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.
Perhaps you don't understand what an anecdote is. You continue to give these vague responses about encouraging investment but really demand is what drives investment. As such any tax policy that wants to encourage investment should give preferential treatment to the people who will spend that money the quickest.
As I understand it, it means an isolated or non main-stream bit of evidence that is too isolated or limited to have any real evidenciary value. It is outside themain-body of evidence.
What are your qualifications that makes you a better judge of desireable tax policy than all the legislatures across the globe that hold that Investment-derived income should have special rates?
You don't like it, cause you want to rape the rich, truth be told.
And I will add, that once you decide the prosperity and the prosperous are the "enemy", as so many have by their advocacy of "screw-the-rich" schemes, you doom yourself to a life devoid of prosperity. Self-inflicted mediocrity.
It was for individuals. It was to kick start a recession by letting people keep more of their money to spend.
It was put in place for 10 years. It worked for what its purpose was. The current crisis is a whole n'other ballgame and should have required different rules to play by.
The Bush cuts extension was a cheap way out by the Dems.
They had zero impacts on corporate rates, but they never the less encouraged corporations to doll out dividends since it was cheap to do so.
As to kickstarting a recession taxcuts for the wealthy are a horrible way to do so since they are more likely to be savers rather then spenders. If the real purpose was to encourage demand to get us out of recession they should have been less geared toward capital gains and high earners and more geared toward middle and lower earners since their spend to save ratio is more efficient for generating demand.
As to kickstarting a recession taxcuts for the wealthy are a horrible way to do so since they are more likely to be savers rather then spenders.
You don't hear about millionaires and billionaires letting their money sit in interest savings accounts. The rich know that "Savers are losers" because by saving money their money does not keep up with inflation nor does it make profit above inflation. That is why the rich invest.
Your explanation fails AGAIN!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
If the real purpose was to encourage demand to get us out of recession.
So if people are losing their jobs, many so long that they go on welfare. People are making less money and have less disposable income. Where does the demand come from?
Did I hear right, Obama thinks welfare is a way to kickstart the economy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
they should have been less geared toward capital gains and high earners and more geared toward middle and lower earners since their spend to save ratio is more efficient for generating demand.
Again if the middle class has less money to spend let alone being able to save where does the demand come from.
I have to find out the name of the company who is selling the fairy dust.
As I understand it, it means an isolated or non main-stream bit of evidence that is too isolated or limited to have any real evidenciary value. It is outside themain-body of evidence.
They had zero impacts on corporate rates, but they never the less encouraged corporations to doll out dividends since it was cheap to do so.
As to kickstarting a recession taxcuts for the wealthy are a horrible way to do so since they are more likely to be savers rather then spenders. If the real purpose was to encourage demand to get us out of recession they should have been less geared toward capital gains and high earners and more geared toward middle and lower earners since their spend to save ratio is more efficient for generating demand.
The Bush cuts affected more lower and middle income earners than rich.
You think the middle class doesn't own stock ?
The Obama administration needed to come up with their own scheme instead of piggybacking on what Bush did over a decade ago.
Times are different and require a different solution.
The Bush cuts affected more lower and middle income earners than rich.
You think the middle class doesn't own stock ?
The Obama administration needed to come up with their own scheme instead of piggybacking on what Bush did over a decade ago.
Times are different and require a different solution.
Not to the extend the rich do and to the extend the middle class own stock most of it is in retirement accounts which are basically pure savings and not a great way to stimulate demand.
If you want to stimulate demand what you basically need to do is go back to the clinton rates and put 100% of the saving in to repairing infrustructure. That would be the single most efficient way to deal with demand since it would immediately step up employment and materials spending.
I can assure you that I have no interest in raping most of my family.
Ditto.
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.
