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.
You’ve just shown a total lack of economics with that response. Your argument is not relevant to the one made in my previous post.
And washing machines are common in low income these days. Laundromats are bad business plans.
as someone who does quite a bit of real estate, I can assure you that it is not, at least in my local area, and I live in an affluent part of the country.
in fact, even in some "luxury" condos, they share washer/dryers in a common area (mostly the smaller studios and 1br).
Try an Econ 100 level course at your closest community college for fun. Sound like someone that went to business school, which isn’t the same.
Nope? Nope is not an argument - not based on economic theory.
You still show that you really do not understand economic theory. I noticed you also have said nothing about having classes in economics. You also know little about real Business programs if you think they don't teach economics. Classical economic theory says that production or supply is the key to economic prosperity and that consumption or demand is merely a secondary consequence.
But you lost your focus, it was whether the rich or the poor are responsible for growing the economy when you tax the rich to give to the poor without the poor doing anything. Both the poor and the rich are consumers - if the new demand is by taxing the rich to give to the poor, the economic output was taken from the rich to give to the poor. The rich are consumers as well as producers, investing in increasing economic activity that is consumed. The economic output was from the rich, the poor didn't do any work, hire anybody nor invest the money to create anything - the economy may grow or not but it was based on redistribution of economic output from the rich. This is redistribution of demand from different group of consumers is not growth and the distribution is not efficient because not all goes to increasing demand and not all (or even most) goes to creating US jobs or growing the US economy. This is not so much about stimulating the economy as it is about reducing wealth inequality. You are making arguments based on political ideas not economic ones.
This paper from the London School of Economics reaffirms what most of knew all along: "Trickle down" tax cuts don't work. They don't benefit the economy as a whole, they don't benefit the lower income classes. They only help the rich get richer and increase income inequality.
The authors used statistical and analytical methods to determine the effects of tax cuts for the wealthy from 1965 to 2015 in 18 countries.
"Our findings on the effects of growth and unemployment provide evidence against supply-side theories that suggest lower taxes on the rich will induce labour supply responses from high-income individuals ... that boost economic activity...Overall, our analysis finds strong evidence that cutting taxes on the rich increases income inequality but has no effect on growth or unemployment."
This paper should be the final nail in Trickle Down's coffin. I suspect supply-siders know their theory is endangered because they are too embarrassed to call it "trickle down" anymore. Can we all finally admit and agree that supply side doesn't work and move on?
I found out about this article before reading it here, but it’s basically been the mantra since Reagan back in ‘80s and every President since has continued on with it. Even Obama said, “You can make it if you try”.
The real thing that concerns me about it is: I used to feel like that was the end-all, be-all of economics because we as Americans were basically “programmed” with it, especially if you were born then like I was.
Some of the most common shade I heard thrown around in the playground in the ‘80s as a kid, between groups of kids who didn’t even know each other, was “Your family’s on food stamps, you’re a loser” or “Your dad doesn’t work”. Kids seemed to bully with that kind of rhetoric versus the typical “you’re fat” or “you’re ugly” approach, and that’s telling if you ask me. Nowadays, the old “Your dad’s a garbageman” wouldn’t fly because there’s been a shift in how we look at people working essential jobs, and making fun of the poor doesn’t have the same bite it used to.
So what I considered being “the way things were and supposed to be”, was actually just a political stance on the economy. People who still defend this have to accept at this point that that’s all it is, and that’s all it ever was. There are other ones out there. The “pick yourself up by your bootstraps” rhetoric is basically labeled “boomer speak” by anyone with even surface-level knowledge of our current economic situation.
Yea no. It's still the boomer's fault tho., FWIIW I was born in 1963, in the aggregate we've raised incredibly weak children. By any rational metric over the last many years younger Americans are about the luckiest people ever born. Just before CV-19 hit income, pay, non-wage compensation, unemployment, housing costs v. income etc. were unassailably great. Since 2016 lower income cadres saw their net worth increase 10 or 12 fold more than the previous 25 years combined (~14.5/15% v. 1.1%).
Tallied a rough list over the Christmas break between grad students, research assistants, oil and gas workers, farm and ranch hands and finance types etc. I've had not quite 500 employees over the years and a good number currently. I'm convinced that younger peoples' love of experiences and social bits over long term goal directed behavior is more of a national security threat than the Russians. Gap years, delayed college, self selected gig work, job hoping and the like.
With these numbers as a backdrop. By OECD definitions in the middle '50s The US spent ~3% of GDP on public and private social welfare. Now the number is roughly 30%. The more society does for those in poverty the more they and the poverty industry demand more, Milton Friedman and several other economists called this decades ago.
Bootstraps. The notion that young people are somehow bound into a caste system like poverty structure is nonsense.
This is simple, "I knew that" for realists but an economist friend is writing a book about poverty and employment. Within his draft he's coalesced studies, working papers and all manner of interesting data - a sub takeaway boils down to this:
1. Finish high school, avoid crime, avoid drug addiction, be steadily employed, don't have kids too early, move if needed for work. Of those from bottom quintile homes who do the above.......80% will exit poverty by their 30th birthday. 85% by 40.
2. It's more nuanced than this but generally fail any one of those the chances of staying in poverty double. Fail any three and it poverty is almost guaranteed.
3. These strictures apply a little better to females than males.
For those who came too late to Reality Class, let me remind you: NO ONE PAYS THEIR OWN TAXES.
If you impose an income tax upon labor, the cost to buy that labor GOES UP.
(tax shift inflation)
WHO PAYS THE TAX?
The consumer.
Where else does the worker get the money to pay his taxes if not from his customer.
Ditto, when you impose a tax on business.
The business' customers pay that tax.
Taxing "THE RICH" is not a tax on rich people, but upon the customers of those corporations, that the rich own.
If the "RICH" cannot buy more, but buy less, they wind up paying LESS TAXES (proportionally) than a poor consumer living from pay check to pay check.
OUCH.
All that wasted energy on envy, greed, and avarice to excuse TAXING THE RICH FALLS FLAT. And no, they're not all spending those tax breaks - they're re-investing them - making America more prosperous.
BUT if you increase TAXES, you decrease spending. There goes expansion.
If you constrict consumption, you hurt prosperity, you injure the workers, you damage the stockholders, but the government is most grateful for the tax windfall. (Oh, they also love that instant tax boost from raising the minimum wage...)
For those who came too late to Reality Class, let me remind you: NO ONE PAYS THEIR OWN TAXES.
If you impose an income tax upon labor, the cost to buy that labor GOES UP.
(tax shift inflation)
WHO PAYS THE TAX?
The consumer.
Where else does the worker get the money to pay his taxes if not from his customer.
Ditto, when you impose a tax on business.
The business' customers pay that tax.
Taxing "THE RICH" is not a tax on rich people, but upon the customers of those corporations, that the rich own.
If the "RICH" cannot buy more, but buy less, they wind up paying LESS TAXES (proportionally) than a poor consumer living from pay check to pay check.
OUCH.
All that wasted energy on envy, greed, and avarice to excuse TAXING THE RICH FALLS FLAT. And no, they're not all spending those tax breaks - they're re-investing them - making America more prosperous.
BUT if you increase TAXES, you decrease spending. There goes expansion.
If you constrict consumption, you hurt prosperity, you injure the workers, you damage the stockholders, but the government is most grateful for the tax windfall. (Oh, they also love that instant tax boost from raising the minimum wage...)
Then why have taxes at all? If all we are doing is hurting ourselves and no one pays their own taxes, then we should have no taxes.
Yea no. It's still the boomer's fault tho., FWIIW I was born in 1963, in the aggregate we've raised incredibly weak children. By any rational metric over the last many years younger Americans are about the luckiest people ever born. Just before CV-19 hit income, pay, non-wage compensation, unemployment, housing costs v. income etc. were unassailably great. Since 2016 lower income cadres saw their net worth increase 10 or 12 fold more than the previous 25 years combined (~14.5/15% v. 1.1%).
Tallied a rough list over the Christmas break between grad students, research assistants, oil and gas workers, farm and ranch hands and finance types etc. I've had not quite 500 employees over the years and a good number currently. I'm convinced that younger peoples' love of experiences and social bits over long term goal directed behavior is more of a national security threat than the Russians. Gap years, delayed college, self selected gig work, job hoping and the like.
With these numbers as a backdrop. By OECD definitions in the middle '50s The US spent ~3% of GDP on public and private social welfare. Now the number is roughly 30%. The more society does for those in poverty the more they and the poverty industry demand more, Milton Friedman and several other economists called this decades ago.
Bootstraps. The notion that young people are somehow bound into a caste system like poverty structure is nonsense.
This is simple, "I knew that" for realists but an economist friend is writing a book about poverty and employment. Within his draft he's coalesced studies, working papers and all manner of interesting data - a sub takeaway boils down to this:
1. Finish high school, avoid crime, avoid drug addiction, be steadily employed, don't have kids too early, move if needed for work. Of those from bottom quintile homes who do the above.......80% will exit poverty by their 30th birthday. 85% by 40.
2. It's more nuanced than this but generally fail any one of those the chances of staying in poverty double. Fail any three and it poverty is almost guaranteed.
3. These strictures apply a little better to females than males.
4. Stay married to the same person.
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.
