[QUOTE=ilikecorn;44077972]Savings don't do a god damned thing for the economy because they are in limbo. Its money that's not in use. Stop talking out of your ass.[/QUOTE]
They are lent
That's what the fractionary reserve is for
Right?
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;44080631]It's not about them "deserving to have less," it's about everybody else deserving to have more. What justice in there in a small handful of elite holding the vast majority of wealth in the country while the so-called "middle class" can't even afford health care or education without going deep into debt, and while the huge number of lower-class Americans struggle just to pay the bills and keep food on the table? Never mind mansions or yachts or fancy cars, they'd be happy just to afford the basic costs of living.
If the lower classes of America were able to live with the basic comforts and necessities of life, I'd be fine with the rich people being as rich as they are, but they can't, because all the wealth in this country is held by the super-rich. So yes, I'm perfectly fine with the Johnny Moneybags of the world having "one less mansion" if it means the rest of the country can actually keep a roof over their heads.[/QUOTE]
Alright, if we have a pie and I take 75% of it and you take 25% of it, how exactly are you going to have more without me having less? Not really applicable to this discussion, the logic of your first statement was just way off.
And I definitely understand making money just to get by. I was born and raised in a trailer park and my dad worked hard to make his way to a 6 figure salary, raising an unexpected kid (me) in the process. Now, with that said, I'm not saying that things are alright the way they are, but I think that taking money from the people who have more is just the easy way out. I'm not an economist, and I doubt many others here are, but I truly believe that we should move in the direction of reworking the tax system as a whole. Tax payer money goes to the war on drugs, building military equipment (drones), and an easily abused welfare system. Things definitely need work, but I don't think pulling more money in is a viable long-term solution.
[QUOTE=G71tc4;44081755]Alright, if we have a pie and I take 75% of it and you take 25% of it, how exactly are you going to have more without me having less? Not really applicable to this discussion, the logic of your first statement was just way off.[/QUOTE]
Well, like, this would be applicable if taxes were retarded as fuck. But it's not comparable to how taxes actually work so...good job being silly?
The real situation would be if you took that 75% of the pie (lets say it's 500g, we need a measure for this to work), and every gram of pie over 300g was broken into .75g and .25g, then the .75g was given to the other person (who has less pie and therefore would "starve" so to speak).
You still always have more pie than the person with the 25%, however, any excess pie you have is shared around to make the whole meal more balanced for everybody involved.
[quote]And I definitely understand making money just to get by. I was born and raised in a trailer park and my dad worked hard to make his way to a 6 figure salary, raising an unexpected kid (me) in the process. Now, with that said, I'm not saying that things are alright the way they are, but I think that taking money from the people who have more is just the easy way out. I'm not an economist, and I doubt many others here are, but I truly believe that we should move in the direction of reworking the tax system as a whole. Tax payer money goes to the war on drugs, building military equipment (drones), and an easily abused welfare system. Things definitely need work, but I don't think pulling more money in is a viable long-term solution.[/quote]
"Taking money from the people who have more is just the easy way out". Words of a true economist I see (yeah I know you claimed you aren't one, if so, why are you making these claims?). What could we do to gain more money to provide social schemes to support those who are out of work (for [B]any[/B] reason, don't be a fucking asshole to people for no reason). Sure, cutting down the war on drugs, lowering military expense, etc. works, but it won't generate the revenue needed consistently. And that's what's important, consistent revenue is required to ensure these schemes don't just vanish overnight. Pulling more money in to force it's circulation through the market is totally viable.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;44078774]It's frightening to think that there are people so delusional that they still believe trickle-down economics works.[/QUOTE]
Taxes are the only way to make the money trickle, so I guess in that sense I "believe" in it
[QUOTE=G71tc4;44080270]Has more than me = deserves to have less
[/QUOTE]
How do people still not understand this
It's about what people [B]have left[/B] of their salary after taxes, not how much gets taken by taxes. If a multimillionaire is still a millionaire after taxes, that's more acceptable than a poor person who has no expendable income to start with, having less than nothing after taxes.
[QUOTE=G71tc4;44081755]Alright, if we have a pie and I take 75% of it and you take 25% of it, how exactly are you going to have more without me having less? Not really applicable to this discussion, the logic of your first statement was just way off.
And I definitely understand making money just to get by. I was born and raised in a trailer park and my dad worked hard to make his way to a 6 figure salary, raising an unexpected kid (me) in the process. Now, with that said, I'm not saying that things are alright the way they are, but I think that taking money from the people who have more is just the easy way out. I'm not an economist, and I doubt many others here are, but I truly believe that we should move in the direction of reworking the tax system as a whole. Tax payer money goes to the war on drugs, building military equipment (drones), and an easily abused welfare system. Things definitely need work, but I don't think pulling more money in is a viable long-term solution.[/QUOTE]
Do I have so little pie that I go hungry, and you have so much that you can't possibly eat it all? Because that's how it's working with the distribution of wealth in this country. In fact, a more accurate figure would be that you have 80% of the pie for you and your best friend, and I have to share the remaining 20% of the pie with the rest of the school.
I'm not saying you don't deserve your pie, but other people need pie too, so quit being such a greedy pie hog.
[QUOTE=G71tc4;44081755]Alright, if we have a pie and I take 75% of it and you take 25% of it, how exactly are you going to have more without me having less? Not really applicable to this discussion, the logic of your first statement was just way off.[/QUOTE]
It's a difference in the point of emphasis. The benefits of taxing George Soros (who made $4 billion last year) 75% is going to outweigh the negative (one less mansion, etc). You choose to focus on the latter, which is just silly.
You know I'm not sure if this is related to this but, one thing that needs to be fixed is the way we help the poor. The welfare system is so fucked up. I know people in my town that live in supposed low income housing... Yet they drive FUCKING cadillacs (not an old one, a new one. Guys got the works, tinted windows and big chrome rims). Now if you ask me that's seriously fucked up. I can barely afford to get buy and pay my own bills and go to college so I can have nice things like that and so are many others (middle class, like me). Most of my college friends still live with there parents and so do I cause this economy sucks! And then you have these idiots paying little to nothing living better than the rest of us and their considered poor. I know this isn't everyone on welfare but the abuse that does happen is sickening. This isn't an ooh poor me post but I just needed to vent. I won't ever take government aid because it's for people that really need it (like disabled individuals).
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44077719]about what exactly? the topic? i already did, others did too, read it.
redistributing wealth via taxes, is socialistic in nature lol.[/QUOTE]
The government is socialistic in nature lol
[QUOTE=avincent;44072825]Yea, it's their fucking money. What gives the government the right to have more than half your fucking money?
You also realize a lot of their extra money goes to creating new jobs, building businesses, donating to charities etc. People don't just get rich and say oh fuck it I'm done, I wouldn't expect anyone in this thread to actually understand the bigger picture though.[/QUOTE]
You know one of the causes of the Great Depression was that the income was almost completely held in one percent of the population that was incapable of spending it all.
This is a good thing because it recirculates money around the economy rather then making it stagnate.
Its also not like the rich are going to really be affected by extra taxes because as already stated once you get past a certain level of income then you really have no way to spend it all.
I love how all the dumbs are from gold members. People who used money to earn a title.
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;44078774]It's frightening to think that there are people so delusional that they still believe trickle-down economics works.[/QUOTE]
This is a common misconception. It's not that it doesn't work- it doesn't work as much as you would like. Even this "tax the rich" so the money can be spent (thus helping the economy)- it's fundamentally trickle down economics.
The only real difference is most ppl see trickle down economics as rich ppl trickling down to poor while here it's big government trickling down to the poor.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;44072694]they're going to have to buy one less yacht, how horrible.
[IMG]http://img.pandawhale.com/post-8744-Woody-Harrelson-Crying-Money-g-tvLk.gif[/IMG]
is there no justice in this world
won't someone think of the rich[/QUOTE]
Instantly thought of this:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Af0wXeN6_FY&feature=player_detailpage#t=84[/url]
Sorry for the potato quality, not my video.
[QUOTE=hexpunK;44072623]Who'd have fucking thunk?
75% tax rate on earnings over $1m go. It's totally feasible for the rich to still be rich with absurd tax rates.[/QUOTE]
France did that recently and I hope it'll work.
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;44097797]This is a common misconception. It's not that it doesn't work- it doesn't work as much as you would like. Even this "tax the rich" so the money can be spent (thus helping the economy)- it's fundamentally trickle down economics.
The only real difference is most ppl see trickle down economics as rich ppl trickling down to poor while here it's big government trickling down to the poor.[/QUOTE]
A lot of governments tax earnings that are reinvested into the market and business at a much lower rate than earnings that are held for this reason. Essentially what the government is saying is "Invest your money into the economy or we'll do it for you." You're right in that either way, it's trickle-down economics, but with one difference: the people who are already rich aren't the ones choosing who else gets rich... but then the government is, and in a place like America - where you already need to be rich to get elected into office - nothing really changes.
[QUOTE=H8Entitlement;44097797]This is a common misconception. It's not that it doesn't work- it doesn't work as much as you would like. Even this "tax the rich" so the money can be spent (thus helping the economy)- it's fundamentally trickle down economics.
The only real difference is most ppl see trickle down economics as rich ppl trickling down to poor while here it's big government trickling down to the poor.[/QUOTE]
The fundamental thing that trickle down economics was claimed to do, which is prevent poverty and unemployment from rising and keep the economy healthy, it completely fails at. So no, trickle down economics doesn't work.
And "tax the rich" isn't trickle down economics. It's directly giving money to people who need it most for things they need it most, like food and health care, as opposed to "trickle down economics" which hopes that the working class will indirectly get money from tax breaks for the rich because the rich will spend more money.
[QUOTE=Helix Snake;44099925]The fundamental thing that trickle down economics was claimed to do, which is prevent poverty and unemployment from rising and keep the economy healthy, it completely fails at. So no, trickle down economics doesn't work.
And "tax the rich" isn't trickle down economics. It's directly giving money to people who need it most for things they need it most, like food and health care, as opposed to "trickle down economics" which hopes that the working class will indirectly get money from tax breaks for the rich because the rich will spend more money.[/QUOTE]
I've never heard any reference that trickle down theory supposedly prevented poverty. Any sources on that or did you make it up on the spot?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
