Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Yeah perhaps it was even earlier, definitely in the 90’s.

Uh. You may want to get a calculator.

[trixR4kids]

Uh. You may want to get a calculator.

To clarify the article I remember seeing was like 1998 or something like that. I am almost 30 and I was about ten at that time

That said sometimes I feel like I’m fifty after playing goalie.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Oh god. I hear you. I wake up the best day from soccer and wonder how people play into heir GD 30s

[mookie1995]

Social Security has GOBS of money. Where do you think all the money for all the wars came from?

How can it have gobs if it paid for wars?

NBIM has gobs. Mookie can go to their website and see it to the second. Socsec on the other hand.....

[joecct]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Kep and I can come up with a tax plan that will be revenue neutral and lightens the tax code by 90%. It will command support from 99% of the tax paying public.

And we can do it in an afternoon.

[Jimjamesak]

Oh god. I hear you. I wake up the best day from soccer and wonder how people play into heir GD 30s

Try being a ref. After last high school season I was hurtin’.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Oh stop. Try playing.

[Jimjamesak]

Oh stop. Try playing.

I still do. A player can take a sub, a ref can’t. Try being 15 yards from play at all times or staying in line with the second to last defender.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I’d rather run than play goalie.




Sometimes.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

You wouldn't that's the point.

Then why are you trying to compare by percentage and whining about it?

[alfablue]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

I believe people with more money spend it and it does good things for the whole economy.
I believe people with their money make better spending decisions, including charity and goodwill, than government would with it. Why? Less overhead for one.
I believe we're ignoring one entire side of the governmental budget equation, namely, spending.

We'll never tax our way to prosperity (hasn't ever been done), and especially so when we can't stop spending* like sailors on shore leave.


*Politicians have to keep getting re-elected so it won't change.

Go look at some simple studies in savings rates. Rich people do spend money, no question about that, but relative to their incomes, the bottom 50% spend A LOT MORE money than the top 1%. Based on some very simple data, it's really clear that giving billions of dollars in tax breaks does more for the economy in the bottom 50% than the top. I'd also like to see a study of how many times money circulates, too. My *opinion* is that rich people spend money in the top end of the luxury economy, which tends to cycle money through people like them- who save 20% of their income. $1B becomes $.8B on the second round, and $.64B on the third time. Whereas the bottom end tend to spend money on the bottom end of the economy- more basics than luxuries- which reduces the amount saved to the same rate that the spenders to- $1B becomes $.99B, and then $.98B etc.

Which is to say that there IS data that government spending and taxes benefit for the lower end of the economy is far more effective than doing the same on the top end.

It's nice to bring up charities, but, again, one must look at the data. Yes, they spend more on charities. But it's STILL nowhere near compensating for the money that is just being taken out of the economy and put into savings.

I agree that spending is an issue. But an effective government is also important. Looking at Kansas and Wisconsin are excellent examples of cutting spending is not the answer- most states already are barely able to perform the tasks that they are required to perform. And if spending is so important, it does need to be across the board, too- not the partisan bits and pieces.

As for your last comment about not being able to tax our way to prosperity- it goes the other direction, too. You'll never be able to tax cut your way to prosperity, as well. Rich don't need tax cuts- they have way more than enough money to thrive on. As much as you hate it, taxes do a service to make sure money is circulating in the economy.

[alfablue]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

A simple solution to SS should have been increasing the upper limit at the same rate of inflation. If the limit was pushed from just over $100k to $200k, there would not be an issue at all. Simple.

We panic over that because conservatives hate that it's an intentional wealth balancer, and it makes sure that the bottom end of the economy isn't REQUIRED to work until they die. And because of that, fear of communism is lit up in irrational people. It's a little socialism, which is a system that works all over Europe. Socialism does not lead to communism- otherwise most of the EU would have lead to the USSR becoming a lot bigger.

It's a simple and effective system, and if it just followed inflation in terms of it's upper rate, there would never be a funding problem for SS.

Why is that simple solution so quickly overlooked?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Go look at some simple studies in savings rates. Rich people do spend money, no question about that, but relative to their incomes, the bottom 50% spend A LOT MORE money than the top 1%. Based on some very simple data, it's really clear that giving billions of dollars in tax breaks does more for the economy in the bottom 50% than the top. I'd also like to see a study of how many times money circulates, too. My *opinion* is that rich people spend money in the top end of the luxury economy, which tends to cycle money through people like them- who save 20% of their income. $1B becomes $.8B on the second round, and $.64B on the third time. Whereas the bottom end tend to spend money on the bottom end of the economy- more basics than luxuries- which reduces the amount saved to the same rate that the spenders to- $1B becomes $.99B, and then $.98B etc.

Which is to say that there IS data that government spending and taxes benefit for the lower end of the economy is far more effective than doing the same on the top end.

It's nice to bring up charities, but, again, one must look at the data. Yes, they spend more on charities. But it's STILL nowhere near compensating for the money that is just being taken out of the economy and put into savings.

I agree that spending is an issue. But an effective government is also important. Looking at Kansas and Wisconsin are excellent examples of cutting spending is not the answer- most states already are barely able to perform the tasks that they are required to perform. And if spending is so important, it does need to be across the board, too- not the partisan bits and pieces.

As for your last comment about not being able to tax our way to prosperity- it goes the other direction, too. You'll never be able to tax cut your way to prosperity, as well. Rich don't need tax cuts- they have way more than enough money to thrive on. As much as you hate it, taxes do a service to make sure money is circulating in the economy.

I thought the theory was that $1B in the working and middle classes becomes more than $1B.

[alfablue]

I thought the theory was that $1B in the working and middle classes becomes more than $1B.

When you count how many times the money circulates, that’s how you get those numbers.

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Business, Economics & Tax Policy 5.0: Can a blind nut find a squirrel?

Pay hasn't kept up with productivity gains in decades.

Where are the productivity gains coming from: the automation or the people.

If it's coming from people, you're completely right.
If it's coming from the automation (able to do things faster and more accurately) and the human is just loading the machine*, the human is not adding the value.

If you want higher pay you have to add value. Heck, if you want to have a job at all**. And doing that means continually bettering your skill set.


*And more and more machines are becoming self-loading or have drone forklifts that they signal and get automatic deliveries.
**My guess is those remaining 60 are IT/network people and automation specialists (programmers/EEs/mechatronics techs).