Federal Reserve, and foreign investors. Learn how that impacts the economy and you.www.thebalance.com
jmp85
Well-Known Member
Net wealth is fluid and something the government does not keep track of on an individual basis (nor could it practically do so).
Josh Hendy
Well-Known Member
USA is essentially defaulting on its debt by creating trillions of dollars out of thin air in order to smooth over the financial problems caused by the pandemic.
The US debt was already unmanageable and unpayable and the bailouts, relief and stimulus will ultimately make that problem worse not better.
Many countries in the world have similar debt problems and the end result will be the same ... wiping out most people's savings and pensions through inflation.
Telling another country to pound sand is unworkable since the financial system is entangled with mutual obligations. It ends in competitive currency devaluation and trade wars which are like saying, "Buy my stuff or I'll wipe out my citizens' wealth."
The US debt was already unmanageable and unpayable and the bailouts, relief and stimulus will ultimately make that problem worse not better.
Many countries in the world have similar debt problems and the end result will be the same ... wiping out most people's savings and pensions through inflation.
Telling another country to pound sand is unworkable since the financial system is entangled with mutual obligations. It ends in competitive currency devaluation and trade wars which are like saying, "Buy my stuff or I'll wipe out my citizens' wealth."
Rich Brownn
Well-Known Member
I was taught the lower the paid interest, the safer the bonds are thought to be. In other words, we pay little in interest because people (and countries) believe its a safe investment. A country like Greece, which at one point paid 17%, was not so it used the interest rate for high risk investments
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
Because this is about liquidity. Once mortgage/credit defaults (personal and corporate) start rolling in, if sufficient liquidity is not present, the entire banking system will seize up. Liquidity injection is being performed to avoid the 2007/2008 situation where ATM's were on the verge of being shut down. This is not an argument about wealth but liquidity. A person with many assets can be very wealthy but not liquid.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
also (and I'm not defending it either) bu a lot of rich people actually got that way from good old fashion sacrificing and saving. I know my administrative assistant makes a very modest salary but she is wealthy because she lived below her means and saved. Why shouldn't she get relief? just asking
Last edited:
Nubs70
Well-Known Member
Yes, interest rate is directly proportional to risk. However, if the bond interest rate is less than inflation rate, the real/effective rate of return is negative. Maybe this is actually the time to buy TIPS or Treasury Inflation Protected Securities
The Greek bond rate included a substantial risk premium.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
Probably because the federal government has no way to know net worth and certainly wouldn't be able to gather the info in a short time where they have payroll reported all the time and income reported once a year.
I don't know for sure since I haven't read the bill but I assume it is based on income including dividends, interest and capital gains. If someone is a multimillionaire, they are likely to have exceeded that threshold.
While I agree that people who can weather the storm without assistance shouldn't receive it, in this case time is of the essence so if some people who don't need it receive it I can accept that so that the people who do need it will.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
In a normal time that would be true. However, when every government has to do the same thing, the effect will be mitigated. Also, they aren't giving out money on top of the economy that existed a month ago. They are trying to keep the flow of money the same.
There wasn't huge inflation from the stimulus and associated federal reserve action that was done after the 2008 financial crisis.
Sans Souci
Well-Known Member
I notice some people who were convinced this was "just the flu" and openly wondered how people who were concerned about this functioned in daily life have been absent from this post as this spread all over the place.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
This is from the 23rd so not totally sure if all is still accurate...
"The plan’s provisions are very simple. Adults would get $1,200 each and children $500 each. At higher incomes, the checks would get smaller: The benefit would start decreasing at a rate of $5 for every additional $100 in income. The phaseout starts at $75,000 in adjusted gross income for singles, $112,500 for heads of household, and $150,000 for married couples filing jointly; it would phase out entirely by $99,000 for singles and $198,000 for couples (with no children). "
Tom P.
Well-Known Member
With all due respect, this kind of hyperbole is part of the problem.
Right at this moment, the vast majority of American citizens still have jobs and are still being paid. Even if, as predicted in some worst case scenarios, unemployment rises to 20-30%, then that means that 70-80% of people will still have jobs.
I am not discounting the fact that this is going to be horrible economically. But the idea that only "the few" will still have jobs is not accurate in any scenario we can conceive of right now.
Josh Hendy
Well-Known Member
The fact that it might take another 20 years for it to collapse under its debt obligations is what makes the USA a "safe haven" that can borrow money at relatively low interest rates. Many other countries are far worse.
eliza61nyc
Well-Known Member
They do have a valid point though Sans, so far in the US we've had about 900 deaths. And I fully recognize that, that means 900 grieving familys but in 2018 we had over 18,000 deaths from the flu. So why are we wrecking our economy and some people will not bounce back. the trickle down effect is massive.
Case in point, where I live, we have ~300 cases so far, 7 deaths. Yet we've got all our students out of school, a huge huge problem with now feeding many of those kids since a large swarth of them school lunches were their only meal, small businesses and restaurants are suffering and we're on lock down.
so as a citizen I am now questioning, how long is this going to last. now hopefully as testing procedures get better and hospital supplies become more widely available we can start discussing other solutions.
Maybe there was/is another better solution.
20-30% unemployment is horrific. The 70-80% that are working, does one think they will be any mood and perhaps a lot of fear to spend , to enjoy themselves in the discretionary income market. I would not . They are going to be working longer and more of a workload because they are doing additional jobs of their peers that were laid off. 30% unemployment is our modern great depression.
Last edited:
Tom P.
Well-Known Member
The point, though, is specifically not what has occured thus far. Everyone acknowledges that today, right now, the deaths and serious complications from COVID-19 are far lower than the seasonal flu. That's why actions are being taken now, when things are still manageable.
The point is that all evidence to date says that COVID-19 is much easier to transmit than the seasonal flu and, left unchecked, the number of cases will grow exponentially. If that is allowed to happen, our medical infrastructure will be overwhelmed, people will not get the care they need, and large numbers will unnecessarily die. And, speaking economically, that would wreck the economy far more than the measures we are taking today.
So the point is not to wreck the economy based on what has happened thus far. The point is to take an economic hit now to avoid allowing a massive loss of life in the future.
Last edited:
Tom P.
Well-Known Member
I am not disagreeing with that. But your statement said "the few who still have jobs." As horrific as 20-30% unemployment is, that's still a vast majority of people with jobs. There is no scenario we get to where the majority are unemployed and only "the few" have jobs.
- Status