and with that, i'm done. thanks to some of you for relatively civil arguments. some others, well... go rockets! beat the jazz!
i posted my clarification on the last page, sorry it got bumped. in my mind, i called luxury expenditures things like heavy assets (they tie up money like savings), and savings vessels/investments. i should have been more clear. and there's nothing that irritates me more than TL;DR as an excuse to not listen to someone else's argument. either RTFArticle, or don't respond at all.
nothing I hate more than posting a wall of text as some type of last resort. I think you are pushing it to call "luxury expenditures" a type of investment. its much faster to say investment, and luxury has no place in the terminology of investments.
sorry for trying to educate. after all, nobody would click the links to read more anyway, so i figured why not take the hassle out of one extra click? you don't seem willing to study an intelligent argument, so what's the point of working this with you? instead, you're attacking some throwaway words. i consider it to be a luxury when people can save - in fact, in that wall of text i posted, it states that the more wealthy have a lower propensity to spend, and thus, save more. so i took a shortcut by saying the wealthy have the luxury of acquiring savings vessels, while the less fortunate absolutely have to spend more of their income to provide for basic needs. now i'm really done with this thread. bash on, listen less - you were living just fine before i ever tried to offer another view.
I didn't bash you, I told you why its bad to limit spending on luxury expenditures which was the sole reasoning behind your tax increase. If you are saying you misspoke and meant investments thats cool, but just drop the word luxury.
