caltrek2 GROUP: Members POSTS: 2654  |
Report this
May. 30 2012, 5:08 am
caltrek: The problem with the approach outlined by BamBam is that the same folks who advocate such an approach absolutely and totally refuse to acknowledge its consequences. Reduction of aggregate demand through ending of entitlements has economic consequences. "Hoarding" of money has economic consequences. Burning it (although not a real problem for obvious reasons) has consequences.
chr: You are right reduction of aggregate demand does have consequences namly lower inflation and better long term growth. This stupid notion of the multiplier effect for entitlements always fails to realize that you get the same multiplier effect from regular income. Saving money does have ecnomic consequences in that the ecnonmy isn't build on a house of cards and people can actually afford what they are buying instead of continuing to blow up a bubble until it pops.
caltrek: If inflation is your prime concern, then yes, there is something to be said for lowering aggregate demand. The multiplier effect is no more a "stupid notion" than is gravity. Income and expenditures are two different things. One reason why allowing the poor to have money is effective is because of their immediate need, you can expect them to spend the money that they receive in short oder. Yes, there are positive effects from saving.
Formation of bubbles occurs when ongoing investment levels cannot be sustained. Yes, savings can help to offset that potential problem.
As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum.
- Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.
|
|
caltrek2 GROUP: Members POSTS: 2654 |
Report this
May. 30 2012, 5:10 am
caltrek: When policies trend in the direction advocated and the consequences occur, what is the response?
No, it is not to say "well that is the cost of the freedom we advocate". It is rather to blame government interference, and the facts be damn.
chr: Government interfenece is the only reason the consequences occur.
caltrek: False.
As Americans, we sometimes suffer from too much pluribus and not enough unum.
- Arthur Schelsinger, Jr.
|
|
caltrek2 GROUP: Members POSTS: 2654 |
Report this
May. 30 2012, 5:15 am
chr: Please tell me how much of the federal income tax should the top percent of income earners pay before we can finally say they are paying their fair share.
caltrek: Personally, I think a top bracket of 45% is probably a reasonable number. This is just ny guess, and not based on any extensive statistical analysis. A more scientific and historical approach might yield a different optimal number. Until such a report materializes, I will go with 45% for purposes of debate.
I would also note that under FDR, the top bracket was 90%, so my number is actually quite conservative by historical standards. |
