Explain how tax cuts are a drag on an economy, Winston?
Have you ever owned your own business, Init? If you had you'd know that you hire others so you can have a life. Just saying...
Every publicly traded company should buy their stock back.
In the rental real estate business if you hire a management company to do the work they will take all the profits.
I've owned rental property for quite some time, Woodnutz and made quite a bit of money from doing so. If your property management company is taking "all" of the profits then you've gone with the wrong company!
That is easy, and was already explained. I will try again. First, the government spends every single penny that it takes in, we can all agree with that. But, when taxes are cut, depending on whose taxes you cut, not all the money is spent or invested, some is saved, and therein lies the drag.
Savings accounts are investments that earn interest.That is easy, and was already explained. I will try again. First, the government spends every single penny that it takes in, we can all agree with that. But, when taxes are cut, depending on whose taxes you cut, not all the money is spent or invested, some is saved, and therein lies the drag.
The entire theory of "trickle down" or as I prefer, "horse and sparrow", is that the savings from tax cuts directed at the wealthy will be invested. While there may be some investing going on, most of it is saved. What is certain is that the amount of the tax cut exceeds the total increase in aggregate demand and total investment. That difference, when expressed as a percentage, is called the Marginal Propensity to Save, MPS when plugged in to a Macroeconomic model. If that number exceeds the enhanced productivity from generated investment it actually contracts the frontier curve.
Let's put forth an example. After almost every tax cut directed at the wealthy the stock market rises. Purchasing stock is not investing in real economic terms, it is saving. And as the market rises it displaces an ever larger amount of dollars, locked up in the market instead of turning the wheels of the economy. This also has a number, market cap to GDP ratio, sometimes called the Buffet indicator after Warren Buffet.
That is easy, and was already explained. I will try again. First, the government spends every single penny that it takes in, we can all agree with that. But, when taxes are cut, depending on whose taxes you cut, not all the money is spent or invested, some is saved, and therein lies the drag.
The entire theory of "trickle down" or as I prefer, "horse and sparrow", is that the savings from tax cuts directed at the wealthy will be invested. While there may be some investing going on, most of it is saved. What is certain is that the amount of the tax cut exceeds the total increase in aggregate demand and total investment. That difference, when expressed as a percentage, is called the Marginal Propensity to Save, MPS when plugged in to a Macroeconomic model. If that number exceeds the enhanced productivity from generated investment it actually contracts the frontier curve.
Let's put forth an example. After almost every tax cut directed at the wealthy the stock market rises. Purchasing stock is not investing in real economic terms, it is saving. And as the market rises it displaces an ever larger amount of dollars, locked up in the market instead of turning the wheels of the economy. This also has a number, market cap to GDP ratio, sometimes called the Buffet indicator after Warren Buffet.
No, we need to tax the savers more so we can invest the money and grow the economy, du huh.
A wealth tax would help alleviate the disparity of wealth in this country. Both Warren and Sanders have put forth proposals. 8% tax on wealth over ten billion dollars is the highest proposed amount, and it seems a fair price to pay. The past forty years have proven, that 8% would be better spent by the government than in the hands of those billionaires. The value of "stores of wealth", rather it be Yu Gi Oh cards or modern art, have skyrocketed. Tell me, where is a dollar better for the economy, purchasing a Yu Gi Oh card or buying grandmother's insulin?
That is easy, and was already explained. I will try again. First, the government spends every single penny that it takes in, we can all agree with that. But, when taxes are cut, depending on whose taxes you cut, not all the money is spent or invested, some is saved, and therein lies the drag.
The entire theory of "trickle down" or as I prefer, "horse and sparrow", is that the savings from tax cuts directed at the wealthy will be invested. While there may be some investing going on, most of it is saved. What is certain is that the amount of the tax cut exceeds the total increase in aggregate demand and total investment. That difference, when expressed as a percentage, is called the Marginal Propensity to Save, MPS when plugged in to a Macroeconomic model. If that number exceeds the enhanced productivity from generated investment it actually contracts the frontier curve.
Let's put forth an example. After almost every tax cut directed at the wealthy the stock market rises. Purchasing stock is not investing in real economic terms, it is saving. And as the market rises it displaces an ever larger amount of dollars, locked up in the market instead of turning the wheels of the economy. This also has a number, market cap to GDP ratio, sometimes called the Buffet indicator after Warren Buffet.
Wow...I'm not even sure where to start with that, Winston! First of all Government spends money whether it takes it in as tax revenues or simply prints it. Secondly when liberals try and tax the wealthy the wealthy's time tested response is to put their money into tax shelters instead of investing it in businesses. If you want to see the result of your type of misguided fiscal policy look no further then when New Jersey enacted a "millionaires tax"!That is easy, and was already explained. I will try again. First, the government spends every single penny that it takes in, we can all agree with that. But, when taxes are cut, depending on whose taxes you cut, not all the money is spent or invested, some is saved, and therein lies the drag.
The entire theory of "trickle down" or as I prefer, "horse and sparrow", is that the savings from tax cuts directed at the wealthy will be invested. While there may be some investing going on, most of it is saved. What is certain is that the amount of the tax cut exceeds the total increase in aggregate demand and total investment. That difference, when expressed as a percentage, is called the Marginal Propensity to Save, MPS when plugged in to a Macroeconomic model. If that number exceeds the enhanced productivity from generated investment it actually contracts the frontier curve.
Let's put forth an example. After almost every tax cut directed at the wealthy the stock market rises. Purchasing stock is not investing in real economic terms, it is saving. And as the market rises it displaces an ever larger amount of dollars, locked up in the market instead of turning the wheels of the economy. This also has a number, market cap to GDP ratio, sometimes called the Buffet indicator after Warren Buffet.
