MrSleeve and conservatives ITT

[Alkasquawlik]

I'm having a conversation with a friend about the economy, and taxes, etc etc.

I remember a quote that you posted a while back.
Something about the 7 points of fiscal economics or some shit like that?
I remember it saying something about how you can't make the poor man richer, without making the rich man richer or something to that extent. How wealth and tax cuts need to start at the top to trickle down to the gen pop.

I can't find it.
Someone tell me what it's called or where I can find it?


sank yew

[mrsleeve]

I dont remember posting that in here will see if I can find it though

edit is this it

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/showthread.php?t=173654&highlight=economics

[87e30]

in macro econ I learned something to the extent of tax cuts generating aout 10 less than a stimulus of equal "cost" to the government. (taxes lost vs. Taxes spent)

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^

10 what less??? Bucks per dollar of investment????


Has our current govt debocke as compared to history, starting to cast doubt on those teachings???????

[87e30]

^^^^^^^^^^

10 what less??? Bucks per dollar of investment????


Has our current govt debocke as compared to history, starting to cast doubt on those teachings???????

I was on my phone. Here is an example of what the teacher said. We used a cash flow diagram thingy, like all of the money stays in society and here is how it flows.

With tax cuts, say you cut taxes 500 dollars, it was like 450 of that would go into the economy. Where as if you gave everyone 500 dollars then 500 of it would go into the economy. I don't remember the specifics, but there was some rational behind it. I wish the teacher wasn't so physcho and made things a bit more clear. (or i could have read the book...)

[mrsleeve]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thats kinda of subjective and presumptuous is it not. Either way thats a tax cut, whether a rebate IE the 500, or just dont take the 500 over the year from people, whats to stop people from just saving the money in the bank.

That operates on the assumptions that people will look at it as free money in a lump sum and just burn it on consumer goods or other things. And contrary that the other way is a few extra bucks a week and will not hit the economy as fast in on large infusion. Either way its a tax cut.

A stimilus is more like when you just give business and industry to work on govt pet projects to try and create jobs or hold up certain sectors thats a Stimulus, IE cash for Clunkers, Cash for Calukers, Home buyers Credit, Billions on shovel ready projects that really were not needed and rebuilt already fresh roads and personal Pork products. We have had stimulus here recently and is it helping?????

[87e30]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Thats kinda of subjective and presumptuous is it not. Either way thats a tax cut, whether a rebate IE the 500, or just dont take the 500 over the year from people, whats to stop people from just saving the money in the bank.

That operates on the assumptions that people will look at it as free money in a lump sum and just burn it on consumer goods or other things. And contrary that the other way is a few extra bucks a week and will not hit the economy as fast in on large infusion. Either way its a tax cut.

A stimilus is more like when you just give business and industry to work on govt pet projects to try and create jobs or hold up certain sectors thats a Stimulus, IE cash for Clunkers, Cash for Calukers, Home buyers Credit, Billions on shovel ready projects that really were not needed and rebuilt already fresh roads and personal Pork products. We have had stimulus here recently and is it helping?????

This is why I don't like econ. It's all very very subjective and econ classes in general are pretty theoretic.

As for the current situation, many would like to blame the tax cuts from before as not helping the current situation. I've heard it go both ways so many times.

As far as myself, I prefer a tax cuts and a smaller government. However, I'm simply not educated enough to fully support this belief. Trickle down vs trickle up. Apparently neither is working?

[mrsleeve]

This is why I don't like econ. It's all very very subjective and econ classes in general are pretty theoretic.

As for the current situation, many would like to blame the tax cuts from before as not helping the current situation. I've heard it go both ways so many times.

As far as myself, I prefer a tax cuts and a smaller government. However, I'm simply not educated enough to fully support this belief. Trickle down vs trickle up. Apparently neither is working?

I would be willing to agree with you on most of this. But we have several proven instances of "trickle down" works and NONE FROM ANYWHERE in the world that Redistribution "trickle Up" works and is anything but a massive failure.

[87e30]

I would be willing to agree with you on most of this. But we have several proven instances of "trickle down" works and NONE FROM ANYWHERE in the world that Redistribution "trickle Up" works and is anything but a massive failure.

Where can I read about these instances and theories in unbiased places?

Every time I get interested and search google I just get information that seems so clearly swayed one way or another. Basically when I get curious about anything I give up because everything I read seems so biased I don't trust it.

[briansjacobs]

Where can I read about these instances and theories in unbiased places?

remeber all of these economic theories are based on statistics, one of Mark Twains favorite sayings was "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"

so the short answer is you cant.

[Alkasquawlik]

I dont remember posting that in here will see if I can find it though

edit is this it

http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...ight=economics

Nada, that's not it.

Fuck, I know my friend posted it on his Facebook once, but I really don't want to troll through over a year of his statuses to find it.

[gwb72tii]

Where can I read about these instances and theories in unbiased places?

Every time I get interested and search google I just get information that seems so clearly swayed one way or another. Basically when I get curious about anything I give up because everything I read seems so biased I don't trust it.

there really are no unbiased sources except the data

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

what's really interesting to note is the column on the right hand side that shows receipts (taxes collected) as a % of GDP. What you're going to find there is that the % is pretty constant, 17% to 19%, regardless of tax rates.
repeat
regardless of tax rates
so what the real question becomes is how can fed policy promote a fast growing economy? a bigger economy means bigger receipts.

its the spending