Is our tax system progressive enough?

Both of those articles include only "taxes" and not all redistribution of wealth. I think if you consider everything, the whole system is extremely regressive in a way that those authors do not understand.
 
The tax system is already too progressive IMO. I think we need to go to a progressive flat tax (that's not a contradiction!) ;) Think about it..a 0.00% tax rate on $20k and below, and 20% on everything above that. The rate doesn't keep jumping up, but the more you make the higher a percentage of your money goes to taxes.

Income:

$20k = You pay taxes on $0 = 0% tax rate
$25k = pay taxes on $5k = $1000 total, which is a 4% tax rate
$30k = pay taxes on $10k = $2000 total, which is a 6.6% tax rate
$40k = pay taxes on $20k = $4000 total, which is a 10% tax rate
$60k = pay taxes on $40k = $8000 total, which is a 13% tax rate
$80k = pay taxes on $60k = $12000 total, which is a 15% tax rate
$120k = pay taxes on $100k = $20000 total, which is a 16.6% tax rate
$1 million = pay taxes on 980k = $196,000 total, which is a 19.6% tax rate

See? Flat AND progressive! ;) People will pay more in both absolute and percentage terms as their income grows..and we woud abolish the incentive-killing rate creep that many middle class workers and and small businesses face. It would also vastly simplify things and remove the millions of man hours and billions of dollars that are wasted on complicated tax forms every year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Capitalizt']incentive-killing rate creep that many middle class workers and and small businesses face.[/QUOTE]

We've met before. Wasn't your name "red herring"?
 
no..The argument is not a distraction..It's the main reason to be against progressive taxation in the first place.. If we are honest about the issue, what it really boils down to is progressive punishment..a higher penalty for higher achievement. The incentives are completely perverse in my view. If I had my way, all the bleeding heart lefties would be shipped to france and we'd have a tax system where rates actually go DOWN for those who are determined enough to break out of the lower and middle classes. Reducing the penalty for success increases the incentive to work your ass off, innovate, and achieve something great in life. That behavior should be enhanced rather than discouraged.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']no..The argument is not a distraction..It's the main reason to be against progressive taxation in the first place.. If we are honest about the issue, what it really boils down to is progressive punishment..a higher penalty for higher achievement. The incentives are completely perverse in my view. If I had my way, all the bleeding heart lefties would be shipped to france and we'd have a tax system where rates actually go DOWN for those who are determined enough to break out of the lower and middle classes. Reducing the penalty for success increases the incentive to work your ass off, innovate, and achieve something great in life. That behavior should be enhanced rather than discouraged.[/quote]
One of the biggest issues is looking at it as a "penalty" for success, it isn't. It is supporting our society according to your ability to pay. And don't throw back the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." It's not designed to equalize, or to penalize, it's designed to lay the burden equally across all brackets.

Do you really think that people would refuse to take a higher paying job because they're afraid of moving into a higher tax bracket?
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']no..The argument is not a distraction..It's the main reason to be against progressive taxation in the first place.. If we are honest about the issue, what it really boils down to is progressive punishment..a higher penalty for higher achievement. The incentives are completely perverse in my view. If I had my way, all the bleeding heart lefties would be shipped to france and we'd have a tax system where rates actually go DOWN for those who are determined enough to break out of the lower and middle classes. Reducing the penalty for success increases the incentive to work your ass off, innovate, and achieve something great in life. That behavior should be enhanced rather than discouraged.[/QUOTE]

Your post-tax returns are still far higher, even if your % tax burden is larger. Does the fear of a higher tax liability make you prefer to take home $17,000 a year after taxes or $33,000 after taxes? That's what you're telling me.

Red.

fucking.

Herring.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']no..The argument is not a distraction..It's the main reason to be against progressive taxation in the first place.. If we are honest about the issue, what it really boils down to is progressive punishment..a higher penalty for higher achievement.[/quote]
Actually what it boils down to is the rich have far more to lose, and cost far more to handle. Who do think where the first people to have there houses looted during political upheaval or looted during war? Nowadays who's oversea investments are kept safe from political turmoil by are military.
Who's companies receive federal bailouts? Who's interest groups lobby against the public good so they can earn more? Who's crimes are estimated to cause over 90% of deaths and damage, And who gets to continue there crimes because they have the best lawyers to protect them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Your post-tax returns are still far higher, even if your % tax burden is larger. Does the fear of a higher tax liability make you prefer to take home $17,000 a year after taxes or $33,000 after taxes? That's what you're telling me.

Red.

fucking.

Herring.[/quote]

Back in my days of factory work, there were people who wouldn't work overtime because of higher taxes. They weren't smart people, but they did exist.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Your post-tax returns are still far higher, even if your % tax burden is larger. Does the fear of a higher tax liability make you prefer to take home $17,000 a year after taxes or $33,000 after taxes? That's what you're telling me.

[/quote]

Obviously people are going to try to earn as much as possible..up to a certain point...but that doesn't change the fact that taxes always always ALWAYS effect incentives. The laffer curve is very real, even if it's effects might not be very obvious in the middle of the curve.

[quote name='itachiitachi'] Nowadays who's oversea investments are kept safe from political turmoil by are military.
Who's companies receive federal bailouts? Who's interest groups lobby against the public good so they can earn more? Who's crimes are estimated to cause over 90% of deaths and damage, And who gets to continue there crimes because they have the best lawyers to protect them.[/quote]

All of those problems have to do with political corruption..not sound economic theory.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Back in my days of factory work, there were people who wouldn't work overtime because of higher taxes. They weren't smart people, but they did exist.[/QUOTE]

I don't shave on Sundays because I'm afraid of the Bogey Monster.

[quote name='Capitalizt']Obviously people are going to try to earn as much as possible..up to a certain point...but that doesn't change the fact that taxes always always ALWAYS effect incentives. The laffer curve is very real, even if it's effects might not be very obvious in the middle of the curve.[/QUOTE]

Then stop speaking in abstracts, and point me to an example where someone fucked off instead of going higher. Get anecdotal, point to a specific tax bracket. Your level of abstraction is pants-shittingly bad.
 
Well I didn't decide to invest in the market until the government cut my capital gains rate to 10% (down from 28%). There's one of a million concrete examples of how taxes effect behavior.. I can tell you this also..I'm currently in the 15% federal tax bracket, which goes up to $33,900. Anything I earn above $33.9k is taxed at 25% instead of 15%...effectively a 50% increase over my current tax rate. So if I were making $34k and offered a job that paid $5k more, that $5k would be taxed 50% higher than other income is and my true gain would be much less than $5k. Enough to make change my life around and switch jobs? Perhaps..but I would definitely reconsider after factoring in the true gain. To pretend higher rates don't have a negative/dulling impact on behavior is foolish.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']poor wittwe gain.

It's a fucking gain.[/quote]

Quite the compelling and typical response. You ask for an example. You get an example. In response, you swear.
One of the quickest ways to see who's winning an argument is to watch for the person who runs to a non argument(like "You're a fascist!") Once you've lost the debate, that's all there is left.
 
Pff. I'd like to hear more about where you were at that you had money, held in savings (or under your mattress? I dunno.), doing nothing (which is worse than investing - *was*, anyway) because the gains tax was too high.

Where was your money when the gains tax was 28%, and you better hope that it was getting better returns than any investment would have made at the time, or else your argument falls apart by admittance of action on behalf of irrational perceptions, and not the reality of the market conditions.

Shaving on Sunday. Don't do it.
 
Lets get off the personal incentives for a minute and back to the original question.. Is the tax system progressive enough? I just saw a report on CNBC where they listed these IRS statistics...2008 Tax Receipts: The top 1% of earners paid 39% of all income taxes. The top 10% of earners paid 70% of all taxes. And the bottom 50% paid..wait for it, 3%

3%.

Holy f*cking sh!t.. How much more progressive do you guys want it? And with the Obama tax cut a large number of these people are going to be wiped off the roles completely, meaning literally half the country will have no income tax liability. Do you folks see the danger of this situation? Economics teaches that when something is free demand for it will be unlimited. The bottom 50% get the same benefit of federal spending as everyone else but at no cost to them.. These people now have every incentive to keep voting for more government...endless pork programs and redistributive policies..essentially enslaving the tax paying class of Americans.

F*ck progressivism. It's leading to tyranny of the majority.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']I'm currently in the 15% federal tax bracket, which goes up to $33,900. Anything I earn above $33.9k is taxed at 25% instead of 15%...effectively a 50% increase over my current tax rate. So if I were making $34k and offered a job that paid $5k more, that $5k would be taxed 50% higher than other income is and my true gain would be much less than $5k. Enough to make change my life around and switch jobs? Perhaps..but I would definitely reconsider after factoring in the true gain. To pretend higher rates don't have a negative/dulling impact on behavior is foolish.[/quote]

While the capital gains statement makes sense (to an extent), are you saying that you'd pass on a raise/promotion because of the margin on your taxes? I think it's fair to assume that you'll eventually want to progress in your job/field and wage increases are a package deal (most of the time). Unless you have an employer that will let you take a raincheck on pay increases until the accumlated amount is satisfactory to you, every dollar above that cutoff to the next tax bracket is the same and you are essentially saying that $0 is better than $0.67 (whatever the tax rate is)
 
Another thing we need to consider is putting all of our eggs in one basket. Federal Tax income this year is down, thanks in no small part because of those evil capitalists who aren't making as much money.
Now we seriously want to rely even more on the top 1%? Where is the common sense in that?
 
[quote name='QiG']While the capital gains statement makes sense (to an extent), are you saying that you'd pass on a raise/promotion because of the margin on your taxes? I think it's fair to assume that you'll eventually want to progress in your job/field and wage increases are a package deal (most of the time). Unless you have an employer that will let you take a raincheck on pay increases until the accumlated amount is satisfactory to you, every dollar above that cutoff to the next tax bracket is the same and you are essentially saying that $0 is better than $0.67 (whatever the tax rate is)[/quote]
The point he was making is that when you get a promotion, your responsibilities change. He's questioning whether it's worth making that small amount more thanks to taxes to take on those life changing responsibilities. Would you take a 50 dollar a year raise if it meant doing twice the work?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Shaving on Sunday. Don't do it.[/quote]

If I say people won't overtime because of taxes, it can be dismissed with a "nutun".

If I ask five random people why they didn't work overtime and they blamed higher taxes, it can be dismissed because of a small sample size.

If I ask one thousand random people why they didn't work overtime and the most common reason was taxes, how would you dismiss it?
 
low p-value?

;)

I would 'dismiss' it as a general attitude that's based in the misunderstanding of what people actually pay in taxes. Like "the death tax," which affects the top 8,800 wealthiest households in the United States, is a major issue amongst millions of families. Like "affirmative action," which people don't understand as a policy.

People's knowledge and perception aren't necessarily related to how things actually work. They're afraid of taxes because of how they perceive the real rates, and they actually wouldn't have a working knowledge (unlike Cap above) what the actual rates were.

In related statistics, 85% of Americans consider themselves academically "above average" when comparing themselves with other Americans.

In other words, adjust the tax rate without telling anyone and see who changes their attitudes towards progressive taxation over time.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Income:

$20k = You pay taxes on $0 = 0% tax rate
$25k = pay taxes on $5k = $1000 total, which is a 4% tax rate
$30k = pay taxes on $10k = $2000 total, which is a 6.6% tax rate
$40k = pay taxes on $20k = $4000 total, which is a 10% tax rate
$60k = pay taxes on $40k = $8000 total, which is a 13% tax rate
$80k = pay taxes on $60k = $12000 total, which is a 15% tax rate
$120k = pay taxes on $100k = $20000 total, which is a 16.6% tax rate
$1 million = pay taxes on 980k = $196,000 total, which is a 19.6% tax rate

See? Flat AND progressive! ;) People will pay more in both absolute and percentage terms as their income grows..and we woud abolish the incentive-killing rate creep that many middle class workers and and small businesses face. It would also vastly simplify things and remove the millions of man hours and billions of dollars that are wasted on complicated tax forms every year.[/QUOTE]
But isn't taxing people at a progressive rate, even under the guise of "flat", still progressive and therefore inherently unfair? You're still paying more the more you make. A rose by any other name... The top is still being "punished" for making more money.
That behavior should be enhanced rather than discouraged.
Click to expand...
Right. There are tons of poor people just waiting to break out. It's the tax code that's stopping them.

You can't be serious.
Reducing the penalty for success increases the incentive to work your ass off, innovate, and achieve something great in life.
Click to expand...
Money = tax bracket = achieving something great in life. That's a piss poor thing to go through life believing (value == money).

And what of people that choose to make less in order to effect a public good? What about the lawyer that passes on the $160,000 salary at the global firm to make $35,000 at the poverty center? Why exactly should they be punished by the state with more taxes?

Because they don't subscribe to your materialistic way of thinking?
 
[quote name='deathscythehe']The point he was making is that when you get a promotion, your responsibilities change. He's questioning whether it's worth making that small amount more thanks to taxes to take on those life changing responsibilities. Would you take a 50 dollar a year raise if it meant doing twice the work?[/quote]

I understood that, I just wanted to make sure that his plan included never getting any farther in his career than where he was now besides from when the tax rate favors that step up (ya know, because declining promotions is always a good career move) ;)

To be on topic: I don't think a flat rate would solve everything although the idealist in me would jump to that conclusion before thinking through the practicality of it. Without looking at hard numbers and completely speaking from my ass, I'd have to say some minor adjustments to what we already have to keep the upper/middle/lower classes in better balance and less wasteful spending is all we needed.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']low p-value?

;)

I would 'dismiss' it as a general attitude that's based in the misunderstanding of what people actually pay in taxes. Like "the death tax," which affects the top 8,800 wealthiest households in the United States, is a major issue amongst millions of families. Like "affirmative action," which people don't understand as a policy.

People's knowledge and perception aren't necessarily related to how things actually work. They're afraid of taxes because of how they perceive the real rates, and they actually wouldn't have a working knowledge (unlike Cap above) what the actual rates were.

In related statistics, 85% of Americans consider themselves academically "above average" when comparing themselves with other Americans.

In other words, adjust the tax rate without telling anyone and see who changes their attitudes towards progressive taxation over time.[/quote]

Super, let's go for full on hypothetical ...

We grab 1,000 people screened only on being able to make ends meet with their current 40 hours per week and pay per hour.

We sit them down and inform them ...

You are working 40 hours per week, making X per year, paying Y per year in taxes and taking home (X-Y) per year.

If you work 67 hours per week, you will make 2X per year, pay ZY per year (where Z > 1) and take home (2X-ZY) per year.

To keep people from going glassy eyed, the administrator of the survey or whatever its called would supply the values for X, Y and Z to fit their personal situation.

After that, each person is asked in private if he or she would work the additional 27 hours per week. All answers and explanations are logged.

IF the vast majority of people stated no and gave the higher taxes as the only reason to not work overtime, would that pass your scrutiny?
 
The one thing you never see with the statistics about how much the top 1% or 5% pay in income taxes is the percentage of the national income they make. The bottom 50% don't pay as much because they don't make nearly as much. To be in the top 50% you need to make only $50,000. The people in the bottom 50% don't make shit compared to the top 1%. The top 5% make over $100,000. Double what the bottom 50 make. While looking of percentage of tax receipts is nice and all, it doesn't take into account what is being made by each group. We tax the lower group at a lower percentage because they are more likely to need that money to survive, to buy goods so they can keep their family eating. These people get a break because they need it and don't make dick compared to the upper part.
 
Sure.

EDIT: I mean, really, if you want to impose unnatural conditions and knowledge and understanding of labor and wages that simply don't exist in the real world and then ask people how they think about it as a way of gauging how they interact and interpret the real world they work and live in, be my guest.

;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Quillion']Do you really think that people would refuse to take a higher paying job because they're afraid of moving into a higher tax bracket?[/QUOTE]

[quote name='mykevermin']Your post-tax returns are still far higher, even if your % tax burden is larger. Does the fear of a higher tax liability make you prefer to take home $17,000 a year after taxes or $33,000 after taxes? That's what you're telling me.

Red.

fucking.

Herring.[/QUOTE]

I disagree with Capitalizt's plan, but both of you are wrong here. In many cases, the higher paying job would require more sacrifices. Each person has to decide whether taking on more responsibility is worth it. An increase in tax rates can tip the balance from "ok, sure" to "screw it, it's not worth it"...not in every case, but enough to matter to the economy as a whole. And that's just one of many effects.
 
what the fuck is wrong with equality?

i was born smarter and harder working than most. so i should have a better life? hardly seems fair.

i guess this goes back to the 'blame' argument we were having in the fat-bitch-gets-mauled-by-polar-bear thread. i can't think at which point i did anything to deserve significantly more wealth than anyone else. of course it'd be nice to have, but i can't rationalize it as deserved. all i've done is live.

elements of the big picture need be considered -- e.g. if we don't reward 'success' as it were, fewer would seek it, which would harm all. beyond that, i think robin hood knew his stuff.
 
[quote name='Koggit']what the fuck is wrong with equality?[/quote]

if we don't reward 'success' as it were, fewer would seek it, which would harm all.
Click to expand...

That's more than enough to answer your question.
 
no, it isn't even applicable

many argue it is unfair to steal from the wealthy to improve the bums' quality of life, everything i stated is in opposition of that argument

i took a moment to state that, yes, reward is necessary in society, but only because i wanted to prevent the argument from going off topic

way to fail
 
[quote name='Koggit']no, it isn't even applicable

many argue it is unfair to steal from the wealthy to improve the bums' quality of life, everything i stated is in opposition of that argument

i took a moment to state that, yes, reward is necessary in society, but only because i wanted to prevent the argument from going off topic

way to fail[/QUOTE]
Of course it's applicable, which is why you said it yourself.

If "equality" is equal distribution, there is close to zero incentive to earn anything extra. That means everyone is hurt.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sure.

EDIT: I mean, really, if you want to impose unnatural conditions and knowledge and understanding of labor and wages that simply don't exist in the real world and then ask people how they think about it as a way of gauging how they interact and interpret the real world they work and live in, be my guest.

;)[/quote]

That's all I ask.
 
I think there should be more brackets and a more gradual slope (so yeah, more progressive, I guess). Firstly, why the hell does somebody making hardly anything have to pay 10% of it? The one thing Capitalizt said that made sense was that somebody making under $20k probably shouldn't be paying any taxes. I'd probably lower that down to $15k though, start it at 5%, and go up from there, going in some kind of increments that make sense. Perhaps something like this:

Under $15k - 0%
$15k-$25k - 5%
$25k-$50k - 10%
$50k-$75k - 15%
$75k-$100k - 20%
$100k-$150k - 25%
$150k-$200k - 30%
$200k-$300k - 35%
$300k-$500k - 40%
$500k-$1mil - 45%
Over $1mil - 50%

I dunno, maybe with different numbers or even more brackets, but something like that. The idea being that it be more gradual and have brackets that go higher. I understand that ~95% of people fall into the first 5 brackets in that example, but it just doesn't make sense to me how it currently jumps quickly in the middle, then barely goes up and cuts off at less than $400k.
 
[quote name='Doc Bacca']The one thing you never see with the statistics about how much the top 1% or 5% pay in income taxes is the percentage of the national income they make. The bottom 50% don't pay as much because they don't make nearly as much. To be in the top 50% you need to make only $50,000. The people in the bottom 50% don't make shit compared to the top 1%. The top 5% make over $100,000. Double what the bottom 50 make. While looking of percentage of tax receipts is nice and all, it doesn't take into account what is being made by each group. We tax the lower group at a lower percentage because they are more likely to need that money to survive, to buy goods so they can keep their family eating. These people get a break because they need it and don't make dick compared to the upper part.[/QUOTE]

Check the stats in the articles I linked to. That's one of the reasons I found them interesting. The problem is we don't have nearly as progressive a tax code as those on the right will tell you, due to income disparities and state taxes actually being regressive.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Check the stats in the articles I linked to. That's one of the reasons I found them interesting. The problem is we don't have nearly as progressive a tax code as those on the right will tell you, due to income disparities and state taxes actually being regressive.[/quote]

States can be ridiculous about income taxes, I was just comparing VA and PA state income taxes a week or so ago (since I'll be moving). PA has a flat income tax, and VA has 4 almost completely useless brackets where the top one is $17,001 or more (so it's effectively a flat tax unless you're really poor). I don't even understand why VA has those brackets unless they're just for show or because they haven't been updated in over a hundred years.
 
It's too progressive. income does not equal quality of life. many people have expenses that a general income tax does not take into account. A better alternative is a predominantly consumption tax plan. It supports saving money, reduces reckless spending, and is simple. I know a lot of environmentalists like it. Pay taxes for what you consume and the entropy created. Then have more food stamps and other tax exemptions for the poor. It seems to be the only way to get people to start saving for themselves so they rely less on social security and then we can hopefully put an end to that headache 60 yrs from now.
 
[quote name='Koggit']"predominantly consumption tax plan"

terrible for many reasons[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm convinced. Who could argue with that mountain of evidence?
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']
All of those problems have to do with political corruption..not sound economic theory.[/quote]
Actually having more to lose has nothing to do with corruption, nor does the fact the crimes committed by the rich cause more damage.
And Actually it is an economic theory that in a democracy, that interest groups will usually be working to make things better for the rich and worse for every one else.
 
Taxes need to be more progressive, isn't the imbalance of wealth/quality of life tipping toward the rich more and more by the day? Actually, maybe the tax rules should just be simplified or have less loopholes for lawyers to exploit.
 
[quote name='Koggit']"predominantly consumption tax plan"

terrible for many reasons[/QUOTE]

[quote name='rickonker']Well, I'm convinced. Who could argue with that mountain of evidence?[/QUOTE]

:applause:

Koggit wants everyone to be as fucked as he is. Our current system has taxation on individual's savings which cause them to favor current consumption instead of future consumption. Not having any savings obviously hurt them in the future but it also fucks the economy because less savings results in less investments which leads to less innovation, growth, and lower standards of living in the future. Taxing income is taxing what people contribute to the economy. Taxing consumption is taxing what they take out. What seems logical to you?
 
how am i fucked? i'm extremely fortunate.

if you want specific problems:

(1) consumption tax primarily promotes saving amongst the wealthy. the wealthy spends a tiny portion of their income on necessities, so they have much more room to save than the poor and middle class who are spending a large portion on necessities (read: no option to save).

(2) because the rich can then save it shifts the tax burden dramatically to the low and middle class. its reverse progression. the less you make, the higher percentage of your money you're forced to spend, the higher percent you're paying tax.

(3) even if everyone could save, saving is terrible for the economy. the only advantage is that banks have more to loan those who need it, but this just further fuels class warfare to dangerous extremes. the wealthy save, tax free, while the poor are forced to borrow and pay the tax.


i'm getting so sick of cag.. the good posters have gotten quiet, idiots are taking over, rational arguments fall on stupid ears.
 
[quote name='Koggit']
(3) even if everyone could save, saving is terrible for the economy. the only advantage is that banks have more to loan those who need it, but this just further fuels class warfare to dangerous extremes. the wealthy save, tax free, while the poor are forced to borrow and pay the tax.


i'm getting so sick of cag.. the good posters have gotten quiet, idiots are taking over, rational arguments fall on stupid ears.[/QUOTE]

Do you really believe that "saving is terrible for the economy"? That just makes your complaints even more ironic. Savings are what made higher standards of living possible. I think everyone might already understand this, but if not I'll explain.

This is why I talk about how worthless college can be. It's not just Koggit who's been told that saving is bad for the economy.
 
Oh and I guess I should go through your "specific problems". Even if you don't understand, somebody else probably will.[quote name='Koggit'](1) consumption tax primarily promotes saving amongst the wealthy. the wealthy spends a tiny portion of their income on necessities, so they have much more room to save than the poor and middle class who are spending a large portion on necessities (read: no option to save).[/quote]

Not that I want a consumption tax, but the most popular proposal includes a monthly "prebate" to offset the tax on necessities.
(2) because the rich can then save it shifts the tax burden dramatically to the low and middle class. its reverse progression. the less you make, the higher percentage of your money you're forced to spend, the higher percent you're paying tax.
Click to expand...
Again, this is offset by the "prebate".
(3) even if everyone could save, saving is terrible for the economy. the only advantage is that banks have more to loan those who need it, but this just further fuels class warfare to dangerous extremes. the wealthy save, tax free, while the poor are forced to borrow and pay the tax.
Click to expand...
This is just completely wrong. Anyone who has an understanding of how an economy works knows that investments are made for future gains.
 
[quote name='Koggit']you think spending is bad but i'm the one lacking an understanding of basic economics... okay[/QUOTE]
This is great. What part of my post did you take to mean "spending is bad"? It sounds like you're saying you think spending is always better than saving.
 
oh i get your argument now, you think people should spend as much as they currently do but also save more, okay i get it yeah that's a super smart plan you're a super smart guy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top