CorruptUser wrote: blob wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Or their wealth is tied up in stock, which if you aren't selling but rather living off of dividends you are basically immune to inflation insofar as it doesn't harm the company.
Dividends are taxed.
You are missing the point. Assuming they are taxed at the same rate, inflation doesn't do a meaningful thing to them. If the price of everything doubles, they collect twice as much dividend and end up with twice as much after-tax income. So how in any meaningful sense did your little money-printing scheme result in a tax on them? All you've done is devalue savings (and loans), ignoring the part where massive inflation wrecks the economy, so all you've managed to do is hurt only the people that have most of their wealth tied up in money, i.e., everyone below the upper-middle class.
All money is devalued by inflation, and pretty much any business tends to have some operating capital around. Significant inflation eats into that pretty rapidly.
Now, not every industry needs or wants the same amount of money on hand, but some do have a fair bit, and you start getting some odd after-effects, like debt becoming much more popular/expensive. This can create bubbles(if loans remain easily available), or result in loan costs climbing rapidly, and companies dependent on loans for operating capital or expansions may be in a tight space.
On the whole, rich people generally tend to own a great deal more stock, and own more companies in general, so, strictly speaking, they are going to be hurt more by this. However, this sort of thing helps poor people in the same way that lopping off the feet of the tall helps short people. Yes, just printing lots of money is, from a certain perspective, very easy, but it's a bad substitute for proper fiscal policy, and can be disastrous if taken to extremes. Yeah, it *is* like a tax in that value is transferred, but not all taxes are equally desirable in terms of side effects, and large amounts of inflation can be quite costly indeed.
Pfhorrest wrote:I've always felt that this "how it affects your property values" thing was a huge overreach of (and perversely, infringement upon) the concept of property rights. If Bob letting his yard look ugly "harms" his neighbor Alice, then can Bob plant an unusually beautiful garden in his own yard (without consulting the neighbors if they want it) and then charge Alice for the "improvement" to her property?
Exactly! There's an inconsistency there, which most seem entirely happy to overlook. Pollution, sure, I agree. That's actual damages. Painting my house pink, even if pink is unpopular in the neighborhood, is not actually damaging your house. Your house remains the same.
It sadly doesn't stop there. Folk building homes along the approach to an airport, and then complaining of noise from aircraft is ridiculously commonplace. This goes beyond being upset at changes, and ventures into demanding improvements. Always to be paid for by others, of course.