Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Study about tax cuts for the rich dont work

imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 3:00:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://finance.yahoo.com...

Before you crucify me over this let me point out a few things

1) The study came from the Congressional Research Service, the non-partisan research office for Congress

2) The study claims that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."

3) The study admits that "Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant, but top tax rates do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."

4) The study does concede that higher taxes on the rich lead do not necessarily lead to faster economic growth. The paper says that while growth accelerated with higher taxes on the rich, the relationship is "not strong" and may be "coincidental"

So my point is that cutting taxes for the rich doesnt raise economic growth, but raising taxes on the rich doesnt raise economic growth either.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 3:09:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 3:00:31 PM, imabench wrote:
2) The study claims that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."

3) The study admits that "Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant, but top tax rates do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."

I'll look at this later, but they are saying that allowing the rich to keep more money doesn't have an effect on how much money they save, invest, or spend? What else can you do with money?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 3:11:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 3:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 9/17/2012 3:00:31 PM, imabench wrote:
2) The study claims that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."

3) The study admits that "Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant, but top tax rates do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."

I'll look at this later, but they are saying that allowing the rich to keep more money doesn't have an effect on how much money they save, invest, or spend? What else can you do with money?

hoard it
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 3:12:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you give money to people that don't know how to save or spend money, the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor. Redistribution, really, will only help a hand full of people.
Me
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 3:18:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 3:12:57 PM, yoda878 wrote:
If you give money to people that don't know how to save or spend money, the rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor. Redistribution, really, will only help a hand full of people.

BTW the government is the worst at spending, the rich should just donate to good causes and get their tax credits form it. Giving the government money will not help anyone but the politicians that spend our money on many unnecessary things, so that the important things are in debt
Me
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 3:25:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 3:11:22 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/17/2012 3:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 9/17/2012 3:00:31 PM, imabench wrote:
2) The study claims that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."

3) The study admits that "Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant, but top tax rates do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."

I'll look at this later, but they are saying that allowing the rich to keep more money doesn't have an effect on how much money they save, invest, or spend? What else can you do with money?

hoard it

Your telling me that the rich are just putting their money under their mattresses?

The marginal prosperity for the rich to consume should be lower than the middle class.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 5:13:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's cute, but common sense disagrees.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 5:26:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The reason the CRB study is wrong is that they considered taxes in isolation from the rest of tax policy. Back in the 50s and 60s, tax rates were high, but it was extremely easy to evade taxes by using loopholes. While theoretical tax rates were high, almost no one actually paid them. The problem with loopholes is that they lower taxes paid by shifting investment from more efficient free-market investment to less-efficient government-preferred investments. In the 50s and 60s, the rest of the world was rebuilding from WWII, so the US had advantages in many market segments. So a study that imagines winding the clock back to the post WWII era won't prove much.

Reagan lower the top tax rates from 75% to 28% and at the same time did away with many of loopholes. The amount of taxes actually collected stayed about the same (18.2% were collected under Reagan vs. 18.1% for the 40 year average). The Romney tax proposal is to cut tax rates by 20% across the board (for all tax brackets) but loopholes are closed to keep the amount collected the same. The economy prospers because loopholes channel money to inefficient investment. There are about 3500 tax loopholes, each but in the tax code to give someone an incentive to do something to avoid taxes.

Even President Obama admits that raising tax rates don't necessarily raise revenues. He wants to do it for "social justice" even if revenue decrease. http://www.foxnews.com... The idea is that it's better if people are poor but equal.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 5:39:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 5:26:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason the CRB study is wrong is that they considered taxes in isolation from the rest of tax policy. Back in the 50s and 60s, tax rates were high, but it was extremely easy to evade taxes by using loopholes. While theoretical tax rates were high, almost no one actually paid them. The problem with loopholes is that they lower taxes paid by shifting investment from more efficient free-market investment to less-efficient government-preferred investments. In the 50s and 60s, the rest of the world was rebuilding from WWII, so the US had advantages in many market segments. So a study that imagines winding the clock back to the post WWII era won't prove much.

Reagan lower the top tax rates from 75% to 28% and at the same time did away with many of loopholes. The amount of taxes actually collected stayed about the same (18.2% were collected under Reagan vs. 18.1% for the 40 year average). The Romney tax proposal is to cut tax rates by 20% across the board (for all tax brackets) but loopholes are closed to keep the amount collected the same. The economy prospers because loopholes channel money to inefficient investment. There are about 3500 tax loopholes, each but in the tax code to give someone an incentive to do something to avoid taxes.

Even President Obama admits that raising tax rates don't necessarily raise revenues. He wants to do it for "social justice" even if revenue decrease. http://www.foxnews.com... The idea is that it's better if people are poor but equal.

Bingo.

Though Romney's proposal does not balance the budget, not by a long shot.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
thett3
Posts: 14,382
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 5:40:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 5:39:20 PM, Contra wrote:
At 9/17/2012 5:26:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason the CRB study is wrong is that they considered taxes in isolation from the rest of tax policy. Back in the 50s and 60s, tax rates were high, but it was extremely easy to evade taxes by using loopholes. While theoretical tax rates were high, almost no one actually paid them. The problem with loopholes is that they lower taxes paid by shifting investment from more efficient free-market investment to less-efficient government-preferred investments. In the 50s and 60s, the rest of the world was rebuilding from WWII, so the US had advantages in many market segments. So a study that imagines winding the clock back to the post WWII era won't prove much.

Reagan lower the top tax rates from 75% to 28% and at the same time did away with many of loopholes. The amount of taxes actually collected stayed about the same (18.2% were collected under Reagan vs. 18.1% for the 40 year average). The Romney tax proposal is to cut tax rates by 20% across the board (for all tax brackets) but loopholes are closed to keep the amount collected the same. The economy prospers because loopholes channel money to inefficient investment. There are about 3500 tax loopholes, each but in the tax code to give someone an incentive to do something to avoid taxes.

Even President Obama admits that raising tax rates don't necessarily raise revenues. He wants to do it for "social justice" even if revenue decrease. http://www.foxnews.com... The idea is that it's better if people are poor but equal.

Bingo.

Though Romney's proposal does not balance the budget, not by a long shot.

contra i forgot to mention that i have a massive crush on you now
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
yoda878
Posts: 902
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 5:55:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 5:39:20 PM, Contra wrote:
At 9/17/2012 5:26:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason the CRB study is wrong is that they considered taxes in isolation from the rest of tax policy. Back in the 50s and 60s, tax rates were high, but it was extremely easy to evade taxes by using loopholes. While theoretical tax rates were high, almost no one actually paid them. The problem with loopholes is that they lower taxes paid by shifting investment from more efficient free-market investment to less-efficient government-preferred investments. In the 50s and 60s, the rest of the world was rebuilding from WWII, so the US had advantages in many market segments. So a study that imagines winding the clock back to the post WWII era won't prove much.

Reagan lower the top tax rates from 75% to 28% and at the same time did away with many of loopholes. The amount of taxes actually collected stayed about the same (18.2% were collected under Reagan vs. 18.1% for the 40 year average). The Romney tax proposal is to cut tax rates by 20% across the board (for all tax brackets) but loopholes are closed to keep the amount collected the same. The economy prospers because loopholes channel money to inefficient investment. There are about 3500 tax loopholes, each but in the tax code to give someone an incentive to do something to avoid taxes.

Even President Obama admits that raising tax rates don't necessarily raise revenues. He wants to do it for "social justice" even if revenue decrease. http://www.foxnews.com... The idea is that it's better if people are poor but equal.

Bingo.

Though Romney's proposal does not balance the budget, not by a long shot.

All he has to do is beat Obama!
Me
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 6:42:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 3:11:22 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/17/2012 3:09:04 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 9/17/2012 3:00:31 PM, imabench wrote:
2) The study claims that "there is little evidence over the past 65 years that tax cuts for the highest earners are associated with savings, investment or productivity growth."

3) The study admits that "Pushing tax rates down had a "negligible effect" on private saving, and while it does note a relationship between investing and capital gains rates, the correlations "are not statistically significant, but top tax rates do not necessarily have a demonstrably significant relationship with investment."

I'll look at this later, but they are saying that allowing the rich to keep more money doesn't have an effect on how much money they save, invest, or spend? What else can you do with money?

hoard it

In what form? In cash, under the mattress?
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
slo1
Posts: 4,364
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 6:48:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
One just needs to look at quantative easing to understand why tax cuts for only the rich is ultimately a failed strategy.

Quantitative easing relies on putting cash or reserves in the hands of banks and institutions, which the Fed does by buying bonds from them. The theory is that the Banks and Institutions will then use those funds to put them into play by investing or lending to others. The key though, is the velocity of the money. If the institution simply moves the money to the stock market and let's it sit there, it has a hard time moving to people who are going to spend it.

Tax cuts for the rich works on the same principle. Give the rich more money and the idea is that it will end up circulating through the economy, but again it assumes there is going to be velocity. If a rich person starts a company or hires more, great there was a direct transfer of monies to people who will spend it. If it goes to the stock market, banks, or other institutions it is just like the Fed, we need to rely on the credit cycle to get it out into circulation.

The problem right now is that there is low confidence from the middle class, after all we are over 8% unemployment. We are saving more than we have for decades.

If we were smart we would give money to all people, not just the rich, or even better yet, give a tax break to small business who would be more likely to use it in a direct manner than to a Mitt Romney type who will put it in investments where it has a hell of a time getting out in circulation.

PS. It is not that investment in stocks, realestate, ect does not provide a boost, it is just that the money does not provide velocity via changing hands like hiring and other spending.

Lastly, it should be noted that Quantitative Easing has another pesky problem where it increases the money supply by creating new money, which adds the problem of devaluing the currency. Tax cuts don't have that problem.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 7:18:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 5:26:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason the CRB study is wrong is that they considered taxes in isolation from the rest of tax policy. Back in the 50s and 60s, tax rates were high, but it was extremely easy to evade taxes by using loopholes. While theoretical tax rates were high, almost no one actually paid them. The problem with loopholes is that they lower taxes paid by shifting investment from more efficient free-market investment to less-efficient government-preferred investments. In the 50s and 60s, the rest of the world was rebuilding from WWII, so the US had advantages in many market segments. So a study that imagines winding the clock back to the post WWII era won't prove much.

But its not like the US has never added extra tax loopholes to tax laws since WWII, to this day there must be like a couple thousand loopholes that allow everyone, not limited to the rich, to be able to sore their money overseas or avoid paying it in taxes through any number of ways.

Reagan lower the top tax rates from 75% to 28% and at the same time did away with many of loopholes. The amount of taxes actually collected stayed about the same (18.2% were collected under Reagan vs. 18.1% for the 40 year average). The Romney tax proposal is to cut tax rates by 20% across the board (for all tax brackets) but loopholes are closed to keep the amount collected the same. The economy prospers because loopholes channel money to inefficient investment. There are about 3500 tax loopholes, in the tax code to give someone an incentive to do something to avoid taxes.

yes but tax loopholes encourage the rich to play with their money in ways that can benefit all of us through investing or donating to charities, etc. whereas just by giving tax cuts to the rich, then they dont have an incentive to do anything with their money and can just hold on to it.

Even President Obama admits that raising tax rates don't necessarily raise revenues. He wants to do it for "social justice" even if revenue decrease. http://www.foxnews.com... The idea is that it's better if people are poor but equal.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 7:25:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 7:18:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/17/2012 5:26:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason the CRB study is wrong is that they considered taxes in isolation from the rest of tax policy. Back in the 50s and 60s, tax rates were high, but it was extremely easy to evade taxes by using loopholes. While theoretical tax rates were high, almost no one actually paid them. The problem with loopholes is that they lower taxes paid by shifting investment from more efficient free-market investment to less-efficient government-preferred investments. In the 50s and 60s, the rest of the world was rebuilding from WWII, so the US had advantages in many market segments. So a study that imagines winding the clock back to the post WWII era won't prove much.

But its not like the US has never added extra tax loopholes to tax laws since WWII, to this day there must be like a couple thousand loopholes that allow everyone, not limited to the rich, to be able to sore their money overseas or avoid paying it in taxes through any number of ways.

Reagan lower the top tax rates from 75% to 28% and at the same time did away with many of loopholes. The amount of taxes actually collected stayed about the same (18.2% were collected under Reagan vs. 18.1% for the 40 year average). The Romney tax proposal is to cut tax rates by 20% across the board (for all tax brackets) but loopholes are closed to keep the amount collected the same. The economy prospers because loopholes channel money to inefficient investment. There are about 3500 tax loopholes, in the tax code to give someone an incentive to do something to avoid taxes.

yes but tax loopholes encourage the rich to play with their money in ways that can benefit all of us through investing or donating to charities, etc. whereas just by giving tax cuts to the rich, then they dont have an incentive to do anything with their money and can just hold on to it.

Even President Obama admits that raising tax rates don't necessarily raise revenues. He wants to do it for "social justice" even if revenue decrease. http://www.foxnews.com... The idea is that it's better if people are poor but equal.

imabench, do you really think that the rich just store their money under their mattress or something similar?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 7:26:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 6:48:36 PM, slo1 wrote:
One just needs to look at quantative easing to understand why tax cuts for only the rich is ultimately a failed strategy.

Quantitative easing relies on putting cash or reserves in the hands of banks and institutions, which the Fed does by buying bonds from them. The theory is that the Banks and Institutions will then use those funds to put them into play by investing or lending to others. The key though, is the velocity of the money. If the institution simply moves the money to the stock market and let's it sit there, it has a hard time moving to people who are going to spend it.

Tax cuts for the rich works on the same principle. Give the rich more money and the idea is that it will end up circulating through the economy, but again it assumes there is going to be velocity. If a rich person starts a company or hires more, great there was a direct transfer of monies to people who will spend it. If it goes to the stock market, banks, or other institutions it is just like the Fed, we need to rely on the credit cycle to get it out into circulation.

The problem right now is that there is low confidence from the middle class, after all we are over 8% unemployment. We are saving more than we have for decades.

If we were smart we would give money to all people, not just the rich, or even better yet, give a tax break to small business who would be more likely to use it in a direct manner than to a Mitt Romney type who will put it in investments where it has a hell of a time getting out in circulation.

PS. It is not that investment in stocks, realestate, ect does not provide a boost, it is just that the money does not provide velocity via changing hands like hiring and other spending.

Lastly, it should be noted that Quantitative Easing has another pesky problem where it increases the money supply by creating new money, which adds the problem of devaluing the currency. Tax cuts don't have that problem.

Lol no. Critical thinking more plox.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 8:22:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 7:25:41 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/17/2012 7:18:00 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/17/2012 5:26:26 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The reason the CRB study is wrong is that they considered taxes in isolation from the rest of tax policy. Back in the 50s and 60s, tax rates were high, but it was extremely easy to evade taxes by using loopholes. While theoretical tax rates were high, almost no one actually paid them. The problem with loopholes is that they lower taxes paid by shifting investment from more efficient free-market investment to less-efficient government-preferred investments. In the 50s and 60s, the rest of the world was rebuilding from WWII, so the US had advantages in many market segments. So a study that imagines winding the clock back to the post WWII era won't prove much.

But its not like the US has never added extra tax loopholes to tax laws since WWII, to this day there must be like a couple thousand loopholes that allow everyone, not limited to the rich, to be able to sore their money overseas or avoid paying it in taxes through any number of ways.

Reagan lower the top tax rates from 75% to 28% and at the same time did away with many of loopholes. The amount of taxes actually collected stayed about the same (18.2% were collected under Reagan vs. 18.1% for the 40 year average). The Romney tax proposal is to cut tax rates by 20% across the board (for all tax brackets) but loopholes are closed to keep the amount collected the same. The economy prospers because loopholes channel money to inefficient investment. There are about 3500 tax loopholes, in the tax code to give someone an incentive to do something to avoid taxes.

yes but tax loopholes encourage the rich to play with their money in ways that can benefit all of us through investing or donating to charities, etc. whereas just by giving tax cuts to the rich, then they dont have an incentive to do anything with their money and can just hold on to it.

Even President Obama admits that raising tax rates don't necessarily raise revenues. He wants to do it for "social justice" even if revenue decrease. http://www.foxnews.com... The idea is that it's better if people are poor but equal.

imabench, do you really think that the rich just store their money under their mattress or something similar?

Geez I didnt think conservatives were this insane with the under the mattress saying -___-

I do believe that the super rich store their money more than the middle class, and do so in the form of offshore tax havens, bank accounts, other wealth management firms, hiding it in foreign bank accounts, exploiting any number of tax loopholes, or just saving up for an extravagant retirement.

http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.npr.org...
http://abcnews.go.com...
http://finance.yahoo.com...
http://blogs.wsj.com...
http://www.bloomberg.com...
http://www.bankrate.com...
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 8:23:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 7:34:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
True, we should increase taxes on everyone to 90%.

get out of here dumbsh*t
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 8:25:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thats gotta be some pretty hefty taxes for the rich to decide to store rather than invest money.

Storing (hoarding) money is a huge loss for the rich through inflation.

Rich people hate to throw away money by "storing" it.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 8:33:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 8:25:44 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Thats gotta be some pretty hefty taxes for the rich to decide to store rather than invest money.

Everybody, whether they are rich, middle class, or broke as sh*t, stores money dude, and tax rates only affect how much people have in the end to hoard or spend.

Storing (hoarding) money is a huge loss for the rich through inflation.

A "huge" loss? Even that is questionable

Rich people hate to throw away money by "storing" it.

Well to some people its the best option. Some rich people stay away from investing it lately because of the instability of the market. Since just about every stock out there took a nose-dive in 2008 and showed how risky investing millions of dollars can be and how it could all be lost in a matter of days, the rich are a little more hesitant to invest their wealth.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 9:05:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 8:38:40 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Automatic 3% loss.

Alright, now compare that to how much people lost in the stock market back in 2008 (a hell of a lot more than 3%), which one seems safer now?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 9:30:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 5:13:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
That's cute, but common sense disagrees.

Facts (and lack there of disagree) with your definition of common sense.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Deathbeforedishonour
Posts: 1,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 9:31:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 9:30:13 PM, Deathbeforedishonour wrote:
At 9/17/2012 5:13:58 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
That's cute, but common sense disagrees.

Facts (and lack there of disagree) with your definition of common sense.

Sorry for my typo.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." ~ John 1:1

Matthew 10:22- "And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved."
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 9:33:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 9:05:07 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/17/2012 8:38:40 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Automatic 3% loss.

Alright, now compare that to how much people lost in the stock market back in 2008 (a hell of a lot more than 3%), which one seems safer now?

Valid to a point. If they kept their stock, is it not at the same value (or close to it) today?

I would like to mention that if the rich store their money, they are likely to do so in a bank. The bank then has the resources to lend, which can still stimulate the economy. Obviously, if the bank is overseas, it doesn't do the U.S. much good. But, my point is that even "storing" the cash still benefits society.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 10:05:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Two words: comparative advantage
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 10:18:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If people with money are choosing to take a 3% loss, then no amount of government intervention will do a dang thing for the economy at that point, so you might as well confiscate all you can.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 10:18:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/17/2012 9:33:54 PM, Chaos88 wrote:
At 9/17/2012 9:05:07 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/17/2012 8:38:40 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Automatic 3% loss.

Alright, now compare that to how much people lost in the stock market back in 2008 (a hell of a lot more than 3%), which one seems safer now?

Valid to a point. If they kept their stock, is it not at the same value (or close to it) today?

Yes, easily. However the issue with this is whether or not they actually did hold on to them or dumped them while they could to salvage any profit they could make. When a stock is falling it could be considered a natural reflex to save what you can and make as much money as you can rather then hold on to the stock in hopes that years from now it might recover enough to its previous value.

I would like to mention that if the rich store their money, they are likely to do so in a bank.

Some of them keep it in banks, others utilize overseas accounts or offshore tax havens to a degree but I understand where youre going with this.

The bank then has the resources to lend, which can still stimulate the economy. Obviously, if the bank is overseas, it doesn't do the U.S. much good. But, my point is that even "storing" the cash still benefits society.

I agree, my issue with this whole thing though is that when you give rich people tax cuts so that they spend the extra money, they dont spend it. Instead they hold on to it in banks or maybe somewhere else where the government or anyone else cant get to it to help the economy where the amount of good it can do gets drastically reduced since its just sitting somewhere not doing anything.

Tax cuts to the rich can lead to some benefits, but it is very, very watered down compared to what some people have come to expect.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/17/2012 11:08:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So much fail...

First... Putting money in a bank account is saving. It creates wealth and earns interest.

Second... Tax loopholes are not methods for storing money... That's weekly stupid material.

Third... Who would keep their money under the mattress to avoid risk when they can at least buy treasury bonds/notes?

...so much fail.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13