Originally posted by no1marauder" Since they are spending virtually all their income, they are providing consumer spending the #1 impetus to job creation."
That's an unusually stupid statement even from you.
Since they are spending virtually all their income, they are providing consumer spending the #1 impetus to job creation.
So, it would follow that the real heroes of job creation are the beggars with signs living under the freeway? They spend everything they get on the next bottle of Wild Irish Rose.
Who makes that bottle of cheap wine?
Originally posted by no1marauder"Say's law doesn't work, Norm. " Huh?
Say's law doesn't work, Norm.
Moving income from those who will do nothing with it but gamble on things like credit default swaps to those who will purchase tangible items produced by the economy increases aggregate demand and creates jobs.
You don't know what any given individual will do with money that isn't taken by government. The notion that everyone in a specific income class does the same thing with their money is both wrong and insulting to rich and poor alike.
3 edits
Originally posted by normbenignPick up your weapon and put a couple bullets in each one then. Armed trespassers get shot here in the States.
Taxes aren't contributed. If you don't pay, ultimately guys with guns show up at your door.
Rent, interestingly, is also nonvoluntary and leads to government gunmen coming to your door if not paid. I think there should be a "police enforcement fee" associated with charging people rent. Rent is also "inversely progressive" - it is more expensive to the poor than to the rich.
Originally posted by no1marauderThere will always be those who advocate more taxation. Mostly it comes from people with a dog in the hunt, who expect to benefit from the reaction to those tax rate increases.
True only in the short run as investors delay capital gains sales in advance of the effective date of reductions in the rate. Untrue in the long run:
Cutting capital gains rates reduces revenues over the long run. That’s the conclusion of the federal government’s official revenue-estimating agencies, as well as outside experts and the B ...[text shortened]... s likely to depress the economy as to stimulate it.”
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=1286
The truth is quite simple: That any tax is somewhat of a discouragement to the activity taxed. Social planners specifically use sin taxes to discourage things like smoking, and drinking. And tax breaks, such as credit on income home mortgage interest, tends to encourage what is viewed as a desirable outcome. The amount of discouragement is relative to the amount of the tax and how badly people want to do the taxed activity.
The notion that raising rates increases revenue in a straight line is plain wrong. Anyone who claims investments are of no importance in creating jobs has to have in mind a totally communist economy.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungDo you realize how seldom those things happen. By the time someone who is knowledgeable of the system is evicted from a rental property, he's lived and mooched off the landlord for a long time.
Ever heard of "eviction"? Or "going to jail for stealing stuff"?
And going to jail for theft isn't anywhere near as likely as getting busted for smoking pot.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYour contradictions are really impressive.
Pick up your weapon and put a couple bullets in each one then. Armed trespassers get shot here in the States.
Rent, interestingly, is also nonvoluntary and leads to government gunmen coming to your door if not paid. I think there should be a "police enforcement fee" associated with charging people rent. Rent is also "inversely progressive" - it is more expensive to the poor than to the rich.
Taxing us to death isn't force.
Charging rent for property owned is force.
If someone signs a lease how is that nonvoluntary?
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI didn't say being taxed didn't involve force. Don't talk about death rhetorically when I'm talking about shooting people. It's confusing.
Your contradictions are really impressive.
Taxing us to death isn't force.
Charging rent for property owned is force.
If someone signs a lease how is that nonvoluntary?
When the government gunmen come to your door and threaten to shoot you if you don't let them lock you up, it's force. Doesn't matter if it's due to taxes or failure to pay rent.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignI call shenanigans. The chance that the cops are going to pull guns on you for not paying taxes is nearly insignificant too. Don't play these games.
Do you realize how seldom those things happen. By the time someone who is knowledgeable of the system is evicted from a rental property, he's lived and mooched off the landlord for a long time.
And going to jail for theft isn't anywhere near as likely as getting busted for smoking pot.
"Mooched off the landlord"? What does the landlord provide? Nothing. Rent is protection money so the capitalist doesn't sic government muscle on you, that's all.
Originally posted by normbenignNo one claimed either of the things you said in the last paragraph. YOU claimed that cutting capital gains rates increases revenue in the long run; the data says that is false. And most capital gains are not investment in the economic sense; they are mere speculative trading of paper for paper that produce nothing of value for the economy.
There will always be those who advocate more taxation. Mostly it comes from people with a dog in the hunt, who expect to benefit from the reaction to those tax rate increases.
The truth is quite simple: That any tax is somewhat of a discouragement to the activity taxed. Social planners specifically use sin taxes to discourage things like smoking, an ...[text shortened]... vestments are of no importance in creating jobs has to have in mind a totally communist economy.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI don't need to know what any given individual will do to know that lower income individuals spend a much higher proportion of their income on average than higher income individuals. That is an undisputed economic fact. Thus, some redistribution from higher to lower income individuals will increase aggregate demand.
"Say's law doesn't work, Norm. " Huh?
You don't know what any given individual will do with money that isn't taken by government. The notion that everyone in a specific income class does the same thing with their money is both wrong and insulting to rich and poor alike.
Originally posted by no1marauder"I don't need to know what any given individual will do to know that lower income individuals spend a much higher proportion of their income on average than higher income individuals."
I don't need to know what any given individual will do to know that lower income individuals spend a much higher proportion of their income on average than higher income individuals. That is an undisputed economic fact. Thus, some redistribution from higher to lower income individuals will increase aggregate demand.
But consumer spending is like taxes, in that even though the percentage of income in consumer spending is lower, the aggregate amount is greater. It takes a lot of diapers and twinkies or even flat screen TVs to equal the cost of a private jet, which is consumer spending.