As spending by wealthy weakens, so does economy

[apple0154]

Fraudian Slip?

No, comprehension difficulties.

"...purchase a new Jaguar with the majority of his money going overseas OR we can tax the guy and all his money will stay in the country..."

"Majority" and "all" are in context to the subject which is "purchasing".

 

[Topspin]

captain obvious with the spending by rich helps

 

[apple0154]

Which has nothing to do with those who have succeeded being FORCED to pay more, just because they've been successful.
Maybe the poor should be forced to work more, for the same paycheck; because they haven't been successful.

It's not because they've been successful. It's because they are successful. In the same way insurance/compensation may be given to someone who suffered an injury. We are not rewarding the person because they injured themselves. We are compensating them for their inability to provide for themselves, pay bills, etc.

That is the faulty premise to the argument that taxes punish people who are successful. It has nothing to do with punishment just as compensation for an accident is not a reward.

The same applies to your last comment. Income tax has nothing to do with rewards and punishment. The focus is the economy or society, in general.

 

[apple0154]

It may have been a slip; but it wasn't far from the truth.
The fucking lazy liberals would find nothing more pleasing, then to drag down anyone who has been more successful then they are.
Ever watched a bucket of crabs.
You don't have to put a lid on it; because all the other crabs will pull down any crab trying to get out.

Another bogus argument. Dragged down to where?

Let's throw out a few figures. If the tax rate goes from 36% to 39% and a person's taxable income is $250,000; that's an additional $7,500. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to tell us the indignities one suffers when their income drops from $250,000 to $242,500. What hardships and strife can one expect when "dragged down" to that level?

 

[Bonestorm]

maybe you shoudl stop spouting bullshit and people would take you seriously...i never changed the subject, i directly talked about the bullshit you talked about....so continue you fantasy world mott....

as i already said (so another false notion that i didn't address it)...it appears keeping taxes lower for the wealthy causes them to spend more which causes the economy to become stronger...people make more and the government takes in more revenue....so taxes are in essence raised vis a vis people making more money, no need to simply raise taxes to raise them...

get it

That second paragraph is fucking stupid. First, it doesn't appear that keeping taxes low on the wealthy causes them to spend more. Right now taxes are low for the rich and they aren't spending more. What appears to be the case is that rich people, like us plebes, spend less when the economy is weak.

Second, the fact that we had a quite severe recession beginning in 2007 when taxes were low on the rich makes the claim that keeping taxes low for the rich makes the economy stronger a fucking stupid thing to write. Moreover, if you compare the period from 2001 through 2007 to pretty much any other "expansionary" period you would see that the economy was relatively weak notwithstanding low taxes. In short, the idea that low taxes on the rich leads to a healthy economy is bullshit.

Lastly, the claim that lower taxes lead to more government revenue is mildly retarded. I'm not going to bother with this claim other it's so mind-numbingly stupid. The Bush Administration and the Republicans were well aware of the hole the Bush tax cuts would blow in the budget with depressed revenues. That's one of the reasons that they were set to expire, to keep the long-term budget picture looking prettier.

 

[DamnYankee]

Liberals are so retarded with respect to economic issues. That and jealousy of folks who work hard, have made good decisions, or whose families have done the same. Read any lib-tard response on this thread for proof.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

QUOTE=NigelTufnel;686578]That second paragraph is fucking stupid. First, it doesn't appear that keeping taxes low on the wealthy causes them to spend more. Right now taxes are low for the rich and they aren't spending more. What appears to be the case is that rich people, like us plebes, spend less when the economy is weak.

the only person who is fucking stupid is you....according to the article, it may be a factor....

The wealthy may be keeping some money on the sidelines due to uncertainty over whether or not they will soon face higher taxes.

odd timing that the closer we get to the expiration, the less they spend. perhaps there is no correlation, but to claim its fucking stupid is naive at best and retarded at worse.

Second, the fact that we had a quite severe recession beginning in 2007 when taxes were low on the rich makes the claim that keeping taxes low for the rich makes the economy stronger a fucking stupid thing to write. Moreover, if you compare the period from 2001 through 2007 to pretty much any other "expansionary" period you would see that the economy was relatively weak notwithstanding low taxes. In short, the idea that low taxes on the rich leads to a healthy economy is bullshit.

i honestly thought you knew more about the economy than this. bubbles are usually anomalies, the housing bubble was the primary cause of the recession. taxes and the wealthy spending had little to do with plummeting home values and the ensuing economic havoc wreaked from that.

Lastly, the claim that lower taxes lead to more government revenue is mildly retarded. I'm not going to bother with this claim other it's so mind-numbingly stupid. The Bush Administration and the Republicans were well aware of the hole the Bush tax cuts would blow in the budget with depressed revenues. That's one of the reasons that they were set to expire, to keep the long-term budget picture looking prettier.

whatever nigel....its retarded because i say so...

 

[Damocles]

Amazingly, when telling me all about how 300 employees at the electric box shaped car manufacturer we subsidized with our tax dollars can make all the difference, they started to describe trickle-down economics...

It could have been Reagan talking, except they were trying to tell me how this crappy box-shaped ugliness was the way to go to the "future" therefore we couldn't do this for everybody, we just had to do it for the few that thought like them...

 

[Bonestorm]

the only person who is fucking stupid is you....according to the article, it may be a factor....

Well, if the article says that then the article is fucking stupid.

odd timing that the closer we get to the expiration, the less they spend. perhaps there is no correlation, but to claim its fucking stupid is naive at best and retarded at worse.

No, the timing isn't odd at all. Perhaps you've noticed the economy isn't exactly strong right now.

i honestly thought you knew more about the economy than this. bubbles are usually anomalies, the housing bubble was the primary cause of the recession. taxes and the wealthy spending had little to do with plummeting home values and the ensuing economic havoc wreaked from that.

What the fuck are you babbling about? My point, my dim-witted friend, was that the economy wasn't strong with low taxes and, as compared to other expansionary periods, the Bush economy sucked ass notwithstanding lower taxes on the rich. Look it up.

whatever nigel....its retarded because i say so...

No, it's stupid because it makes no fucking sense and even the people that
promoted the Bush tax cuts were well aware that they would blow a ginormous hole in the budget due to declining revenues if they were made permanent. Look it up.

 

[Bonestorm]

Amazingly, when telling me all about how 300 employees at the electric box shaped car manufacturer we subsidized with our tax dollars can make all the difference, they started to describe trickle-down economics...

It could have been Reagan talking, except they were trying to tell me how this crappy box-shaped ugliness was the way to go to the "future" therefore we couldn't do this for everybody, we just had to do it for the few that thought like them...

Who are "they?" What did "they" actually say? When did "they" say it? I mean, if you want to have a discussion with other people about a topic, you should at least let everyone know what the fuck you are talking about.

 

[Damocles]

Who are "they?" What did "they" actually say? When did "they" say it? I mean, if you want to have a discussion with other people about a topic, you should at least let everyone know what the fuck you are talking about.

I think it was Onceler, Nigel, or Mott. I can't remember which. Probably Onceler.

Anyway it doesn't matter who it was, I laughed a ton. People who once decried trickle-down suddenly understand it. But apparently it only works with "grants" and tax cuts just can't be done because too many people might benefit. Those 300 will buy stuff, etc...

It was rich with humorous irony.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Well, if the article says that then the article is fucking stupid.





No, the timing isn't odd at all. Perhaps you've noticed the economy isn't exactly strong right now.






What the fuck are you babbling about? My point, my dim-witted friend, was that the economy wasn't strong with low taxes and, as compared to other expansionary periods, the Bush economy sucked ass notwithstanding lower taxes on the rich. Look it up.






No, it's stupid because it makes no fucking sense and even the people that
promoted the Bush tax cuts were well aware that they would blow a ginormous hole in the budget due to declining revenues if they were made permanent. Look it up.

if you have any authority to back up your rambling diatribe, i'll listen, until then, you're just hackin it up buddy

 

[DamnYankee]

Amazingly, when telling me all about how 300 employees at the electric box shaped car manufacturer we subsidized with our tax dollars can make all the difference, they started to describe trickle-down economics...

It could have been Reagan talking, except they were trying to tell me how this crappy box-shaped ugliness was the way to go to the "future" therefore we couldn't do this for everybody, we just had to do it for the few that thought like them...

Its because the box is "green" even though no one wants it and doesn't make economic sense. Just like windmills and solar panels.

 

[Bonestorm]

if you have any authority to back up your rambling diatribe, i'll listen, until then, you're just hackin it up buddy

Right. As you spew garbage Republican talking points that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

For those interested, here is a chart showing a few major economic indicators and how the 2001-2007 expansion (with lower taxes on the rich) fared as compared with the average post-WWII expansion (with higher taxes on the rich):

And here's a little piece on the "tax cuts increase revenues" bullshit:

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Right. As you spew garbage Republican talking points that have no basis in fact whatsoever.

For those interested, here is a chart showing a few major economic indicators and how the 2001-2007 expansion (with lower taxes on the rich) fared as compared with the average post-WWII expansion (with higher taxes on the rich):

And here's a little piece on the "tax cuts increase revenues" bullshit:

http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html

lmao....your link substantiated what the article said and what i said:

In 2006, according to the CBO, individual income tax revenue was 1,043.9 billion, an increase of 5 percent since 2001.

We’re not quibbling with most of that. A Treasury Department analysis found that the tax cuts prompted the creation of jobs and increased the gross domestic product.

your attempt it sad failure nigel...

 

[Bonestorm]

lmao....your link substantiated what the article said and what i said:





your attempt it sad failure nigel...

You are either extremely dishonest or extremely stupid. Pick one.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You are either extremely dishonest or extremely stupid. Pick one.

you said the article was fucking retarded and republican talking points....your factcheck said the taxcuts did in fact cause economic growth....that is what the article claimed....

i honestly thought you were smarter than this

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

its clear you're also confusing personal income tax cuts vs. corporate taxes....i've not voiced an opinionon corporate taxes, that article's conclusion is aobut corporate taxes...

and again, it is merely an opinion, not fact

 

[Bonestorm]

you said the article was fucking retarded and republican talking points....your factcheck said the taxcuts did in fact cause economic growth....that is what the article claimed....

i honestly thought you were smarter than this

As the chart I posted shows, the economy from 2001 to 2007 sucked as compared to other expansionary periods. So the idea that the tax cuts caused the economy to be stronger looks like a load of shit to me.

And the fact check article blew your dumbass "tax cuts increase revenues" bullshit out of the water while acknowledging that there is some disagreement about whether the tax cuts "caused economic growth."

 

[Bonestorm]

its clear you're also confusing personal income tax cuts vs. corporate taxes....i've not voiced an opinionon corporate taxes, that article's conclusion is aobut corporate taxes...

and again, it is merely an opinion, not fact

I'm not confusing anything. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts didn't raise revenues. That's a fact.

And, by the by, the article isn't just about corporate taxes.