And it should go to them. The top 1% pay 40% of the country’s taxes. While the bottom 90% pay only 29%. But yeah, let’s give the bottom 90% more breaks. Dumbfuck Hondo at it again.
Did you read the article?
Not to mention your view of macroeconomics is fucked. So I'll break it down for you. If you want to cut taxes cause the government has too much money, then you cut from the wealthy. If you want to cut taxes to spur economic growth and create jobs, you give the tax cuts to the middle class. Where they will take the tax cuts and spend every penny. Spending creates growth.
I love that you invoke macroeconomics. Tell me, do you think that investment is an unimportant factor of GDP? Or maybe you feel the multiplier is larger on consumption? I'd love to here your macroeconomic reasoning.
For investment, it depends on what you are considering investment. And yes, a lot higher percentage of the tax cuts given to the middle class goes back into the economy. Whereas, in an economy the way it's situated now, the majority of tax cuts given to the wealthy are not put back into the economy.
Same with corporations. If our economy was shitty, the corporate tax cuts would go into more investment which would stimulate growth. But where we are at in the economic cycle, corporations are already flush with cash so their best use to create shareholder value was to buy back stock. Rather than invest in new businesses.
I'm using the MACROECONOMIC definition of investment. You know, since you invoked it in the first place.
What is an 'Investment' An investment is an asset or item acquired with the goal of generating income or appreciation. In an economic sense, an investment is the purchase of goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth. In finance, an investment is a monetary asset purchased with the idea that the asset will provide income in the future or will later be sold at a higher price for a profit.
So in the MACROECONOMIC model even stockholder buybacks would contribute to measured economic growth. You should know this with your familiarity with MACROECONOMICS after all.
I appreciate your use of investopedia. By asking what investment you mean, I was asking private versus public. In a macroeconomic view, tax money can be used for investment in infrastructure that can bring a return on money (think the interstate system).
I don't know what a stockholder buy back is. But a stock buyback does not contribute to the economy, it only raises the shares of the stock for the current shareholders. Most of which is held by the wealthy and the amount that the middle class owns, is mostly in retirement accounts and won't be realized until years down the road.
So yes stock buybacks create long term wealth, they do not return much for current funds into the current system. And the tax on long term gains is much lower than income tax on earnings (if businesses invested and created jobs, the money would be returned into the current system).
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
How do they save it? Bury it in their backyards?
Can you have a discussion without feigning ignorance?
Can you honestly address a question you're asked? Unless the rich are putting their tax money in a mattress they are investing it even if they are saving it.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
It's actually amazing how simple that is. And people still don't understand it.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
How do they save it? Bury it in their backyards?
Can you have a discussion without feigning ignorance?
Can you honestly address a question you're asked? Unless the rich are putting their tax money in a mattress they are investing it even if they are saving it.
Great, and which has a massively larger net-economic impact, tax cuts for the rich or tax cuts for the poor?
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
It's actually amazing how simple that is. And people still don't understand it.
Pretty amazing how you don't understand that "saving" money even if you're putting it in a passbook account is a form of investment.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy. Now if they invest it in New businesses, then of course it's coming back into the economy. Or if they are spending it on toys. But that's not what happened, there's not one wealthy person who stopped and said "I have 2.2 billion instead of 2.1 billion in the bank because of the tax cut so now I'm going to start this new business."
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
How do they save it? Bury it in their backyards?
Can you have a discussion without feigning ignorance?
Can you honestly address a question you're asked? Unless the rich are putting their tax money in a mattress they are investing it even if they are saving it.
Great, and which has a massively larger net-economic impact, tax cuts for the rich or tax cuts for the poor?
How do you cut taxes for people who already pay no income taxes and get far more out in benefits than they pay in?
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
How do they save it? Bury it in their backyards?
Can you have a discussion without feigning ignorance?
Can you honestly address a question you're asked? Unless the rich are putting their tax money in a mattress they are investing it even if they are saving it.
Great, and which has a massively larger net-economic impact, tax cuts for the rich or tax cuts for the poor?
How do you cut taxes for people who already pay no income taxes and get far more out in benefits than they pay in?
And it should go to them. The top 1% pay 40% of the country’s taxes. While the bottom 90% pay only 29%. But yeah, let’s give the bottom 90% more breaks. Dumbfuck Hondo at it again.
Supply-side economics will definitely work this time!
Well if you are still holding onto Keynesian economics then you've been pretty fucking asleep for the last ten years...or last 100 for that matter. I love that you two are making fun of people for being economically illiterate while showing off your ignorance of the subject.
Which theory do you subscribe to?
Long story short? I wouldn't subscribe to any specific model as gospel as any good scientist wouldn't. That said,
I think the Keynesian(i.e. neo, or neo synthesis) is a reasonable facsimile for measuring the economy though even the (neo)Keynesians will be happy to tell you all of the issues that various models have. I think it does a poor job of prediction when geared towards political policy bc the politicians tend to listen to the scientists they want to hear and not to a balanced and inclusive panel.
Neoclassical is probably the closest fit but I have asterisks next to assumptions it makes. Chief among them the assumption of rationality. That's a topic I could spend 10,000 words discussing. I have some friends doing fascinating stuff with behavioral economics and Neuroeconomics. Some of which can beg the question of the definition of a "rational agent" which could lead back to a wider or deeper definition which could be included in the neoclassical model.
The hilarious original point being though, Hondo is wrong by the very model he attempts to invoke all while attempting to mock other people's ignorance. HondoFS to the max.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy. Now if they invest it in New businesses, then of course it's coming back into the economy. Or if they are spending it on toys. But that's not what happened, there's not one wealthy person who stopped and said "I have 2.2 billion instead of 2.1 billion in the bank because of the tax cut so now I'm going to start this new business."
That's your opinion and it's cute. Economists disagree and for good reasons. I can innumerate them if you'll bother to listen. Either way, I'd suggest you don't invoke your knowledge of Economics in future discussions.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy. Now if they invest it in New businesses, then of course it's coming back into the economy. Or if they are spending it on toys. But that's not what happened, there's not one wealthy person who stopped and said "I have 2.2 billion instead of 2.1 billion in the bank because of the tax cut so now I'm going to start this new business."
That's your opinion and it's cute. Economists disagree and for good reasons. I can innumerate them if you'll bother to listen. Either way, I'd suggest you don't invoke your knowledge of Economics in future discussions.
What part of this discussion do you disagree with? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy. Now if they invest it in New businesses, then of course it's coming back into the economy. Or if they are spending it on toys. But that's not what happened, there's not one wealthy person who stopped and said "I have 2.2 billion instead of 2.1 billion in the bank because of the tax cut so now I'm going to start this new business."
That's your opinion and it's cute. Economists disagree and for good reasons. I can innumerate them if you'll bother to listen. Either way, I'd suggest you don't invoke your knowledge of Economics in future discussions.
“Innumerate” means that you don’t understand math, numbers, equations, theorems and derivatives.
“Enumerate” means that you are providing an ordinal list.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy. Now if they invest it in New businesses, then of course it's coming back into the economy. Or if they are spending it on toys. But that's not what happened, there's not one wealthy person who stopped and said "I have 2.2 billion instead of 2.1 billion in the bank because of the tax cut so now I'm going to start this new business."
That's your opinion and it's cute. Economists disagree and for good reasons. I can innumerate them if you'll bother to listen. Either way, I'd suggest you don't invoke your knowledge of Economics in future discussions.
“Innumerate” means that you don’t understand math, numbers, equations, theorems and derivatives.
“Enumerate” means that you are providing an ordinal list.
Doog bot has a BS in economics.
I definitely worry about my grammar and spelling on this cite. I definitely do.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy. Now if they invest it in New businesses, then of course it's coming back into the economy. Or if they are spending it on toys. But that's not what happened, there's not one wealthy person who stopped and said "I have 2.2 billion instead of 2.1 billion in the bank because of the tax cut so now I'm going to start this new business."
That's your opinion and it's cute. Economists disagree and for good reasons. I can innumerate them if you'll bother to listen. Either way, I'd suggest you don't invoke your knowledge of Economics in future discussions.
“Innumerate” means that you don’t understand math, numbers, equations, theorems and derivatives.
“Enumerate” means that you are providing an ordinal list.
Doog bot has a BS in economics.
I definitely worry about my grammar and spelling on this cite. I definitely do.
Innumerate is a typo for enumerate? Maybe Freudian psychology is your thing.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
It's actually amazing how simple that is. And people still don't understand it.
Looks like the simple minded do
We need tax cuts for the 50% who pay no fed income tax
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy. Now if they invest it in New businesses, then of course it's coming back into the economy. Or if they are spending it on toys. But that's not what happened, there's not one wealthy person who stopped and said "I have 2.2 billion instead of 2.1 billion in the bank because of the tax cut so now I'm going to start this new business."
That's your opinion and it's cute. Economists disagree and for good reasons. I can innumerate them if you'll bother to listen. Either way, I'd suggest you don't invoke your knowledge of Economics in future discussions.
What part of this discussion do you disagree with? I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Well for one, as I said, you are wrong by the definition you invoked.
But more directly, holding stock and holding cash in a bank are actually forms of investment. Banks use the money as reserves which allow them to loan the money out for investments on such things as "new" businesses or say, home mortgages. Holding stock, similarly, costs money to buy, which when bought allows a company to fund further capital investments or other expenses.
And even barring all of that, storing assets, which is what you are attempting to use as an example I assume, creates a store of value as a future option, which has economic value. Keynesians will even tell you that breaking a window or building bridges to nowhere have economic value since that money is cycled back into the economy. I would argue that's inefficient but as C-dawg likes to point out, I only have a BS
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
How do they save it? Bury it in their backyards?
Can you have a discussion without feigning ignorance?
Can you honestly address a question you're asked? Unless the rich are putting their tax money in a mattress they are investing it even if they are saving it.
Great, and which has a massively larger net-economic impact, tax cuts for the rich or tax cuts for the poor?
How do you cut taxes for people who already pay no income taxes and get far more out in benefits than they pay in?
I'm not talking about them.
Except for when you were talking about them. Great, and which has a massively larger net-economic impact, tax cuts for the rich or tax cuts for the poor?
Is there some subgroup of poor people that I'm unaware of that do pay a lot of taxes?
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy. Now if they invest it in New businesses, then of course it's coming back into the economy. Or if they are spending it on toys. But that's not what happened, there's not one wealthy person who stopped and said "I have 2.2 billion instead of 2.1 billion in the bank because of the tax cut so now I'm going to start this new business."
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy.
I believe I just witnessed a goal post whizzing by at 100mph.
Hondo why do you feel the government is better qualified to determine where and how people should invest and spend their own money rather than the people who actually earned it?
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
It's clear you were talking out your ass and now can't back up your mouth. What do the rich do with their money that keeps it out of the economy Hondo?
They save it. Poor spend it. Pretty fucking simple actually.
Lol at this. Rich people don't have giant scrooge McDuck vaults of gold coins(well maybe the Saudis do). They invest their money. Which is very arguably a better use of resources for an economy long term than short term consumables that the poor use. Either way, it is cycled into the economy though, which defeats your point.
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy. Now if they invest it in New businesses, then of course it's coming back into the economy. Or if they are spending it on toys. But that's not what happened, there's not one wealthy person who stopped and said "I have 2.2 billion instead of 2.1 billion in the bank because of the tax cut so now I'm going to start this new business."
That's your opinion and it's cute. Economists disagree and for good reasons. I can innumerate them if you'll bother to listen. Either way, I'd suggest you don't invoke your knowledge of Economics in future discussions.
Do you mean to tell me that Hondo's claim that he knows people with money therefore he knows economics isn't enough to persuade you?
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
Comments
I don't know what a stockholder buy back is. But a stock buyback does not contribute to the economy, it only raises the shares of the stock for the current shareholders. Most of which is held by the wealthy and the amount that the middle class owns, is mostly in retirement accounts and won't be realized until years down the road.
So yes stock buybacks create long term wealth, they do not return much for current funds into the current system. And the tax on long term gains is much lower than income tax on earnings (if businesses invested and created jobs, the money would be returned into the current system).
And even if they did have a vault of gold coins it would still be a form of investment as those assets don't come from thin air.
I'd suggest that you guys stop invoking your superior knowledge of economics as validation for your positions.
I think the Keynesian(i.e. neo, or neo synthesis) is a reasonable facsimile for measuring the economy though even the (neo)Keynesians will be happy to tell you all of the issues that various models have. I think it does a poor job of prediction when geared towards political policy bc the politicians tend to listen to the scientists they want to hear and not to a balanced and inclusive panel.
Neoclassical is probably the closest fit but I have asterisks next to assumptions it makes. Chief among them the assumption of rationality. That's a topic I could spend 10,000 words discussing. I have some friends doing fascinating stuff with behavioral economics and Neuroeconomics. Some of which can beg the question of the definition of a "rational agent" which could lead back to a wider or deeper definition which could be included in the neoclassical model.
The hilarious original point being though, Hondo is wrong by the very model he attempts to invoke all while attempting to mock other people's ignorance. HondoFS to the max.
“Enumerate” means that you are providing an ordinal list.
Doog bot has a BS in economics.
We need tax cuts for the 50% who pay no fed income tax
Fucking brilliant
But more directly, holding stock and holding cash in a bank are actually forms of investment. Banks use the money as reserves which allow them to loan the money out for investments on such things as "new" businesses or say, home mortgages. Holding stock, similarly, costs money to buy, which when bought allows a company to fund further capital investments or other expenses.
And even barring all of that, storing assets, which is what you are attempting to use as an example I assume, creates a store of value as a future option, which has economic value. Keynesians will even tell you that breaking a window or building bridges to nowhere have economic value since that money is cycled back into the economy. I would argue that's inefficient but as C-dawg likes to point out, I only have a BS
Great, and which has a massively larger net-economic impact, tax cuts for the rich or tax cuts for the poor?
Is there some subgroup of poor people that I'm unaware of that do pay a lot of taxes?
Holding positions in stock or cash in a back is not adding a significant resource to the economy.
I believe I just witnessed a goal post whizzing by at 100mph.
Hondo why do you feel the government is better qualified to determine where and how people should invest and spend their own money rather than the people who actually earned it?
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.