Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you think we should be more like China? Really?
You are a thoughtless moron.
Put simply, my issue with Cains 9-9-9 plan and Perrys flat tax is that they would have a devastating impact on the economy, and heres why.
Because the entire lower 50% of earners make only 12.7% of the income in America, their budgets are constrained, meaning that there are goods and services they would buy, but dont because they simply dont have the money. As a result any reduction in the income of the lower 50% of earners will result in an immediate point by point reduction in consumer spending. Because consumer spending is 70% of economic activity directly and indirectly impacts all other economic activity, reductions in the income of these earners result in a net loss of economic activity.
The upper 50% of earners make 87.3% of the overall income with the top 5% making fully 35% of the income. This means that the budgets of the upper 50% of earners, and the top 5% in particular are bloated, meaning they buy all the goods and services they are going to buy regardless of increases or decreases in their income of less than 90% of their total earnings. The excess of earnings in these categories go into the earners stock portfolios where it artificially inflates the value of the stocks they invest in. Increases in stock prices not related to actual increases in profits from economic activity are whats known as stock bubbles, which have a destabilizing effect on the economy.
In short, increasing earnings by decreasing the tax rates of the upper 50% of earners by a few points will not have an impact on consumer spending, but will destabilize the economy by creating more and larger stock bubbles. Whereas the opposite is also true, increasing taxes on the upper 50% of earners will have a stabilizing effect on the economy by reducing the size of stock bubbles and increasing economic activity through increased government spending.
However the opposite is also true with regards to the lower 50% of earners, reducing their income hurts the economy by reducing consumer spending and enlarging already existing stock bubbles on Wall Street through the decrease in economic activity. Likewise, increasing their earnings will cause an immediate increase in consumer spending resulting in increased economic activity. This will result in a stabilizing effect on the economy by creating real, sustainable economic growth that will shrink stock bubbles without reducing stock prices by providing real, sustainable increases in corporate profits.
Perry and Cain talk about how fair their plans are, and their right, when we all live together in an economically devastated third world country it will be survival of the fittest, and what could be more fair than that?
So you think we should be more like China? Really?
You are a thoughtless moron.
That funny because fox news made the argument that we should when the Bush administration was being criticized for its corruption, they ran a news story entitled is corruption good for a country and used China as an example of why corruption supposedly IS good for a country. They were wrong however, China didnt rise because of their corruption, they rose in spite of it thanks to our manufacturing jobs and their investment in lending us money.
Anyway I refer only to the economic data with regards to the rise in their consumer spending, just as you cited Estonia to support your pro flat tax stance. I didnt try to suggest we should adopt their entire society and more than you suggested that we should adopt all the social views and laws of Estonia.
The difference however is that china is more than large enough for their economic data to be relevant to discussion of the complex economic systems of a trade hub like the United States.
P.S. all the insults in the world will not dissuade me from being heard. You must use logic and reason to defeat my arguments, using petty insults merely proves that you have no such reasonable arguments to make.
Yes that is what I'm saying and if you check the previous thread you will find that i have made a number of rational arguments to prove my points. If something can be logically proven to be true, then it is true. regardless of how one might wish it to be.Ame®icano;4354255 said:So you're saying that Cains 9-9-9 plan and Perry’s flat tax is that they would have a devastating impact on the economy.
See how you lumped a number of points into one sentence? Those are actually a number of different issues. This is what I mean by addressing it on a point by point basis.Ame®icano;4354255 said:Lowering/forgiving student loans,
Ame®icano;4354255 said:health care law,
Ame®icano;4354255 said:borrowing 40c on a dollar,
Ame®icano;4354255 said:paying off political supporters with stimulus money, somehow helps the economy?
Ame®icano;4354255 said:Is this you?