@ 117,
I had 2-3 classes of economics a long time ago. I never claimed to be an expert on economics either. I am not an expert on engineering, science or architecture either. I do have Google. I can look things up and I have a “basic” understanding of the what GDP is the GDP equation but I am sure it isn’t what you are looking for an since you are mocking me with that question and the other thread you created I am not sure I am replying.
@GoNoles85, Mocking you? You are very opinionated. I asked you very elementary economic things.
You could have said yes and meant yes.
I appreciate your honesty.
You are very political.
http://www.infoplease.com/cig/economics/consumption-investment-government.html
Yes, mocking me with your other thread.
Very funny. Yuck it up. I am sure you wouldn’t know anything from my field either so stuff your math in your peace pipe. I am not political at all, I am independent and a complete swing voter and as far as honesty, I don’t come hear to flatter myself. I’ve heard the Laffer Curve mentioned dozens of times on the stock market related channels I watch but never felt the need to look it up. I guess economics charts and theories aren’t my thing.
I still believe the less the government takes the better for everyone. I still believe high income tax rates create a disincentive to work and earn. I am alone in that? I doubt it. And I answered your question. Honestly. Good enough? Happy now? You got what you wanted. You wanted to feel all superior and you got it so throw your chest out and prance around like a peacock.
I didn’t name anybody.
What’s your field?
None of your business. I’ve already had 2-3 people here stalk me.
I am not going to stalk you.
Your screen name has not come up once in the other thread. Nobody else’s has either.
Have a nice day.
Going back to post #6, prezbucky wrote:
Most people with wealth (in any amount) have families to whom they would like that money to go. I have a problem when we start acting like other people’s money belongs to the masses - if you want to leave your money to your kids, you should be able to. One of the axioms of life, from the beginning of time, has been to take care of your family.
-I think a lot of people have a problem with inheritance or estate taxes. And they should. There may be some benefit to breaking up the super wealthy so that they don’t get too powerful but that is very questionable.
-If the ceiling is high enough, it only hits a few people.
-But it is patently unfair to have a tax like this.
-That is a conservative idea and it is the right idea.
Why stop at taxing wealth transfers at death? Why not start taxing ALL financial assistance to children after they turn 18? <>
Just visit this thread:
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1798852-are-you-all-giving-your-kid-an-allowance-for-college-if-so-how-much-p1.html
Is it good for society that some kids have their studies distracted by having to work part time jobs, while other kids get allowances from their parents?
@GoNoles, I’m glad you notice the pattern. After been on CC years, I’ve learned the pattern really well. It usually starts with I like this about your post, I like that about your post, and then if you don’t agree with the politics then comes the sneaky attack. The other thread is very obvious. But don’t worry, carry on.
^^ Really, what rational person could find value in passing wealth to their own children when they have the option of contributing to the greater good instead by turning it all over to the government. And the sooner the better. That will teach all those spoiled rich kids a lesson.
haha, and the ones who often tout that we don’t pay enough taxes are buying munis. And the ones that claimed real estate in one area is expensive, think it was bubble territory, ended up buying a house in that area. There is lots of manipulation as I’ve read over the years. You can’t trust the internet.
Starting off life wealthy isn’t a question of fairness, imho. Fair includes everyone. That is merely my opinion.
Are the posters arguing against estate taxes going to be personally impacted? If I recall correctly, the limit for a couple is over 10 million. I understand if posters don’t want to share their net worth. I’m just kind of nosy and wonder if this is an argument from self-interest?
Donald Marron, director of the Tax Policy Center, thinks that this is precisely why cutting taxes no longer does the job, telling David Leonhardt of the New York Times that when the top marginal rate was 70 percent of higher, as it was from 1940 to 1980, tax cuts could make a big difference. However, when the top rate is 35 percent, a tax cut packs much less economic punch.
-Tax cuts is just one piece of the puzzle.
-Tax cuts ALONE “might not do the job” but they are a good place to start.
-If tax cuts means the government has less to spend, good. That is an additional benefit if you ask me.
-Notice that Mr. Marron sure as hell isn’t saying cutting taxes does not stimulate the economy. That isn’t what he is saying and he’s seen all the goofy charts and graphs. He is saying they alone won’t do the job.
-Well, no duh.
-One should also notice good old Mr. Marron didn’t say that taxing the hell out of the workers and handing it to the lazy amongst us is good for the economy either. He failed to mention that.
When the government spends less, you spend more. There are plenty of benefits that some special interest can not live without.
I know I couldn’t have been alone in reading
and doing a double-take…and then a triple-take…and then…
I mean, really? Can someone actually straight-facedly make the claim that it doesn’t matter what reality is (that’s what “the ‘data’” is, after all), but that believing something makes all the difference?
Truthiness really is actually a thing, apparently.
Why don’t you fish up the data that proves that cutting taxes has no affect on the economy? I’ll be waiting. This conversation got sidetracked because someone said supply side economics is a failed economic theory. It might be, it might not be, the data conflicts, not that I am an expert, but what I am pretty sure of is if you get to keep more of what you earn you have more incentive to earn.
“If tax cuts means the government has less to spend, good. That is an additional benefit if you ask me.”
Except they don’t spend less. They spend more. You might think it’s a benefit to you and that is fine, to each his own. Imo, I’d rather our government increase taxes and spend more.
BTW, you might want to look at what is happening in Kansas after huge tax cuts for the rich and businesses were enacted.
I didn’t argue that tax cuts would pay for themselves. The government should be able to get by on a few trillion per year. I don’t feel like looking up that number right now either. The point is I am not suggesting that tax cuts should pay for themselves. Once again, that is how this discussion got sidetracked. I am not advocating any sort of supply side economics, that concept is somewhat laughable from the get go, not sure why anyone believed it in the first place.