Tens of millions in personal spending each year? Is he building personal office complexes for him and his kids each year and how do I get in touch with this guy? :grin:
Houses. He spends tons on houses. He built a nice one for himself that he finally finished, but he keeps building houses for his kids. He also likes to update his office every 2-3 years as well. This also includes the millions in clothes and jewelry (which they eventually just give away or donate to charity auctions.). He also likes expensive art, which he purchases, keeps for a couple years, then donates to some museum somewhere. That's the thing. For as much stuff as they purchase or aquire, they never keep it. It all recycles out of their household except for the more personal stuff.
Considering that your last contribution on this topic was a spirited defense of the proposition that "Obama is killing the stock market" - one month prior to one of the greatest bull market runs in history - I'd stay quiet if I were you too: http://bbs.clutchfans.com/showthread.php?t=164009&page=2&pp=20&highlight=wakkoman
are you talking about september? lol. no. when everything goes up and the dollar goes down that is not a good thing.
No it was not. It was 100 % correct, because your hypothetical "but if nobody spends any of the money they got through the tax cut" case simply does not exist. At all. Thus, his statement was correct and you are trying to justify your stupidity by creating a hypothetical scenario that simply does not exist. Exactly.
Apparently your reading comprehension skills are lacking, too. That completely explains your misguided attempts at "debate and discussion." Anyways, as usual, this has nothing to do with the original topic, but we're all used to that by now, aren't we? Now you're going to come back with some other weak insult and try to provoke a response from me again. See, unlike most of the people on here you try to engage in "debate" I know your game, and I don't have the time or energy to waste on such trivial and insignificant ****. Seems like you do.
I'm talking about March 2009. ...OH NOES - don't expose my game. Spoken like somebody who was on the losing end of one my internet lake pirate voyages. Anyways, I think the points I'm making here are pretty abundantly clear - Mr. Clutch's generalization that "All tax cuts result in a consumption stimulus!" is very clearly wrong, both hypoethetically and in reality.
The point you are unsuccessfully trying to make is "abundantly wrong". Whether the consumption stimulus is worth it and how strong it is, etc., is debatable, but there will always be some stimulus from it.
It doesn't seem you know what the Laffer curve is either, as that has nothing to do with this debate. From the article you posted: "Policies that temporarily increased the after-tax income of people who are relatively well off would probably have little effect on their spending because they generally would be able finance their consumption out of their income or assets without such a change,” CBO director Douglas Elmendorf testified to Congress on Feb. 23." The CBO director himself doesn't say the effect is zero, he says it "probably" has "little effect." And he isn't even sure that it's little. Also from your article: Economist Harm Bandholz said discouraging the wealthy from spending could weaken the economy, something Republicans argue will happen if the Bush-era tax cuts expire. “Most of the consumption growth is coming from the higher- income groups,” said Bandholz, chief U.S. economist at UniCredit Global Research in New York.
Exactly, even the widely derided Bush stimulus of 2008 had SOME effect. I don't know why the image isn't popping up. The link is here: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic...ity/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-tax-cuts/637/
Sorry - well I'm still waiting for your "supply side effects" post so maybe you can educate me brah. What does this prove? I have the Moody's report in front of me in PDF. It says exactly what it says it says. There's a graph. which, as the report says correlates directly with stock market valuations and not tax rates. Do you have some contrary data that indicates that consumption increased and savings decreased due to 2003 tax code changes? This is true, it did have some effect . . . AMONG LOW INCOME GROUPS WHO SPEND RATHER THAN SAVE. A $250 tax rebate has ZERO effect on Warren Buffet's propensity to consume - why do you dispute this?
