Your spot on.

A rich person has less money, percentage wise, sitting in his wallet, pillow case, or wall safe than us poorer people.

Most of their 'wealth' is properties of some sort or investments.

Property in terms of land rarely is considered in a normal economy but the rich pay to have this land maintained. Show me a poor person with a gardener, pool boy, and a maid.

Property in terms of non-land was made by someone, giving that someone a job (or portion thereof)

If the money is invested generally it is providing jobs. A bank account gives the bank the means to loan this money to small businesses. A business invested in is providing jobs. Stock market investments provide jobs for the handlers of the money.

Only Gold and already made art can be exempted from these rules. Yet gold is where you go if you see no means to profit if you are rich, and art is a special catagory where they do not put their entire life savings into.

The rich are better at making money and spending money. These are the people, unless born into wealth (interesting fact, a very high, well past 75%, amount made their own fortunes), that made a better product that we enjpy (ipod for instance), found a way to reduce costs (Walmart with better packaging and warehousing), that improved the rate they can make products per man hour (Ford with the Model T), or made getting the product easier for us (PIZZA!).

Your so dead on with your analysis! Thanks for making a thread, was well made (though the code boxes were annoying with my smart phone)

Tax breaks should target demographics not income brackets.

It's a well-known fact that majority of the wealth is tied up in the 60+ bracket, give them tax breaks so they stop hording all their money and spend it.

Everyone knows when you tax the rich they just defer it to the middle/low class and thus they never actually take the loss, they are intelligent to know how to pass on expenses into their budget to the point that their bottom-line remains the same, and it just hits the middle/low class instead, when you tax the rich you are just breaking the poor.

It's not my money. Why would I care?

What makes you think the elderly wouldn't spend it? The hell is "saving" gonna do for them? They are nearly dead, the popular misconception is that they save all their money, when in fact the vast majority of them save due to fixed incomes, if you throw them a bone, you give them the chance to spend.

I would have to really care about this enough to look into some sociological research as to the spending habits of the 60+ -- However, i don't really care, and won't consider it past that which i already have

"A rich person has less money, percentage wise, sitting in his wallet, pillow case, or wall safe than us poorer people.
Most of their 'wealth' is properties of some sort or investments.
Property in terms of land rarely is considered in a normal economy but the rich pay to have this land maintained. Show me a poor person with a gardener, pool boy, and a maid."

This is the start of a historical mechanism called "la trahison du bourgois". A wealthy man starts to invest in real estate and or land. This actually drains the economy, rather than supports it, as money is just put aside and is not being spent. A wealthy person, in the free market system, needs to spend the money he makes or it's a drain on the economic growth.. In that system a man like Bill Gates or Ted Turner who retreat out of their businesses and focus themselves on other things like charity are rarely a good thing for the economy.. Piled up riches are riches that lie to waste. Fortunatly, banks lend their money to compagnies so it still contributes, but it does less than when it's spent normally..
In history this has ended up in economic breakdowns for cities (in that period economies were mostly organised on a regional (i.e. a large city and it's surrounding land) base) multiple times..

A rich man who invests in land, drives up the price of land, enriching all who own land, and employing those who sell land and that which taxes land.

I can almost buy some land.

Next payday I could if I wanted to. Cash up front.

Of course the taxes would kill me since the land is still appraised at 1000 times the value.

This is in a Democrat run (down) city, in a Democrat run State, where Democrat labor destroyed their own jobs.

If you have $800 you can get a 1/4 acre lot with a run down house (no plumbing or wiring) in a crime ridden neighborhood in a major city also!

BUT my indebtedness on the land has a limit, and the value of the land does not.  So when I borrow 90% of the land value and then some rich guys keep buying land, the debt is worth only 80% of the land.

I have 10% equity to realize.

Not because of what I did.

Because rich guys keep buying land.

Everyone seems to overlook certian expenses you must pay while acquiring the rights to purchase land, resulting in a much smaller equity gap then you realize.

You don't need to be indebt to your land to lose value for OTHERS being indebt to their land, resulting in a ceasure that will affect the value of your property, i know this to be true first hand - Furthermore it's a primary factor that contributed to the housing bubble bursting, incapable borrowers lapsing on their loans, value is proximal, your land's value will only be as good as those within proximity, when 10% of the land in proximity has been ceased and auctioned off a below market value, if you were to attempt a sell your value would be diminished, you would have to hold on to your asset til a time that proximal ceasures drop off to the point that the -market value- goes up, i'm agreeing with you in the context of the -VALUE- of your land will be worth more yes ---- ON PAPER ---- But what good is that if no buyer will purchase?

And yet profit or loss aside.

They BOUGHT, LEASED, RENTED, or improved the property. Their cash is a direct stimulus. Not only direct, but these guys know how to make it profitable generally. The government cannot, has not, will not make things profitable except by giving a company more money than it loses

To be honest, i have no clue how i ended up discussing real estate stratagem, i already asserted the fact that i don't personally -care- enough about this topic to study certain aspects of it, for it almost completely has no affect on me (Ah low class America, where else should a starving 24 year old collage boy be? Hahah ).