Didn't the Bush tax cuts, along with credits such as the earned income credit, not only bring marginal rates down for everybody, but created a system where the bottom 50% of filers end up owing little or no income tax? Since we have a progressive tax system, wouldn't cutting marginal rates across the board lead to more actual dollars being saved for higher income earners because they pay more in the first place? If my wife and I pay $60,000 in income tax a year, and we get a 10% break, while they guy that pays $600 in income tax gets a 10% break as well...sure my wife and I get to keep more real dollars. I get to keep $6,000 instead of $60. Is this the definition of tax break for the wealthy? Its my understanding that under the Bush cuts, we all got tax breaks.
We all did get tax cuts. He cut the top tax rates and created the 10% bracket(15% was the lowest before, and there is a lot more than just the rates that changed). The tax code is far more complex. The vast majority of us wouldn't notice if the top 2 rates went back to their old levels.
Let's face it, there are lots of wealthy Democrats, in the House and Senate, who don't want their taxes to increase, so they pursue their own self interest over those of their constituency. On this issue, they might as well be Republicans.
There is one respect in which the rich are stupid - they seem to believe, as they consistently accrue more capital and more influence in determining events in U.S. politics and society, that no one will notice, that they'll continue being able to dupe people, that there will never be repercussions for any of their depredations. By accruing too much power/capital, using their influence to unilaterally (always in their own interests), they don't seem to realize that they're aiming at their own feet. If the income/power gap in this country continues to have a massive imbalance in their favor, then eventually the entire system is going to come crashing down under its own weight - people will rebel, and that rebellion will be catastrophic.
Tax cuts are stimulative. That's a fact. There's a reason marginal tax rates on the rich and corporations have come down all across the world. Tax cuts across the income spectrum promote growth.
Where are you getting this "fact"? If a tax cut is 100% saved, and none of it is spent, it in fact has zero stimulus effect, as far as additional consumption goes. This is a fact, based on the assumption that 0 + 0 = 0.
Not if they keep us all on anti depressants, a steady diet of TV and so much information that it all gets jumbled without knowing what's real.
For those of you saying what the rich do or don't do with their assests, how many of you truly know a rich person - let's say, someone with more than $5,000,000 of easily disposable assets (i.e. not a building or land, etc.). How do they behave with their wealth - save, invest, spend, donate?
I just had this EXACT conversation with my girlfriend on Sunday as we drove through what was once a nice neighborhood but in a few short years has become a ghetto. The rich can only stay behind gated communities for so long. What are they going to do when they can't even leave their homes without being in a sea of pissed off, poor people who see the truth about how things got to where they are?
I know one. I know he saves a lot, invests a lot and spends quite a bit too (although not nearly what he saves and invests). He doesn't donate ****.
What if it is? Then what happens? What is the stimulus effect? Please advise. Thanks. I know several. What does this prove? Do I get a cookie? Is this supposed to make me doubt what I otherwise have learned via empirical evidence? Please advise. Thanks.
It just seems that a lot of people on this board know exactly how the rich spend their money. I am just curious as to how many actually have experience with this. You know, some questions are simple, honest and curious with no ulterior motive. It wasn't necessary for you to come across as a jackass.
As far as I know he saves as in bank accounts and also a strangely large amount of cash in safe deposit boxes.
Then what are you exactly trying to prove? I mean one hardly needs anectdotal evidence from anonymous strangers on a basketball BBS on this subject - it has been extensively studied on an empirical basis, by economists, among others, and there is a huge amount of anectdotal evidence (even on the first page of this forum) as well. Was your question rhetorical or honest? I am guessing the former.
Demand is needed to create jobs. How many times does this have to be said. Businesses don't need tax breaks they need customers. Why hire when there is no demand?
