Do tax cuts for the rich lead to horrible economic times?

[JohnDeere 0]

Its clear you have no idea what trickle down economics is.

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

I also favor a society that believes in personal responsibility. That's why I typically vote liberal over conservative.

that's the part I don't get. So you're either saying that social programs such as welfare don't reward people for staying unemployed, or you're saying that these social programs are conservative agenda items.

I'm saying that personal responsibility consists of more than just individuals looking out for number one. Personal responsibilities are responsibilities that I, personally, have. My personal responsibilities extend further than just myself and my family. I have personal responsibilities to society, as well.

Quote

As far as I can see, the only political party with a line anywhere near personal responsibility is the libertarian party.

I don't see the Libertarian party being in favor of personal responsibility. They seem to be in favor of looking out for number one, everyone else be damned. That isn't a philosophy consistent with belief in personal responsibility.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

As one friend put it, "There are no tax shelters for under $100k liquid, so who do you think wrote the tax code?"

My accountant says with current tax rate it doesn't make sense to use (legal) tax avoidance schemes if your combined income is less than 400K. Once you're over it, it starts making sense to use them.

However when the taxes are up, it makes sense on much lower amounts. In Europe, for example, if your income is over 75K EUR a year, it definitely makes sense because of much higher taxes. This is one of the reasons they have ~20% VAT.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Much of it may have otherwise been saved, which reduces the amount of money being spent in the economy. Money flows from poor to rich. For maximum economic benefit, money should be given to the poor, who will spend all of it, as opposed to given to the rich, who may spend part of it.

Why does money flow from poor to rich? If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it help them? In what form do rich people "save" their money, and why does this result in a negative impact on the economy as a whole?

When money is saved, it is subject to reserve requirements. That means that part of it is removed from the economy. When money is spent, it is all returned to the economy.

It's why trickle down economics doesn't work.

I don't think rich people sink substantial amounts of money into savings accounts. Sensible investment vehicles don't have reserve requirements. I suppose you could get some affect from this, but I don't know how significant it would be.

Any thoughts on the other questions? They are actually the more interesting ones im-ever-ho. (to borrow a phrase from Marg)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Any thoughts on the other questions? They are actually the more interesting ones

I've answered them previously, but …

>If the poor spend all the money they are given in what ways will it >help them?

It helps them specifically by allowing them such things as food and shelter. It also keeps money moving in the economy, which benefits everyone.

>In what form do rich people "save" their money, and why does this
>result in a negative impact on the economy as a whole?

Cash savings and some other investments (e.g. insurance companies) have reserve requirements. The money tied up in those requirements doesn't grow the economy.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

• Quote

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

I don't know about where you come from - though you have mentioned your background in the past. Compared to me, you grew up wealthy.

LOL I'm pretty sure you have me confused with someone else!

Nope. Were you jumped by a gang in an apartment complex when you were six? That's where I grew up.

I saw my parents work their asses off to get out. Hence, my ideals were likely shaped by that.


[Reply]

Quote

Quote

Is efficiency something that is produced?

Yes. That's why we have professions like engineers - people whose job it is to MAKE something more efficient.

Correct word use seems to be a problem for you this evening.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You asked me for evidence. I supply it. It's not enough. I did not expect objectivity from you.

No, you didn't. You offered rhetoric. There's a big difference.

Since you seem to be interested in throwing insults instead of having an objective discussion, I'll ignore the rest of your post. Have a good night.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Indeed. The strawman never had anything to say worthwhile.

A good night to you as well. Sweet dreams. May posts from others be rhetorical and all of yours be substantive, thus maintaining your edemonstrated history of being cool, considered, objective and unprejudiced.

points:
But for conservatives poverty would be eliminated.
The free-market has set reserve requirements, which means that banks are lousy places to put money.
Spending is far more socially responsible than saving.
Those who disagree will be disregarded.

Toodles!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Indeed. The strawman never had anything to say worthwhile.

I ignored your post due to the insults, not because your claims aren't easily refuted. If you want to make your points in a mature manner, I'll likely address them.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Again! You are the self-anointed arbiter of what is the proper format for discussion.

I apologize for not putting such points in a manner worthy of you...

Sincerely,

The Strawman

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Again! You are the self-anointed arbiter of what is the proper format for discussion.

I apologize for not putting such points in a manner worthy of you...

Sincerely,

The Strawman

I know. It's arrogant of me to choose not to participate in a discussion with someone who doesn't demonstrate sufficient maturity.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Quote

Sure. Google poverty rate in the United States. Go historical on it. See whether the raw numbers have increased. If the War on Poverty worked we'd have no horror stories about the need for health finance reform.

That would not be sufficient evidence to support your assertion.

So the fact that poverty is still a problem isn't enough evidence to prove that the programs to eliminate it aren't effective?

I'm sure we can get it spelled out in a neon sign for you if you'd like.

1969: ~12.5%
2007: ~12.5%

I haven't seen the numbers for 08 and 09, but I'm willing to bet they're higher.

So, at best, no change. At worst, the poverty rate is higher.

[justinb138 0]

Quote

My personal responsibilities extend further than just myself and my family. I have personal responsibilities to society, as well.

You're confusing personal responsibility and social responsibility.

If you're going to use the words, know what they mean.

[DougH 270]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure. Google poverty rate in the United States. Go historical on it. See whether the raw numbers have increased. If the War on Poverty worked we'd have no horror stories about the need for health finance reform.

That would not be sufficient evidence to support your assertion.

So the fact that poverty is still a problem isn't enough evidence to prove that the programs to eliminate it aren't effective?

I'm sure we can get it spelled out in a neon sign for you if you'd like.

1969: ~12.5%
2007: ~12.5%

I haven't seen the numbers for 08 and 09, but I'm willing to bet they're higher.

So, at best, no change. At worst, the poverty rate is higher.

I think it is important to note that we are talking about "relative poverty". You can have a car, a house, a tv, and food on the table and still be considered "poor".

Most individuals that are considered poor in the U.S are living very well compared to the poor in less industrialized nations, and are living very well compared to the poor from several decades ago.

Quote

"Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm (based on census and other government primary sources).

We should tax our poor, and give to the worse off in the world.

In my opinion the worst off individuals in the "poor" category are in that condition because they have no individuals working (for what ever reason), or they have no father figure in the household.

Damn evil corporations, enticing all of these scumbag men to leave these families.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[rhaig 0]

Quote

I'm saying that personal responsibility consists of more than just individuals looking out for number one. Personal responsibilities are responsibilities that I, personally, have. My personal responsibilities extend further than just myself and my family. I have personal responsibilities to society, as well.

ok... personal responsibility to society is what you're trumpeting. I understand what you're saying now. "Each person has a responsibility to help others." (or something along those lines) Which explains the liberal slant in your voting ideals. Interesting... I'd never considered that a liberal might thing that they owe society something. I usually see it the other way around that people feel society owes them something.

I'm talking about personal responsibility for one's actions or inactions and the consequences thereof. Like if I choose to give the panhandler (who may not be homeless) $2 on my way home from work, helping him make $30/hr (or more) by standing on a street corner, I'm partly responsible for him not bothering to get a job or even to try. However if I don't give him the money, he might seek help from one of the many local private groups that exist to help homeless people in our area. That $2 isn't removed from the economy by me not giving it to him, I spend it elsewhere. I could also choose to support the local groups that help the homeless by giving them money, or my time (time is more likely).

And the Libertarians aren't all about number one. They're about not having the government interfere in our day to day lives. Including the lives of those who are in need of help. It's society's responsibility to help itself. If you had 15% more money coming into your bank account each year because of a change in taxes, would you be more likely to donate some of that to local organizations that help the homeless or other social aid programs? I know I would. Reduce the government's cost of doing business. Enact some tax reforms that reduce the cost of collecting taxes (and maybe even do it constitutionally).

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

again with the "party statements". It's obvious that you are one sied on everything and canot even attempt to see the other side of a debate.

oh and I'm having lunch which is why I came back and yup... more of the same.

If you're going to make ridiculous asserts, at least back them up with an example or 5.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I believe that your problem is in treating taxes as their own universe and not interrelated with other activities. For example, let's say you tax at 50% of incomes above $50k per year. (Al Gore himself said if a person makes $50k per year for 20 years that person has made a million dollars).

Now, what do you do with it? Is it simply removed from the economy? Or is it put back into the economy? If it is simply removed then the economy will suffer.

If it is put back, how it is put back into the economy is important. For example, is it put into the space program - which contracts with private manufacturers and keeps people employed? Or is it put into welfare programs, which keep people unemployed?

I'm just saying that the PROCESS of taxing and the PROCESS of collecting are different animals in that they don't consider one when they do the other in virtually all taxing and spending operations. Other than bond measures they really don't. And with HC, let's say, HC policies that are valued at over 15k/yr might be taxed, the purpose of that is that's it's substantial compensation and employers could offload normal compensation by way of tax-free HC ins policies. So there are anomalies, but in general, TAXING AND SPENDING ARE DIFFERENT ANIMALS.

Quote

Tell me how much good is done for the economy when massive sums of money are directed to those who neither provide a service nor a product?

It's not directly pointed from one to the other, it is possible to increase taxes without increasing social spending or not proportionately spending as you tax. In fact, that is generally the case where taxing and any kind of spending are inversely proportionate rather than directly proportionate.

But how does it work? Well, when we raise taxes regardless of social or military spending the entire economy does much better. Look at the graph at the lower left:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

Look what preceded the Great Depression, the 1990 Recession and the now Great Recession. The commonalities were the max tax bracket hitting the 20's%age or now the mid 30's. I think 94% is a but harsh, but 50-60% is reasonable along with responsible spending. Clinton had it at 40% with responsible spending; I think 50% is a good place to be. Of course Reagan initially took it from 70% tp 50%, but it was the spending that was the devil, this is referred to as spending based upon GDP and I guess we have to factor in taxation too. SO it's a dynamic process, but when taxation gets in the 30's we're asking for it, in the 20's it's imminent, my friends.

Quote

It is interesting that the efficient running of society is contrary to this thought. Socialism is, after all, an economic system.

That's because of the human factor. If this were a machine, we could apply a strict system of X in, XX out and turn a profit. We are humans, we need svs, we are sometimes unpredictable and to apply some demand that humans always turn a profit is why the Repubs are sitting and watching; people are sick of pandering to the rich.

Socialism is an economic system true, but it has social implications and attributes.

Quote

A prosperous and stable economy is one that is also efficient.

You and yours define efficiency by way of Darwin, I define it as a mixture of baseline performance and baseline benefit. And if one falls below the other the subjects aren't punished.

Quote

The most efficient way that money can be spent and circulated is when individuals spend their money on what they want to spend it on.

That's economics in a bubble or perhaps the utopian model.

Quote

What do you spend money on?

Crack and hookers

Quote

That's right - what is important to you.

Well, of course.

Quote

If I were to take a portion of your money and go out and buy what I think you should get, you'd likely be unsatisfied with the choices - especially if I took a cut for myself.

Yea, stay out of my crack and off my hookers ....

Quote

And this is what you look at doing - taking other peoples' money to spend it on what you think it should be spent on.

There you go again (to quote a famous diaper-wearer), drawing a connection between taxation and spending. Here's a quick tutorial for ya, counselor:

- Reagan - incr spending and cut taxes

- GHWB - cut spending and incr taxes

- Clinton - cut spending and incr taxes

- GWB - incr spending and cut taxes

I don't see a trend of taking from one and giving to the other, do you? I see a trend of agendas to either fuck the country up with their deluded vision of massive military bullying, versus trying to bring things under control. For your point to be made, there would have to be a trend of an admin/congress increasing taxes and increasing spending, esp social spending; I just don't see that.

To try to use as an example a system that takes from the rich and gives to the poor is such a 5th grade version of the economy that it baffles me how a genuinely smart guy like you can illustrate that. Of course control of the underclass requires condescension.

Quote

And you particularly object when the government doesn't take as much.

I object when politicians pander to the rich and establish a tax code that leads to destruction, as with crusty Ronnie the fascist turd, the Coolidge/Harding/Hoover criminal trio in the 1920's and of course GWB.

Quote

I'd like it if you put your money where your mouth is. Donate it to the government and ask them to spend it for you.

Oh that's sooo clever. I'm in that group of the lower 80% that holds 7% of the cash, so I just don't have much. How about if I make it to the upper 20% and then we'll talk....what's that? Class mobility is virtually gone in the US? I know, so don't hold your breath for me making it there in this lifetime.

[kallend 2,067]

Quote

Al Gore himself said if a person makes $50k per year for 20 years that person has made a million dollars.

It's a good job you attorneys have Al Gore to do arithmetic for you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

what leads to horrible economic times is lack of financial responsability. when no one (from the government all the way down to the average joe) can live on a budget and spends borrowed money as if everything is okay as they increase thier spending, then eventually the house of cards falls and you have horrible economic times.

What you probably aren't aware of is that the top 20% holds 93% of the cash, so fiscal repsonsibility isn't somthing we have control of, as we are not really part of the fiscal game.

[DougH 270]

Quote

Oh that's sooo clever. I'm in that group of the lower 80% that holds 7% of the cash, so I just don't have much. How about if I make it to the upper 20% and then we'll talk....what's that? Class mobility is virtually gone in the US? I know, so don't hold your breath for me making it there in this lifetime.

You hold a great deal more than other members of the human race.

By your logic the rich deserve to fund these initiatives, with no expense to you because you are of a lower station in life. I think the actual poor of the world deserve some of your resources too, since you are in a much better position than they are.

You don't see any irony of cheerleading social programs and tax increases, on some one elses dime?

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Al Gore himself said if a person makes $50k per year for 20 years that person has made a million dollars.

It's a good job you attorneys have Al Gore to do arithmetic for you.

LOL

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/06/opinion/l-bush-vs-gore-debate-aftermath-fuzzy-math-520543.html

Looking back, funny how the purveyor of the term had the fuzziest ever at 5+ trillion dollars down the crapper. Anyone who bought into that term by Bush in mid-late 2000 should seriously introspect.

[DougH 270]

Quote

What you probably aren't aware of is that the top 20% holds 93% of the cash, so fiscal responsibility isn't something we have control of, as we are not really part of the fiscal game.

So 93% of those funds are in 100% reserved bank accounts, and under extra plush California king mattresses. Totally out of circulation.

The more I hear your arguments the more I think you are bitter and jealous toward others, especial others with more than you, because you fell on hard times

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

You hold a great deal more than other members of the human race.

Yea, let's talk Asia, Africa and other lovely places to make the US look good.

Quote

By your logic the rich deserve to fund these initiatives, with no expense to you because you are of a lower station in life. I think the actual poor of the world deserve some of your resources too, since you are in a much better position than they are.

Not me, I want each country to be as self-sustaing as possible.

Quote

You don't see any irony of cheerleading social programs and tax increases, on some one elses dime?

It's not on someone else's dime; you have never drawn a correlation of taxation and any kind of spending.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

What you probably aren't aware of is that the top 20% holds 93% of the cash, so fiscal responsibility isn't something we have control of, as we are not really part of the fiscal game.

So 93% of those funds are in 100% reserved bank accounts, and under extra plush California king mattresses. Totally out of circulation.

The more I hear your arguments the more I think you are bitter and jealous toward others, especial others with more than you, because you fell on hard times

Thanks for once again bringing in another ad hominem and adding nothing.

[DougH 270]

Quote

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week through the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty

Source: Robert E. Rector and Rea S. Hederman, Jr., "The Role of Parental Work in Child Poverty," Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis Report No. CDA03-01, January 27, 2003

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P