Is anyone here a Yuppie brave enough to come out of the closet? (Time: best, engineering)

[jdiddy]

Originally Posted by ajolotl

I guess that's fair. I just thought your initial words were a little strong.

They were. I'm guessing I posted it when the Sox were still losing, or something.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by coldwine

Well, with taxes I buy civilization. I believe taxes are necessary for a fully functional society to achieve the maximum level of "civilization".

I just don't like to be taxed to death for no other reason than I'm apparently wealthy. And therefore, for some reason deserve to pay more.




Excuse me? I'll refer to you in all things architecture, but as the JD CPA here I feel that my realm is definitely taxation and its effects. When you take money away from people and put it in the hands of the government, the economy does not grow. There's only massive growth in whatever area the government spends, and that isn't "real" growth; it's the effect of people rushing to that area to try and recoup their losses.

Otherwise, we end up with people who have less money to spend. If I take more money away from you, you consume less. You save less. You can afford less. It's so basic as to be nearly idealistic.

Again, I'm not by any means an advocate for the "No tax" movement. I feel very strongly that our federal government is horrifically misguided and grossly out of line with the purpose of this country. This does not mean that I support any movement to completely take away tax, though.

Being JD CPA does not make you an economist! Far from it. Trickle down "Reganomics" has been widely discredited, but that doesn't stop the true believers from spouting it every chance they get. Sure, lower taxes can spur some economic growth--I don't deny that. But they are far from the largest factor. And there are many instances in the past where government spending was a catalyst for innovations that threw the economy into hyper drive. So much of our economic growth in the 20th Century is a direct result of spending on infrastructure, the military, and space. Things like the internet and suburban expansion are directly related to initial governmental investment--and then the private sector took over.

[NSX]

What is really sad to me is that many of the yuppies I knew had extremely negative net worth, but would continue to use debt like crazy to keep up with that lifestyle.
I knew a number of them who bought downtown condos in the bubble, which have now lost more than a third of their value. Even with their enormous credit card debt, student loans, mortgage payments on their upside-down "houses" they will continue to sink deeper and deeper into debt. I guess they really need the new BMW 3-series, the new iPhone, Brooks Brothers suits, etc.

For as smart as they think that they are, it is too bad that they don’t realize that all they are doing is making the banks and credit-card companies rich.

[oakparkdude]

Originally Posted by NSX

What is really sad to me is that many of the yuppies I knew had extremely negative net worth, but would continue to use debt like crazy to keep up with that lifestyle.
I knew a number of them who bought downtown condos in the bubble, which have now lost more than a third of their value. Even with their enormous credit card debt, student loans, mortgage payments on their upside-down "houses" they will continue to sink deeper and deeper into debt. I guess they really need the new BMW 3-series, the new iPhone, Brooks Brothers suits, etc.

For as smart as they think that they are, it is too bad that they don’t realize that all they are doing is making the banks and credit-card companies rich.

This isn't just restricted to yuppies. Americans at all levels of income have too much debt.

[NSX]

Originally Posted by sukwoo

This isn't just restricted to yuppies. Americans at all levels of income have too much debt.

Very true, I just see it a lot among that crowd.

[ajolotl]

Umm, this is not a surprise if your definition of yuppie includes "superficial people who finance a lifestyle beyond their means". Not everyone's definition includes the negative spin. I'm very yuppie because of where I spend my money. Yes, I'm a poster child for "Stuff White People Like": Full List of Stuff White People Like « Stuff White People Like

I like people who are real. This happens to be the stuff I like. No sense in denying it.

Originally Posted by NSX

Very true, I just see it a lot among that crowd.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by NSX

Very true, I just see it a lot among that crowd.

I see it even more with the trailer park crowd. There's an idea that people will have satellite TV even though they are struggling to feed their family. It's ridiculous.

[coldwine]

Originally Posted by Lookout Kid

Being JD CPA does not make you an economist! Far from it. Trickle down "Reganomics" has been widely discredited, but that doesn't stop the true believers from spouting it every chance they get. Sure, lower taxes can spur some economic growth--I don't deny that. But they are far from the largest factor. And there are many instances in the past where government spending was a catalyst for innovations that threw the economy into hyper drive. So much of our economic growth in the 20th Century is a direct result of spending on infrastructure, the military, and space. Things like the internet and suburban expansion are directly related to initial governmental investment--and then the private sector took over.

I'm certainly not an economist. I'm an accountant. We don't preface our assumptions with words like "Pretend the world doesn't exist" or "if there was no government..."

I account for reality. I know exactly how much, at what time and where. And when I say that I'm a tax accountant, I understand the reality of the situation. Not some bull**** assumption by a retarded "economist". I can't lie like they do, or else I'd be sued.

[Drover]

"Reaganomics has been discredited" is laughable. Even Democrats acknowledge the basic premise of Reaganomics (in short, "incentives matter") even if they don't want to admit it. At this point the only point of argument is where on the tax curve that government inlays and economic efficiency are maximized. But the premise that such a point or range of points exists is broadly accepted throughout the industrialized world. Democrats certainly aren't above using supply-side economics when they advocate for tax credits for, say, hybrid cars or first-home purchases.

[Lookout Kid]

Originally Posted by Drover

"Reaganomics has been discredited" is laughable.

The "trickle down" aspect of Reagonomics has been widely discredited--in that tax cuts on the wealthy will spur any real economic growth. Typically politicians are the only ones pushing policy based on this anymore.

Now, a broader tax cut across income levels would be a better stimulus.