Tax breaks, government forced to become a customer etc. the usual. Just like the astronauts to Mars thing will just shovel your money that might have gone to NASA into Musk's pocket.
> the usual. Just like the astronauts to Mars thing will just shovel your money that might have gone to NASA into Musk's pocket.
The difference is that Musk can do twice as much for 1/10 what Nasa thinks the program will cost, which is never what the program will actually cost, and Musk will do it in half that time to boot.
The guy is an unhinged manchild, but if what you care about is having your money well spend and getting to Mars as cheaply as possible, he's exactly who you're looking for.
I'm sure you are claiming that the founder, CEO, and controlling shareholder is "kept a careful length from the controls" because you have detailed first hand knowledge of the internal operations of Space, right?
> if what you care about is having your money well spend and getting to Mars as cheaply as possible, he's exactly who you're looking for.
I do find impressive that SpaceX engineers figured out reusable rockets and now we can send things more cheaply out to orbit. But in all seriousness, should we care about getting to Mars cheaply? Or do people care because Musk came along to convince them (and the US government) to invest in this venture of his?
Tax breaks, i.e. a company extracting wealth from a community without paying into the systems that keep all the parts of that community running, forcing the community to ultimate subsidize that business's weath extraction from them.
Companies do not extract value, they create value which is then transferred to the people via the market through voluntary exchange (ideally). Where have you learned about those things? Oh, yeah, “community” , i.e. Marx.
Yes, before the resource is taken out of the Earth it doesn’t exist, it is created in a sense by them. Look at Venezuela - they are dying of hunger with all the oil in the world (Russia, too) But socialist ideas prevailed there and the bad companies are banned.
Assuming the tax money has to come from somewhere at some point, those who pay taxes have to make up the shortfall from those who have tax breaks. So far the US just kicks that can down the road so...
That is a big assumption. Tax money need not be a constant. But for the sake of following the same logic: if companies pay bigger taxes, they also have to make up the shortfall. Actually, this last one is much more accurate statement. Companies do not pay taxes, PEOPLE pay taxes. So taxes are paid either by the employees, the clients or by the owners (which in case of the big tech are generally common people). With high taxation you are hurting: the customers, the workers and the middle class saving for their retirement. Who is winning the tax money: state bureaucracy, corrupt politicians and the business around them, people who live like parasites (or rather are forced to live like that, because they are electoral power).
This is utter nonsense. If 1000 people go to a deserted island with no government and taxation would that mean the inflation will be plus infinity or at least very high??? Inflation is monetary phenomenon, it happens when money is being printed.
In that case there would be no inflation or deflation, assuming a fixed money supply and no economic growth. However, the the key here is that the government, the federal government anyways, is spending money regardless of the tax break. Anytime the government writes a check, that's a little bit more money floating around; anytime the government collects some money, such as taxes, there's that much less money to be had. Every tax break causes the money supply to increase more relative to if the tax break did not exist, causing more inflation (or less deflation, if that were the case). If the government spent exactly as much as it taxed, then there would be... actually deflation, because the economy is growing. This is the basics of fiscal policy.
There's also the monetary policy, which is when the federal reserve does this on purpose. The general principle is the same, but instead it spends its money buying bonds and gets its money selling those bonds, and creates a bunch of rules about where banks keep their money so it always has some money on hand.
So, in this desert there would be no inflation or deflation, you say. Let’s say we use gold coins there. Wouldn’t we have an inflation if we find a gold mine there and everybody start digging up gold?
You are missing the fact that the money printing is not driven only by government spending. It is driven primarily by the monetary policy (in the hands of the FED) and to some extent by the government debt. You have knowledge gaps on a very basic level.
The idea that taxation stops inflation is absolutely ridiculous. It would mean that countries with low taxes have very high inflation and this is not the case. It would also means that the inflation should be constant and in struct correlation with the taxes. Both statements are completely false and very easily provable by quick fact check.
The only things taxes do are: misplacing capital and stopping economic growth, which may be the same thing arguably
> It would mean that countries with low taxes have very high inflation and this is not the case.
It's about the total balance of government spending and taxes. The point being made is that tax breaks have the same effect as government spending. Recall that I was replying to
> Tax breaks, i.e. my money not being in your pocket means that they are stolen?
The government writing someone a million dollar check and the government giving someone a million dollar tax break (assuming they pay at least a million in taxes), contribute to inflation by increasing the money supply by a million dollars than it would be otherwise. Yes, this federal reserve is by far a larger driver of inflation, but the government giving this tax break still degrades the value of your money, same as if they wrote a check.
Of course, it is easy to view a tax break as a non-action, but that's exactly why the government gives so many tax breaks. Once you're taxing everyone, you can hand out tax breaks that's the same as handing out money only you can pretend that it's doing nothing.
Think of it as 3 Scenarios:
1) The island government writes a check to everyone except you, increasing their wealth by 50%.
2) The island government taxes just you for 50% of your wealth.
3) The island government taxes everyone 75% of their wealth, grants everyone but you a total tax-break, and you 25 percentage point tax break.
Basically the same result, only in one they say "It was fair, and we handed out a few tax-breaks, what's wrong with letting people keep their money?"
1) wealth is not increased by tax break, only current income is increased
2) if government gives everyone tax break but not me, it means only that the government taxes only me
3) if everyone has 50% more money, there is very high probability that my business will go up A LOT
Seriously, dude, it’s not worthy anymore to try and explain to you very basic stuff. Inflation is not a balance between taxation and spending. All Middle Eastern countries are having huge spending and almost zero taxes. I asked you very simple question and you couldn’t answer.
What bothers me most is why people write about things they have no clue about and clearly haven’t even put a decent thought into it.
Basically what you believe in is that the thieves are controlling the inflation because they get some of the citizens wealth.
There's actually lots of taxes that aren't income or sales tax
> if everyone has 50% more money, there is very high probability that my business will go up A LOT
No, you'll be getting twice the money, but the money is worth half as much.
> Inflation is not a balance between taxation and spending.
It is for the US federal government.
> All Middle Eastern countries are having huge spending and almost zero taxes.
Those countries peg their currency to the dollar. Their money doesn't come from taxes, but instead from state oil companies. These countries aren't as free to hand out money like the US. If enough people tried to exchange their Saudi Riyals for dollars quick enough, and the Saudi government couldn't gather US dollars quick enough, their currency would very quickly collapse.
