Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smeeprocket]

The rich do consume less as a proportion of their income. After all, if you can't afford to save, it's fairly obvious you're spending 100% of your income.

Are savings really that bad for the economy? If your money is in an American bank, isn't it circulating and being used by the bank? That's how they make money.

Some amount of savings is good, but imagine no consumption at all: The whole economy would go down the drain. Both extremes are bad all in all. But when trying to get the economy back on its feet again, higher consumption is very welcome because it makes investments seem more worth-while.
But I've only attended a couple of Econ lectures, so take this with a heap of salt.

As was said by Sheb, when you have one party that can set aside a portion of their income for investments etc, and one party that can not but must put it all directly back into the economy, the second party benefits the economy more. This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.

See above why this is not always true; 'benefiting the economy' is a very nebulous term.
Do also note that I asked for a source for something different altogether.

About the 'They're in power so it's okay': Would you say the same thing about pre-revolution Russia? Because it appears that agitating for killing kulaks would be fine by you... And we all know what happened then. Words have power, and thoughts even more so.


One more thing I'd like a clarification on: Who are 'the rich'? Because my parents certainly aren't poor, but they always paid decently and it would never come into their mind to knowingly make the poor even poorer. Hell, they voted for the Greens!

No, I don't believe in violent revolution. I would be more of a menshevik than a bolshevik. I don't believe in killing in general, including things like the death penalty.

I think jumping from "more taxes for the rich" to "kill the rich" is a rather large leap to make. Perhaps somewhat hyperbolic?

edit: I probably couldn't define an exact line between when someone becomes upper middle class and when they become truly rich. I suppose that is relative. But if we are talking about the upper 2-3%, I think that might give a clearer picture, as that small portion of the populace is the most problematic.

[Frumple]

... modify button. The button is a thing. Use the button. Love the button. Hate the double post. Deny the double post. Learn and improve. The modify button is your friend.

[smeeprocket]

... modify button. The button is a thing. Use the button. Love the button. Hate the double post. Deny the double post. Learn and improve. The modify button is your friend.

it's only two posts. Why does everyone hate that so much.

I'm responding to different posts myself.

blurgh, I will merge posts from now on, but I won't like it.

[Helgoland]

Here is an article regarding the rich paying less taxes, income increases, tax rates drop.

That's... not exactly accurate. There is the perversely low capital gains tax, and capital gains are a large percentage of the rich's income, but regular income is still taxed progressively - Warren Buffett may be a bit of an extreme case. Due to income structure, they pay a smaller percentage than one would assume, but the absolute tax per capita is still higher... I may just have misunderstood what you wrote in your original post.

Investments don't really go back into the economy, they go back to the rich specifically.

Well, it depends on what terms you think in: In monetary terms, sure - they sell stuff, after all. In real terms everyone profits, as prices fall due to increased production, assuming consumption to be nearly constant. Imagine no investments at all: We wouldn't even have stone tools, because they are an investment... When thinking about the economy as a whole, it is important to remember that it's not a zero-sum game.

I think jumping from "more taxes for the rich" to "kill the rich" is a rather large leap to make. Perhaps somewhat hyperbolic?

Well, you said that dehumanizing the rich is okay because they're in charge. And things that aren't human can usually be killed with impunity... I'm not saying you're there yet, but there are some striking (and kinda scary) similarities.

edit: I probably couldn't define an exact line between when someone becomes upper middle class and when they become truly rich. I suppose that is relative. But if we are talking about the upper 2-3%, I think that might give a clearer picture, as that small portion of the populace is the most problematic.

Upper 2-3%? I'm fairly sure that includes my parents. My mom's a headmaster, my dad's a physicist - that's two big paychecks, especially when you take into account that as Europeans they get benefits that need to be taken into account when comparing against the American situation. As to my parents' stance on oppressing the poor, look at my previous post.

Some colleagues of my dad are Americans btw, and aren't doing too bad either - and still they are among the kindest (and most firmly Democratic!) people I know.

My point is generalizations are bad, mkay?

[scriver]

The rich do consume less as a proportion of their income. After all, if you can't afford to save, it's fairly obvious you're spending 100% of your income.

Are savings really that bad for the economy? If your money is in an American bank, isn't it circulating and being used by the bank? That's how they make money.

Some amount of savings is good, but imagine no consumption at all: The whole economy would go down the drain. Both extremes are bad all in all. But when trying to get the economy back on its feet again, higher consumption is very welcome because it makes investments seem more worth-while.
But I've only attended a couple of Econ lectures, so take this with a heap of salt.

As was said by Sheb, when you have one party that can set aside a portion of their income for investments etc, and one party that can not but must put it all directly back into the economy, the second party benefits the economy more. This shouldn't need a source, it is basic logic and economics.

See above why this is not always true; 'benefiting the economy' is a very nebulous term.
Do also note that I asked for a source for something different altogether.

About the 'They're in power so it's okay': Would you say the same thing about pre-revolution Russia? Because it appears that agitating for killing kulaks would be fine by you... And we all know what happened then. Words have power, and thoughts even more so.


One more thing I'd like a clarification on: Who are 'the rich'? Because my parents certainly aren't poor, but they always paid decently and it would never come into their mind to knowingly make the poor even poorer. Hell, they voted for the Greens!

You ate really reaching here. There is absolutely no reason to jump from what smeep said to "gulags for everyone!"

[smeeprocket]

Are your parents billionaires? That is the upper 2-3%

Actually, the income tax in America cuts off at $101k. So they are not even paying their fair share in income tax. I don't know about your country.

They also hire accountants, which poor people can't, and get through every tax loophole, charity refund, and tax haven they can.

Considering I don't wish death on anyone or anything (I don't even eat meat, dairy, or eggs,) it's unlikely that any animosity I have for the rich would translate to violence. As I said, that's quite a leap. One of my core values is an opposition to any murder at all. So I mean, if my entire value system shifted, maybe, but then that sort of nullifies everything to begin with.

Even if I wanted revolution, America is so complacent and militarized that that would never be possible. I have no power over the wealthy, they hold all the cards. If anything could be done to level the playing field, it would have been done by now. And don't think they don't dehumanize the hell out of us, and act on it regularly.

[Antsan]

Upper 2-3%? I'm fairly sure that includes my parents. My mom's a headmaster, my dad's a physicist - that's two big paychecks, especially when you take into account that as Europeans they get benefits that need to be taken into account when comparing against the American situation. As to my parents' stance on oppressing the poor, look at my previous post.

I am pretty sure that a headmaster and a physicist might be in the upper 50% but not ever in the upper 10%. I think you have a severe misunderstanding about how big the income differences actually are if you believe a headmaster and physicist to be up there.

As to the greens: History-rewriting, power-hungry lunatics. "We where never a pacifist party". Yes, of course.
Not that this in any way reflects on your parents.

[Descan]

Honestly, we should just eat the rich.

[Dutchling]

I sure love me some duck.

[Helgoland]

Upper 2-3%? I'm fairly sure that includes my parents. My mom's a headmaster, my dad's a physicist - that's two big paychecks, especially when you take into account that as Europeans they get benefits that need to be taken into account when comparing against the American situation. As to my parents' stance on oppressing the poor, look at my previous post.

I am pretty sure that a headmaster and a physicist might be in the upper 50% but not ever in the upper 10%. I think you have a severe misunderstanding about how big the income differences actually are if you believe a headmaster and physicist to be up there.

Combined income of ~ €170k? If that's not upper 10% I'll eat my hat - at least when sampling among the people I know from school they were rather well-off. Here's an article, in German though, since we need to correct for our respective countries' differing inequalities- it appears that the 10% (and 1%) are much more broad than commonly assumed. It's the top .1-.5% that is truly wealthy.

Are your parents billionaires? That is the upper 2-3%

I have a hard time believing 2% of Americans are billionaires.

[smeeprocket]

I'm looking for billionaires now, but 9% of Americans are millionaires if that puts it into perspective.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/05/chart-of-the-day-9-of-americans-are-millionaires-in-2011/238458/

That combined income is -definitely- not in the upper 10% for any first world nation. Perhaps you don't have a grasp on how ridiculous the inequality really is.

Also, is the duck comment just a sarcastic, in joke meant as a jab or something? I guess it's not cool if everyone "gets" it.

edit: you might be right about the billionaires, there aren't that many of them, instead it is composed of very high billionaires, it seems.

My dad, based on his investment capital, -might- be in the upper 15%, I think he had a millionish in inheritance. He will also act like he is utterly middle class and an "Every man." I don't know how much he has spent, on the other hand, and his family has gone by the motto "anything can be solved with money".

[smirk]

Also, is the duck comment just a sarcastic, in joke meant as a jab or something? I guess it's not cool if everyone "gets" it.

Eat the rich:


There's only one thing that they are good for, after all.

[smeeprocket]

That is such an obscure reference.

I loved that show though.

But Scrooge McDuck was actually a decent guy. I realize there are rich people that are not the equivalent of Capt. Planet villians (though some are much more over the top, as well,) but extreme wealth necessitates a larger obligation to society and use of their privilege to better it and the people with the least. This seldom seems to happen even with the liberal wealthy.

You have Bill Maher complaining about tax increases in California, for example, even though he is so rich and out of touch... even as a militant liberal he can't perceive that what he has after taxes is so very much more than most people can hope to see in their entire lives. I mean, he dropped like a good million on the Obama campaign and joked about it. Just threw a million dollars at the campaign.

[Descan]

See, I LIKE capitalism. But it needs to be castrated and tied down, or else it gets rabid. That's why I want a basic income and a large tax-powered investment fund, to fund those things that aren't immediately profitable. Like renewable power and materials, space exploration, oceanic exploration, basic science, nuclear power, etc.

At this point, we've discovered capitalism, saw it's power in the fields it was good in (market-driven response to needs and wants, increasing quality of life for the average person, a fair bit more social mobility than there was before, encouraging [profitable] ideas to be developed) and saw "Hey, this is pretty good!," then we took a point in dumbassery and extended it WAY beyond what it was really good for, into areas that it breaks down and destroys everything in sight.

[smeeprocket]

I feel like capitalism is a necessary waypoint on the road of progress, but it is not the ultimate goal we should strive for. I do feel that any govt system can work given the right details and people, especially with an engaged and aware populace.