Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Who benefits the most from taxing those who work for their money? How will Americans work hard to produce wealth if they are going to loss nearly half their money every April 15th? Moreover, why?
You are an ignoramus of the first order. Consuming and investing are not the same thing. They are in fact diametrically opposite things!
You still seem to believe that spending money on consumer goods is what stimulates the economy. How many times does it have to be demonstrated that this is patently false? A washing machine eventually wears out. Where is the economic gain when a consumer purchases one? It generates no money on its own.
And your Brother #3 is totally inapt. Show me one person who keeps all his money in a mattress. Even if there is one person, statistically it is insignificant.
People have this idea that "the rich" are unproductive. They are the most productive members of society.
Still persistent I see, let me continue to prove you wrong then:
Buying a washing machine will provide profit for the company you buy it from, many people buying washing machines will generate a lot of profits for companies. These profits can be used to expand the companies that sell & produce them (more jobs). And when a washing machine wears out, you need to buy a new one or get it fixed (this will increase the prosperity of companies that provide services for washing machines or sell/produce them).
A washing machine on itself is also a very economically good product: it increases effeciency (people who buy washing machines have more time to do other things: f.e. working), people with washing machines will be able to work longer (because they spend less time washing clothes) => working longer at a factory will create more products for the company that produce & sell them and the worker will also earn more money to spend (possibly on another washing machine
Not all rich are economically unproductive (just like not all workers are unproductive), many rich people have invested their money in companies (or also run them) that provide services/consumergoods and jobs. So no, I don't have a hate for the rich and do not want the rich to be punished. But this doesn't mean that when you re forced to make a choice between the rich, the middle class and the poor that it will be in the best intrest for the economy to choose for the rich.
About #3: what if he owns 10 billion US $, will he still be statistically insignificant?
Congratulations. You have put the cart before the horse. People need jobs before they have the disposable income to buy washing machines. Those jobs need to have some kind of promise of being there tomorrow (see, today's economy) for people to feel confident enough to spend big money. Jobs come from investment, not consumption.
If what you say were true then both Carter's and Bush's "rebate" checks would have boosted the economy. Please post an economist or study that says such a thing.
Here is a left wing economist who maintains that the rebates failed:
Tax cut approach has already been tried and failed as stimulus
And there is no mattress big enough to store $10B cash. The question is absurd.
Consumption is normally the largest GDP component. Many persons judge the economic performance of their country mainly in terms of consumption level and dynamics.
The bush rebate checks boosted the retail sales and such for a few months there. It was measured.
So your contention is that consumers purchase labor saving devices like washing machines so that they can WORK more? In the world I live in end consumers purchase labor saving devices so that they have more leisure time and thus a higher quality of life.A washing machine on itself is also a very economically good product: it increases effeciency (people who buy washing machines have more time to do other things: f.e. working), people with washing machines will be able to work longer (because they spend less time washing clothes) => working longer at a factory will create more products for the company that produce & sell them and the worker will also earn more money to spend (possibly on another washing machine
You are an ignoramus of the first order. Consuming and investing are not the same thing. They are in fact diametrically opposite things!
You still seem to believe that spending money on consumer goods is what stimulates the economy. How many times does it have to be demonstrated that this is patently false? A washing machine eventually wears out. Where is the economic gain when a consumer purchases one? It generates no money on its own.
And your Brother #3 is totally inapt. Show me one person who keeps all his money in a mattress. Even if there is one person, statistically it is insignificant.
People have this idea that "the rich" are unproductive. They are the most productive members of society.
Still persistent I see
Buying a washing machine will provide profit for the company you buy it from, many people buying washing machines will generate a lot of profits for companies. These profits can be used to expand the companies that sell & produce them (more jobs). And when a washing machine wears out, you need to buy a new one or get it fixed (this will increase the prosperity of companies that provide services for washing machines or sell/produce them).
A washing machine on itself is also a very economically good product: it increases effeciency (people who buy washing machines have more time to do other things: f.e. working), people with washing machines will be able to work longer (because they spend less time washing clothes) => working longer at a factory will create more products for the company that produce & sell them and the worker will also earn more money to spend (possibly on another washing machine
Not all rich are economically unproductive (just like not all workers are unproductive), many rich people have invested their money in companies (or also run them) that provide services/consumergoods and jobs. So no, I don't have a hate for the rich and do not want the rich to be punished. But this doesn't mean that when you re forced to make a choice between the rich, the middle class and the poor that it will be in the best intrest for the economy to choose for the rich.
About #3: what if he owns 10 billion US $, will he still be statistically insignificant?
Congratulations. You have put the cart before the horse. People need jobs before they have the disposable income to buy washing machines. Those jobs need to have some kind of promise of being there tomorrow (see, today's economy) for people to feel confident enough to spend big money. Jobs come from investment, not consumption.
If what you say were true then both Carter's and Bush's "rebate" checks would have boosted the economy. Please post an economist or study that says such a thing.
Here is a left wing economist who maintains that the rebates failed:
Tax cut approach has already been tried and failed as stimulus
And there is no mattress big enough to store $10B cash. The question is absurd.
The bush rebate checks boosted the retail sales and such for a few months there. It was measured.
Bush's tax cuts didn't prevent the 2007 - 8 - 9 recession.
The bush rebate checks boosted the retail sales and such for a few months there. It was measured.
Actually most of the money went into savings or paying down debt. A lot of it went for things that would have been purchased in the next 2-3 months anyway.
And the deficit that was incurred to finance this remains to this day and will need to be paid for by future taxes.
So where was the advantage in all this??
Still persistent I see
Buying a washing machine will provide profit for the company you buy it from, many people buying washing machines will generate a lot of profits for companies. These profits can be used to expand the companies that sell & produce them (more jobs). And when a washing machine wears out, you need to buy a new one or get it fixed (this will increase the prosperity of companies that provide services for washing machines or sell/produce them).
A washing machine on itself is also a very economically good product: it increases effeciency (people who buy washing machines have more time to do other things: f.e. working), people with washing machines will be able to work longer (because they spend less time washing clothes) => working longer at a factory will create more products for the company that produce & sell them and the worker will also earn more money to spend (possibly on another washing machine
Not all rich are economically unproductive (just like not all workers are unproductive), many rich people have invested their money in companies (or also run them) that provide services/consumergoods and jobs. So no, I don't have a hate for the rich and do not want the rich to be punished. But this doesn't mean that when you re forced to make a choice between the rich, the middle class and the poor that it will be in the best intrest for the economy to choose for the rich.
About #3: what if he owns 10 billion US $, will he still be statistically insignificant?
Congratulations. You have put the cart before the horse. People need jobs before they have the disposable income to buy washing machines. Those jobs need to have some kind of promise of being there tomorrow (see, today's economy) for people to feel confident enough to spend big money. Jobs come from investment, not consumption.
If what you say were true then both Carter's and Bush's "rebate" checks would have boosted the economy. Please post an economist or study that says such a thing.
Here is a left wing economist who maintains that the rebates failed:
Tax cut approach has already been tried and failed as stimulus
And there is no mattress big enough to store $10B cash. The question is absurd.
WHY would someone invest in opening a new business without the consumers they know they need to buy their widgets?
You obviously are a supply sider.... and I am a Demand sider...
As a buyer for over 20 years, not a dime of the corporation's money that I spent was on a whim, a wish, and a hope....I had to gather evidence through market analysis, that I had a customer out there that WOULD BUY from me, the brought I was going to buy before they gave me the money to spend for them...I had to have projected DEMAND before I SUPPLIED the product....so please forgive me if I just don't cop in to your "build it, and they will come" theory.
The bush rebate checks boosted the retail sales and such for a few months there. It was measured.
Actually most of the money went into savings or paying down debt. A lot of it went for things that would have been purchased in the next 2-3 months anyway.
And the deficit that was incurred to finance this remains to this day and will need to be paid for by future taxes.
So where was the advantage in all this??
Getting votes?
You tell me you are the right winger.
Congratulations. You have put the cart before the horse. People need jobs before they have the disposable income to buy washing machines. Those jobs need to have some kind of promise of being there tomorrow (see, today's economy) for people to feel confident enough to spend big money. Jobs come from investment, not consumption.
If what you say were true then both Carter's and Bush's "rebate" checks would have boosted the economy. Please post an economist or study that says such a thing.
Here is a left wing economist who maintains that the rebates failed:
Tax cut approach has already been tried and failed as stimulus
And there is no mattress big enough to store $10B cash. The question is absurd.
WHY would someone invest in opening a new business without the consumers they know they need to buy their widgets?
You obviously are a supply sider.... and I am a Demand sider...
As a buyer for over 20 years, not a dime of the corporation's money that I spent was on a whim, a wish, and a hope....I had to gather evidence through market analysis, that I had a customer out there that WOULD BUY from me, the brought I was going to buy before they gave me the money to spend for them...I had to have projected DEMAND before I SUPPLIED the product....so please forgive me if I just don't cop in to your "build it, and they will come" theory.
Your post is a perfect non-sequitur. Your experience purchasing cleaning supplies or whatever it was is irrelevant here.
Do you suppose there is no demand for washing machines? Or for optical readers like Kindle? Do you think Amazon signed up all tbe first year buyers for Kindle before deciding whether they would invest money to develop and market the product?
You can read about Blue Bunny Ammo in the Economy section where I posted how we started up this small business. No, we didnt have any customers signed up. Not one.
Again, if consumer spending drives the economy please show me an economist who says that the Carter or Bush tax rebate checks were successful.
The top 1% of incomes own 90% of everything. They need to pay taxes. I applaud Barry for going after off-shore tax cheats.
Projected demand is not the same thing as actual demand.
The failure of Iridium should make that clear.
Compared to WHAT? Bulgaria? Americans enjoy some of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world, you're full of crap.30% in income tax is outrageous!
Depends on where you live, U.S./NY City (i.e. if you live in NYC) ranks #21, U.S./Illinois #35, #44 U.S/Texas (if you live in Texas) and #48 Overall out of 65 countries for tax burden (i.e. "Misery Index") based on rankings derived from Forbes Data for 2009...
Tax Burden by Country - Country Ranks 2009
You TRULY think that it was the raising of the taxes that boosted the economy??
What a truly revisionist history writer you are...
