mcdanger, you can stop switching back and forth between that name and str8foolish in attempt to make your arguments look stronger. we all know you're the same person.

if you're going to try to fool us, at least try to adopt different personalities. unfortunately, you can't help but be a condescending asshole regardless of what name you use.

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 3:18 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 3:13:24 PM

Quote :

"I mean...is this really up for debate? It's basically a question of "Who has more disposable income as a proportion of their total income, the rich or the poor?""

Truthfully, I was trolling with the question I asked.

If the rich save a dollar today instead of consuming, then what happens? Do they then just keep adding more dollars? So there is no steady-state of the system? The capital accounts of the rich always increase, never decrease?

Savings goes to consumption. If you couldn't use savings for consumption then you would save. It would be a meaningless number on paper.

11/15/2012 3:38:50 PM

Quote :

"If the rich save a dollar today instead of consuming, then what happens? Do they then just keep adding more dollars? So there is no steady-state of the system? The capital accounts of the rich always increase, never decrease?"

Outside of stock market crashes? Yes, the general capital accounts of the rich generally increase overall. In fact, even during stock market crashes, or a business fails most of the assets they lose goes to other rich people.

Quote :

"Savings goes to consumption. If you couldn't use savings for consumption then you would save. It would be a meaningless number on paper."

Ask someone who lives off interest, or someone who received a large inheritance, whether or not savings equals consumption.

Are you still trolling? Please stop. You seem to be making an argument that "All savings must get spent some day, thus there is no such thing as savings, and all expenditure is ultimately consumption."


[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 4:01:02 PM

Quote :

"Awesome, sounds like a great program that totally doesn't lopsidedly benefit the rich. "

By what measure? It is lower to encourage savings and investments and help out people who arent working and living off their retirement savings. It benefits EVERYONE that has saved. Everyone can save. Sorry. I suppose the envy in you just hates that it is a flat rate though.

What Cadillac rebate you keep talking about? I would imagine there will be on when GM brings the Volt to Cadillac. Im sure that will help. LOL

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 4:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 4:07:09 PM

Quote :

"What Cadillac rebate you keep talking about? I would imagine there will be on when GM brings the Volt to Cadillac. Im sure that will help. LOL"

I'm talking about a hypothetical cadillac rebate as part of a thought experiment, but clearly it went above your head, and your GM joke fell flat the first time so I'm not sure why you tried it again.

Quote :

"By what measure? It is lower to encourage savings and investments and help out people who arent working and living off their retirement savings. It benefits EVERYONE that has saved. Everyone can save. "

Have you actually tried reading the words I've written? Because all you're asking me to do here is repeat myself, but here goes, tell me at which part you disagree:

* The rich invest a larger percent of their income than the poor

* Therefore, a Capital Gains tax will affect a larger percent of their income

* Therefore a Capital Gains tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor as a % of their total income

Quote :

"Sorry. I suppose the envy in you just hates that it is a flat rate though."

You don't know how to read, or you don't like what I wrote, so you're literally just making things up to attribute to me.

My problem is exactly that it's NOT a flat rate when you take into account what percent of each class's income is able to go into savings.

For the richest folks, living off interest, the tax break affects 100% of their income.

For the poorest, whose entire paycheck goes to food and rent, the tax break affects 0% of their income.

What would you think about a tax break where, for every gold ring you had, you got another 2% off? That's essentially what happens when you cut Capital Gains. It's not flat rate, it's actually regressive, the richer you are, the lower your effective tax rate.



[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 4:25 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 4:19:49 PM

Quote :

" "And then, finally, Obamacare also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents' plan, and that was a big gift to young people. They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.""

So maybe I'm misremembering, but didn't Romney claim in a debate that this was already happening by choice of the insurance companies? How can you gift this if it was already happening?

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 4:26 PM. Reason : H]

11/15/2012 4:26:11 PM

Quote :

"Outside of stock market crashes? Yes, the general capital accounts of the rich generally increase overall. In fact, even during stock market crashes, or a business fails most of the assets they lose goes to other rich people."

And then what happens?

I'm completely serious when I say you don't make any sense. You haven't presented a financial model that is a steady state solution. So... we always have and always will continue to become more unequal? This is disproved by the fact that civilization has existed for 1000s of years.

You position is the worst kind of wrong, it mathematically can't be right.

11/15/2012 4:28:06 PM

You're assuming that population stays the same, and rich and poor people multiply at the same rate.

11/15/2012 4:31:50 PM

Also

Quote :

"You haven't presented a financial model that is a steady state solution."

For the second time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume



If the marginal propensity to consume didn't drop as income went up, the rich wouldn't have any more savings than the rest of us, they'd still live paycheck to paycheck, but with much more expensive shoes and they'd eat from the million-dollar-menu at McDonalds.

Put more plainly "The percent of your income that benefits from the CP tax break rises with your savings. The percent of your income that can be saved rises with your disposable income. The percent of your income that is disposable rises with your total income. Thus, the percent of your income that can benefit from the CP tax break rises with your total income."

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 4:38:26 PM

^ I wonder if something like that is set up to not only include consumption, but investments too.

11/15/2012 4:41:34 PM

No, in every school of economics I know of, "consumption" refers to spending on goods and services.

Granted, some goods can also be investments, like Beanie Babies, but in that case that Beanie Baby stays inside its original plastic wrapping, and isn't really existing as a good so much as a financial instrument.

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 4:46 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 4:43:43 PM

Yea...be that as it may...I still think it's only a small part of the picture which shows how much money is used overall...instead of just goods and services. Especially being that goods and services aren't everything in the economy. (all this has nothing to do with whatever you guys are already talking about btw....lol)

11/15/2012 4:46:05 PM

Quote :

"You dont have to be rich. That applies to anyone with an investment. "

Yeah, derp. The point I was getting at is the tax break on income made from capital gains is more of a 'gift' to rich people as they are the ones able to invest their money. As opposed to the not so rich people that need to spend their money on rent/food/strippers/clothing/etc...



[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 4:51 PM. Reason : looks like this was covered already. sry, i haven't been paying attention]

11/15/2012 4:48:27 PM

Quote :

"your GM joke fell flat the first time so I'm not sure why you tried it again. "

Not a joke at all fella.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/16/autos/cadillac-elr-volt/index.html

They are seriously building a Cadillac Volt.

^Romney's plan was to cut cap gains on those BELOW 250k. Correct? And it really isnt a "gift" if you owned it to begin with. I got you the gift of letting you keep some more of your money...hope you like it. haha

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 4:52 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 4:50:33 PM

Quote :

"looks like this was covered already. sry, i haven't been paying attention "

It was but way more verbosely than it probably had to. mrfrog still doesn't understand it, let alone agree with it, so it's not over yet...

11/15/2012 4:51:05 PM

Quote :

"Therefore a Capital Gains tax cut will benefit the rich more than the poor as a % of their total income "

This line of thinking is what I disagree with. Name something that this reasoning doesnt apply to? IF this is your compass on making policy then things are about to become VERY complicated.

Doesnt the dollar cheeseburger represent a different "percentage of their income" for everyone? How are we going to fix that? Provide your W2s so they can determine what your appropriate price should be?

If someone saves more or less, who cares. We should be encouraging people to save more, yes there are a lot of people who save NOTHING. They either arent thinking of their future or they plan on letting someone else take care of them. The capital gains rate makes it easier for people to live once they have quit working. EVERYONE (who has saved) To what mrfrog pointed out earlier that is 75% of households. Are they all rich? The envy is that you cant seem to stand that someone has more.

11/15/2012 5:02:33 PM

Quote :

"...yes there are a lot of people who save NOTHING. They either arent thinking of their future or they plan on letting someone else take care of them. "

You know that isn't true, right? You're completely ignoring the simplest reason that someone might now be saving money. That being that they don't have the funds to spare
You can plan for your future, and plan to be independent all you want... But if you make $1500 a month, and your essentials (food, shelter, transportation, whatever) come to $1525, all of that planning isn't going to help you save money

11/15/2012 5:23:09 PM

Quote :

"Doesnt the dollar cheeseburger represent a different "percentage of their income" for everyone? How are we going to fix that? Provide your W2s so they can determine what your appropriate price should be?"

it's clear that people like Str8Foolish will not be happy until the rich are sapped of everything they have. it's what's "fair", after all.

11/15/2012 5:32:36 PM

Quote :

"You're assuming that population stays the same, and rich and poor people multiply at the same rate."

For crying out loud, this concentrates the wealth even more.

Quote :

"For the second time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume"

Taken at face value, this curve is completely unsustainable.

Quote :

"Thus, the percent of your income that can benefit from the CP tax break rises with your total income."

That has been well-established. No person capable of thinking would disagree with this.

What hasn't been establish is how you think society continues from century to century without periodic collapses and beheading of the rich.

...oh right...

11/15/2012 5:37:10 PM

11/15/2012 5:45:20 PM