Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › Taxes!
- This topic has 278 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 8, 2011 at 11:22 AM #702871June 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM #701720
SK in CV
Participant[quote=jstoesz]
So yes when you buy a Ford share you are giving them your hard earned money which they in turn put to work investing in harder assets…like robots (or perhaps jobs for the robot company). When you only buy one share you are only contributing a small amount, individually insignificant can quickly become collectively significant.[/quote]No, you’re not giving them a dime. You’re paying someone else who owns a share of Ford a few bucks. Only when Ford issues new shares or sells treasury stock are you providing any capital for robots.
I’m not saying that it’s an inefficient market. Only that the vast majority of invested capital has almost no effect on job creation or business expansion.
June 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM #701818Participant[quote=jstoesz]
So yes when you buy a Ford share you are giving them your hard earned money which they in turn put to work investing in harder assets…like robots (or perhaps jobs for the robot company). When you only buy one share you are only contributing a small amount, individually insignificant can quickly become collectively significant.[/quote]No, you’re not giving them a dime. You’re paying someone else who owns a share of Ford a few bucks. Only when Ford issues new shares or sells treasury stock are you providing any capital for robots.
I’m not saying that it’s an inefficient market. Only that the vast majority of invested capital has almost no effect on job creation or business expansion.
June 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM #702411Participant[quote=jstoesz]
So yes when you buy a Ford share you are giving them your hard earned money which they in turn put to work investing in harder assets…like robots (or perhaps jobs for the robot company). When you only buy one share you are only contributing a small amount, individually insignificant can quickly become collectively significant.[/quote]No, you’re not giving them a dime. You’re paying someone else who owns a share of Ford a few bucks. Only when Ford issues new shares or sells treasury stock are you providing any capital for robots.
I’m not saying that it’s an inefficient market. Only that the vast majority of invested capital has almost no effect on job creation or business expansion.
June 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM #702561Participant[quote=jstoesz]
So yes when you buy a Ford share you are giving them your hard earned money which they in turn put to work investing in harder assets…like robots (or perhaps jobs for the robot company). When you only buy one share you are only contributing a small amount, individually insignificant can quickly become collectively significant.[/quote]No, you’re not giving them a dime. You’re paying someone else who owns a share of Ford a few bucks. Only when Ford issues new shares or sells treasury stock are you providing any capital for robots.
I’m not saying that it’s an inefficient market. Only that the vast majority of invested capital has almost no effect on job creation or business expansion.
June 8, 2011 at 1:38 PM #702921Participant[quote=jstoesz]
So yes when you buy a Ford share you are giving them your hard earned money which they in turn put to work investing in harder assets…like robots (or perhaps jobs for the robot company). When you only buy one share you are only contributing a small amount, individually insignificant can quickly become collectively significant.[/quote]No, you’re not giving them a dime. You’re paying someone else who owns a share of Ford a few bucks. Only when Ford issues new shares or sells treasury stock are you providing any capital for robots.
I’m not saying that it’s an inefficient market. Only that the vast majority of invested capital has almost no effect on job creation or business expansion.
June 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #701725Participant[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/quote]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.
June 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #701824Participant[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/quote]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.
June 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #702416Participant[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/quote]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.
June 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #702566Participant[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/quote]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.
June 8, 2011 at 1:46 PM #702926Participant[quote=AN]So those who prefer active income vs passive income prefer people working till they die vs being able to retire. After all, once you retire, you’re not making active income anymore.[/quote]
Straw man argument. Nobody has suggested such a preference. Historically, the US tax code has provided preferences both for earned and various types of unearned income. With very minor exception there is little empirical evidence that rate changes, by themselves, either promote or reduce the availablity of capital or labor.
June 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM #701730jstoesz
Participantcorrect…I oversimplified, buying stocks only gives companies capital when they issue new shares.
Increased demand for ford stocks increase their market capitalization which will increase their capital raising abilities when they get to issuing new shares down the road (so to speak).
June 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM #701829Participantcorrect…I oversimplified, buying stocks only gives companies capital when they issue new shares.
Increased demand for ford stocks increase their market capitalization which will increase their capital raising abilities when they get to issuing new shares down the road (so to speak).
June 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM #702421Participantcorrect…I oversimplified, buying stocks only gives companies capital when they issue new shares.
Increased demand for ford stocks increase their market capitalization which will increase their capital raising abilities when they get to issuing new shares down the road (so to speak).
June 8, 2011 at 1:57 PM #702571Participantcorrect…I oversimplified, buying stocks only gives companies capital when they issue new shares.
Increased demand for ford stocks increase their market capitalization which will increase their capital raising abilities when they get to issuing new shares down the road (so to speak).
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.