Do I Live in a World Full of PinHeads?

I'm watching the NEWS and the topic of the day is about
"TAXING THE RICH"

The Rich DO NOT PAY TAXES!!!!!!!!
(See my previous post for explanation.)

Since I'm also a pinhead, I assumed everyone would be able to think logically enough to expand on my previous concept.  Especially since I (a fellow pinhead) can understand it.

Let's expand on the concept of ECONOMY = MOVEMENT of MONEY. (Explained in my previous post.)

1. Time spent well, time wasted.
   
   A lot of time and money is spent on "Escapism".  Yes, people need to "decompress", but not 4 hours a day. 
   
   Money and time spent on escaping from reality is the same as opening the windows in the dead of winter... the only result is higher fuel bills.
   
   Complex government regulations are the same. They waste valuable time and resources because there are no products produced that provide value to anyone... just aggravation and fear..
   
   
2. Too much money is in the control of too few people. (No, not communist here.)
   
   There are super wealthy individuals, organizations and countries that have an excess of IDLE money. This idle money is used to leverage markets by  buying up surplus to get a higher profit on artificially rarified supply.  Taxing IDLE money would make it more profitable for these control freaks to put their idle money into investments that cause money to move. Only moving money creates more wealth.
   
   
3. Rich is not necessarily Evil.
   
   Just because a person is rich doesn't mean that this "rich" person is doing anything wrong.  Investments that provide capital to build more "money movers" is a good thing.
   
   
4. Stupid investments.
   
   Mistakes like making an Edsel when everyone wants Volkswagens is a waste of economy (money). Solyndra anyone?
   
   
5. Planned Obsolescence:
   
   Items made to fail to force consumers to buy new builds more poverty.
   
   Cash for Clunkers made used cars much more expensive for those unable to afford a new car. Working poor cannot afford new cars.
   Yet, the working poor are the ones that build items that provide value.
   
   * Safety considerations can logically force obsolescence.
   
   * Poor is a relative term. 
   (A friend of mine complained of making ONLY $25/hr back in the 60's.  He felt poor when the average wage was $6.25/hr where I lived.
   
   
6. Needs, then Wants
   
   Our main social structure must provide for the needs of all.
   Needs = food, shelter
   Wants help make life more pleasant.
   
   Focus should be spent on making needs less expensive so more money can be spent on wants
   .
7. Diversity
   
   New technology and new products would be very difficult to discover if we all thought the same way.
   
   
   
   
   Seen on Lib Wailing Wall...
   "We need more rich to suck money from"
   
   
   

An Exercise in Upside Down Thinking

 Let's Tax Savings

(Savings is defined as money that does not flow and assets that do not aid in the flow of money.. Savings just sits there.)

---- Everyone should know by now that ALL TAXES ARE PAID BY THE PURCHASER -----
(For those of you that don't know this, I'll explain.. All items sold has a "cost of doing business" added to the purchase price. The cost of doing business includes corporate taxes.)

Money in a mattress does no one any good except for the "owner" who sleeps on it feeling secure.

Our current tax system taxes the flow of money.  Taxing the flow of money  slows down the economy.

Let's think about doing something completely different... Let's tax all money and assets that do not promote the FLOW of money.

I'm not suggesting going whole hog at this... there has to be some savings, but how much?
I suggest a percentage threshold, below which savings and idle assets are not taxed; above which is taxed.

Let's assume there is an optimum balance between the amount of money in "savings" and the amount of money that is flowing (being spent).  If the right ratio of savings versus spending was found, a dollar would remain a dollar: no inflation, no deflation. Everything owned, both savings and money promoting assets could be passed on to heirs without any devastating results.

The optimum process would grow both sides of the equation.  Savings would grow as the economy grows.

Of course, this plan has all the trappings of complicating itself like our current tax code. But the change would promote the economy instead of  hinder it.