Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you take my money from me and give it to someone else, I can no longer spend that money, but the recipient of your largesse can spend it. How is this a positive contribution to the national economy?
TaxPhd,
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
Bp25, Those opposed to populist government policies are not incorrect when they describe federal social programs and policies as government’s inequitable distribution of benefits funded by inequitable tax policies. But what’s inequitable is not always unjustifiable.
Since its inception. Social Security retirement program has been of net benefit to our nation’s economy. Higher income earners both in proportion to their incomes and per capita are the greater beneficiaries of our more robust economy. Eliminating the “cap” for Social Security’s portion of the FICA payroll tax would be of extremely tiny proportional differences to wealthier taxpayer’s, but it would assist sustaining the Social Security retirement system and that’s of significant difference to our nation's economic and social well-being.
[Ex-senator Al Franken, often repeats another former U.S. senator from Minnesota, Paul Wellstone who said, “We all do better when we all do better”. I consider that to be the essence of populism].
SuiteLiving, we do not argue the fact that my second sentence literally contradicted my first (sentence).
Your second sentence. “Everything else is a figment of your paranoid imagination”, is another of your opinions upon which we differ.
Yeah, I read that the first time you posted it. But it in no way answers my question.
If I have $100, I can spend it on goods and services that I desire. If you take that $100 from me and give it to Joe, he can now spend it on the goods and services that he desires. What is the positive contribution to the national economy of this little wealth transfer? Be specific. . .
Yeah, I read that the first time you posted it. But it in no way answers my question.
If I have $100, I can spend it on goods and services that I desire. If you take that $100 from me and give it to Joe, he can now spend it on the goods and services that he desires. What is the positive contribution to the national economy of this little wealth transfer? Be specific. . .
Well again depends on income levels. If you earn $100 but save $50, and then spend $50, you don't contribute nearly as much to the economy as if you had $100, paid $30 in tax, saved $20, and spent $50, and that $30 was "given" (by reduced taxation of wages) to lower income folks who spend it all.
For the most part that $30 in tax gets recycled throughout the economy, example stamps/EBT actually has a net positive ROI in our economy.
Don’t ask me to refer #1 to a post I quoted nor to another post that doesn’t answer anything. Fwiw neither post address what I asked and your clearly inaccurate statement
Yeah, I read that the first time you posted it. But it in no way answers my question.
If I have $100, I can spend it on goods and services that I desire. If you take that $100 from me and give it to Joe, he can now spend it on the goods and services that he desires. What is the positive contribution to the national economy of this little wealth transfer? Be specific. . .
TaxPhd, you’re asking me, who you don’t know, to explain to you that I don’t know, the merits populism politics, which I suppose you don’t appreciate, and additionsally why for unexplained reasons or circumstances, your giving $100 to Joe-I-don’t-know) would be a positive contribution to the nation’s (that I assume to be USA’s) economy.
When you request that I be specific, you’re requesting that my answer be as specific as your question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wheelsup
... The phrase "pool people don't employ people" isn't really true - they spend 100% of their paycheck and that goes right to employing people, and driving profit to those who own the capital.
I do consider WheelsUp’s response to be correct. The purchasing powers of pool people and those performing similar tasks, substantially contribute to McDonald franchise owners’ ability to profit and purchase their homes with pools.
The entire fast-food industry thrives from the purchasing powers of USA’s aggregate population within an economy that's substantially improved due to legislation such as the federal minimum wage rate and the Social Security retirement system.
I do consider Paul Wellstone, Ex-U.S. senator from Minnesota’s quote, “We all do better when we all do better”, to be correct.
I do consider my prior response to you, (post #241), to be correct.
I think under the present circumstances, I cannot do anymore to placate you.
Well again depends on income levels. If you earn $100 but save $50, and then spend $50, you don't contribute nearly as much to the economy as if you had $100, paid $30 in tax, saved $20, and spent $50, and that $30 was "given" (by reduced taxation of wages) to lower income folks who spend it all.
For the most part that $30 in tax gets recycled throughout the economy, example stamps/EBT actually has a net positive ROI in our economy.
Do you suppose that the savings you describe above is stuffed in a mattress or buried in Mason jars? If not, it is just as much a part of the economy as it would be being given to others to spend as they see fit.
You haven’t explained how 100% consumption by one who didn’t earn the money is superior to 100% consumption by the person who did earn the money.
TaxPhd, you’re asking me, who you don’t know, to explain to you that I don’t know, the merits populism politics, which I suppose you don’t appreciate, and additionsally why for unexplained reasons or circumstances, your giving $100 to Joe-I-don’t-know) would be a positive contribution to the nation’s (that I assume to be USA’s) economy.
When you request that I be specific, you’re requesting that my answer be as specific as your question?
I do consider WheelsUp’s response to be correct. The purchasing powers of pool people and those performing similar tasks, substantially contribute to McDonald franchise owners’ ability to profit and purchase their homes with pools.
The entire fast-food industry thrives from the purchasing powers of USA’s aggregate population within an economy that's substantially improved due to legislation such as the federal minimum wage rate and the Social Security retirement system.
I do consider Paul Wellstone, Ex-U.S. senator from Minnesota’s quote, “We all do better when we all do better”, to be correct.
I do consider my prior response to you, (post #241), to be correct.
I think under the present circumstances, I cannot do anymore to placate you.
You claimed that the Social security retirement system makes a contribution to our entire national economy. I’m simply asking you to support your claim. Simply repeating platitudes doesn’t do that.
You claimed that the Social security retirement system makes a contribution to our entire national economy. I’m simply asking you to support your claim. Simply repeating platitudes doesn’t do that.
TaxPhd, are you contending USA’s economy would be improved if there were no U.S. Social Security retirement program? Then you spin your wheels and make your specific case. Simply complaining the weather doesn't suit you isn't constructive or informative.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
