Vic wrote:Oh yeah and everybody who wants smaller government and lower taxes is clearly delusional eh Seafort? Asking the politicians that said that they would be fiscally responsible to actually be so is not crackpot.
That's not the crackpot bit. The crackpot bit is to scream about minimizing government and lowering government - drastically, when you consider their desired tax cut for the wealthiest segment of America - and then to proclaim their intentions to save and even bolster existing entitlements (the ones that benefit UMC and above white folks, that is.)
Tyyr wrote:Letting a guy have another five million that will get invested will accomplish that.
It would if there was any actual relationship between the rich guy's tax cut and subsequent investment. There is none. The Tea Party's proposed cuts do not come with any requirement, or even incentive, to invest that money into the economy. Given the origins of the Tea Party, I strongly doubt that their intentions are to have that money reinvested in the economic infrastructure rather than to just let the wealthy pocket it. In fact, I strongly doubt that the Tea Party has though longer-term than just, "tax cut."
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Tyyr wrote:Letting a guy have another five million that will get invested will accomplish that.
It would if there was any actual relationship between the rich guy's tax cut and subsequent investment. There is none. The Tea Party's proposed cuts do not come with any requirement, or even incentive, to invest that money into the economy. Given the origins of the Tea Party, I strongly doubt that their intentions are to have that money reinvested in the economic infrastructure rather than to just let the wealthy pocket it. In fact, I strongly doubt that the Tea Party has though longer-term than just, "tax cut."
Unless they stuff the money under a matress it will be invested basically by default. A basic understanding of what happens with money is all that is necessary to understand this. I am not sure what people think that rich people do with their money, but most are not carrying it around in their pocket nor are they just letting it sit earning a half of a percent in a bank account.
But even if they put it in a bank at worst it will be used to buy bonds and at best it will be used to make loans, thus stimulating demand and growth.
Now you can argue on the relative stimulative effects of these things vs more government spending, but its an intellectual cop out to say the rich will just "pocket" the savings. As if that money will dissapear and never do anything. It will do plenty of things, pretty much regardless of what the person getting the money elects to do with it. In fact short of building a huge vault in which to house piles of paper currency or gold I am not sure that it is possible to avoid providing some stimulative effect when having access to more money.
Again, you can argue that the government could do a better job than the private sector investing that money. But you can't just take the lazy way out and proclaim that the rich will just pocket the money.
Mikey wrote:It would if there was any actual relationship between the rich guy's tax cut and subsequent investment. There is none. The Tea Party's proposed cuts do not come with any requirement, or even incentive, to invest that money into the economy. Given the origins of the Tea Party, I strongly doubt that their intentions are to have that money reinvested in the economic infrastructure rather than to just let the wealthy pocket it. In fact, I strongly doubt that the Tea Party has though longer-term than just, "tax cut."
What do you imagine the wealthy due with their money? Stuff it in a huge vault Scrooge McDuck style and go swimming in it? They invest it. You don't get wealthy nor do you stay wealthy by shoving your money in a mattress. Your only real option not to lose money due to inflation is to invest the money in stocks or business ventures both of which are a major boon to the economy. The only way to keep a fortune is to keep that money working which means investment.
Holy hopping snot. I'm glad you both think I'm so much of an idiot that I can't discern the difference between non-stimulatory reinvestment into the infrastructure and actually burying cahs in a coffee can, but I assure you that I can. However, you both are failing (or refusing) to discern the difference between simply performing capital-gains-realizing makework with one's money and actual, liquid economic reinvestment. Some rich guy puts half a mil into Fannie Mae, for example; he gets (I forget what the exact current guaranteed return is, but it is something in the neighborhood of) 8.5% guaranteed. What does the assisted and FHA housing market get? Two things: Jack and Sh*t. You think his half a mil, or mil, or 5 mil, is going to change the face of FHA home buying across the country? Bull-pucky.
Lets say he's a bit smarter, younger, or more adventurous. He takes his half a mil and buys a handful of SPDR's. Are the companies represented in those indices suddenly going to be able to hire 1,000, or 500, or 100 new people... or avoid laying off 10... because of their fractional new partner? Again, I have to say: bull-pucky.
Etc., etc., ad nauseum. You guys are trying to make an allegation that I'm wrong because I don't understand how things work; in fact, you are entitled to your opinion but you're making the point very loudly that the specifics of how these economic issues function is beyonf the ken of your discussion.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
A question then. What happens if a bunch of rich guys suddenly have a lot less money to put into these investment vehicles? That is going to have a major effect on the housing markets. Particularly if the government is not putting up the money to keep the two afloat. The same thing with the SPDR's. Sure, one guy not buying a fractional ownership does not make a huge difference. But a bunch of investors not being able to buy into these businesses makes a huge difference, particularly in companies looking to raise private capital.
Again, we can argue about the degree to which that is stimulative, but you can't make an argument that it is not stimulative at all. It only seems fair to measure what the government could accomplish with that money versus what a private citizen could do with it to determine what is the best course of action.
I'm going with the obvious rebuttal to that whole argument.
In the years the Bush tax cuts for the rich have been in place, the rich have invested and created millions of jobs.
...In China, India and Mexico.
If there's no incentive for them to create jobs here, they don't. As evidenced by the millions of jobs lost since that cut took effect. They can make way more money for themselves by investing and creating jobs overseas. None of which helps average Americans. In the meantime, they've all become substantially richer, while the average American has become considerably poorer.
Tax cuts for the richest people so that they can "trickle it down" on us is a poor idea, in general. Besides, they aren't proposing raising the taxes up to 50% (like I would do), only up to 39.5% from the current 35%.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
Tsukiyumi wrote:I'm going with the obvious rebuttal to that whole argument.
In the years the Bush tax cuts for the rich have been in place, the rich have invested and created millions of jobs.
...In China, India and Mexico.
If there's no incentive for them to create jobs here, they don't. As evidenced by the millions of jobs lost since that cut took effect. They can make way more money for themselves by investing and creating jobs overseas. None of which helps average Americans. In the meantime, they've all become substantially richer, while the average American has become considerably poorer.
Tax cuts for the richest people so that they can "trickle it down" on us is a poor idea, in general. Besides, they aren't proposing raising the taxes up to 50% (like I would do), only up to 39.5% from the current 35%.
But the obvious solution to that is not to tax the rich more, since as you said that marginal increase can hardly raise the quality of life for the poorer people here, but to modify our trade arrangements so that it is either more attractive for people to invest here or so that products from nations that do not pay wages we consider acceptable cannot be sold here.
Now there are a lot of economist that will argue that is a bad idea overall and will just drive up prices and drive down your competitiveness, but setting that aside the fact that jobs are being created overseas is not really related to the decision to increase taxes or not. What you should be arguing for is a different trade policy designed to ensure that low cost goods from China don't flood the markets here and drive out domestic producers who do pay a living wage. Investors won't put money in those economies if they don't have a market in which to sell the goods after all.
BigJKU316 wrote:A question then. What happens if a bunch of rich guys suddenly have a lot less money to put into these investment vehicles? That is going to have a major effect on the housing markets. Particularly if the government is not putting up the money to keep the two afloat. The same thing with the SPDR's. Sure, one guy not buying a fractional ownership does not make a huge difference. But a bunch of investors not being able to buy into these businesses makes a huge difference, particularly in companies looking to raise private capital.
Did you start a different conversation since the last time I checked? I never said anything about imposing a new giant tax burden on the wealthy - just that a giant tax cut for the wealthy wasn't helpful. In this example, we can assume that the same amount of liquidity exists - whether it be held by the wealthy sector or tithed to the gub'mint. Now, are you really asking me who I trust more to see that said money stays in the country and gets put towards things that entitle the rest of America?
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Mikey, I was under the impression that there are no new tax cuts just a continuation of the old ones. Or did I miss sumpin? And that the neo-Con's want all of it to go through while the neo-Lib's want to cut out the rich folk. If the neo-Lib's are succesfull a whole lot of Dem's are going to lose money, that would be poetic justice.
God is great, beer is good, and people are crazy.
.................................................Billy Currington
SolkaTruesilver wrote:On the other hand, the factories in India, Mexico and China allowed for cheaper products, which means more sales, thu more services --> more jobs.
Depends. If a new TV is cheaper than the repair bill, just buy a new one, and throw out the old. The store gets maybe one minimum wage employee selling TVs (assuming the shopper doesn't just research on the internet, and grab it themselves), but the people who would earn more than minimum wage maintaining and repairing TVs lose their jobs.
Not to mention that a country full of service-oriented workers is not a viable economic model. Nothing but cashiers, waiters and lawn care people, with a few skilled laborers, with 80% of the money made by the top 2%? Seriously?
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Mexico 2: The Revenge.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
