Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Elizabeth Warren proposes 'wealth tax' on Americans with more than $50 million in assets
Comments
-
I’d be concerned about the bill’s unintended consequences, if it had a prayer of being enacted. However, that maneuver was anticipated. It would would cost him 40% of his asset value in one swoop.HFNY said:Wealth inequality will decline when the stock market goes in the tank. More tax reform would help a little as well.
But to confiscate someone's property (assets) is crazy and would have loads of unintended consequences. Bezos would likely give up his American citizenship and move elsewhere instead of give up billions upon billions of his net worth each year. -
HFNY said:
Wealth inequality will decline when the stock market goes in the tank. More tax reform would help a little as well.
But to confiscate someone's property (assets) is crazy and would have loads of unintended consequences. Bezos would likely give up his American citizenship and move elsewhere instead of give up billions upon billions of his net worth each year.
But! But! That $50 Million early exit fee will keep him here!!!! -
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
Well it is their money
Politics of envy -
So you’re gonna discount the 99% that actually spend more money, day to day, that have more of it to spend instead giving it to the Gubment?HHusky said:
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
I get what you’re saying, but raising tax rates on the comfortable of the comfortableist won’t bring in more money. They just hide it somewhere else. Your answer isn’t in tax rates, it’s in a true flat tax reform.
-
The desir
I will. I need to start wtfing Hondo's posts more often, too.RaceBannon said:
Start telling people to fuck off thenFenderbender123 said:
I don't know...What are you guys talking about? I'm just trying to fit in.GrundleStiltzkin said:
What?Fenderbender123 said:I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
-
That's better.Fenderbender123 said:The desir
I will. I need to start wtfing Hondo's posts more often, too.RaceBannon said:
Start telling people to fuck off thenFenderbender123 said:
I don't know...What are you guys talking about? I'm just trying to fit in.GrundleStiltzkin said:
What?Fenderbender123 said:I never understood the argument that if we lived in a stateless society that people would just reestablish the state or that some group of people would assume power. If we got serious enough about deconstructing centralized power to where we literally establish a stateless society, why would we be powerless to prevent a new one from forming?
-
If demand goes down like fender seems to not care about. No one is going to invest in shit. But why let basic economics get in the way of your wants.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
So you’re gonna discount the 99% that actually spend more money, day to day, that have more of it to spend instead giving it to the Gubment?HHusky said:
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
I get what you’re saying, but raising tax rates on the comfortable of the comfortableist won’t bring in more money. They just hide it somewhere else. Your answer isn’t in tax rates, it’s in a true flat tax reform.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
-
Whoosh!RaceBannon said:Well it is their money
Politics of envy
No consumer spending, no reason to invest in employees, plant and equipment making consumer goods.
-
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
Well all taxes are paid by people with their money. Your question takes us absolutely nowhere.Sledog said: -
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
So you’re gonna discount the 99% that actually spend more money, day to day, that have more of it to spend instead giving it to the Gubment?HHusky said:
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
I get what you’re saying, but raising tax rates on the comfortable of the comfortableist won’t bring in more money. They just hide it somewhere else. Your answer isn’t in tax rates, it’s in a true flat tax reform.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
-
You've never cared about basic economics. See: Obamacare2001400ex said:
If demand goes down like fender seems to not care about. No one is going to invest in shit. But why let basic economics get in the way of your wants.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
Go fuck yourself with a rusty nail. -
Socialists here seem to think they deserve what others make. HTHHHusky said: -
I don't know that person will be affected. Because they still get $24k in itemized deductions, assuming married. So the cap of $10k in SALT probably won't matter. But there's people in California for example where their property taxes get there alone. And they would be way over the $24k because State income tax. But no longer.salemcoog said:
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
So you’re gonna discount the 99% that actually spend more money, day to day, that have more of it to spend instead giving it to the Gubment?HHusky said:
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
I get what you’re saying, but raising tax rates on the comfortable of the comfortableist won’t bring in more money. They just hide it somewhere else. Your answer isn’t in tax rates, it’s in a true flat tax reform.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
And yes I'm already hearing from some people who used to get $2,000 back or whatever every year are now getting nothing back. Granted they got the money in advance during the year, but they feel hosed. -
Hmmm. It was my understanding that the first $24k of income was not taxable for the real poors. And those that make more are still paying the rate on ALL of their income with a limit of $10K in deductions for interest and taxes. I’d think that even if I’m wrong about that, the $125K earner is still gonna take it on the chin with the new plan.2001400ex said:
I don't know that person will be affected. Because they still get $24k in itemized deductions, assuming married. So the cap of $10k in SALT probably won't matter. But there's people in California for example where their property taxes get there alone. And they would be way over the $24k because State income tax. But no longer.salemcoog said:
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
So you’re gonna discount the 99% that actually spend more money, day to day, that have more of it to spend instead giving it to the Gubment?HHusky said:
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
I get what you’re saying, but raising tax rates on the comfortable of the comfortableist won’t bring in more money. They just hide it somewhere else. Your answer isn’t in tax rates, it’s in a true flat tax reform.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
And yes I'm already hearing from some people who used to get $2,000 back or whatever every year are now getting nothing back. Granted they got the money in advance during the year, but they feel hosed. -
You don't get money back you loan it to the government interest free2001400ex said:
I don't know that person will be affected. Because they still get $24k in itemized deductions, assuming married. So the cap of $10k in SALT probably won't matter. But there's people in California for example where their property taxes get there alone. And they would be way over the $24k because State income tax. But no longer.salemcoog said:
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
So you’re gonna discount the 99% that actually spend more money, day to day, that have more of it to spend instead giving it to the Gubment?HHusky said:
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
I get what you’re saying, but raising tax rates on the comfortable of the comfortableist won’t bring in more money. They just hide it somewhere else. Your answer isn’t in tax rates, it’s in a true flat tax reform.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
And yes I'm already hearing from some people who used to get $2,000 back or whatever every year are now getting nothing back. Granted they got the money in advance during the year, but they feel hosed.
Flip that burger -
What do you think I meant by "you get that money in advance?"RaceBannon said:
You don't get money back you loan it to the government interest free2001400ex said:
I don't know that person will be affected. Because they still get $24k in itemized deductions, assuming married. So the cap of $10k in SALT probably won't matter. But there's people in California for example where their property taxes get there alone. And they would be way over the $24k because State income tax. But no longer.salemcoog said:
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
So you’re gonna discount the 99% that actually spend more money, day to day, that have more of it to spend instead giving it to the Gubment?HHusky said:
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
I get what you’re saying, but raising tax rates on the comfortable of the comfortableist won’t bring in more money. They just hide it somewhere else. Your answer isn’t in tax rates, it’s in a true flat tax reform.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
And yes I'm already hearing from some people who used to get $2,000 back or whatever every year are now getting nothing back. Granted they got the money in advance during the year, but they feel hosed.
Flip that burger -
No. The standard deduction is $24k if you are married. State and local taxes (SALT) are itemized deductions on a personal return where mortgage interest as such goes. The average person who makes $125k in most states, won't get to the $24k in itemized deductions anyway, so the $10k cap in SALT doesn't matter.salemcoog said:
Hmmm. It was my understanding that the first $24k of income was not taxable for the real poors. And those that make more are still paying the rate on ALL of their income with a limit of $10K in deductions for interest and taxes. I’d think that even if I’m wrong about that, the $125K earner is still gonna take it on the chin with the new plan.2001400ex said:
I don't know that person will be affected. Because they still get $24k in itemized deductions, assuming married. So the cap of $10k in SALT probably won't matter. But there's people in California for example where their property taxes get there alone. And they would be way over the $24k because State income tax. But no longer.salemcoog said:
Taking advantage of existing tax law is not cheating. If you want real change, you don’t point your finger at the high earners and say it’s all your fault. You change the rules so that they can’t “cheat” by your definition. You close loop holes.HHusky said:
A huge portion of the population has no more money to spend because they didn't even make enough to be subject to Federal Income Taxes. And those who are most likely to spend didn't receive very much of the cut.salemcoog said:
So you’re gonna discount the 99% that actually spend more money, day to day, that have more of it to spend instead giving it to the Gubment?HHusky said:
Could be either, but I was referring to the comfortable and more than comfortable. Comfortable and better bank the tax cuts.salemcoog said:
Significant by rate or amount paid?HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
I get what you’re saying, but raising tax rates on the comfortable of the comfortableist won’t bring in more money. They just hide it somewhere else. Your answer isn’t in tax rates, it’s in a true flat tax reform.
I agree that some will cheat no matter what the rates are, but we are not talking about confiscatory rates here. They are not likely to inspire people who wouldn't otherwise cheat to start cheating.
That makes the rich pay more taxes and doesn’t make them want to run for the border and divest in the US economy by demanding a 70% marginal rate.
With that said, Trumps tax law is a joke. I’ve said that since Day one
The poor sap that makes 125K per year with a $500K mortgage in Oregon and other states with income taxes is gonna know all about it real soon. Pretty much why it got pushed back until after the midterms.
And yes I'm already hearing from some people who used to get $2,000 back or whatever every year are now getting nothing back. Granted they got the money in advance during the year, but they feel hosed.
And therein lies the comment about people who were used to getting money back. In the past, that person would have say $16k in itemized deductions (standard deduction was $12k), being in the 25% tax bracket, they would get $1,000 back ($4k more in deductions times 25%). Now that person uses the standard deduction and gets so nothing back.
Granted, as race mentioned, you are better off getting nothing back because you were just loaning the government that money interest free. In fact I prefer to pay a couple hundred for that reason, and if under $600 I can pay it on October 15 when I usually file my taxes. -
It's copypasta. U nu hear?HardlyClothed said:
Fucking christ, who talks like thisUW_Doog_Bot said:
[Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:[2]HHusky said:
The state just withers away under capitalism(TU QUOQUE), of course. Dyslexic Maxr told me.UW_Doog_Bot said:
Fun fact, Ancaps and Ansocs can actually live together in a free and tolerant society.UW_Doog_Bot said:
This is called voluntary socialism. The fact that it doesn't work and you aren't willing to do it tells you everything you need to know about why state socialism is theft and doesn't work.HHusky said:I suppose I could volunteer to pay taxes not due, but I’ve never ever argued anyone should do that.
Or you know, you could just donate to the poor and needy directly if you feel they need help instead of relying on the government to take 40% off the top.
Keep blaming "other people" though I guess.
It's only because of the failure of socialism that socialists have to use the force of government to push their system on the rest of society.- Person A makes claim X.
- Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
- Therefore, X is false.
Peter: "Bill is guilty of defrauding the government out of tax dollars."
Bill: "How can you say that when you yourself have 20 outstanding parking tickets?"
It is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]
Example
In the trial of Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie, the controversial lawyer Jacques Vergès tried to present what was defined as a Tu Quoque Defence—i.e., that during the Algerian War, French officers such as General Jacques Massu had committed war crimes similar to those with which Barbie was being charged, and therefore the French state had no moral right to try Barbie. This defense was rejected by the court, which convicted Barbie.[5]]
In keeping with your theme, this is also a fallacious argument. Be a better poaster. - Person A makes claim X.
-
Weath creation and economic growth is driven by capital investment and production. Not by consumption. HTHHHusky said:
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
Good luck with your no consumption economy.MikeDamone said:
Weath creation and economic growth is driven by capital investment and production. Not by consumption. HTHHHusky said:
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
Good luck consuming without capital investment and production.
-
Yes let's just make shit regardless of who will consume it. Supply side is the only thing that matters.MikeDamone said:
Weath creation and economic growth is driven by capital investment and production. Not by consumption. HTHHHusky said:
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
-
I didn’t say no consumption shit for brains.HHusky said:
Good luck with your no consumption economy.MikeDamone said:
Weath creation and economic growth is driven by capital investment and production. Not by consumption. HTHHHusky said:
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
Try to consume something without producing (and earning) first.
-
2001400ex said:
Yes let's just make shit regardless of who will consume it. Supply side is the only thing that matters.MikeDamone said:
Weath creation and economic growth is driven by capital investment and production. Not by consumption. HTHHHusky said:
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
Because that’s what I said..... sure. Dumbfuck. It’s not surprising that a simple mind like you can’t understand basic economic principles.2001400ex said:
Yes let's just make shit regardless of who will consume it. Supply side is the only thing that matters.MikeDamone said:
Weath creation and economic growth is driven by capital investment and production. Not by consumption. HTHHHusky said:
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT -
From the who who says economic growth isn't driven by consumption. There's a reason why there's low investment relative to the amount available. How many companies are sitting on cash rather than investing it? Or using free cash to buy back stock or pay dividends.MikeDamone said:2001400ex said:
Yes let's just make shit regardless of who will consume it. Supply side is the only thing that matters.MikeDamone said:
Weath creation and economic growth is driven by capital investment and production. Not by consumption. HTHHHusky said:
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
Because that’s what I said..... sure. Dumbfuck. It’s not surprising that a simple mind like you can’t understand basic economic principles.2001400ex said:
Yes let's just make shit regardless of who will consume it. Supply side is the only thing that matters.MikeDamone said:
Weath creation and economic growth is driven by capital investment and production. Not by consumption. HTHHHusky said:
This economy is not suffering from a lack of capital available for investment.MikeDamone said:
Who cares if they spend it? If they save it it’s available for capital investment. Which is better than spending it.HHusky said:
Unfortunately, our experience shows you’re incorrect, at least as to those who received significant tax cuts.salemcoog said:
I’m hearing that people spend more domestically when they don’t have to pay as much tax.HHusky said:
Disincentives to consume domestically are a really awful idea. Particularly now.Fenderbender123 said:I don't see how you can say it's raising or lowering anyone's taxes. Want to pay more taxes? Spend more money. Want to pay less? Spend less. Wow!!!
IJWIHSDT
