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
I can agree with some of that. If they are buying newly issued stock of a corporation, you are correct. But companies are buying back stock right now, not issuing new shares. Same with banks, they need to find places to lend money right now.. So new cash into a bank, in the current economy, isn't helping banks lend.
You are actually helping me make my point. If we were in a recession, I totally agree with you. But we aren't, so the influx of money to the wealthy isn't spurring investment. Labor participation rate is basically unchanged and unemployment is just a fraction lower.
Except that stock buy backs go where exactly? It's not enough to act that money gets dead ended somewhere. That's almost never the case. And as I pointed out, macroeconomics will literally tell you that even if it does that it doesn't matter. Buy bullets and shoot them into the ocean. You've still paid an ammunition supplier.
Sure, banks are currently flush with cash, there is an imbalance, they will find places to invest though. Simply because they currently have more deposits doesn't mean that they will keep a higher reserve % from now on. I can tell you anecdotally that our industry is booming with capital investment which is good for PM's like me.
Also, the fed is raising rates, which is a whole nother' conversation.
Yes and I don't agree with raising interest rates in this market. In the 70s and early 80s, we raised rates very high but inflation was ridiculously high. In a market like now, inflation is still relatively low, let the free market go.
I've argued this, but the actual trigger of the 08 recession was rates that were raised too quickly. I don't want to rehash the recession and all the varying reasons it happened. But it might not have been as bad if rates didn't go from zero to 6% (or whatever the fed raised it to). Same now, it seems the fed had used interest rates too much to curb inflation but then it gets to a point where rates are too high and a recession gets triggered. Let the country grow at 2-4% healthy for decades. Stop trying to manipulate the economy with interest.
To get back to our point. The wealthy buying stock on the open market is delaying the tax burden. They get gains when they sell it. Which, like I said, doesn't help the economy as it sits now. Same with banks, of course they use some of the money. But when they are strapped for cash and their capitalization rates are too high, then they use every penny and you can see benefits. That's not the case right now, I know a few banks that are chasing deals cause they need to lend money.
I somewhat agree though I would say that rates were held to low for too long which is why we had bubbles and why raising rates suddenly popped them. People chasing margins bc there are none. Slower, proactive raising of rates is a better policy. I hope the fed learned their lesson. Greenspan did at least. It kind of seems premature but really the economy is humming and you'd rather raise rates and have somewhere to go than wait for the next recession and then have nowhere to go.
I'm not a tax expert so I'll differ to you on the accounting haught talk but still, by economic definition, it will be invested and it will have a multiplier effect wherever the cash ends up going. The only argument FOR having the government or the poor spend that money instead is a velocity of money argument which is where you're headed even if you don't have the notion of it. Money spent by the poor goes out quickly into the economy where as investment, by it's nature, is slower. This means that unless you need an injection of economic activity, which we don't right now, money is better put into investment for long term growth and gains. That runs counter to your argument and point.
Yes I'm referring to velocity of money. Here's the thing, I agree there is a long term benefit. There no argument that a tax cut hurts anything (other than the federal deficit). And yes people keeping more of their money is a positive things, as long as it doesn't interrupt the government services that enhance our lives. The same people that argue that we should have a very minimal federal government would also take for granted our public schools, fire and police protection, etc.
However, the tax bill was sold as increasing jobs in the short term. And giving the taxes too the wealthy, in a good economy, the money doesn't come back into the system quick enough to have a dramatic effect on employment in the short term. If we were in a bad economy, the answer is different. And historically we have cut taxes as government stimulus in a bad economy. That works great when the top rate is 90% or 70% (the top rate when Reagan took over). There is diminishing returns when the top rate is 39.6% and dropping that to 37% that Trump did, is negligible and doesn't have a noticeable difference in the economy.
Last I checked those are locally or state funded by and large. Most of us that argue for a reduced scope of federal government would most definitely object to even the current level of federal of "funding" aka meddling in our schools.
The section of the tax bill that was sold as increasing jobs was the cleaning up of the corporate rate. Which as an accountant you should agree needed done. No large multinational was paying that rate anyways. The highest rate was reserved for small and middle sized companies. Cleaning the rate up helped reduce Rent Seeking and made a more level playing field for anyone who lacks a big three consulting firm to hide their money or jury rig their tax bill. There's no honest way you are going to try and tell me that lowering and streamlining the corporate rate didn't make American businesses and America itself more competitive in the world market. Participation rate among working age adults is going up and we are currently defying the demographics of an aging population so you don't exactly have a bullet proof claim that it isn't having the intended effect.
Anyways, color me surprised that the marketing of a major bill didn't 100% square with it's immediate effects even if what you said was true. Point to a major bill that has cleared that lofty bar in recent history.
The same people that argue that we should have a very minimal federal government would also take for granted our public schools, fire and police protection, etc.
All things that are the responsibility of the state and local government and not the Federal government. Far from taking those things for granted I recognize that the Federal Government should have little if any role in any of those things.
STFU. We are having an actual discussion here.
The guy responded with essentially what I said.
Last I checked those are locally or state funded by and large. Most of us that argue for a reduced scope of federal government would most definitely object to even the current level of federal of "funding" aka meddling in our schools.
It's clear you've never had money or known anyone with money.
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
I can agree with some of that. If they are buying newly issued stock of a corporation, you are correct. But companies are buying back stock right now, not issuing new shares. Same with banks, they need to find places to lend money right now.. So new cash into a bank, in the current economy, isn't helping banks lend.
You are actually helping me make my point. If we were in a recession, I totally agree with you. But we aren't, so the influx of money to the wealthy isn't spurring investment. Labor participation rate is basically unchanged and unemployment is just a fraction lower.
Except that stock buy backs go where exactly? It's not enough to act that money gets dead ended somewhere. That's almost never the case. And as I pointed out, macroeconomics will literally tell you that even if it does that it doesn't matter. Buy bullets and shoot them into the ocean. You've still paid an ammunition supplier.
Sure, banks are currently flush with cash, there is an imbalance, they will find places to invest though. Simply because they currently have more deposits doesn't mean that they will keep a higher reserve % from now on. I can tell you anecdotally that our industry is booming with capital investment which is good for PM's like me.
Also, the fed is raising rates, which is a whole nother' conversation.
Yes and I don't agree with raising interest rates in this market. In the 70s and early 80s, we raised rates very high but inflation was ridiculously high. In a market like now, inflation is still relatively low, let the free market go.
I've argued this, but the actual trigger of the 08 recession was rates that were raised too quickly. I don't want to rehash the recession and all the varying reasons it happened. But it might not have been as bad if rates didn't go from zero to 6% (or whatever the fed raised it to). Same now, it seems the fed had used interest rates too much to curb inflation but then it gets to a point where rates are too high and a recession gets triggered. Let the country grow at 2-4% healthy for decades. Stop trying to manipulate the economy with interest.
To get back to our point. The wealthy buying stock on the open market is delaying the tax burden. They get gains when they sell it. Which, like I said, doesn't help the economy as it sits now. Same with banks, of course they use some of the money. But when they are strapped for cash and their capitalization rates are too high, then they use every penny and you can see benefits. That's not the case right now, I know a few banks that are chasing deals cause they need to lend money.
I somewhat agree though I would say that rates were held to low for too long which is why we had bubbles and why raising rates suddenly popped them. People chasing margins bc there are none. Slower, proactive raising of rates is a better policy. I hope the fed learned their lesson. Greenspan did at least. It kind of seems premature but really the economy is humming and you'd rather raise rates and have somewhere to go than wait for the next recession and then have nowhere to go.
I'm not a tax expert so I'll differ to you on the accounting haught talk but still, by economic definition, it will be invested and it will have a multiplier effect wherever the cash ends up going. The only argument FOR having the government or the poor spend that money instead is a velocity of money argument which is where you're headed even if you don't have the notion of it. Money spent by the poor goes out quickly into the economy where as investment, by it's nature, is slower. This means that unless you need an injection of economic activity, which we don't right now, money is better put into investment for long term growth and gains. That runs counter to your argument and point.
Yes I'm referring to velocity of money. Here's the thing, I agree there is a long term benefit. There no argument that a tax cut hurts anything (other than the federal deficit). And yes people keeping more of their money is a positive things, as long as it doesn't interrupt the government services that enhance our lives. The same people that argue that we should have a very minimal federal government would also take for granted our public schools, fire and police protection, etc.
However, the tax bill was sold as increasing jobs in the short term. And giving the taxes too the wealthy, in a good economy, the money doesn't come back into the system quick enough to have a dramatic effect on employment in the short term. If we were in a bad economy, the answer is different. And historically we have cut taxes as government stimulus in a bad economy. That works great when the top rate is 90% or 70% (the top rate when Reagan took over). There is diminishing returns when the top rate is 39.6% and dropping that to 37% that Trump did, is negligible and doesn't have a noticeable difference in the economy.
Last I checked those are locally or state funded by and large. Most of us that argue for a reduced scope of federal government would most definitely object to even the current level of federal of "funding" aka meddling in our schools.
The section of the tax bill that was sold as increasing jobs was the cleaning up of the corporate rate. Which as an accountant you should agree needed done. No large multinational was paying that rate anyways. The highest rate was reserved for small and middle sized companies. Cleaning the rate up helped reduce Rent Seeking and made a more level playing field for anyone who lacks a big three consulting firm to hide their money or jury rig their tax bill. There's no honest way you are going to try and tell me that lowering and streamlining the corporate rate didn't make American businesses and America itself more competitive in the world market. Participation rate among working age adults is going up and we are currently defying the demographics of an aging population so you don't exactly have a bullet proof claim that it isn't having the intended effect.
Anyways, color me surprised that the marketing of a major bill didn't 100% square with it's immediate effects even if what you said was true. Point to a major bill that has cleared that lofty bar in recent history.
I got my $2,500 from Obamacare, didn't you?? Lol
Yes the examples I cited are partially funded at the local level. But there is also significant funding from the federal level. That's a whole other discussion. The primary expenditures of the federal government are military, Medicare/Medicaid, and social security.
Ok let's talk corporate taxes. I agree with you statement on streamlining the corporate tax structure would be beneficial, but that's not what happened. If anything, they are more complicated now, especially the rules on pass through corporations.
You didn't say this explicitly, but there's a belief that tax savings will be passed on to the consumer. When the reality is, that's not true. Apple, for example, got a large tax cut plus they were able to repatriate over a hundred billion dollars of foreign cash. Is they passed those tax cuts on to customers, wouldn't this year's iPhones be cheaper? No they aren't... Why? Because businesses price goods at a point to get the expected demand. The same reason a car is cheaper in August than the exact same brand new car was in October the prior year. There was also discussion that Apple would use the repatriated cash for investment. When all they did was buy back shares of their stock.
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!
It's not about supply side economics. It's about people having to give a higher percentage of their income because they are successful. If you didn't go to college or even graduate high school, that's your problem. I don't think I should pay for other people's lack of judgement.
Blackstone put a 1 billion dollar fund together to buy foreclosures across America. Every house they bought employed people to inspect and buy at the auction or a realtor wrote the offer for the short sale
Every house got remodeled, more jobs. People who lost their homes rent these homes. Property managers get paid
We are close to the 8 year hold where they sell off the assets - lots of commissions.
Just one small example of what billion dollar investments bring back to the economy
You mean the mass fraudalent foreclosures perpetrated by Blackstone and others via robosigning and rocket dockets?
I paid my mortgage for 25 years and no one stole my house
Funny how that works
I met a lot of these folks as they were being removed. Gave a lot of them checks from Blackstone
Most of them would tell you they fucked up. It happens
War Off:
There have been several market opportunities to justify a flip to 15-year money. What were you doing?
War Back On:
Sucker.
Bought in 87 for 90K. Ramped it up to 200K for fun and enjoyment as the interest dropped from 11% to under 6. Didn't care about a 15 year. Sold for 360 in 2011
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.
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.
No, productivity creates growth/wealth.
No. It doesn't. You can build a bunch of shit. But if no one buys it. What happened in the economy? That's where supply side economics fails. Without demand and consumption, there is no economy.
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.
No, productivity creates growth/wealth.
No. It doesn't. You can build a bunch of shit. But if no one buys it. What happened in the economy? That's where supply side economics fails. Without demand and consumption, there is no economy.
Hey dumb fuck, you can’t buy anything without someone first being productive. You can’t spend a dollar without first being productive enough to generate a dollar. You can’t eat out of your garden without first producing the food. “Spending” doesn’t create growth. Unless you susbscribe to Krugman broken window theory nonsense that a good hurricane is good for the economy.
Consumption and spending always follow production and wealth creation.
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.
Gates, Buffet, Bee zos, and the Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 50%. They can pay more. They've gotten tax breaks on everything from cap gains to income to corporate for many decades. This is oligarchic banana republic shit. We are better than this as a society.
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.
No, productivity creates growth/wealth.
No. It doesn't. You can build a bunch of shit. But if no one buys it. What happened in the economy? That's where supply side economics fails. Without demand and consumption, there is no economy.
Hey dumb fuck, you can’t buy anything without someone first being productive. You can’t spend a dollar without first being productive enough to generate a dollar. You can’t eat out of your garden without first producing the food. “Spending” doesn’t create growth. Unless you susbscribe to Krugman broken window theory nonsense that a good hurricane is good for the economy.
Consumption and spending always follow production and wealth creation.
If you grow something no one wants, you get nothing for it. Demand drives the economy. That's why supply side economics was shit in the 80s/early 90s and we took off in the late 90s when that shit was gone.
Here's the problem with using GDP. One, you don't include Clinton and I was specifically referring to Clinton. Two, the top rate was raised to 90% under Eisenhower. And was there with Kennedy. And dropped to 70% until early in Reagan's term. By you using GDP in relation to supply side economics talk, you are saying you think the top rate should be raised over 70% again. I know this will fly over your head, I'll await you fucktarded response.
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.
Gates, Buffet, Bee zos, and the Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 50%. They can pay more. They've gotten tax breaks on everything from cap gains to income to corporate for many decades. This is oligarchic banana republic shit. We are better than this as a society.
The methodology boosted your boyfriend's numbers as well Hondo. But if you want to brag about how shitty Reagan's economy was while it was a fully 2% greater in GDP growth than you cocksuck God knock yourself out.
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.
Gates, Buffet, Bee zos, and the Waltons have more wealth than the bottom 50%. They can pay more. They've gotten tax breaks on everything from cap gains to income to corporate for many decades. This is oligarchic banana republic shit. We are better than this as a society.
They already pay more...hth
Gates, Buffet, Bee zos and Waltons are better at creating wealth for us all to get a piece of than the government is. It's that simple.
The methodology boosted your boyfriend's numbers as well Hondo. But if you want to brag about how shitty Reagan's economy was while it was a fully 2% greater in GDP growth than you cocksuck God knock yourself out.
I said why using GDP is fucktarded. Then you go respond with GDP again. And ignore the actual chart I posted. Your knowledge of the economy is relegated to Fox news bullshit. HTH but I know it won't.
I'm enjoying you "educating" me on how Reagan's economy was really shitty Hondo. No one will ever touch the economic powerhouse created by your boyfriend Hondo.
Comments
The section of the tax bill that was sold as increasing jobs was the cleaning up of the corporate rate. Which as an accountant you should agree needed done. No large multinational was paying that rate anyways. The highest rate was reserved for small and middle sized companies. Cleaning the rate up helped reduce Rent Seeking and made a more level playing field for anyone who lacks a big three consulting firm to hide their money or jury rig their tax bill. There's no honest way you are going to try and tell me that lowering and streamlining the corporate rate didn't make American businesses and America itself more competitive in the world market. Participation rate among working age adults is going up and we are currently defying the demographics of an aging population so you don't exactly have a bullet proof claim that it isn't having the intended effect.
Anyways, color me surprised that the marketing of a major bill didn't 100% square with it's immediate effects even if what you said was true. Point to a major bill that has cleared that lofty bar in recent history.
Last I checked those are locally or state funded by and large. Most of us that argue for a reduced scope of federal government would most definitely object to even the current level of federal of "funding" aka meddling in our schools.
Go fuck yourself Hondo.
Consumption and spending always follow production and wealth creation.